- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
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.
But we have solid physical evidence of the seven heads of John the Baptist. So, does that make it more believable than something without any evidence?
I find myself a bit frusustrated over all the theological stuff. You know, the denominations, movements, cannons and all that. Its like trying to go out on Christmas Eve to buy a gallon of milk. You just need some milk but you end up finding yourself in a chaotic envoronment of traffic jams, people running around everywhere trying to get all this stuff and you end up frustrated and tired, and now you need a bottle of aspirin too.
However then i remember what James said, he said be a doer of the word. I dont need the Christmas headache and the bottle of aspirin, i just need the milk.
Actually, that wasn't my argument. There is precedent for God creating human beings without sin. That's very logical. We know from extraneous writings about Mary's childhood, and it was believed early on. We have evidence, but you discount it, so there it is. We believe there is evidence, we believe the evidence, and we make the assertion. There is precedence in the Bible for God creating humans without sin, so there is rationale for it.
Adam & Eve did not have to sin-they chose to. God would not command anyone to do something they were incapable of doing, then blame and punish them for not doing it. He'd be the author of their disobedience in that case, the creator of evil.No, not from extraneous writings, but gnostic apocryphal writings. Writings rejected as pure nonsense. Yes God created 2 sinless beings. Then they sinned. Even starting perfectly, in perfect surroundings, they couldn't keep from sinning. Why would Mary be different? What would the purpose be? Why would got contradict His own word for a single person when it makes no difference?
No, not from extraneous writings, but gnostic apocryphal writings. Writings rejected as pure nonsense. Yes God created 2 sinless beings. Then they sinned. Even starting perfectly, in perfect surroundings, they couldn't keep from sinning. Why would Mary be different? What would the purpose be? Why would got contradict His own word for a single person when it makes no difference?
Simply put, I don't share your's or souldier's frustrations. That's the confidence in Christ that comes from being Catholic.
Rejected by you, perhaps, but they're not gnostic at all. Apocryphal, sure. But we don't limit the word of God to just what's in Scripture. God speaks as well as writes.
Why? What purpose? To contain the Son of God in her womb, nothing more. God didn't contradict his own word. He made humans sinless, they decided to say no to God. Mary was also made sinless (otherwise, why the title "full of grace"?) and said yes to God.
But if Mary could be sinless without the Cross, why did Jesus go to the Cross?
But if Mary could be sinless without the Cross, why did Jesus go to the Cross?
That sounds like an advertisement to me. Wasn't St. Therese of Calcutta frustrated at times?
Nope. Mary had and used free will. (It's also free will to say no to sin!) And by your logic, Jesus also sinned. But we know certain people even today are incapable of sin. Babies, for example, cannot sin.Wow round and round we go on the eisegesis wheel. First, Adam and Eve's fall was no surprise to God. As I've already pointed out, even under the most perfect of circumstances they could not refrain from sin. So unless you're calling Marry a robot, with no free will, she would still fall under the biblical principle laid out by Paul that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
You still haven't made your connection beyond simple assertion. God the Son needed to come to the world in flesh, as Jesus of Nazareth. Why did Mary therefore not only have to be born sinless, and then remain so forever? Where is that written? Why have her declare God as her saviour if she was always sinless? Why not simply create a sinless person and keep him sinless to die on the cross rather than Jesus? You have yet to provide biblical evidence for your dogma, aside from a previously debunked greeting.
Yes, so? We all get frustrated. Many times over different things. souldier is frustrated about theology. I might be frustrated over my weight. So?
Who says Mary was sinless without the Cross?
God is outside of time. God can apply Christ's saving power to Mary.God created her before Jesus' death and resurrection.
...so being Catholic does not preclude being frustrated.
By your last statement, you understand that faith without works is dead, then?
By the way, the chaos is outside of the Catholic, Orthodox, etc.-the Apostolic Churches. I suspect even within a Protestant denomination. It's when you compare and contrast, and agree or disagree with what one of them teaches.
When I need to have a faith question answered, I know just where to go, and it's not asking someone else's opinion.
Who says Mary was sinless without the Cross?
Who says Mary was sinless??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?