Books Outside the Bible

  • 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!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't know WHY you guys keep LYING when you know I'm going to catch you and expose you for it.
From YOUR link:

Interlinear Bible Luke 1:28
Previous BookPrevious ChapterRead the Full ChapterNext ChapterNext Book
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.kai; CONJ eijselqw;n V-2AAP-NSM pro;? PREP aujth;n P-ASF ei\pen, V-2AAI-3S Xai're, V-PAM-2S
kecaritwmevnh, V-RPP-NSF oJ T-NSM kuvrio? N-NSM meta; PREP sou'. P-2GS

"Kecharitomene" is the word in RED . . .
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WHO told you that the 7 Deuterocanonical Books were uninspired, "apocryphal" works?

God did!!!

WHO rejected them?

God did!!!

WHEN were they rejected?

After the Book of Revelation was completed after all God is the Author of the Bible and He would have seen to it that the right Books He wrote were chosen!!!

Revelation 22:18-19:
18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19) And if any man shall take away from the words book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things written in this book.


We have discussed Revelation 22 in the past and you claimed verses 18 and 19 is only for the Book of Revelation. I said NAY! and gave an example. So to refresh your memory here is the example again.

The Book of Revelation cannot be understood unless read in light of the whole Bible. For example...

Revelation 13:8 reads:
8) That all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Now, no way can we understand the term “Lamb slain” from the Book of Revelation Chapter 13 as the verse stands alone unless we read it in light of the whole Bible. And, surely by searching Scripture, we find that the Jews used lambs as sacrifices to atone for their sins. According to John 1:29 Jesus is the Lamb that will be the ultimate sacrifice for sins!

The apocryphal books do not HARMONIZE with the rest of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as of the current Bible.

Your church has no legs to stand on although you teach it is your church that is the foundation of truth. God teaches He is the Truth unless you want to call Him a liar.

These questions are open to ALL Protestants - whether you're charitable or anti-Catholic... .

I believe I have been very charitable to Catholics by showing the true Gospel.

To God Be The Glory
 
  • Like
Reactions: LC627

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God did!!!
God did!!!
Uh huh. And WHO told everybody else?
Did God tell tens of thousands of men to teach tens of thousands of different sets of doctrine and claim that HIS spirit "led" them to this contradiction and confusion??

Did God tell Martin Luther to reject the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation??
You see, my dishonest friend - you can't have it BOTH ways. GOD didn't tell you which Books belong in your incomplete canon - MEN did.
After the Book of Revelation was completed after all God is the Author of the Bible and He would have seen to it that the right Books He wrote were chosen!!!

Revelation 22:18-19:
18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19) And if any man shall take away from the words book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things written in this book.


We have discussed Revelation 22 in the past and you claimed verses 18 and 19 is only for the Book of Revelation. I said NAY! and gave an example. So to refresh your memory here is the example again.

The Book of Revelation cannot be understood unless read in light of the whole Bible. For example...

Revelation 13:8 reads:
8) That all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Now, no way can we understand the term “Lamb slain” from the Book of Revelation Chapter 13 as the verse stands alone unless we read it in light of the whole Bible. And, surely by searching Scripture, we find that the Jews used lambs as sacrifices to atone for their sins. According to John 1:29 Jesus is the Lamb that will be the ultimate sacrifice for sins!

The apocryphal books do not HARMONIZE with the rest of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as of the current Bible.

Your church has no legs to stand on although you teach it is your church that is the foundation of truth. God teaches He is the Truth unless you want to call Him a liar.

I believe I have been very charitable to Catholics by showing the true Gospel.

To God Be The Glory
In your ignorance - you keep referring to the Deuterocanonical books as "Apocryphal" because that's what you've been told.
Can you explain to me WHY they were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that Jesus and the NT writers studied from??
Can you explain why there are about 200 quotes, references and allusions to these Books on the pages of the NT??

The onus is on YOU to debunk this. I'll make it easy for you and just give you a couple of them . . .
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
 
Last edited:

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't know WHY you guys keep LYING when you know I'm going to catch you and expose you for it.
From YOUR link:

Interlinear Bible Luke 1:28
Previous BookPrevious ChapterRead the Full ChapterNext ChapterNext Book
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.kai; CONJ eijselqw;n V-2AAP-NSM pro;? PREP aujth;n P-ASF ei\pen, V-2AAI-3S Xai're, V-PAM-2S
kecaritwmevnh, V-RPP-NSF oJ T-NSM kuvrio? N-NSM meta; PREP sou'. P-2GS

"Kecharitomene" is the word in RED . . .
she is blessed does not make her queen of heaven.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nope - but that DOESN'T mean that they're NOT in "good standing."

Another discipline of the Church is to deny them the Eucharist. this has happened to some politicians who openly promote abortion. Why don't you do your HOMEWORK before making these sorts of asinine claims?? Just do a little research BEFORE you post . . .

So, has Nancy Pelosi been denied the "Eucharist"?
 
Last edited:

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Kecharitomene has NOTHING to do with Mary's Queenship, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend.
It has to do with her sinlessness.
You have a couple major problems here.

First of all that is not the word used in verse. I already posted the actual Greek words used.

Second, Mary was not sinless or a virgin after the birth of Christ. She gave birth to more children.

Finally, this is why this issue is being pushed:

Catholic Point: Kecharitomene
To make it more clearer, "kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!
catholicpoint.blogspot.com/2012/09/kecharitomene.html

Another catholic error and invention.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
David C. Grabbe gives the following explanation for the unbiblical Catholic doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception."

...Catholics believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This major doctrine states that Mary was conceived and born normally, but at the instant when her soul was fused to her flesh, she was protected and exempted from the stain of "original sin." The reasoning is that, for Jesus to be untouched by original sin, his mother, the one who conceived and bore Him, had to be "immaculate" as well.​

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason." In essence, it says that this doctrine lacks scriptural backing, but it has plenty from church tradition and human wisdom. Since Catholics cannot find, or will not acknowledge, any scriptures that disprove it, then it is settled as official doctrine. (Bold emphasis not in the original)
This Catholic doctrine clearly contradicts what the Bible teaches in Romans 3--

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
The Greek for the word all in this passage is πάντες (pantes) meaning "all, every." Some have claimed that the word all cannot mean all of mankind because this would include Jesus Christ. This idea is preposterous in light of the fact that Paul follows verse 23 by saying that redemption is in Jesus Christ; therefore, Paul clearly could not have been including Jesus Christ (who was not born of Adam's corrupt seed). However, Paul makes no exception for any human being with a human father in the "all" who have sinned; therefore, Mary must be included.
.
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You have a couple major problems here.

First of all that is not the word used in verse. I already posted the actual Greek words used.

Second, Mary was not sinless or a virgin after the birth of Christ. She gave birth to more children.

Finally, this is why this issue is being pushed:

Catholic Point: Kecharitomene
To make it more clearer, "kecharitomene" is the perfect passive participle tense of the verb meaning "to fill with grace," Because it is in the perfect participle tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace and there is no room for sin in her before the Annunciation, the implication being that she was the immaculate!
catholicpoint.blogspot.com/2012/09/kecharitomene.html

Another catholic error and invention.
The error is with Protestant liberals. Every church on the planet upheld Mary's sinlessness before the mid 19th century. All the early reformers also upheld this "invention", as well as dozens of Early Church Fathers. I challenge you to find one Protestant church before the mid 19th century that professed Mary a sinner. Since you can't, you are following a man made tradition, an invention.

David C. Grabbe gives the following explanation for the unbiblical Catholic doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception."

...Catholics believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary. This major doctrine states that Mary was conceived and born normally, but at the instant when her soul was fused to her flesh, she was protected and exempted from the stain of "original sin." The reasoning is that, for Jesus to be untouched by original sin, his mother, the one who conceived and bore Him, had to be "immaculate" as well.​
WRONG. That is not Catholic reasoning. God did not HAVE TO make Mary sinless, He CHOSE TO. We believe God has such authority and power.​

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Immaculate Conception," the writer admits this cannot be found in the Bible. Under the heading "Proof from Scripture," the article says, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer" (emphasis ours). The rest of the article then explores the "Proof from Tradition" and the "Proof from Reason." In essence, it says that this doctrine lacks scriptural backing, but it has plenty from church tradition and human wisdom. Since Catholics cannot find, or will not acknowledge, any scriptures that disprove it, then it is settled as official doctrine. (Bold emphasis not in the original)
This is cheap anti-Catholic trash. "FULL OF GRACE" is in the Bible. It is the essence of "Immaculate Conception" for those who misrepresent the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In addition, there is nothing in the Bible that says every belief, practice and devotion must be explicitly found in the Bible. That is a man made tradition.
This Catholic doctrine clearly contradicts what the Bible teaches in Romans 3--
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
The Greek for the word all in this passage is πάντες (pantes) meaning "all, every." Some have claimed that the word all cannot mean all of mankind because this would include Jesus Christ. This idea is preposterous in light of the fact that Paul follows verse 23 by saying that redemption is in Jesus Christ; therefore, Paul clearly could not have been including Jesus Christ (who was not born of Adam's corrupt seed) in the "all" who have sinned. However, Paul makes no exception for any human being with a human father in the "all" who have sinned; therefore, Mary must be included.
.
The abuse of the word "all" gets posted (and refuted) about once a week. For the 100th time:

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 – “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 – Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.


13239191-10208574805634922-8669941564389177859-n.jpg
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Luke 1:28 [RSV]: "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'"

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene ("favored one" above) as "full of grace"]

Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary - itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated "highly favored" - which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language). I have done a great deal of exegesis and analysis of this verse, in dialogue with Evangelical Protestants, and so I shall draw from that thought and experience in this chapter.

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary's freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don't see that this is "fitting" or "appropriate" (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).​
(Robertson, II, 13)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).​

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .​
(Kittel, 1304-1305)

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean "a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18" (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary's sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and "conqueror" of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)


Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.


Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It's a "zero-sum game": the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/full-of-grace-and-the-linguistic-and-exegetical-considerations-by-dave-armstrong/


Somebody should tell David C. Grabbe that "grace" is in the Bible.



catholicmeme001-jpg-resize-514-394.jpg
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The error is with Protestant liberals. Every church on the planet upheld Mary's sinlessness before the mid 19th century. All the early reformers also upheld this "invention", as well as dozens of Early Church Fathers. I challenge you to find one Protestant church before the mid 19th century that professed Mary a sinner. Since you can't, you are following a man made tradition, an invention.

WRONG. That is not Catholic reasoning. God did not HAVE TO make Mary sinless, He CHOSE TO. We believe God has such authority and power.​

This is cheap anti-Catholic trash. "FULL OF GRACE" is in the Bible. It is the essence of "Immaculate Conception" for those who misrepresent the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In addition, there is nothing in the Bible that says every belief, practice and devotion must be explicitly found in the Bible. That is a man made tradition.

The abuse of the word "all" gets posted (and refuted) about once a week. For the 100th time:

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 – “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”

Luke 18:19 – Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.

Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.


13239191-10208574805634922-8669941564389177859-n.jpg


LOL, if I could go back in time...I'm sure I would find a plethora of churches that KNEW Mary was a sinner! If you have a problem with this truth, take it up with Paul, and stop incorrectly interpreting his words. All is such a difficult word to understand, isn't it?

You've shown your copy and paste skills (from Catholic websites) to be more impressive than BoL's. I only regret that there are no Protestant websites where I can get such tomes as you've just posted! But I do thank you for not overdoing it with huge red bold letters. Oh, and you're much nicer than BoL, but don't tell him I said that. ;)

I just read your next post. I've never read such nonsense about God's grace making Mary sinless. Grace is God's saving and sustaining power. All Christians are saved by grace and sustained in our Christian walks by grace.
.
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions.


fbe79833cd65c02864c3700a0ea34343.jpg
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
LOL, if I could go back in time...I'm sure I would find a plethora of churches that KNEW Mary was a sinner! If you have a problem with this truth, take it up with Paul, and stop incorrectly interpreting his words. All is such a difficult word to understand, isn't it?
Pontification is easy, research is hard. I maintain that no Protestant church taught Mary a sinner before the false philosophies of the Enlightenment Era infected Protestant liberals with the heresy of Modernism. because so many early reformers never taught that. Rebellion and protesting against cherry picked reformist teachings is your nature. You are defending a fad theology made popular in the last 50 years.

Scripture doesn't always say "all" means "every single one" and I have proven it. You haven't proven anything except a near sighted definition, and you support a false man made tradition based on one abused word.

I just read your next post. I've never read such nonsense about God's grace making Mary sinless. Grace is God's saving and sustaining power. All Christians are saved by grace and sustained in our Christian walks by grace.
.
"Grace is God's saving and sustaining power. All Christians are saved by grace and sustained in our Christian walks by grace."
But not Mary???
You appear to accept Romans 6:14 and Ephesians 2:8-10 as it applies to all Christians but down-play it as it applies to Jesus' mother. That's reading OUT of Scripture.

Citing Protestant scholars doesn't mean anything to rebellious Protestants because they are so accustomed to protesting Protestants. The individual is the sole rule of faith. To you, reformist teaching means nothing, scholarly analysis means nothing, and you have no case beyond your personal, private opinions.


305ff792033c22c6de81dc60d97a5c8f.jpg
 
Last edited:

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Catholics hold that Mary was saved by grace, just like anyone who is saved. God simply performed an extra supernatural act to make her like Eve was before the Fall. God can do anything He wishes, so this is not prima facie impossible, let alone unreasonable, implausible or immediately “unbiblical.” It contradicts nothing in Scripture. Scripture talks about sinless creatures (pre-Fall Adam and Eve, the good angels).

Being sinless, then, is not a biblically incomprehensible position. This is largely my point when I “do” Mariology from Scripture Alone. I know it won't convince most Protestants, but I am trying to show that it is not immediately unbiblical or extra-biblical (as they usually think it is) to hold these beliefs.
Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Catholics hold that Mary was saved by grace, just like anyone who is saved. God simply performed an extra supernatural act to make her like Eve was before the Fall. God can do anything He wishes, so this is not prima facie impossible, let alone unreasonable, implausible or immediately “unbiblical.” It contradicts nothing in Scripture. Scripture talks about sinless creatures (pre-Fall Adam and Eve, the good angels).

Being sinless, then, is not a biblically incomprehensible position. This is largely my point when I “do” Mariology from Scripture Alone. I know it won't convince most Protestants, but I am trying to show that it is not immediately unbiblical or extra-biblical (as they usually think it is) to hold these beliefs.
Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

Saying that Mary was sinless is NOT supported in scripture! That's the issue. There are a lot of things not overtly contradicted by the scriptures, so saying that a certain belief not being contradicted by the Bible is proof that it's true is a fallacy.

How can saying that Mary was a sinner possibly be construed as putting her down? The truth would in NO way be an affront to Jesus who IS the truth!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,997
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Saying that Mary was sinless is NOT supported in scripture!
If Mary was sinless she would not have needed a Savior. But Her own words tell us that she did need the Savior.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46,47)

The concept of the Immaculate Conception is another Catholic fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jun2u and Helen

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If Mary was sinless she would not have needed a Savior. But Her own words tell us that she did need the Savior.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46,47)

The concept of the Immaculate Conception is another Catholic fiction.

I agree, but don't you know that you can't win this debate using the Bible alone? The Catholic Church has a carefully crafted argument for every Bible doctrine they reject as the truth. So sad! If only Protestants were so good at refuting their unbiblical doctrines!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Enoch111

BobRyan

Active Member
Jul 27, 2018
388
131
43
Atlanta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And, as I've already shown you - the language of the original text doesn't say ANYTHING about "killing" or "exterminating" lives.

1. As I have already shown you - your own Catholic sources (starting with the Jesuit - Fordham source) render it "exterminate" in English. (hint: you cannot blame protestants for what Jesuits publish)

As I have already shown you - your own Catholic Digest shows how this "extermination" wiped out whole people groups, cities etc. By killing them. Burning them, massacre etc. ( you cannot blame Protestants for what your own Catholic Digest claims to be the case)

As I have already asked you - how is it that falling on your sword over "expel" - as if "that would be a good thing to do" as if "telling protestants in America they have to leave the nation or be Catholic" is even remotely acceptable to Protestants, as though that would be a "good thing"?


As for expelling or excommunicating heretics - this is a BIBLICAL prescription - NOT an "evil Catholic" punishment (Mat. 18:16-17; 1 Cor. 5:11).

Just not in real life.

In real life - NOTHING in Matthew 18 or 1 Cor 5 includes exterminating someone OR EVEN EXPELLING them from the country. NOTHING in those texts appeals to stealing their lands their homes their property and giving it to Catholics or anyone else for that matter.

And we all know it.

were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

The Latin word "exterminare" was formed from the prefix "ex-" ("out of" or "outside") and "terminus" ("boundary"). Not much more than a century after its introduction to English, "exterminate" came to denote destroying or utterly putting an end to something. And that's the use with which the word is usually employed today.


Word of the Day: Exterminate


Origin

late Middle English (in the sense 'drive out'): from Latin exterminat- 'driven out', from the verb exterminare, from ex- 'out' + terminus 'boundary'. The sense 'destroy' (mid 16th century) comes from the Latin of the Vulgate.

exterminate | Definition of exterminate in English by Oxford Dictionaries


Which church is the best? - WND

Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

"I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines.

On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost."

Alexander Campbell, well known religions leader of the nineteenth century, stated in debate with John B. Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, in 1837 that the records of historians and martyrologists show that it may be reasonable to estimate that from fifty to sixty-eight millions of human beings died, suffered torture, lost their possessions, or were otherwise devoured by the Roman Catholic Church during the awful years of the Inquisition. Bishop Purcell made little effort to refute these figures. (Citing A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion, Christian Publishing Co., 1837, p. 327.)


"Walter M. Montano, a former Catholic priest, asserts in his book, Behind the Purple Curtain that it has been estimated that fifty million people died for their faith during the twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages." (Citing Walter M. Montano, Behind the Purple Curtain, Cowman Publications, 1950, page 91.)

-- The Shadow of Rome, by John B. Wilder; Zondervan Publishing Co., 1960, page 87.
 
Last edited: