Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
You seem to forget how The Victory came about...
You seem to forget how The Victory came about...
The passage in Genesis does not refer to Mary. Rome's own Catholic Encyclopedia admits that.
You, like Roman Catholicism, are basing your theology on a bad translation of the Vulgate. Bad translation...bad theology.
But Rome can't back off this now.
You seem to forget how The Victory came about...
The the Cross....only the Cross. Nothing else.
Doesn’t alter the fact I’ve not heard of them.
Denial of the foreshadowing of the Incarnation is still an odd thing for a Christian though.
Take into account the other denials on this as well.
Of are our Jewish brethren, I did learn the Jews also don’t render 3:15 as a Marian foreshadowing either,
and that unsurprisingly, they don't even render it as that of a Messianic one as well.
And I am pretty sure they view their Tanakhas something God- Breathed, infallibly just the same.
So you have company there in denying long-held Church affirmed teaching.
I wonder if the Jews see Marian prophecy in Isaiah,
Micah, Jeremiah and Daniel as well... probably not I would guess.
I guess then in your type of faith belief,
you do not want to see this as “proto” prophecy for the Incarnate end game,
to reverse the Fall in the Garden of Gen 3, as Christ did, - as well.
Then so be it.
To turn scripture into one’s one personal “Rubik’s cube” to twist it as they wish for personal need,
I say no problem, that’s your prerogative.
But the moment you try to then claim Scripture can be “clear reading”,
or that scripture is as inerrant to the reader,
even though you hold everyone other than yourself is “in error”,
when interpreted on their own, the whole notion of infallibility vanishes
and you are left with only a tradition of interpreting the Bible text for yourself
in a very extra-biblical, fallible way.
Infallibility at that point becomes only a PERSONAL desire,
totally subjective to the interpreter’s will.
When anything can be interpreted as having multiple meanings
for one to choose from- what they wish-
fallibility will undeniably reside- with someone.
The text maybe “God-Breathed”… but after that, as history has proven..
its anyone’s guess to what it should mean.
Confusion.
*****
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. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history. This easy-to-search online version was originally printed between 1907 and 1912 in fifteen hard copy volumes.
Designed to present its readers with the full body of Catholic teaching, the Encyclopedia contains not only precise statements of what the Church has defined, but also an impartial record of different views of acknowledged authority on all disputed questions, national, political or factional. In the determination of the truth the most recent and acknowledged scientific methods are employed, and the results of the latest research in theology, philosophy, history, apologetics, archaeology, and other sciences are given careful consideration.
*****
In other words, the Immaculate Conception was not something that was "handed down" by the Apostles.
It is a contrived and false teaching of Roman Catholicism and totally contradicts what Irenaeus claimed about "tradition".
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith… Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
It is a contrived and false
teaching of Roman Catholicism
and totally contradicts what Irenaeus claimed about "tradition
Had you read further,and posted what you somehow left out...
Your straw man argument collapses.
The Church Has NEVER taught the IC was handed down Apostolicly.
The SAME goes for the Dogma of the Trinity.
These are developed through the inspired Church.
Had you wanted to include the entirety of teaching
from the Encyclopedia:
The translation "she" of the
Vulgate is interpretative;
it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
The conqueror from the seed of the woman,
who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ;
the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary.
God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure,
as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent.
Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man,
i.e. in sanctifying grace.
Only the continual union of Mary with grace
explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan.
The Proto-evangelium, therefore,
in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer,
and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption,
the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
The Encyclopedia leaves no doubt what the Church teaches.
And if your looking for unanimity of Church Fathers on anything... good luck.
Remeber how Holy Scripture was "inspired" over disagreements in Councils.
With regard to how you think the Church establishes doctrone:
When Protestants claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time,
they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue,
from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals.
They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed
until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when
there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up
or when the magisterium
(the Church in its office as teacher;
see Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11)
thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis
being drawn to some already-existing belief.
The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive:
Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin,
hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
You can't love the Blessed Virgin any more than Christ did.
God chose her from the beginning of time,
and she was not ordinary.
And please start referring to her as Blessed,
as Holy scripture requests.
Yet Rome claims there is.
Rome could not change its position on this even if it wanted to. There’s too much dogma built around Mary. If Rome were to admit their error I believe it’d be the end of Roman Catholicism as we understand it today.
Did Luther have the Apostles hand down
his Tradition of determining Sacred Scripture?
Its a self defeating Rubiks Cube you're using...
The majority of the books were already recognized very early by the church.
The OT was in place, Paul’s writings were already recognized as scripture.
Rome didn’t declare its canon until Trent. And even there the vote was not unanimous.
I agree with you- the Trinity can be supported through scripture.
ALSO though- the REJECTION of the Trinity can be supported by scripture as well, in a dozen verses.
Dialogue with any Jehovah Witness’ and learn that fun fact. But they’re wrong.
(Hebrews 1:5 - I think is the go to with them...)
Enter Arius as well.
The Bible alone – the text itself - is not definitive –
and cannot resolve apparent discrepancy amongst its pages.
It does not explicitly have the self-discerning ability to always be able to define a Dogma within its text.
The Concilar Church developed, and established that for us, and kept heresy out.
And we BOTH are glad they did.
For the Blessed Virgin Mary, I would give you only the Assumption as lacking a true scripture basis…
though, now modern science tells us cellular DNA of Christ
would have remained on Earth within the Blessed Virgin if she was not Assumed.
So that needs to be considered.
But I will hold fast to the Tradition there the Church has set down.
Her perpetual virginity and IC are supported by scripture as I can show-
its only that you, and others, can disagree with that scriptural support.
So be it. We each Are our own authority I believe.
To that debatable end, the Jews, who gave us the idea of Inspired writing in the first place,
would disagree with ALL Christians on any of us on these interpretations just the same.
So how does ancient text tell us who’s right?
But none of that really pertains to my reply anyway.
My point, which you neatly tried to divert from,
is the METHOD in which these doctrines that we live with have been developed.
It’s a method that is an employed tradition of Man – decided upon by man -
that is NOT EXPLICITLY FOUND in Scripture.
Its that way for Trinity, and other Dogma, whether they are agreed upon or not- the method of men, to reach these conclusions is the same.
And in that could be mystery as well,
what was interpreted 2000 years ago, may very well be mis-translated down through the ages, for us today.
Even KJV translators of their day admittedly found “ancient Greek” difficult to work:
When the English translations of the Greek New Testament were made
in the 1526-1611 period, the “difficult Greek in which the New Testament is written… still held mysteries for” English scholars. (Nicolson: 224.)
The majority of the books were already recognized very early by the church.
The “majority” ?
Is this a nod then, to the acceptance of the Deuterocanon?
Though really, this statement is a little too vague to understand properly. Very subjective.
Seems to contradict your comment about Trent declaring the Canon below.
1000+ years of the Church passed, before inspired scripture became not so inspired.
The OT was in place,..
The OT was in place?
On the surface of that idea would agree.
I would point to the Septuagint was in circulation, and Jesus and his Apostles used it as Scripture.
But to sell that to the Essenes or the Saduccees of the day, Oy !, Good Luck!!
I think the Jews were having their own squabble over a yet to be settled canon.
Paul’s writings were already recognized as scripture.
Again a little too vague to answer.
Already? When? By whom? ALL of his writings?
While the Church views Paul’s Letters as inspired,
they don’t have the inspired gravitas of Jesus words in the Gospels.
Or even that of God speaking through his Prophets.
Were Paul’s letters thought to be scripture, in the time he was writing them though?
I kind of doubt that.
His stated personal opinions certainly did / do not rise to the level as scripture as he offered them.
(ie. Where Paul says- "I give my advice.")
I would say in time the Church recognized them as scripture…
but I have to be honest and say that where Paul’s preaching ran counter to what the Apostles were Preaching-
I can see trouble and confusion from Paul.
That’s what Peter saw in his “hard to understand” writings.
things like:
”Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh,
we regard him thus no longer.”
OR...
"man is justified by faith apart from observing the law"…
which in part may have some truth,
But Christ taught his Apostles and Us,
Salvation begins in Grace and continues in Obedience and the repenting from sin.. through Faith.
You could see here being a 1st century Jew, how confusing this could be.
Yes, the Church has deemed Paul’s letters as inspired scripture-
but let’s keep in mind, that IT IS FOUND in scripture,
where Head Apostle Peter HAS TO caution those pretty strongly
in what they understand about what Paul has written:
16 speaking of this[c] as he does in all his letters.
There are some things in them hard to understand,
which the ignorant and unstable twist
to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand,
beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men
and lose your own stability.
It would appear that if this “Scripture” Paul is writing about in his Letters… had the ability to allow some men to fall into error and destruction. I don’t know about you,
But I would want my Scripture to be a little more straight forward….
Just in case some came along later and decided to jump on the Paul bandwagon,
and re-define the Salvation history of the Church.
Rome didn’t declare its canon until Trent. And even there the vote was not unanimous.
Why the continued silliness on this.
Trent was a RESPONSE to Luther’s canon that he had edited 20 years or so earlier.
Would you please agree there HAD TO HAVE BEEN a canon for Luther to “pull from” in the first place? 20 -30 years prior?
We point to Council of Rome- late 4th Century for when the Bible started to take life
as a singular collection of texts to be used in the Church.
The encyclopedia has some info.
As far as the IC is concerned...no you cannot as already noted.
And the dogma for her perpetual virginity is she was virgin prior to conception on which there is 100% agreement...but Rome says she was virgin during delivery and after delivery. That Jesus did not pass through the birth canal. That comes from the rejected Protoevangelium of James.
its only that you, and others, can disagree with that scriptural support. So be it. We each Are our own authority I believe. To that debatable end, the Jews, who gave us the idea of Inspired writing in the first place, would disagree with ALL Christians on any of us on these interpretations just the same. So how does ancient text tell us who’s right?
I'd argue it was God Who gave us the inspired writings.t
We either believe in Christ or we don't.
The “majority” ? Is this a nod then, to the acceptance of the Deuterocanon? Though really, this statement is a little too vague to understand properly. Very subjective. Seems to contradict your comment about Trent declaring the Canon below. 1000+ years of the Church passed, before inspired scripture became not so inspired.
Jesus identified the OT. being
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-authoritative-word/question17-jesus-view-of-the-old-testament.cfm
14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16 NASB 95
Peter is recognizing what the early church had already recognized.
Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint as well...
Why is that work not considered inspired as well?
Or only just some of it?
Men decided what the Bible was to be.
And later I will show you how men accepted writings that they even question if an Apostle truly wrote it.
Even your 2 Peter 3 - which you are reading into, to prove Paul's writings
were considered scripture the minute the ink dried,
Yes, 2 Peter 3 is certain to not have been written by Peter.
What does that do to your "infallible" authority?
But the Church Fathers said OK nonetheless.
So THAT was the sacred council method used for the canon.
Peter is recognizing what the early church had already recognized.
Your READING INTO this Bible verse, using a bad translation...
In Acts 9:26 - it is written,, the Apostles were afraid of Paul (his reputation)
AND did not believe he was a disciple.
Flip back to you 2 Peter 3, verse
and you can see how Acts 9 gives credence to the scholarly ideal that 2 Peter 3 was NOT even written by Peter-
as you are so proudly claiming.
Again, doesn't seem infallible to me then.
You Deny Mary is the woman in Gen 3:15.
You deny Mary is the woman in Revelation.
You deny Mary is not a perpetual Virgin of Isaiah's Prophesy-
even though the early church and your Luther
believed in her Perpetual state.
You deny Jesus wants all of us to Behold Mary as our Mother too..
Only John gets a 2nd Mother.
You deny Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be Born of Her flesh.
You deny Mary could not have been changed, like no other at her birth,
with a Grace of God,
full knowing that when man comes in contact with God
they are most often changed in a permanent- physical. way- not of humanly possibility.
You deny the scriptural typology of Mary being presented
as the Ark of the New Covenant
And the Holiness that it encompasses.
Yet you accept other scriptural typology as presented the same way.
You deny the Ave Maria prayer to the Blessed Virgin-
Even though every verse of that prayer
comes directly from "infallible, God- Breathed" Scripture in the Bible.
You really just do not see how disproportionately committed you are
to denying most everything of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
And that's fine... Mary does not save you.
But to Love the woman,
whom Christ loved and chose for his own,
and was shown how to love by this special chosen women,
does not detract from the Christian Faith...
it enriches that Faith to a deeper level.
As does the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia as already noted based on a bad translation of the passage in the Vulgate.
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. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
You deny Mary is the woman in Revelation.
The problem for the Roman Catholic in claiming this is Revelation 12:1-2. Rome likes to claim the woman is mary in v1 but not in v2....why?
The woman cried out in pain which would contradict Rome's position on this issue. Again, this is because Rome relies on discredited and rejected sources to claim Mary did not give birth in a normal fashion.
You deny Mary is not a perpetual Virgin of Isaiah's Prophesy- even though the early church and your Luther believed in her Perpetual state.
The passage from Isaiah does not require perpetual virginity. All it required was the woman to be a virgin. This was fulfilled as noted in scripture.
14“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14
Recall Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. Hard to shake those beliefs sometimes....and btw...as much as Roman Catholics love to insist....Luther isn't who we follow.
You deny Jesus wants all of us to Behold Mary as our Mother too.. Only John gets a 2nd Mother.
Because that's what Scripture says....John took her into his own household. The Greek of the passage indicates this was a very private matter. There is no broad application or hidden message here.
If Jesus had intended for this to be so He could have said so....but He didn't. So once again Scripture is against what Rome claims.
You deny Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be Born of Her flesh.
She didn't have to be. There was no requirement for her to be so. If the Holy Spirit can indwell in a believer without being compromised I have full faith in God's ability to keep any hint of sin from Jesus during His birth process.
And the passage from Luke does not indicate Gabriel recognizing her as being sinless.
Nor does anywhere else in Scripture call her sinless.
Rome's position on this contradicts a number of passages noting the sinful state of all mankind...save for one person. Jesus.
You deny Mary could not have been changed, like no other at her birth, with a Grace of God,
Again, it is denied because Scripture denies it.
You deny the scriptural typology of Mary being presented as the Ark of the New Covenant And the Holiness that it encompasses.
Again, it is denied because Scripture denies it. She was never recognized as such by any of the NT writers.
You deny the Ave Maria prayer to the Blessed Virgin- Even though every verse of that prayer comes directly from "infallible, God- Breathed" Scripture in the Bible.
The passage in Luke is not a prayer to Mary...far from it. It is a prayer of thanksgiving and rejoicing of Mary TO God.
You really just do not see how disproportionately committed you are to denying most everything of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I deny the non-Scriptural things Rome has assigned to Mary.
And that's fine... Mary does not save you.
Not true per many Roman Catholic writers who claim one must serve Mary to be saved. Or wear the man-made idol known as the scapular to avoid the hell-fire. None of which is found in Scripture and contradicts Scripture.
Some Roman Catholic writers claims salvation comes quicker if a person calls upon Mary....which again is a rejection of Scripture.
Roman Catholicism has so distorted the view of Mary she is almost unrecognizable from what we see in scripture.
And a lot of this goes back to the rejected Protoevangelium of James.
Jesus identified the OT when He spoke of the Law and the Prophets. Those divisions, recognized by practically everyone, did not include the Apocrypha.
Men decided what the Bible was to be.
Men moved by the Spirit did.
Even your 2 Peter 3 - which you are reading into, to prove Paul's writings were considered scripture the minute the ink dried,
Except they were. Paul's writings were placed on par with Scripture if you read the passage.
Yes, 2 Peter 3 is certain to not have been written by Peter. What does that do to your "infallible" authority?
You are now saying 2 Peter was not written by Peter. Your source? And don't give me a blog site.
Your READING INTO this Bible verse, using a bad translation...
I'm using the NASB. Recognized by all scholars as the best word for word English translation available.
In Acts 9:26 - it is written,, the Apostles were afraid of Paul (his reputation) AND did not believe he was a disciple. Read on a bit. Context is your friend in understanding scripture.
26When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord.
Flip back to you 2 Peter 3, verse and you can see how Acts 9 gives credence to the scholarly ideal that 2 Peter 3 was NOT even written by Peter-
Nope. Not buying it.
Paul's writings were completed by 66 AD. 2 Peter was written around the same time..some suggest 66-68 AD as a range of dates. Sufficient amount of time for Paul's letters to be in circulation.
Anyway for you, from one non-Catholic source…:
And am I to presume you don’t think 2P should be in the canon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.