Biblical Mary

[Mungo]

T
Of course with god there is no "mortal or venial sin" concerning salvation. If one is saved all their sin is forgiven. even future ones!

An opinion that is heretical.

Regarding mortal sins have you not read 1John 5:16-17
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

An opinion that is heretical.

Regarding mortal sins have you not read 1John 5:16-17
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

I just checked the 8 bible translations I listed above: KJV, ESV, NLT, NASB, NIV, ISV, NRSV-CE and DRB. None of them use the term 'mortal' in those verses. Perhaps it is simply the Catholic Church used the world 'mortal' instead of 'death' as the versions use...the Catechism, perhaps?

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. (KJV)

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. (ESV)

16 If you see a fellow believer sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.
17 All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death. (NLT)

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (NASB)

16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV)

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray that God would give him life. This applies to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not telling you to pray about that.
17 Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, yet there are sins that do not lead to death. (ESB)

16 If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal. (NRSV-CE)

16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.
17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (DRB)

I know I'm just nit picking terminology.

In truth, there is only 1 REAL sin unto death (mortal sin)...unbelief! Failure to believe Gods' living Word, Jesus Christ (John 1:14) DIED for their sins, was buried, and rose again on the 3rd day according to scripture per 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is eternal death - separation from God.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV)

 

[Mungo]

I just checked the 8 bible translations I listed above: KJV, ESV, NLT, NASB, NIV, ISV, NRSV-CE and DRB. None of them use the term 'mortal' in those verses. Perhaps it is simply the Catholic Church used the world 'mortal' instead of 'death' as the versions use...the Catechism, perhaps?

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. (KJV)

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. (ESV)

16 If you see a fellow believer sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.
17 All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death. (NLT)

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (NASB)

16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV)

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray that God would give him life. This applies to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not telling you to pray about that.
17 Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, yet there are sins that do not lead to death. (ESB)

16 If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal. (NRSV-CE)

16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.
17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (DRB)

I know I'm just nit picking terminology.

In truth, there is only 1 REAL sin unto death (mortal sin)...unbelief! Failure to believe Gods' living Word, Jesus Christ (John 1:14) DIED for their sins, was buried, and rose again on the 3rd day according to scripture per 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is eternal death - separation from God.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV)

I use the RSV.
Other translations say unto death, or lead to death, or deadly, or result in death but how are they different to mortal?

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

I use the RSV.
Other translations say unto death, or lead to death, or deadly, or result in death but how are they different to mortal?

I noted in my post that I was merely nit-picking terminology. Death, deadly, etc, are presumably various forms of 'mortal', when used alone.

However, reading your reply, I decided to use Google on the word: 'mortal' and got this definition:
1 : causing or having caused death : fatal a mortal injury. 2a : subject to death mortal man Every living creature is mortal. b : possible, conceivable have done every mortal thing.
Item 1 seems to me to be the best definition when used as 'mortal sin'.

Googling mortal sin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin
brings up the following:
A mortal sin is defined as a grave action that is committed in full knowledge of its gravity and with the full consent of the sinner's will. Such a sin cuts the sinner off from God's sanctifying grace until it is repented, usually in confession with a priest
Obviously it took on an 'expanded' meaning with the Catholic Church indicated as making confession with a priest.

What's more interesting is the same Google results indicate there's a list of mortal sins, and even expanded the list from 7 to 10. So it's clear the Catholic Church is essentially 'making up things' on the fly. Gods' Word never changes as shown in Hebrews 13:8. Jesus is the Living Word (John 1:14)

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (KJV)

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)

I'll reiterate that 1 John 5:16-17 speaks of eternal death, separation from God, as a result of unbelief of the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4) in the heart (Romans 10:9-10)

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV)

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (KJV)

There's a world of difference of simply having 'head knowledge' of the Gospel and actually believing it in ones' heart. How or why the Catholic Church 'mucks it up' with other sins is beyond me.

 

[Tong2020]

Well, the dictionary defines doctrine as "a principle of law established through past decisions". Which means any decision made in the past by church leaders, like at the Council of Jerusalem, is binding upon all Christians as "law". So YES it would be the same definition as The Churches definition which is the common definition of all of mankind....You are wearing me out Tong.

I don't know how to be more clear: Scripture is the Truth so YES, "what the letter contains IS all doctrine". If there is an explicit command in the bible by Jesus or the Apostles then it IS doctrine. I don't understand your line of questioning.

I was making sure that your answers are not only your opinion but are coming from the official teaching of your church, for many a times, a catholic apologist switches from opinion to official.

You said regarding Acts 15 Jerusalem council letter, and is RCC position therefore:

1. What was contained in the letter was NEW DOCTRINE.
2. Doctrine is a truth taught by The Church.
   
3. any decision made in the past by church leaders, like at the Council of Jerusalem, is binding upon all Christians as "law".
4. Doctrines can't change.

I have already explained my position that the letter was not about doctrine. But since you insist it is, so went my line of questioning. And my final question on this would be:

Do the RCC teach and commands the members, the following, and teach them as necessary things they should do?

- to not eat blood or abstain from blood and from things strangled.

Tong
R4586

 

[Tong2020]

And by the way @Marymog, still regarding Acts 15 council of Jerusalem church:

Why is the letter, which you seems to teach as catholic doctrine, only have this:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Why only those things as being necessary? What happened to do not murder, steal, covet, bear false witness, make graven image of created things and beings?

Curious.

Any RCC apologist can clarify please? @theefaith and @Mungo perhaps? Thanks.

Tong
R4587

 

[Mungo]

I noted in my post that I was merely nit-picking terminology. Death, deadly, etc, are presumably various forms of 'mortal', when used alone.

However, reading your reply, I decided to use Google on the word: 'mortal' and got this definition:
1 : causing or having caused death : fatal a mortal injury. 2a : subject to death mortal man Every living creature is mortal. b : possible, conceivable have done every mortal thing.
Item 1 seems to me to be the best definition when used as 'mortal sin'.

Googling mortal sin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin
brings up the following:
A mortal sin is defined as a grave action that is committed in full knowledge of its gravity and with the full consent of the sinner's will. Such a sin cuts the sinner off from God's sanctifying grace until it is repented, usually in confession with a priest
Obviously it took on an 'expanded' meaning with the Catholic Church indicated as making confession with a priest.

What's more interesting is the same Google results indicate there's a list of mortal sins, and even expanded the list from 7 to 10. So it's clear the Catholic Church is essentially 'making up things' on the fly. Gods' Word never changes as shown in Hebrews 13:8. Jesus is the Living Word (John 1:14)

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (KJV)

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)

I'll reiterate that 1 John 5:16-17 speaks of eternal death, separation from God, as a result of unbelief of the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4) in the heart (Romans 10:9-10)

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV)

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (KJV)

There's a world of difference of simply having 'head knowledge' of the Gospel and actually believing it in ones' heart. How or why the Catholic Church 'mucks it up' with other sins is beyond me.

Why use Wikipedia?
Why not use an authoritative source such as the Catechism of The Catholic Church?

Wikipedia does actually quote from the Catechism
1858. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
The rest is speculation

As far as I know there is no list of mortal sins. Indeed your Wikipedia article says
Although the Church itself does not provide a precise list of grave sins or divide actions into grave and venial categories, Church documents do name certain "grave sins" as well as "offenses" and "actions" whose subject-matter is considered to be grave.
In other words there is no list but the Church has given some examples.
Moreover it is not possible to give a list of mortal sins since there are three condition to be satisfied before an action is a mortal sin. Grave matter is only one of them.

Your quotes from 1Cor 15 & Rom 10 do not say that belief is the only thing that matters.
1John 5:16-17 does not link mortal sin to unbelief. That is your speculation.

The Catechism quotes from Mk 10:19. But note that the question that Jesus was answering was "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus tells the rich young man to the Commandments. So if we do not keep the Commandments then we will not inherit eternal life.

So your comments about the Catholic Church are incorrect.
So it's clear the Catholic Church is essentially 'making up things' on the fly.
How or why the Catholic Church 'mucks it up' with other sins is beyond me.
It would make our discussion smoother if you desisted from crude Catholic bashing.

 

[Marymog]

I was making sure that your answers are not only your opinion but are coming from the official teaching of your church, for many a times, a catholic apologist switches from opinion to official.

You said regarding Acts 15 Jerusalem council letter, and is RCC position therefore:

1. What was contained in the letter was NEW DOCTRINE.
2. Doctrine is a truth taught by The Church.
   
3. any decision made in the past by church leaders, like at the Council of Jerusalem, is binding upon all Christians as "law".
4. Doctrines can't change.

I have already explained my position that the letter was not about doctrine. But since you insist it is, so went my line of questioning. And my final question on this would be:

Do the RCC teach and commands the members, the following, and teach them as necessary things they should do?

- to not eat blood or abstain from blood and from things strangled.

Tong
R4586

Thanks Tong. I appreciate you taking the time to determine if I am giving my opinion or repeating Church doctrine. I still don't understand how you can say Acts 15 was not about doctrine. What is your definition of doctrine?

Now to answer your question: If you read all of Acts 15 and put vs20 & 29 in context the mention of not eating blood was a pastoral provision (not a provision for all "the members" of the church) suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians and this provision not required for salvation. They are concessions to maintain unity so the Jewish Christians, who still follow the Mosaic law, can feel comfortable in community with Gentiles.

Bible study Mary

 

[Tong2020]

Thanks Tong. I appreciate you taking the time to determine if I am giving my opinion or repeating Church doctrine. I still don't understand how you can say Acts 15 was not about doctrine. What is your definition of doctrine?

Now to answer your question: If you read all of Acts 15 and put vs20 & 29 in context the mention of not eating blood was a pastoral provision (not a provision for all "the members" of the church) suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians and this provision not required for salvation. They are concessions to maintain unity so the Jewish Christians, who still follow the Mosaic law, can feel comfortable in community with Gentiles.

Bible study Mary

<<<I still don't understand how you can say Acts 15 was not about doctrine.>>>

Perhaps my explanation isn’t good enough? But perhaps, your answer to my question helps at that.

<<<What is your definition of doctrine?>>>

In very simple terms, doctrine is teaching. But teaching as different from instruction, commandment, or exhortation.

So, I don’t take the instructions laid out in the letter in v.29, as doctrine.

<<<Now to answer your question: If you read all of Acts 15 and put vs20 & 29 in context the mention of not eating blood was a pastoral provision (not a provision for all "the members" of the church) suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians and this provision not required for salvation. They are concessions to maintain unity so the Jewish Christians, who still follow the Mosaic law, can feel comfortable in community with Gentiles.>>>

So, tell us, is that doctrine, new doctrine?

It seems to me that now you will agree that the letter is not for all the church, when you contend before this that it is new doctrine for the whole church.

Now, I ask, as of this time, what do the RCC teach and commands the members concerning the eating of blood or abstaining from blood and from things strangled? Did RCC amended this or changed this? Or is this still binding?

Tong
R4601

 

[Marymog]

<<<I still don't understand how you can say Acts 15 was not about doctrine.>>>

Perhaps my explanation isn’t good enough? But perhaps, your answer to my question helps at that.


Tong
R4601

Thank you. Your explanation is clear. I just disagree with it.

Respectfully...Mary

 

[Marymog]

<<<What is your definition of doctrine?>>>

In very simple terms, doctrine is teaching. But teaching as different from instruction, commandment, or exhortation.

So, I don’t take the instructions laid out in the letter in v.29, as doctrine.

Tong
R4601

Thank you Tong.

Your definition of doctrine is different than the modern dictionary and Scripture. Doctrine is taught.

Titus 1:9 says He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach (teach) with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

Titus 2:1 But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine.

1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,

A doctrine is a law...for a lack of better words....that is taught!

Mary

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Calling Mary a co-redemptrix has been discussed for years.
You post a lot of information, but I'm sure you must understand that the teaching of the CC comes only from the
CCC....the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was published at the request of John Paul II and was printed in 1992.

I don't know of anywhere in the CCC where it is stated that Mary is a co-redemptrix.
Have you found any such information?

Well as I have said several times- it is not an "official" title, but has not been discouraged, spoken against but allowed to bloom, in the Romanist church.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Agreed that the CC has changed since the Council of Trent about 500 years ago.
They will say it's progressive revelation
However, I do believe they are trying to make their way back to the beginning.

At that time, the CC was the only church and was in keeping with biblical truths - this can be confirmed by the beliefs of the early church fathers.
It's unfortunate that it changed so much over the years.

I will state that I am not a hater of the CC as I find that many of my Protestant brothers are.
Different denominations believe different doctrine and we don't castigate them for it.
A saved person is saved and it does not matter what denomination they are.

I have no animosity against Catholics. I do hate teh false doctrine of th echurch as I do of any church. If this was a thread say about Pentecostalism, we would be talking abou tteh false doctrines fo pentecostal churches.

But the catholic church becamse the roman Catholic church at the end of the sixth century. The church was never unified under one head for the fist three centuries. Churches tended to be local or regional depending on ties between local churches.

1. 1st century saw division between jewish believers and gentile believers.
2. Divisons were also between churches established by different apostles. Not all churches held to the same teachings as we can clearly see in Scriptures. James planted churches in INdia and did not teavch the doctrines Paul taugfht in many areas.
3. For the next 2 centuries, th echurch was heavily persecuted and underground churches or secret churches were the norm, not the exception.
4. The only good thing Constantine did when he ended official persecution of Christianity and made it a "de-facto" favored church was to allow the church to come out from underground and to once for all establish what was and what was not to be Christian doctrine for all time. Of course this was done by direct influence of God in establishing tghe Scriptures as Canon.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You get over excited. You need to calm down and not fret about something that was rarely enacted and does not exist now.
According to Jimmy Akin (Catholic apologist)
Over time, a distinction came to be made between excommunication and anathema. The precise nature of the distinction varied but eventually became fixed. By the time of Gregory IX (1370–1378), the term anathema was used to describe a major excommunication that was performed with a solemn pontifical ceremony. This customarily involved the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing out of candles, collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.

Such solemnities have been rare in Church history. They remained on the books, however, as late as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided that, "Excommunication . . . is called anathema especially when it is imposed with the solemnities that are described in the Roman Pontifical" (CIC [1917] 2257 §§ 1–2).

Well I am not "excited". but they did exist and were practiced often. I was faced with three choices forom the Romanist church when I was Catholic and studying scripture for I was a new believer. I shared with people the fasllacies of Mary, that transubstantiation was not true and a few others. I was given these choices:

1. Recant
2. Leave Romanism
3. Face a dominican tribunal on the formal charges of heresy.

The fact that a church changes doctrine (not practices or casual traditions) shows that men and not God have been making doctrine in it!

So was it god or men who made the anathemas at Trent?
Was it god or men who popularized Limbo?
Was it God or men who made Mary ever virgin? IIN contradiction to Scripture?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I asked you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches what you claimed.
None of the above does that.
Moreover I answered the junk you post about co-redemptrix in post #1559.
None of the above says that Mary is co-redeemer
None of the above says Mary is the fount of all grace.

These are Catholic sites. These are Catholics teaching. where is the paper from rome either by a pope or the college of cardinals saying this is not a teaching of Romanism? They are not so stupid as to not know these are near univertsally held teachings by Catholics. I have already admitted, they are not official dogma, but neither does the church officially discourage or seek to stop these teachings.

As for the ones you mentioned above? They are in the list of titles given to mary by th eRCC at some point in history. That long liost came from a catholic web site.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I asked you to show me where the Catholic Church teaches what you claimed.
None of the above does that.
Moreover I answered the junk you post about co-redemptrix in post #1559.
None of the above says that Mary is co-redeemer
None of the above says Mary is the fount of all grace.

Try another post you made. 1559 has nothing to dso with Mary and was not addressed to me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

Well then give me scripture that sahows the church has the right to reinterpret the Words inspired by God!

I see this:

2 Timothy 3:15-17
King James Version

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Now show me a verse that says we need some mystical hierarchy that must "interpret" the scriptures for us.

Give me one example of a SCripture that is clearly not symbolic or written in apocalyptic language that needs to be "interpreted".

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That neither says nor implies that Mary and Joseph had sex at any time.

Really? are you that ignorant or just being poorly deceptive.

Do you think it means that Jospeh and Mary had no communication? That Joseph didn't speak to Mary th ewhole trip to bethlehem or while she was giving birth etrc. I do not think you are that ignorant. That verse clearly shows that after jesus' birth they has sex. that is what "kknow" means in the language, if you bothered at all to look.

Your quotes do not say those were the children of Mary.

Show me one verse that plainly says that Mary and Joseph had sex

Show me one verse that plainly says that Mary had children other than Jesus.

I showed you the verse that they had sex after jesus birth- you just want to play silly little word games.

I also showed you the verse that proves Jesus had half-brothers and half sisters. Once again I guess you have no understanding of what brothers and sisters mean.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

An opinion that is heretical.

Regarding mortal sins have you not read 1John 5:16-17
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Nice try but not one of over 35 english versions has th eword mortal sin.

1 John 5:16 Parallel: If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. (biblehub.com)

New American Standard Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

NASB 1995
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

NASB 1977
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

Amplified Bible
All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death [one can repent of it and be forgiven].

Christian Standard Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin that doesn’t lead to death.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin that does not bring death.

Contemporary English Version
Everything that is wrong is sin, but not all sins are deadly.

Good News Translation
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which does not lead to death.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, yet there are sins that don't lead to death.

International Standard Version
Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, yet there are sins that do not lead to death.

NET Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, but there is sin not resulting

New International Version
All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

New Living Translation
All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death.

English Standard Version
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

Berean Study Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, yet there is sin that does not lead to death.

King James Bible
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

New King James Version
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

King James 2000 Bible
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

New Heart English Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

World English Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

American King James Version
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not to death.

American Standard Version
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

A Faithful Version
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death.

Darby Bible Translation
Every unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not to death.

English Revised Version
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Webster's Bible Translation
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not to death.

Geneva Bible of 1587
All vnrighteousnesse is sinne, but there is a sinne not vnto death.

Bishops' Bible of 1568
All vnrighteousnes is sinne: and there is sinne vnto death.

Coverdale Bible of 1535
All vnrighteousnes is synne, and there is synne not vnto death.

Tyndale Bible of 1526
All vnrightewesnes is synne and ther is synne not vnto deeth.

Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

Catholic Public Domain Version
All that is iniquity is sin. But there is a sin unto death.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For every evil is sin, and there is sin that is not mortal.

Lamsa Bible
All unrighteousness is sin: but there is a sin which is not worthy of death.

Anderson New Testament
All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not to death.

Godbey New Testament
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is sin not unto death.

Haweis New Testament
All unrighteousness is sin; and there is sin not unto death.

Mace New Testament
every thing that is contrary to virtue, is a sin: but every sin is not a mortal sin:

Weymouth New Testament
Any kind of wrongdoing is sin; but there is sin which is not unto death.

Worrell New Testament
All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not to death.

Worsley New Testament
All unrighteousness indeed is sin, and yet there is a sin not unto death

Literal Standard Version
all unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin [that is] not to death.

Berean Literal Bible
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.

Young's Literal Translation
all unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.

Smith's Literal Translation
All injustice is sin: and there is a sin not to death.

Literal Emphasis Translation
All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not to deat

No one writes "mortal sin". For it is not in the greek. We can sin unto physical death. But not spiritual death. I can do the same with thenx tverse to prove to you your quote is a reinterpretation of Scripture that is wqrong.

To say one can lose their salvation is to say that jesus did not forgive all your sins which is a lie. It says that slavbation requires work which is a lie. It say that an all knowing god who knows past present and future knew a person would get salvation and then God would have to revoke that salvation which is a lie. It also denies what Jesus said in Matt. 7:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

but according ot you , Jesu swould say to some- "I knew you once, but I don't know you now".

 

[Mungo]

Well I am not "excited". but they did exist and were practiced often. I was faced with three choices forom the Romanist church when I was Catholic and studying scripture for I was a new believer. I shared with people the fasllacies of Mary, that transubstantiation was not true and a few others. I was given these choices:

1. Recant
2. Leave Romanism
3. Face a dominican tribunal on the formal charges of heresy.

The fact that a church changes doctrine (not practices or casual traditions) shows that men and not God have been making doctrine in it!

So was it god or men who made the anathemas at Trent?
Was it god or men who popularized Limbo?
Was it God or men who made Mary ever virgin? IIN contradiction to Scripture?

So you left the Catholic Church all bitter ans=d twisted because you didn't understand what you were taught.