What does Roman Catholics believe in?
-
ehhh... natasha... I am not prosecuting u or anything. I am just asking a simple question because there appears something wrong or contradictory with the facts given to me. Just believing in jesus christ doesn't really means anything... some cult also believe in jesus christ. Does tat means all of them r the same ? Catholic r called catholic and protestant r called protestant for a reason.
I am not a christain BTW -
then why are they always telling Catholics this is wrong, that is wrong?
Jesus tells us: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." LK.6.37
Aiya... say anything you like la.... sometimes feels it's a waste of breath
If you feels so, no amount of explaining can change yr mind... wait till you feel it yourself.
Speaking from experience hor.... I used to be a Buddhist and quite anti-christain and when i feel it coming... no stopping me from converting... and why Catholism... coz I am more at peace with this religion. So no matter how much we explain oso no point.... It's God that choose you and not you choose God.
You just feel free to believe in whatever you believe in... anyway God had given us the freedom to choose...
To add oso... religion cannot be explained by logic. It's all in yr mind and beliefs.
If religion = logic,
1. Mother Mary would never had conceive Jesus as she is a virgin
2. Jesus would not have died on the Cross for us. Why should he right??
3. Jesus would not have rose from the dead.
4. There would not be tongues of fire on the head of Mother Mary and the Apostles coz their hair would catch fire.
and many more....
So if you want to use logic to explain religion, I tell you forget it.
Aiyo, cak sim ah.... dunno how many cells die already....
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Icemoon, I think you are using a long tek kor to capsize the whole sampan. Do you know that we are praying for the unification of all Christains? It's a uphill task and cannot be done overnight. Oni thru the Grace of God can it be done and we have to pray hard for it...
[b]Have anyone heard Catholics telling protestants into their faces that their faith is wrong??
There is no need to. To the Catholics, Protestantism is a HERESY. The damage is done.
Catholics are always more tolerant...
Nay. They just like to burn people for translating the bible.
Are we not taught to refrain from judging others or we shall too be judged when our days comes??
Actually if you analyze the whole issue with a clear mind, the Protestants are not judging the Catholics and saying they (Protestants) are right, with the same authority like a Papal Bull.
[/b]
and there are some people fanning fire...
Not all Catholics are the 'Catholics' you have mentioned.
Like what i say in my previous post... you can say anything you like la... -
Me no angry la... just that sometimes cak sim lor.... sad to see brothers and sisters 'fight' neck to neck cak sim to hear people asking why worship Mary, why this, why that all the time... then when we try nicely to explain they still want to provoke some more....Originally posted by stupidissmart:ehhh... natasha... I am not prosecuting u or anything. I am just asking a simple question because there appears something wrong or contradictory with the facts given to me. Just believing in jesus christ doesn't really means anything... some cult also believe in jesus christ. Does tat means all of them r the same ? Catholic r called catholic and protestant r called protestant for a reason.
I am not a christain BTW
We are not asking them to follow us but just trying to explain our beliefs but if people dun agree somemore wan to proof us wrong like dat.... cak sim lor
should be more tolerant lor... just like buddhist can tolerate christains and muslims and visa versa, why cannot some christains tolerate other christains.... cak sim ah... -
You too heh? I thought I was the only one feeling like that responding to SIS.Originally posted by my_name_is_Natasha:then why are they always telling Catholics this is wrong, that is wrong?
Jesus tells us: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." LK.6.37
Aiya... say anything you like la.... sometimes feels it's a waste of breath If you feels so, no amount of explaining can change yr mind... wait till you feel it yourself.
Aiyo, cak sim ah.... dunno how many cells die already....
Cheers Natasha.... relak sister.... -
breath in, breath out.....Originally posted by Chin Eng:You too heh? I thought I was the only one feeling like that responding to SIS.
Cheers Natasha.... relak sister....
breath in, breath out.....
breath in, breath out..... -
Natasha you hit the issue right on the bulls's eye.
First of all, Christianity is not equal to Roman Catholism and vice versa.
At the first post of this thread i ask if anyone was to comment on the issue of the Ecumenical Movement. By the way ecumenicanism means "coming together as one". So coming together as what? It is coming together as a One World Religion. That is why the Vatican is asking all Roman Catholics to pray for the so-called misguided Christians to go back to the Vatican for unification. But huh-huh, its not just Christians, instead they are calling all other religion like Hindusim, Buddism, Bha-hais, Othordox Jewish, Islam, even Hari Khirshnas. I am not joking, check out the year 2000 and year 2001 World Religion Combin Prayer for World Peace at the Vatican. Do some research and read the Pope's script and you will be blown away.
So what's the issue here. It seems that, why its just a simple religious gathering? Nope, it right inside the bible. As prophesised, as warned to all Christians.
"Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness" 2 Cor 6:14
More intersting things. This will really surprise some people here The tool for the unification of Christians and Catholics is the Charismatic Movement.
Do you know that Charismatic Roman Catholics are the fastest growing cathoic denomination in the world? (surprising eh?)
Do you kow that Charismatic Christians are the fastest growing christian movement in the world? (quite apparent these days.)
Do you know that in the US, both Charismatic Catholics and Charismatic Christians are holding combined worhsip service together?It's true. Check those out if you have to time to search the internet.
I reiterate again and again, I have close friends who are Roman Catholics and I am praying for them to leave the Harlot Church mentioned in Revelation. I am not sure if they have been safed because only God knows. But I try to share the gospel with them because the Roman Catholic gospel is of a different gospel - a gospel of works, not faith.
Natasha quoted this verse;
Jesus tells us: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." LK.6.37
saying Christian should not judge Roman Catholics. I am sorry Natasha, you got it totally messed up. You got the meaning of the verse wrongly, the translator of bible changed the whole text. This verse does not mean what in meant here. Instead on a 180 degress turn, it is meant for Christians brethrens to judge each other in the Lord, to help each other to grow spiritually, and to shun away from any temptation and devices of the Devil.
On the end note, here quite a technical issue, subtile yet very cunning.
The word "CATHOLIC" actually means "universal belief". So technically in the english language,not spritually, Christians are CATHOLICS.
Here comes the twist. Roman Catholics are called Roman Catholics since days of Constantine. But in the Vatican Council II just over 50 years ago, the Vatican churched dropped the word "Roman" officially from the religion. It is also in the same Council that they advocate "helping" the lost, mislead Christian brothers back in the arms of the Vatican. There you have it.
[/b] -
Which part is the long tek kor? From the site SingaporeMacross (I think) quoted, Protestantism is a heresy. Read http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.aspOriginally posted by my_name_is_Natasha:Icemoon, I think you are using a long tek kor to capsize the whole sampan. Do you know that we are praying for the unification of all Christains? ... Not all Catholics are the 'Catholics' you have mentioned. -
then why are they always telling Catholics this is wrong, that is wrong?
Sola Scriptura. If it is not based on Scripture, then it is debatable.
It's God that choose you and not you choose God.
OMG .. fadango you see that? This is the good old Protestant doctrine of election.
To add oso... religion cannot be explained by logic. It's all in yr mind and beliefs.
Not logic lah, more like science.
1. Mother Mary would never had conceive Jesus as she is a virgin
This is a miracle. Science cannot disprove miracle also. Even David Hume did not do that.
2. Jesus would not have died on the Cross for us. Why should he right??
'Cos God the Father say so? John 3:16 says the Father gave His Son as a sacrifice for us.
3. Jesus would not have rose from the dead.
This is another miracle.
4. There would not be tongues of fire on the head of Mother Mary and the Apostles coz their hair would catch fire.
and many more....
Hahahah .. where was it written they have hair? Maybe all of them botak one? -
[quote]Originally posted by fandango:
First of all, Christianity is not equal to Roman Catholism and vice versa.
Are we not all believers of Christ? why split hair??
By the way ecumenicanism means "coming together as one". So coming together as what? It is coming together as a One World Religion. That is why the Vatican is asking all Roman Catholics to pray for the so-called misguided Christians to go back to the Vatican for unification.
why? because Catholism is the beginning. 2004 years of history... longest in all Christains denomination.
But huh-huh, its not just Christians, instead they are calling all other religion like Hindusim, Buddism, Bha-hais, Othordox Jewish, Islam, even Hari Khirshnas.
I think you are taking it too literately. Coming together as one means no more fighting among the people. Even my 80 year old Taoist Grandma accepts that. She was saying... It's okay that I convert coz she believes we believes in the same God.
So what's the issue here. It seems that, why its just a simple religious gathering? Nope, it right inside the bible. As prophesised, as warned to all Christians.
"Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness" 2 Cor 6:14
ya, quote the bible again... unbelievers here are the Cults which are unrighteous and living in darkness[/b]
saying Christian should not judge Roman Catholics. I am sorry Natasha, you got it totally messed up. You got the meaning of the verse wrongly, the translator of bible changed the whole text. This verse does not mean what in meant here. Instead on a 180 degress turn, it is meant for Christians brethrens to judge each other in the Lord, to help each other to grow spiritually, and to shun away from any temptation and devices of the Devil.
so are you saying yr translation is better then the bible scholars??
so if you want others to follow yr thinking... go write yr own translation, yr own bible. -
last post in this thread... dun wan and dun nid to say more....
To all reading here... God bless. -
Speaking from experience hor.... I used to be a Buddhist and quite anti-christain and when i feel it coming... no stopping me from converting... and why Catholism... coz I am more at peace with this religion. So no matter how much we explain oso no point.... It's God that choose you and not you choose God.
There r probably many other stories of people converting to other religion too. There r also account of people converting from catholic to free thinker and say they r happy about it.
God tat choose u not u choose god ? Heh... then god should actually reflect why he punish people who r not believersYou just feel free to believe in whatever you believe in... anyway God had given us the freedom to choose...
Why does he blame people who r not believers then ? Freedom to choose... r u sureTo add oso... religion cannot be explained by logic. It's all in yr mind and beliefs.
So u think the stories in bible r illogical and more like fairy tales ? BTW if u care to read my replies, I do not say I doubt miracles should happen but my cases r "If tis is true, then tat prob will occur". I better give an example. If Jesus is exists, then there is a possibility he is not from god from the devil. If jesus is true and he really is son of god, then god is very cruel to sacrifice his son fro himself. I hope u realise wat I am trying to say.
If religion = logic,
1. Mother Mary would never had conceive Jesus as she is a virgin
2. Jesus would not have died on the Cross for us. Why should he right??
3. Jesus would not have rose from the dead.
4. There would not be tongues of fire on the head of Mother Mary and the Apostles coz their hair would catch fire.
and many more....So if you want to use logic to explain religion, I tell you forget it.
Wat do u treat the bible as ? A book of fairy tales or a book tat tell the past history ? For me, or for othodox believers, they should believe tat all these events really occured in the past i.e. Jesus really come to earth and Job really got tested and adam and eve really lived before etc. If it really happened, why can't we use logic and look into it ?Aiyo, cak sim ah.... dunno how many cells die already....
Just to say a silly thing about tis comment The more u use the brain, the more cells it die but u shouldn't worry as it will excite it to grow more new ones, much more than the ones tat had die.
Finally just a question about ecumenicanism... u want all religion to combine as one ? R u willing to compromise then ? R u willing to add in a section maybe about taoist god or add in a section about buddhism. R u going to delete off certain section of your teachings if it is required for a unified religion ? If u r not going to compromise then wat do u mean by combining all religion into one ? Their teaching r extremely different from yours, and if u do not want to combine does tat means u r goign to swallow up their religion ? -
It is a pity Natasha opts out of the discussion, but oh well ...
Are we not all believers of Christ? why split hair??
I think SIS will counter-argue ... JW, Mormons also believers of Christ, why split hair with them? Haha ...
But my counter-argument is of a higher level. I ask the Catholics - why did the Church exocommunicate Luther if they were all believers of Christ? Why split hair? Heh.
why? because Catholism is the beginning. 2004 years of history... longest in all Christains denomination.
She is sly. She slipped in Eastern Orthodox when she mentioned Catholicism. She don't dare to write Roman Catholicism ..
You got the meaning of the verse wrongly, the translator of bible changed the whole text. This verse does not mean what in meant here.
Oh, I love this! Can you elaborate, Fadango? Especially the translator business and the bible version. Thanks.
so are you saying yr translation is better then the bible scholars?? so if you want others to follow yr thinking... go write yr own translation, yr own bible.
Just learn Koine Greek and a bit of Aramaic and we know the answer. -
HI stupidissmartOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Actually about the jesus and god thing I am still a bit confused...
1) There is only 1 god, it is suppose to be of the highest being
2) Jesus on many occasions say tat there is a higher being above him. He is actually terrfied he will be crucified but it had to be done because tat higher being want it to be done
3) Now it seems tat jesus himself or on several phrases as mentioned by chelle he is actually treated and he claims he is god himself... Sounds like a bible contradiction to me
I know about your analogy of the sun but my question is not whether they work for a common good but whether r they 2 different things. Is jesus god or is he someone sent by god since there can only be 1 god ?
Okie I accept the answer of trinity. It sure cut down the number of words tat need to be said.
it's interesting how i didn't post for 1 day.. and all the replies start coming in.. so many dunno how to reply.. ok shall take it one by one.
Hmm.. let me see how we shall do this... Ok... In the Lee Family..hmm... sounds political... but no politics involved...
In the Lee family, there's the father and the son... The son respects the father... but both are still called Mr Lee... Get it?
They are one god... That's why it's the trinity.. But Jesus is the father's son...Interestingly, you pointed a very HUMBLE part of Jesus that i forgot to mention, IN Phil2:6-8"He always had the nature of GOd, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God. Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness. He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death - his death on the cross".
There's no contradiction in Jesus' death... He was made man... and he knew and can foretell what kind of death he was going to have... that's why he was scared. It's like a prisoner going to be hung.. cept this would be more painful than imagined.
If you understand and accept the concept of trinity.. i'm a bit lost why you might need more explanation on whether jesus and god are 2 separate things.. DO enlighten me.
I hope i have clarified your doubts. -
Hi ventin...Originally posted by ventin:May i ask the Catholics,
1) Does you believe Mary to be sinless?
2) What does the word Son as in Son of God mean in the Bible?
3) Who is Jesus' Father?
No one has answered your qn yet so i shall attempt...
I don't know if 2 and 3 are redundant cuz i have answered them in the other reply to stupidissmart... try to see if you understand? If not then i will try my best to explain to you...
So to the first... Do catholics believe Mary is sinless? Contrary to the protestants, catholics believe so that yes she is. Before you get all ready to want to shoot back.. and think it's impossible and all... here's why...
Mary needed to be sinless for the sake of having jesus. If i am not wrong, mary was made sinless by the grace of god. She had to be holy in order to be a worthy vessel for her utterly holy Son. So this doctrine upholds the holiness and deity of Christ.
In Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of the Messiah ("Seed of the woman") and His Virgin Mother (the "woman"). Notice that God says "I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman", that is, between Satan and Mary! God foretold in the Garden that He would put enmity between the Devil and the Mother of the Messiah. Satan would be enemies not only with Mary's Son, but with Mary herself!
Now the Bible says that sin makes us enemies of God (Mt 12:30; Ro 5:8-10; James 4:4) and children of the Devil (Jn 8:44; I Jn 3:10). A sinner is not Satan's enemy, but his ally--even his "child", or seed! Were Mary ever a sinner, she would not be the devil's enemy, as God had decreed; she would have been the devil's daughter and the enemy of God-the enemy of her own Son! God's promise to put enmity between her and the ancient Serpent would then be a lie!
Yet God cannot lie, and His word always comes to pass (Is 55:10). So He did indeed put enmity between Satan and the Woman by preserving the Woman from all sin, original and actual. Mary is not a child of the Devil; by God's Will she is a daughter of God from the beginning of her existence and the ally of her Seed against the evil one.
In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "full of grace". Protestant translations often render this as "highly favored", but this is a weak, inaccurate translation. The Greek term here is kecharitomene, a perfect present participle of the verb charitoo, which denotes "grace". A perfect participle indicates an action completed in the past with existing results, and a present participle denotes continuous or repeated action.
Hope this helps. -
Galatians 4:3-5Originally posted by Chelle2009:Hi ventin...
No one has answered your qn yet so i shall attempt...
I don't know if 2 and 3 are redundant cuz i have answered them in the other reply to stupidissmart... try to see if you understand? If not then i will try my best to explain to you...
So to the first... Do catholics believe Mary is sinless? Contrary to the protestants, catholics believe so that yes she is. Before you get all ready to want to shoot back.. and think it's impossible and all... here's why...
Mary needed to be sinless for the sake of having jesus. If i am not wrong, mary was made sinless by the grace of god. She had to be holy in order to be a worthy vessel for her utterly holy Son. So this doctrine upholds the holiness and deity of Christ.
In Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of the Messiah ("Seed of the woman") and His Virgin Mother (the "woman"). Notice that God says "I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman", that is, between Satan and Mary! God foretold in the Garden that He would put enmity between the Devil and the Mother of the Messiah. Satan would be enemies not only with Mary's Son, but with Mary herself!
Now the Bible says that sin makes us enemies of God (Mt 12:30; Ro 5:8-10; James 4:4) and children of the Devil (Jn 8:44; I Jn 3:10). A sinner is not Satan's enemy, but his ally--even his "child", or seed! Were Mary ever a sinner, she would not be the devil's enemy, as God had decreed; she would have been the devil's daughter and the enemy of God-the enemy of her own Son! God's promise to put enmity between her and the ancient Serpent would then be a lie!
Yet God cannot lie, and His word always comes to pass (Is 55:10). So He did indeed put enmity between Satan and the Woman by preserving the Woman from all sin, original and actual. Mary is not a child of the Devil; by God's Will she is a daughter of God from the beginning of her existence and the ally of her Seed against the evil one.
In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "full of grace". Protestant translations often render this as "highly favored", but this is a weak, inaccurate translation. The Greek term here is kecharitomene, a perfect present participle of the verb charitoo, which denotes "grace". A perfect participle indicates an action completed in the past with existing results, and a present participle denotes continuous or repeated action.
Hope this helps.
So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
do not unquote and misquote scriptures and twist it to suit the marian doctrines. this is what the Word of God also says..not in 'hidden' and apt manner abt some woman....and how she can be justified as immaculately conceived. for the power of God is not in a woman..He merely used her as a vessel to bring forth the fruit of her womb, Jesus conceived not of Joseph's sperm but of the Holy Ghost. In other words, the humanity aspect of Christ Jesus is derived from Mary but His divinity from God's Spirit. Jesus has to be in everyway like a human being, flesh and blood and bones from Mary's womb but His spirit and inner being is not of this world but from on high. Man and God in one person, Jesus Christ -fully man and fully God.
God do not sent Jesus in the form of some supernatural being dropping down from the heavens and landed on earth to save mankind. God sent His Son born of a woman, born UNDER the law so that Jesus is in the position to save those UNDER the law. If Mary is sinless, not under the law, God's Son is born not under the law..then i guess it's better that He did not come at all.
The comforting and profound mysteries of redemption is found pivoted in this...Christ came as an incarnate Son of God, born of a virgin and as a human and in every aspect like us yet without sin so that He can redeem us and give us full rights to be His sons and daughters. -
You got the meaning of the verse wrongly, the translator of bible changed the whole text. This verse does not mean what in meant here.
We will need to organise a 5 day church camp to go through the whole issue of the bible translation.
Oh, I love this! Can you elaborate, Fadango? Especially the translator business and the bible version. Thanks.
But as a laymen guide, there is some very strange history in the Roman Catholic handling of the bible. I must emphasise this is just a laymen guide, so i will just list some chronological events.
1. Rome recieved the corrupted Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt in the earliest recorded church age.
2. At the same time the other Text, the Universal Text was spreading across europe.
3. Rome wanted to gain control and asked Jerome to interpret it into Latin.
4. This version contained the Apocryphal Books (which can still be found in today Roman Catholic Bible)
5. But this had no effect on the spread of the Universal Text, so Rome shelved it.
6. At the same time, Rome was buzy persercuting bible-believing Christians. Then came Martin Luther and the Reformation.
7. Rome amasses the Council of Trent and systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed.
8. From beginning till this point, Rome refused unauthorised people to read the Bible. Only the Pope and the Highest Priest are allowed to.
9. But seeing that all the persercution was not effective in stamping out all Christians, Rome decided that to win back the dwindling support, they have to relax on the rule about the readership of the bible.
10. So a whole lot of scripture was changed to accomodate Roman teaching like purgatory, indulgence, eucharist and many others.
11. Till today, Roman Catholic only uses the Roman Catholic Bible. However, the Roman Catholics were and still never encouraged to read the bible because the teaching is that "you don't need the teaching in the bible to get saved, you only need the Church solely."
So there you go, a short summarised history. If you are moved to know more just do some research.
Here is some interesting points, taken off a webpage. In the Roman Catholic Bible (and some modern Christian Bible translations), some scriptures are, should i said "left in the mirre of unknown." Take special note of the straining of the tenses:
- Luke 13:23 (RC & new versions), "Are there few who are being saved?" KJV, "...be saved."
- II Cor. 2:15 (RC & new versions), "are being saved." KJV, "are saved."
- I Cor. 1:18 (RC & new versions), "those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved" KJV, ...are saved."
- Acts 15:19 (RC & new versions) "are turning to God." KJV, "turned."
- Luke 15:32 (RC & new versions), "your brother was dead and has begun to live." KJV, "is alive."
- Acts 2:47 (RC & new versions), "were being saved." KJV, "should be saved."
- 2 Cor. 4:3 (RC & new versions), "are perishing." KJV, "are lost."
With all the unnatural straining of the tenses, and the teachings of the Catholic Church, no wonder the Roman Catholics never really know whether they are saved or not. The same reason goes to show why the Vatican Church can easily manupilate and control the Roman Catholics with such unclear scriptures.
[/quote] -
May I ask a question? Does the bible tell you how to interpret itself?
-
Dear friends,Originally posted by ventin:May i ask the Catholics,
1) Does you believe Mary to be sinless?
2) What does the word Son as in Son of God mean in the Bible?
3) Who is Jesus' Father?
1) Yes, Mary is sinless. However, she is not only free of sin, but also full of grace. This privilege given by God is called the Immaculate Conception. Not to be confused with Virgin Birth!! Ok, if we could choose your own mother, surely we would choose the most perfect woman we can find? No? God could not only choose the most perfect woman to be his Son's mother, but He could personally form her so that she would be most perfect. He did this, making Mary free of sin and full of grace. Are we going to argue with God for making use of his power?
2) Could you rephrase your question? The phrase The Son of God, is obviously referring to Jesus.
3) Joseph is a stepfather so to speak. He loved Jesus like his own, but we believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Joseph was the earthly guardian of Mary and Jesus and he taught Jesus like he would his own flesh and blood.
In the Scriptures Jesus referred to God as his Father. In fact, it is what led to his death. The relationship between Jesus and the Father, resides in the Trinity. The Trinity is of course a mystery that is difficult to understand, but we believe that God is one, with three persons. (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) This is starting point to understanding Jesus.http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=12813 -
In 1854 A.D. the immaculate conception of Mary ( to be utterly without sin ) was proclaimed
by Pope Pius IX, and became a Roman Catholic doctrine.
Was Mary really without sin?
The Bible says, "For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). This means Mary too! Even Mary herself knew she needed a Saviour and went through purification for sins as the Jewish law required.
Mary said herself, "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."
Luke 1:47.
Mary needed purification from sin,
"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.....and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
Luke 2:22,24.
The fact is, Mary is a Jewish woman following the Law handed down to Moses. Read Leviticus 12 my friend. Mary, a sinner, had to make a "sin-offering":
"And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean."
Lev. 12:8
We must ask ourselves, why does the Roman Catholic church insist she was sinless when the Bible says she was not? Mary had to make a sin offering, and they were so poor they were not even able to offer the required sacrifice for Mary's cleansing as all females were to do in obedience to the law. Mary was so poor she and Joseph could not bring the required LAMB for sacrifice (see Lev. 12:8 again). They could only offer a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons (Luke 2:24). However, Mary didn't need the lamb, she held Him in her arms! She had the Lamb who could save her from her sins! A Saviour her heart rejoiced in!
The Catholic Mary no way resembles the Jewish Mary of the Bible. Even in the days of Jesus people tried to elevate Mary in a position that was not her's:
"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."
Luke 11:27
But Jesus immediately corrected the woman and said,
"Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
Luke 11:28
Jesus was way ahead of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not to sway from the word of God and put our trust in Mary or the saints, but in Jesus Christ Himself. -
1)Why many object to the Immaculate Conception and MaryÂ’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior!
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving ChristÂ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he canÂ’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if PaulÂ’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
2)The Englishman's Greek Concordance shows that the word for "rather" here, menounge (Strong's word #3304) is used four times in the NT: Lk 11:28, Rom 9:20, 10:18, and Phil 3:8. Apparently, it can mean a contrast; however, this contrast need not negate what came before it. A clear example is Phil 3:8. In Phil 3:7 Paul says (KJV):
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
He goes on to write (menounge in blue):
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord . . .
Other translations:
"Indeed" (RSV) "What is more" (NIV) "Not only that" (Jerusalem) "I would say more" (NEB) "More than that" (NRSV / NASB).
Clearly, the word in this passage does not negate what came before, since the comparison is between "gainful things" and "all things." The second didn't undermine the first, but merely expanded upon it, making the category even broader. Likewise in Lk 11:27-28.
My New Bible Commentary (ed. D. Guthrie, rev. 1970, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 906), a reputable Protestant source, states:
The woman's rather sentimental benediction on Jesus' mother meant, 'If only I had such a son as this.' Jesus' reply is that something else matters far more, to hear the message He proclaimed and to obey it (cf. 6:46-49).
This verse has no bearing whatever on the veneration of Mary, let alone undermining it. One must understand the Jewish "literary technique" of comparison and contrast, and it is improper to regard all instances of that in terms of an "either/or" approach, as Protestants are so often prone to do.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ326.HTM[/quote] -
Being an ex-catholic and current protestant. I have seen both sides of the story. Most of the Catholic dogmas cannot be clearly derived from the canonical books of the Bible but from Canons and other writings from the Church fathers throughout the ages and has superceeded the authority of the holy scriptures.
Immaculate conception is clearly a non-biblical doctrine with its roots no where to be seen in plain scriptures. Catholics believed the sinless conception of Mary based on the legend concerning her parents Anne and Joachim(which the Bible does not mention in any way, but was believed to be taken from an alternative non-canonical source). Other bible verse pointed against the validity of this dogma but as we origin is not from the Bible yet backed by other literature and of course my the previous Pope Pius, it has to be taken to be true. The Bible in the sense of RC simply is a decoration, a tool to make them appear christian and has no other value as it seems to me.
Another trend in which i have seen through my Catholic days and now as a Protestant is that Catholic Mary has been in many ways tries to overtake and be equate with Christ. See the follows:
1. Christ is sinless, RC Mary also sinless
2. Christ is the New Adam, RC Mary claimed to be New Eve.
3. Christ is the mediator, RC Mary seems to be able to hold this office too.
4. Christ is the Redeemer, RC Mary is the Co-redeemer.
5. Christ is the King of all, RC Mary is the Queen of heaven.
6. Christ is our advocate, RC Mary is able to intercede.
7. Christ ascends into Heaven and see no death, RC Mary also assumed into heaven without facing corruption of her body.
With that, am i right to say the RC Church tries to use Mary to imitate Jesus Christ and what Christ did and went thru..Mary also did? Beats me.... -
You must remember that if Jesus did not die, Mary would not be saved. I would also like to mention that Jesus rose to heaven by his own power, but Mary was assumed not by her own power, because she has none. Instead, she was assumed into heaven by the power of God.
-
hmmm...sinless RC Mary need to be saved?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:You must remember that if Jesus did not die, Mary would not be saved. I would also like to mention that Jesus rose to heaven by his own power, but Mary was assumed not by her own power, because she has none. Instead, she was assumed into heaven by the power of God. -
I have already answered this above, but i'll post it again.Originally posted by NeonTetra:hmmm...sinless RC Mary need to be saved?
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving ChristÂ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!