|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 13:00:18 GMT -5
Jesus is God. That verse is talking about men who have come from Adam, not from God.
If that verse does not mean Mary, then the Bible lies and isn't true. Correct, Steven? And if it isn't true, why believe it at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 14:05:14 GMT -5
Emily,
Is Jesus an exception to the verse "All have sinned"?
Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 14:07:13 GMT -5
Heather, No, He is the second part of that verse, not the frist part. He is the glory of God in that verse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 1, 2009 14:21:47 GMT -5
Jesus is God. That verse is talking about men who have come from Adam, not from God. If that verse does not mean Mary, then the Bible lies and isn't true. Correct, Steven? And if it isn't true, why believe it at all? But Em, Jesus was human as well. He came from the seed of David (Rom 1:3), took flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary. He was "born of a women" as Blessed Paul wrote. Humanity and divinity are hypostatically united together: the two natures exist in the one person of the Word who became flesh, a divine person (or hypostasis). Christ exists "in two natures," without being of two natures; the two natures exist united together "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." (Council of Chalcedon). Romans 3:23 carries restriction, just like other Scriptures which have the word "all" but it is restricted! Frequently an apparently absolute declaration is limited in application. Consider the following examples in which "all" is clearly to be understood in a restricted sense: In Luke 2:1, the word "all" is restricted to only the Roman World. In John 10:8, the word "all" does not refer to John the Baptist and other prophets. In Romans 3:23, the word "all" does not refer to Christ nor to infants, but it is again restricted. Romans 3:23 doesn't apply to Jesus, because Saint Paul use the word "all" in a restricted way. However, He was human, subject to the same temptation as we were, but He did not sin. He was in constant communication with His Father, and He being God made flesh, could not have sin. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 14:29:56 GMT -5
Emily, then if you believe that Jesus is not an exception, does that mean you believe that He isn't a real human being?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 14:34:54 GMT -5
I have an question that may seem off subject...
Where was Mary when Jesus was being crucified? What was she doing? What was she saying? Who was she looking at? What emotions do you think she experienced at that time?
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 14:35:59 GMT -5
Heather, Jesus is part of the latter part of that verse, not the first part. He's in that verse, just not under the world "all" because it applies to men, not God.
Ramon, I'm not exactly sure why I should keep defending myself, when no one has given me a verse where it says Mary was sinless.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 14:41:22 GMT -5
Emily, Jesus is God AND MAN. Not either/or.
And you didn't give us a verse that said babies will go straight to heaven when they died, but you still believe that is true.
Everything that the Bible says is true, but not everything that is true is in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 14:52:03 GMT -5
Ramon just gave me an idea to post what Luther said about Mary (why not? We use his hymns at mass ; )
he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child.... Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.... None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God."[10]
-Martin Luther (Luther's Works, 21:326, cf. 21:346.)
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.[11]
Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 595.
Sometimes I really like Luther. He was definitely right about Mary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 1, 2009 14:54:33 GMT -5
Ramon, I'm not exactly sure why I should keep defending myself, when no one has given me a verse where it says Mary was sinless. O.k, so we have concluded the following: 1) You and others here who believe the Ever-Virgin Mary sinned, have no scriptural support. 2) I and other here who believe that the Ever-Virgin Mary did not commit any actual sin have no scriptural support. We believe she was a exception. No problem Em, I am not Sola-Scripturist! LOL! But is this important? Emily, you believe Infants are sinless (innocent), even though you told us before that you did not get that from Scriptures. You told us you could find no Scripture to support your theory. You also believe Babies go to Heaven, drinking alcohol is a sin, even though Scriptures teach no such things. You still have not given me a verse that said drinking is a sin. So we both are even! LOL! In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 14:56:48 GMT -5
Protestants: Was Luther wrong or right about Mary?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 1, 2009 15:07:43 GMT -5
Heather, Jesus is part of the latter part of that verse, not the first part. He's in that verse, just not under the world "all" because it applies to men, not God. Jesus was human Em. He came from the seed of David (Rom 1:3), took flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary. He was "born of a women" as Blessed Paul wrote. Humanity and divinity are hypostatically united together: the two natures exist in the one person of the Word who became flesh, a divine person (or hypostasis). Christ exists "in two natures," without being of two natures; the two natures exist united together "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." (Council of Chalcedon). So the correct understanding of Romans 3:23 is that it applies to all men, with the exception of Jesus Christ, and for us, the Ever-Virgin Mary. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 15:28:30 GMT -5
Heather, I gave you a verse in 2nd Sam and about how one has to be like a child to enter heaven. If that is not enough for you...and/or if you do not understand the nature of God, there isn't much else I can do.
Ramon, Read above for babies. Also, I never said children never sin...if you've been around children you know they sin, but they don't realize they have sinned....thus the innocence.
I also don't believe Mary was an "ever-virgin". And I do believe drinking alcohol is a sin...which I already went over.
Also, I do not take Scripture in solitude, I compare it to other Scriptures. And since other Scriptures say that Jesus is sinless....He is not part of the human part of that verse but rather the God part of that verse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 1, 2009 15:44:52 GMT -5
Ramon, Read above for babies. Also, I never said children never sin...if you've been around children you know they sin, but they don't realize they have sinned....thus the innocence. Em, you believe infants are sinless (innocent), but even you admitted that you can find no Scripture to prove your theory. We went over that, remember? And I do believe drinking alcohol is a sin...which I already went over. Yup, you do, but nowhere in Scripture does it say drinking is a sin. You get my point? Also, I do not take Scripture in solitude, I compare it to other Scriptures. And since other Scriptures say that Jesus is sinless....He is not part of the human part of that verse but rather the God part of that verse. But Saint Paul said "all have sin". The only logic conclusion is that Saint Paul use the word "all" in a restricted sense, as other places in Scriptures use the word. And if you compare Scriptures, you will know that the word "all" is often used in Scriptures in a restricted sense, why not here Em? You are not willing to admit this because it will give a case to those of us who believe Mary, the Theotokos, did not commit any actual sin. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 16:04:31 GMT -5
Ramon, 2nd Samuel talks about infants being safe in Christ...and when one compares the OT to the NT s/he will see that God doesn't want His people to drink alcohol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 1, 2009 16:11:24 GMT -5
Ramon, 2nd Samuel talks about infants being safe in Christ... Where? 2nd Samuel teach that infants are sinless and are innocent? We are "children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). We are by nature children of wrath not innocent. So you don't believe Infants are born with a "sinful nature" (Protestant phrase)? I agree, Infants do not commit actual sins, but they have Ancestral Sin, and thus need healing from Christ. and when one compares the OT to the NT s/he will see that God doesn't want His people to drink alcohol. Nope, we would not. Alcohol is permitted in Scriptures. Check the NT! Okay, I am going to move on from this topic. I only mention it to prove a point. You keep saying "compare" but you could never give a verse! LOL! In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jul 1, 2009 16:36:39 GMT -5
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Luke 18:16-17: 16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Matthew 18:3-5: 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
_________________________________________
Proverbs 20
1Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Proverbs 31
4It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
Revelation 1:6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:10:And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Again, I compare Scripture with Scripture, I strive to be a workman who studies...not just someone who merely reads the Word.
|
|
|
|
Post by toy4mud on Jul 1, 2009 16:52:16 GMT -5
This is a funny forum. I'm reading something that says if there isn't a verse that says Mary sinned, then she didn't sin. There isn't a verse that says I specifically didn't sin, but one that says everyone sinned. How could I be a sinner if my name isn't mentioned specifically? Cepha, did Jesus ride a bike? I think you mentioned that in an analogy before. If there isn't a verse that says he didn't ride a bike, then he must have rode a bike. Apparently what I am learning is that if someone wants something to be true, then you just say that if the bible says nothing against it specifically then it must be true. Then a popular thing to do is jump around direct questions that can't be answered by trying to deflect. It's great for arguments sake I guess because it can go on forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 17:31:02 GMT -5
This is a funny forum. I'm reading something that says if there isn't a verse that says Mary sinned, then she didn't sin. There isn't a verse that says I specifically didn't sin, but one that says everyone sinned. How could I be a sinner if my name isn't mentioned specifically? Cepha, did Jesus ride a bike? I think you mentioned that in an analogy before. If there isn't a verse that says he didn't ride a bike, then he must have rode a bike. Apparently what I am learning is that if someone wants something to be true, then you just say that if the bible says nothing against it specifically then it must be true. Then a popular thing to do is jump around direct questions that can't be answered by trying to deflect. It's great for arguments sake I guess because it can go on forever. Sorry Toy 4 Mud,] But you've got it all wrong. WE (Catholics) are here to defend our faith. Non-Catholics come on here (and are welcome here) they are usually here to challege us, and sometimes to ask questions etc. The problem that Non-Catholics have is that they are trying to deny something that Christians have always believed. We are not trying to make up doctrine and then try to twist scripture to fit our views. We don't have to do that, we don't believe in "Sola Scriptura" and we don't reject the Original Christian Canon of Scripture. Of course there are doctrines that are not explicitly taught in scripture. But why do non-Catholics adhere to those doctrines? That should really be the question here. If non-Catholics feel justified in forming doctrine from their own traditions, then we are even more justified because we do not claim to use "Sola Scriptura". WE are only trying to show our views to Non-Catholics using Scripture alone since most Protestants can hardly hear any other source. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 1, 2009 17:43:27 GMT -5
That's a good one Cepha. Why didn't I think of that?
|
|
