Catholic Mary

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff posted...



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.

Show me the word trinity in the bible. You cannot because its not there. Trinity is observed from inferences clearly is not the same as explicit. However, I've seen Pentecostal takes these verses to support modalism. Therefore it is infered (maybe clearly) rather than explicit. You can't seem to handle the truth.

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

Show me in scriputres where its says "God is Triune". You will not find it you must infer it from several verses.

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

Catholics defined the belief although it was always believed it just didn't have a title. Catholics gave it such. Thus the term is Latin trinity. IF baptist had given the title it would have been an english or german or french word. Not Latin. Its not even in Greek if your a landmarkist.

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

Your souces have no historical training therefore they concoct a false history to suite their needs.

 

[The Biblicist]

Show me the word trinity in the bible. You cannot because its not there. Trinity is observed from inferences clearly is not the same as explicit. However, I've seen Pentecostal takes these verses to support modalism. Therefore it is infered (maybe clearly) rather than explicit. You can't seem to handle the truth.

Show me in scriputres where its says "God is Triune". You will not find it you must infer it from several verses.

Catholics defined the belief although it was always believed it just didn't have a title. Catholics gave it such. Thus the term is Latin trinity. IF baptist had given the title it would have been an english or german or french word. Not Latin. Its not even in Greek if your a landmarkist.

Your souces have no historical training therefore they concoct a false history to suite their needs.

Tertullian taught the trinity long before it was confirmed by any counsel. So you think it is a great thing if someone comes up with a single unique but non-Biblical word to express a Biblical doctrine?

So, your argument that nowhere in the Bible can the words "faith alone" is proven a worthless argument since no where in the Bible can the word "trinity" be found either!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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

I Have and note three things. There was already a english version of the bible. Tyndale a Catholic translated the bible on his own and published with out permission or proper review. and finally King Henry VIII had him killed after comming out of favor with the Pope.

 

[The Biblicist]

I Have and note three things. There was already a english version of the bible. Tyndale a Catholic translated the bible on his own and published with out permission or proper review. and finally King Henry VIII had him killed after comming out of favor with the Pope.

Think of it! Having to get "permission or proper review" for translating and printing the Bible is worthy of death??? What a terrible crime! Think of it that the Authorized King James Version is basically the Tyndale Version so Tyndale must have been a very competent translator because all the king's men used his translation primarily.

 

[annsni]

Another issue in the idea that Mary stayed a perpetual virgin throughout her life would be that she then disobeyed her marriage vows to her husband. She and her husband would have gone against the culture and the law and would never have consummated their marriage which would have been very wrong and since they were both good Jewish followers, they would not have disobeyed like this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Tertullian taught the trinity long before it was confirmed by any counsel. So you think it is a great thing if someone comes up with a single unique but non-Biblical word to express a Biblical doctrine?

So, your argument that nowhere in the Bible can the words "faith alone" is proven a worthless argument since no where in the Bible can the word "trinity" be found either!

note Tertullian was Catholic before he was Montanist which was as problamatic as modern Pentecostals. He used the Latin phrase and was the first to do so. IE not Greek as I said.

your second argument is faulted because the bible does mention faith alone as in you can't be saved by faith alone as james suggested.

 

[targus]

It takes the DNA from both the Father and Mother in conception of a child. Mary did not contribute Divine DNA, she only contributed the human DNA.

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit has DNA?

 

[Alive in Christ]

your second argument is faulted because the bible does mention faith alone as in you can't be saved by faith alone as james suggested.

Red herring.

The point of that passage is a completly different situation than what we are concerned with.

James is saying that if someone *claims* that he has faith, but he has absolutly no evidence (reformation/changed life) his so called faith is just an empty profession.

That passage is completely irrelavent to what we are discussing.

We are saved by faith, and faith ALONE, as the scriptures consistantly and forcfully proclaim.

Nice try, but ((fail)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Red herring.

The point of that passage is a completly different situation than what we are concerned with.

James is saying that if someone *claims* that he has faith, but he has absolutly no evidence (reformation/changed life) his so called faith is just an empty profession.

That passage is completely irrelavent to what we are discussing.

Nice try, but ((fail)

I didn't bring it up. Biblicist did as he was following a read herring. And btw that is exactly what the catholic church holds. If some one isn't living the faith they haven't the faith. So faith must be accompanied by good deeds. Faith alone or belief alone (intellectual assent) does not save of itself.

 

[The Biblicist]

note Tertullian was Catholic before he was Montanist

No he wasn't as the term "catholic" never stood for a denomination in his day.

your second argument is faulted because the bible does mention faith alone as in you can't be saved by faith alone as james suggested.

I just posted a defense of that very thing on the thread entitled "Romans 7:14-25". Can you honestly and with integrity with the Biblical text I present prove me wrong? I challenge you to try.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff..

I referred to the scriptural view of faith and works, and you responded...

And btw that is exactly what the catholic church holds. If some one isn't living the faith they haven't the faith. So faith must be accompanied by good deeds.

No. I am an ex-catholic. You cant fool me.

The Catholic church clearly, and forcefully proclaim that works are meritorius reagarding making it to heaven.

The more "good works" and "deeds" one does, the better chance they have to make it to heaven.

I was there. I heard it and was taught it more times than I could count.

Any "meritorius" salvation system is deadly heresy.

It is by grace that we are saved, though faith. And that not of ourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff..

I referred to the scriptural view of faith and works, and you responded...



No. I am an ex-catholic. You cant fool me.

The Catholic church clearly, and forcefully proclaim that works are meritorius reagarding making it to heaven.

The more "good works" and "deeds" one does, the better chance they have to make it to heaven.

I was there. I heard it and was taught it more times than I could count.

You are like I once was and many Catholics I know. The majority of Catholics I know don't even know their own faith. However, after actually studying the faith I understand what is being said. You cannot enter heaven on intellectual accent alone. Faith isn't faith without deeds. Thus no deeds no faith. No faith no entrance. The only way works are meritorious is that they are acted upon on faith and thus upholds the faith maintaining it. But if you are a do nothing then the faith isnt upheld and you can apostate.

Here is some documents you need to be aware of

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

Canon 21.
If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema.

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

 

[DHK]

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.

Every verse I quoted in this post proves it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1800575&postcount=110

Again, your problem is unbelief.

The passage specifically surrounding Mat.13:55 proves it. Joseph is mentioned. Mary is mentioned. The half-brothers of Jesus are mentioned by name (James mentioned in Scripture as a brother of the Lord elsewhere), and His sisters are mentioned. The context is clear. "From whence cometh this man? Is he not the son of Joseph the carpenter? The crowd is asking of his immediate family, and then naming his immediate family. They are not naming any other father, any other mother. Your entire arguments fall apart right here in this passage.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are like I once was and many Catholics I know. The majority of Catholics I know don't even know their own faith. However, after actually studying the faith I understand what is being said.....Here is some documents you need to be aware of

Just double talk. You are the one they have deceived. I don't know of many works for salvationist that would believe they can be justified by works produced by ones own natural power but all would believe that such works are performed by grace. Romans 3:27 denies that justification includes our works at all and Romans 4:4 denies that grace includes our works in justification.

 

[DHK]

These passages aren't clear. If I say to you, "My brother Albert is a musician," would you have reason to believe with any level of certainty that Albert and I shared the same mother? Albert may be my full brother, or my half brother, or my step brother, or even my brother in Christ.

As for importance of the issue, it probably doesn't make any difference in the economy of salvation. However, being mother of a big brood of kids portrays Mary as an ordinary woman. But being a perpetual virgin sort of sets her apart, makes her more remarkable. Makes it seem more appropriate to refer to her as "blessed." And despite DHK's protests and maybe yours too, saying she had other children interjects an interpretation of the Bible that had never been made before 1600. Do you think everyone who read the Bible for the first 1600 years of its existence just got it wrong?

You have your facts wrong. Most Christians believed in the virgin before 1600. If you are too lazy to do your homework we will label you with the language of the Bible--a sluggard. But don't sit behind a keyboard and post Catholic lies.
"For the first 1600 years of its existence everyone who read the Bible got it wrong." "No one believed that Mary had other children for the first 1600 years of Christian history."
These statements are universal and all encompassing in nature. They are easily proven false. If I can find only one person that believes Mary had other children your statements are false, because you stated them as universal statements, virtual logical fallacies. The fact is that all of Christianity outside of the RCC never believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It is a well known heresy.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff....

I am already familiar with the canons you posted.

Canons 1 and 21 could be improved upon, but I am generally OK with them.

Canons 20 and 32 I consider to contain heresy

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff....

I am already familiar with the canons you posted.

Canons 1 and 21 could be improved upon, but I am generally OK with them.

Canons 20 and 32 I consider to contain heresy

Thats fine but at least you know what they acurately teach rather than making a supposition that isn't true.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just double talk. You are the one they have deceived. I don't know of many works for salvationist that would believe they can be justified by works produced by ones own natural power but all would believe that such works are performed by grace. Romans 3:27 denies that justification includes our works at all and Romans 4:4 denies that grace includes our works in justification.

So in your mind you don't have to accept Jesus free gift? Huh. He just forces it on you then. The ability to accept is cooperation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is some documents you need to be aware of

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

This is pure double talk. What it is saying is that YOUR works do justify you before God IF they are empowered by grace. That is false! We are justified by faith "without works" and "grace" is defined to exclude our works (Rom. 11:6)

 

[DHK]

I Have and note three things. There was already a english version of the bible. Tyndale a Catholic translated the bible on his own and published with out permission or proper review. and finally King Henry VIII had him killed after comming out of favor with the Pope.

OH MY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will you also murder me, when I publish my English version of the NT?
What about the language that I am working on to get the Bible to a people in a land that doesn't have a Bible in their own mother tongue yet? I don't have the sanction of the RCC or the King (Government). Are you going to endeavor to kill me for my work TS? Is that the kind of man you are? Is this the teaching of the RCC? And you call yourself a Christian????