Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

[Heidi]

Heidi

I've tried to skim through a few posts since I've been absent due to PC failure - and still struggling with the consequences of that. :

Anyway . . . could you please give me your understanding of the point in history at which the old covenant was superceded by the new.

Thanks

At Christ's crucifixion. "It is finished." His death became the permanent sacrifice for our sins once and for all. :angel:

 

[gazzamor]

belovedwolfofgod

You have twisted my words. Let me tell you something about Jesus my friend.
I said in my post that Jesus came from above. (John 8: 23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.)
So according to this verse: you and I are from below, (this world) Jesus is from above. Jesus is sinless, we are not. Which includes Mary.

Jesus is no ordinary man. He is unique if the fact that he is both fully man, and fully God. There is no one like him in the Universe. To equate him with us sinners shows your complete ignorance of the facts.
When Paul said that all had sinned, he didn’t have Jesus in mind.

Jesus challenged the Pharisees in John 8: 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? Then if you think that Jesus is a sinner, then prove it.

Because Jesus is sinless, he has become our true High Priest.
Hebrews 4: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

God Bless
gazzamore

 

[thessalonian]

Now I know why Ireland was at war all this time. :wink:

:-D

It's too bad. If everyone believed the bible and didn't make up their own gospels or doctrines and simply believed what the bible says, no more, no less, there would be no division.

Like you right?
Everything you speak is exactly true heidi? :o

 

[thessalonian]

I don't care how many people agree or disgaree with me! John the Baptist is not in the OT because the New Testament starts out witht the birth of Jesus and John the Baptist. All you have to do is consult your bible to find that out. By your reasoning, then paul would also be an OT prophet! :roll:

I know you don't care if MANY disagree with you. Certainly you are infallible in these matters. So do you condemn AV for his disagereement with you. Is he preaching a false Gospel as well. I am quite certain he does not see JTB as a NT prophet. Condemn everyone Heidi. Not just Catholics. Show us you are not prejudice against us. You pick and choose who you want to disagree with on this board. That tells me you do care.

Actually I didn't say I see John as OT. In a sense he was but I would call him transitional. The OT pointed forward to the Messiah. John actually pointed to the Messiah. Jesus was revealed to the Jews by John. Yet there is a sense in which he is an OT prophet at least at the start of his minestry when he is proclaiming "The Kingdom of God is at hand". Jesus associates him with the Old Testament prophets:

Matt.11
[11] Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

But more importantly, Jesus tells us that "Ever since John, the kingdom of heaven has been slowly advancing." So it's what Jesus says, not what people say. But unfortunately, since you don't care what Jesus says, you look to your friends and neighbors for the truth. It is obviously them whom you worship or you'd agree with Jesus when he says we have one teacher and that is the Christ. But the way the catholics pervert the gospel is an embarrassment to their "faith."

Your ignorance on what Catholicism teaches and your distortions of it have been pointed out time and time again. It is you that needs to be embarrassed. : But pride in your own thinking gets in your way.

Blessings

 

[Heidi]

Now I know why Ireland was at war all this time. :wink:

:-D

It's too bad. If everyone believed the bible and didn't make up their own gospels or doctrines and simply believed what the bible says, no more, no less, there would be no division.

Like you right?
Everything you speak is exactly true heidi? :o

All you have to do is read the bible to find out. So please tell me, what gospel have I made up?

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, All

There are some very historical quotes by the ECF's on this issue. It does seem though "some" RC's have to up date their scholarship on this issue.

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity†when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heavenâ€â€there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

Brown by no means would be considered non-RC, in fact he was the top scholar in the RCC before his passing.

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Now I know why Ireland was at war all this time. :wink:

:-D

It's too bad. If everyone believed the bible and didn't make up their own gospels or doctrines and simply believed what the bible says, no more, no less, there would be no division.

Like you right?
Everything you speak is exactly true heidi? :o

All you have to do is read the bible to find out. So please tell me, what gospel have I made up?

I read the Bible every day dear. Are your views infallibly correct? Answer the question.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

belovedwolfofgod

You have twisted my words. Let me tell you something about Jesus my friend.
I said in my post that Jesus came from above. (John 8: 23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.)
So according to this verse: you and I are from below, (this world) Jesus is from above. Jesus is sinless, we are not. Which includes Mary.

Jesus is no ordinary man. He is unique if the fact that he is both fully man, and fully God. There is no one like him in the Universe. To equate him with us sinners shows your complete ignorance of the facts.
When Paul said that all had sinned, he didn’t have Jesus in mind.

Jesus challenged the Pharisees in John 8: 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? Then if you think that Jesus is a sinner, then prove it.

Because Jesus is sinless, he has become our true High Priest.
Hebrews 4: 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

God Bless
gazzamore

Hey gaz
I dont want you to think that I think Jesus ever sinned. That would kinda make the whole redemption thing invalid...

After reading the chapter so I could get a better background on it, he also spoke of being slaves. If Mary had never sinned, she would never have been a slave. Jesus never sinned. Yet Jesus was fully human. He was truly a son of Abraham as much as he was truly a son of God. It is possible to be free. Jesus says this.

35: The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever.
36: So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. John 8

We believe that by grace, as exhibited by the Angelic greeting and the past participle of a greek word i cant spell (its earlier in the thread), it shows that the Holy Spirit was indeed with her. Jesus was able to forgive sins before his death in anticipation of his death. Mary was preserved from original sin in anticipation of Jesus' death. Without that salvific grace, its impossible.

I know Paul didnt have Jesus in mind. I would argue Jesus didnt have Mary in mind. If all have sinned, and Jesus was fully human, he would get included in that as well. I dont want to twist it. However, Jesus could not have sinned, for he was raised and ascended. So there has to be another meaning to this verse... something more or another that illuminates it.

However, I doubt that will be well recieved... and it was a poor explanation on my part... maybe someone else can help me out?

 

[Heidi]

Now I know why Ireland was at war all this time. :wink:

:-D

It's too bad. If everyone believed the bible and didn't make up their own gospels or doctrines and simply believed what the bible says, no more, no less, there would be no division.

Like you right?
Everything you speak is exactly true heidi? :o

All you have to do is read the bible to find out. So please tell me, what gospel have I made up?

I read the Bible every day dear. Are your views infallibly correct? Answer the question.

Jesus said that to Peter, not to anyone else. So why do all popes claim they are Peter? Paul didn't claim he was Peter and neihter did any of the apostles except Peter. It sounds like the occult to me.

 

[thessalonian]

[quote="ChristineES":b7169]Now I know why Ireland was at war all this time. :wink:

:-D

It's too bad. If everyone believed the bible and didn't make up their own gospels or doctrines and simply believed what the bible says, no more, no less, there would be no division.

Like you right?
Everything you speak is exactly true heidi? :o

All you have to do is read the bible to find out. So please tell me, what gospel have I made up?

I read the Bible every day dear. Are your views infallibly correct? Answer the question.

Jesus said that to Peter, not to anyone else. So why do all popes claim they are Peter? Paul didn't claim he was Peter and neihter did any of the apostles except Peter. It sounds like the occult to me.[/quote:b7169]

All popes claim they are Peter? Can you show me where? In a metaphorical sense yes. But not literally. Was John the Baptist Elijah? Where do you get your information heidi. I surely hope that you don't come up with it yourself because that would show your a little strange.

 

[Heidi]

[quote="Heidi":522a5][quote="ChristineES":522a5]Now I know why Ireland was at war all this time. :wink:

:-D

It's too bad. If everyone believed the bible and didn't make up their own gospels or doctrines and simply believed what the bible says, no more, no less, there would be no division.

Like you right?
Everything you speak is exactly true heidi? :o

All you have to do is read the bible to find out. So please tell me, what gospel have I made up?

I read the Bible every day dear. Are your views infallibly correct? Answer the question.

Jesus said that to Peter, not to anyone else. So why do all popes claim they are Peter? Paul didn't claim he was Peter and neihter did any of the apostles except Peter. It sounds like the occult to me.[/quote:522a5]

All popes claim they are Peter? Can you show me where? In a metaphorical sense yes. But not literally. Was John the Baptist Elijah? Where do you get your information heidi. I surely hope that you don't come up with it yourself because that would show your a little strange.[/quote:522a5]

That's where apostolic succession comes from. Otherwise, why do the ctaholics use what Christ said to Peter as justification for apostolic succession? :o

 

[thessalonian]

Apostolic succession doesn't mean they ARE PETER. So George Bush is George Washington because he succeeds him? This to me indicates there is something lacking in your cognative skills Heidi. Perhaps you would like to quit while you are behind.

 

[Heidi]

Apostolic succession doesn't mean they ARE PETER. So George Bush is George Washington because he succeeds him? This to me indicates there is something lacking in your cognative skills Heidi. Perhaps you would like to quit while you are behind.

So then how does what Jesus said to Peter have anything to do with future popes? :o It appears that your cognitive skills are thus lacking to make a connection between Peter and future popes. ;-)

 

[thessalonian]

Apostolic succession doesn't mean they ARE PETER. So George Bush is George Washington because he succeeds him? This to me indicates there is something lacking in your cognative skills Heidi. Perhaps you would like to quit while you are behind.

So then how does what Jesus said to Peter have anything to do with future popes? :o It appears that your cognitive skills are thus lacking to make a connection between Peter and future popes. ;-)

Heidi slides on to another issue to sweep under the rug her previous slander about Catholics thinking Popes were litterally Peter. Thank you heide. I could site scripture and historical evidence which are quite clear on the matter. You will of course deny anything I say by your own personal authority. But I think I will not waste my time any more with you. Your simply not posting in the spirit of discussion and understanding but dissention and division.

 

[Heidi]

Apostolic succession doesn't mean they ARE PETER. So George Bush is George Washington because he succeeds him? This to me indicates there is something lacking in your cognative skills Heidi. Perhaps you would like to quit while you are behind.

So then how does what Jesus said to Peter have anything to do with future popes? :o It appears that your cognitive skills are thus lacking to make a connection between Peter and future popes. ;-)

Heidi slides on to another issue to sweep under the rug her previous slander about Catholics thinking Popes were litterally Peter. Thank you heide. I could site scripture and historical evidence which are quite clear on the matter. You will of course deny anything I say by your own personal authority. But I think I will not waste my time any more with you. Your simply not posting in the spirit of discussion and understanding but dissention and division.

Ypu still haven't answered the question of how what Jesus said to Peter has to do with future popes. And until you do, your attacks are completely unwarranted. Stick to the issue please.

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

 

[Heidi]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

And where is that in the bible? :o Jesus only told Peter that upon Peter he would build his church, not anyone else. So again, why do the catholics think all popes are Peter? :o

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

And where is that in the bible? :o Jesus only told Peter that upon Peter he would build his church, not anyone else. So again, why do the catholics think all popes are Peter? :o

Catholics do not think that "all popes are Peter".

 

[Heidi]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

And where is that in the bible? :o Jesus only told Peter that upon Peter he would build his church, not anyone else. So again, why do the catholics think all popes are Peter? :o

Catholics do not think that "all popes are Peter".

You've already said that, catholic, but have given no justification for apostolic succession. And that's because there isn't any and you know it.

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

And where is that in the bible? :o Jesus only told Peter that upon Peter he would build his church, not anyone else. So again, why do the catholics think all popes are Peter? :o

Catholics do not think that "all popes are Peter".

You've already said that, catholic, but have given no justification for apostolic succession. And that's because there isn't any and you know it.

No, it's because you are apparently having problems disguishing between "office" and "person". They are not synonyms--they don't mean the same thing.