Immaculate Conception

BobRyan · Feb 8, 2016

First of all - the Bible does present the doctrine of the Triune Godhead - "one God in three persons" -- we see it in Matt 28. We see it in a great many texts describing each member of the Godhead as from all eternity past - all knowing, all powerful

Root of Jesse · Feb 8, 2016

BobRyan said:
Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

First question - do you agree with Christ's statements in Mark 7 -- or oppose them?

Secondly -- Is it your claim that we cannot read the English text as it has been translated for us - or that the text itself is so shrouded in mystery that it would take advanced degrees in English to see what has been written there?

Because as it is now - I can see a lot of references there to the 'commandments of men' and even 'teaching for doctrine the commandments of men'

I answered that question a long time ago. I agree with Christ's statements, but disagree with your interpretation of them.

If Scripture was so crystal clear, why are there 30,000 + and counting different interpretations of what it means?

Root of Jesse · Feb 8, 2016

Albion said:
"You" do create doctrines that are not based upon it or supported by it, though. That would seem to justify saying that the Bible is ignored. Just not all the time. I'd agree to that.

In your own mind, maybe. Our doctrines never contradict Scripture, and they are supportable by Scripture.

That doesn't make Mary immaculate. Eve sinned, you know.

Yeah, but we believe Mary did not.

Not the dead, no. Not spirits, no. And the reason is that it's not Biblical.

We don't ask the dead to pray for us, nor spirits. We ask the Saints who are alive in heaven.

Actually, it does. Otherwise, being forgiven one's sins would have no meaning.

Why don't you go ask the murderer, who's victim's family forgave them. Do they then get a get out of jail free card?

No, it doesn't. Nothing in that makes them the exclusive "forgiverers." And don't forget that sacramental confession as you're advocating it is not Apostolic. It came later in church history.

forgiverers? They're not the ones who forgive. They're the ones who absolve. Your last statements are false, though.

Albion · Feb 8, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
In your own mind, maybe.

No, that's not a personal opinion.

Our doctrines never contradict Scripture, and they are supportable by Scripture.

Nope. The whole point of "Holy Tradition" is that it's NOT in Scripture (or supported by something in Scripture).

Yeah, but we believe Mary did not.

Of course, but Eve didn't, which is why the linking of the two doesn't probe anything about an Immaculate Conception.

We don't ask the dead to pray for us, nor spirits.

Yes, you do. The "they're not really dead" game is not interesting to me anymore.

forgiverers? They're not the ones who forgive. They're the ones who absolve.

Well, when you figure out what it is that you believe about this matter, get back to us. You claimed that they were given the power to forgive sins.

BobRyan · Feb 8, 2016

Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Root of Jesse said:
What doctrine was he talking about?

First question - do you agree with Christ's statements in Mark 7 -- or oppose them?

Secondly -- Is it your claim that we cannot read the English text as it has been translated for us - or that the text itself is so shrouded in mystery that it would take advanced degrees in English to see what has been written there?

Because as it is now - I can see a lot of references there to the 'commandments of men' and even 'teaching for doctrine the commandments of men'

Root of Jesse said:
I answered that question a long time ago. I agree with Christ's statements, but disagree with your interpretation of them.

If Scripture was so crystal clear, why are there 30,000 + and counting different interpretations of what it means?

Not 30,000 different ones -- only 2.

1. for those who accept the text of Mark 7 and sola scriptura testing just as it reads.
2. For those who reject the reading of the text and need some other "solution".

Root of Jesse · Feb 8, 2016

BobRyan said:
First of all - the Bible does present the doctrine of the Triune Godhead - "one God in three persons" -- we see it in Matt 28. We see it in a great many texts describing each member of the Godhead as from all eternity past - all knowing, all powerful

That's the 'definition', not the doctrine. There are quite a few people who think the Bible doesn't support the Trinity. That's why a doctrine was necessary, because it's not in Scripture.

Root of Jesse · Feb 8, 2016

Albion said:
No, that's not a personal opinion.

It's certainly not a fact.

Nope. The whole point of "Holy Tradition" is that it's NOT in Scripture (or supported by something in Scripture).

That's not a fact, either. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition uphold each other.

Of course, but Eve didn't, which is why the linking of the two doesn't probe anything about an Immaculate Conception.

It refutes them who say "But ALL have sinned", and "It couldn't have happened."

Yes, you do. The "they're not really dead" game is not interesting to me anymore.

No I don't. They aren't dead, they're living, as described in Revelation, whether you're interested or not.

Well, when you figure out what it is that you believe about this matter, get back to us. You claimed that they were given the power to forgive sins.

It's not a matter of what I believe. Jesus gave them the authority to forgive sins in His name, so regardless, it's Jesus doing the forgiving. :doh:

Root of Jesse · Feb 8, 2016

BobRyan said:
Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

First question - do you agree with Christ's statements in Mark 7 -- or oppose them?

Secondly -- Is it your claim that we cannot read the English text as it has been translated for us - or that the text itself is so shrouded in mystery that it would take advanced degrees in English to see what has been written there?

Because as it is now - I can see a lot of references there to the 'commandments of men' and even 'teaching for doctrine the commandments of men'

Not 30,000 different ones -- only 2.

1. for those who accept the text of Mark 7 and sola scriptura testing just as it reads.
2. For those who reject the reading of the text and need some other "solution".

Well, I'm one of #1, but I disagree with your interpretation.

Hammster · Feb 9, 2016

MOD HAT ON

Moved from General Theology.

MOD HAT OFF

Root of Jesse · Feb 9, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Well, I'm one of #1, but I disagree with your interpretation.

See, we actually had the gospel in question read at Mass this morning:
When the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem
gathered around Jesus,
they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals
with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
(For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews,
do not eat without carefully washing their hands,
keeping the tradition of the elders.
And on coming from the marketplace
they do not eat without purifying themselves.
And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed,
the purification of cups and jugs and kettles and beds.)
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him,
“Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders
but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”
He responded,
“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites,
as it is written:

This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.

You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
He went on to say,
“How well you have set aside the commandment of God
in order to uphold your tradition!
For Moses said,
Honor your father and your mother,
and Whoever curses father or mother shall die.
Yet you say,
‘If someone says to father or mother,
“Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’
(meaning, dedicated to God),
you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
You nullify the word of God
in favor of your tradition that you have handed on.
And you do many such things.”

Note that Jesus is talking about man-made traditions, not God-made Traditions like those the Catholic Church calls "Sacred Tradition." That's not to say that there aren't man-made traditions in the Catholic Church, like abstinence from meat on Fridays, priestly celibacy, lighting candles, and so on; But those traditions are not 'clung to' as Jesus asked the Pharisees, regarding man-made rituals of cleanliness and mikveh, or giving what you'd use to support your parents to the temple.

The Portuguese Baptist · Feb 9, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Here's the doctrine:
249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . .92

Gosh! (I did not read all that.) You are complicating that which is simple. The doctrine of the Trinity, which is entirely biblically explained, could be enunciated in this way: ‘God is One (1 Corinthians 8:4), but he is also plural (Genesis 1:26), being made up of three Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit —, the three of which have an explicit relationship between them (Matthew 28:19), and all three of which are God (Father: Romans 1:7; Son: 1 John 5:20; Holy Spirit: Acts of the Apostles 5:3-4).’ All of the aspects of the doctrine are biblically explicit, and the existence of a Triune God becomes the result of a logical argument from which all premises are biblically clear.

Root of Jesse said:
There was only one Church-the Catholic Church.

The Christian Church.

Root of Jesse said:
I am implying that you don't have any idea what the Catholic Church teaches, because Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith and works.

Oh, you have to be kidding me! Are you seriously telling me that Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith and works? Then what do they believe in? Salvation by faith alone? Then why do they reject Luther's Sola fide?

Root of Jesse said:
Wrong.

You are wrong. The text explicitly says that she is the mother of Jesus.

Root of Jesse said:
Strike 2. We never ignore the Bible.

Actually, you do.

Root of Jesse said:
God's creation. Mary is called the New Eve, where Eve disobeyed God and sinned, Mary obeyed God and did not.

Where is Mary call the New Eve?

Root of Jesse said:
Why do you have a problem with intercessory prayer? Do you ever ask someone to pray for you?

Yes, I do, but that is not nearly the same thing as praying to dead people (who perhaps cannot even hear you).

Root of Jesse said:
Actually, it doesn't contradict at all. Being forgiven is different from paying for our transgressions.

How is that any different? How can you pay for something that has been forgiven?

Suppose you borrow money from me, and you cannot pay it back. Then, since I am kind and compassionate, I go up to you and tell you, ‘It's OK. I will forgive you of your debt. But you still have to pay me back for all of it.’ What sense would that make?

Or suppose your child disobeys you. You want to punish him, but you decide instead to go up to him and tell him, ‘I understand why you did that, so I forgive you. But you're still grounded for two weeks.’ What sense does that make?

Root of Jesse said:
No, it doesn't. Jesus told his apostles that "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, who's sins you retain are retained." That means people had to tell them about their sins, in order to be forgiven.

Yes, it does. The verse says, ‘If you confess your sins to God, they will be forgiven.’ However, you say, ‘You must confess your sins to a priest; if you do not, you will not be forgiven, even if you confess them to God.’ That is a contradiction.

Regarding what Jesus said, there are two points to clarify. Firstly, Jesus never said, ‘If people do not confess their sins to you, they will not be forgiven.’ He only said, ‘If people confess their sins to you, they will be forgiven.’ He never mentioned what would happen to the others. Secondly, Jesus said that to the twelve apostles, not to all priests (and only priests) nowadays.

Hoghead1 · Feb 9, 2016

The Trinity, Strictly speaking, is snot a biblical doctrine, though it may have roots in Scripture. For example, many of the Trinitarian terms are not found in Scripture, such as the homoousios, the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity,etc. Many have resorted to the social theory of the Trinity, whereby the one God means the harmony or unity of three separate personalities acting in unison. However, to many, including myself, that is really tritheism and therefore unbiblical.

Root of Jesse · Feb 10, 2016

The Portuguese Baptist said:
Gosh! (I did not read all that.) You are complicating that which is simple. The doctrine of the Trinity, which is entirely biblically explained, could be enunciated in this way: ‘God is One (1 Corinthians 8:4), but he is also plural (Genesis 1:26), being made up of three Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit —, the three of which have an explicit relationship between them (Matthew 28:19), and all three of which are God (Father: Romans 1:7; Son: 1 John 5:20; Holy Spirit: Acts of the Apostles 5:3-4).’ All of the aspects of the doctrine are biblically explicit, and the existence of a Triune God becomes the result of a logical argument from which all premises are biblically clear.

But that's creating a doctrine from Scripture. It's not inherent in Scripture. You have to explain it, which is extra-scriptural.

The Christian Church.

Same thing, until much later.

Oh, you have to be kidding me! Are you seriously telling me that Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith and works? Then what do they believe in? Salvation by faith alone? Then why do they reject Luther's Sola fide?

Not kidding at all. All works proceed from our faith.

You are wrong. The text explicitly says that she is the mother of Jesus.

But it's another Mary that's the mother of James and Joses.

Actually, you do.

Proof, please.

Where is Mary call the New Eve?

The doctors of the Church.

Yes, I do, but that is not nearly the same thing as praying to dead people (who perhaps cannot even hear you).

We don't pray to dead people.

How is that any different? How can you pay for something that has been forgiven?

Suppose you borrow money from me, and you cannot pay it back. Then, since I am kind and compassionate, I go up to you and tell you, ‘It's OK. I will forgive you of your debt. But you still have to pay me back for all of it.’ What sense would that make?

Or suppose your child disobeys you. You want to punish him, but you decide instead to go up to him and tell him, ‘I understand why you did that, so I forgive you. But you're still grounded for two weeks.’ What sense does that make?

There is no such thing as mercy without justice. You can forgive a debt and the debtor is still under your thumb in some way. I have forgiven my children's offenses and also grounded them at the same time. Also, if a kid puts a ball through a window, and the owner of the window forgives him, does he just leave the window broken? Someone has to pay for it, whether the kid or the owner. (By the way, this is how many things work in Catholicism, someone else can step up and atone for the action of another. It's how infant baptism works too, because Baptism is ultimately a work of God, so it really doesn't matter when someone is baptized.)

Yes, it does. The verse says, ‘If you confess your sins to God, they will be forgiven.’ However, you say, ‘You must confess your sins to a priest; if you do not, you will not be forgiven, even if you confess them to God.’ That is a contradiction.

That's a mischaracterization. God is the forgiver of our sins. We confess to a priest to heal ourselves.

Regarding what Jesus said, there are two points to clarify. Firstly, Jesus never said, ‘If people do not confess their sins to you, they will not be forgiven.’ He only said, ‘If people confess their sins to you, they will be forgiven.’ He never mentioned what would happen to the others. Secondly, Jesus said that to the twelve apostles, not to all priests (and only priests) nowadays.

The apostles were the first priests. They appointed successors, who appointed (ordained) priests to act in their place.

Hoghead1 · Feb 10, 2016

The Trinity is implied in Scripture, though never explicitly stated or described. 1 Jn. 5:7 is not a good place to look. This is the Johannie Comma, which appears only in later editions of the Bible. It was probably added by later Trinitarians. Gen. 1 is also not a good place to look. "Let us" implies more than one ego, more than one personality. That is tritheism, pure and simple.

The Portuguese Baptist · Feb 11, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
But that's creating a doctrine from Scripture. It's not inherent in Scripture. You have to explain it, which is extra-scriptural.

Not quite so. The pieces of the puzzle are all in Scripture. You just have to put them together so that the puzzle makes sense.

Root of Jesse said:
Same thing, until much later.

Granted.

Root of Jesse said:
Not kidding at all. All works proceed from our faith.

Granted. But what is it that saves you? Your faith, your works or both?

Root of Jesse said:
But it's another Mary that's the mother of James and Joses.

Matthew 13:53-56, as I have shown clearly says that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is also the mother of Jesus.

Root of Jesse said:
Proof, please.

I have been showing it to you for the past few pages. If you insist in believing that all this proof is invalid, I will rest my case.

Root of Jesse said:
The doctors of the Church.

Ah-ha! So you agree that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible! One of the key steps you have to give in order to build that doctrine (that Mary is the New Eve) is not in the Bible, and you must resort to your belief in the Catholic Church in order to accept it.

Root of Jesse said:
We don't pray to dead people.

Er… Actually, you kind of do.

Root of Jesse said:
There is no such thing as mercy without justice. You can forgive a debt and the debtor is still under your thumb in some way. I have forgiven my children's offenses and also grounded them at the same time. Also, if a kid puts a ball through a window, and the owner of the window forgives him, does he just leave the window broken? Someone has to pay for it, whether the kid or the owner. (By the way, this is how many things work in Catholicism, someone else can step up and atone for the action of another. It's how infant baptism works too, because Baptism is ultimately a work of God, so it really doesn't matter when someone is baptized.)

That flies right in the face of the notion of forgiveness! Forgiveness requires not giving the punishment that someone deserves. If you forgive someone, but punish h

Root of Jesse said:
That's a mischaracterization. God is the forgiver of our sins. We confess to a priest to heal ourselves.

To heal yourselves? Where did that come from? In post #119, you explicitly said: ‘That means people had to tell them about their sins, in order to be forgiven.’ You are trying to escape the contradiction you have just created.

Root of Jesse said:
The apostles were the first priests. They appointed successors, who appointed (ordained) priests to act in their place.

That is not in the Bible.

The Portuguese Baptist · Feb 11, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
[…] However, to many, including myself, that is really tritheism and therefore unbiblical.

Hoghead1 said:
[…] That is tritheism, pure and simple.

Does that mean that you reject the Trinity?

Root of Jesse · Feb 11, 2016

The Portuguese Baptist said:
Not quite so. The pieces of the puzzle are all in Scripture. You just have to put them together so that the puzzle makes sense.

Which is exactly what we do with all our doctrine-we take Scripture, piece it together, and get doctrine. But doctrine itself is not contained in Scripture.

Granted.

As in the 1500's at the Reformation. Before then, it was Catholic, and later Catholic and Orthodox, which believe essentially the same thing.

Granted. But what is it that saves you? Your faith, your works or both?

God saves you, your works sanctify you.

Matthew 13:53-56, as I have shown clearly says that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is also the mother of Jesus.

No, it says that James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus. Quite a different thing.

I have been showing it to you for the past few pages. If you insist in believing that all this proof is invalid, I will rest my case.

Above, I rest my case.

Ah-ha! So you agree that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible! One of the key steps you have to give in order to build that doctrine (that Mary is the New Eve) is not in the Bible, and you must resort to your belief in the Catholic Church in order to accept it.
[/quote] Neither is the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Table of Contents of the Bible, nor the word Bible. But we can build the Immaculate Conception from Scripture, starting with the Creation of Eve, sinless.
http://www.stpeterslist.com/682/6-biblical-reasons-mary-is-the-new-eve/

Er… Actually, you kind of do.

Nope. Proof, please.

That flies right in the face of the notion of forgiveness! Forgiveness requires not giving the punishment that someone deserves. If you forgive someone, but punish h

That's not what forgiveness is. If you forgive the murderer for killing your brother, doesn't he still have to do the time?

To heal yourselves? Where did that come from? In post #119, you explicitly said: ‘That means people had to tell them about their sins, in order to be forgiven.’ You are trying to escape the contradiction you have just created.

You don't understand it, I get that. But that's exactly what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is-healing the wound in ourselves. God already forgave us.

That is not in the Bible.

Actually, it is. Paul appointed Timothy and Titus, Peter appointed Matthias to replace Judas.

redleghunter · Feb 11, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
The Trinity, Strictly speaking, is snot a biblical doctrine, though it may have roots in Scripture. For example, many of the Trinitarian terms are not found in Scripture, such as the homoousios, the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity,etc. Many have resorted to the social theory of the Trinity, whereby the one God means the harmony or unity of three separate personalities acting in unison. However, to many, including myself, that is really tritheism and therefore unbiblical.

No it's not tritheism.

The Portuguese Baptist · Feb 11, 2016

Root of Jesse said:
Which is exactly what we do with all our doctrine-we take Scripture, piece it together, and get doctrine. But doctrine itself is not contained in Scripture.

Granted. But doctrine is based on Scripture — and, by this, I mean that its veracity is clearly indicated by the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on Scripture; the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not.

Root of Jesse said:
As in the 1500's at the Reformation. Before then, it was Catholic, and later Catholic and Orthodox, which believe essentially the same thing.

Again, granted.

Root of Jesse said:
God saves you, your works sanctify you.

Where does the Bible say that your works sanctify you?

Root of Jesse said:
No, it says that James and Joses are the brothers of Jesus. Quite a different thing.

I fail to see the difference.

Root of Jesse said:
Above, I rest my case.

So do I, if you have nothing more to say.

Root of Jesse said:
Neither is the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Table of Contents of the Bible, nor the word Bible.

The doctrine of the Trinity is biblically based and biblically clear; now the doctrine that Mary is the New Eve is not.

The ‘Table of Contents of the Bible’ is not in the Bible, but the books that belong in the Bible were recognised as divinely inspired by the early church. Please stop insisting on this point; otherwise, I will rest my case about it too. The word ‘Bible’ does not appear in the Bible, but does not need to.

Root of Jesse said:
But we can build the Immaculate Conception from Scripture, starting with the Creation of Eve, sinless.
http://www.stpeterslist.com/682/6-biblical-reasons-mary-is-the-new-eve/

Sorry, I did not read that article, because it is too long. Please just provide me with the list of passages that allegedly prove that Mary is the New Eve.

Root of Jesse said:
Nope. Proof, please.

Well, you yourself should know what you do. I rest my case about that.

Root of Jesse said:
That's not what forgiveness is. If you forgive the murderer for killing your brother, doesn't he still have to do the time?

Yes, but that is because the country's judicial system does not forgive him. The fact that I forgive him means that I do not wish him to be penalised. However, the country's justice system still has to punish him for breaking the law.

Root of Jesse said:
You don't understand it, I get that. But that's exactly what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is-healing the wound in ourselves. God already forgave us.

Where is that written in the Bible?

Root of Jesse said:
Actually, it is. Paul appointed Timothy and Titus, Peter appointed Matthias to replace Judas.

But nothing implies that this extends the idea that we can declare as forgiven the sins of others. That was something that Jesus told the twelve guys at the time.

Root of Jesse · Feb 11, 2016

The Portuguese Baptist said:
Granted. But doctrine is based on Scripture — and, by this, I mean that its veracity is clearly indicated by the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on Scripture; the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not.

Of course it has basis in Scripture, and basis in Sacred Tradition.

Again, granted.

Where does the Bible say that your works sanctify you?

You do realize that believe is a verb, therefore belief is a work? James tells us that faith without works is dead.

I fail to see the difference.

Yes, I know. You don't see where someone could have brothers but they could have different mothers? Also, we call people "Brother" even though they aren't blood brothers.

So do I, if you have nothing more to say.

The first two words of your statement above speak volumes..."I fail..." you said.

The doctrine of the Trinity is biblically based and biblically clear; now the doctrine that Mary is the New Eve is not.

The ‘Table of Contents of the Bible’ is not in the Bible, but the books that belong in the Bible were recognised as divinely inspired by the early church. Please stop insisting on this point; otherwise, I will rest my case about it too. The word ‘Bible’ does not appear in the Bible, but does not need to.

Yes, and the Table of Contents of the Bible has 7 more books than your Bible have.
The point is that it doesn't have to be in the Bible to be part of your faith, or mine.

Sorry, I did not read that article, because it is too long. Please just provide me with the list of passages that allegedly prove that Mary is the New Eve.

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. There, in the article, is the Biblical basis, with explanation.

Well, you yourself should know what you do. I rest my case about that.

Because it don't happen. Thanks. And not "me", the Church doesn't.

Yes, but that is because the country's judicial system does not forgive him. The fact that I forgive him means that I do not wish him to be penalised. However, the country's justice system still has to punish him for breaking the law.

I provided an example. Someone has to fix the window, make restitution, make it right. That's apart from forgiveness.

Where is that written in the Bible?

Jesus told his apostles, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins are retained are retained." The doctrine on Reconciliation is like all other doctrines. They aren't explicit in the Bible, just as you pointed out that the Trinity is not explicit. Besides, when I prove things, you don't read the proof.

But nothing implies that this extends the idea that we can declare as forgiven the sins of others. That was something that Jesus told the twelve guys at the time.

As if it died when they did? No sir, they conferred the same ordination to the next in line. As with all the sacraments, they are God's work through priests.

Immaculate Conception

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Psalm 144:1

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Well-Known Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Thank You Jesus!

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Similar threads