Does Luke 1:28 Support The Immaculate Conception Of Mary?

          "The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the "Daughter of Zion": "Rejoice." It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son." (CCC # 722).

          The best description that we get about Mary from Scripture is that she is "the Lord's servant" (Luke 1:38). Nothing much else is said of her elsewhere. It is unrealistic to go from describing Mary as being an instrument used by God to being a woman who was conceived without sin, ascended into heaven without physical death, and being exalted as the queen of heaven. There is nothing in this context allowing for the use of random titles to exalt Mary, offering prayers to her, building up statues of saints to bow down before, among other things. The context of Luke 1 contains no clear evidence that Mary holds a mediatory role between humanity and God or was intended to be venerated in the way that Catholics have done with her.

          The angel Gabriel’s greeting, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28, NRSV), underscores God's favor upon Mary as the chosen vessel for Jesus' incarnation. However, there is no indication that this favor confers an ongoing role for Mary beyond being the mother of Jesus. Moreover, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) emphasizes Mary's acknowledgment of her own humility and God's greatness. While she praises God for the honor given to her, the prayer's central focus is on God's mercy, justice, and faithfulness to His covenant. There is no suggestion that Mary sought or should receive adoration from others.

          The context reveals important sayings of Elizabeth, Mary, and the Angel Gabriel. However, nothing is said about Mary being without sin. Further, we need to ask why Gabriel would announce the important message of Mary's birth so many years after the occasion took place (i.e. when she was already a fully grown woman)? Both the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were proclaimed before their birth dates. It would be highly unusual to make a prophecy of an event after the fact that it has already happened. Luke chapter one centers around the conception of Jesus.

          In addition, the phrase "full of grace" is not found in our Greek manuscripts. It is derived from a faulty translation of Jerome in his fourth century Latin Vulgate. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church has derived its doctrine from a corrupted Latin translation, not the Greek original. Interestingly, modern-day Catholic translations of the Bible do not have the rendering "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. Examples of reputable texts omitting that term would include the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

          Consider this excerpt from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378:

          "The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace."

          Consider this excerpt from The Augsburg Confession: A Commentary, by Leif Grane, p. 209, which is thoroughly reasonable to place here:

          "She [Mary] does not seek her own enjoyment in the honor which God has permitted her to share, but keeps her spirit pure. In this way the Magnificat becomes a proclamation of God's own goodness toward poor and lowly mortals. It is God's grace toward Mary, who is unworthy, that we should praise. Mary does not desire that praise be directed toward her, for thereby God's grace is diminished. If one would honor her, one should regard her low estate and marvel at God's exceedingly abundant grace toward her. Thereupon one should praise God, who acts this way toward poor and wretched human beings, and so learn to depend of God oneself, when one is despised and degraded. By elevating Mary into a sublime being, one destroys the comfort which Mary's words can bring."

Examining The Catholic Rosary In Light Of Scripture

       One Roman Catholic legend is that Mary showed up before St. Dominic in 1208 at the church of Prouille and revealed the rosary beads to him. Catholic Priest William Saunders writes that, "the origins of the rosary are sketchy at best." Gregory the Great made popular a form of the Hail Mary Prayer. In response, many began praying this prayer in repetitions with stringed beads. However, Jesus declared unfit for use this kind of prayer:

        "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."  (Matthew 6:6-7)

         For what other reason would the scribes and Pharisees pray the kind of prayer that Christ expressed disapproval of, other than heaping up words and phrases in an attempt to make their utterances more efficacious or more heard? The rosary consists of exactly these elements. The context of His teaching here is more than saying the same prayers repeatedly.

        Jesus Christ emphatically condemned this kind of prayer by calling it vain. It is uttered by pagans in their ecstasy and by legalists in their pride, but worthless before God. He already knows everything that we are going to pray about and our motives for doing so, even before anything is said. He knows everything that we need, even better than what we know ourselves.

         Further, more prayers are dedicated to Mary in the rosary than to God Himself in the process of it being cited. The praises given to God are outnumbered nine to one in favor of Mary. Hence, it does not take much to notice how such a prayer can diminish one's affection for God. Observe the utter contrast of Roman Catholic devotion to Mary in the rosary with words of devotion to God from the Psalms:

        "My soul, wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from Him. He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be shaken." (Psalm 62:5-6)

        This psalmist obviously would have rejected any concept of offering some lower form of religious devotion to someone other than God. He viewed his Creator as his one and only source of spiritual sustenance during hard times. 

        "Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth." (Psalm 73:25)

        There is nothing in these words that would even remotely imply that using something like the rosary would be palatable for use in worship. No one ever prayed with beads in the Bible, a concept instituted by pagans long before Christianity began (making them even less appealing to devout Jews). For instance, the Hindus did so in prayers to their gods. The biggest problem for the rosary is that it involves prayer to someone other than God.

        Why do we need to know how many times that a prayer is said? Why is there an emphasis on the number of repetitions in citing the rosary? Are there consequences for saying too many or too little of a specific prayer? Does the rosary involve some sort of self-hypnosis technique? What is the significance of even using this relic if the repetition serves no purpose?

Is The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Joseph remained celibate after the birth of Jesus Christ, thereby indicating that He had no biological siblings. According to this belief, any relatives of Jesus mentioned in Scripture were either cousins or children from a previous marriage of Joseph. As for historical debates, Jerome countered Helvidius on three main points: 1.) the assumption of Joseph as Mary's husband, 2.) the identification of Jesus' "brothers" as cousins, and 3.) the view that celibacy holds moral superiority over marriage. This doctrine has been supported by many throughout history, both before and after the Protestant Reformation. Notable Protestant figures such as Martin Luther, Francis Turretin, and Richard Hooker upheld the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.

• Matthew 1:18:

          -This passages says that Mary was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph came together. This implies that their marriage had not been consummated at the time of Jesus' conception. When combined with Matthew 1:25, this would suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations post-birth. Further, mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the New Testament further support the idea that Mary had other children. Therefore, the perpetual virginity of Mary lacks biblical support and seems to be a later theological development. It is not based on a straightforward interpretation of the text.

• On The Meaning Of "Until" In Matthew 1:24-25:

          -The term "until" often indicates a change of condition following the specified event. Supporting examples from Scripture where "until" implies a change include Matthew 24:34 and Acts 20:11. This interpretation aligns with other New Testament references to Jesus' siblings (e.g. Matthew 12:46, Mark 6:3), which further challenge the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. The implication here is that she had other children after Jesus, thus marking a shift from a virgin to a mother of multiple children.

• Matthew 13:55-57 And Mark 6:3-4:

          -The context of these passages indicates the meaning of "brothers and sisters" to be natural family. In Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4, the Greek word for sisters (i.e. adelphe) is used. Further, that word is used in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 to mean natural sister born as to the same mother. The term used in various contexts suggests a natural familial relationship.
          -If this was a reference to more distinct relatives, then why did Matthew and Mark not use the Greek word "suggenes" (e.g. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:58)? The absence of this term in Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4 could be seen as an indication that the authors intended to convey a more immediate family relationship.

          -The New Testament occupies a separate Greek word for cousin, which is "anepsios" (e.g. Colossians 4:10). The New Testament never denotes the term "brother" to mean anything other than a literal brother in the context of family relations. If the terms brother and sister are not to be taken literally, then why should we understand Mary being called the mother of Jesus in that same way? 

• John's Gospel Records A Fulfilled Prophecy (John 2:15-17) From The Book Of Psalms (Psalm 69:8-9): 

          -The implication to be made here is that Christ had literal brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary. His brothers were said to not believe Him (John 7:1-10).

• Jesus Was Mary's Firstborn, Not Only Born (Luke 2:7):

          -The fact that the four gospels speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ suggests that "firstborn" in this context means the first of many children. If Jesus were an only child, then it would not have been necessary to call Him the firstborn.

• Moving Past Virginity And Rethinking Mary's Role:

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity places an unhealthy and undue focus on her sexuality. This obsession with virginity can perpetuate harmful attitudes toward sexuality, suggesting that purity and virtue are tied to sexual status. Such an emphasis can overshadow Mary's other significant qualities and contributions, reducing her identity to a single attribute. This focus may distort natural human experiences and relationships, perpetuating unrealistic standards within a religious context.

Refuting The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

• Introduction:

          -According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and she therefore led a sinless life. It is claimed that God had to work things out in this fashion so that Jesus Himself could be conceived without sin. The Roman Catholic Catechism says, "...The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (# 491)
          -As is usual with distinctively Roman Catholic dogmas, there is no unanimous consensus among the church fathers as to whether or not this teaching is biblical. Dr. Ron Rhodes says the following, "...it is a historical fact that a number of the early church fathers such as Origen, Basil, Hillary, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria believed that Mary had engaged in sins (such as vanity and ambition) in her life" (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 296). Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas also denied the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception.

• The Logic Of Mary's Immaculate Conception Undoes Itself:

          -If sinlessness is claimed for Mary so that she could be pure enough to bear Jesus Christ in her womb, then why should such not also be claimed for Mary's mother so that she could be pure enough to do the same with her? When and where did this process begin? Why not simply have Mary and Jesus born in a sinless environment? What made the conception of Jesus unique was the way in which He was conceived, not to whom He was conceived.

• Mary Was Not Ritually Clean, According To The Old Testament Levitical Law, Which Was Still In Effect When Christ Was A Baby:

          -If Mary was sinless, then why was she unclean and had to offer a sacrifice for sin (Luke 2:16; 21-24)? Ritual impurity in Leviticus 12, stemming from childbirth, symbolizes the transmission of original sin. While moral impurity pertains to ethical failures, ritual impurity is deeply rooted in the consequences of the fall, indicating that Mary was still subject to these post-Edenic conditions. This distinction underscores that ritual purification after childbirth is not merely a cultural practice, but a theological acknowledgment of humanity's inherent sinfulness.

• Mary Doubted God, Which Is A Sin Because It Calls Into Question His Goodness:

          -If Mary was undefiled by sin, then how does one account for the fact that she once thought her Son Jesus Christ to be mentally deranged (Mark 3:20-21; 3:31-35)? She was not trusting in God at that point in time, which constitutes a failure to live up to God's perfect moral standard.

• Mary Called God Her Savior Upon Hearing The News That She Was Going To Be Used By Him To Bring The Messiah Into The World (Luke 1:47-48):

          -These words uttered by Mary are precisely what one would expect of a sinner whose only hope is the mercy of God. The sense portrayed here is, not necessary graces given before birth to preserve one from the stains of sin, but grace needed to cover personal sin.

• Paul's Teaching That All Have Sinned And Fallen Short Of The Glory Of God:

          -All have broken God's Law (Romans 3:10-12; 23; 5:12), and nowhere is Mary spoken of as being an exception to the rule. All, therefore, are in need of an atonement sacrifice, which is Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:2; 1 John 3:5). There has been only one person tempted by Satan and successfully resisted sin throughout His entire life, and that is Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). For this reason, people such as Adam and Eve, babies, and the mentally handicapped are not true exceptions to the rule "all have sinned." While the Scriptures explicitly teach the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, they are silent when it comes to Mary being without sin. Only Jesus was conceived without sin and led a morally perfect life.

General Comments On Roman Catholic Mariology

• Introduction:

          -Roman Catholic mariology has a bizarre developmental history, with there being various shrines and feasts established in the name of Mary during the Middle Ages. Further, many bishops who had attended the First Vatican Council wanted "Immaculate Virgin" added to the "Hail Mary" prayer. Other attendees even wanted to add the immaculate conception of Mary to the creed. This reveals a gradual increase in marian devotion throughout the centuries. It does not take much effort to find numerous statements exalting Mary in the writings of various Roman Catholic "saints" and officials that far exceed the teachings of Scripture.

• Roman Catholic Mariology Presents A Distorted View Of Mary:

          -The New Testament epistles were written to give spiritual guidance and instruction to the Christian churches. They have a great deal to say about correct doctrine and the proper worship of God. However, Mary is completely absent from the New Testament outside the four gospels, with two exceptions being Acts 1:14 and Galatians 4:4.

          -Even in the four gospels, her alleged spiritual power and authority seems as if it does not exist. Jesus and the apostles never gave Mary any place of authority or devotion that the Roman Catholic Church has given to her.

          -The central theme of the Bible is devotion to God. We are constantly told to glorify His name. We are told to confess our sins to Him. Never is any of this said of Mary. For instance, Paul never exhorts the readers of his epistles to pray to members of a communion of saints during times of trouble. That is just how unbiblical the Roman Catholic elevation of Mary is.
          -Why did Jesus address another woman by the same name "woman" as He called His own mother (Matthew 15:28; John 2:4)?

• Roman Catholic Mariology Contradicts Biblical Teaching:

          -Jesus publicly refuted a woman who attempted to exalt Mary on the basis that she gave birth to Him (Luke 11:27-28). Instead, He placed an emphasis on hearing and obeying the Word of God.

          -Jesus stated that all of His disciples are His mother and family (Matthew 12:46-50). He elevated all of His disciples to the same level as His earthly mother and family. The emphasis is on faithfulness to God rather than to ancestral lineage.

• Was Mary Absolutely Necessary In The Plan Of God?:

          -God did not have to use Mary as the means of bringing His Son into the world to make our redemption happen. In other words, He could have found favor with another virgin woman who exhibited the same degree of faithfulness, if He so chose. In fact, He did not have to save us at all, but He did as a result of His love and mercy. It is not as though Mary was the only option available to God or that He owed her something.

• Delusions Of Grandeur:

          -"Let us in all confidence choose as advocate before God the Immaculate and Most Holy Mother of God, the Virgin Mary. She has destroyed all the heresies of the world...In heaven as Queen at the right hand of her only Son, clothed in golden raiment and all manner of jewels, there is nothing that she cannot obtain from him." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta cura, December 8, 1864)

           *If Mary had really accomplished what the pope claimed regarding the abolishment of all heresy, then why are we still encountering atheists, other world religions, and pseudo-Christian cults?

• Mary Offered Jesus On The Cross?:

          -"...we cannot doubt that she greatly grieved in soul in the most harsh anguishes and torments of her Son. Further, that divine sacrifice had to be completed with her present and looking on, for which she had generously nourished the victim from herself. Finally this is more tearfully observed in the same mysteries: There stood by the Cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother...of her own accord she offered her Son to the divine justice, dying with Him in her heart, transfixed with the sword of sorrow." (Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper, September 8, 1884)
           *Scripture states that Jesus Christ offered Himself to God as atonement for our sin (Hebrews 9:14). Mary played no role in our redemption except in the sense of giving birth to Him. Mary could not have offered her son to God as an atonement sacrifice, even if she had wanted to.
           *Mary would have been in agony and distress to see her Son nailed to a crucifix. Such reactions are only natural of normal mothers when they see their children suffer. However, there is no valid reason to suggest that Mary's grief had some sort of a unique or redemptive value.

• Mary Is The Ark Of The New Covenant?:

          -“Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God...with men." (CCC #2676)

           *If Mary automatically inherits the title "Ark of the Covenant" for the reason that she once bore the Lord Jesus Christ in her womb, then would it not logically follow that all Christians can rightly be given the same title, since our bodies are also God's dwelling place (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20)?

Arguments For The Existence Of God

• The Argument From First Cause:

          -How did everything in the universe come into being? This argument, also known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, suggests that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause. Secular scientists may propose that the universe came from a quantum vacuum or virtual particles, but these explanations still leave unanswered questions about the origin of the laws governing these phenomena. Furthermore, quantum events are still causally connected to the quantum field, reinforcing the need for a cause. Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas argue for a prime mover or uncaused cause, aligning with the concept of God as an eternal being. God, by definition, is a necessary being—one whose existence is not contingent on anything else. This avoids the problem of infinite regress and offers a coherent explanation for the universe's existence.

• The Argument From Fine-Tuning:

          -The fine-tuning of the universe presents a compelling case for intelligent design. Scientists have identified numerous constants and quantities, such as the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant, that must fall within a narrow range to permit life. Critics may argue for the multiverse theory, proposing countless universes with varying constants. However, this theory lacks empirical evidence and raises the question of the origin of the multiverse itself. Additionally, the multiverse theory does not eliminate the need for fine-tuning but merely shifts the problem to a higher level. The improbability of fine-tuning by chance suggests an intelligent designer who calibrated these constants with purpose, aligning with the theistic view of a purposeful Creator.

• The Moral Argument:

          -Universal moral principles dictate how life should work. Critics may argue that morality is a product of cultural evolution and social conditioning. However, the existence of objective moral values—principles that remain true regardless of human opinion—points to a transcendent source. Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that moral law within us implies a moral lawgiver. Evolutionary explanations for morality fail to account for the binding nature of moral duties or the intrinsic value of human beings. The existence of objective moral truths suggests a source beyond humanity, aligning with the concept of a moral, personal God who grounds these values.

• The Argument From Contingency (Cosmological Argument):

          -For the universe to exist, an outside entity beyond space, matter, and time must also exist. This argument, articulated by Leibniz, posits that everything contingent has an explanation for its existence. The universe is contingent—it could have been different or not existed at all—so it requires an explanation beyond itself. Natural laws and processes do not account for the existence of the universe but rather describe how it behaves. The necessary being, which explains the universe's existence, must be self-existent and uncaused. This aligns with the theistic view of God as the necessary being who transcends space and time, providing a coherent explanation for the universe's existence.

• The Argument From Efficient Cause:

          -Infinite regress, a never-ending series of causes, is logically impossible. This argument, rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, asserts that every material object must have a beginning and an efficient cause. An effect cannot occur without a cause, and an infinite regress of causes is metaphysically untenable. Critics may argue that natural processes can account for the universe's order, but this fails to address the origin of these processes. The existence of a first cause, an unmoved mover, who set the universe into its orderly state, provides a coherent explanation. This aligns with the theistic view of God as the uncaused cause who initiated creation.

• The Argument From Degrees Of Perfection (Henological Argument):

          -We classify preferences, events, experiences, and decisions from least to greatest. This argument, articulated by Aquinas, posits that the existence of degrees of perfection in finite beings implies an ultimate degree of perfection. Critics may argue that these classifications are subjective, but the argument emphasizes objective qualities like intelligence and moral goodness. The gradation of these qualities suggests a maximum, which embodies all perfections to an infinite degree. This being, God, possesses all good qualities to an infinitely perfect extent, providing a coherent explanation for the existence of gradations of perfection in the world.

• The Argument From Desire:

           -"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists." This argument, popularized by C.S. Lewis, suggests that innate human desires point to the existence of something beyond the physical world. Critics may argue that desires can be explained by natural instincts and evolutionary processes. However, the argument emphasizes existential desires that cannot be satisfied by worldly experiences, such as the longing for ultimate meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. These desires suggest that humans were made for another world, aligning with the theistic view of an afterlife and a relationship with a transcendent being, God.

• The Argument Of The Unmoved Mover:

          -Everything set into motion requires a mover. This argument, rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, posits that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. Every moving thing requires a mover, and the universe's motion cannot be self-originating. Critics may argue that natural laws account for motion, but these laws describe how motion occurs rather than explaining its origin. The existence of an Unmoved Mover, who initiates all motion, provides a coherent explanation. This being, God, is the force behind the universe's motion, aligning with the theistic view of a prime mover who set the cosmos into motion.

Why Are There So Many Different Versions Of The Bible?

• Defining The Issues: 

          -Several translations of the Bible have been produced in the English language and are in circulation today. Christians read from the King James Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, and others. Church groups often recommend specific translations over others and use them in pulpits. In fact, one may mistakenly infer that the existence of multiple editions of the Bible is a major cause of division throughout the church or that the manuscripts which underlie them are unreliable. In summary, there are different translations of the Bible which contain deviations in wording, sentence structure, and even differences in chapter verses. However, the existence of multiple biblical translations is not a bad thing in and of itself. While it cannot be denied that certain people are motivated by greed in producing them, they can prove to be beneficial in study. They can be used in further spreading the gospel.

• Bible Translation Or Version? 

          -The word "version" is not necessarily the best way to describe a translation of a religious text. It misrepresents the nature of the painstaking research conducted by scholars who worked to give us the most accurate as possible presentation of what the original authors of the biblical narratives wanted to convey to their audiences. The science of translation works to find equivalents in one language so that different languages are able to maintain communication and understanding. Thus, the word "version" can give the misleading implication of intentional alteration or perversion with malicious motives. Generally speaking, the process of translating works to make deciphering a message in a foreign language possible to others. Creating a version of something can imply carving out wanted portions of any given text to fit one's underlying biases. In a sense, translating ancient manuscripts from different languages is no different than translating the words of a speaker from another country such as a foreign diplomat giving a news conference.

• Why There Are Many Different Bible Translations?:

          -Different translations of the Bible exist because different groups of scholars knowledgeable in languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic have collaborated at different periods of time to develop them. Words have a semantic range or a variety of meanings in a group of words that are appropriate to use depending on context. For example, the word "angry" has other words with similar connotations like mad, upset, irate, vehement, furious, and enraged. Those terms differ in degrees of forcefulness and may thus not fully convey what a person intends to say in various contexts. Hebrew and Greek syntax can even be obscure in certain parts of our manuscripts. Further, discoveries of textual, linguistic, and archaeological nature necessitate the improvement to already existing translations or the creation of entirely new ones. The meaning of the text, when considered in its entirety, overwhelmingly remains the same. There is, therefore, still one Bible.

          -The science of translation involves explanation or interpretation, since it is a process of making something known that could not otherwise have been known to those unfamiliar with such languages. Shades of Hebrew and Greek are inevitably lost to a degree in translation (this is true of translating any text from one language to another), which is good reason for one to have at least two to three different translations of the Bible. One cannot have perfect knowledge about such, unless he knows the original languages for himself. Further, words have changed in their meaning since four hundred years ago when Elizabethan English was spoken. A good example of this would be the word "gay" which is used in the King James Version of the Bible and how that same word is used today. How could Christians be required to agree on only one edition of the Bible when it needs to be translated into different languages beside English?

• Which Bible Translation Is The Best One To Read From?:

          -The three types of translations of the Bible available to us are word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase. All existing contain their own weaknesses and imperfections. They were produced by fallible men, who did not have an inerrant set of manuscripts given to them. No one can claim that any existing manuscripts today are inspired by God in the same sense as the original text, since we cannot compare them to the first manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Whether we like it or not, there are certain limitations that we have no choice but to accept. Reliable translations convey accurately to a considerable degree what the authors of the biblical text said. The general similarity of wording present amongst them is nothing short of impressive. This is a matter for which disagreement can exist, and which does happen. Therefore, the answer to the question of which Bible is the best would be the one that an individual chooses to read. This is not to say, however, that all translations of the Bible are good or equally good. One also needs a primary translation to use for textual analysis.

The Roman Catholic Church And Apostolic (Or "Sacred") Tradition

• Preliminary Points:

          -The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture alone is an insufficient guide for Christian doctrine, that Jesus Christ gave the twelve apostles infallible oral tradition to pass on to future clergy members through the Magisterium to be taught to attendees in the pews. It is claimed that we need to submit to an infallible interpreter of Scripture in order to correctly understand the text, preserving unity in the truth as Christ intended for His church. Defenders of Rome have attempted to build a biblical case for their position by citing passages such as John 20:30, 21:25, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13.

          -It is true that the Bible never presents itself as the only authority in the church. However, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of authority in all religious matters. The focus here shifts from whether authorities exist outside the Bible to giving it due recognition for what it is. It is the only infallible rule of faith for us to use. Therefore, people who object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by using a faulty definition (i.e. that the Bible is the only or sole authority) are attacking a straw man argument.
          -It is self-contradictory for Roman Catholic apologists to appeal to the Bible as the ultimate standard of authority to prove that it is not the ultimate standard of authority for the church to utilize (i.e. not a reflection of the contents of their beliefs, but what takes place in practice). It is hypocritical for Roman Catholics to use Scripture as a means to justify their doctrines, but disapproving of Protestants acting in the same manner. By appealing to Scripture, defenders of Rome hurt their own cause. The implication of them doing so is that we can indeed correctly interpret Scripture without reference to an infallible teaching authority. 

          -"Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." (James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72)

          -"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood and because the Bible does not include everything God taught." (William James Cogan, A Brief Catechism for Adults: A Complete Handbook on How to Be a Good Catholic, Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church, Q&A #1)

• General Considerations On Church Tradition: 

          -It needs to be understood that Protestantism is not categorically opposed to tradition. An example of this would be the observance of Christmas and Easter by various churches. The caveat to be offered in this framework is that such things must be consistent with the principles of Scripture. Even the testimony of the church (meaning patristic writers) is not something to be shunned. For example, from what other sources can gather historical information? Further, the New Testament itself is apostolic tradition in written form, so how can tradition be an inherently bad thing?

          -Even if something like the resurrection of Jesus was passed on to other first century believers in the form of oral tradition, that does not mean it was passed down to us in the same way because we have Scripture. The point made here is that Christ's words carry weight because of who He is, not how His words were transmitted.

• Do John 20:30, John 21:25, 2 John 12, and 3 John 13 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The passages from the Gospel of John do not say that some the teachings of Jesus were not written in Scripture. Rather, all the miracles that He performed were not recorded. Scripture tells us everything that we need to know concerning salvation (John 20:31).
          -The logic employed by our critics here is self-defeating because Roman Catholic tradition does not furnish us with all the details of Jesus' life.
          -Why assume that 2 John 12 and 3 John 13 are referring to some apostolic teaching that gets passed on to posterity? None of these texts indicate specifically what the contents of John's message are. It is equally possible for the unknown details to be from other parts of the New Testament, a public rebuke of sin or heresy, or even personal details about his life or close companions such as his fellow ministers, the apostles.
          -2 John 12 and 3 John 13 simply indicate that the Apostle John decided not to write down every single detail of what he intended on saying in his epistles. He wanted to speak directly to his audience for the sake of its comfort, joy, and edification. How do we know that what John spoke of would have been different in substance than what is found in written revelation? Can Roman Catholics produce any sayings of Jesus Christ or the apostles that exist apart from Scripture?

• Does 1 Corinthians 11:2 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?: 

          -The immediate context of this passage concerns the purposes of men and women in worship and in terms authority (v. 3-16). Then, the Apostle Paul goes on to address the proper observance of the Lord's Supper (v. 17-31). Later on, he goes on to identify traditions, which he himself previously received, as the basic message of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). None of these traditions can be said to be foreign in substance to the teaching of Scripture.

• Do 2 Thessalonians 2:15 And 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Prove The Necessity Of Roman Catholic Oral Tradition?:

          -The prior context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reveals that the Apostle Paul is speaking of traditions pertaining to the second coming of Christ. Those should be measured against apostates who pervert the truths concerning that doctrine, eternal salvation, and the gospel. These topics are addressed in elsewhere in Scripture (Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14:1-9; Matthew 24:5-27; Psalm 22-23; Isaiah 53). Hence, there is no need to rely on extra-biblical oral tradition for such teachings.

          -2 Thessalonians 2:15 highlights the need to stand firm and uphold the teachings received from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, whether by word or letter. Now that they are no longer with us, we are left with their writings as the standard. This aligns with Ephesians 3:1-5, which explains that the apostles and prophets revealed God's truth through the Holy Spirit.
          -2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to teaching regarding working and not being idle, which can also be found in texts such as Psalm 128:2, Proverbs 21:25, and 2 Thessalonians 3:10. There is no reason to assume any need for reliance upon tradition found outside the Bible. Paul demonstrates that his message is consistent, regardless of the form in which it is given.

• Are The Traditions Of The Roman Catholic Church Equal To The Bible In Terms Of Authority?:

          -Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for placing their own traditions on par with the Old Testament in terms of authority (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). This scenario is a mirror reflection of the modern-day Roman Catholic Church because it teaches as God-given truth its own oral traditions. It claims that its traditions were handed down to us from the early church fathers, just as the religious leaders whom Christ scolded claimed that their traditions were passed on to them from the elders. The Roman Catholic Church, like the scribes and Pharisees of the Law, say that their traditions are of divine origin. The scribes and Pharisees taught doctrinal error as a result of putting man-made tradition on the same level of authority as Scripture. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into the same grievous error for its inflated perspective of oral tradition. It has gone a step even further than those Christ scolded by claiming for itself perpetual teaching infallibility.