Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry but your argument does not hold up. Why? Because the Book of Enoch was not chosen by the various councils and synods that determined what books were to be placed in the Bible.

However, the 7 books that you are against actually ARE canonized, and have been since the late 4th century, when the Bible as we know it today came to be.

The texts of the OT that the early Christians used to prove that Jesus was the Messiah came from the Greek version, the Septuagint, which had been completed over 100 years prior to Jesus's birth.

The OT that many protestants use today is from the Jewish council in 80AD which did not add the 7 books of the "Apocrypha" because they could not find a Hebrew original, and were afraid to let Greek culture influence their Jewish culture.

However, the Jews no longer had binding authority given to them from God, because Jesus had passed this power onto Peter and the Apostles. Therefore, they were in error in removing the 7 books.

The Bible contained (and still does) 73 books until the 1500s when Martin Luther decided that they did not align with his version of the Bible, and therefore took them out.

So, the 7 books are canonized, just many Protestants do not agree with it.
Are you aware that the book of Enoch is actually used as the Bible for the Ethiopian church, right?

We can argue all day about this. However, when I go to any book store and ask for the Holy Bible. I get the book without the 7 books that you mention. Also, it is accepted as that these 7 books are not included in the Holy Bible.

Again, they are good books for study, as is the Book of Enoch and others.

I will accept the Holy Bible as it is presented. We can agree to disagree on this.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:
That translation or interpritation, whichever you want to call it, is not even close to a presentation of the original text. I have never heard of the "Douay-Rheims Bible"

Think I'll stick with the KJV as a standard.
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟23,012.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Are you aware that the book of Enoch is actually used as the Bible for the Ethiopian church, right?

We can argue all day about this. However, when I go to any book store and ask for the Holy Bible. I get the book without the 7 books that you mention. Also, it is accepted as that these 7 books are not included in the Holy Bible.

Again, they are good books for study, as is the Book of Enoch and others.

I will accept the Holy Bible as it is presented. We can agree to disagree on this.

Yes I understand this.

Once again, go look in a Catholic or Orthodox Bible and they will be in there. Most Bibles today are Protestant and therefore follow what Martin Luther ( a man who was crazy and egotistic) produced without the additional 7 books in the OT.

So you can either get a full Bible, one that extends back to when the Bible was put together, or an incomplete Bible that only traces itself back 500 years.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
That translation or interpritation, whichever you want to call it, is not even close to a presentation of the original text. I have never heard of the "Douay-Rheims Bible"

Think I'll stick with the KJV as a standard.
It says the same thing, with feminine pronouns. The Douay-Rheims Bible is translated from the Latin Vulgate, which St. Jerome translated from the oldest available manuscripts (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) in the 4th century. The Douay-Rheims Bible predates the KJV by 11 years. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. Again, Gen. 3:15 in the KJV ultimately means the same as most bibles, it's just that Protestants have a hard time with it.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting to me that you have quoted The Word found in John 6. Our oldest daughter just happened to be having an issue with The Word that specifically states that we must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood. I explained to her that Christ was telling us that we must Read The Word of God (eat His flesh) and be filled with The Holy Spirit (The Life Blood of Christ). Our daughter quickly received what I was blessed to be allowed to share with her. She had told me that the Christian radio program she listens to and the church she goes to were both unclear about Christ's Words meaning.


That's not what the bible says. You are distorting the words of scripture to confirm your personal opinion.

I challenge you to find a single Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity who interpreted this passage as you do.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
However, when I go to any book store and ask for the Holy Bible. I get the book without the 7 books that you mention.

No you don't. You have to look on the spine to see whether or not it's a Catholic (or Orthodox) approved edition. If you bought a copy of the original 1611 King James Version it would come to you with these books in them. If you buy an NRSV, you will need to look to see which version you're getting.

If you add up the Bibles sold all around the world, given that 85% of all Christians are Catholics or Orthodox, you will get these books. In English, you might not, but that's because America and English are Protestant countries, not because "The Bible" doesn't contain these books.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well, we haven't "gone out", generally.

But, looking at that past time, 500 years ago, when the complex situation with Luther (imperfect but with some bits of truth) unfolded, a big moment that has had a lot of consequences is that Luther was excommunicated.

Right?

How could Luther even be said to have "gone out"?

I'm not Luther in any way, but excommunicating him forced him to do services outside the church that pushed him out it would seem. I'm not at all asking you to approve of Luther. I'm asking about your own idea he "went out".




Luther began the process of leaving the Church in 1517 when he posted the 95 theses. He wasn't excommunicated until January 3, 1521.
 
Upvote 0

lsume

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2017
1,491
696
70
Florida
✟417,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I never want to bend The Word of God to satisfy my beliefs. The Word of God follows;

John.1 Verses 1 to 14

  1. [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    [2] The same was in the beginning with God.
    [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
    [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
    [7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
    [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
    [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
    [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
    [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
    [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    [13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
    [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Christ was The Word of God made flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Robster1981

New Member
May 23, 2017
2
2
42
Cape Town
✟15,317.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You were born again when you were baptized as an infant, but that is something we can discuss later.

Do you realize that you are denying the doctrine of the Incarnation, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human?

Jesus did not become "less God" when he was incarnated and "more God again" when he was resurrected. And he most certainly did not become "less human" when he was resurrected and glorified, in case this is what you also hold.

I am not sure where these beliefs of yours stem from, but if you allow me to refer back to my Encyclopedia of Early Christian Heretics, I should be able to get back to you later today.
I did not become born again as an infant. That is not biblical. When you put your faith & trust in Christ as your Saviour & what He did on your behalf then you become born again. An infant does not put their faith in Christ. I was baptized as a baby but my whole life I lived in horrible sin untill 3 years ago when I finally saw my need for a Saviour & I made a decision to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour. That's when I got born again. No baby ever got born again though baptism because they had no say in the matter. The bible tells you how to get born again & it's not infant baptism. The Catholic Church made that up along with a whole bunch of other false teachings. Mary was not sinless by the way. The bible says that ALL have sinned and also Mary called God her Saviour so if she was sinless she wouldn't have needed a Saviour. Only sinners need a saviour.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I did not become born again as an infant. That is not biblical. When you put your faith & trust in Christ as your Saviour & what He did on your behalf then you become born again. An infant does not put their faith in Christ. I was baptized as a baby but my whole life I lived in horrible sin untill 3 years ago when I finally saw my need for a Saviour & I made a decision to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour. That's when I got born again. No baby ever got born again though baptism because they had no say in the matter. The bible tells you how to get born again & it's not infant baptism. The Catholic Church made that up along with a whole bunch of other false teachings. Mary was not sinless by the way. The bible says that ALL have sinned and also Mary called God her Saviour so if she was sinless she wouldn't have needed a Saviour. Only sinners need a saviour.
Jesus gives the definition of "born again" in John 3:5. It's by water and the spirit. You may have had a life changing experience, but that is not how Jesus defines "born again". Baptism removes original sin which we inherit from Adam without a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice.

Conversely, provide a verse that forbids infant baptism. There isn't one. Whole households were baptized in 3 places in Scripture, with only ONE person a believer. You have no way of dealing with HOUSEHOLDS.

You can't deal with the plain meaning of Acts 2:39 because it contradicts the Protestant paradigm. No one is ever forced into baptism, it doesn't matter if the infants of the household included half the village, the baby is baptized based on the parents faith, the same as a Jewish baby is circumcised at 8 days old, based on the parents faith. Maybe you can explain to me why this parallel is so incomprehensible to Protestants when Paul is so explicit in Col 2:11-12.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Rejection of infant baptism began AFTER Luther and Calvin. Rejection of infant baptism, found only in a select number of Protestant denominations today, is a denial of the sacramental principle, and a denial of original sin. It is a 16th century invention, a false tradition of men.

It is the sola scriptura mentality that led to these denials, like stripping a car of half it's parts so it will run better. Demanding multiple proof texts for any given doctrine (handed down from Jesus and the Apostles in kernel form) in the absence of Tradition and teaching authority doesn't make sense, because there are no proof texts supporting sola scriptura. It is illogical and contradictory.

What scripture gives the minimum age requirement for baptism?

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years). Belief is normative for adults, but you have no verse that says belief is a prerequisite for ALL.

Mary needed a savior to make her full of grace at her conception and their was no room for any kind of sin.
Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene (“favored one” above) as “full of grace”]

Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary — itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” — which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language).

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow'” (Plummer).

(Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, six volumes, Vol. II, 13)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Greek scholar Marvin R. Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946, four volumes, from 1887 edition: New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940, Vol. II, 171).

All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias.

For Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and overcomer of sin (RSV):

Romans 5:20-21
Romans 6:14
Romans 5:17

2 Timothy 1:9

2 Corinthians 1:12
2 Corinthians 12:9
We are saved, of course, by grace, and grace alone:
Acts 15:11
Ephesians 2:5

Ephesians 2:8-10
Titus 2:11

1 Peter 1:10
Romans 3:24

Romans 11:5
Titus 3:7

Now, the implications of all this for Luke 1:28 and the Immaculate Conception of Mary ought to be obvious by now. All of the above instances of “grace” in English are translations of the Greek charis, the root of the word used by an angel in Luke 1:28 to describe Mary: kecharitomene. From the above we learn two things, and they are biblically certain:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is to both be saved and to be exceptionally, completely holy. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions as follows:

1. To be full of the grace which saves is to surely be saved.

2. To be full of the grace which gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin, is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

Or, we could make the following deductive argument, with premises (#1 and #2) derived directly from Scripture:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, above sin.

3. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

4. Therefore, Mary is saved.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is also to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, is directly deduced from the strong evidence of many biblical passages, which teach the doctrines of #1 and #2.

The logic would seem to follow inexorably, from unquestionable biblical principles. The only way out of it would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold that either (1) grace doesn’t save, or that (2) grace isn’t that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. In this fashion, the entire essence of the Immaculate Conception is proven (alone) from biblical principles and doctrines which every orthodox Protestant holds.

The only possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so as to avoid the original sin which she inevitably would have inherited, being human, but for God’s preventive grace, which saved her from falling into the pit of sin by avoidance rather than rescue, after she had fallen in. In a very simple sense, the Immaculate Conception is God giving Mary the grace to be as sinless and innocent as Eve originally was, a thing quite fitting and not at all strange or implausible for one chosen to bear the Lord God in her own body.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Thursday
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

Germatria1128

Seeker of Truth, Eater of Chocolate
Jan 30, 2016
37
16
Virginia
✟9,251.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I did not become born again as an infant. That is not biblical. When you put your faith & trust in Christ as your Saviour & what He did on your behalf then you become born again. An infant does not put their faith in Christ. I was baptized as a baby but my whole life I lived in horrible sin untill 3 years ago when I finally saw my need for a Saviour & I made a decision to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour. That's when I got born again. No baby ever got born again though baptism because they had no say in the matter. The bible tells you how to get born again & it's not infant baptism. The Catholic Church made that up along with a whole bunch of other false teachings. Mary was not sinless by the way. The bible says that ALL have sinned and also Mary called God her Saviour so if she was sinless she wouldn't have needed a Saviour. Only sinners need a saviour.

You are mistaken in denying salvation to baptized infants-- and frankly pretty presumptuous. There is Holy-Spirit-Inspired-Instruction from the oldest Christian Church. Here it is from the Catholic Catechism:

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

Faith and Baptism

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life. Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium). The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
I did not become born again as an infant. That is not biblical. When you put your faith & trust in Christ as your Saviour & what He did on your behalf then you become born again. An infant does not put their faith in Christ. I was baptized as a baby but my whole life I lived in horrible sin untill 3 years ago when I finally saw my need for a Saviour & I made a decision to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour. That's when I got born again. No baby ever got born again though baptism because they had no say in the matter. The bible tells you how to get born again & it's not infant baptism. The Catholic Church made that up along with a whole bunch of other false teachings. Mary was not sinless by the way. The bible says that ALL have sinned and also Mary called God her Saviour so if she was sinless she wouldn't have needed a Saviour. Only sinners need a saviour.
Well. I was going to respond with some of the Bible verses below, but Kepha et al. stole my thunder. But let me ask you a question. You seem to think that an infant is incapable of being born again, because an infant lacks sufficient mental capacity to make an act of faith. Do you believe that you deserve God's grace more than an infant or an adult who is mentally incapacitated, because you made an act of faith and they did not?

Does ALL include each and every human being who has ever lived? How about Jesus? Did Jesus sin? How about babies who die in their infancy? What sins did they commit? How about people who are mentally incapable of determining right from wrong? What sins do they commit?

Jesus most certainly did save Mary. Jesus saved Mary from the stain of Adam's original sin, and from the slavery of sins that she would have committed had Jesus not given her a special grace to avoid them.

By the way, it is awesome that you turned away from sin accepted Jesus as your lord and savior.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
So, if what I have "is not" the bible. What do I have. What is the whole of the Christian faith studying and relying on, as "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"
http://biblehub.com/greek/1343.htm
It is red pill time, Neo.

The Easter Bunny is not real.
The tooth fairy did not leave a dollar under your pillow, it was one of your parents.
Elvis is dead.
And we do not have true copies of the original New Testament writings.

Let's take Matthew 20:16 as a simple example.
Here is the King James version: "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
And here is the NIV: “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Why is it that the KJV states "for many be called, but few chosen" but the NIV completely omits this text? The answer, of course, is that the KJV is based off of one Greek manuscript, and the NIV is based off of a different Greek manuscript, and the manuscripts contain different text.

There are thousands of manuscripts, and none of them are identical. There are hundreds of variants. You may not like that, but that is simply the fact of the matter. You can find a list of them on Wikipedia, and you can almost as easily find digital copies of many of the manuscripts online, if you want to compare the differences in the Greek yourself.

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia
Textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

So, to answer your question, a committee of scholars got together, compared and contrasted the thousands of manuscripts in existence, after which they made their best guess as to what the text of the original inspired writings stated, and made a compilation of the Greek manuscripts (such as the Novum Testamentum Graece), and then translated that complied text into the English Bible that is sitting on your shelf today. That is what you have.

It is hardly my "private" interpretation. It is also, hardly the translation of a copy of a copy of a copy.
The scribes, if you study the history, were meticulous, when it came to the writing from the original manuscripts. If a mistake was made, the scroll was destroyed.
I am sorry friend. But that simply is not true. No two Greek NT manuscripts that are in existence are identical. They can't all be a true copy of the original writings, if they all contain different text now can they?

The scribes certainly were meticulous. They did a great job. But unfortunately for your argument, the scribes were Catholic, and they all included the 7 Books in the Bibles that they copied, and which you now reject.

Even the discovery of the dead sea scrolls put this fallacy to bed when the parchments matched, exactly, to what we have today for the books they contained.
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain a single line of the New Testament. They don't help you there.

Your argument was that of the atheistic scholars who were hoping and praying that the dead sea scrolls would destroy the continuity of the Bible.............
The facts are the facts, and because Catholics have the truth, there is no particular reason for us to deny or be afraid of the facts.

There certainly is a great deal of continuity in the Bible manuscripts. That is because the Bible was entrusted to the preservation of the Catholic Church, which certainly did a find job of preserving Sacred Scripture throughout the centuries. In the areas where the manuscripts disagree, it is no particular problem for us, because we have a 2000 year tradition that ensures us that the Bible will be interpreted correctly, regardless of whether one manuscript says A and another manuscript says B. And we have the Holy Spirit, who prevents the Pope from binding an erroneous interpretation of Scripture on the Church.

You do not have all of that to rely on. What you have is a translation, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of the original inspired writings. You have no tradition to prevent you from interpreting your translation incorrectly, and you are not infallible. That is why another poster on this tread denies the Trinity. And that is why you are on shaky ground.

Have a nice night.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Immaculate Conception, that she was preserved by her Son from the stain of original sin.

I believe that she is the Mother of God.

Then who is the father of God? And I'm not being a smart *** if it's taken that way, seems a fair question.

Honestly, that doesn't seem biblical at all, but maybe I can understand some of it.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,117
72
✟362,391.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Luther began the process of leaving the Church in 1517 when he posted the 95 theses. He wasn't excommunicated until January 3, 1521.

So? Catholics seem to believe that Luther and Luther alone was responsible for the entire Reformation. In actual, fact, there were many Reformers prior to Luther and many who were contemporaries of Luther and, of course, many who came later. To stereotype Luther and the source of the Reformation gives him far more credit (or blame) than he justly deserves. It is like my saying that the Council of Trent is Catholicism.
 
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

PollyJetix

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2017
1,128
1,241
Virginia
✟35,433.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Within the Roman Catholics, there is a wide variety of views. Official doctrine is one thing. But how people live out that doctrine may something a bit different.
Even Pope John Paul II seemed to be a bit further into "Mariolatry" then what official doctrine promoted.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,117
72
✟362,391.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Within the Roman Catholics, there is a wide variety of views. Official doctrine is one thing. But how people live out that doctrine may something a bit different.
Even Pope John Paul II seemed to be a bit further into "Mariolatry" then what official doctrine promoted.

Quite true. I find it amusing when I encounter many Catholics who perceive themselves as pillars of an unchanging church, but cannot agree on really basic doctrines such as Purgatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
It's not whether the church or members have 'given her the status'. It's whether they treat her, de facto, as one would treat a goddess. Not saying that the answer is one way or the other, but that's the real issue.
Sure. There is no absolute answer, but one side is saying that they are concerned that Mary is treated as though she were a goddess, while the other is saying that they know better, that she is NOT thought by them to be a goddess.

Do you notice that the second group does not actually address the concern? It's not that any church has proclaimed her to BE a goddess; it's that members treat her as though she were one.

So what's the answer? First, I hope that there's no question that to treat Mary as though she were a goddess is wrong, regardless of what one states when asked. OK?

What proves--if anything--that a wrongful attitude exists with regard to Mary? It's not that she is to be honored as the birthgiver of Our Lord, or that she is regarded as a saint. But how do people approach or treat her? Well, they attribute to her the power to dispense grace and favors on behalf of God. They believe that she can insure that the person praying to her, if certain conditions are met, will not die without a last chance to repent of their sins and be saved. Many consider her to be the co-redeemer, with Jesus, of mankind. And much more in that vein. They are obviously not just honoring her.

But are they treating or looking upon her or acting in the manner that one would if dealing with a goddess? That's the issue.

It's entirely subjective. Certain truculent-fundamentalist types prefer to view our veneration of Mary as de facto, idol worship. It's that simple.

Although I have myself complained about excessive talk about Mary, seemingly, at the expense, as it were, of Jesus. But Jesus and Our Lady encourage it, our Lady by the love she shows and the help she gives to those who look to her as their spiritual mother. An example is the Memorare :

The Memorare – A prayer for help from our Blessed Mother
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
Quite true. I find it amusing when I encounter many Catholics who perceive themselves as pillars of an unchanging church, but cannot agree on really basic doctrines such as Purgatory.

... and you obviate that we problem by not believing in it, despite the words of scripture concerning 'cleansing, as if by fire'?
 
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

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's entirely subjective. Certain truculent-fundamentalist types prefer to view our veneration of Mary as de facto, idol worship. It's that simple.
Personally, I haven't very often heard excessive Marian devotions denounced as idol worship. What I do hear is what I took some care to explain in my earlier post, and I know it to be true. It's not that every church member engages in it, but the church itself encourages such devotions and many people do think they're proper.

But Jesus and Our Lady encourage it
Now you're using the mythology to defend itself. That doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.