Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
Bless your heart, Ben. I thought this discussion could remain above such a juvenile level because you already know the answer to your question. Seeing as this is a common thing, to ask questions seemingly to refute the obvious, let me be more precise:
Romans 3:21 and following:
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Now. I quoted Romans 3:23 to you and explained that it was a universal for mankind. Christ is God and Man, correct? So instead of silly little semantic games that you seem to enjoy, please read it in context. Note that Christ redeems...not Mary. Note that God sent Christ as the propitiation.. in Christ’s blood. Note v. 26 also; this applies to Mary. She herself referred to her Savior.
Now, then. Semantic games aside. Where is it shown, anywhere in the Scriptures, that Mary did NOT sin??? We have ample evidence that we are all sinners due to Adam’s fall. Was not Mary born of woman? She too was subject to Original Sin. Just as you and I.
Faith in Christ saved her. Were she to be sinless, she wouldn’t need a savior; yet she claims Jesus as hers.
How can you argue with Scripture?
Now the short answer to your question. No, Jesus was not a sinner.
Hoss
Then God, “God, as Christ the Son” was also sacrificed?
“bridge”? It seems to me that a bridge joins two things without being either and carries something from the one to the other.
:-D
“I use the Protestant canon primarily (because it is made of the books which are absolutely accepted by all), but yes, I do have Maccabees, and have studied it quite a bit, as with the many other books which might even remotely be attributed to the prophets/agents of YHWH.”
Enoch too? What about the Didache?
Interesting. Not the reply I expected. So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?
Well, I respect that approach. Disagree with it as I believe that Jerome got it right.
Peace and blessings, Sir.
“So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?”
Again, way to go, Ben. Such a great example of putting words into other’s mouths. Did he say he made his own personal Canon for his own personal use? I didn’t read that. Did you write that, roamer_1??
Such a common tactic. And so unnecessary were you to engage in honest debate.
tsk, tsk.
Watch yourself, roamer; Ben requires precision of us, but not of himself.
Hoss
Yes, God died on the Cross and resurrected on the third day.
“It seems to me that a bridge joins two things without being either and carries something from the one to the other.”
Then it’s not a bridge. It would fall down. Has to be anchored in both sides securely, fully God and fully Man.
To use your method of debate...
So, Ben... is God not eternal? Can God die?
:D
Hoss
“Watch yourself, roamer; Ben requires precision of us, but not of himself”
I said I disagree with the position. But, it is intellectually self-consistant. This is why I respect that position.
There are two consistant Christian positions. One, that the Church was right, accept all the Councils and accept the Canon of the Catholic Church.
Two, reject the canon, reject the councils, accept that you and you alone are to decide what is and ought to be scripture. Take each of the books that are available and make the determination for yourself.
Most Protestants, and others try to adopt a middle position between the two. They accept some of the ecumenical councils, (as many as just one), or they accept only *some* of the books. Protestants are just the latest incarnation of this thought.
By definition Protestants accept 4 ecumenical councils: Nicaea, First Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. They accept the Canon as set by Luther.
The orthodox accept 7, the first four, plus 2nd, 3rd Constantinople and 2nd Ephesus.
Oriental orthodox rejects Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Assyrians reject Chalcedon. They, however accept the Catholic Canon, as do the orthodox.
The only truly significant contribution of Protestants is that they choose Luther’s canon. That’s basically it. Their claim of addition by subtraction that you can build a better bible by getting rid of books.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Classification Protestant
Theology Reformed Evangelical
Governance Presbyterian
Origin June 11, 1936
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Separated from Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
Separations Bible Presbyterian Church
Congregations 255
Members 29,421
(ministers: 485
communicants: 21,123
non-communicants: 7,813)
Statistics for 2009[1]
Well son of a gun. We have a here a church founded by men. Not Christ, not God, and not growing.
“Watch yourself, roamer; Ben requires precision of us, but not of himself”
I said I disagree with the position. But, it is intellectually self-consistant. This is why I respect that position.
There are two consistant Christian positions. One, that the Church was right, accept all the Councils and accept the Canon of the Catholic Church.
Two, reject the canon, reject the councils, accept that you and you alone are to decide what is and ought to be scripture. Take each of the books that are available and make the determination for yourself.
Most Protestants, and others try to adopt a middle position between the two. They accept some of the ecumenical councils, (as many as just one), or they accept only *some* of the books. Protestants are just the latest incarnation of this thought.
By definition Protestants accept 4 ecumenical councils: Nicaea, First Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. They accept the Canon as set by Luther.
The orthodox accept 7, the first four, plus 2nd, 3rd Constantinople and 2nd Ephesus.
Oriental orthodoxy rejects Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Assyrians reject Chalcedon. They, however accept the Catholic Canon, as do the orthodox.
The only truly significant contribution of Protestants is that they choose Luther’s canon. That’s basically it. Their claim of addition by subtraction that you can build a better bible by getting rid of books.
When Christ was incarnate, yes, he died on the Cross.
However, the Godhead is eternal.
To die, to go from life to death and then to be resurrected from the grave would be a real change, mutability, would it not?
However, is it not Catholic doctrine and teaching that God is unchanging, immutable? As described in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
“These are some of the Scriptural texts which clearly teach Divine immutability or unchangeableness, and this attribute is likewise emphasized in church teaching, as by the Council of Nicaea against the Arians, who attributed mutability to the Logos (Denzinger, 54-old No. 18), and by the Vatican Council in its famous definition.”
And if “God died on the Cross and resurrected on the third day.” would not that leave the Father and Holy Spirit as a ‘biune’ instead of a ‘triune’ God?
The point is, you put words in roamer_1’s mouth, not the historicity of The Canon, or Ecumenical Councils.
You again were dishonest in hour question to roamer_1.
Hoss
Just as I know. Point made yet again.
Hoss
“We have a here a church founded by men. “
Just like the Roman Catholic Church.
Hoss
Yes, though my Didache is now only electronic... My library used to be quite a bit more extensive than it is now... Unfortunately, illness and bad eyes have forced me into a position of using electronic media more than my beloved old tomes.
Interesting. Not the reply I expected. So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?
Not exactly. I accept the Masoretic Hebrew texts without question, and recent events (the Dead Sea Scrolls) prove that choice nicely. I am less enamored of any school wrt the New Covenant books - I am quite sure that the Greek is not the original... So, until the original (Hebrew) texts emerge, It is my opinion that the "new" must be proved in the "old" - quite the reverse of what is commonly insisted upon.
So my accepted Scripture, in the exact sense, is the Hebrew Tanakh... With the New Covenant books accepted as well, though with *some* reservations. (generally KJV and NKJV)
Well, I respect that approach. Disagree with it as I believe that Jerome got it right.
I think not. Especially wrt the Old Covenant... One must remember that the harlot was rising up, even in John's day. Anything beyond that point is untrustworthy. Certainly I would not lend the Roman church one bit of trust with regard to keeping any text.
Jesus was executed. He didn’t die of old age.
Neither one had the aging process stopped...To suggest Mary got old and then was translated to heaven is nothing more than a wishful fable...
Had Jesus not been killed, would he now appear as a two thousand year old human, or would his aging process have been halted at a convenient age???
Nope.
No, I wrote that I accept the Protestant canon as primary - Those books which everyone accepts absolutely. Beyond that, I judge the book by it's fitting on top of the foundation of the Torah, and it's prophetic content, as fitting upon the foundation of the prophets.
Why do you guys refuse to acknowledge that there are two lines of bible manuscripts...The relatively few that your religion makes claims to and the Majority Texts which are completely separate from Rome and Jerome???
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.