Catholic Mary

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course it is the trinity. It is clearly taught in the Bible. TS just doesn't want to admit it. He believes that the RCC "discovered" this doctrine. He, as a Catholic, wants to take the credit.

Ah you aren't being fair or truthful. The bible doesn't teach the trinity explicitly but it does infer it. That is what I said. No where will you find the explicit teaching of the trinity or the hypostatic union of christ. The teaching is inferred.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is taught. You know it; or are you in a state of unbelief?

I have no problem with belief. Show me where the word trinity is located and that doctrine expounded on in the bible. You cannot? My point is made you must infer trinity from several different verses that allude to it. That is the truth!!!!!!

It is not my problem at all. I don't have to deal with etymologies of words, nor words that are lost in translations. Both are weaknesses. You have to deal with that problem.
Again, what is your purpose in bringing up this doctrine. It is part of the Baptist statement of faith. Are you showing your unbelief in it?

Its not your problem because you prefer eisegeses to exegesis

It is explicitly taught.

It is not as I have shown.

Again you have a problem with unbelief which is quite astounding since you now claim to be a Catholic. Are you now an Atheist?

Protestantism leads to Atheism because it comes out of the Rationalism movement during the reformation not Catholicism. I believe in the trinity and always have.

[FONT=&quot]To say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument. The incarnation is not in the Bible either.

See how you are unjust and deceptive? where have I ever said I don't believe in the trinity? I only told the truth that you will not find it explicitly stated in the bible you must infer it from several verses. But no where will you see Trinity explicitly spoken of.

Yet both are taught. Your inference is that you don’t believe in the Trinity. Is this true? Why? If it isn’t true then it must be a Biblical doctrine, correct?[/FONT]

Not at all. And you are unjust.

My claim is that I believe in the Trinity; your claim therefore is that you don't? This is really unbelievable!

Again unjust and deceptive. I believe in the trinity. You are false.

So you claim that the Apostles didn't know what they were talking about.

Again unjust and false. Do all you do is accuse? You know what the Hebrew word for accuser is don't you? You don't want to discuss you just want to accuse. I never made any of the claims you've mentioned.

Why make a claim that you cannot prove. Why demonstrate on the board that you deny orthodox doctrine and have accepted the position of an atheist?

Now you're chasing rabbits.

Precisely what Biblical doctrines are you speaking of? Give me the URL of a Baptist Statement of Faith and show me what is not Biblical.

Ah note how disceptive this passage is. Not of your belief - like the rapture but of the Baptist statement of faith. No cigar. You believe things beyond the baptist statement of faith.

I will show you what is not Biblical in your Catechism. Why, the RCC even believes Muslims are saved (a non-Miriam doctrine) !

See you misquoted that passage as well. Catholics Don't believe muslims are saved. Catholics believe that muslims believe in the God of Abraham. Thats not saying they are saved.

Purgatory, Limbo, Indulgences, Infallibility of the Pope, Celibacy of the Priesthood, extreme unction or last rites, penance, praying of the rosary, the stations of the cross, praying to the "saints,"

Limbo is not a doctrine. It was speculative. all the rest I have scripture for.

justification by faith alone (denial thereof), belief in salvation by works, baptismal regeneration, salvation via RCC only, salvation via new birth defined by baptism, infant baptism, and there are still many more. All of them heretical.

Interestingly enough the scriputers never say "Faith alone saves". In fact scriptures say Faith alone doesn't save read James.

You haven't deflated my arguments. You have been disrespectful to my person by not citing me fairly and suggesting things I never attested to.

You have shown that you hate my person because I am Catholic which shows me you character. Do you salavate at the mouth to see me in hell? Because if you do you must consider the source.

 

[DaChaser1]

I have no problem with belief. Show me where the word trinity is located and that doctrine expounded on in the bible. You cannot? My point is made you must infer trinity from several different verses that allude to it. That is the truth!!!!!!


Its not your problem because you prefer eisegeses to exegesis

It is not as I have shown.


Protestantism leads to Atheism because it comes out of the Rationalism movement during the reformation not Catholicism. I believe in the trinity and always have.

See how you are unjust and deceptive? where have I ever said I don't believe in the trinity? I only told the truth that you will not find it explicitly stated in the bible you must infer it from several verses. But no where will you see Trinity explicitly spoken of.
Not at all. And you are unjust.


Again unjust and deceptive. I believe in the trinity. You are false.

Again unjust and false. Do all you do is accuse? You know what the Hebrew word for accuser is don't you? You don't want to discuss you just want to accuse. I never made any of the claims you've mentioned.


Now you're chasing rabbits.


Ah note how disceptive this passage is. Not of your belief - like the rapture but of the Baptist statement of faith. No cigar. You believe things beyond the baptist statement of faith.



See you misquoted that passage as well. Catholics Don't believe muslims are saved. Catholics believe that muslims believe in the God of Abraham. Thats not saying they are saved.


Limbo is not a doctrine. It was speculative. all the rest I have scripture for.

Interestingly enough the scriputers never say "Faith alone saves". In fact scriptures say Faith alone doesn't save read James.

You haven't deflated my arguments. You have been disrespectful to my person by not citing me fairly and suggesting things I never attested to.

You have shown that you hate my person because I am Catholic which shows me you character. Do you salavate at the mouth to see me in hell? Because if you do you must consider the source.

where is it found in the Bible the terms pope or bible though?

Do you hold both are true, not in the Bible?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff posted...

Ah you aren't being fair or truthful. The bible doesn't teach the trinity explicitly but it does infer it.

False. The triune nature of God is clearly found in the scriptures alone. We do not need the Catholic cult of Rome to make it clear.

That is what I said. No where will you find the explicit teaching of the trinity or the hypostatic union of christ. The teaching is inferred.

No. The triune nature of God is clearly taught in the scriptures.

It was believed on for long before the Catholic cult "got with the program"

You have been lied to by the cult of Rome. They are experts at deceiving, as they have has centuries of experience in deception.

 

[DHK]

As a matter of fact it did. And perserved it for 1500 years. Just so you could take out books and cut and past what you wanted.

They also took pleasure in burning it to keep it out of the hands of the people. Read the biography of William Tyndale.

 

[DHK]

where in the bible does it say Trinity, hypostatic union? Where in the bible does it mention alter calls? Where in the bible does it mention supralapsarian? Where in the bible does it say its the sole source of authority? Where in the bible does it say rapture?

Where in the bible does it say its the final authority in all matters concerning faith and practice? Do you throw out these items because its not explicit in the bible?

This is post #59 on page six. We have gone at least 11 pages now. These are the things that TS refers to Baptist doctrines that are not found in the Bible. He would say that he believes in the trinity and the hypostatic union, so I don't see the need to go through them, unless he is going to recant those. IOW, they are not particular only to Baptist.

What about supralapsarianism?
--This is the doctrine that the decree of election preceded human creation and the Fall as opposed to infralapsarianism. Like the trinity, it is not a doctrine specific to Baptists.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice?
--This is a very important Baptist distinctive taught in Isa.8:20; Acts 17:11: 2Tim.3:16; 2Pet.1:19-21; 2Pet.3:1,2; 2Pet.3:15,16; Hosea 4:6,
and there are many more.

Where in the Bible is the rapture taught? 1Thes.4:13-18

Where in the Bible does it say/teach altar calls?
--It doesn't. It is not doctrine. We don't have them in our church, and there are many others that don't either. Don't assume things you don't know about.

There are your answers.
But this thread is about Catholic Mary.
I have asked you 4 specific questions about Mary. Now that I have answered your questions, will you please answer mine.

What case do you have for all the mythical inventions that do surround Mary that are entirely unsupported by the Bible. For example:
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
That Mary is able to Intercede for us

Do us all a favor and answer from the Bible.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ah you aren't being fair or truthful. The bible doesn't teach the trinity explicitly but it does infer it. That is what I said. No where will you find the explicit teaching of the trinity or the hypostatic union of christ. The teaching is inferred.

Tertullian clearly taught the Trinity long before Athanasius or the counsel which defended the Trinity. His study was merely inductive and deductive reasoning from what the Scriptures clearly provided.

"But keeping this presecriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost......Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostles, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names.....

 

[Zenas]

This statement makes zero logical sense.

Is the Earth flat?

Agree or disagree with your premise, your reasoning for such in the bold has no basis in logic.

Just quoting Ecclesiastes 1:9. So you think the writers who were closest in time to Mary knew less about her than those of us who came along 2000 years later? Show me someone before 1600 who pronounced Mary to have had other children and maybe I'll be more receptive to the idea.

 

[Zenas]

Agreed - especially since the Bible states that Mary had other children. You can't get older than that.

And where does it say that? And don't give me the verses about His brothers and sisters. The guy in the next office to me has a brother but each of these guys has a different mother. The fact is that the Bible never says that Mary did or did not have other children. You have to draw your conclusion on this through inferences and the implications are overwhelmingly toward Mary not having any other children.

 

[DHK]

And where does it say that? And don't give me the verses about His brothers and sisters. The guy in the next office to me has a brother but each of these guys has a different mother. The fact is that the Bible never says that Mary did or did not have other children. You have to draw your conclusion on this through inferences and the implications are overwhelmingly toward Mary not having any other children.

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: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
1. He took her as his wife.
2. He did not know her sexually as his own wife until or just after Christ was born. That is what the verse means. If you want to see other translations that make that translate it with more clarity I can post them. The KJV used great care and dignity.

Matthew 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. WEB
(Mat 1:25) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. CEV
--The evidence is overwhelming as to the meaning of the verse.

HIS FAMILY:
John 7:2-3 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
--These are Jesus brothers or half-brothers speaking to him. Jesus is at home, and they are deriding him. "Why don't you go into Judea and do some miracles that your disciples can see you. "Sarcasm"

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
--This is the key verse. His real brothers did not believe on Christ. Mary did not remain a virgin.

John 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
--He did go to the feast, but apart from his unbelieving brothers.

FURTHER EVIDENCE
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--This is the immediate family of Jesus: The carpenter's son, his "mother," his brothers, his sisters. As far as the public was concerned his entire immediate family is spoken of right here. His brothers this time are mentioned by name: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. These are the brothers of Jesus.

FURTHER EVIDENCE
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
--It specifically states that James is the Lord's brother, and that Jude is the brother of James. They are both the half brothers of Christ.

You can deny the evidence, but Mary did not remain a virgin. All these children were hers, the half-brothers of Christ.
This is the family of Christ.

 

[annsni]

And where does it say that? And don't give me the verses about His brothers and sisters. The guy in the next office to me has a brother but each of these guys has a different mother. The fact is that the Bible never says that Mary did or did not have other children. You have to draw your conclusion on this through inferences and the implications are overwhelmingly toward Mary not having any other children.

Please - The Bible would be pretty clear, don't you think? Or do you think that God would allow a lie?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Mary, a perpetual virgin??

From the inerant scriptures...

•Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

•Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

•Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

•John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."

•Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

•1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

•Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

The Catholic cult lies.

 

[Zenas]

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: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
1. He took her as his wife.
2. He did not know her sexually as his own wife until or just after Christ was born. That is what the verse means. If you want to see other translations that make that translate it with more clarity I can post them. The KJV used great care and dignity.

Matthew 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. WEB
(Mat 1:25) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. CEV
--The evidence is overwhelming as to the meaning of the verse.

You suggest that the words “till” or “until” mean there will be a change after the point in time depicted by them. They do not. “Until” does not mean the same thing as “until after.”

“For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Does that mean Jesus stops reigning after all His enemies are under His feet?

“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Does that mean Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of the world?

HIS FAMILY:
John 7:2-3 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
--These are Jesus brothers or half-brothers speaking to him. Jesus is at home, and they are deriding him. "Why don't you go into Judea and do some miracles that your disciples can see you. "Sarcasm"

Doesn’t mean a thing except they were referred to as brothers, which includes half brothers, step brothers or cousins. Abraham referred to Lot as his brother. Clearly these men lived in close proximity to Jesus, possibly under the same roof. Study some of the archeology of that time and place and you will see that extended families often lived in the same household. Also, go back and read about the trip back to Nazareth from Egypt. No mention of any other children. Then read about the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 years old. Still no mention of any other children.

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
--This is the key verse. His real brothers did not believe on Christ. Mary did not remain a virgin.

John 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
--He did go to the feast, but apart from his unbelieving brothers.

FURTHER EVIDENCE
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--This is the immediate family of Jesus: The carpenter's son, his "mother," his brothers, his sisters. As far as the public was concerned his entire immediate family is spoken of right here. His brothers this time are mentioned by name: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. These are the brothers of Jesus.

FURTHER EVIDENCE
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
--It specifically states that James is the Lord's brother, and that Jude is the brother of James. They are both the half brothers of Christ.

You can deny the evidence, but Mary did not remain a virgin. All these children were hers, the half-brothers of Christ.
This is the family of Christ.

What is notably absent from all these references is any reference that Mary had other children. DKH, do you have anyone, in or out of the Bible, before 1600 who flat out unequivocally said that Mary had other children?

 

[Zenas]

Please - The Bible would be pretty clear, don't you think? Or do you think that God would allow a lie?

Please back at you. If the Bible were all that clear we would not be having this debate, or hardly any other debate about what it means. I'm still waiting for you to produce the Chapter and verse that say absolutely Mary had other children.

 

[DHK]

DKH, do you have anyone, in or out of the Bible, before 1600 who flat out unequivocally said that Mary had other children?

The Bible itself. But you don't believe it!

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

 

[Zenas]

The Bible itself. But you don't believe it!

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

All right. I will accept that you don't have anything that makes this unequivocal assertion. If you find anything, let me know. Otherwise please don't insult my intelligence by putting up something that is nonresponsive to my request.

 

[DHK]

All right. I will accept that you don't have anything that makes this unequivocal assertion. If you find anything, let me know. Otherwise please don't insult my intelligence by putting up something that is nonresponsive to my request.

I don't have to go to history. I don't have to use the ECF. I don't intend to waste my time doing so, though I could. I have the Bible, and gave you half a page of references. Then you have the audacity to dismiss them all. It is you that dismissed the Scripture on the basis of so-called revisionist RCC history, by trying to challenge it. "Where in the last 1600 years..." The question is "where in the Bible?" It is the Bible that is inspired and changes not. The Bible is our authority. And I have given you inspired evidence from the Word of God itself. Your problem, therefore, is one of belief.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Please back at you. If the Bible were all that clear we would not be having this debate, or hardly any other debate about what it means. I'm still waiting for you to produce the Chapter and verse that say absolutely Mary had other children.

Why is it so important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin? I don't get what the problem is and why it is so important to deny clear passages that say Mary had other childern...can you please explain?

 

[Zenas]

I don't have to go to history. I don't have to use the ECF. I don't intend to waste my time doing so, though I could. I have the Bible, and gave you half a page of references. Then you have the audacity to dismiss them all. It is you that dismissed the Scripture on the basis of so-called revisionist RCC history, by trying to challenge it. "Where in the last 1600 years..." The question is "where in the Bible?" It is the Bible that is inspired and changes not. The Bible is our authority. And I have given you inspired evidence from the Word of God itself. Your problem, therefore, is one of belief.

Where does the Bible say that James was born of Mary's body? That was my question and not a single one of your references confirms it. As for what you call revisionist history, all I'm looking for is someone (anyone) who believed Mary had other children. It looks like if there were someone, the anti-Catholic zealots would put it out for all to see. They delight in quoting, and misquoting, Cardinal Hovious but they are slow to bring up anyone who thought Mary had other children.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Zenus...

Please back at you. If the Bible were all that clear we would not be having this debate, or hardly any other debate about what it means. I'm still waiting for you to produce the Chapter and verse that say absolutely Mary had other children.

Are you kidding???


Here.....

•Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

•Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

•Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

•John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."

•Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

•1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

•Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

What more do you need?????