Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[BobRyan]

(5 Messages from Marian Apparitions and Their Meaning - Ascension Press Media)

Like the scapular, it is another thing to be worn that is supposed to bring us grace or preserve us from Purgatory (which does not exist). When did Jesus or the Apostles ever suggest anyone wear anything? I don't have time now to go through all the major Marian apparitions and there non-biblical messages. On more than one occasion "Mary" urged people to pray the rosary. We are commanded in Scripture to not give repetitious prayer. Prayer, by definition, is only to God. We cannot "pray" to anyone else. People kiss their rosaries like they are some kind of holy relic. It borders on idolatry. Prayer is an active conversation with God. ...

I don't consider these apparitions to be of Mary or from God.

interesting

 

[BobRyan]

Joseph is a well known saint who receives plenty of prayer requests for intercession.

But not in the accounts of him given in the Bible.

Do we ever see Joseph given the title "stronger than god?" or "educator of god" or "trainer of god?" in the carpenter's shop?
The Bible does not use those titles for either Joseph or Mary in the Bible.

But Mary, the "woman," can be found time and time again in the Bible at important moments in salvation history, beginning in Genesis 3:15. No matter what the translation, whether the actual head crusher is Jesus or Mary (the Koine Greek does not specify gender, I think the reference is to Jesus) she is there.

Genesis was written in Hebrew and many centuries later - translated into Greek

 

[rturner76]

What always amazes me in these discussions, is how Joseph always gets left out.

I don't think that is true AT ALL. It is yet another deception of the churches that take the Catholic theology that they like, and dump what they don't like. Oh, but it was ok for his father to be a sinner?
Oh, but it was ok for his father to be a sinner?

Why wasn't it equally important for him to be sinless?

Is this a serious question? I am sure that you are aware that Mary's conception of Jesus was by THE FATHER done through the Holy Spirit. That is why it is called the "Immaculate Conception. Her conception was made perfect by the Father through the Holy Spirit. Joseph was not his biological father, Joseph was essentially his stepfather except for the fact that Joseph took him in, not only as his own but as the Son of God.

My church was named St. Basils. Why not St. Josephs? I think Joseph really gets the short straw in the Catholic church. It is as though he had no bearing on the kind of man Jesus was. That all came from Mary. Joseph would have been expected to be the spiritual head of the family, not Mary.

I'm not sure if you were aware but churches have many names. I went to a hospital with a clinic in it that was called "st Joseph's. The main entrance had a statue of Joseph holding little baby Jesus. He acted on faith when an angel entered his dream, encouraging him to raise the Son of God as his own and not divorce Mary in shame. That is what he did. He provided a safe home, and plenty of food and kept him safe while teaching him a trade. All of the things that a father is supposed to do for his adopted son. Again, you are aware that Father God is Christ's biological father and not Joseph correct?

If you think that makes Mary so special how about saying it makes Joseph so special too.

Again, Mary was special because Christ was stitched together in her womb physically. She breastfed our savior because she gave birth to him. Joseph actually was special because accepting a woman with a child in her womb BEFORE they were legally married. He risked his, hers, and the family's reputation in the small town/vi;;age. He did it because of his faith. That DID make him special AND worthy

 

[Valletta]

Only Jesus could crush Satan and that was written in Hebrew, not Greek. I know of no one, outside of the Catholic church, who even questions if that was a reference to Jesus or Mary. Clearly it was Jesus.

Actually it is written in Koine Greek as well, Catholics use the Greek Septuagint for the OT because that's what the Apostle's taught from. There is no distinction made in the Greek Septuagint. But as I expressed in my previous post, I go with "he." The original Hebrew allows either "he" or "it' and that too can be translated as "she." I am not surprised that "she" is not seen in any Protestant Bibles given so many important teachings about Mary were eventually dropped. But this does not take away from Mary's role, she is spoken of right there in Genesis and finally in Revelation, so many other important times within the Bible, it is sad that so many wish to deny her her role in salvation history.

 

[Valletta]

Do we ever see Joseph given the title "stronger than god?" or "educator of god" or "trainer of god?" in the carpenter's shop?
The Bible does not use those titles for either Joseph or Mary in the Bible.

Don't recall ever hearing those.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

But not in the accounts of him given in the Bible.

Do we ever see Joseph given the title "stronger than god?" or "educator of god" or "trainer of god?" in the carpenter's shop?
The Bible does not use those titles for either Joseph or Mary in the Bible.

Genesis was written in Hebrew and many centuries later - translated into Greek

Yes, but it's the Hebrew we should look to to interpret the text.

I don't think that is true AT ALL. It is yet another deception of the churches that take the Catholic theology that they like, and dump what they don't like. Oh, but it was ok for his father to be a sinner?
Oh, but it was ok for his father to be a sinner?


Is this a serious question? I am sure that you are aware that Mary's conception of Jesus was by THE FATHER done through the Holy Spirit. That is why it is called the "Immaculate Conception. Her conception was made perfect by the Father through the Holy Spirit. Joseph was not his biological father, Joseph was essentially his stepfather except for the fact that Joseph took him in, not only as his own but as the Son of God.

I'm not sure if you were aware but churches have many names. I went to a hospital with a clinic in it that was called "st Joseph's. The main entrance had a statue of Joseph holding little baby Jesus. He acted on faith when an angel entered his dream, encouraging him to raise the Son of God as his own and not divorce Mary in shame. That is what he did. He provided a safe home, and plenty of food and kept him safe while teaching him a trade. All of the things that a father is supposed to do for his adopted son. Again, you are aware that Father God is Christ's biological father and not Joseph correct?

Again, Mary was special because Christ was stitched together in her womb physically. She breastfed our savior because she gave birth to him. Joseph actually was special because accepting a woman with a child in her womb BEFORE they were legally married. He risked his, hers, and the family's reputation in the small town/vi;;age. He did it because of his faith. That DID make him special AND worthy

The term "Immaculate Conception" refers to the Catholic belief that Mary was preserved from original sin. The "virgin birth" is what we call Jesus' birth by a virgin. Two different things.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, but it's the Hebrew we should look to to interpret the text.

I'm going with the Apostles and the God-breathed Septuagint text. There is danger in going with the newer Masoretic text.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I'm going with the Apostles and the God-breathed Septuagint text. There is danger in going with the newer Masoretic text.

The inspired OT was written in Hebrew but I have no problem with the Septuigint.

 

[Valletta]

The inspired OT was written in Hebrew but I have no problem with the Septuigint.

We don't have the copy of the Hebrew text the Septuagint came from. There is a newer Hebrew Masoretic text which has been altered. So I'm sticking with the Apostles.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

We don't have the copy of the Hebrew text the Septuagint came from. There is a newer Hebrew Masoretic text which has been altered. So I'm sticking with the Apostles.

Fine by me

 

[rturner76]

The term "Immaculate Conception" refers to the Catholic belief that Mary was preserved from original sin. The "virgin birth" is what we call Jesus' birth by a virgin. Two different things.

So, were you taught that there was nothing really special about Mary other than she was chosen to give birth to the incarnation of God? Do you really believe that God would be delivered through a vessel that was impure? As I said, the thing about all Protestant churches is that they are all based on Catholic Theology except the teachings of The Church they didn't like they tossed out (kind of like the Apocrafal books of the Bible), and then they added what felt good to add. Personally, I believe the Apostles sent by Christ got it right the first time and there was no need to recreate the wheel (or better stated will).

So far, I have only seen misinterpreted twisting of scripture and I have yet to see much Biblic evidence presented as it is written.

Mary was young, many say as young as thirteen. She wasn't alive long enough to rack up a pile of sins. An immaculate conception from an immaculate vessel is the teaching from over 2000 years ago until now. What modern-day Preachers can say that they have more insight than the Founding Fathers?

 

[rturner76]

Even after her cousin Elizabeth greets her and Mary makes her proclamation, she calls herself the "humble servant of the Lord."

And she was.

Fast-forward to1859 in Wisconsin and how does Mary announce herself? "I am the queen of heaven."

How about in Gietrzwald in Poland: "I am the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Immaculate Conception."

At La Salette: "If my people will not submit…" (Why not "God's people"?)

How many titles has the Catholic Church given to Mary?

As many titles as The Church says she has earned, She would call herself a humble servant because that is what she is. The Church generates the Saints and proclaims their accomplishments Some do get carried away in Marian worship but when we get down to the nitty gritty, it was individuals that exaggerate her importance. The fact still remains...What Mary the mother of the incarnation of God...Mother of God. Gateway to heaven would be a reference to her womb being the way God entered the world. Jesus is our salvation and her womb was the gateway of God's incarnation.Like I said. Jesus is our salvation and Mary's womb was the gateway to Jesus'

John 14:6. So how is Mary the "Gate of Heaven"? Please don't say it's because without Mary there would be no Jesus! Yes, Jesus needed a human mother but that hardly makes her the "Gate of Heaven." The gate to heaven, so to speak, is opened when one puts their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. You don't have to put your faith in Mary or call upon her name.

Gateway to heaven would be a reference to her womb being the way God entered the world. Jesus is our salvation and her womb was the gateway of God's incarnation. Like I said. Jesus is our salvation and Mary's womb was the gateway to Jesus' entry into the world.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Yet Mary is the "Refuge of sinners" and the "Gate of Heaven"?

Jesus IS our reedemer. Mary is not the sole refuge of sinners, she is an example of answering one's calling

She would urge us, as in the book of Hebrews, to "Fix your eyes upon Jesus the author and perfector of our faith." (Hebrews 12:2) She would not have us carry statues of her, pray to her, wear medals or scapulars, call her titles, and so on. She would tell us to look upon her son and quit focusing on her. Mary never drew attention to herself yet Roman Catholicism has put her on a pedestal. That's not the Mary I see in Scripture.

Perhaps the way you see Mary in scripture is flawed. Veneration is not a prayer that exaults the recipient as an almighty power. It simply acknowledges the accomplishments of that particular Saint. The same way we venerate St Thomas, St John, St Joseph, and so on. And I know even many Protestant churches are named after Saints. Should the Reformed Churches go back and change them to the same name as one particular denomination called "Church of God in Christ"? I've been to many Protestant churches like St James, St Peter, St John, St John the Baptist and many others. Should we also discount their accomplishments as well?

It's just another way to try and separate one's denomination from the Mother Church any try to prove that they can teach the Gospel better than the Church that first brought the message to the world.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

So, were you taught that there was nothing really special about Mary other than she was chosen to give birth to the incarnation of God? Do you really believe that God would be delivered through a vessel that was impure? As I said, the thing about all Protestant churches is that they are all based on Catholic Theology except the teachings of The Church they didn't like they tossed out (kind of like the Apocrafal books of the Bible), and then they added what felt good to add. Personally, I believe the Apostles sent by Christ got it right the first time and there was no need to recreate the wheel (or better stated will).

So far, I have only seen misinterpreted twisting of scripture and I have yet to see much Biblic evidence presented as it is written.

Mary was young, many say as young as thirteen. She wasn't alive long enough to rack up a pile of sins. An immaculate conception from an immaculate vessel is the teaching from over 2000 years ago until now. What modern-day Preachers can say that they have more insight than the Founding Fathers?

I was born and raised Catholic so I was taught many things about Mary that I no longer believe after reading the Bible for myself. I do believe Mary was/is special. She was raised up by God to bear Jesus. No small privilege. Yet, I don't believe she was sinless. I don't see that in Scripture and I don't believe it was necessary. Jesus' spirit came from God, not Mary. Her sin was in no way passed onto him nor was original sin. Mary contributed to his humanity only. Jesus had to be a man like us. Fully human. Since Mary's sin nature was not passed to Jesus, it in no way tainted him. Why did God allow prostitutes, murderers, and adulterers to be in the lineage of Jesus? No one is saying Mary was a filthy sinner. I am sure she was a godly and virtuous woman. I doubt her sins were many but that doesn't mean she was sinless.

My view of church history is different than yours. I believe from the time of the Apostles until the 4th century or later, you had Christians who were in mostly independent churches. There was no strong central church or leadership. They corresponded by letters and occasional visits. The RCC started later as different doctrines were added and the Bishop of Rome became a central figure. When Constantine became Emporer, he empowered the Christian movement enabling it to gain political and ecclesiastical power. Things began to become more formal and standardized. This went on for centuries with new doctrines being added and new practices. While not all agreed, the power of Rome was strong. Eventually, there was the Great East-West Schism around 1000 AD when the eastern church broke ranks with the western church. In the 1400s men like the Czech Joh Huss began to call the church back to the Bible. He was burned at the stake. Then came Luther and Calvin and others and in the 1500s the Protestant Reformation began. I do not view this as men leaving to have their own unique doctrines. These were men trying to reform the church from within and call it back to the purity of the Scriptures. Luther did not begin by leaving and starting Lutheranism. He wanted to the church to reform. It was only when he was forced out that he began to teach elsewhere.

Both groups came from the early Christians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant as Catholicism (as a church) did not yet exist. Not all the Founding Fathers agreed on everything. Thomas Aquinas questioned the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine did not come from Scripture but rather from men's reasoning. I don't believe insight is related to what period in history one lived. It is something given by the Holy Spirit and available to all men in all ages. Living closer to the time of Christ is not a guarantee of truth. There were people like the Gnostics and the Judaizers who were perverting the truth even while the Apostles still lived. The RCC's history is full of competing Popes and changing doctrine. Men who bought and sold offices. Popes used money to buy armies to keep countries from leaving the fold. Popes became mired in politics and war. I don't believe there is/was a monolithic structure called the RCC that dates from the time of the Apostles until today.

 

[Valletta]

I was born and raised Catholic so I was taught many things about Mary that I no longer believe after reading the Bible for myself. I do believe Mary was/is special. She was raised up by God to bear Jesus. No small privilege. Yet, I don't believe she was sinless. I don't see that in Scripture and I don't believe it was necessary. Jesus' spirit came from God, not Mary. Her sin was in no way passed onto him nor was original sin. Mary contributed to his humanity only. Jesus had to be a man like us. Fully human. Since Mary's sin nature was not passed to Jesus, it in no way tainted him. Why did God allow prostitutes, murderers, and adulterers to be in the lineage of Jesus? No one is saying Mary was a filthy sinner. I am sure she was a godly and virtuous woman. I doubt her sins were many but that doesn't mean she was sinless.

My view of church history is different than yours. I believe from the time of the Apostles until the 4th century or later, you had Christians who were in mostly independent churches. There was no strong central church or leadership. They corresponded by letters and occasional visits. The RCC started later as different doctrines were added and the Bishop of Rome became a central figure. When Constantine became Emporer, he empowered the Christian movement enabling it to gain political and ecclesiastical power. Things began to become more formal and standardized. This went on for centuries with new doctrines being added and new practices. While not all agreed, the power of Rome was strong. Eventually, there was the Great East-West Schism around 1000 AD when the eastern church broke ranks with the western church. In the 1400s men like the Czech Joh Huss began to call the church back to the Bible. He was burned at the stake. Then came Luther and Calvin and others and in the 1500s the Protestant Reformation began. I do not view this as men leaving to have their own unique doctrines. These were men trying to reform the church from within and call it back to the purity of the Scriptures. Luther did not begin by leaving and starting Lutheranism. He wanted to the church to reform. It was only when he was forced out that he began to teach elsewhere.

Both groups came from the early Christians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant as Catholicism (as a church) did not yet exist. Not all the Founding Fathers agreed on everything. Thomas Aquinas questioned the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine did not come from Scripture but rather from men's reasoning. I don't believe insight is related to what period in history one lived. It is something given by the Holy Spirit and available to all men in all ages. Living closer to the time of Christ is not a guarantee of truth. There were people like the Gnostics and the Judaizers who were perverting the truth even while the Apostles still lived. The RCC's history is full of competing Popes and changing doctrine. Men who bought and sold offices. Popes used money to buy armies to keep countries from leaving the fold. Popes became mired in politics and war. I don't believe there is/was a monolithic structure called the RCC that dates from the time of the Apostles until today.

Interesting. Of course, Mary was more than a vessel or box upon which God resided, she was a real spiritual person with a soul who within her held the Messiah. God could have gone just part way and made her a good person but still a sinner. That, to me, unlikely scenario is not what was passed down as having happened. Until the 300s the Church was persecuted and was an underground Church. 28 of the first 31 popes died as martyrs. There were not the communications we have today and there were real distances to overcome, so once Catholicism was legalized it does not surprise me there were then councils and more exercise of organization and authority. As I've said, Jesus did not even command the Apostles to write anything down, but the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, made the decision to determine which text was God-breathed, and the Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. In the 1300s William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua promoted the Bible-only concept of ceding power to the Bible instead of having the Pope make decisions for the Church. That was almost one thousand years after the Catholic Church finalized the 73 books Biblical canon! They did follow an Arab theologian who taught the Kuran was the authority for the Muslim religion, how much this influenced their decisions we do not know. Theoretically God could have had just given His people the Ten Commandmens and no priests or religious leaders in OT times. In NT times God gives the Apostles authority, but then why would God abandon the Church with no human authority to settle disputes? I don't know how you explain away the laying of the hands and the bishops and priest spoken of in the NT. Who would decide to compile the Bible and which books are contained in the Bible?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Interesting. Of course, Mary was more than a vessel or box upon which God resided, she was a real spiritual person with a soul who within her held the Messiah. God could have gone just part way and made her a good person but still a sinner. That, to me, unlikely scenario is not what was passed down as having happened. Until the 300s the Church was persecuted and was an underground Church. 28 of the first 31 popes died as martyrs. There were not the communications we have today and there were real distances to overcome, so once Catholicism was legalized it does not surprise me there were then councils and more exercise of organization and authority. As I've said, Jesus did not even command the Apostles to write anything down, but the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, made the decision to determine which text was God-breathed, and the Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. In the 1300s William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua promoted the Bible-only concept of ceding power to the Bible instead of having the Pope make decisions for the Church. That was almost one thousand years after the Catholic Church finalized the 73 books Biblical canon! They did follow an Arab theologian who taught the Kuran was the authority for the Muslim religion, how much this influenced their decisions we do not know. Theoretically God could have had just given His people the Ten Commandmens and no priests or religious leaders in OT times. In NT times God gives the Apostles authority, but then why would God abandon the Church with no human authority to settle disputes? I don't know how you explain away the laying of the hands and the bishops and priest spoken of in the NT. Who would decide to compile the Bible and which books are contained in the Bible?

The church that existed until the 300s was not the Roman Catholic Church. It was just "the church" as in the body of Christ meeting in different homes, synagogues, and outdoors. Wherever they could. Peter was not going around telling them how to run their meetings or who could teach. When Paul planted churches, he appointed men from the church to be elders (which included married men). When he left, these men ran the church. It was centuries later the Catholic church decided such men had to be single and celibate. The early churches were run by a plurality of elders, not a single priest as many small parishes are. Bishops came about later although initially a bishop was an elder but of a larger church where there were many elders and he was the lead elder. There was no priesthood. Priests, bishops (in the Catholic sense), cardinals, and the Pope were all later developments centuries later. Some early liturgies were developed but there is no evidence they were enforced.

The writings that we call the NT, were letters or gospels written by the Apostles or close associates. They weren't specifically commanded to write those things but it was part of the Great Commission to go and make disciples and teach them. Peter called Paul's writings "scripture." In time, some tried to right counterfeit letters and gospels and pass them off as genuine. This eventually led the church as a whole to conclude they should meet and compile an official list. There was very little debate. There was already clear consensus on most of the books. Their authenticity and worthiness were already established. The men who met were not Catholics. They were Christians from all over the Mediterranean. They were leading Christian teachers from a myriad of independent churches. They were united in their faith but not under any ecclesiastical authority. This was the church universal coming together. There was no need to

What is called the Catholic or Roman Catholic church came about in the 400s and later. It came out of the universal church but was a later development. The things that make Roman Catholicism unique did not come about until after this time. Why did they change the practice of appointing a group of elders to run each church? Why did they add the requirement that the priests (previously called pastors) be single? If the church followed the teaching of the Apostles they would not have made these changes. Was Paul wrong when he said elders could be married? Was Paul wrong to have a plurality of layman run each church? I idea of a pope came about later and then the RCC tried to work backwards and identify popes. These were just different bishops of Rome but in the early centuries they were not functioning in a papal-type office.

 

[rturner76]

Yet, I don't believe she was sinless. I don't see that in Scripture and I don't believe it was necessary.

Also, we don't see Mary's sin in scripture so I guess we are at a stalemate there.

The RCC started later as different doctrines were added and the Bishop of Rome became a central figure. When Constantine became Emporer, he empowered the Christian movement enabling it to gain political and ecclesiastical power. Things began to become more formal and standardized. This went on for centuries with new doctrines being added and new practices. While not all agreed, the power of Rome was strong.

When Constantine legalized the Catholic Church in Rome and the Latin Vulgate translated the Greek and Hebrew scriptures into Latin, Church doctrine became more standardized with the Bishop of Rome being counted as first among equals. There was a Roman Church since Peter went there and established it but it was an underground illegal church. There were other Churches and at first, the Church of Jerusalem was considered the largest and most influential. Still, there was a basic understanding of doctrine that was agreed upon during the many ecumenical counsels. Once the Church in Rome was legalized, it became the most influential as Latin was spoken throughout the Roman Empire. Even at that point in time doctrine was voted upon in councils where a Bishop from every diocese was represented. So it wasn't Rome who dictated doctrine but with the enormity of Roman and the Latin speaking empire, it became the most influential. The Roman Church had influence since the beginning through the rock St Peter ut the Roman Church didn't dictate doctrine to the other churches but like I said, the council of bishops was united.

Eventually, there was the Great East-West Schism around 1000 AD when the eastern church broke ranks with the western church. In the 1400s men like the Czech Joh Huss began to call the church back to the Bible. He was burned at the stake. Then came Luther and Calvin and others and in the 1500s the Protestant Reformation began. I do not view this as men leaving to have their own unique doctrines. These were men trying to reform the church from within and call it back to the purity of the Scriptures. Luther did not begin by leaving and starting Lutheranism. He wanted to the church to reform. It was only when he was forced out that he began to teach elsewhere.

I believe two things about that....One is that it was a political move as the Church in the West used Latin and the Church in the East used Greek. The west was united by Rome but the second thing is there was a fundamental difference between the two. The Eastern Church believed that the revelation was already made and there would never be a change to it and the Western Church believed that God would continue to make revelations known to the ChurchBoth groups came from the early Christians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant as Catholicism (as a church) did not yet exist. Not all the Founding Fathers agreed on everything. Thomas Aquinas questioned the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine did not come from Scripture but rather from men's reasoning. I don't believe insight is related to what period in history one lived. It is something given by the Holy Spirit and available to all men in all ages. Living closer to the time of Christ is not a guarantee of truth. There were people like the Gnostics and the Judaizers who were perverting the truth even while the Apostles still lived. The RCC's history is full of competing Popes and changing doctrine. Men who bought and sold offices. Popes used money to buy armies to keep countries from leaving the fold. Popes became mired in politics and war. I don't believe there is/was a monolithic structure called the RCC that dates from the time of the Apostles until today.

The Catholic Church did and still exists. Now since the East-West Schism, we have the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Both Churches were and remain Cathilic as they accept people of all ethnicities making it the first Catholic or "universal" Church. Before the Universal Church, people's religion was based on their ethnicity. Israelites worshipped one God one way. Then there were the Greek Gods, and the Roman gods, and the Middle Eastern Zoroastrians, the Sumerans had their own Gods, Egypt and China had their own Gods/ The Universal Church accepted people who started off in all of these traditions and was truly a free international Church.

I want to acknowledge your logic but I had the opposite experience that you had. I was raised Protestant and moved into the Catholic fold later in life because I studied theology, and had discussions with my brother who has a degree in theology and a Master of Divinity. The Catholics and theology and theologians seemed to ring more true than the reformers. To me it seemed like the Reformers followed 90% Catholic doctrine but changed what they didn't like and added things they did like which veried between each Reformer

Thank you for putting together a well thought out argument but I still disagree on the Mary issue.....God Bless

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Also, we don't see Mary's sin in scripture so I guess we are at a stalemate there.

When Constantine legalized the Catholic Church in Rome and the Latin Vulgate translated the Greek and Hebrew scriptures into Latin, Church doctrine became more standardized with the Bishop of Rome being counted as first among equals. There was a Roman Church since Peter went there and established it but it was an underground illegal church. There were other Churches and at first, the Church of Jerusalem was considered the largest and most influential. Still, there was a basic understanding of doctrine that was agreed upon during the many ecumenical counsels. Once the Church in Rome was legalized, it became the most influential as Latin was spoken throughout the Roman Empire. Even at that point in time doctrine was voted upon in councils where a Bishop from every diocese was represented. So it wasn't Rome who dictated doctrine but with the enormity of Roman and the Latin speaking empire, it became the most influential. The Roman Church had influence since the beginning through the rock St Peter ut the Roman Church didn't dictate doctrine to the other churches but like I said, the council of bishops was united.

I believe two things about that....One is that it was a political move as the Church in the West used Latin and the Church in the East used Greek. The west was united by Rome but the second thing is there was a fundamental difference between the two. The Eastern Church believed that the revelation was already made and there would never be a change to it and the Western Church believed that God would continue to make revelations known to the ChurchBoth groups came from the early Christians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant as Catholicism (as a church) did not yet exist. Not all the Founding Fathers agreed on everything. Thomas Aquinas questioned the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine did not come from Scripture but rather from men's reasoning. I don't believe insight is related to what period in history one lived. It is something given by the Holy Spirit and available to all men in all ages. Living closer to the time of Christ is not a guarantee of truth. There were people like the Gnostics and the Judaizers who were perverting the truth even while the Apostles still lived. The RCC's history is full of competing Popes and changing doctrine. Men who bought and sold offices. Popes used money to buy armies to keep countries from leaving the fold. Popes became mired in politics and war. I don't believe there is/was a monolithic structure called the RCC that dates from the time of the Apostles until today.

The Catholic Church did and still exists. Now since the East-West Schism, we have the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Both Churches were and remain Cathilic as they accept people of all ethnicities making it the first Catholic or "universal" Church. Before the Universal Church, people's religion was based on their ethnicity. Israelites worshipped one God one way. Then there were the Greek Gods, and the Roman gods, and the Middle Eastern Zoroastrians, the Sumerans had their own Gods, Egypt and China had their own Gods/ The Universal Church accepted people who started off in all of these traditions and was truly a free international Church.

I want to acknowledge your logic but I had the opposite experience that you had. I was raised Protestant and moved into the Catholic fold later in life because I studied theology, and had discussions with my brother who has a degree in theology and a Master of Divinity. The Catholics and theology and theologians seemed to ring more true than the reformers. To me it seemed like the Reformers followed 90% Catholic doctrine but changed what they didn't like and added things they did like which veried between each Reformer

Thank you for putting together a well thought out argument but I still disagree on the Mary issue.....God Bless

Many people's sins are not listed in the Bible. Does that make them all sinless? The burden of proof is on those who claim she was sinless. The Bible says "all have sinned", "none are righteous", etc. If Mary was sinless, why did Paul not mention it or Peter? Not that they had to, but where is your support for her being sinless other than the belief "she must have been?" I hear a lot of Catholic arguments like "God would not have His Son born of a sinful woman" or "You don't drink clean water out of an unclean cup." These are logical arguments based on what seems right but Scripture teaches no such thing.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Also, we don't see Mary's sin in scripture so I guess we are at a stalemate there.

When Constantine legalized the Catholic Church in Rome and the Latin Vulgate translated the Greek and Hebrew scriptures into Latin, Church doctrine became more standardized with the Bishop of Rome being counted as first among equals. There was a Roman Church since Peter went there and established it but it was an underground illegal church. There were other Churches and at first, the Church of Jerusalem was considered the largest and most influential. Still, there was a basic understanding of doctrine that was agreed upon during the many ecumenical counsels. Once the Church in Rome was legalized, it became the most influential as Latin was spoken throughout the Roman Empire. Even at that point in time doctrine was voted upon in councils where a Bishop from every diocese was represented. So it wasn't Rome who dictated doctrine but with the enormity of Roman and the Latin speaking empire, it became the most influential. The Roman Church had influence since the beginning through the rock St Peter ut the Roman Church didn't dictate doctrine to the other churches but like I said, the council of bishops was united.

I believe two things about that....One is that it was a political move as the Church in the West used Latin and the Church in the East used Greek. The west was united by Rome but the second thing is there was a fundamental difference between the two. The Eastern Church believed that the revelation was already made and there would never be a change to it and the Western Church believed that God would continue to make revelations known to the ChurchBoth groups came from the early Christians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant as Catholicism (as a church) did not yet exist. Not all the Founding Fathers agreed on everything. Thomas Aquinas questioned the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine did not come from Scripture but rather from men's reasoning. I don't believe insight is related to what period in history one lived. It is something given by the Holy Spirit and available to all men in all ages. Living closer to the time of Christ is not a guarantee of truth. There were people like the Gnostics and the Judaizers who were perverting the truth even while the Apostles still lived. The RCC's history is full of competing Popes and changing doctrine. Men who bought and sold offices. Popes used money to buy armies to keep countries from leaving the fold. Popes became mired in politics and war. I don't believe there is/was a monolithic structure called the RCC that dates from the time of the Apostles until today.

The Catholic Church did and still exists. Now since the East-West Schism, we have the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church. Both Churches were and remain Cathilic as they accept people of all ethnicities making it the first Catholic or "universal" Church. Before the Universal Church, people's religion was based on their ethnicity. Israelites worshipped one God one way. Then there were the Greek Gods, and the Roman gods, and the Middle Eastern Zoroastrians, the Sumerans had their own Gods, Egypt and China had their own Gods/ The Universal Church accepted people who started off in all of these traditions and was truly a free international Church.

I want to acknowledge your logic but I had the opposite experience that you had. I was raised Protestant and moved into the Catholic fold later in life because I studied theology, and had discussions with my brother who has a degree in theology and a Master of Divinity. The Catholics and theology and theologians seemed to ring more true than the reformers. To me it seemed like the Reformers followed 90% Catholic doctrine but changed what they didn't like and added things they did like which veried between each Reformer

Thank you for putting together a well thought out argument but I still disagree on the Mary issue.....God Bless

I wouldn't say the Reformers threw out what they didn't like. They threw out what was unbiblical like the sale of indulgences. I believe God called men like Huss, Luther, and Calvin to purify the church but the church rejected them.

 

[rturner76]

Many people's sins are not listed in the Bible. Does that make them all sinless? The burden of proof is on those who claim she was sinless. The Bible says "all have sinned", "none are righteous", etc. If Mary was sinless, why did Paul not mention it or Peter? Not that they had to, but where is your support for her being sinless other than the belief "she must have been?" I hear a lot of Catholic arguments like "God would not have His Son born of a sinful woman" or "You don't drink clean water out of an unclean cup." These are logical arguments based on what seems right but Scripture teaches no such thing.

Scripture also teaches that Mary was blessed among all women. This is where our religious differences are most magnified. Your religion is based 100% on the writings of the Bible and nothing else. My religion acknowledges what was taught between year 30 and year 400 when Church Tradition. We believe in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Tradition is not the sole rule and neither is Sacred Scripture but a combination of the two, each one testing the other. It's kind of like one believes the church made the Bible and one thinks the Bible made the church.

Tradition is things like the order of Mass the Consecration of the bread and wine and other rites and teachings that were pre-Bible traditions. While I believe that the Bible is the textbook for Christianity, I also believe Sacred Tradition has its place. We respectfully disagree on that but I respect your way of worship.

 

[JulieB67]

It was just "the church" as in the body of Christ meeting in different homes, synagogues, and outdoors.

That's my belief as well. And I also believe it's God himself that adds to that church, not man. He is the true heart knower and no one else.