concretecamper
I stand with Candice.
- Nov 23, 2013
- 7,356
- 2,861
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.Good grief, just admit that Peter placed Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) writings of the OT (2 Pe 3:16).
Sorry you find 2 Pe 3:16 so objectionable.
The immaculate conception of Mary is not in the gospel of Matthew andSo the explanation still stands. The same Church that said Matthew is Divinely inspired text is the same Church that said Mary was Immaculately conceived (despite to "let's change the topic" tactics employed).
Glad you agree about 2 Pe 3:16.imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church when the New Testament was written and compiled. The bible was not put together by the Roman Catholic church.But what I said was that the same Church that said Matthew is divinely inspired text said Mary was Immaculately conceived, which is true. There was only 1 Church at the time when Matthew was declared inspired text, it was the Catholic Church. These other churches you refer to who believe Matthew is inspired text are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church (seems odd but it is true) since there is no table of contents of Scripture in Scripture.
It does:The premise of the question is that there must be an explicit biblical reference to the Immaculate Conception. That is a false premise. Scripture never claims to be the complete sum total of everything a Christian should or needs to believe. If it were, it would say so.
In the US, there was the 13 Colonies and then the United States. Same thing.There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church when the New Testament was written and compiled. The bible was not put together by the Roman Catholic church.
If it said "only Scripture is profitable" you would have have point. But it doesn't.“All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Ti 3:16-17 NKJV)
Not at all. The Gospels are about Jesus.Besides, if Mary had been conceived immaculately, that would be an important matter, too important not to be mentioned even once in all the 27 books of the New Testament.
Not the same thing at all. There is no indication that the local churches in New Testament times were even beginning to look to Rome as the "centre" or to any proto pope as having authority. If anything, it was the local church at Jerusalem whose authority was sought, probably because most of the apostles were there.In the US, there was the 13 Colonies and then the United States. Same thing.
I said the 27 books of the New Testament, not just the four gospels, and I agree, they are all about Jesus. Nevertheless, truths are given about others too. For example, we read certain truths about apostles, and about what the Christian's attitude should be to earthly rulers. So I repeat, if it were true that Mary was immaculately conceived, there would be some mention of it in the bible.If it said "only Scripture is profitable" you would have have point. But it doesn't.
Not at all. The Gospels are about Jesus.
Anyone else?
Certainly is the same thing. The is no indication that the 13 Colonies were discussing a name change to the United States in 1730.Not the same thing at all. There is no indication that the local churches in New Testament times were even beginning to look to Rome as the "centre" or to any proto pope as having authority. If anything, it was the local church at Jerusalem whose authority was sought, probably because most of the apostles were there.
Fine, the 27 books are about Jesus and and Salvation. They are not about Mary. And none of the 27 books claim the Bible contains all truths a Christian is to believe. You can't get around that glaring fact.I said the 27 books of the New Testament, not just the four gospels, and I agree, they are all about Jesus. Nevertheless, truths are given about others too. For example, we read certain truths about apostles, and about what the Christian's attitude should be to earthly rulers. So I repeat, if it were true that Mary was immaculately conceived, there would be some mention of it in the bible.
Yet they do tell us about Mary. They tell us she was a virgin, that she was betrothed to Joseph, that she was present when Jesus performed His first public miracle, that she was with the apostles after the crucifixion:Certainly is the same thing. The is no indication that the 13 Colonies were discussing a name change to the United States in 1730.
Fine, the 27 books are about Jesus and and Salvation. They are not about Mary. And none of the 27 books claim the Bible contains all truths a Christian is to believe. You can't get around that glaring fact.
I have already given my view on that claim, so I won't repeat them.Your feeling that the NT somehow should have included explicit teachings about Mary is irrelevant.
Again, let's all stay focused. The same Church that said the Gospel of Matthew is inspired text is the same Church that says Mary was Immaculately conceived.
Anyone else?
Sorry you are disappointed.Yet they do tell us about Mary. They tell us she was a virgin, that she was betrothed to Joseph, that she was present when Jesus performed His first public miracle, that she was with the apostles after the crucifixion:
“These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” (Ac 1:14 NKJV)
Why not also make it clear that her conception was immaculate, if it really was?
I was hoping for something more relevant to the topic I raised.I have already given my view on that claim, so I won't repeat them.
Sorry you are disappointed.
Apologies for being, in your view, irrelevant.I was hoping for something more relevant to the topic I raised.
Anyone else?
I never said you were irrelevant. Falsely accusing, I guess this exchange is doneApologies for being, in your view, irrelevant.
I must have misunderstood what you wrote, then: "I was hoping for something more relevant to the topic I raised."I never said you were irrelevant. Falsely accusing, I guess this exchange is done
It was the Catholic Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible. No Catholic Church--no Bible.There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church when the New Testament was written and compiled. The bible was not put together by the Roman Catholic church.
Not so. The 39 books of the Old Testament were already in use by the Jews. No need for Roman Catholics to choose them and add extra ones to them. It is just nonsense to say "No Catholic Church--no Bible."It was the Catholic Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible. No Catholic Church--no Bible.
Jews used different sets of OT books. The Catholic Church used Gospel readings at mass soon after the Gospels were written. Other books also started to be used for mass readings, but what books were used differed from area to area. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed texts to be used for readings. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Lists became closer to the final 73 selected by the Catholic Church as time passed. Revelation was the last NT book chosen. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon list in 367 A.D. The list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.Not so. The 39 books of the Old Testament were already in use by the Jews. No need for Roman Catholics to choose them and add extra ones to them. It is just nonsense to say "No Catholic Church--no Bible."
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?