The Immaculate Conception

[Buzzard]

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother,
Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel;
and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

35 (Yea, yes Mary; a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,)
that the thoughts of many hearts (and yours also Mary may be revealed.

;;

pilgrim says;
Ignore her as much as possible? Take all honors away from her and marginalize her? Envy her relationship with Jesus and call her a sinner despite no proof? Say she was clueless as to who her Son was until the cross? Yes Protestants sure know how to relate to "mary".
==end pilgrim post

How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

 

[Buzzard]

Bonnie said:
Oh, that started early on, even in the late first century. Jesus warned us about false saviors and false prophets leading even the elect astray. Pete warned us, also, and so did Paul. YOUR church and some of what it teaches is proof of that!

ramcam2 said:
yes, even as early as the first century heresies crept in.
where does the passage says it is the catholic church? you have to prove first that the catholic church is not the church Jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad, with the keys given to Peter as the first leader here on earth.

====================end ram's post
you have to prove first that the catholic church is not the church Jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad,

No ram;
you are getting the cart before the horse;

Bonnie doesn't have to prove anything
you made the statement
now its up to you to prove
'beyond a shadow of a doubt"
that the RCC is the church you speak of

the church Jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad,​

with the keys given to Peter as the first leader here on earth.​

can you do that
if so
you will be the 1st man ever to do so
rise to the challenge


you also have some questions to be answered here

- The Bride

I am going to this Thread on The Bride of Christ hope fully we can keep it on subject ramcam2 said: there are many symbolism in who the woman is in rev 12. but, your source is blind to the fact that the woman is to give birth to the child who will rule with an iron rod. Jesus is the child who...

forums.carm.org

 

[ramcam2]

error.........................

 

[ramcam2]

yes, I know. But your church still did not exist back then. Your church took hundreds of years to morph into the bloated organization it is today.

that is very easy to say but can you back up your words with historical evidences? i guess, all you are doing are just arguments from silence. as for me i have the writings of ignatius of antioch (110ad), letter on the martyrdom of polycarp (155ad), and the muratorian fragment (180ad) as evidences in history. all you can do are false assumptions showing your ignorance of the subject.

I have proven it. In order for the 1st century church to be YOUR church, it would have had to have taught the following:

1. Mariolatry and all it entails.
2. 4 Marian Dogmas
3. Indulgences
4. Praying to saints dead in the Lord and one would to God
5. Celibate, unmarried clergy
6. Purgatory
7. Salvation by grace through faith PLUS works
8. Being subject to Popes is necessary for salvation

DID the first century church teach any of these things?

that is according to your personal interpretation of the bible which i am sure is fallible. why not read the writings of the early christians and compare it with how you fallibly understand the written word?

 

[balshan]

that is very easy to say but can you back up your words with historical evidences? i guess, all you are doing are just arguments from silence. as for me i have the writings of ignatius of antioch (110ad), letter on the martyrdom of polycarp (155ad), and the muratorian fragment (180ad) as evidences in history. all you can do are false assumptions showing your ignorance of the subject.


that is according to your personal interpretation of the bible which i am sure is fallible. why not read the writings of the early christians and compare it with how you fallibly understand the written word?

No those doctrines quoted by Bonnie are not scriptural, if they were an RC would have produced the evidence by now. It seems all RCs have is arguments from silence which are totally meaningless.

 

[ramcam2]

Bonnie said:
Oh, that started early on, even in the late first century. Jesus warned us about false saviors and false prophets leading even the elect astray. Pete warned us, also, and so did Paul. YOUR church and some of what it teaches is proof of that!

ramcam2 said:
yes, even as early as the first century heresies crept in.
where does the passage says it is the catholic church? you have to prove first that the catholic church is not the church Jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad, with the keys given to Peter as the first leader here on earth.

====================end ram's post
you have to prove first that the catholic church is not the church Jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad,

No ram;
you are getting the cart before the horse;

Bonnie doesn't have to prove anything
you made the statement
now its up to you to prove
'beyond a shadow of a doubt"
that the RCC is the church you speak of

the church Jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad,​

with the keys given to Peter as the first leader here on earth.​

can you do that
if so
you will be the 1st man ever to do so
rise to the challenge


you also have some questions to be answered here

- The Bride

I am going to this Thread on The Bride of Christ hope fully we can keep it on subject ramcam2 said: there are many symbolism in who the woman is in rev 12. but, your source is blind to the fact that the woman is to give birth to the child who will rule with an iron rod. Jesus is the child who...

forums.carm.org

why not read the writings of ignatius of antioch (110ad), letter on the martyrdom of polycarp (155ad), and the muratorian fragment (180ad). I am pretty sure that when the catholic church is mentioned, it points to the church in rome with the successor peter as the head. the writings of the early christians, 100 to 500ad, are also proof of the catholic church as the church jesus established in jerusalem, 33ad.

 

[ramcam2]

error..................

 

[A new day]

I'm going to say the same thing in this thread that I just posted in another thread.

On the day of pentecost, those who believed the gospel message, were called believers. Acts 9 is the first mention of believer's belonging to "the way". "The way" is mentioned again in Acts chapter 19, Acts chapter 22, Acts chapter 24, in connection with those who believed the gospel message. The early followers of Christ referred to themselves as followers of the Way because of Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 that He is “the way and the truth and the life.” In Acts 11 the believers in Antioch, spoke so much about Christ, that the people living in Antioch, began calling believer's Christians. By Acts 26, the title "Christian" was well known throughout the Roman world

Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

1 Peter 4:16
However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

Nothing in Scripture about early believers being called Roman catholics.

 

[balshan]

error..................

Oh so you cannot support your claims that those false doctrines are scriptural. No surprise.

 

[A new day]

Oh so you cannot support your claims that those false doctrines are scriptural. No surprise.

um..... when ram posted, I got a notice that I was quoted. But I think ram intended to quote someone else, and tried to edit the post. Sometimes the edit feature won't let a person edit. So I'm thinking ram meant that the an error occurred. We need ram to clarify the post.

 

[balshan]

um..... when ram posted, I got a notice that I was quoted. But I think ram intended to quote someone else, and tried to edit the post. Sometimes the edit feature won't let a person edit. So I'm thinking ram meant that the an error occurred. We need ram to clarify the post.

It appeared in my alerts as a response to one of my posts.

 

[ramcam2]

it is not "full of grace" but "graced with grace/graced with favor." There is nothing in the Greek that implies filled with all possible grace. Certainly Mary was filled with God's grace, but that doesn't mean that she was sinless. ALL Christians are "full of grace." NOT just Mary.

I went back and forth about this years ago on here. This Catholic wrote this to me:

Sooo... I did talk to a Greek Scholar, my old cyber friend, Dr. Robert Luginbill, who has been teaching Biblical Greek for decades and studied it for over 10 years. I sent this to him and asked him about this "translation" of being full of "all possible grace." Luginbill wrote this back to me:

I am sorry about the configuration of this post; I don't know how to fix it. If you have problems with it, let me know.
[/QUOTE]

here are from other experts...

The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb’s lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, “he graced, bestowed grace.” This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because “the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result.”(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)
Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

Regarding the title/name full of grace... the angel called Maryby her new title/name. The renaming of Mary also conveys how names communicate something that is permanent about the character of the one named (Abram changed to Abraham—Gen. 17:5, l5; Jacob changed to Israel—Gen. 32:28). It denotes an action having taken place in the past, before the announcement of the angel, and one that continues throughout her existence.

 

[Bonnie]

that is very easy to say but can you back up your words with historical evidences? i guess, all you are doing are just arguments from silence. as for me i have the writings of ignatius of antioch (110ad), letter on the martyrdom of polycarp (155ad), and the muratorian fragment (180ad) as evidences in history. all you can do are false assumptions showing your ignorance of the subject.

Those ECFs are not the Bible. Errors have been creeping into the church since its inception. Witness what Jesus said to 5 out of the 7 churches in Revelation.

that is according to your personal interpretation of the bible which i am sure is fallible. why not read the writings of the early christians and compare it with how you fallibly understand the written word?

Why not just read the Bible, which IS infallible, as if it had something to say to you, instead of what the ECFs and your church have fallibly taught sometimes over the centuries?

But I do note that you ignored those RCC teachings I listed....can you show me from the Bible where the first century church taught any of them? If you cannot, and they are doctrines and teachings of your church, then that means that the RCC did not exist in the Bible and Jesus didn't "found" it.

 

[Nondenom40]

Sooo... I did talk to a Greek Scholar, my old cyber friend, Dr. Robert Luginbill, who has been teaching Biblical Greek for decades and studied it for over 10 years. I sent this to him and asked him about this "translation" of being full of "all possible grace." Luginbill wrote this back to me:

I am sorry about the configuration of this post; I don't know how to fix it. If you have problems with it, let me know.

here are from other experts...

The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb’s lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, “he graced, bestowed grace.” This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because “the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result.”(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)
Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

Regarding the title/name full of grace... the angel called Maryby her new title/name. The renaming of Mary also conveys how names communicate something that is permanent about the character of the one named (Abram changed to Abraham—Gen. 17:5, l5; Jacob changed to Israel—Gen. 32:28). It denotes an action having taken place in the past, before the announcement of the angel, and one that continues throughout her existence.

This still doesn't make her sinless. The perfect tense is; a past completed action having present results. Thats it. It doesn't make her sinless, just graced. And charitoo does not mean sinless and it doesn't mean full of grace. Show us a lexical citation where charitoo means full of grace.

 

[Bonnie]

Hi NonDenom--you are correct. It does not mean sinless perfection. Nor was it some new name for Mary, either. Gabriel just told Mary that she was graced with God's favor. And she was.

 

[Nondenom40]

Hi NonDenom--you are correct. It does not mean sinless perfection. Nor was it some new name for Mary, either. Gabriel just told Mary that she was graced with God's favor. And she was.

Exactly. Catholics also forget the following verses;

Luke 1:29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

Mary didn't know what kind of greeting it was. Gabriel didn't rename her kechariomene. He says 'do not be afraid 'Mary'. Not kecharitomene. And, he reiterated, 'you have found favor with God.' Not, you are sinless. I know you know this but catholics have a tendency to stop at the verse that they think proves their point. If they read a few more verses it destroys their argument.

 

[balshan]

Hi NonDenom--you are correct. It does not mean sinless perfection. Nor was it some new name for Mary, either. Gabriel just told Mary that she was graced with God's favor. And she was.

Those of us who are saved are all graced with God's favour. Without God's grace through faith we have nothing,

 

[ramcam2]

Those ECFs are not the Bible. Errors have been creeping into the church since its inception. Witness what Jesus said to 5 out of the 7 churches in Revelation.

i have given you historical evidences that the catholic church is the church that existed in early Christianity (100-500ad). of course there are heresies but the one true church did not fall to error as Jesus promised or else Jesus is lying. because her mission continues, this special guidance continues with the successors of St. Peter and those apostolic successors (bishops) in union with him.

Why not just read the Bible, which IS infallible, as if it had something to say to you, instead of what the ECFs and your church have fallibly taught sometimes over the centuries?

But I do note that you ignored those RCC teachings I listed....can you show me from the Bible where the first century church taught any of them? If you cannot, and they are doctrines and teachings of your church, then that means that the RCC did not exist in the Bible and Jesus didn't "found" it.

by just reading the bible without a divine authority, the result are the different sects/denominations that keep on dividing depending on the personal interpretation of the pastors. the Catholic church is the only church present in the early apostolic times and promised by her founder, Jesus Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the gates of hell will not prevail, and that He will be with her till the end of time. these are the guarantees that she will never err when teaching on matters of faith and morals.

the bible is inerrant, we do not say it is infallible. fallibility or infalliblity are words used regarding an active agent. one that is alive, can decide, and make decisions, the bible is a book and books are not alive to decide and make decisions.

the bible does not contain all the materials a catholic need for theological explanation. Our rule of faith, as expressed in the Bible, is Sacred Scripture plus Sacred/Apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

 

[Bonnie]

i have given you historical evidences that the catholic church is the church that existed in early Christianity (100-500ad). of course there are heresies but the one true church did not fall to error as Jesus promised or else Jesus is lying. because her mission continues, this special guidance continues with the successors of St. Peter and those apostolic successors (bishops) in union with him.

Really? The opinions of men who came long after the apostles do not equal the RCC.

Jesus never promised that error would not creep into the church; in fact, He predicted it would, leading even the elect astray! Your supposed first "pope" Peter also predicted it. What Jesus promised is the His church would never cease to exist, that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But this is the true church, not the one that teaches false doctrines which are merely precepts of men.

by just reading the bible without a divine authority, the result are the different sects/denominations that keep on dividing depending on the personal interpretation of the pastors. the Catholic church is the only church present in the early apostolic times and promised by her founder, Jesus Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the gates of hell will not prevail, and that He will be with her till the end of time. these are the guarantees that she will never err when teaching on matters of faith and morals.

Enough baloney to stock TWO delis! The early, first century apostolic church did not in the least resemble the Roman CAtholic Church of today, nor was it in existence during Apostolic times.

the bible is inerrant, we do not say it is infallible. fallibility or infalliblity are words used regarding an active agent. one that is alive, can decide, and make decisions, the bible is a book and books are not alive to decide and make decisions.

Oh, more baloney! Inerrant means without errors! So how can something without errors be fallible???

infallible definition - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

the bible does not contain all the materials a catholic need for theological explanation.

The Bible may not have some words that we use now to label a teaching found in it, but the TEACHINGS are still there, either explicit or implicit, like the following: The Triune Godhead; the Incarnation; Virgin Birth; Vicarious Atonement; and Hypostatic Union.

What ARE totally absent from the Bible, with not even a hint are: The 4 Marian Dogmas; praying to saints dead in the Lord as one would to God, for help, salvation, etc.; Indulgences; Purgatory; being subject to popes is necessary for salvation; celibate clergy....

Not a hint in the first century church. People managed to be saved unto eternal life without these doctrines/practices, which means they are totally unnecessary and not true at all.

Our rule of faith, as expressed in the Bible, is Sacred Scripture plus Sacred/Apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

YOUR rule of faith--NOT the Bible's!

The apostles never would have taught contrary to Scripture or what Jesus taught them. And nowhere is there any evidence that He or they taught the following:

1. the 4 Marian dogmas and believing in them is necessary for salvation
2. Indulgences
3. Popes and being subject to them is necessary for salvation
4. Praying to the dead in the Lord as one would to God, for help, succor, and even salvation
5. Purgatory
6. Celibate, unmarried clergy
7. Salvation by grace through faith plus our works

"In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men."
"Do not go beyond what is written."

Your church has done both for centuries--in spades. Shameful.

 

[Bonnie]

i have given you historical evidences that the catholic church is the church that existed in early Christianity (100-500ad). of course there are heresies but the one true church did not fall to error as Jesus promised or else Jesus is lying. because her mission continues, this special guidance continues with the successors of St. Peter and those apostolic successors (bishops) in union with him.

Really? The opinions of men who came long after the apostles do not equal the RCC.

Jesus never promised that error would not creep into the church; in fact, He predicted it would, leading even the elect astray! Your supposed first "pope" Peter also predicted it. What Jesus promised is that His church would never cease to exist, that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But this is the true church, not the one that teaches false doctrines which are merely precepts of men.

by just reading the bible without a divine authority, the result are the different sects/denominations that keep on dividing depending on the personal interpretation of the pastors. the Catholic church is the only church present in the early apostolic times and promised by her founder, Jesus Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the gates of hell will not prevail, and that He will be with her till the end of time. these are the guarantees that she will never err when teaching on matters of faith and morals.

Enough baloney to stock TWO delis! The early, first century apostolic church did not in the least resemble the Roman CAtholic Church of today, nor was the RCC in existence during Apostolic times.

the bible is inerrant, we do not say it is infallible. fallibility or infalliblity are words used regarding an active agent. one that is alive, can decide, and make decisions, the bible is a book and books are not alive to decide and make decisions.

Oh, more baloney! Inerrant means without errors! So how can something without errors be fallible???

infallible definition - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

the bible does not contain all the materials a catholic need for theological explanation.

The Bible may not have some words that we use now to label a teaching found in it, but the TEACHINGS are still there, either explicit or implicit, like the following: The Triune Godhead; the Incarnation; Virgin Birth; Vicarious Atonement; and Hypostatic Union.

What ARE totally absent from the Bible, with not even a hint are: The 4 Marian Dogmas; praying to saints dead in the Lord as one would to God, for help, salvation, etc.; Indulgences; Purgatory; being subject to popes is necessary for salvation; celibate clergy....

Not a hint in the first century church. People managed to be saved unto eternal life without these doctrines/practices, which means they are totally unnecessary and not true at all.

Our rule of faith, as expressed in the Bible, is Sacred Scripture plus Sacred/Apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

YOUR rule of faith--not God's! HIS counts, not yours and HE has said "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men" and "Do NOT go beyond what is written."

YOUR church has done both for centuries, to its shame.