- This topic has 1 reply, 6 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Do you know what the Immaculate Conception refers to give answer first with out looking up.
I know that you’re sick of me but this is a perfect example of how your church does not follow Scriptures.
Jon, you gave the correct “catholic” answer for the Immaculate Conception however Scriptures tell us in Romans 3:10,23 –
[b:2ijvbwgm][color=red:2ijvbwgm]As it is written: ” There is none righteous, no, not one;
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,[/color:2ijvbwgm][/b:2ijvbwgm]
Mark 10:18[b:2ijvbwgm][color=red:2ijvbwgm]
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good except God alone.[/color:2ijvbwgm][/b:2ijvbwgm]The Scriptures also say:
“The angel went to her and said, ‘[b:27advash]Greetings, you who are highly favored![/b:27advash] The Lord is with you.'” (Luke 1:28)
“[b:27advash]Most blessed are you among women[/b:27advash], and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” (Luke 1:42)
And Mary said: “[b:27advash]My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord[/b:27advash]; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, [b:27advash]from now on will all ages call me blessed.[/b:27advash] The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.” (Luke 1:46-49)
Mary is sinless, but not in her own right, but because God set her aside for a special task. Mary was the first Christian. She was the first one to say “yes” to Jesus.
But Jon, according to the whole Immaculate Conception idea, Mary didn’t “say yes” to Jesus; she was born that way.
[quote:rnozeltl]But Jon, according to the whole Immaculate Conception idea, Mary didn’t “say yes” to Jesus; she was born that way.[/quote:rnozeltl]
God knew she would say yes.
” title=”Razz” />
Just because she was born immaculately does not mean she did not say “yes” to God and Jesus throughout and through her life.
I also see Ron is still quoting Romans 3 without respecting context again.
You want the context?
Here is the commentary about verse Romans 3:23-
It is owing to the free grace of God, through faith in the righteousness of Christ, yet the law is not done away.
[quote:14jf1083]
Must guilty man remain under wrath? Is the wound for ever incurable? No; blessed be God, there is another way laid open for us. This is the righteousness of God; righteousness of his ordaining, and providing, and accepting. It is by that faith which has Jesus Christ for its object; an anointed Saviour, so Jesus Christ signifies. Justifying faith respects Christ as a Saviour, in all his three anointed offices, as Prophet, Priest, and King; trusting in him, accepting him, and cleavingto him: in all these, Jews and Gentiles are alike welcome to God through Christ. There is no difference, his righteousness is upon all that believe; not only offered to them, but put upon them as a crown, as a robe. It is free grace, mere mercy; there is nothing in us to deserve such favours. It comes freely unto us, but Christ bought it, and paid the price. And faith has special regard to the blood of Christ, as that which made the atonement. God, in all this, declares his righteousness. It is
plain that he hates sin, when nothing less than the blood of Christ would satisfy for it. And it would not agree with his justice to demand the debt, when the Surety has paid it, and he has accepted that payment in full satisfaction.[/quote:14jf1083]
Do you think that God is wishy-washy, that He changes what He says for me then you? Where is that Biblical unless you mean because I am a believer and you aren’t?
and after Romans 3 it says in context:
[quote:2ylj3m34]
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that [i:2ylj3m34][b:2ylj3m34]He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Boasting Excluded27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. [/b:2ylj3m34][/i:2ylj3m34]29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.[/quote:2ylj3m34]
Chapter 4:[quote:2ylj3m34]
Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?[a] 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[color=red:2ylj3m34][b:2ylj3m34] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
David Celebrates the Same Truth5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: [/b:2ylj3m34][/color:2ylj3m34]
7 ” Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”[c]
Abraham Justified Before Circumcision9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.[/quote:2ylj3m34]
Your giant red letters are both rude and irrelevant to this discussion.
I have pointed this out to you before but I shall do so again.
The context of Romans 3 includes Psalms 14 and 53. St. Paul never quotes the Old Testament without respecting the original context of the quote. Read the Psalms and see the first way in which you are misinterpreting 3.
Benedict
you say:
[quote:336m3dqd]Read the Psalms and see the first way in which you are misinterpreting 3.[/quote:336m3dqd]They say the same;
Psalm 14: The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
There is none who does good.2 God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.So how is that out of context?
Interesting that you only quoted the first part of the Psalm and not the part that is important for determining the full context.
[quote:1538wyaf]So how is that out of context?[/quote:1538wyaf]
You quoted Romans 3 against the Immaculate Conception. Psalms 14 and 53 both contrast the godless unrighteous with God’s people. So you are taking the verse out of context unless you are asserting Mary was one of the fools who say there is no God.
Benedict you said:
[quote:32o3wvp3]You quoted Romans 3 against the Immaculate Conception. Psalms 14 and 53 both contrast the godless unrighteous with God’s people. So you are taking the verse out of context unless you are asserting Mary was one of the fools who say there is no God.[/quote:32o3wvp3]
but they compare Good’s perfect standard with
[i:32o3wvp3]2 God looks down from heaven upon [u:32o3wvp3]the children of men,[/u:32o3wvp3] To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
[/i:32o3wvp3] [u:32o3wvp3][b:32o3wvp3] No, not one.
[/b:32o3wvp3][/u:32o3wvp3]in neither case does it say except for even one! Now you can accuse me of saying whatever want but that is your choice . The fact still remains that according to Scriptures you are wrong about even Mary being without sin
and the burden of proof falls on your church as another example of creating traditions of man! Why?
[quote:35w2w0h2]in neither case does it say except for even one![/quote:35w2w0h2]
On the contrary. Both Psalms do so, although given your wooden, literalistic hermeneutic it is no surprise you cannot see it. Sometimes you need to use your brain and not just your eyes to see what the Bible is saying.Psalm 14
Unto the end, a psalm for David. The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God. They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one. The Lord hath looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there be any that understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good: no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they acted deceitfully: the poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. [u:35w2w0h2]Shall not all they know that work iniquity, who devour my people as they eat bread[/u:35w2w0h2]? They have not called upon the Lord: there have they trembled for fear, where there was no fear. [u:35w2w0h2]For the Lord is in the just generation[/u:35w2w0h2]: you have confounded the counsel of the poor man; but the Lord is his hope. Who shall give out of Sion the salvation of Israel? when the Lord shall have turned away the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.
Both psalms are essentially the same so pointing it out here will point it out in Psalm 53 as well.
Pay careful attention to the beginning of the psalm. David is ascribing these qualities to the fool who says there is no god. You think that because it says children of men that it is describing all people. However, the rest of the psalm eliminates this as a possibility because the exact same group that is described as the children of men is also described as devouring David’s people. And they are [b:35w2w0h2]contrasted[/b:35w2w0h2] with David’s people and the just generation. The fools do not seek after God and do not do good. David’s people, the just generation, does, else they could not be contrasted.
Hey Benedict, what’s that part where you say:
[quote:gpbv31oz]Sometimes you need to use your brain and not just your eyes to see what the Bible is saying. [/quote:gpbv31oz]?
I guess that eliminates you then because no where does it say about anyone being sinless, does it….certainly David wasn’t, neither were his people…..sometimes the best hermenutics is to let the Scriptures say what it says and not what it doesn’t say, Mr. counseler (not)
[color=red:j4qo2av1]ON AND ON IT GOES,RON KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE,I DIDN’T KNOW I WAS SO STUPID(AND ACCORDING TO HIM)EVERYONE ELSE WHO’S CATHOLIC ABOUT SCRIPTURE.[/color:j4qo2av1].Like I said before 10 people can read the bible and most will interpret it differant.
And if I rejected this fact I’d still be lost,
Thank God for witnessing
” title=”Confused” /> It’s clear to me that Mary had had no relations with any man prior to the conception and birth of Christ(she was about 15 or 16). What is not clear to me is whether Mary perhaps had marital relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ. Whenever I’ve read descriptions of Mary with reference to her virginity, it seems to always be in reference to the conception, birth, and nursing of Jesus, but never seems to address her virginity, say, 10 years later.I really don’t know what the official stance of the church is on this subject. As I said above, everything I read on the subject seems vaugue to me.
It seems to me that it would be a very strange marriage for Mary to NOT have marital relations with Joseph (perhaps it is not correct to try to apply church teachings on marriage now to her situation? They could be considered rather incomparable).
Can someone here please clarify this?
The Church’s official stance is that Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. Sometimes you might hear of Mary’s perpetual virginity in a discussion.
I agree that it must have been rather strange.
It is the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon that Mary physically remained a virgin during and after the birth of Christ.
“He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.”
” title=”Razz” />
” title=”Confused” /> It’s clear to me that Mary had had no relations with any man prior to the conception and birth of Christ(she was about 15 or 16). What is not clear to me is whether Mary perhaps had marital relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ. Whenever I’ve read descriptions of Mary with reference to her virginity, it seems to always be in reference to the conception, birth, and nursing of Jesus, but never seems to address her virginity, say, 10 years later.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.