"Ask the Pastor" radio show with Gregory Dickow

[JohnDB]

I don't know how "hot" Mary was, but....

If you are looking at Mary and Joseph as a having had relations because ordinary couples have relations, then ask yourself: Are Mary and Joseph an ordinary couple? They raised God Incarnate in the house...no big deal! I think it's an error to thus look at this couple as normal, that he would just think she was hot and want sex like any old trucker.

Mary was with child because the Spirit overshadowed her. You see, Mary and the Spirit brought forth this child in the world. In this theological sense, Mary is the spouse of the Spirit. Joseph, a good Jewish servant, would respect the arena of bringing forth life from where God went before him, no? In other words, Joseph would have had every reason to remain celibate from Mary in this unusual circumstance of God overshadowing a woman with His Son (which has only ever happened once).

Joseph wasn't a truck driver.
He was a construction worker. And the bible does say that Joseph didn't "know" her until after the baby was born...meaning he had no sexual relations with her until after the baby was born. He was a good man...but he was a real man...and I can see and believe that God would bless Mary with children after Jesus who was consecrated for a different kind of life than an ordinary one...she would need other children to fulfill Jesus' role in providing for her. Look at Elizabeth...she felt disgrace for not bearing Zachariah any children...as did all Jewish women who were barren.

 

[Albion]

The church's position is clearly expressed in the notion of the church that Mary was sinless.[/qtuoe]

Well, you can say that, but it's not true. You never presented anything that could be considered the church's position on this, but only a snippet from a book written by one person.

[quoteCatholics don't believe Mary was a sinner, thus she was "sinless." Thus by extension Jesus got His sinless nature from His mother.

And the fact that he was the eternal God doesn't make him sinless? Please get serious.

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

Says nothing about Jesus' sinlessness.


http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/494.htm');

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/494.htm');

Says nothing about the source of Jesus' sinlessness.

508

From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

Says nothing about Jesus being sinless.

That's it for the cut and paste.

 

[RND]

Your contention is disproved. Catholicism does NOT teach that Jesus sinlessness depends upon Mary being sinless.

Catholicism does in fact teach that Jesus was sinless because sin mother was sinless. This is why Catholicism has to insist, against the mountain of scriptural evidence against the teaching, that Mary was sinless her entire life and thus she obtained grace apart of Christ.

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all (this includes Mary) under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Rom 3:23 For all (this includes Mary) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

"...she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life." Thus Mary was not in need of a Savior. Yet the Bible teaches clearly that Jesus and Jesus alone was sinless.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

 

[RND]

And the fact that he was the eternal God doesn't make him sinless? Please get serious.

Without Mary.

Says nothing about Jesus' sinlessness.

As with most Catholic doctrine it's implied by "tradition."

Says nothing about the source of Jesus' sinlessness.

Again, as with most Catholic doctrine it's implied by "tradition."

Says nothing about Jesus being sinless.

That's it for the cut and paste.

Again, as with most Catholic doctrine it's implied by "tradition." Mary = sinlessness ergo Christ was sinless because of His mother.

 

[Albion]

Catholicism does in fact teach that Jesus was sinless because sin mother was sinless.

No, it does not. You have now thrown about a half dozen or more cut and pastes at me and not one of them is an offical church statement saying what you are claiming. Most were not even on the subject at all, being about Mary's sinlessness, not Jesus' sinlessness.

This is why Catholicism has to insist, against the mountain of scriptural evidence against the teaching, that Mary was sinless her entire life and thus she obtained grace apart of Christ.

No. That is wrong on its face. Since the church teaches, as most Christian churches do, that Jesus was sinless because God is sinless, and he is God in the flesh, whether or not Mary was sinless is completely UNNECESSARY to proving anything about His sinlessness. He is sinless because of his divine nature.

 

[Albion]

As with most Catholic doctrine it's implied by "tradition."

If so, show us from your vast storehouse of SDA anti-Catholic cut and paste materials ONE statement that substantiates your guess.

Again, as with most Catholic doctrine it's implied by "tradition."

Not unless it is.

And you know that this particular point--Jesus would not be sinless except that his mother was--IS, IN FACT, a belief taught by the RCC through as Sacred Tradition?? If so, show us something to that effect.

Again, as with most Catholic doctrine it's implied by "tradition." Mary = sinlessness ergo Christ was sinless because of His mother.

In other words, you've got nothing.

 

[RND]

Please, let's keep things in proper perspective. If Mary was indeed "sinless, i.e. without sin" would she have forgotten her 12 y.o. Son and for three days in Jerusalem misplace Him? Pay tell, what would our modern society say about a mother who forgot her 12 y.o. son for 3 days in another city?

Do "sinless" people assume their 12 y.o. is with the traveling company?

Luk 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among [their] kinsfolk and acquaintance.

 

[Albion]

RND, you said that it was "Catholicism," and "Catholic doctrine" which teaches what you alleged, so it about the POV of the institution. Show us, therefore, ONE Church statement that verifies that the RCC teaches the following--

Jesus' sinlessness is dependent upon Mary having been sinless.


If you do, you'll have won your point.

 

[RND]

If so, show us from your vast storehouse of SDA anti-Catholic cut and paste materials ONE statement that substantiates your guess.

I have already done that.

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

Not unless it is.

And you know that this particular point--Jesus would not be sinless except that his mother was--IS, IN FACT, a belief taught by the RCC through as Sacred Tradition?? If so, show us something to that effect.

Done. I have already provided the evidence.

In other words, you've got nothing.

For you. Your mind is made up.

the issue of Mary's sinless nature. Yes, the Church holds that Mary was sinless her entire life. It is believed that she was born without original sin. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life" (n. 411). But why, you ask? Again from the Catechism: "What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ" (n. 487). The Church teaches that, if Jesus was without sin, it is fitting that the woman who bore him would have been without sin. Knowing that Mary would be asked to give birth to the Son of God, God prepared her for this by creating her without the human inclination to sin. God, in a sense, made her a "worthy vessel" for the Savior of the World from the very start.

FAQ Library

Of course there is no scropture that can support such a view thus it has to be by "tradition" that such a view is perpetuated.

 

[Albion]

I have already done that.

Are you trying to convince yourself? You have shown that the RCC believes Mary to have been sinless. You have not shown one thing that makes this a prerequisite for Jesus to have been sinless.

Or should I just assume that you have so little expertise in this area that you can't 'tell the difference' between completely different doctrines?

Here it is again. Take your time. You'll need to, because you won't find that the Catholic Church does teach this.--

"Jesus' sinlessness is dependent upon Mary having been sinless."

Your mind is made up.

Not really. I am giving you the opportunity to show me that you are correct in this regard. Up to now, you have produced nothing that shows the RCC to be teaching what you claimed. But if you can come up with something--and I mean something that is about this particular issue and not something else--I will acknowlege that you proved your point. I already said that. Now, can you say that same thing? Can you say that if you can't find anything that does really teach what you said the RCC teaches, you will admit to having made a mistake?

 

[RND]

You said that it was "Catholicism," and "Catholic doctrine" which teaches what you alleged, so it about the POV of the institution. Show us, therefore, ONE Church statement that verifies that the RCC teaches the following--

Jesus' sinlessness is dependent upon Mary having been sinless.


If you do, you'll have won your point.

The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings...


Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
SOURCE: http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture. (BTW, without the sabbath there can be no "sola scriptura").

SOURCE: http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp


The obvious implication is what has been previously posted and that is that Jesus was sinless because His mother was sinless. Hence the "Immaculate Conception." Mary had to be made "Immaculate" so that she could carry the Christ child. Yet even the most revered Catholic theologians knew better.

215 AD Tertullian - “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3).

Clement of Alexandria - “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”


St. Irenaeus says - For more oBeing obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.n the early Church and quotes on the virgin and the woman of Rev.12 see the writings of Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, 61, in ANF, V:217 .


Augustine Bishop of Hippo - “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”


Augustine - “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

 

[RND]

Are you trying to convince yourself? You have shown that the RCC believes Mary to have been sinless. You have not shown one thing that makes this a prerequisite for Jesus to have been sinless.

Well, yes I have. You just ignore it.

Or should I just assume that you have so little expertise in this area that you can't 'tell the difference' between completely different doctrines?

You can assume anything you wish to assume.

Here it is again. Take your time. You'll need to, because you won't find that the Catholic Church does teach this.--

"Jesus' sinlessness is dependent upon Mary having been sinless."

It is implied. That's why the church has to insist that Mary was without sin.

Not really. I am giving you the opportunity to show me that you are correct in this regard. Up to now, you have produced nothing that shows the RCC to be teaching what you claimed. But if you can come up with something--and I mean something that is about this particular issue and not something else--I will acknowlege that you proved your point. I already said that. Now, can you say that same thing? Can you say that if you can't find anything that does really teach what you said the RCC teaches, you will admit to having made a mistake?

[/QUOTE] I have quoted theologians and Cardinals that suggest that it is church belief through tradition that Mary got her sinlessness from god and thus Jesus got His sinlessness from His mother. This is the major implication in the immaculate conception and why Catholicism has to maintain Mary was sinless.

Question: If Mary never consummated her marriage with Joseph was Joseph ever really her husband? The Catholic church will “annul” a marriage so long as it was never consummated.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is absolutely not implied.

How much disservice must you render? I've personally caught you making up Isis-Mary nonsense, and now you are going to continue?

I know Vatican Catholic theology. The Immaculate Conception is about Jesus, but not like that. It isn't to provide a source of Jesus' sinlessness, but so that He wouldn't have a sinful womb to dwell in. It wouldn't have changed his state of sinlessness if she weren't Immaculately Conceived, but it, to them, would make it clear how miraculous God works; that He would even keep His Mother pure so that His Coming would be even more glorious.

That, sir, is what the Immaculate Conception is about. Think whatever you want; there it is. I ask every single Vatican Catholic to critique the above. If I got something wrong, I apologize. If I got it right, please say so.

 

[RND]

It is absolutely not implied.

How much disservice must you render? I've personally caught you making up Isis-Mary nonsense, and now you are going to continue?

I know Vatican Catholic theology. The Immaculate Conception is about Jesus, but not like that.

Like what then?

It isn't to provide a source of Jesus' sinlessness, but so that He wouldn't have a sinful womb to dwell in. It wouldn't have changed his state of sinlessness if she weren't Immaculately Conceived, but it, to them, would make it clear how miraculous God works; that He would even keep His Mother pure so that His Coming would be even more glorious.

You mean God couldn't have raised a Son in a sinful human womb? Why?

That, sir, is what the Immaculate Conception is about. Think whatever you want; there it is. I ask every single Vatican Catholic to critique the above. If I got something wrong, I apologize. If I got it right, please say so.

Again, if Mary was indeed sinless how did she forget her 12 y.o.? Would we consider a mother that forgot her 12 y.o. these days to be a fit mother?

 

[polishbeast]

Again, if Mary was indeed sinless how did she forget her 12 y.o.? Would we consider a mother that forgot her 12 y.o. these days to be a fit mother?

If you do not agree with the IC thats fine, but there is no need to try and demote Jesus' mother by saying she is unfit to be His mother. That is just disrespectful to Jesus.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Like what then?

You mean God couldn't have raised a Son in a sinful human womb? Why?

Again, if Mary was indeed sinless how did she forget her 12 y.o.? Would we consider a mother that forgot her 12 y.o. these days to be a fit mother?

Are there any Bible Scriptures/Prophecies that you or others know about saying Jesus would be born of a sinless woman? Just curious

 

[RND]

If you do not agree with the IC thats fine, but there is no need to try and demote Jesus' mother by saying she is unfit to be His mother. That is just disrespectful to Jesus.

I haven't tried to demote Mary or Joseph in any way. These are legitimate questions to ask in light of the fact that others hold to the unbiblical doctrine that Mary was sinless.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Are there any Bible Scriptures/Prophecies that you or others know about saying Jesus would be born of a sinless woman? Just curious

Anyone?

Edit to add: Hmm. I may start a thread on the Mariology board on this.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Blavatsky's works were channeled through spirits.

Why would that make her a reliable source for religious mythology? Would you accept Blavatsky&#8217;s version of Judaic/Christian history based on information channeled to her by spiritual mediums? For instance, in Volume one of Isis, she claimed that the Hebrew term Beth-el meant &#8220;House of the Sun&#8221; rather than &#8220;House of God&#8221;, and in another book she claimed that David&#8217;s dance around the ark was prescribed by the Amazons.

Again, I&#8217;d suggest using accredited sources in the future.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[PaladinValer]

Why would that make her a reliable source for religious mythology? Would you accept Blavatsky’s version of Judaic/Christian history based on information channeled to her by spiritual mediums? For instance, in Volume one of Isis, she claimed that the Hebrew term Beth-el meant “House of the Sun” rather than “House of God”, and in another book she claimed that David’s dance around the ark was prescribed by the Amazons.

Again, I’d suggest using accredited sources in the future.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Reps coming your way.

RND, let me make sure I understand you right:

In order to prove your points, you use "spiritists'" who "communicates with the dead" and "spirits" testimonies about Pagan beliefs simply because they are engaging in a Pagan practice, despite the fact that we have, in the case of Kemetic Paganism, literally tombfulls and templefulls of writings and inscriptions of what they believed that contradict what these "spiritists" say.

You rely on Helena Blavatsky, who was likely a fraud and a charlatan, but insist on what her spiritisms depicted because it was demons, right?

Let me add one other thing. I personally know how to "read" tarot cards. I know it is a load of garbage; I did it for kicks and giggles (everyone else relax; they're tucked away in a far, shadowy corner of my bookcase) and I even got very good. See, the tick is to observe who you are doing the reading for; eye movement, sweating, twitches; things like that. It is rather like the game of "hot and cold" actually. A card does have a limited meaning, but the better you can read people the easier it is to "stretch" the meaning. That is the real secret to a successful tarot reader; not religion, not spirits, psychological observation.

You are saying you rely on a "spiritist" who, in reality, used a well-developed (probably gifted) psychological awareness, and have chosen to confuse that awareness with the notion that demons are beyond all forms of mediumship, and therefore, since the demons love to corrupt, they'd tell the truth.

All that, yet deny all the literal, physical evidence that we have. All those hieroglyphics; all those pictograms and colorful paintings of the Kemetic gods themselves interacting with their believers as the Pagans themselves believed.

You are choosing to believe a fraudulent medium over cold, hard evidence. Right? You are choosing to accept what the medium says about the supposedly "sinlessness" of Isis and all that over what the Egyptian stories, which we do have copies of?

Is that a correct observation of what you are saying?