Mary without original sin?

LetsBeLogical · May 25, 2004

ukok said:
the first thing that springs to mind is this:

Phi 2:8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

Jesus was obedient and did humble Himself, not for the need of Himself, but for the need of others. Jesus was obedient to the law because He was God made Man and lived as Man. Jesus not only honoured the law, but He obeyed the law and then He taught the law. Are you suggesting that Christ did not obey the requirements of the law fully or are we agreeing that he did?

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:

Gal 4:5 That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Jesus was born under Jewish law and was therefore subjected to all it's ordinances...Jesus kept both moral and ceremonial law, where does it say in the Bible that He didn't?..if in fact you are suggesting that He didn't.

I don't understand what the point of this question is, you ask if Jesus obeyed Jewish law. Had you asked that originally i would have answered you, but you beat around the bush asking about sacrifices and such.

so where does this take us....you are proving my point...Jesus obeyed the law and so did Mary His mother, both were without sin., Not equal to one another, but without sin nonetheless. this is what i have stated previously. How does Jesus obeying Jewish Law expose an untruth in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; in so far as you suggest that Mary's adherence to Jewish Law reveals her sinful nature ?

Ukok

Are you serious? Where in scripture do we find Jesus offering a sin offering? There is no way around it. Mary offered a sin offering for herself. If she was sinless then there would be no need for it. You wondered what would happen to Mary if she didnt, well think about what happened when Jesus was accused of breaking the LAW. The same thing would have happened to Mary. However, you are overlooking the fact that if you were not guilty of something under the law then you didnt have to do anything about it. If that was the case Mary would have had to do many unnecessary things just to show humility and obedience. Why obey a law requiring something of you that you havent violated to begin with? The problem with this is that you believe in a tradition that flat out contradicts the scriptures. Jesus warned about mens traditions and yet it seems Catholicism is full of them for example, Mary being without original sin, her being taking body and soul into heaven, Mary remaining a virgin, etc... all of which contradict scriptures.

LetsBeLogical²

ukok · May 25, 2004

LBL, the traditions that you refer to are the traditions of the Pharisees and Saduccess, nothing to do with the Tradition of the church.

you once again have entirely missed the point. Are you then suggesting that Jesus did not obey the law. i am going to be truthful with you, i find your posts extremely unorthodox. you have no church and yet you claim to be an authoirity of some sort, having merely studied the hebrew and greek personally. there are no contradictions in Scripture of Mary remaining a virgin, since you know so much about greek and hebrew you will know that the word for brothers and sisters is the same word for cousin...you conclude that she did not remain a virgin on that! there are Scriptures that suggest that Jesus was an only child... will you ignore them too, the same as you ignore all the scripture that is posted here...here, i have a challenge fo you for a change...

find scripture that proves that Mary did not remain a virgin

that proves that she was not assumed into heaven

that expressly states that she was sinful and in need of making sacrifices

that states that she was born sinful

explain why Jesus was circumcised and obeyed the jewish law and that Mary though sinless also should not have done...

Explain to me how you say you tend to J.W'ism but that you don't hold with Tradition..they claim to be Tradition, the only guiding light of the World...how did they become acceptable Tradition and yet the One Tradition that began when Peter gave the Keys of the kingdom of heaven to him, is not ?

Did Charles Taze Russell for example have a conversation with the Son of God...Was he told to feed His Sheep?

who were Apostles and what was the Church that Jesus refers to so frequently....did the Apostles go out and start different churches with different beliefs ?

why were they given the Authority that Christ bestowed upon them?

Why are you so anti Tradition, is it their authority that you can't handle?

you knock Catholicism all you like, you want to get your own house in order before you make wild accusations about falsehood....you don't appear to know what you yourself believe about anything, you only seem to know that you don't like the Catholic Church !

you are not an authority on Scripture and nor are you an authority on the Catholic Church, you can disagree all you want, but when i post Scriptural support for our beliefs you just blatantly ignore it and move on to something else..or else completely misinterpret it, rather than prove your knowledgeability it clarifies your lack of it...there are numerous questions that i have asked you in this thread and others, that have not been answered, i have been tolerant in the extreme and to be honest, if you aren't prepared to even stop for a moment and think about what each passage of Scripture is saying then i don't know if there is much point to this.

whenever you read something that you don't like, you discard it, malign it, missinterpret it, take it ourt of context and accuse me of evasion. you are the one with the smoke screens. you don't state your beliefs, i don't even know if i'm talking to a Christian or not, if i am, what kind of christian are you, what exactly do you believe. you argued the J.,W corner for long enough in the other thread, and yet you won't even commit to them!

Perhaps it is time that you explained exactly what you believe rather than set yourself up as an authority on just about everything biblical.

you are well aware by now, that if you wanted me to go one mile with my posts, i went two...but this charade has gone on for long enough i think.

LetsBeLogical · May 25, 2004

Ukok

I think you have basically stuck your foot in your mouth on this post and I will show you why right now.

LBL, the traditions that you refer to are the traditions of the Pharisees and Saduccess, nothing to do with the Tradition of the church.

Yes I know, and that is why later on Paul also warned about traditions of men. If the tradition is going against what scripture says then we have a problem dont we?

you once again have entirely missed the point. Are you then suggesting that Jesus did not obey the law.

Of course he obeyed the law, but since he was sinless did that mean he still had to offer a sacrifice for sins? Nope. Since he was sinless that meant that according to the law there was no need for him to offer a sacrifice. Hence, your "humility and obedience" thing about Mary makes no sense whatsoever if she was without sin.

I am going to be truthful with you, i find your posts extremely unorthodox. you have no church and yet you claim to be an authoirity of some sort, having merely studied the hebrew and greek personally.

Uh oh. You said I studied those languages personally and thats a big "no-no". You see I have studied on my own but I have also studied in online classes as well as coming from a hebrew speaking family. I will forgive your assumption.

there are no contradictions in Scripture of Mary remaining a virgin, since you know so much about greek and hebrew you will know that the word for brothers and sisters is the same word for cousin...you conclude that she did not remain a virgin on that! there are Scriptures that suggest that Jesus was an only child... will you ignore them too, the same as you ignore all the scripture that is posted here...here, i have a challenge fo you for a change...

find scripture that proves that Mary did not remain a virgin

I would be more than happy to prove this. I just hope you will not sidestep this scripture as you have done others in the past. Here we go.

Matthew 1: 24,25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

Tell me ukok what does "knew her not TILL she brought forth her firstborn son" mean? Also if Jesus is the only child then why is he called the "firstborn son". Are others in the scriptures called firstborns if no one else came after them? You arent firstborn unless another is born after you yes?

Luke 2:43,44 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance

Now heres a big problem. What do you think the company was that they thought Jesus was in? How could they assume he was with them if he was an only child? Makes no sense does it?

Here is the problem with Jesus siblings being only his cousins. Lets read the account of his "mother and brethren".

Matthew 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

So now lets translate this the way you say so that it reads "Who is my mother? And who are my cousins? Sounds good so far yes?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Lets do the same here. "Behold my mother and my cousins"

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother

Now finally the same here. "the same is my cousin, and cousin, and mother". I dont know about you but that would sound a little silly. Yes there is a difference there between aldelpho and aldephe (male and female) but since he covered them all with one word why not keep that going in the last statement? Wouldnt he have said "the same is my cousin and mother" since everyother verse says that?

that proves that she was not assumed into heaven

Have you ever heard that you "cant" prove a negative? Since there is no mention of Mary except very briefly after Jesus death and ressurection (which is strange considering how important you make her to be) then it doesnt say. However, we do know that flesh and blood cant inherit Gods kingdom and if Mary went body and soul into heaven then of course someone is lying. Either the bible or the people that "made up" something they have no proof of. Which is it?

that expressly states that she was sinful and in need of making sacrifices

I already quoted the text that shows she made a sin offering although you refuse to accept it. However, I dont see any exceptions when the bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Also Romans 5:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". I dont see it showing any exceptions for Mary. Infact, why is she not mentioned any longer after Jesus ascention to heaven? Seems odd doesnt it?

that states that she was born sinful

Explained that above

Will finish in a little while. Have to finish my work here at work.

LetsBeLogical²

LetsBeLogical · May 25, 2004

continued..........

explain why Jesus was circumcised and obeyed the jewish law and that Mary though sinless also should not have done...

Already explained this in above post.

Explain to me how you say you tend to J.W'ism but that you don't hold with Tradition..they claim to be Tradition, the only guiding light of the World...how did they become acceptable Tradition and yet the One Tradition that began when Peter gave the Keys of the kingdom of heaven to him, is not ?

Can the pope really claim to be a decendant of Peter? No he cant. As far as my JWism, I stated that I tend to agree with them more than others yes. Does this mean I accept everything they teach? Probably not but its a possibility as I will need to examine their beliefs alittle deeper.

Did Charles Taze Russell for example have a conversation with the Son of God...Was he told to feed His Sheep?

Not sure but I highly doubt Jesus himself spoke to anyone after the original apostles died.

who were Apostles and what was the Church that Jesus refers to so frequently....did the Apostles go out and start different churches with different beliefs ?

Actually they had different "congregations" and we know that some of them were leaning towards different beliefs and thats why Paul wrote them letters to make sure they were staying on track. Funny you should mention this though, since I cant seem to find catholics that agree on everything biblical.

why were they given the Authority that Christ bestowed upon them?

They were his followers and also joint heirs of the kingdom of God. They were to spread the word which is what they did.

Why are you so anti Tradition, is it their authority that you can't handle?

Im not anti-tradition. Im anti-tradition-that-doesnt-agree-with-scriptures. Thats where the real problem is. If we have traditions that go against scripture then shouldnt that tell us that the tradition is wrong?

you knock Catholicism all you like, you want to get your own house in order before you make wild accusations about falsehood....you don't appear to know what you yourself believe about anything, you only seem to know that you don't like the Catholic Church !

Actually I know what I believe but I always take my studies deeper and question myself to make sure that what I am believing is in line with the scripture. Regarding the Catholic Church, you are right in that I dont agree with many things they teach which are plainly not biblical. I will name a few for you: Mary being without sin and went to heaven in body and soul, Mary remained a virgin, Purgatory, praying to Saints, calling earthly men who are not biologically our father "father", saying repetitious prayers actually does something, the pope is a decendant of Peter, used to be that priests must remain celebate, etc..... I get tired typing of all that

you are not an authority on Scripture and nor are you an authority on the Catholic Church, you can disagree all you want, but when i post Scriptural support for our beliefs you just blatantly ignore it and move on to something else..or else completely misinterpret it, rather than prove your knowledgeability it clarifies your lack of it

Oh really? Shall we go back and see these "proof scriptures" you used in this thread and how I ignored them? How about in our other thread inwhich you nicely walked completely around my post in response to your "proof" scriptures? I have never claimed to be the authority on Scripture nor on the Catholic Church. I dont have to be. The scriptures speak for themselves and its obvious they dont speak too well with the teachings of Catholicism.

...there are numerous questions that i have asked you in this thread and others, that have not been answered, i have been tolerant in the extreme and to be honest, if you aren't prepared to even stop for a moment and think about what each passage of Scripture is saying then i don't know if there is much point to this.

I must have missed them. Please do repost them and I will happily answer them. However, I think you should listen to your own advise here : if you aren't prepared to even stop for a moment and think about what each passage of Scripture is saying then i don't know if there is much point to this. This has been my point exactly. Im glad you are going to stop and think now about the scriptures I have brought up as I always think about the ones posted to me.

whenever you read something that you don't like, you discard it, malign it, missinterpret it, take it ourt of context and accuse me of evasion. you are the one with the smoke screens.

What have I discarded? What have I missinterpreted or taken out of context? Give me examples. I accuse you of evasion because you have done so. Not only here but in our other thread.

you don't state your beliefs, i don't even know if i'm talking to a Christian or not, if i am, what kind of christian are you, what exactly do you believe. you argued the J.,W corner for long enough in the other thread, and yet you won't even commit to them!

I have stated my beliefs numerous times just maybe you havent read them? I would definitely say I am a Christian. You obviously can see what I believe by what I post about. I havent argued in anyones "corner". It just happens that when it comes to the trinity and stuff like this I am in agreement with JWs but guess what? So are other people who arent JW's.

Perhaps it is time that you explained exactly what you believe rather than set yourself up as an authority on just about everything biblical.

I dont know of any person on here that has went through and explained every single thing they believe. However, I have explained my beliefs on different subjects. As you can see I dont hold to many Catholic beliefs and Im sure many other "orthodox" christians do not either but they just wont say anything. Tell me, are Protestants christians? Why are they different from Catholics? I find it interesting that your beliefs are very different than Protestants and yet you still consider them christian as long as they believe in the trinity. How funny is that?

you are well aware by now, that if you wanted me to go one mile with my posts, i went two...but this charade has gone on for long enough i think

No charades here my friend. I like to think that I am pretty straight forward. I have supported my position with scripture and common sense. You have a right to disagree, but please dont make "assumptions" nor say things that I myself have not stated, such as being an "authority on scriptures".

LetsBeLogical²

Axion · May 25, 2004

LetsBeLogical said:
Matthew 1: 24,25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

Tell me ukok what does "knew her not TILL she brought forth her firstborn son" mean?

Well. Let's compare the way that "until" is used in some other biblical verses:

Matt 28.20: "..and surely I am with you always, until the end of the age."

John 21.22: Jesus answered. "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

2 Sam 6.23: "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day."

In all these examples, the word "until" does not mean that Jesus will cease to be with us after the end of the age, that John was intended to die should he still be alive when Jesus returned, or that Michol had a son after death. The word "until" shows that the writer is concerned to inform us what happens before a specific event - not after.

Also if Jesus is the only child then why is he called the "firstborn son". Are others in the scriptures called firstborns if no one else came after them? You arent firstborn unless another is born after you yes?

To quote John Calvin on this very point:
Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562

Luke 2:43,44 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance

Now heres a big problem. What do you think the company was that they thought Jesus was in? How could they assume he was with them if he was an only child? Makes no sense does it?

Makes perfect sense. Jesus's ENTIRE FAMILY went to Jerusalem for the Passover, in Luke 2.44. Mary, Joseph, Jesus and RELATIVES and friends. Although these relatives and friends are mentioned, there is no mention of any other children. Since Jesus was twelve at the time, and if we take references to "brothers and sisters" of Jesus to be Mary's children, then Mary, must have had at least SEVEN other surviving children apart from Jesus! (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time) Surely at least one or two of them should have been mentioned here?

And are we to believe that both Mary AND Joseph abandoned these other extremely young children to go back to Jerusalem (a days journey through bandit-filled country) and search for Jesus for three days? If Mary had had other young children it is extremely unlikely she would have abandoned them. So not only are no other children mentioned, but neither Mary or Joseph ACT is if they had any other children.

Here is the problem with Jesus siblings being only his cousins. Lets read the account of his "mother and brethren".

Matthew 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

So now lets translate this the way you say so that it reads "Who is my mother? And who are my cousins? Sounds good so far yes?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Lets do the same here. "Behold my mother and my cousins"

Ha Ha! Total nonsense, and based on a misunderstanding of language. The Aramaic word, commonly translated "brother" in English, does not mean specifically "cousin" either. It means "close kinsman". So jesus said "Behold my mother and my kinsmen."

Since there is no mention of Mary except very briefly after Jesus death and ressurection (which is strange considering how important you make her to be) then it doesnt say.

Read Revelation Ch 12. There you will see Mary Assumed in Heaven.

However, we do know that flesh and blood cant inherit Gods kingdom and if Mary went body and soul into heaven then of course someone is lying. Either the bible or the people that "made up" something they have no proof of. Which is it?

?????

Have you heard about Enoch? Have you heard about Elijah? They were both taken bodily into heaven. Is that a lie? Heard about the bodily resurrection? Jesus's bodily Ascension into heaven. You must know about that!

I already quoted the text that shows she made a sin offering although you refuse to accept it. However, I dont see any exceptions when the bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Also Romans 5:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". I dont see it showing any exceptions for Mary. Infact, why is she not mentioned any longer after Jesus ascention to heaven? Seems odd doesnt it?

This is another old chestnut.

The word used for ALL in this passage (Greek PAS), is widely used in the new Testament, and does not have the meaning that you want to ascribe to it. PAS does not mean "All - 100%, no exceptions". It is a looser, rhetorical word.

John 12:19, "All (pas) the world has gone after him!" Did everyone in the entire world really go after Christ?

Mt 3:5-6, "Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and ALL (PAS) Judea, and ALL (PAS) the region about the Jordan; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins."
Were all of the people of Judea, and the region about the Jordan baptized?

Luke 2:1 "And an order went out from Caesar Augustus that ALL (PAS) the world should be counted."
Was everyone in the whole world counted?

Unless PAS means "All - 100% without exceptions", which it clearly does not, its use in Romans cannot be used as an argument against the sinlessness of Mary.

LBL · May 25, 2004

Well. Let's compare the way that "until" is used in some other biblical verses:

Matt 28.20: "..and surely I am with you always, until the end of the age."

John 21.22: Jesus answered. "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

2 Sam 6.23: "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day."

In all these examples, the word "until" does not mean that Jesus will cease to be with us after the end of the age, that John was intended to die should he still be alive when Jesus returned, or that Michol had a son after death. The word "until" shows that the writer is concerned to inform us what happens before a specific event - not after.

No kidding. However, you completely failed to answer my question. What does it mean that "he knew her not till". Is it the same "knew" that Adam and Eve done to produce offspring? Of course it was. That scripture makes it plain that Joseph did not have "relations" with Mary until after Jesus was born. No way around it friend.

To quote John Calvin on this very point:
Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562

Of course it NAMES the firstborn but you fail to get the point. You are not firstborn UNLESS one comes after you. In that case you are the only born or only child.

Makes perfect sense. Jesus's ENTIRE FAMILY went to Jerusalem for the Passover, in Luke 2.44. Mary, Joseph, Jesus and RELATIVES and friends. Although these relatives and friends are mentioned, there is no mention of any other children. Since Jesus was twelve at the time, and if we take references to "brothers and sisters" of Jesus to be Mary's children, then Mary, must have had at least SEVEN other surviving children apart from Jesus! (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time) Surely at least one or two of them should have been mentioned here?

Surely not since that wasnt what the story was centered around. However, since you take "brother and sister" to mean cousin I presume then please respond for ukok on my above post on that matter.

And are we to believe that both Mary AND Joseph abandoned these other extremely young children to go back to Jerusalem (a days journey through bandit-filled country) and search for Jesus for three days? If Mary had had other young children it is extremely unlikely she would have abandoned them. So not only are no other children mentioned, but neither Mary or Joseph ACT is if they had any other children

If as you say they had relatives and friends then of course it is very plausable that one of them could have watched the children or any number of possibilities.

Ha Ha! Total nonsense, and based on a misunderstanding of language. The Aramaic word, commonly translated "brother" in English, does not mean specifically "cousin" either. It means "close kinsman". So jesus said "Behold my mother and my kinsmen."

HAHA, you have no clue what you just said do you? What is the feminine word for "kinsmen". You didnt rebut my statement whatsoever.

Read Revelation Ch 12. There you will see Mary Assumed in Heaven

Now if this is referring to Mary then that means she was in heaven before Jesus was born. Is that the case? LOL

????? Have you heard about Enoch? Have you heard about Elijah? They were both taken bodily into heaven. Is that a lie? Heard about the bodily resurrection? Jesus's bodily Ascension into heaven. You must know about that!

Actually it doesnt say that Enoch was taken bodily to heaven. Elijah of course was taken into the heavens but later is said to have sent a letter to a king. They use notepads in heaven?

The word used for ALL in this passage (Greek PAS), is widely used in the new Testament, and does not have the meaning that you want to ascribe to it. PAS does not mean "All - 100%, no exceptions". It is a looser, rhetorical word.

John 12:19, "All (pas) the world has gone after him!" Did everyone in the entire world really go after Christ?

Mt 3:5-6, "Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and ALL (PAS) Judea, and ALL (PAS) the region about the Jordan; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins."
Were all of the people of Judea, and the region about the Jordan baptized?

Luke 2:1 "And an order went out from Caesar Augustus that ALL (PAS) the world should be counted."
Was everyone in the whole world counted?

Unless PAS means "All - 100% without exceptions", which it clearly does not, its use in Romans cannot be used as an argument against the sinlessness of Mary.

I am well aware of what PAS means. In fact you just proved the JWs point about the usage of the word. Congrats! However, you err in thinking that it can not mean ALL in totality. You see in the verse quoted it gives a range from Adam till the present and it used ALL which of course in a range of things would be totality. Check up on your greek a little more and you will see how true that is.

LBL

Toms777 · May 25, 2004

ukok said:
find scripture that proves that Mary did not remain a virgin

that proves that she was not assumed into heaven

that expressly states that she was sinful and in need of making sacrifices

that states that she was born sinful

Ukok,

What you have shown here, and I don't have time to go through each one, is how not to establish doctrine.

For example, you want people to prove that she did not do something or was not, but that is illogical. For example, prove to me from the Bible that you are not a 4000 pound woman with green skin and 6 eyes. You cannot so it must be true, right?

No, we must deal with what scripture does say, and it does say that all have sinned (Romans 3:23) with the sole exception of Jesus (Heb 4:15), and She herself said that she needed a saviour (Luke 1:47).

We must go by what is said, not what is NOT said. using your approach, we could prove anything.

lared · May 26, 2004

LetsBeLogical said:
I find it interesting that your beliefs are very different than Protestants and yet you still consider them christian as long as they believe in the trinity. How funny is that?

LetsBeLogical²

LetsBeLogical......
That was a total crackup. ROFL
You have such an effective way of putting things.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. ^_^

Lared

LightBearer · May 26, 2004

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: The Greek words . . . that are used to designate the relationship between Jesus and these relatives have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelists time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense.

Additionaly, The New American Bible, a Catholic translation, admits in the footnote on Mark 6:1-6, regarding Jesus brothers and sisters, The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Marys perpetual virginity.

Just as Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees of his day, Human tradition once again invalidates the Word of God.
Matthew 15:6-9 And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.

Will they ever learn.

ukok · May 26, 2004

Post One

Peace be with you LBL

LBL

I think you have basically stuck your foot in your mouth on this post and I will show you why right now.

ukok

LBL, the traditions that you refer to are the traditions of the Pharisees and Saduccess, nothing to do with the Tradition of the church.

LBL responds:

Yes I know, and that is why later on Paul also warned about traditions of men. If the tradition is going against what scripture says then we have a problem dont we?

Let's further explore your misconceptions about the Catholic church, which is the Apostolic church the Sacred Tradition that you have such a problem with. I am not ignoring the rest of your post, i will get to it shortly, but your striking depth of misinterpretation needs dealing with first.

Obviously you have completely avoided paying the slightest attention to Scripture that i have posted again and again:

Please read through these Scriptures passage by passage and tell me what they are referrirng to if not the Early Church ; you are entitled to disagree with Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church, but at least give your reasoning against each individual passage posted below.

If you can show me (with Scriptural support that of course nullifies each passage -IN CONTEXT) that all of this has no meaning to support Tradition, then i will de-convert.

The Authoritive Church; (of which there was ONE)

Jesus Delegates ALL power to the Apostles Mathew 28;18-20

The Apostles are given Authority to forgive sins John 20;23

The Apostles have the Authority to offer Sacrifice ( the Eucharist) 1 corinthians 11:23-24

The Apostles have the power to speak with Christ's voice Luke 10;16

The Apostles have the Authority to legislate Matt 18:18

The Apostles have the Authority to discipline ; Mathew 18;17

The Apostolic Church (of which there is ONE)

Jesus chose his special 12 Apostles ; John 15;16

Jesus gave them a mission John 20;21

Jesus gave them a kingdom; Luke 22;29-30

Jesus built His Church on Peter Mathew 16;18

Peter appointed cheif Shepherd ; Luke 22;32 and John 21;17

the role of bishops, priests and Deacons, identified (the role is evident in the Catholic church today); 1Tim 3;1,8; 5;17

The Infallible (not sinless, but infallible Church)

The Church is guided by the Holy spirit into all truth John 16;13

The Holy Spirit wil teach them and remind them of everything John 24;26

The Church is the pillar and foundattion of Truth 1 Tim 3:15

the Apostles speak with the voice of the holy spirit ; Acts 15;28

I am with you always - Mathew 28;20

The annointing of the holy Spoirit remains with the Church ; 1 John 2;27

The Church is Perpetual (it never ceased to be)

God's Kingdom will stand for ever Dan 2;44 ( we already know that the keys to that kingdom are found with Peter Mathew 16; 19)

His Kingdom will not be destroyed Dan 7;14

Jesus is like a wise man who built his house upon the rock Mathew 7;24 ( the primacy of Peter is seen in Mathew 16;18..."upon this rock i will build my church"..Jesus refers to Peter)

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Christ's Church ; Mathew 18;16

Christ's government there will have no end Is 9;6-7

The Primacy of Peter

Mathew 16;18..upon this rock i will build my church

Mathew 16; 19 Peter is given the keys to the kingdom

Is 22;22 and Rev 1;18 Keys are symbolic of authority

Peter is given Christ's flock as he is the Cheif Shepherd John 21;17

Luke 24;34 the Risen Jesus appears first to Peter

Peter excommunicated the first heretic, simon Magnus ; Acts 8;21

Recieved the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church ; Acts 10;44-46

Led the first council in Jerusalem Acts 15;7

Pronounces the first Dogmatic decision ; Acts 15;19

After his conversion Paul visits the cheif Apostle ; Gal 1;18

Peter's name always comes first in all references to the Apostles; Mt 10;1-4, Mk 3;16-19, Luke 6;14-16, Acts 1;13

Peter Spoke for all the Apostles ; Mt 18;21, Mk 18;29, Luke 8;45, John 6;69

To crown it all, Peters name appears 195 times in the NT....that's more than all the other apostles put together!

Apostolic Succession;

Mal 2;7 - we are to seek instruction from the 'high priest', for he is God's messenger.

Another should take the office of Peter when the course of Peter's Primacy is at an end ; Acts 1;20, Psalm 109;8

Mathias takes over Juds Iscariot's Apostolic Ministry (the first example of Apostolic Succession) Acts 1:25-26

Presbyters in Churches ; Acts 14;23, In every town Titus 1:5

Entrust to Faithful Teachers what has been heard 2 Tim 2;2

the Church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets Ephesians 2;20

The Church is ONE ( not many splintering off as you seem to suggest)

John 10;16 tells us that there will be ONE fold with ONE shepherd ( and since Peter was the Shepherd that Jesus Chirst Himself asked to 'feed my sheep'..i don't see how you can reach a different conclusion)

There is ONE faith, ONE God and Father, ONE Lord, One Baptism - Ephesians 4;3-6

Warning to avoid those who create dissensions ; Romans 16;17

Message to be of ONE mind, united in heart, thinking ONE united thing; Phil 2;2

Ephesians 4;4 - One Body, One Spirit, ONE hope.

these are a small section of references that signify the very Tradition that you mock. There was and is One Teaching, One Church that has remained faithful...

now to re-post the Scripture that you ignored before;

Tradition

2 Thess 2;15 ; the command to keep to traditions not of the Saducees and Pharissees and Heretics, as you suggest, but of keeping the Traditions that had been taught them by Christ, the NEW traditions, the Oral traditions. Jesus didn';t contradict himself, he spoke one message, created one church and one teaching.

2 Thess 3;6 tells how the Church is to withdraw from those not acting in accordance with tradition...not to excommunicate which is a far more serious and formal sentence, but to withdraw.

1 corinthians 11;2 commends those who follow Apostolic tradition...Ordinances means traditions, and refers to the Apostolic writings or spoken word given to direct the Early church.

Now perhaps you would be so kind as to answer what all these passages refer to if not the early church and the Apostolic Succession, the Sacred Tradition...and also, tell me how... Quote " the tradition is going against what scripture says "end quote.

Please explain what tradition Paul was speaking against keeping...because the traditions of the Catholic church are not man made, but made by God. I can think of plenty of man-made religions that are not founded in the Apostolic ministry, that were not granted the Authority of God. Jesus founded ONE Church, show me in scripture where he founded more than one church and gave authority to more than one church...

ukok · May 26, 2004

Post 2

Peace be with you LBL. I am going to make five separate posts as they are all quite lengthy. As will become apparnat, i have made a considerable effort to respond as fully as possible, i would also ask that from now on, any of my fellow Catholics may also respond as and when the whim takes them...i can not continue to dedicate so much time to one single thread from henceforth. Particularly when it isn't appreciated anyway and you have a tendency to make light of what i post and the Catholic Faith. I also ask that if you are Christian, as you say you are, that you come to OBOB to ask all future questions pertaining to the Catholic Faith.

ukok;

you once again have entirely missed the point. Are you then suggesting that Jesus did not obey the law.

LBL ;

Of course he obeyed the law, but since he was sinless did that mean he still had to offer a sacrifice for sins? Nope. Since he was sinless that meant that according to the law there was no need for him to offer a sacrifice. Hence, your "humility and obedience" thing about Mary makes no sense whatsoever if she was without sin.

'Had to', doesn't even enter the equation. He was either obedient to the law or he was not, evidently He was.

CCC;

527 Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth,209 is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the LawHYPERLINK \l "$KM"210 and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that "circumcision of Christ" which is Baptism.211

529 The presentation of Jesus in the temple shows him to be the firstborn Son who belongs to the Lord.216 With Simeon and Anna, all Israel awaits its encounter with the Saviour - the name given to this event in the Byzantine tradition. Jesus is recognized as the long-expected Messiah, the "light to the nations" and the "glory of Israel", but also "a sign that is spoken against". the sword of sorrow predicted for Mary announces Christ's perfect and unique oblation on the cross that will impart the salvation God had "prepared in the presence of all peoples".

534 The finding of Jesus in the temple is the only event that breaks the silence of the Gospels about the hidden years of Jesus.226 Here Jesus lets us catch a glimpse of the mystery of his total consecration to a mission that flows from his divine sonship: "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's work?"227 Mary and Joseph did not understand these words, but they accepted them in faith. Mary "kept all these things in her heart" during the years Jesus remained hidden in the silence of an ordinary life.

520 In all of his life Jesus presents himself as our model. He is "the perfect man

...Just as Christ was obedient to the Old Law, we are to be obedient to the New Law.

ukok;

I am going to be truthful with you, i find your posts extremely unorthodox. you have no church and yet you claim to be an authoirity of some sort, having merely studied the hebrew and greek personally.

LBL;

Uh oh. You said I studied those languages personally and thats a big "no-no". You see I have studied on my own but I have also studied in online classes as well as coming from a hebrew speaking family. I will forgive your assumption.

Doh! silly me! let's look at what you claimed about your education of hebrew and greek;

QUOTE;LBL: wrote ;

Since you know nothing of my background I would think making a statement as "since I would imagine that neither of us is either a Biblical nor Gramatical Scholar" would be an ignorant statement. The truth of the matter is that I have been studying biblical greek and hebrew grammar for about 10 years now. Do I have a piece of paper that says I am a scholar? No, but what is funny is the ones that do dont seem to agree with eachother. Now on to the scripture...

Preverbial means "before the verb" which in John 1:1c is "was". A predicate nominative is the noun or pronoun that normally marks the subject of a verb. In the case of John 1:1c "theos" or "god" as it is translated comes before the verb even though translators place it after the verb in english translations. So to summarize "theos" in John 1:1c is "the preverbial predicate nominative". Any "real" scholars that wish to comment on that please do so (lol). Now my question to you is "Is theos in John 1:1c definite or indefinite? Being a noun it has to be one or the other unless you are going to say it is qualitative (which of course would mean that translators that translate it "the word was God" would have it completely wrong). END QUOTE

You claim to come from a Hebrew speaking family and you have been studying online and you seriously believe that the closest interpretation to the Original Scriptures, is the New World Translation!

Please don't attempt to insinuate that you need to forgive my assumption, you are setting yourself up as some kind of authority..you claim to come from a Hebrew speaking family, you claim to have studied online, you claim to have studied personally since you were 16 years old....and then you say that i am making assumptions..a whiff of irony in here if i'm not mistaken.

ukok

there are no contradictions in Scripture of Mary remaining a virgin, since you know so much about greek and hebrew you will know that the word for brothers and sisters is the same word for cousin...you conclude that she did not remain a virgin on that! there are Scriptures that suggest that Jesus was an only child... will you ignore them too, the same as you ignore all the scripture that is posted here...here, i have a challenge fo you for a change...

find scripture that proves that Mary did not remain a virgin

LBL;

I would be more than happy to prove this. I just hope you will not sidestep this scripture as you have done others in the past. Here we go.

Matthew 1: 24,25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

Tell me ukok what does "knew her not TILL she brought forth her firstborn son" mean? Also if Jesus is the only child then why is he called the "firstborn son". Are others in the scriptures called firstborns if no one else came after them? You arent firstborn unless another is born after you yes?

Luke 2:43,44 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance

Now heres a big problem. What do you think the company was that they thought Jesus was in? How could they assume he was with them if he was an only child? Makes no sense does it?

Here is the problem with Jesus siblings being only his cousins. Lets read the account of his "mother and brethren".

Matthew 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

So now lets translate this the way you say so that it reads "Who is my mother? And who are my cousins? Sounds good so far yes?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Lets do the same here. "Behold my mother and my cousins"

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother

Now finally the same here. "the same is my cousin, and cousin, and mother". I dont know about you but that would sound a little silly. Yes there is a difference there between aldelpho and aldephe (male and female) but since he covered them all with one word why not keep that going in the last statement? Wouldnt he have said "the same is my cousin and mother" since everyother verse says that?

This has, i notice been sufficiently dealt with by Axion, thankyou Axion

And i was in error in infering that it specifically tranlates to 'cousin' but i was pushed for time and hadn't time to go into it further..beside which Axion has done a far beter job explaining it than i could have!

that proves that she was not assumed into heaven

Have you ever heard that you "cant" prove a negative? Since there is no mention of Mary except very briefly after Jesus death and ressurection (which is strange considering how important you make her to be) then it doesnt say. However, we do know that flesh and blood cant inherit Gods kingdom and if Mary went body and soul into heaven then of course someone is lying. Either the bible or the people that "made up" something they have no proof of. Which is it?

I believe that i have in previous posts referred you to flesh and blood being assumed into heaven, in the form of Elijah and Enoch..did you miss those Scripture passages i posted a few posts ago? Convenient! Oh, i notice Axion has mentioned this also! thankyou for reiterating this point Axion, our friend seems to have missed this!

ukok

that expressly states that she was sinful and in need of making sacrifices

LBL

I already quoted the text that shows she made a sin offering although you refuse to accept it. However, I dont see any exceptions when the bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Also Romans 5:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that

all have sinned". I dont see it showing any exceptions for Mary. Infact, why is she not mentioned any longer after Jesus ascention to heaven? Seems odd doesnt it?

since you claim to know quite a lot about the correct interpretation of the Bible, you should also know that 'all' = 'pas' and that 'pas' has different meanings...

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:

Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., "all Jerusalem" in Mt 2:3 and "all the sick" in 4:24. {pp.796-7}

See also Mt 3:5, 21:10, 27:25, Mk 2:13, 9:15, etc., etc., esp. in KJV.

you seem to be of the opinion that Catholic's believe that Mary could not have been subject to Original sin..this is incorrect..we believe that God acted in a preventative way so that through His grace Mary would be sinless.

Luke 1 :47 corrcectly states that God is Mary's Saviour also, because Mary in herself and of herself had no authority to create her state of sinlessness.

ukok

explain why Jesus was circumcised and obeyed the jewish law and that Mary though sinless also should not have done...

LBL;

Already explained this in above post.

Actually i don't think you have explained it at all. Jesus didn't need to be circumcised, because Jesus is Holy and without sin, so why was he? your logic says that Mary was sinful and needed to be cleansed and yet you can't even tell me why God would choose a sinner to Mother His only begotten Son.

ukok

Explain to me how you say you tend to J.W'ism but that you don't hold with Tradition..they claim to be Tradition, the only guiding light of the World...how did they become acceptable Tradition and yet the One Tradition that began when Peter gave the Keys of the kingdom of heaven to him, is not ?

LBL;

Can the pope really claim to be a decendant of Peter? No he cant. As far as my JWism, I stated that I tend to agree with them more than others yes. Does this mean I accept everything they teach? Probably not but its a possibility as I will need to examine their beliefs alittle deeper.

Yes the Holy Father is truly a descendent of Peter, here is a list of all the Popes that the Apostolic Leadership was passed onto ; see further post's, i can't include such a long list with this one

God Bless

ukok · May 26, 2004

Post Three

Peace be with you LBL!

ukok

Did Charles Taze Russell for example have a conversation with the Son of God...Was he told to feed His Sheep?

LBL

Not sure but I highly doubt Jesus himself spoke to anyone after the original apostles died.

Jesus instituted the Catholic Church to the leadership of the apostles...it is led by the Holy Spirit ( see quotes of Scripture in previous post, specifically John 16;13, John 14;16, 26...Before the original Apostles died they had ordained others to succeed them. 2Tim 2; 2, 1 Tim 4;14

ukok

who were Apostles and what was the Church that Jesus refers to so frequently....did the Apostles go out and start different churches with different beliefs ?

LBL;

Actually they had different "congregations" and we know that some of them were leaning towards different beliefs and thats why Paul wrote them letters to make sure they were staying on track. Funny you should mention this though, since I cant seem to find catholics that agree on everything biblical.

LBL, you may find that some Catholics are more aware than others of what the foundation of the Catholic Church is! And many other religious groups fight and squabble amongst themselves, what does this prove? Precisely nothing!

The Church is founded upon Truth, with Christ at it's head. The 'congregations' that you allude to are not 'separate' churches with differing doctrines..they are ONE Church, ONE belief...letters from Paul do nothing to prove otherwise. you are using an example of Paul reproving others for leaning towards different beliefs and yet you have not cited Scripture in it's proper context to do so, please now do so, so that we can take passages in their original context and explore what it is that you refer to exactly.

ukok

why were they given the Authority that Christ bestowed upon them?

LBL;

They were his followers and also joint heirs of the kingdom of God. They were to spread the word which is what they did.

then you will agree that there was One message that that Jesus commissioned them to 'spread'...but that they were to travel to 'spread' it ?

ukok

Why are you so anti Tradition, is it their authority that you can't handle?

LBL;

Im not anti-tradition. Im anti-tradition-that-doesnt-agree-with-scriptures. Thats where the real problem is. If we have traditions that go against scripture then shouldnt that tell us that the tradition is wrong?

The Tradition of the Catholic church does NOT go against Scripture. If it did, i would be the first to acknowledge it, remember, i am a convert to Catholicism..i didn't agree with it, didn't understand it and didn't want to...for many years...it was only when i was challenged by the Holy Spirit to an understanding of Scripture in it's true context that floored me and made me realise that i was completely at fault in maintaining my Protestant mindset.

ukok

you knock Catholicism all you like, you want to get your own house in order before you make wild accusations about falsehood....you don't appear to know what you yourself believe about anything, you only seem to know that you don't like the Catholic Church !

LBL

Actually I know what I believe but I always take my studies deeper and question myself to make sure that what I am believing is in line with the scripture. Regarding the Catholic Church, you are right in that I dont agree with many things they teach which are plainly not biblical. I will name a few for you: Mary being without sin and went to heaven in body and soul, Mary remained a virgin, Purgatory, praying to Saints, calling earthly men who are not biologically our father "father", saying repetitious prayers actually does something, the pope is a decendant of Peter, used to be that priests must remain celebate, etc..... I get tired typing of all that

We've spent considerable time on Mary so let's get to the other things that you mention..and you think your tired of typing!

I am glad to hear that you like to study deeply, eventually it might lead you to the Truth.

I can now give you scripture that backs up all that stuff you mention ; please be so kind as to respond to each passage and tell me what you believe it refers to;

Purgatory :

Revelation 21;27 Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven..if you died, would you be clean enough to enter heaven or do you think you might need cleansing ever so slightly?

2 Samuel 12; 13-14...David, though forgiven, still punished for his sins.

Mathew 5;48 ...Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect..are you or i perfect?

Jesus preached to the spirits in prison ; 1Peter 3;18-20, 4;6

1 John 5;16-17...there are varying degrees of sin...

Heb 12:6-11 ... God's painful discipline.

Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony

where we go when we die is dependant upon us alone. Have we denied God? Have we lived our lives in obedience to His will? what if we have sinned are we automatically forgiven and admitted to heaven? do we need to be purified or not? How come, if you say not..for sin makes us unclean and we know that nothing unclean enters heaven ? Also, just in case you don't understand what Purgatory is, once you find yourself in Purgatory there is only one place to go...and that's to Heaven. It's a place of final purification before Souls in Purgatory meet with God!! are you or i refined enough to do that right now? Note too, that not everyone who dies in God's grace need to go through Purgatory, but how else are others of us to become Holy as we need to be Holy to enter heaven ?

Praying to Saints

The church honours those who have manifested a heroic devotion to Christian holiness in his or her lifetime. W believe that we can ask foir the intercession of the Saints, because we know that when we die we do not cease to exist. we either go to Hell, to Heaven or to Purgatory for our final purification. Catholics do not pray to Saints because we think that the saints have any powers of their own! We pray to the Saints ( and saints are all the heavenly and all in pergatory as well as all on earth) that they may further our own prayer, that they may intercede on our behalf. All this happens through God!

Think of it another way..we ask others to pray for us on earth, this is intercession. We know that the saints are more alive than we are, so we ask the 'living saints' to pray for us, to help us. what's so wrong with that?

Mark 12;26-27 tells us that God is the God of the living not of the dead

Colossions 4;3,1 and Thess 5;25 - requests for intecessory prayer from others

1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2 ... saints also united with God.

Ephesians 6;18-19 making supplication for 'all the saints and for me'

Revelation 5;8 angel offers prayers of the holy one's to God

Lk 20:34-38 ... those who died are like angels.

Hence, we see that we can pray for souls in purgatory and we can pray to ask the saints to help us too. W don't by pass Christ, who we know is the only mediator between God and Man, we ask them to pray for us and to intercede for us before the Throne of Christ. LBL, do you ever ask anyone to pray for you, this too is intercession? Please don't make the mistake that Catholics only pray like this, we also poray to God directly

Call no one Father

Do you ever buy your Dad a Fathers Day Card, is he somehow not your Father because you might call him DAD? We see plenty of righteous people in the bible calling others Father:

(Luk 1:59) And it came to pass that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child: and they called him by his father's name Zachary.

LBL, is God's name Zachary? Nope, but by your logic the Child should have been called 'God' since God is the only Father..do you not see how bizzarre that sounds?

Beside's which, It's faulty logic to say that no man can be called Father! the Priest act's in the Person of Christ, He is not God. What Jesus was instructing us to do was not to give anyone the Honour and recognition reserved for God alone.

Jesus himself referred to Abraham as a "father" in one of his parables:

"But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead'" (Luke 16:29-31).

what do you make of that theory now?

The Pope as a descendant of Peter -

you have the list of the Apostolic Succession in a separate post.

Repetitious Prayers

do you never pray the same prayer more than once?, is every single prayer that ever leaves your heart and escapes your lips, different entirely from the last...do you say the Lords Prayer that Christ told us to pray...how many times have you prayed it..more than once...more than once is repetitious, is it not?

Rev 4:8 ... "vain repetition"?... 'Holy, Holy, Holy'

aren't prayers that are worthy and have meaning intended to be prayed more than once...why did Jesus instruct us to pray the lord's prayer...did he mean for us to pray it only once ?

Priest and Celibacy

the Priesthood is celibate except in instances where the priest convert's to Catholicism...i know many priests who were vicars in the church of England for example..they were not ordained in the Catholic church, and so when they are ordained for ministry as Catholics, they can do so and remain maried. Celibacy is not forced upon anyone. Men enter the priesthood freely. they already know that celibacy is a requirement, it isn't a bombshell that suddenly gets dropped on them from a great height.

1 Cor 7:7-9 ... Paul unmarried.

Mt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:32,33 ... celibacy.

Celibacy is a discipline of the church not a doctrine. [It also must be mentioned that some of the Eastern Rites do indeed marry].

"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

So, what do you think ? how would you interpret these Scripture passags differently?

ukok · May 26, 2004

Post Four

Peace be with you LBL!

ukok

Explain to me how you say you tend to J.W'ism but that you don't hold with Tradition..they claim to be Tradition, the only guiding light of the World...how did they become acceptable Tradition and yet the One Tradition that began when Peter gave the Keys of the kingdom of heaven to him, is not ?

LBL;

Can the pope really claim to be a decendant of Peter? No he cant. As far as my JWism, I stated that I tend to agree with them more than others yes. Does this mean I accept everything they teach? Probably not but its a possibility as I will need to examine their beliefs alittle deeper.

Yes the Holy Father is truly a descendent of Peter, here is a list of all the Popes that the Apostolic Leadership was passed onto ;

THE COMPLETE LIST OF POPES

No.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752)
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045)
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978)

ukok · May 26, 2004

Post Five

Peace be with you LBL

ukok

you are not an authority on Scripture and nor are you an authority on the Catholic Church, you can disagree all you want, but when i post Scriptural support for our beliefs you just blatantly ignore it and move on to something else..or else completely misinterpret it, rather than prove your knowledgeability it clarifies your lack of it

LBL

Oh really? Shall we go back and see these "proof scriptures" you used in this thread and how I ignored them? How about in our other thread inwhich you nicely walked completely around my post in response to your "proof" scriptures? I have never claimed to be the authority on Scripture nor on the Catholic Church. I dont have to be. The scriptures speak for themselves and its obvious they dont speak too well with the teachings of Catholicism.

I haven't walked around anything intentionally. clarify what i have walked around? Do you refer to your obsession with the definite/indefinate and the 'predicative nominitive' that you believe implys that John 1:1 is falsely interpretted by mainstream christianity... and that Jesus iwas referred to as being one of many gods..in this instance...'a god' ? clarify what exactly you want me to answer, and please make it concise.

ukok

...there are numerous questions that i have asked you in this thread and others, that have not been answered, i have been tolerant in the extreme and to be honest, if you aren't prepared to even stop for a moment and think about what each passage of Scripture is saying then i don't know if there is much point to this.

LBL;

I must have missed them. Please do repost them and I will happily answer them. However, I think you should listen to your own advise here : if you aren't prepared to even stop for a moment and think about what each passage of Scripture is saying then i don't know if there is much point to this. This has been my point exactly. Im glad you are going to stop and think now about the scriptures I have brought up as I always think about the ones posted to me.

LBL, after posting 5 rather lengthy posts the last thing i feel like doing is wasting time trawling through the threads that we have been involved with! Maybe another time, maybe it just isn't worth it! Since i have asked you in these post's to identify exactly how you disagree with my interpretation of each one, then there shouldn't be any more confusion should there...you now know how i read it, now tell me how you read it and we'll see who can back it up.

LightBearer · May 26, 2004

WOW!!! and again wow!!!
LBL you have my sympathies, looks like you could be up all night. Then again, 4 posts all directed at you one after the other, my, aint you the poular one.

I'm off for a Pot Noodle (Bombay Bad Boy) Whhooaaa.

LB

lared · May 26, 2004

Where is der alter?

LightBearer · May 26, 2004

lared said:
Where is der alter?

LOL.

Why, do you think he'd like a Pot Noodle.

Four whole pages to answer a few simple questions. That has surley got to be clutching at straws.

LB

ukok · May 26, 2004

yes, let's not forget how shallow your your own Religion is by comparison...but who knows in 2000 years you might have enough history behind you to back up your ludicrous twisting of Scripture...

The posts i amde are in response to questions asked of me...the most part is Scripture quotations, why is it that they irk you so..rather telling isn't it!

what petty criticisms you both make. :sigh:

LightBearer · May 26, 2004

ukok said:
yes, let's not forget how shallow your your own Religion is by comparison...but who knows in 2000 years you might have enough history behind you to back up your ludicrous twisting of Scripture...

The posts i amde are in response to questions asked of me...the most part is Scripture quotations, why is it that they irk you so..rather telling isn't it!

what petty criticisms you both make.

It wasn't a critisism it was an obsevation.

ukok · May 26, 2004

Like this observation wasn't a criticism either ?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The Greek words . . . that are used to designate the relationship between Jesus and these relatives have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelists time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense."

Additionaly, The New American Bible, a Catholic translation, admits in the footnote on Mark 6:1-6, regarding Jesus brothers and sisters, "The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Marys perpetual virginity."

Just as Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees of his day, Human tradition once again invalidates the Word of God.
Matthew 15:6-9 And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines."

Will they ever learn.

Hey tell you what, i'll make some observations about your faith shall i..like how do you prove that Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael it doesn;t tell us that in Scripture...LOL...no, don't worry, that's off topic, i don't expect you to respond in this thread, i'm just showing you something about how easy it is for others to observe also...

Mary without original sin?

Active Member

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

New Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Veteran

Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional

Similar threads