Frok said:

---

Depends on your view, to your view, they are facts. To the other, opinions.

If someone differs from your view you Google the response that reasons it away

---

You could make this claim about anything.

The Banned said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Because they made up the concept of original sin in a long standing tradition of guilt shaming the laity. Even though Ezekiel tells us that the son does not bear the burden of his father's sin. And since they made that up they got backed into a corner with "how could Mary bear Jesus if she had sinned. Despite the fact that Romans tell us all me have sinned and fl short of the glory God.

So now we have a theological conundrum. Good news is we can make up a story for that one too, and we call it the Immaculate Conception. So cool, we've successfully worked that problem and now we have a "sinless" Mary. Which kinda makes her divine. But let's forget about that.

Okay so we've got a perfect Mary and Jesus, cool. Yeah but we can't have Mary being an actual human and wife. Cause you know we got that whole Immaculate Conception thing we made up in place.

Got it. What about "perpetual virginity?" Okay that could work but what about all the stuff about Jesus' brothers? Not a problem, we'll just tell the people what we want them to believe and threaten to withhold the Eucharist if they don't.

Well that sums it up. Although, we've already gone pretty far in making her Jesus 2.0 might has well have her ascent into heaven as well. We can call it "the assumption". Yeah but the Bible doesn't mention that at all, and it seems like it might have been pretty important to bring up.

See previous cohersion, either believe it or we're gonna keep you from partaking in the pretend "real flesh" of Jesus. They'll be so afraid of hell, they'll believe whatever they're told.

---

What a beautifully ignorant post.

1. All but the most liberal of liberal "Christian" sects believe in original sin. Your denomination likely does too, but you don't even know it. The reformers sure as heck taught it. There are some different flavors of it, and I'm certain you don't understand the Catholic one, but everyone has it. And the version you're railing against isn't Catholic, but the one held to by the reformers. This is a self-own

2. If "all men have sinned" is a blanket statement as you think it is, question: An average of 350,000 babies are born per day. How many sins have the 350,000 babies born yesterday committed so far?

---

What the reformers said has now bearing on my beliefs. I understand that it's hard for Catholics to understand , but we dont seek the adulation of any man.


Babies can't sin. Sin requires accountability. What qualifies as accountability is between each individual and Christ. What I do r need as a bunch of lawyers deciding for me what accountability means.

Quote:

---

What the reformers said has now bearing on my beliefs.

---

Yes, they do. You just don't know it.

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Because they made up the concept of original sin in a long standing tradition of guilt shaming the laity. Even though Ezekiel tells us that the son does not bear the burden of his father's sin. And since they made that up they got backed into a corner with "how could Mary bear Jesus if she had sinned. Despite the fact that Romans tell us all me have sinned and fl short of the glory God.

So now we have a theological conundrum. Good news is we can make up a story for that one too, and we call it the Immaculate Conception. So cool, we've successfully worked that problem and now we have a "sinless" Mary. Which kinda makes her divine. But let's forget about that.

Okay so we've got a perfect Mary and Jesus, cool. Yeah but we can't have Mary being an actual human and wife. Cause you know we got that whole Immaculate Conception thing we made up in place.

Got it. What about "perpetual virginity?" Okay that could work but what about all the stuff about Jesus' brothers? Not a problem, we'll just tell the people what we want them to believe and threaten to withhold the Eucharist if they don't.

Well that sums it up. Although, we've already gone pretty far in making her Jesus 2.0 might has well have her ascent into heaven as well. We can call it "the assumption". Yeah but the Bible doesn't mention that at all, and it seems like it might have been pretty important to bring up.

See previous cohersion, either believe it or we're gonna keep you from partaking in the pretend "real flesh" of Jesus. They'll be so afraid of hell, they'll believe whatever they're told.

---

What a beautifully ignorant post.

1. All but the most liberal of liberal "Christian" sects believe in original sin. Your denomination likely does too, but you don't even know it. The reformers sure as heck taught it. There are some different flavors of it, and I'm certain you don't understand the Catholic one, but everyone has it. And the version you're railing against isn't Catholic, but the one held to by the reformers. This is a self-own

2. If "all men have sinned" is a blanket statement as you think it is, question: An average of 350,000 babies are born per day. How many sins have the 350,000 babies born yesterday committed so far?

---

What the reformers said has now bearing on my beliefs. I understand that it's hard for Catholics to understand , but we dont seek the adulation of any man.


Babies can't sin. Sin requires accountability. What qualifies as accountability is between each individual and Christ. What I do r need as a bunch of lawyers deciding for me what accountability means.

---

There are basically five movements that have absolutely influenced your positions on christianity if you are in America. And they are like water to a fish unless you've walked through them. The hard part here is that protestant education always bungles church history on purpose, because church history has to lead to their interpretation. So you've probably never actually been taught much about church counsels, the first thousand years of Christianity, or even early reformation, or the thirty years war.

-The reformation (1500s)
-The counterreformation (1500s)
-Second wave of protestantism (unitarianism, puritanism, quakerism, etc) (1700s)
-Third wave of Protestantism (evangelicalism) (1800s)
-Development of marketplace of churches in America (1900s)

At the end of the day, where is your authority coming from? How do you have the correct interpretation, as an individual? How is your interpretation correct but the 20,000 other protestant denominations wrong? Are they not also guided by the holy spirit as they sit down to read their Scripture (TM) in plain english, in a study bible, picking up on the obvious themes to them? Who wrote those study bible notes? Who formed the theological seminary your preacher went to? What did they believe?

Where do any of your assertations even come from? Are you the first person to say 'Babies can't sin?' What about 'Sin requires accountability?' Clearly not, can you trace those ideas back to who said them first and when the church adopted those positions? Why is the catholic church the 'adulation of any man' but is not your preacher a man as well? What gave your preacher authority that is not bestowed upon the catholic church as well?

Ironically, you have a kind of orthodox view of sin and original sin. Like I've said before, original sin introduced death into this world, not damnation. Your own sins when you are of age are what are brought against you by God on judgement day. In the Orthodox church, if you are baptized in the church and die as a baby/young child, the funeral sacraments are different than if you die after the age of reason. Because funeral rites are about asking God for to forgive the sins of the deceased and give the deceased peace and comfort as their soul moves either closer to God or closer to hades. So baby/young children services are way less focused on asking God for forgiveness.

I recommend you watch a few videos of your denomination on the Ready to Harvest Youtube channel. At least learn more about how the denomination you belong do was founded, by whom, and why.

Quote:

---

ho said they mistranslated? They were Aramaic speakers (except for maybe Luke) writing in Greek.

---

This is definitely not the scholarly consensus on the authors native tongues.

Quote:

---

They used the word "brother" because that is the word they used. Like Abraham calling Lot his brother when he very clearly wasn't. Yes, there was a Greek word for cousin, and Paul chose to use it in his letter to the Colossians.

---

And if these guys actually were native greek speakers as seems more likely this argument doesn't seem very strong.

Quote:

---

Also, saying something is omitted from the bible is completely misunderstanding the point of the books themselves. 4 of them were written to be biographies of Jesus. They were not meant to be play by plays of Mary's life.

---

Yeah I simply don't buy this as intellectually honest. That something would be omitted in any one location that's of trivial importance makes perfect sense. It's not an everything book and doesn't try to answer every question. Not mentioning a single one of the litany of fantastical tales about Mary for hundreds of years in ANY source is not at all something we would expect for what stands today as the second most important person in Christianity for Catholics and orthodox. Not one mention from any new testament author either.

Quote:

---

Every other book outside of Revelation was exhorting local churches to keep to the faith they had previously been taught and/or get them back in line when there are rifts in the congregation. Not a single book attempts to be a "here is everything single we teach as Christians" type of text. Using it that way is a very modern invention among evangelicals.

---

Yes evangelicals can take it to an extreme also I'd grant you. It's not an everything book. It also utterly baffling for no one to write down firmly held beliefs about mary for hundreds of years, including in extra-biblical sources. For instance, the assumption of mary is first referenced in the mid 4th century. With widespread references from then on and nothing before. And there are even references to bishops (i forget which one) stating they could find no indication of how she died indicating a clear tradition did not exist. It's not one extreme or the other. There are things for which we could and should reasonably expect to get a mention.


Or another example, I'll quote Fr. Juniper Carol's Mariology on the immaculate conception:

Quote:

---

Theologically, we must face up to an evolution. From the extant philological data it does not seem that the personal sinlessness of Mary or her Immaculate Conception were explicitly taught as Catholic doctrine in the patristic West. (p. 163)

---

Quote:

---

The evidence does not justify us in concluding that the pre-Nicene East envisioned a rare or singular sanctity in the Mother of God, or believed formally that her conception was sinless. If it be insisted that the Immaculate Conception is a legitimate deduction from the patristic doctrine of the Second Eve, let it be remembered that it is deduction and that the deduction was not made before Nicaea. (p. 222)

---

The argument for tradition is not some catch all that can be accepted uncritically.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Yeah I simply don't buy this as intellectually honest. That something would be omitted in any one location that's of trivial importance makes perfect sense. It's not an everything book and doesn't try to answer every question. Not mentioning a single one of the litany of fantastical tales about Mary for hundreds of years in ANY source is not at all something we would expect for what stands today as the second most important person in Christianity for Catholics and orthodox. Not one mention from any new testament author either.


Yes evangelicals can take it to an extreme also I'd grant you. It's not an everything book. It also utterly baffling for no one to write down firmly held beliefs about mary for hundreds of years, including in extra-biblical sources. For instance, the assumption of mary is first referenced in the mid 4th century. With widespread references from then on and nothing before.

---

You don't find it odd the the idea that "every doctrine has to be found laid out in the bible" doesn't exist for the 1500 years problematic?

Did I say every doctrine? Did I limit it to the Bible?

We aren't talking about use of condoms here.

So I told my kids - "Be good UNTIL I get back."

FYI - I am not expecting them to be bad after I get back...

Aggrad08 said:

---

Did I say every doctrine? Did I limit it to the Bible?

We aren't talking about use of condoms here.

---

Ok. So not every doctrine has to be found there, but this one definitely does?

And there is plenty of early testimony that Mary didn't have other children

I told the runner wait until the starting gun sounds to run…..


It's not hard to make that work both ways.

That almost none of the modern dogma exists in scripture or any early writing…yes that's baffling if those dogmas didn't evolve.

Aggrad08 said:

---

That almost none of the modern dogma existing in literature or any early writing…yes that's baffling if those dogmas didn't evolve.

---

We're talking about perpetual virginity in this thread. We didn't expand it to all Marian dogmas

If all of them except this one were named It'd be different. If it's one of a great many that evidences an evolved dogma…

If Jerome, Luther, AND the Pope agree on this, then maybe, just maybe, it's true...

The Banned said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Because they made up the concept of original sin in a long standing tradition of guilt shaming the laity. Even though Ezekiel tells us that the son does not bear the burden of his father's sin. And since they made that up they got backed into a corner with "how could Mary bear Jesus if she had sinned. Despite the fact that Romans tell us all me have sinned and fl short of the glory God.

So now we have a theological conundrum. Good news is we can make up a story for that one too, and we call it the Immaculate Conception. So cool, we've successfully worked that problem and now we have a "sinless" Mary. Which kinda makes her divine. But let's forget about that.

Okay so we've got a perfect Mary and Jesus, cool. Yeah but we can't have Mary being an actual human and wife. Cause you know we got that whole Immaculate Conception thing we made up in place.

Got it. What about "perpetual virginity?" Okay that could work but what about all the stuff about Jesus' brothers? Not a problem, we'll just tell the people what we want them to believe and threaten to withhold the Eucharist if they don't.

Well that sums it up. Although, we've already gone pretty far in making her Jesus 2.0 might has well have her ascent into heaven as well. We can call it "the assumption". Yeah but the Bible doesn't mention that at all, and it seems like it might have been pretty important to bring up.

See previous cohersion, either believe it or we're gonna keep you from partaking in the pretend "real flesh" of Jesus. They'll be so afraid of hell, they'll believe whatever they're told.

---

What a beautifully ignorant post.

1. All but the most liberal of liberal "Christian" sects believe in original sin. Your denomination likely does too, but you don't even know it. The reformers sure as heck taught it. There are some different flavors of it, and I'm certain you don't understand the Catholic one, but everyone has it. And the version you're railing against isn't Catholic, but the one held to by the reformers. This is a self-own

2. If "all men have sinned" is a blanket statement as you think it is, question: An average of 350,000 babies are born per day. How many sins have the 350,000 babies born yesterday committed so far?

---

I don't believe that babies have sinned. I believe in the age of accountability. As to what that means in practice i couldnt say other than it's between them and God. But then again I don't go to a church that has a 1500 point book of dogma requiring a law degrees to interpret.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

What the reformers said has now bearing on my beliefs.

---

Yes, they do. You just don't know it.

---

Oh my bad. Please tell me what I believe. Catholic arrogance apparently has no bounds.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Because they made up the concept of original sin in a long standing tradition of guilt shaming the laity. Even though Ezekiel tells us that the son does not bear the burden of his father's sin. And since they made that up they got backed into a corner with "how could Mary bear Jesus if she had sinned. Despite the fact that Romans tell us all me have sinned and fl short of the glory God.

So now we have a theological conundrum. Good news is we can make up a story for that one too, and we call it the Immaculate Conception. So cool, we've successfully worked that problem and now we have a "sinless" Mary. Which kinda makes her divine. But let's forget about that.

Okay so we've got a perfect Mary and Jesus, cool. Yeah but we can't have Mary being an actual human and wife. Cause you know we got that whole Immaculate Conception thing we made up in place.

Got it. What about "perpetual virginity?" Okay that could work but what about all the stuff about Jesus' brothers? Not a problem, we'll just tell the people what we want them to believe and threaten to withhold the Eucharist if they don't.

Well that sums it up. Although, we've already gone pretty far in making her Jesus 2.0 might has well have her ascent into heaven as well. We can call it "the assumption". Yeah but the Bible doesn't mention that at all, and it seems like it might have been pretty important to bring up.

See previous cohersion, either believe it or we're gonna keep you from partaking in the pretend "real flesh" of Jesus. They'll be so afraid of hell, they'll believe whatever they're told.

---

What a beautifully ignorant post.

1. All but the most liberal of liberal "Christian" sects believe in original sin. Your denomination likely does too, but you don't even know it. The reformers sure as heck taught it. There are some different flavors of it, and I'm certain you don't understand the Catholic one, but everyone has it. And the version you're railing against isn't Catholic, but the one held to by the reformers. This is a self-own

2. If "all men have sinned" is a blanket statement as you think it is, question: An average of 350,000 babies are born per day. How many sins have the 350,000 babies born yesterday committed so far?

---

What the reformers said has now bearing on my beliefs. I understand that it's hard for Catholics to understand , but we dont seek the adulation of any man.


Babies can't sin. Sin requires accountability. What qualifies as accountability is between each individual and Christ. What I do r need as a bunch of lawyers deciding for me what accountability means.

---

There are basically five movements that have absolutely influenced your positions on christianity if you are in America. And they are like water to a fish unless you've walked through them. The hard part here is that protestant education always bungles church history on purpose, because church history has to lead to their interpretation. So you've probably never actually been taught much about church counsels, the first thousand years of Christianity, or even early reformation, or the thirty years war.

-The reformation (1500s)
-The counterreformation (1500s)
-Second wave of protestantism (unitarianism, puritanism, quakerism, etc) (1700s)
-Third wave of Protestantism (evangelicalism) (1800s)
-Development of marketplace of churches in America (1900s)

At the end of the day, where is your authority coming from? How do you have the correct interpretation, as an individual? How is your interpretation correct but the 20,000 other protestant denominations wrong? Are they not also guided by the holy spirit as they sit down to read their Scripture (TM) in plain english, in a study bible, picking up on the obvious themes to them? Who wrote those study bible notes? Who formed the theological seminary your preacher went to? What did they believe?

Where do any of your assertations even come from? Are you the first person to say 'Babies can't sin?' What about 'Sin requires accountability?' Clearly not, can you trace those ideas back to who said them first and when the church adopted those positions? Why is the catholic church the 'adulation of any man' but is not your preacher a man as well? What gave your preacher authority that is not bestowed upon the catholic church as well?

Ironically, you have a kind of orthodox view of sin and original sin. Like I've said before, original sin introduced death into this world, not damnation. Your own sins when you are of age are what are brought against you by God on judgement day. In the Orthodox church, if you are baptized in the church and die as a baby/young child, the funeral sacraments are different than if you die after the age of reason. Because funeral rites are about asking God for to forgive the sins of the deceased and give the deceased peace and comfort as their soul moves either closer to God or closer to hades. So baby/young children services are way less focused on asking God for forgiveness.

I recommend you watch a few videos of your denomination on the Ready to Harvest Youtube channel. At least learn more about how the denomination you belong do was founded, by whom, and why.

---

The local Bible church I attend does not adhere to any denomination. We just do our best to worship God as close to how the Bible tells us. Are we perfect. Of course not. But it may be surprising to tou RCCers that not all of us need a man to buffer between us and Christ.

Jaspers Ghost said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

What the reformers said has now bearing on my beliefs.

---

Yes, they do. You just don't know it.

---

Oh my bad. Please tell me what I believe. Catholic arrogance apparently has no bounds.

---

He's not Catholic. Nor is he Orthodox. Take the chip off your shoulder and engage with others in good faith or just go somewhere else to grind your ax.