[JoeT777]

I'm surprised it took that long after Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that she was conceived as sinless). Where was she until 1950?

On the Assumption of Mary, knowing you have an aversion to Catholic web sites (the truth might jump out and get you – Boo), so I decided to bring it to you:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary

JoeT

[Athos]

... knowing you have an aversion to Catholic web sites (the truth might jump out and get you – Boo), so I decided to bring it to you:

JoeT

Bingo!

So many Catholic questions (and answers) are easily found by a little bit of research on the Internet.

[Wondergirl]

On the Assumption of Mary, knowing you have an aversion to Catholic web sites

Actually, I was teasing classyT.

Sweetie, I'm a LIBRARIAN. Research is my middle name. I KNEW where Mary was before 1950, but classyT's question begged for a similar response.

[Wondergirl]

Bingo!

So many Catholic questions (and answers) are easily found by a little bit of research on the Internet.

Um, that's why I ask questions here -- and ask them of YOU and others I trust.

[Athos]

Um, that's why I ask questions here -- and ask them of YOU and others I trust.

You don't trust encyclopedias? And you a librarian? For shame!

[Wondergirl]

You don't trust encyclopedias? And you a librarian? For shame!

Good grief!

[arcura]

Why would anyone not trust encyclopedias?
They are full of much information.
Fred

[dwashbur]

Why would anyone not trust encyclopedias?.
They are full of much information.
Fred

That wasn't what she said.

[arcura]

dwashbur,
OH!! Sorry that I thought so.
Fred

[elscarta]

My mistake; it's actually Psalm 14, which is repeated in Psalm 53. He quotes Isaiah a little further down in the development part. So it is in fact repeated over and over; with the Ecclesiastes reference that's at least four. And Psalm 53:3 does say "not even one."

That's what I get for using the LTMLV.

Dwashbur,
Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 do not relate to Romans 3:10 but to Romans 3:11-12. They do not mention "righteous" and classyT specifically quoted only Romans 3:10.

The scriptures repeat over and over that there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE.

Furthermore the "not even one" in both Psalms refers to "there is no one who does good".

So I still maintain Scripture does not "repeat over and over", but at most only two times, states that "there is NONE righteous", and that Paul is using hyperbole in Romans 3:10 as explained before!

Romans 3:11-12
11there is no one who understands,
No one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
They have together become worthless;
There is no one who does good,
Not even one.

Psalm 14:1-3
1The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
There is no one who does good.
To the LORD looks down from heaven
On the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
Not even one.

Psalm 53:1-3
1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
There is no one who does good.
2 God looks down from heaven
On the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Any who seek God.
3 Everyone has turned away,
They have together become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
Not even one.

[classyT]

dwasbur,
I cannot find any reference in Isaiah to the above. My NIV Bible cross references Romans 3:10 with Ecclesiastes 7:20

Ecclesiastes 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;

Paul did not quote scripture, he paraphrased what was written and clearly exaggerated what was written by adding "not even one" and dropping the "does what is right and never sins".



Even if you believe that Ecclesiastes 7:20 says the same thing as Romans 3:10 this is only two times NOT "repeated over and over".
I find it quite ironic that classyT uses hyperbole to get her point across about what Paul meant in Romans 3:10 and yet people deny that Paul used hyperbole when he clearly did!

For All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that ALL have sinned: Romans 5:12


ALL we like sheep have gone astray we have turned EVERYONE to his own way the Lord has laid on him the inquity of us ALL. Is. 53:6

There is none righteous.. no not one. Romans 3:10

For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.Ecclesiastes 7:20

I looked up cross references:


1 Kings 8:46 "When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Chronicles 6:36 "When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to a land far off or near,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 143:2 And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9 Who[ can say, "I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin "?


And I can find more. EVERY human being born into this world is a sinner... I stand by my previous statement the bible is clear on this topic.

All I'm asking for is ONE verse that says anyone except for the Lord Jesus was born perfect and without sin. That is all I want. I have backed up my belief with the Word. Now, please back up YOURS with the word.

[JoeCanada76]

I can tell you what I personally believe and what the Bible tells me.

Jesus is the head of the church, not the pope.

Yes, about the virgin Mary being blessed. Yes. She was blessed with the spirit of God, and she conceived a child through the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that she is divine, no.

[dwashbur]

Dwashbur,
Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 do not relate to Romans 3:10 but to Romans 3:11-12. They do not mention "righteous" and classyT specifically quoted only Romans 3:10.


Furthermore the "not even one" in both Psalms refers to "there is no one who does good".

Oh, I see, so only exact verbal equivalence will satisfy. "There is no one who does good" apparently doesn't mean the same thing as "there is no one righteous" in your book. I'm not sure how that works

Classy has given you plenty to show that the Bible does in fact hammer away at this fact. So I have no more to add.

[elscarta]

dwashbur,
All I ask is that there is consistency in the meaning given to particular verses in Scripture.

On the one hand we have Wondergirl stating

The lack of righteousness in "none is righteous" is the umbrella type. This is the lack of righteousness (the human condition, Christianity calls it original sin).

On the other hand you equate "there is no one righteous" with "There is no one who does good" . To me this is the second type of "righteousness" that Wondergirl states

The other kind of righteousness of Noah et al. is a personal goodness that rose above the human condition, a righteousness that God noticed and acknowledged.

You can't have it both ways! So which is one is it?

[Wondergirl]

You can't have it both ways! So which is one is it?

Now you're pitting us against each other (and still not understanding what either of us is saying)?

[TUT317]

dwashbur,
all I ask is that there is consistency in the meaning given to particular verses in Scripture.

This may not be possible when it comes to language. Dwash would be better than me at this so I am sure he will want to add something.

Look at the words RIGHTEOUS or NOT RIGHTEOUS.

Think of all the things and acts that can be righteous or not righteous.

Think of all the people who can or cannot be described in this way.

There is obviously a common element which allows us to decide that something is righteous. However, with such understanding comes a problem. It is the problem of conceptual distance.

When we start discussing the term righteous in relation to particular events and people the common features we assumed were there at the beginning are gone.

In other words, common features drop in and out when discussing particular instances of words. It can get to a stage where the conceptual distances are so great that it is hard to imagine that we are talking about the same thing.

Football is a GAME just like playing cards is a GAME. I don't think there will be much consistency in meaning if we compare the two in terms of being a game.

Tut

[classyT]

dwashbur,
all I ask is that there is consistency in the meaning given to particular verses in Scripture.

On the one hand we have Wondergirl stating


On the other hand you equate "there is no one righteous" with "There is no one who does good" . To me this is the second type of "righteousness" that Wondergirl states



You can't have it both ways! So which is one is it?

Well obviously according to the scriptures we are born sinners and therefore unrighteous because of Adam's sin.

The Bible also says that without faith it is impossible to please God. But when we have faith and BELIEVE God...

James 2:23... Abraham believed God and it was IMPUTED unto him for righteousness...

Because of the finished work of Christ on the cross all that believe in him God looks upon those who have accepted the Lord as righteous.

Romans 3:24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins ( New living translation)

So we are born a sinner BUT with faith and believing God he can declare and impute the righteousness of His son on to us.

[arcura]

elscarta,
I agree Paul was using hyperbole,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[classyT]

Paul wasn't using hyberbole unelss you believe that all of the Bible exaggerates the condition of ALL mankind. I have posted scripture after scripture that clearly says otherwise.

Personally I don't care if some Catholics want to believe Mary was sinless. But you should be able to back it up by the word of God. Otherwise it is just man's thoughts and traditons. What good does it do any of us to hold on to something just because it is a tradition of our denomination?

Paul warns:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

All I'm saying is this... Back up your beliefs with the 66 books the Lord has given us and compare scripture with scripture. I'm not saying we can't read other writings.. I'm saying other writings aren't the Bible and therefore NOT the inspired word Of God .

I'm beating a dead horse I guess... but it is better than pounding your head against a brick wall. Athos, stop doing that.. you are jarring your brain and it could be why you aren't getting what I'm saying... ha ha ha. :D

[elscarta]

This may not be possible when it comes to language. Dwash would be better than me at this so I am sure he will want to add something.

Look at the words RIGHTEOUS or NOT RIGHTEOUS.

Think of all the things and acts that can be righteous or not righteous.

Think of all the people who can or cannot be described in this way.

There is obviously a common element which allows us to decide that something is righteous. However, with such understanding comes a problem. It is the problem of conceptual distance.

When we start discussing the term righteous in relation to particular events and people the common features we assumed were there at the beginning are gone.

In other words, common features drop in and out when discussing particular instances of words. It can get to a stage where the conceptual distances are so great that it is hard to imagine that we are talking about the same thing.

Football is a GAME just like playing cards is a GAME. I don't think there will be much consistency in meaning if we compare the two in terms of being a game.

Tut

Tut,
I think that you misunderstood my point. I do not want one definition for "righteous" for all of the verses in which it is used, I understand that this is not possible. But, when we are discussing what a particular verse (in this case Romans 3:10) means, then we should try to get an agreement on what that particular definition is.

The problem I have is that while wondergirl and dashbur say that they agree with classyT it doesn't appear to me that they have the same definition for "righteous" as each other. As I pointed out in my last post, wondergirl gave two definitions for "righteous". According to her, Romans 3:10 is the first definition. Dwashbur on the other hand appears to me to think that Romans 3:10 is the second definition.

To me this situation is illogical, I don't understand how you can say that you agree with someone yet have a different definition to them. Now maybe I have misunderstood dwashbur, if this is the case, I would appreciate it if someone could explain how "There is no one who does good" means the same thing as "there is no one righteous" according to the definition of the word "righteous" that wondergirl agrees with.