Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you mean by universal? it's certainly found all over the world
This was already discussed for the greek word in Luke 1:28. She was FULL OF GRACE. And yes, her parents were NOT sinless.
No, the church universal is the body of believers on earth regardless of which church, if any, they attend. The RCC is universal but it's not the universal church.
The Roman Catholic Church is indeed found all over the world, but there are plenty of Christians who are not members of it, so it's not universal in the sense of being the only church/denomination.What do you mean by universal? it's certainly found all over the world
This was already discussed for the greek word in Luke 1:28. She was FULL OF GRACE. And yes, her parents were NOT sinless.
The Isaiah passage clearly prefigures Jesus and the prophecy is not limited or specific to the office of prime minister. Peter wasn't a prime minister. While Jesus is God, there are many passages in Scripture in which Jesus submits himself to the will of the Father. Passages in which the Father gives things to the Son. Jesus did submit himself to the authority of the Father. The Father gives the kingdom to the Son. Jesus does not give it to anyone.
Yes, God could have done it any way He wanted to. I see no clear teaching He chose to make Mary sinless. Nor do I see any teaching that Mary is the "New Eve" so comparing her to Eve is a forced comparison.
Stephen was also said to be full of grace yet you don't call him sinless. The same word is used in Ephesians 1:6 where it means we were "graciously accepted", "made us subjects of His grace", and "embraced us in the arms of His grace." It is better translated "one highly favored." She was highly favored to be chosen to be the mother of Jesus. It does not mean she was sinless. It was an unfortunate translation in the Vulgate that rendered it "full of grace" instead of "highly favored."What do you mean by universal? it's certainly found all over the world
This was already discussed for the greek word in Luke 1:28. She was FULL OF GRACE. And yes, her parents were NOT sinless.
As I have pointed out, the original Koine Greek Biblical wording used is different for Mary and Stephen. The word used by the Angel Gabriel was unique in the BIble, and it was used as a title which means she was being described, indicating Mary in the past had been imbued with a full and everlasting grace. Mary was "full of grace" and she was "highly favored," but those translations fall short of the meaning of the word. There is no English equivalent. The root word of the Greek word used to describe Mary means "grace," and the modifiers described the type and time of the that grace. It could be much better argued that leaving the root word "grace" out of any translation would be unfortunate. When one reads the Bible it is important to remember the Bible was not written in English, that translations often fall short, and it is beneficial to study the original language.
Revelation 3 is clearly a reference to Christ. He is the only one who is "the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
There are many "keys." Don't confuse the key given to Peter with other keys. Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22 when giving the key to Rock (Peter,) and that key to no other Apostle. Indeed other popes who succeeded Peter were given that key.
The truth is that this same term is used in Ephesians 1:6 where it describes those who, by God's grace, have been "made accepted (χαριτόω) in the beloved." Thus, it would be a perfectly good and superior translation of Luke 1:28 to say: "Rejoice, thou which hast been made accepted, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women!"
Again, I see no support for this interpretation and it relies on RC tradition. You cannot prove from Isaiah 22 that Peter was given a key that gave him and his successors authoritative power. Key would represent the "key" to the Gospel and I believe Isaiah 22 only applies to Christ. You are still left with the fact that no other Gospel writer refers to Peter as possessing such a key. Peter never wrote of or claimed such a key. The other 3 Gospels make no mention of it in their parallel accounts including Mark's Gospel which came from Peter. It took centuries for bishops of Rome to begin to claim such authority and power. Even though the early church was persecuted such a critical office and claim would have been mentioned. I see no support for it other than the later RC claim that it is so.
You're going back to the anti-Catholic tactic of throwing out more and more accusations as answers are presented to you. As Bishop Sheen said:"There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church." It is folly to believe that because something is in the Bible one time that it somehow not important.
How many times a name is mentioned does not prove anything. Peter's name is mentioned more than Paul's but Paul is mentioned far more from Acts on making him the preeminant figure of the early church and its most prolific writer.
I understand the RCC having grown up in it. I don't hate the RCC. I only hate false teaching from any church.
You have been asserting that because an event was described once in the Bible it was not that important. Couple that with your statement about "no support" for Peter being pope I thought I would give it a mention.
Not because it was mentioned once but because nothing else lends support to it, and there are other legitimate ways those words could be understood. We have the words of Jesus, but in the account in question, Jesus does not elaborate. We don't know what discussion occurred after those words and can't speculate. None of the NT writers give us further insight into what Jesus meant. Even Peter does not. If Jesus had appointed Peter to be the first pope, we have read nothing more about it and have seen no evidence of it in the Book of Acts or the NT epistles. While that does not prove the RC interpretation is wrong, it gives it no further backing. Given the possibility of other interpretations, I, for one, don't believe Jesus granted Peter a papal-type office.
Acts 15:1-12
