Was Mary the greatest woman that ever lived?

Is Mary the greatest woman who ever lived?

  • Yes, Mary was clearly the greatest woman ever and God has made this clear.

  • No, only God knows who the greatest woman is and if there is a woman greater.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
52
✟20,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Unfortunately, Catholics don't hold to the same standard as the Bereans, whom the Bible refered to as not only noble, but "more noble" than those who didn't check the Scriptures. Unlike the Bereans, Catholics accepted things that couldn't be verified in the Bible, which is a shame.
Peace.

I wonder how the knew that Jesus was born from a Virgin and that He was ressurected from the dead.

Since those things were not written of yet. All they had was St. Paul's words that prophecy had been fulfilled. Sounds awfull lot like Oral Tradition.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
How? The Roman Catholic Church is the "Church", or at least it's headquarters. The "Church" has no one to blame for their heresies but themselves.


We are to take the aproach of the Bereans, and interpret the Bible for ourselves. The Bible even commended them for doing so:

Acts 17:11:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Peace.
So do answer me this one question. If what you say is true (we are to interpret the Bible for ourselves), why do you believe there can be such variety between the doctrines of those who do so? I've studied Lutherans, the varieties of Baptists, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, and read multitudes of individual's web sites and professions of faiths. All proclaim to base their doctrine on the Bible alone. And none completely agree, and some disagree quite strongly on many basic points.

The reason for this is?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Whenever people go outside the Bible for "doctrine", that opens up the door for false teaching.
So why do you believe that among all the different denominations that only stay inside the bible (bible-alone) there are so many false teachings? I mean, no matter which one you may personally agree with, some of them certainly must be false in your view.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,434
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,694.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
How? The Roman Catholic Church is the "Church", or at least it's headquarters. The "Church" has no one to blame for their heresies but themselves.
The Roman Church was once part of the Church, but through their many errors and additions have since left her communion.
We are to take the aproach of the Bereans, and interpret the Bible for ourselves. The Bible even commended them for doing so:

Acts 17:11:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
The Church in Berea is to this day Eastern Orthodox, however I believe you misinterpret what was said of the Bereans. They did not interpret the bible for themselves, els how do you reconcile with 2 Peter 1:19-21?
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
John
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,434
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,694.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Like the EO hasn't?? Specially, when it sided with an excommunicated bishop.
No it hasn't. I presume you have read the litany of false accusations in the Bull of Excommunication you allude to (they castrate their guests, etc...)

John
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Catholic teaching is that the OT prefigues the NT.

No revelation in your above post.

Also your argument implies that any one who reads the Scriptures would have accepted St. Paul's words. History states otherwise. Jesus was crucified by His own people. St. Stephen was killed by Jews incited by St. Paul.

I hope that you have that this revelation brings you to the light that Scriptures is never alone.

Peace
*sigh*...

The girl who my post was adressed to had no idea Scriptures that prophecied the events of Christ's life existed. So for that girl, it's a revelation, is it not?

Why be so prideful as to not acknowledge that your fellow Catholic was in error? Why be so prideful as to not acknowledge that what she learned from "The Church" about such Scripture not existing was wrong?

Even if Scripture alone isn't enough, the Bereans prove that Oral Tradition should be able to be verified in Scripture. That's why the Bible calls them "more noble" than those who didn't check the Scriptures concerning Christ.

Unlike Catholics, the "more noble" Bereans only accepted "oral tradition" that could be verified by the Bible.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If what Paul said couldn't be found in the Scriptures, the Bereans wouldn't have accept any "oral tradition" Paul gave them.

Really? So what Scripture did they look at to verify that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was indeed born of a virgin? And what Scripture did they look at that told them that Jesus Christ of Nazareth rose from the dead? They had OT prophecies that indicated these things would be true of the Messiah. They had nothing linking Jesus to those prophesies except the oral testimony of Paul. It is the church that testified to these things long before they were recorded in Scripture, and it is the church whose oral tradition the Bereans accepted regarding the facts of the life of Christ.

It is then the church who testifies to the validity of the NT testament books that were ultimately accepted as scripture, based on the oral tradition which preceded it.

Perhaps that is why Scripture refers to the manifold wisdom of the church, and that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
I don't know which Scriptures they checked. Maybe the looked at the ones I posted for you. The point is, that what Paul said could be VERIFIED, by the Bible, unlike Catholic doctrine.

Unfortunately, unlike the Bereans, Catholics accept oral testimony that can't be verified.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All of that was Scripture in their time. But did they have any evidence outside the oral testimony of Paul that Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected from the dead? I would be interested in knowing what that was.
No one is saying that oral testimony isn't important. After all, that's how the Gospel was spread. The important point is that unlike Catholic doctrine, the oral testimony of Paul that Jesus was the Messiah, could be verified by the Bible, in the OT.

You, going by "oral tradition" alone, were wrong about the Bible. That should tell you something.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I wonder how the knew that Jesus was born from a Virgin and that He was ressurected from the dead.

Since those things were not written of yet. All they had was St. Paul's words that prophecy had been fulfilled. Sounds awfull lot like Oral Tradition.

Peace
1) Check the page before this one. I posted the Scriptures, which existed at least 400 years before Christ was born. "Those things" were indeed written of. You're the second Catholic who's said such writtings didn't exist yet, and the second Catholic who's wrong about the Bible, proving my point.

2) It's "oral tradition" that could be verified by the Bible. Unlike the "oral tradition" of Catholics.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

polishbeast

Servant of Jesus
Apr 14, 2008
1,430
68
34
UCF
✟9,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
1) Check the page before this one. I posted the Scriptures, which existed at least 400 years before Christ was born. "Those things" were indeed written of. You're the second Catholic who's said such writtings didn't exist yet, and the second Catholic who's wrong about the Bible, proving my point.

2) It's "oral tradition" that could be verified by the Bible. Unlike the "oral tradition" of Catholics.

Peace.

I think you are missing the point. Whether the Messiah was going to be born of a virgin and be resurrected from the dead isnt the issue. It is whether Jesus fulfilled those things, and the only thing to go on was the oral tradition that St. Paul said.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So do answer me this one question. If what you say is true (we are to interpret the Bible for ourselves), why do you believe there can be such variety between the doctrines of those who do so? I've studied Lutherans, the varieties of Baptists, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, and read multitudes of individual's web sites and professions of faiths. All proclaim to base their doctrine on the Bible alone. And none completely agree, and some disagree quite strongly on many basic points.

The reason for this is?
Because of things like stuborness or pride. For example, the Pharisees. Jesus often quoted Scripture to them that verified what he said was true. There were times in the Bible when the Pharisees were silenced because they couldn't argue with the truth of Christ's statements, when he quoted Scripture.

Yet they still crucified him. Even Pilate knew their reasons for wanting to do so were sinful:

Mark 15:10:

"For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy."

Hope this helped.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think you are missing the point. Whether the Messiah was going to be born of a virgin and be resurrected from the dead isnt the issue. It is whether Jesus fulfilled those things, and the only thing to go on was the oral tradition that St. Paul said.
Have you been ignoring the last two pages? Oral tradition was NOT the only thing to go on. The Bereans also checked the Bible to make sure those oral testimonies were true.

That's why the Bible commends them so.
 
Upvote 0

polishbeast

Servant of Jesus
Apr 14, 2008
1,430
68
34
UCF
✟9,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Have you been ignoring the last two pages? Oral tradition was NOT the only thing to go on. The Bereans also checked the Bible to make sure those oral testimonies were true.

That's why the Bible commends them so.

They checked the OT to see if what was said concerning Jesus was true, because they recognized the authority of the oral tradition given to St. Paul.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
*sigh*...

The girl who my post was adressed to had no idea Scriptures that prophecied the events of Christ's life existed. So for that girl, it's a revelation, is it not?

Why be so prideful as to not acknowledge that your fellow Catholic was in error? Why be so prideful as to not acknowledge that what she learned from "The Church" about such Scripture not existing was wrong?

Even if Scripture alone isn't enough, the Bereans prove that Oral Tradition should be able to be verified in Scripture. That's why the Bible calls them "more noble" than those who didn't check the Scriptures concerning Christ.

Unlike Catholics, the "more noble" Bereans only accepted "oral tradition" that could be verified by the Bible.

Peace.
If you are referring to me, I absolutely am (and was before your post) aware of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah and how Christ fulfills them. I was quite clear about that in my post.

I am simply making the point that if the Bereans were truly sola-scriptura as you seem to believe they are, they would never have been able to accept Jesus was the Messiah, because that was totally dependent upon the ORAL testimony of the church that the person Jesus did these things. All they knew from Scripture was that someone would do these things. Not specifically Jesus.

They could only verify that IF what Paul was TELLING them ORALLY about the person Jesus was true, he would fulfill the prophecy.

They accepted Paul's oral testimony -- oral tradition about the person Jesus Christ. Totally non sola-scriptura, or otherwise every Jewish person who holds to the OT would be likewise convicted regarding the person Jesus Christ. They do not reject the OT speaks of a Messiah with certain characteristics, they reject the oral tradition of the church that Jesus met them.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Have you been ignoring the last two pages? Oral tradition was NOT the only thing to go on. The Bereans also checked the Bible to make sure those oral testimonies were true.

That's why the Bible commends them so.
There was no place in the Bible for them to check to see if the person Jesus Christ had actually risen from the dead. Or was born of a virgin.

And nobody ever said oral tradition was the ONLY thing to go on. We Catholics simply believe Paul when he says we should hold fast to all he taught, whether it is written or oral. You on the other hand, only accept the written.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know which Scriptures they checked. Maybe the looked at the ones I posted for you. The point is, that what Paul said could be VERIFIED, by the Bible, unlike Catholic doctrine.

Unfortunately, unlike the Bereans, Catholics accept oral testimony that can't be verified.
The only part that could be VERIFIED was that the OT spoke of such a person to come. They had no way to VERIFY the things Paul said about the person Jesus were true. Took those by faith.
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,243
299
42
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They checked the OT to see if what was said concerning Jesus was true, because they recognized the authority of the oral tradition given to St. Paul.
However, they would've rejected what Paul said if they couldn't verify from the Bible what Paul said to be true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,846.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Because of things like stuborness or pride. For example, the Pharisees. Jesus often quoted Scripture to them that verified what he said was true. There were times in the Bible when the Pharisees were silenced because they couldn't argue with the truth of Christ's statements, when he quoted Scripture.

Yet they still crucified him. Even Pilate knew their reasons for wanting to do so were sinful:

Mark 15:10:

"For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy."

Hope this helped.

Peace.
The Pharisees were not silenced by Christ's quoting from Scripture, anyone can do that (even Satan). They were silenced by the authority with which he interpreted Scripture. An authority he gave to his apostles, by the way.

Nonetheless, so if I'm confused about a particular issue that say the Baptists and the Lutherans disagree on what the Bible means, the way I can identify which group is erring because of their pride and stubborness is, how?

Or for example, this particular topic. Luther (the original 'bible-alone' guy) believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. You do not. So which of you is prideful and stubborn?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.