The Immaculate Conception

[balshan]

The were more than one bishop in the church and James wasn't in authority over those other bishops, but Peter was.

Prove it, you cannot. There was no pope in the NT and no overseer of all bishops in the NT. I mean according to your use of scripture Peter is Satan and Jesus did not put Satan in authority. All you show is your lack of understanding of scripture.

 

[Bonnie]

James was addressing those who were under his authority and not speaking on behalf of the entire church - that was Peter.

What garbage! The council's decision affected the ENTIRE church--NOT just the church in Jerusalem. James was addressing EVERYONE in the church.

What desperation, to make Peter the supposed first pope, by twisting the Scriptural witness!!

Peter made the final decision for the church and not just the Jewish believers.

Ba-lo-ney! James did!

Ps. you just admitted that scripture didn't make the final decision.

PS--No I did not. James used SCRIPTURE to support his decision. He also had the HS. Unlike most of your popes and magisterium.

 

[Bonnie]

not in my Bible
James had the final say after appealing to Scripture

Amazing, isn't it, denying the plain words of Scripture.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

 

[dingoling.]

Prove it, you cannot. There was no pope in the NT and no overseer of all bishops in the NT.

But the nCCs are saying James is the one who made the decision. Did James have the authority to make the decision for the entire church?

 

[dingoling.]

Amazing, isn't it, denying the plain words of Scripture.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

So James had the authority over the entire church?

Ps you are saying that scripture didn't have the final say.

 

[balshan]

But the nCCs are saying James is the one who made the decision. Did James have the authority to make the decision for the entire church?

Yes James did, you haven't proved he hasn't. When he went out and told them of the decision, he was speaking to all followers as Jerusalem was the place where they all gathered. At that time the way was considered part of Judaism and Jerusalem was the centre for all Judaism.

 

[Bonnie]

But the nCCs are saying James is the one who made the decision. Did James have the authority to make the decision for the entire church?

What does Acts 15 state? James gave his judgment AFTER appealing to Scripture. The others obviously agreed or Luke would have told us of any disagreements with his judgment. So, he obviously had authority. So did all of the apostles.

SCRIPTURE was their final authority.

 

[dingoling.]

What does Acts 15 state? James gave his judgment AFTER appealing to Scripture. The others obviously agreed or Luke would have told us of any disagreements with his judgment. So, he obviously had authority. So did all of the apostles.

SCRIPTURE was their final authority.

Scripture could not have been the final authority. Paul says in Ephesians 3 that it was a mystery hidden from past ages that the Gentiles would become sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus. So if that was a mystery then how could there circumcision not be?

 

[balshan]

Scripture could not have been the final authority. Paul says in Ephesians 3 that it was a mystery hidden from past ages that the Gentiles would become sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus. So if that was a mystery then how could there circumcision not be?

You desperation and lack of understanding is showing once again.

 

[Buzzard]

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom,
and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one,
and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.
This is he which received seed by the way side.
.

and ding blabbers again
dingoling. said:
Scripture could not have been the final authority. Paul says in Ephesians 3 that it was a mystery hidden from past ages that the Gentiles would become sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus. So if that was a mystery then how could there circumcision not be?
======================= end ding's post

Matt.13:17
For verily I say unto you,
That many prophets and righteous men
have desired to see those things which ye see,
and have not seen them;
and to hear those things which ye hear,
and have not heard them.

 

[A new day]

James had the last word at the Jerusalem council meeting, and James referenced Amos 9:11-12.

Acts 15:13-19
When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:


“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

 

[Bonnie]

Scripture could not have been the final authority. Paul says in Ephesians 3 that it was a mystery hidden from past ages that the Gentiles would become sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus. So if that was a mystery then how could there circumcision not be?

Huh? This post makes no sense. You are getting desperate here, ding.

The fact is, James came up with the final judgment AFTER appealing to Scripture. No one protested the decision. So, they all must have agreed to it.

So, yes, it was Scripture that had the final authority with the apostles. The final decision was based upon it.

 

[Bonnie]

James had the last word at the Jerusalem council meeting, and James referenced Amos 9:11-12.

Acts 15:13-19
When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:


“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

Yes, James, not Peter. Which proves that Peter wasn't the supposed "pope" over the entire church back then. No apostle was. They all had authority.

 

[Bonnie]

So James had the authority over the entire church?

No--ALL the apostles had authority in the church. But James appealed to Scripture and made his judgment. There was no protest from anyone on this, and so, they must all have agreed to it.

Ps you are saying that scripture didn't have the final say.

Yes, I am, because James based his judgment on what Scripture said.

 

[ramcam2]

Show us from the Bible where the first century church believed Mary was "ever virgin." It talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters. and no, they were not cousins, since there is a perfectly good Greek word for cousins--anepsios--which is used only once in the NT of John Mark, Barnabas' cousin.

Show us.

Explain to us why it was so all-fired necessary for Mary to remain a virgin AFTER Jesus was born. Before He was born--absolutely! But after? What would be the point? Why couldn't she and Joseph have a normal, married life with all that it entails, joyfully raising up children of Joseph's body together, along with Jesus?

As for Luther, I know he believed this, but it was his opinion. It is NOT dogma in our church, but considered pious opinion. See, I don't blindly believe everything Luther believed. He isn't our "pope."

here is one passage...
luke1: 28- mary is full of grace. the greek word 'kecharitomene' is in the perfect tence to mean she is graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.

for the rest, i would refer you to Jerome's answer, 383ad, to Helvidius whether Mary remained a virgin even after birth.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[ramcam2]

That would not be your RCC which did not exist back then, and took hundreds of years to develop.

And the Bible is for everyone who wants to know the truth and how to have eternal life.


Errors started creeping in, even in the first century, and both Jesus and Peter predicted more errors would creep into the church--and did, late in the first century. But God always keeps a remnant for Himself and that isn't your RCC, with its many man-made, false teachings that are taught as doctrine, but are no more than "precepts of men."


Official, offischmal! This is just a cop-out, t The Bible isn't a closed book whose correct understanding is vouchsafed to only a few in the RCC. It is for everyone and it is not hard to understand.

if not the catholic church, which divine institutio existed in the first century, the second, the third, etc.... up to the present time?
and why do you think there are many different churches with different contradicting beliefs?

Nowhere does the Acts text claim the Bereans believed in any oral traditions passed down to them by their rabbis or religious teachers. When they heard Paul, they did not discuss oral traditions to determine if what he taught them was the truth. They searched the Scriptures, to see if what Paul had said was the truth.

But you still didn't answer my question: WHO "officially" interpreted the Scriptures for the Bereans, when they searched them to see if Paul spoke the truth? I mean, the text says they "searched the Scriptures DAILY" to check on what Paul had taught them. THEY searched the Scriptures for themselves--didn't they?

the Bereans searched the writings of the old testament to see if Paul's teachings were contrary to it. since not all doctrines are written in the old testament, they just have to trust Paul's preaching since it is not found in the old testament. there were also others who did not believe but they did not start a riot like those in Thessalonia. Yes, the Bereans searched the writings of the old testament and although they did not find what Paul is preaching (that Jesus rose on the third day), some accepted it. This shows that not all can be found in the writings/scriptures so that it cannot be a rule of faith.

 

[ramcam2]

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!

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.

 

[A new day]

for the rest, i would refer you to Jerome's answer, 383ad, to Helvidius whether Mary remained a virgin even after birth.

You had to refer to a writer that wrote close to 400 years after the apostles were alive on earth. Jesus endorsed the apostles who spent time with Him during His ministry. There isn't a hint anywhere in Scripture of mary remaining a virgin. So you had to refer to another source outside of Scripture.

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.

You think the early church during john the apostle, life time, was all pristine without fault. NOT so, Because Jesus rebuked the early church. Error was being taught to and by the church, while john was still alive, hence Jesus' scathing rebuke.

Revelation 2:4-5
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

Revelation 2:15-16
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 2:20-23
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 3:1
These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

Revelation 3:17
You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

 

[Bonnie]

yes, even as early as the first century heresies crept in.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Bonnie]

here is one passage...
luke1: 28- mary is full of grace. the greek word 'kecharitomene' is in the perfect tence to mean she is graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.

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:

​

"Yes Bonnie, all Christians are full of Grace, but you are using Grace as a adjective- describing them. Second, Christians have not been Graced with all possible Grace both past present and future as the Greek literally means here. Third, the angel did not use Grace to describe Mary. He did not say "Hail Mary Full of Grace." Rather he called her by name "Hail Full of Grace." In other words her name was "Full of Grace" not "Mary full of Grace." This is the only time this is used this way in the entire Bible, it is not used this way in Acts, as Stephen is described as "Stephen Full of Grace." not "Full of Grace" This is what Scripture Scholars call a Hapax Lagamonon in Luke. Highly favored one is a valid but a poor translation. Talk to a Greek Scholar and see what they say about my own translation of it. The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing. Highly favored one is more flowing then "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." Would you not agree? If Bonnie my translation is accurate, or valid, then if one is Graced with all possible Grace not only now, but in the past, and in the future, that is there is no more Grace they can possible have, what does that imply Bonnie? All possible Grace in the past? It means from conception Bonnie, which means Mary was saved before ever falling in to sin."

​

[/quote]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:

A simple answer to your respondent would be "hogwash", but I suppose we should go into the details. What irritates me is when people who are used to dealing with others who don't have degrees in Greek use their insufficient knowledge as a sort of sledge hammer to "settle" all arguments:

1) Transliterated the word would be kecharitomene, but anyone dealing with Greek would describe it as what it is, a participle of the verb charitoo.

2) Of all Indo-European languages of which I am aware, Greek is the most root-focused. The import of that fact here is that the word "grace" or "favor" which is at the root of charitoo is the key to discovering what that verb means or might mean. To put the matter in terms of its essential accidence, charitoo is merely a factitive verb, that is, it's what someone does when they want to take a noun and turn it into a transitive verb. Therefore, by its structure and root the verb ought to mean "to give or bestow grace/favor to or on someone". In the case of a perfect participle in passive voice (such as we have here), the form would then mean "someone who has had grace/favor given/bestowed to/on them.
3) To call this word a "hapax" in an attempt to bestow some sort of uniqueness on it is disingenuous. Not only does this verb occur throughout Greek literature - it also occurs in the Bible at Ephesians 1:6:

Having foreordained us for adoption to Himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will, for the purpose of producing (at salvation) praise for the glory of His grace which He has graciously bestowed on us in the Beloved [One]. Ephesians 1:5-6

So, here the same verb is used in this Ephesian passage. So....were the Ephesians graced with all possible grace, making them without sin?

Luginbill continues:

Another way to put the italicized phrase is "grace which He has graced us with"; in the Greek its charin hes echaritosen. In other words, the verb in question from Luke 1:28 has as its first or internal object "grace" and as its second or true direct object "us". We get / have gotten grace/favor from God in Jesus Christ. We know that here because the verse says so explicitly, but that is not any kind of surprise for anyone who understands that grace is favor, and specifically and importantly in the Bible God's favor. We are all said to have it in Ephesians 1:6 through exactly the same verb as is used in Luke 1:28. That doesn't mean, of course, that we never sin!

Finally as to the translation "full of grace", while there is nothing to recommend the "full of" here, it's not really the translation that's the problem but rather what R.C. theology attempts to do with it (and would no doubt attempt to do with any reasonable translation), namely, to make Mary sinless or special in some super-human way. Mary was special indeed, a true believer in a time of wide-spread apostasy, and obviously a very good one too. There is no indication that she was perfect, however, nor was there any need for her to be.

Also in Luke, Luke 2:52 to be precise, we are told that "Jesus continued to grow in wisdom, and in stature, and in grace with God and men". If grace or favor is progressive in the case of our unquestionably perfect Lord, how is it that in Mary's case it is "perfect from eternity"? Clearly, even our Lord in His capacity as a true human being was required to grow spiritually, showing that even in the case of someone who really didn't have a sin nature, grace or favor is still a relative thing and is dependent upon one's actions rather than being some sort of "magic" one just has. Long story short, this idea about Mary being perfect coming from Luke 1:28 is ridiculous on the face of it. Even the preferred R.C. translation doesn't say or imply that - unless, as I say, we imagine grace as "magic" and give "full of" the idea of absolute perfection and eternal residency, neither of which is either biblical or theologically reasonable to anyone who is consulting scripture and thinking for themselves.

He wrote more, but this should suffice. I did indeed consult a Greek scholar about this, at the Catholic's suggestion, who destroyed the Catholic's interpretation of this passage, to mean Mary had all possible grace, from past, present, and future.

for the rest, i would refer you to Jerome's answer, 383ad, to Helvidius whether Mary remained a virgin even after birth.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

It is telling that you must refer to a 4th century theologian to back up the unscriptural doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin. There is nothing in the Bible that even hints at that. After Jesus' birth and her period of purification was finished, she and Joseph went on the have children together, gifts from God for their humble obedience to His will. That is the most normal way to read the passages where Jesus' siblings are mentioned, with the brothers even being named. So, Mary and Joseph had at least 6 children together. They were blessed indeed by God with such a big family!

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.