Was Mary sinless?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If you read the books of the New Testament at face value, you wouldn't have been able to understand any of it, as it was originally written in Koine Greek. That's why we have translators.
The scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies collectively debunk your belief. You don't like it, you can't accept it, nor can you refute it, yet you have to come back with something, so you say, "It's Catholic trickery." You should've been silent, it would've been just as effective.
Last edited:
No, you debunked scripture with commentary.
Busted.
Let's see you debunk this one with commentary now...
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
I debunked your interpretation of Scripture using Scripture and early Christian testimonies. Guilty as charged. Before we move on to a new topic, do you publicly acknowledge that you have no counter-argument to submit?
Last edited:
I didn't say "AI testimonials," but rather "early Christian testimonies." Do you know what an early Christian is?
Last edited:
I've already done my research on this. I'm not going to make things easier for you than I already have, it'd be good for you to do some research, and if/when you feel you've found a counter-argument to my post #190, then put together your case and submit it.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
You may deny being a Seventh Day Adventist, but you preach the same garbage as they do about the Church.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Oh, the evidence is there, regardless of whether you're able to understand it or not. I don't think Jesus will hold you accountable for that which you weren't capable of understanding. Don't feel bad.
You think the Scriptures are exact copies? Since none of the originals are around, how would you know?
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
The inspiration of Sacred Scripture had to be proven, not just assumed. Who did that, and when?
The inspiration of the originals (now lost to us) is a different question. My question is on the exactness of the copies. And nobody has proven that, or ever can.
You and your Internet research of ancient church fathers is not feasible. It doesn’t even make sense. How come the scriptures have disintegrated and had to be made into copies and copies of copies but you guys still have the originals of the quotes of the early church fathers. Sounds fishy. It’s all a Catholic trick that happened in the dark ages. And they posted all that stuff on the Internet for people like you to create doctrines with.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Then perhaps St. Jerome, who was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, who had access to the oldest available manuscripts in the 4th century, made errors on purpose to invent Catholic teaching.
But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.
In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.
There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the context of that verse will assist the blind ones…? Or at least reveal the truth to those who are not blind…..
Matthew 13:54-58….New Catholic Bible…..
“He came to his hometown, and he began to teach the people in the synagogue. They were astonished and wondered, “Where did this man get such wisdom and these mighty deeds? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not James and Joseph and Simon and Judas his brethren? And are not all his sisters here with us? Where then did this man get all this?” And so they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is always treated with honor except in his hometown and in his own house.” And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.”
What do we see here….? Jesus is in his “hometown” where he is not well received by his neighbors in the Jewish community, because people know him only as “the carpenter’s son”…they know his mother is Mary, but his “brothers and sisters” are also well known by the doubters….known to them for perhaps their whole lives and proof that they were not yet disciples. What did Jesus say? “A prophet is always treated with honor except IN HIS HOMETOWN and IN HIS OWN HOUSE.” …….do you see that?
These “brethren“ (adelphos) were members of Jesus‘ “own house”….his fleshly brothers and sisters. By naming his brothers, we see that there are four of them.
Because it does not name his sisters and says “all” of them, we can see that there are probably more than two. It does not give a number, but Jewish households were large…..the number of children was related to God’s blessing, (Psalm 127:3-5) so, not something to be used to suggest and promote a lie….in turn suggesting a basis for the adoption of ancient mother goddess worship.
Strongs primary definition of “adelphos“ is….
- “a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother”
And it is clear from the context that your church has chosen another definition to suit its doctrine and to place Mary as some kind of semi-deity, adored, idolized and served more than her ”firstborn” son. (Luke 2:7) Why is Jesus called a “firstborn” rather than an “only begotten” son in that scripture?
Mary barely rates a mention in NT Scripture….certainly not given the attention that your church wants to accord to her.
She was never appointed as a “mediatrix” because we only have one…..
1 Tim 2:5-6…NCB…
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, himself a man, who gave himself as a ransom for all.”
The list of deviations and excuses offered by your church, is endless….but those not blinded will see them all as the errors that the Bible shows them up to be.
O really? By all means, show us.
By the way, if you rightly agree that James, the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3), and “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) were the same person, then even without the early Christian testimonies, Scripture alone still disproves your belief. This is because in Gal. 1:19, Paul indicates that James is one of the Twelve, which means he would have had to have either been apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.
So, what type of family member would either apostle have been to Jesus? Well, only the apostle James of Alphaeus, and his known siblings, Apostle Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) and Joseph of Alphaeus, correspond with the four brothers (kinsmen/relatives) of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3: Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus). Additionally, because of Matt. 27:56, Mk. 15:40, and Jn. 19:25, we know that Jesus's Mother's sister Mary of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus) was the mother of at least two sons: James (the Less) and Joseph, and her husband's name "Clopas" (Cleophas), is a variant of the name "Alphaeus."
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
And herein lies another false platform upon which the RCC stands alone…..
Apparently, in Catholicism, a dogma, unlike a simple belief, is said to be a truth solemnly formulated either by an ecumenical council or by the pope’s “infallible magisterium.” (church authority) In the face of a foretold apostasy, can you trust that any man or council of men, can be “infallible” just because someone called the pope, says so?
You have to believe in that before you can believe a single doctrine that the Catholic church teaches.
Among such doctrines defined by the Catholic Church, is the Assumption of Mary.
So the question must be asked, since Scripture is silent on this matter….
DID MARY DIE?
Did Mary actually die before her supposed bodily ascent to heaven? (Never mentioned in scripture)
Catholic theologians find themselves on the horns of a theological dilemma on this issue…..was Mary immune from death, something that not even Christ possessed. On the other hand, saying that Mary did die raises an equally thorny issue. Since death is the penalty for the original sin, which, according to [the doctrine of the “Immaculate Conception”], did not affect Mary…..on what basis, would she have died?
Little wonder that Pope Pius XII carefully skirted the entire issue of Mary’s death when defining the dogma of the Assumption. Bingo….another kind of assumption about an assumption.
Lies lead to the formulation of other lies to back them up…..until you have a pile of lies masquerading as truth, and blind belief as the only means of acceptance for any of them……it’s deception upon deception.
None of you seem to be able to see past the first indoctrination, so you blindly accept all the rest.
Similar threads
