If Mary was sinless?

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

thereselittleflower said:
No, not mere opinion, but the teaching of the Ancient Church, which is why I am glad to present this truth to you anytime, anywhere.

Peace

Wrong!

Logical fallacy assuming facts not entered into evidence!

What has developed into RC Mariology was not the "teaching of the ancient church" at all.

Rome didn't even make the Immaculate Conception dogma until the 19th century.

FreeinChrist · Jun 30, 2006

tall73 said:
To be fair they are not saying that the Bible is not God's word. They are saying that there are other documents that reflect God's thought that were not recorded in the Bible.

Now this does not change the fact that other revelation must AGREE with the Scriptures. But it does mean there could be other inspired documents.

Good point in that they must agree. There is the rub, I think.

There are several things in tis thread that were brought up. One was whether Mary was a "temple virgin" and was bethrothed to an old man. This comes from the Protoevangelim of James, which is a second century document, and the Golden Legend which is a 13th century document. I referenced this article once before but it is probably buried now:
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/appdisce/falsewri.html

Thing is, I don't see anything in scripture about "temple virgins", or in the other Jewish writings. It isn't part of the Law of Moses. In fact, in Mary's day, it was the pagans who had temple virgins and temple prostitutes.

The other thing I have noticed is that it appears in this thread that the Orthodox and Catholics are united in believing that Mary was born sinless, but that is not the truth:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/theotokos.aspx
"Finally, we Orthodox do not "worship" the Virgin Mary. We "venerate" her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus. However, we do believe that the Virgin Mary is an image, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, of the Christian goal of becoming Christ-like, of theosis."

A third thing is whether Mary was predestinated or not to be His mother. It doesn't matter in regards to the topic of whether she was born sinless or not. I believe she was known before the foundation of the world and thus was predestinated...but we all, who are in Christ, share that. It doesn't require we are born sinless.

nephilimiyr · Jun 30, 2006

genez said:
Many pagan traditions were brought into the church as it stumbled along. One of them, was to introduce its version of the popular pagan desire to have a queen of Heaven to worship. The church at that time gave the pheasants a lolly pop to pacify that strong desire. Trouble is, lolly pops may satisfy an immediate felt need. But, they cause decay. Spiritual decay.

This reminds me of the story in 1 Samuel of the Israelites demanding a human King and just because all the other nations had one.
1 Samuel 8:20, That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

The only thing is, in the 1 Samuel account of Saul becomeing Israels first King, God decided to apease the people.
1 Samuel 8:22, And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

God pretty much said 'fine, you don't want to listen to me, then go ahead and have your king'.

Yet I see nowhere in the New testament where God plays this out once again. With Jesus Christ God drew the line. In Matthew 17 God declares during the trasfiguration:
Matthew 17:5, While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
What was it that brought God to declare this? Peter words of religion!
Matthew 17:4, Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
The same spirit that caused the Israelites to demand a king also caused Peter to say what he said there. God said he isn't going to go through that again! this time however God put His foot down and said NO! here is my Son, listen to Him! He is the power and He is the authority, not a church.

And since the transfiguration man has continued to go back to that same spirit. Wanting and even demanding that a church be the power and authority. But God said, "hear ye him"

judaica · Jun 30, 2006

tall73 said:
There is still something that makes no sense to me, and I don't think it has been addressed yet.

a. The statement is made that for Christ to inherit a perfect human nature he has to be born of a woman who could naturally pass on to Him a perfect human nature.

b. I readily acknowledge that God COULD do that, and make her sinless right at the point of conception. God is not limited by our notions.

c. But then why could God not do the same with Christ and skip the middle-woman so to speak? If He could make Mary perfect at conception He could do the same with Christ and Mary would not be needed to pass on the human nature free from sin.

I'm curious, who says this? Is this an official teaching of some church, or did you hear it from apologists, posters, ect.?

Now, a few points more.

If it is said that he has to naturally inheret this...why?

If it is said that he could not have a different human nature, isn't this already different? No one else is said to have a perfect nature from the beginning.

I'm not sure what the official teaching of the undivided Church is per Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils, as to whether or not Mary ever remained free from sin, in any respect. I know many Orthodox believe that (and RC's certainly do), but the most I have encounter "official" wise on this subject have been local councils. As to "inheriting sin", the Church Fathers, in as much as I've been privy to them on this matter, seem to indicate that Christ's flesh was sinless by virtue of the hypostatic union, ie the divine attributes being communicated to his human nature, and not from anything inherent in Mary herself, ie Mary is not a cause of Christ's sinless. But as one poster pointed out:

The purpose of Christ touching our "TRUE" human nature was to return it to perfection.....

So the question I think for me at this juncture, is what were the effects of Christ's physical union with Mary, as in, did He impart to her a restored nature?

Something to think about.

Judaica

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 30, 2006

FreeinChrist said:
One was whether Mary was a "temple virgin" and was bethrothed to an old man. This comes from the Protoevangelim of James, which is a second century document, and the Golden Legend which is a 13th century document.

It may be in that document... I don't know, I have never read it.... but it "comes from" the Orthodox Churches....

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constatinople and Rome.

It does not "come from" the "Protoevangelim of James".

You are discrediting what these Churches teach because you have found what they teach (at least partially) in a document that they themselves renounced.

Satans best lies are 99% Truths.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater please.

Forgive me... :liturgy:

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

FreeinChrist said:
Good point in that they must agree. There is the rub, I think.

There are several things in tis thread that were brought up. One was whether Mary was a "temple virgin" and was bethrothed to an old man. This comes from the Protoevangelim of James, which is a second century document, and the Golden Legend which is a 13th century document.

Both of those documents are spurious as well.

There is no indication that Mary was a "temple virgin" in the NT, nor in the first century Church, nor that Joseph was an "old man". Joseph was certainly not so old as to raise Jesus in his carptenters shoppe and in the trade, as good Jewish fathers did.

There were many pseudopigraphal books that were rejected, and certainly not for doctrine.

Using that argument, one could make the argument for a lot of spurious books for establishing doctrine, including the Gnostic "gospels".

Which is why the standard has to be God's Word, for nothing else is on equal par.

judaica · Jun 30, 2006

FreeinChrist said:
Good point in that they must agree. There is the rub, I think.

There are several things in tis thread that were brought up. One was whether Mary was a "temple virgin" and was bethrothed to an old man. This comes from the Protoevangelim of James, which is a second century document, and the Golden Legend which is a 13th century document. I referenced this article once before but it is probably buried now:
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/appdisce/falsewri.html

Thing is, I don't see anything in scripture about "temple virgins", or in the other Jewish writings. It isn't part of the Law of Moses. In fact, in Mary's day, it was the pagans who had temple virgins and temple prostitutes.

In the OT there were women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The fact that they were virgins is strongly implied. The protoevangelium of James, one of the first documents to mention Mary's dedication to the Temple, relies highly on the story of Samuel, and of course you have the story of Anna, who while not a virgin, could indicate that there were some sort of monastic communities associated with the Temple, similiar to the Essenes. This is not to say that Mary was in fact a temple virgin (I think there is evidence via the Gospel of Luke, that she was not), but the idea of Temple virgins, or individuals associated with the Temple in a similiar fashion is not out of step with Scripture or what we know from that time.

The other thing I have noticed is that it appears in this thread that the Orthodox and Catholics are united in believing that Mary was born sinless, but that is not the truth:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/theotokos.aspx
"Finally, we Orthodox do not "worship" the Virgin Mary. We "venerate" her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus. However, we do believe that the Virgin Mary is an image, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, of the Christian goal of becoming Christ-like, of theosis.".

Well, as I said before, I don't know what the official teaching of the Church is. But individual Orthodox do believe that Mary was free from sin, in the sense of actual sinful acts, but that she shared in the sinful nature (hence their rejection of the Immaculate Conception). EO's tend to look at Original Sin, as the corruptibility or death we inherited from Adam, Rome tends to look at Original Sin, as a mark, or stain even, something which is actual inherent in the person. So the argument between the RC's and EO's on this matter, stem more from an argument over Original Sin, then Mary's state per se. Although the conclusions they reach in regards to Mary's state, cannot be overlooked.

A third thing is whether Mary was predestinated or not to be His mother. It doesn't matter in regards to the topic of whether she was born sinless or not. I believe she was known before the foundation of the world and thus was predestinated...but we all, who are in Christ, share that. It doesn't require we are born sinless.

Yes. But He also gives us the gifts to fulfill the offices to which we are called. So I guess it could be asked, whether it was at all necessary for Mary to be sinless in order to fulfill her role as Christ's Mother. I for one (holding to a more EO view of Original Sin), do not believe that she possessed a sinless nature. Now whether or not she acted upon that nature (committed actual sins), that I don't know. I find it hard to believe that she didn't, because nature, by it's very essence will manifest itself unless something disrupts it. But it's hard to say.

Judaica

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

Benedicta00 said:
I'm saying that nothing that happens is random. God plans everything and allows everything in his plan.

Does that include God planning those who go to hell, specifically?

Taking your comment at face value, asserted as an absolute truth, it must include God planning who would go to hell specifically, since "nothing that happens is random" and "God plans everything."

Veritas · Jun 30, 2006

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Wrong!

Logical fallacy assuming facts not entered into evidence!

What has developed into RC Mariology was not the "teaching of the ancient church" at all.

Rome didn't even make the Immaculate Conception dogma until the 19th century.

You continue to make the same mistakes! Just because the Church didn't declare something "dogma" until a certain point, doesn't mean she didn't always believe it. The Church didn't close the canon of scripture until the end of the 4th century. Does that mean that those books that were declared inspired in 397 AD not scripture until that point? Or did the Church just officially recognize their inspiration at the Council at Hippo?

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

FreeinChrist said:
The other thing I have noticed is that it appears in this thread that the Orthodox and Catholics are united in believing that Mary was born sinless, but that is not the truth:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/theotokos.aspx
"Finally, we Orthodox do not "worship" the Virgin Mary. We "venerate" her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus.

We Protestants agree with the EOs there.

Benedicta00 · Jun 30, 2006

nephilimiyr said:
Actually Protestants have done this by useing scripture but when people don't take the word of God as authority they will never see sole suficiencey and the authority of scriptures as being established.

Basically, the Bible establishes that God is the absolute power and authority in his creation. So His word should then also be held as the absolute power and authority.

This is a non-issue; another false assumption based on a false premise. Catholics do take the written word of God as our authority. Of course it’s authoritative…

Have we ever suggested anywhere in our 2000 year history is wasn’t? :scratch:

We just don’t take it as our only and sole authority and give each and every believer on the planet who lived or who will ever live the sole authority to interpret what it says to others.

We just look to the whole of God’s word, the oral as well and not limit ourselves to just the written and we look to the Church to TEACH us the Christian faith the bible backs up.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

Veritas said:
You continue to make the same mistakes! Just because the Church didn't declare something "dogma" until a certain point, doesn't mean she didn't always believe it. The Church didn't close the canon of scripture until the end of the 4th century. Does that mean that those books that were declared inspired in 397 AD not scripture until that point? Or did the Church just officially recognize their inspiration at the Council at Hippo?

No mistake at all. Rome contends that it is unified in the dogmatic teachings of the Magesterium. Dogmatic teachings are articles of faith which absolutely must be believed for salvation within Roman Catholicism.

Clearly the Immaculate Conception was not believed by all Catholics, which is easily demonstrated by the arguments over it in the history of the Western church, and the Eastern church prior to the Great Schism in 1054.

You cannot claim that something is believed by everyone when it is not dogma, then turn around and claim it is, when it is not dogma.

Well, I guess one can, it's a free country, but most see the inconsistencies in such a spurious claim.

FreeinChrist · Jun 30, 2006

OrthodoxyUSA said:
It may be in that document... I don't know, I have never read it.... but it "comes from" the Orthodox Churches....

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constatinople and Rome.

It does not "come from" the "Protoevangelim of James".

You are discrediting what these Churches teach because you have found what they teach (at least partially) in a document that they themselves renounced.

Satans best lies are 99% Truths.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater please.

Forgive me...

well, I disgree. I don't see ANYTHING from the writings of the time of Mary or before that discusses "temple vergins" or that it was a practice.
I while I will respect your view that it comes from the "Orthodox" churches as you understand them, I believe it is an addition that came later and not an original teaching from the Apostles.

edie19 · Jun 30, 2006

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Wrong!

Logical fallacy assuming facts not entered into evidence!

What has developed into RC Mariology was not the "teaching of the ancient church" at all.

Rome didn't even make the Immaculate Conception dogma until the 19th century.

drat

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Augustine_Was_Calvinist again.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

Benedicta00 said:
This is a non-issue; another false assumption based on a false premise. Catholics do take the written word of God as our authority. Of course its authoritative

It's not a false premise at all. There is a caveat, Roman Catholics take the written word of God as authority, until there is a conflict between the Word of God and Roman Catholic sacred tradition, which in that case, sacred tradition, and the dogmatic teachings of the Magesterium are the sole authority.

We just dont take it as our only and sole authority and give each and every believer on the planet who lived or who will ever live the sole authority to interpret what it says to others.

Now that is a logical fallacy whereby the fact of each individual interpreting everything they hear, see and read, privately, themselves before they determine whether it is valid as truth or not, or else they are relying on pure, blind faith, which is neither wise nor recommended by God in His Holy Word.

We just look to the whole of Gods word, the oral as well and not limit ourselves to just the written and we look to the Church to TEACH us the Christian faith the bible backs up.

Well, the problem there is there are a whole lot of dogmatic teachings, said to be the infallible truth, which are NOT backed up by the Bible and are in fact, directly opposed by the Bible, which the Roman church chooses over God's Word, and even goes so far as to make them dogmatic articles of faith which must be believed as a neccessary component of salvation.

judaica · Jun 30, 2006

Benedicta00 said:
This is a non-issue; another false assumption based on a false premise. Catholics do take the written word of God as our authority. Of course it’s authoritative…

Have we ever suggested anywhere in our 2000 year history is wasn’t?

We just don’t take it as our only and sole authority and give each and every believer on the planet who lived or who will ever live the sole authority to interpret what it says to others.

Sola Scriptura, according to it's original intend, does not mean that Scripture is the only Source for doctrine, this is where alot of protestants mess up. Sola Scriptura means, Scripture is the only Norm. Basically saying that everything must be judged by Scripture, to see if it is in keeping with Scripture. The premise behind this is that Scripture attests to actual Apostolic Doctrine (ie doctrine taught by the Apostles). It is the Apostle's doctrine which the Church is founded on, and is meant to combat the particular RC notion of tradition ie that it developes, not tradition per se. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura in it's historic form, also hold to Tradition. If you read the Lutherans Fathers, you'll see that they quote the Church Fathers as much as Scripture in defense of their ideas. It was very important to them to remain in keeping with the historic Faith. The purpose behind Sola Scriptura is to accurately define the correct relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Scripture has pride of place, in the sense that it Norms Tradition. Tradition is judged by it. If anything in this so-called tradition is found to actually contradict Scripture, it's discarded as not being of the Apostles (the Apostles did not contradict themselves). If however, it is not found to contradict Scripture, even if it is not actually taught in Scripture, it is left alone. There are many things the Lutheran Church accepts, that cannot be demonstrated from Scripture in so many words. They have a saying, "Speak where Scripture speaks, and remain silent where Scripture is silent". In other words, if Scripture doesn't speak against something, they leave it alone. Luther demonstrated this time and again, infant baptism for instance was proven to be true, simply because the Church had always believed it. And for other doctrines, the Faith of the Church was sufficient to demonstrate the validity of a doctrine. It will take a little bit, but if you want I can give you some quotes to back up my assertions, so you don't have to take my word for it.

Judaica

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Jun 30, 2006

Not to get off topic too far, but did God really change, or, in the case of Abraham haggling with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, was it that God knew Abraham would haggle, God knew there were none righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah, and engaged Abraham for Abraham's benefit of learning something else about God, and himself?

Since God is immutable, it cannot be the former.

Mary of Bethany said:
I think you're absolutely right. There is no changeableness (what a word ) in God.

Just like our prayers don't change God's mind or action. Prayer is a mystery that God uses to change us.

Mary

Benedicta00 · Jun 30, 2006

mesue said:
TLF, Gwenyfur said

and you replied

Can you substantiate this by providing a Book, Chapter and Verse to reveal to us that Mary is, indeed, the Queen of Heaven? If you are going to teach us, you need to teach us on our level. I.E. We need to see Scripture references, it's just how we are. It's how we learn. Just like the blind need to feel braille, it's how they learn. True teachers reach out to their students. Look at how Jesus taught, He went to His students. God came down from His Throne of Grace and stooped down to the level of man so that we could understand and know Him in our terms. Should we, as teachers do any less? To do so otherwise would make us Pharisees.

Sure

I posted this twice already, here goes number three. At this point, Im copying and pasting the same posts I made earlier on. I hope you dont mind.

response #1 to request for scrioture said:
Here is your scripture Chris.

God says to the serpent right here that he is going to create Mary free from sin.

Genesis 3: 15 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:

Click to expand...

The worlds savior will come through Marys saying yes to God.

she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Click to expand...

Here the angel greets Mary who is to be the new Eve.

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Click to expand...

Here is where Mary gives her fiat. The head of Satan is crushed.

38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Click to expand...

And here is her canticle. She says herself what God has done for her right here.

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.

50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.

52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.

53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:

Click to expand...

And then we see in Revelation Mary, she is the great sign that John sees in heaven. This sign is the same woman in Genesis. Satan was told this sign, 'the woman' will crush his head, so he goes after her who is Mary to get her and her child who is Jesus but check out how he can not reach her in order to stop her from bringing fourth our savior, check out how she was protected from him by God and when Satan cant get Mary or Jesus, he wages war on us.

Revelation 12

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child
14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

17And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

18 And he stood upon the sand of the sea.

Click to expand...

originally posted in respond to request #2 for scripture evidence said:
I have already posted a solid argument from scripture. There is no explicit verse that says "Mary was created free from original sin but by the same token there is no verse that says God is the Holy Trinity either but yet we believe and know with out a doubt that he is, how come?

Because the bible does conclude it implicitly through a consensus of verses.

And this constant, constant quoting of No one goes to the father but through me is redundant. WE KNOW THAT. We do not claim Mary went to God through any other way.

How could she have? She was the first Christian the world ever had. She received Christ in a way no other ever would or could, she was privileged to receive Christ in that way and be the first person to ever accept his merits for her own salvation which was given to her at her conception.

As far as solid bible evidence is concerned, in Genesis it begins. God tell the serpent because thou has done this that he will put enmities between him and the woman, between his seed which is corrupt and her seed which is also subject to corruption because all have sinned mankind is fallen at this point now but God will put enmities between her and Satan, she will not inherit this corruption.

Then God says to the serpent that he will lie in wait of her heel. Her obedience is going to crush his head. Gods plan to save us will not be thwarted because of Marys cooperation. Its not because Mary is so great and wonderful, but because God has made her according to His plan, because God made her this way.

Mary sinlessness is no credit to her, but is part of Gods plan of how he saved mankind from this fall.

In Luke we see the beginning of Satans downfall. The angel greets her as full of grace that the Lord is with her. He tells her she is to be the Mother of God and she says Let it be done This was her fiat- right away she gave it to God, she gave her will and whole life in complete trust and obedience to Him in order that His plan of saving us will be accomplished. And then Satans head was crushed; hes only going down hill from there. He will be defeated when Christ dies and rises again.

At the moment of this fiat, Mary then receives Christ before any of us did. And we know she received Him because what is the first thing she does? She goes in haste to her cousin Elizabeths. This is definitely the sign of a person who has heard the word of God and received it, they go out in service to serve their fellow man. She didnt sit around saying, oh happy me, I get to be the mother of God.

And Elizabeth moved by the Holy Spirit exclaims, Blessed is the fruit of your womb what is it that the mother of my Lord should come to meat the moment John the Baptist heard her voice he was sanctified, he leaped for joy at the mere sound of her voice. Why? Because Mary brought Christ to him with the mere sound of her voice!

Then Mary gives her canticle. In it she says, My soul does magnify the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior How, if she was just a sinner like the rest can her soul magnify the Lord? Reflect God? How could she have rejoiced in God her savior when God her savior was still in her womb? He hadnt made His sacrifice for our sins yet. How can this be then?

Then Mary says God had regarded the humility of his servant. A fallen sinner humble? How can that be? We know sinners are born with the first sin, pride; the very opposite of humility.

The she says that God, who is mighty has done great things to her. Then she says from hence fourth all generations will call her blessed.

Wow, is all I can say when I read what the BIBLE has to say about Mary.

Then we see the relationship between Mary and Jesus, we see Mary bringing the 12 year old home with her when he says he has to be in his fathers house doing his fathers business and then we see Mary saying do what ever he tells you when Jesus says to the woman his hour has not come. Clearly Mary knew Jesus time. This shows us the very special connection they shared.

Then we see Mary at the cross with Jesus when all his other apostles left him accept for John and we see Jesus giving the woman to John, who represents all of us, the faithful followers of Christ.

Then in Revelation we see the appearance of the woman again. The woman is a great sign in heaven. If you notice this sign appears at the beginning of the chapter that tells us about the battle in heaven when Satan was kicked out.

He didnt like this Mary stuff either, he didnt like the idea of him not being able to influence her and control her through a fallen nature either. He didn't like the idea that he will not be able to stop her from bringing us the savior.

Revelation tells us, her sought after her to get her and her child but God protected her from Satan getting to her. So does what Satan do, he comes after us instead.

Genesis 3, Revelation 12, and Luke 1 for me, IS the solid evidence. That Satan sought after Mary and God protected her from him in order that we may be given a savior through her giving birth to Him.

Benedicta00 · Jun 30, 2006

judaica said:
Sola Scriptura, according to it's original intend, does not mean that Scripture is the only Source for doctrine, this is where alot of protestants mess up. Sola Scriptura means, Scripture is the only Norm. Basically saying that everything must be judged by Scripture, to see if it is in keeping with Scripture. The premise behind this is that Scripture attests to actual Apostolic Doctrine (ie doctrine taught by the Apostles). It is the Apostle's doctrine which the Church is founded on, and is meant to combat the particular RC notion of tradition ie that it developes, not tradition per se. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura in it's historic form, also hold to Tradition. If you read the Lutherans Fathers, you'll see that they quote the Church Fathers as much as Scripture in defense of their ideas. It was very important to them to remain in keeping with the historic Faith. The purpose behind Sola Scriptura is to accurately define the correct relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Scripture has pride of place, in the sense that it Norms Tradition. Tradition is judged by it. If anything in this so-called tradition is found to actually contradict Scripture, it's discarded as not being of the Apostles (the Apostles did not contradict themselves). If however, it is not found to contradict Scripture, even if it is not actually taught in Scripture, it is left alone. There are many things the Lutheran Church accepts, that cannot be demonstrated from Scripture in so many words. They have a saying, "Speak where Scripture speaks, and remain silent where Scripture is silent". In other words, if Scripture doesn't speak against something, they leave it alone. Luther demonstrated this time and again, infant baptism for instance was proven to be true, simply because the Church had always believed it. And for other doctrines, the Faith of the Church was sufficient to demonstrate the validity of a doctrine. It will take a little bit, but if you want I can give you some quotes to back up my assertions, so you don't have to take my word for it.

Judaica

But where does this premise originate?

From man or from God? If you say God, then where is it written so I may come to believe in this premise too?

You see, sola scripture is nothing but a contradiction unto it’s own principle. If this premise of yours is true then scripture would let us know it is and it doesn’t.

It actually says the opposite, that the CHURCH is the foundation and pillar of truth.

OrthodoxyUSA · Jun 30, 2006

FreeinChrist said:
The other thing I have noticed is that it appears in this thread that the Orthodox and Catholics are united in believing that Mary was born sinless, but that is not the truth:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/theotokos.aspx
"Finally, we Orthodox do not "worship" the Virgin Mary. We "venerate" her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus. However, we do believe that the Virgin Mary is an image, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, of the Christian goal of becoming Christ-like, of theosis."

The Orthodox and Catholic do NOT agree that Mary was BORN sinless!

Forgive me....

If Mary was sinless?

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

judaica

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

judaica

Guest

Well-Known Member

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Legend

Well-Known Member

judaica

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads