Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[David Lamb]

Ok. Where does it say that in the Bible?

Like I said, the Kingdom of the NT is the same as the Kingdom of the Davidic covenant. Christ is King, Mary is the Queen Mother.

I already cited the scripture and verse.

Sorry but where does it say what in the bible? That Mary wasn't sinless? Well, in the Magnificat, she refers to God as "my Saviour". The bible clearly says that Jesus was sinless, but there is no bible passage that says that Mary was.

Regarding the Davidic kingdom, we are not even told who David's mother was - we are certainly not told that she was a queen as a result of being David's mother.

 

[RileyG]

Sorry but where does it say what in the bible? That Mary wasn't sinless? Well, in the Magnificat, she refers to God as "my Saviour". The bible clearly says that Jesus was sinless, but there is no bible passage that says that Mary was.

Regarding the Davidic kingdom, we are not even told who David's mother was - we are certainly not told that she was a queen as a result of being David's mother.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Just because she called God my Savior doesn't mean she sinned.

Per Luke 1:28 and the original Greek, she was FULL OF GRACE, there was never a time when she didn't have grace.

 

[RileyG]

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?”- St. Augustine of Hippo

 

[David Lamb]

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Just because she called God my Savior doesn't mean she sinned.

Per Luke 1:28 and the original Greek, she was FULL OF GRACE, there was never a time when she didn't have grace.

But "full of grace" doesn't mean sinless. Indeed it is sinners who need God's grace:

“4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),” (Eph 2:4-5 NKJV)

 

[RileyG]

But "full of grace" doesn't mean sinless. Indeed it is sinners who need God's grace:

“4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),” (Eph 2:4-5 NKJV)

Nope.

Per the verb, she was never WITHOUT grace.

Therefore, no sin.

 

[RileyG]

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To you do we cry,
poor banished children of Eve.
To you do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears
Turn then, most gracious advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us,
and after this exile
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
O clement, O loving,
O sweet Virgin Mary.

 

[tampasteve]

Guess you missed the verse where Jesus said the Father can raise children of Abraham from rocks.

I am well aware of passages that state similar statements, but "raising" a child of Abraham is not the same as a direct descendant in a royal line. Blood and flesh descent matters a LOT in Judaism, and especially in a claim to a royal lineage. You just can't have a Messiah in the line of David without it actually being in the line of David.

Of course you did.

There is no need to be snide.

 

[William1213]

I know the Bible quite well, thank you.

Your comment was a bit vague.

Can you elaborate?

Really??? You keep claiming things are Biblical but have yet to show it in the Bible at all. You frequently talk about things that are not even in the Bible as if they were.

I am well aware of passages that state similar statements, but "raising" a child of Abraham is not the same as a direct descendant in a royal line. Blood and flesh descent matters a LOT in Judaism, and especially in a claim to a royal lineage. You just can't have a Messiah in the line of David without it actually being in the line of David.


There is no need to be snide.

What does what you said have to do with what I said?? Nothing. He was still born from Mary. That is all the Jews would know no matter what. They didn't have DNA tests back then. So what is to stop God from forming a complete embryo that had no part of Mary in it??

 

[tampasteve]

What does what you said have to do with what I said?? Nothing. He was still born from Mary. That is all the Jews would know no matter what. They didn't have DNA tests back then. So what is to stop God from forming a complete embryo that had no part of Mary in it??

Actually it has a lot to do with it. He was born from Mary, and must share her flesh to be fully God and Fully man. Of course they did not have DNA tests in the 1st century, but we know now and if Jesus is just made up flesh and blood placed into her womb then he is not of the Davidic line and he is not the Messiah. One of the most important parts of the prophesy of the Messiah is being in the line of King David, if you throw that out you have to throw out Jesus being the Jewish Messiah as prophesied. This placing of the full flesh and blood God-embryo in Mary's womb is a from of Gnosticism and Docetism - heresy.

I would ask also why it is so important to you that Jesus not have part of Mary's flesh, why must it have been a complete embryo from your point of view?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus is the new David. He is the king, and naturally per the Davidic kingdom, Mary is the queen.

Do you ask others to pray for you? They are interceding on your behalf.

Asking those in heaven doesn’t take anything away from Christ.

Peace

Asking another living person on earth to pray for you is totally different than asking someone in heaven, with whom we have no communication, to pray for us. We cannot communicate with those in heaven save God.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Just because she called God my Savior doesn't mean she sinned.

Per Luke 1:28 and the original Greek, she was FULL OF GRACE, there was never a time when she didn't have grace.

Having grace, and even being full of grace, does not equate to sinlessness. Grace is unmerited favor. When God forgives us, that is grace. When God blesses us in some way, that is grace. Having grace does not mean we did not sin, but that God's grace is continually at work in us. We are saved by God's grace through faith, but being full of grace does not mean sinless.

There are also linguist reasons why that that word can be taken other ways but I won't go into that right now.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

So are you saying he just called them down to convince his disciples? Did they mean nothing but a show that he was chosen or did they already know that? Think about it, why would he meet with them while his followers slept if all he wanted to do was prove himself? I think this is where that Protestant rehashing of the Bible falls apart. He has already confirmed with his followers that he was The Christ foretold in the Old Testament.

This is an example of how theology gets thrown off the rails when "some guy," like Calvin decides he will remake Christianity according to his own personal interpretation of scripture with no council or Magesterum to regulate what theology/philosophy should be accepted.

The disciples were still coming to the full realization of who Jesus was. The focus of this account and what follows is a foreshadowing of Jesus' upcoming death and his return to the glory of heaven. In the vision, his face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. This same description matches others that depict Jesus' glory in heaven. These three Apostles were being given a glimpse of His true glory that was temporarily veiled during His time on earth.

Then Moses and Elijah appear, and we are told in Luke's account the three spoke of His upcoming departure, meaning His death and resurrection. After they disappear, the voice of God is heard from heaven telling them to listen to Jesus. After this event, back with all the disciples, Jesus was asked why the Scribes say Elijah must come first. Jesus explains that He did in the person of John the Baptist. In recounting that John was mistreated and killed, he adds that "the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." These events, taken together, are Jesus preparing His disciples for what is to come. This was about six months before His death. It was more than confirming His deity. It was preparing them for His death. We know that Peter later told the Lord that He would not let Him die, to which Jesus responded, "Get behind me, Satan!" Even Peter, after seeing the transfiguration, did not yet fully understand the necessity of the Messiah dying.

What is the Catholic interpretation of those events?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Ok. Where does it say that in the Bible?

Like I said, the Kingdom of the NT is the same as the Kingdom of the Davidic covenant. Christ is King, Mary is the Queen Mother.

I already cited the scripture and verse.

It was already pointed out to you that the cited Scripture proves no such thing. You have never commented.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There are 60,000+ Protestant sects and denominations that ALL believe in SOLA SCRIPTURA (Bible Alone).

Which one is right?

I have already pointed out to you a Catholic source saying there are not 60,000+ denominations. Maybe you should respond to responses made to you before you keep repeating the same things.

 

[RileyG]

It was already pointed out to you that the cited Scripture proves no such thing. You have never commented.

We keep going back and forth over my belief vs yours. I have nothing else to add because I will just keep repeating myself over and over.

God bless

 

[RileyG]

I have already pointed out to you a Catholic source saying there are not 60,000+ denominations. Maybe you should respond to responses made to you before you keep repeating the same things.

I don’t find they source credible. If you count each non denominational church as one, then there are several thousand.

 

[RileyG]

Asking another living person on earth to pray for you is totally different than asking someone in heaven, with whom we have no communication, to pray for us. We cannot communicate with those in heaven save God.

Those in heaven are alive although in a much different way.

I don’t accept sola scriptura

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

We keep going back and forth over my belief vs yours. I have nothing else to add because I will just keep repeating myself over and over.

God bless

You misreference the verse, and the passage only shows Solomon choosing to have Bathsheba sit beside him. That does not prove it was a divine mandate for the king's mother to sit beside him. That was his decision. David did not have his mother sit beside him nor did he instruct Solomon to do so. It was already the practice of many pagan nations. None of that makes it a divine mandate so I don't see what your point was.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Those in heaven are alive although in a much different way.

I don’t accept sola scriptura

I agree you don't because you cannot support many of the uniquely Catholic doctrines on Scripture alone. That is why there was the Protestant Reformation and it continues to this day.

 

[William1213]

Actually it has a lot to do with it. He was born from Mary, and must share her flesh to be fully God and Fully man. Of course they did not have DNA tests in the 1st century, but we know now and if Jesus is just made up flesh and blood placed into her womb then he is not of the Davidic line and he is not the Messiah. One of the most important parts of the prophesy of the Messiah is being in the line of King David, if you throw that out you have to throw out Jesus being the Jewish Messiah as prophesied. This placing of the full flesh and blood God-embryo in Mary's womb is a from of Gnosticism and Docetism - heresy.

I would ask also why it is so important to you that Jesus not have part of Mary's flesh, why must it have been a complete embryo from your point of view?

I am not saying it is. But your arguments back to me ignore what I have said. I don't have a problem with changing my mind. But when you ignore what I say and go around and around, not disproving anything. As far as it being heresy, that is your opinion. However, I do not have a problem being a heretic. Most people who proclaim themselves Christians are heretics, bordering blasphemy. You should know all about that the way you KEEP accusing me of things. So I do not agree with YOU. You are hardly the end of all knowledge.