Many Protestants use this verse to go against 'The Immaculate Conception'

Keepon said:

Gideon army.....

No where in Jeremiah 8:2 does it say "If your worship the queen of heaven; you will be dung"

Thank you, ittarter for defending the Catholic Faith.

Click to expand...

Hello Keepon,

You're talking things out of Context, then again i expect catholics in general to mis-interpret (like the Bible) & take things out of context (again like the Bible)

I've stated :-

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and [they] pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.

Then I went on to Quote from :-

Ecc 1:9 That which has been [is] what will be, That which [is] done is what will be done, And [there is] nothing new under the sun.

Thus showing what happened in the past being repreated all over again by Certain Denominations. Then I finally stated what you quoted above to show that Worshippers of mary are DUNG :-

Jer 9:22 Speak, Thus saith the LORD, Even the carcases of men shall fall as dungupon the open field, and as the handful after the harvestman, and none shall gather [them].


Jer 16:4 They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; [but] they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

Keepon, please do not get angry with me for it's not me who wrote the above but The Holy Spirit of GOD/ Christ's & it's your choice to 'honor her' but it'll do you good to consider & examine all the CURSES of DEu Chapter 28

Keepon said:

On Luke 11:27-28 *While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, "Blesed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed," he replied, "rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

Some of the Footnotes on Luke 11:27-28...... The beatitude in v 28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of jesus; see the note on 8:21. Rather, it empasizes (like 2,35) that attentiveness to God's word is more important than biological relationshiop to Jesus.

Click to expand...

Keepon,

On this account i truely agree with you wholeheartely, Christ is REBUKING those (Like you & company) whom are deceived by the Devil/Satan himself to 'honor/worship/pray to her for Intercession' which None of these DUNG are Scriptural. Things in the Spiritual that are not GOD's Breath hence it's the Devil's

Keepon said:

jpcedotal

I have showed you how Saint Augustine and other Early Church Fathers believed Mary was sinless. I have told you about how Mother Mary was "Full of Grace" in my second post.

For Jesus to be sinless Mother Mary had to be a clean vessel.

You cant bring sinless into this world through sin.

Mother Mary had to be sinless.

I think it says somewhere in Job

Who can bring a clean thing thing out of an unclean

Mary had to be a pure vessel to give birth to Our sinless Lord and Savour Jesus christ.

Click to expand...

Hi there Keepon,

To you these are you "Saint Augustine and other Early Church Fathers" but no so sorry to disappoint, not to me they are not. They are OLD Buggers Praise the LORD

Yes Keepon, i've read your post Highlighted in Blue why you think mary this & that, which i've replied accordingly using GOD's Breath/Word of Christo to answer you as per u/m

gideon army said:

Hello to you our Lord's dearly beloved Keepon,

Why? Let's Scripture Interpret Scriptures:-

Lev 14:21 "But if he [is] poor and cannot afford it, then he shall take one male lamb [as] a trespass offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, one-tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, a log of oil,

Lev 14:22 and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, such as he is able to afford: one shall be a sin offering and the other a burnt offering.

Then get those ppl who made mary thingy statement if they've 'Accidently' Missed this?

Luke 2:22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present [Him] to the Lord

Luke 2:23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"

Luke 2:24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons."

Not only it shows you that joseph & mary are dirt poor, it also shows you that with Jesus, all blessings comes via the 3 wise men with Gold & so forth.

It's True that ALL have sinned & Fall short of the Glory of GOD Romans 3:23

Which in the Original Greek for All ispä's or pronounce as pas = individually, each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything or collectively

Shalom

Click to expand...

You tried substantiating mary sinless & stated, which i'm quoting you "I think it says somewhere in Job"

Resounding YES PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Can't wait. Maybe to help you a little more, whatever Devil's Teaching (Not Scriptural) you're advocating, please furnished Book/Chapter/Verse & better yet, draw from the OLD & New like how all my posts are substantiated with BookS/ ChapterS/ VerseS

As a Beloved child of the most HIGH LORD, i only accept quotations from Scriptures & NOT DEAD Buggers Hot Smelly air writings not FIT to wipe up after my Business on my great white Throne

gideon said:

Pardon me, English isn't my 1st language hence might not be up to par with the Queen's English or yours for that matter. Am saying so so to establish why am finding your above post MOST contradictory

(1) You stated it's HIS Holy Spirit that Guides you yet claim that it's better to 'study' from those old buggers whom lived closer to the apostles time & understanding their languages & so forth Yet

Contrast a Bit please:-

(2) You Advocate the Vulgate?

Do you not know that A Vulgate refers to:-

The Vulgate is an early 5th-century Latin version of the Bible, largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the old Latin translationss.. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation", and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Catholic Church.

Question: Do you not know that ALL Bible Crazed Child of THE Most HIGH LORD study from Strong's Concordence & Thayer's Greek Lexicon?

These are Widely Acknowledge by All Hebrew & Greek Scholars to be the Most Precise Accurate Translations? They also agree that it's the Most Comprehensive when it comes to individual Verb/Noun/Adjective/ Root Word & Much more for each Individual word or sentence used be it Hebrew or Greek

Now, believe can use the Vulgate to clean your Doggie Behind

Click to expand...

Please read what I actually write instead of what you apparently think I am saying. The Apostle Paul being inspired by God said that some were given the gift of being teachers in the church which implies that we can learn something from them. The church fathers are not infallible but they are worth reading unless I am so arrogant as to believe I am the only Christian to have walked the face of the earth.

In regards to the Vulgate, I don't remember ever advocating the Vulgate. I was referring to specific passage that I believe was translated correctly by the Vulgate but used incorrectly by the Roman Catholi Church. It is not perfect but it is an incredible an monumental translation and I don't know why you would want to use any Bible to wipe the rear end of any animal.

Strong's concordance and Thayer's lexicons are not translations. Strong's is a concordance and Thayer's is a lexicon. Thayer's was the standard Greek lexicon for a period of time but has been surpassed by BDAG. My BA is in Greek and I realize that no lexicon is infallible but overall BDAG is more reliable. BDB is the standard Hebrew lexicon in many circles but in others HALOT is used. If we're going down the mudslinging road then I could bring up Thayer's heretical views in regards to Christ but I don't see the point.

gideon army said:

Dearly Beloved of our Lord’s Ittarter & Keepon,

Firstly many thanks for your active & robust replies to my post hence shall try my level best in answering all the points raised by you guys as Methodical & Chronologically possible.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your own in-depth response.

(1) Sorry to Disappoint you, am not from any church that advocates anything against any Denomination.

(2) Sorry to Disappoint you, am not a Protestant & also not from Northern Ireland Born & bred in Singapore

(3) Sorry to Disappoint you yet again , I don’t hate catholics per say for I come from a 5th Generation (Maternal & Paternal) staunch Practicing catholic family. Educated in the catholic school system, attended catholic church for pass 30 odd years ‘religiously’ & served as an altar boy for a few years when in was a teen & Nope wasn’t abused physically nor sexually by any priests/ catholics schools ‘brotherhood’/teachers- to that & I praise my Lord Christ Jesus

Click to expand...

I am very disappointed that my stereotypes were not confirmed. I did check your profile before posting, and noted that you were in fact from Singapore. However, your breed of Christianity (in terms of its "robust" opposition of Catholicism) is prevalent in Northern Ireland.

(4) Do you not know that for GOD the Daddy & Christ the Savior to REDEEM men Righteously & Judicially then Christ needs to come as a man via any women? By saying that mary’s ‘obedience’ is of the Highest Kind shows one’s ignorance as all the prophets who came to preach the Word of Christo suffered MUCH More like being STONED to death & Persecuted look like a walk in the park from your definition.

Click to expand...

That's exactly it. It's not about what the saints do, but the blessings which God gives them. Righteousness is not measured by the psychological difficulties a person had to meet and conquer in order do the right thing, but rather, by the end product. That is where Mary is head-and-shoulders above all other saints. She became the gate through which salvation passed through to mankind.

However, I would argue that the social stigma of being an unwed mother was, in Jewish culture, a very heavy burden -- in a sense even worse than martyrdom.

(5) Your Hebrew translation of SEED isn’t complete hence here goes:- SEED zera` which is also used for : of moral quality & a practitioner of righteousness (Believe DEAF can Hear & Blind can See it’s Referring to Christ Jesus)

Click to expand...

That is not what the word means, insofar as linguistics proper is concerned. Even if we assumed the Protoevangelion interpretation of Gen. 3, "seed" merely means "single male offspring of Eve." While we know Jesus to be impeccably righteous, it is completely irresponsible to reverse the flow of meaning and load all the attributes of Christ into an arbitrary word in a passage prophesying the salvation that would, ultimately, take place through him. Makes sense?

(6) If your definition of ‘Blessed mary’ steams from being a ‘vessel’ whom did nothing apart from allowing herself to incubate & produce the KING of kings & LORD of lords then by your own definition isn’t it self contradictory NOT to HONOR all the GREAT Men of FAITH in Hebrews 11? (btw, believe mary enjoyed giving birth to Christ so much that she ended up with a BROOD of Children-Humm, or maybe the ACT of having a BROOD-hard working & diligent in procreating she was wouldn’t you say?)

Click to expand...

Yes, we should honor the men of faith in Heb. 11, as well as all other people of faith, but especially those of the highest faith, namely, saints. And the greatest saint is Mary, so she deserves the greatest honor out of all the saints. This is extremely simple and only becomes complicated when a) people confuse this respect with worship, and b) people forget how common-place honor is in our world, especially the older cultures in the orient and near-orient, and the "primitive" native and aboriginal cultures around the world.

(7)Believe I did not state anywhere that if a story in 1 Gospel wasn’t repeated throughout the other Gospels is of lesser significance, am just merely Pointing to yours & other readers attention that if a story is repeated in 2 or more (the Prostitute mary whom lavished a year’s wage in oil to anoint Christ feet with her hair was MUCH More significance as The Holy Spirit Reiterated throughout the 4 Gospels when compared to Catholics or any other Denomination quotations fm Luke 1:28 trying to Pervert the Word of Christo in making mary out to be a ‘Highly Exalted’ one when she’s obviously NOT)

Click to expand...

I don't see the difference at all.

(8) Seems like you guys do not know your Bible at all when ppl used mary as a means for Incercession for it’s not Scriptural. Shall let Scripture expound to you via the Scriptures:-

(8a) INTERCESSION is the sole preserved of Christ & the Holy Spirit from GOD the Daddy (hence the trinity GOD head) that indwells all born again believers / New Creation in Christ Jesus. On what Authority I’m making this statement?

Romans 8:34 Who [is] he who condemns? [It is] Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

If above doesn’t convince you that it’s Christ as our Intercessor then how about:-

Hebrews 7:25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them

Do you also not know that Prophet Isaiah Prophecised that Christ will come as per follow:-

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.

As for the Holy Spirit that Indwells in us making Intercession for the Believers:-

Romans 8:26 Likewise theSpirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Above quotation on GROANINGS is PRAYER (Singular) & it’s taken from

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Above referring to the True day of Pentecost when Christ has Risen & Glorified hence GOD the Daddy Poured out His Spirit into all the Believers hence they all prayed in Tongues. Do you also NOT know this was Prophecised by Prophet Isaiah?

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people,

Click to expand...

Most or all of these biblical citations demonstrate that Christ in heaven intercedes for us. None of these biblical citations even suggest that he is alone in this role. You still have to tell me why it's so weird to suppose that, even after death, members of the church can pray for those still awake (just as they did while they were still alive).

(9) Your disbelief that all Living Believers are Saints whom have already Received the Gift of Righteousness via Christ will have their prayers answered by GOD the Daddy & Christ directly? Pls allow me to bring to your attention the following:-

Romans 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Established that it is a Gift from GOD the Daddy & Christ?

Proverbs 15:29 The LORD [is] far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous.

However it’s Established that Righteousness is a Gift to those believers in Christ Jesus as shown in Romans 5:17 right? Then pray tell me why king Solomon the wisest men ever lived apart from Christ & Heavenly Daddy under the Holy Spirit of GOD stated CLEARLY without mincing words that GOD hears the Righteous Prayers DIRECTLY?

Paul’s says it best (for me at least ) & it’s dedicated to all who advocates mary to be honored & is your intercessor

1 Cr 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Click to expand...

No one said anything about directness until just now, when you said it. Mary can pray for us, the saints can pray for us, but they still pray to God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. This is the standard position of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, to my knowledge. Why is this so difficult to suppose?

ittarter said:

Thanks for your own in-depth response.
I am very disappointed that my stereotypes were not confirmed. I did check your profile before posting, and noted that you were in fact from Singapore. However, your breed of Christianity (in terms of its "robust" opposition of Catholicism) is prevalent in Northern Ireland.

Click to expand...

Hi there again ittarter ,

Like i've said, thousand apologies for not Measuring up to you Stereotypes or make that eons apart

Actually am not specifically against any Denomination per say & am Reiterating yet again. Am against those whom Does not have a clue of the Gospel or trying to Pervert the Gospel of Christ

ittarter said:

That's exactly it. It's not about what the saints do, but the blessings which God gives them. Righteousness is not measured by the psychological difficulties a person had to meet and conquer in order do the right thing, but rather, by the end product. That is where Mary is head-and-shoulders above all other saints. She became the gate through which salvation passed through to mankind.

However, I would argue that the social stigma of being an unwed mother was, in Jewish culture, a very heavy burden -- in a sense even worse than martyrdom.

Click to expand...

Please Substantiate with SCRIPTURE Interpreting/Expounding Upon SCRIPTURES that mary 'worthy' even for any thought at all when 'easing onself' for BIG Business on that great white Throne

What 'Social Stigma'? GOd the Daddy & Christ the King have had prior knowledge of this hence It's Wriiten:

Matt 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Believe above dispell all notions the 'social stigma' you 'think' mary has & that's why joseph willing married her & went around with her as his wife Which Both ENJOYED so MUCH that after the birth of CHRIST, mary & joseph PROCREATED so many times till aBrood came along If that's Sufferuing then please BRING it on me

ittarter said:

That is not what the word means, insofar as linguistics proper is concerned. Even if we assumed the Protoevangelion interpretation of Gen. 3, "seed" merely means "single male offspring of Eve." While we know Jesus to be impeccably righteous, it is completely irresponsible to reverse the flow of meaning and load all the attributes of Christ into an arbitrary word in a passage prophesying the salvation that would, ultimately, take place through him. Makes sense?

Click to expand...

This is totally a travisty of Wisdom or lack of it as it merely refers to the Early Synoptic Gospels & hence not Scripture Interpreting Scriptures.

Do you not know that the Old Testament is Unvailed/Revealed in the New Testament & Conversely The New Testament is the OLD Testament Concealed? Hence one needs to be skilled in finding / connecting truths using both!

My Suggesting to you, Please read Proverbs Chapter 6

ittarter said:

Yes, we should honor the men of faith in Heb. 11, as well as all other people of faith, but especially those of the highest faith, namely, saints. And the greatest saint is Mary, so she deserves the greatest honor out of all the saints. This is extremely simple and only becomes complicated when a) people confuse this respect with worship, and b) people forget how common-place honor is in our world, especially the older cultures in the orient and near-orient, and the "primitive" native and aboriginal cultures around the world.

Click to expand...

Wow, actually SARCASTICALLY suggesting that you consider Honoring those Great PPl of GOD in Faith mentioned in Hebrews 11 but little did i know your lack of Wisdom to discern & the following especially for you:-

Pro 19:25 Strike a scoffer, and the simple will become wary; Rebuke one who has understanding, [and] he will discern knowledge.

Believe the above in Bold doesn't applies to you nor those advocating mary worshipp/honor & intercession?

If you're worth your Salt in Christ (or has any ounce of wisdom)then you'll know the hall of fame in Hebrews 11, Paul was trying to tell us that those 'Great Faith' ppl Failed but GOD didn't record their failures (please cross reference with the actual names mentioned Stories of their lives), why? Main Clause, they all Believed in the LORD which HE accounted to them as Righteousness

ittarter said:

I don't see the difference at all.

Most or all of these biblical citations demonstrate that Christ in heaven intercedes for us. None of these biblical citations even suggest that he is alone in this role. You still have to tell me why it's so weird to suppose that, even after death, members of the church can pray for those still awake (just as they did while they were still alive).

Click to expand...

I'm not shocked that you don't see any Difference between a story told only in 1 Gospel versus the Great Significence when it's Repeated Throughout the 4 Gospels

Apart from Reading Proverbs 6, which basically is Christ extolling all Believers to Seek Wisdom/ Understanding out & do you not know what GOD calls those without Understanding/Wisdom & Fools?

Pro 26:11 As a dog returns to his own vomit, [So] a fool repeats his folly.

Have showed you Innumerous Quotations from many Books ranging from OLD & New Testaments in drawing your attention that it's Christ Himself & the Holy Spirit of GOD Daddy in the Believers which seeks Intercession for us when we pray in Tongues yet you can ignor & carry on returning back to you Vomit is simply amazing

ittarter said:

No one said anything about directness until just now, when you said it. Mary can pray for us, the saints can pray for us, but they still pray to God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. This is the standard position of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, to my knowledge. Why is this so difficult to suppose?

Click to expand...

Hello are you there, same page? What Talking you bro? Scriptures already shown the way to GOD Daddy/Christ is Direct for every believer (taken from Innumerous Books/Chapters/Verses to show that We Need NO Intercessor apart from Christ & the Holy Spirit within so may times.

Having doubts if English is your 1st Language or if mine terrible (mostly Bible that are quoted) hence am wondering why you keep harping on Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

Question: Those Scribes/ Pharisees/ Priests during Christ time are they not adhering strictly to Moses Livitical/ Ethical/ GOD's law? If they are which Bible records so that they are 'Religious' Yet Christ Slam them like there's NO Tomorrow hence doesn't that tells you something?

Many things taught/advocated in the Catholicism and Orthodoxy are NOT Scriptural (Means it's NOT from GOD) hence if comparing Spiritual with the Spiritual, pray tell me it's from who? Believe we need not have a Rocket Scientist to tell us right?

Deu 27:15 'Cursed [is] the one who makes a carved or molded image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets [it] up in secret.' "And all the people shall answer and say, 'Amen!'

Like Keepon, maybe it'll do you good to check up on All those Curses of Deu Chapter 28 to see if there's any Relevance / Applicable to you

The following is a continuation from Jer 8 where i've posted earlier about those who pray to the 'queen of heaven' VERSUS the Believer in CHRIST who prays Directly to the KING of HEAVEN

Jer 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; In the time of their punishment They shall be cast down," says the LORD.

Shalom & May Christ be unto you Wisdom.

gideon army said:

Hi there again ittarter

Click to expand...

Hi. Your last post was replete with attacks and slights against me. Since you failed to say anything of all that could have moved the discussion forward, and basically called me a fool for not agreeing with you, I don't think there's any point in continuing our conversation.

There were a few things you did add, like "Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach that which is unscriptural" and "Mary and Joseph loved having sex so much that thousands of years of stigma toward unwed mothers didn't really bother them," but none of these move the discussion forward, because frankly, they are irrelevant or ridiculous claims and do not merit rebuttal.

However, I will respond to the most amusing attack you deigned to use on me:

Having doubts if English is your 1st Language or if mine terrible (mostly Bible that are quoted)

Click to expand...

What a joke! Your biblical citations are the only places in your post where the English is good. Elsewhere, your sentence structure is corrupt, your spelling terrible, and your attempts to "enhance" your diatribe with color, bold, underline and smiley faces way over the top.

Anyway, let other readers of this thread determine who was the most responsible to debate, and true to reason and scripture -- since we clearly cannot make any more headway toward assent.

Keepon said:

Many Protestants often use Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Protestants use this verse to go against.....Mother Mary is sinless.

First if all have sinned, that means Jesus sinned, but we know Jesus did not sin. Therefore, if Jesus is an exception, Mary can be as well.

Click to expand...

Non sequitur. Scripture does not teach that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so she is not in the same "class" as Jesus. Further, Scripture explicitly *says* (in Hebrews) that Jesus did not sin, but makes no such statement about Mary.

Second, Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception.

Click to expand...

Where does *Scripture* say that?

Mary's sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud puddle, and then washed us in baptism. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ's redemption.

Click to expand...

Nice story. Where is it found *in Scripture*?

Third, not "all have sinned," because babies, the mentally retarded, and the senile cannot sin (that is, they are not culpable for their sin). A two year old does not know the difference between right and wrong; therefore it can not sin.

Click to expand...

You have only established a tautology.

Fourth, the word "all" in Romans 3:23 in Greek is PANTES. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul says "all" have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven. This means that when Paul says "all" (PANTES), he does not mean every single one. In fact, Paul says in Romans 5:19 that "many" were made sinners. This means that when Paul says "all" in regard to sinners, he really means "many."

Click to expand...

Confounding categories -- physical death and spiritual death.

Jesus Christ's mother Mother Mary was sinless "full of grace"

Click to expand...

If "full of grace" means sinless, then according to Eph. 1:6, all believers are, in Him, sinless.

Keepon said:

On ISAIAH 59:16

He saw that there was no one, and was appaled that there was none to intervene; So his own arm brought about the victory, and his justice lent him its support.

Of course Jesus Christ is the number One Intercessor. But this does not say that he is the only one. Us humans all are small intercessors for other people when we pray for them to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the "One" Mediator; the Main Mediator. But that doesnt mean that there cant be smaller mediators. This passage does not say dont pray to Mary for intercession

Click to expand...

That's spin. The clear implication of 1 Tim. 2:5 is that there is only one "go-between" -- Jesus.

Keepon said:

jpcedotal

I have showed you how Saint Augustine and other Early Church Fathers believed Mary was sinless.

Click to expand...

They believed lots of funny things. I'm interested in what Scripture says.

I have told you about how Mother Mary was "Full of Grace" in my second post.

Click to expand...

So am I -- in Christ.

For Jesus to be sinless Mother Mary had to be a clean vessel.

You cant bring sinless into this world through sin.

Mother Mary had to be sinless.

I think it says somewhere in Job

Who can bring a clean thing thing out of an unclean

Mary had to be a pure vessel to give birth to Our sinless Lord and Savour Jesus christ.

Click to expand...

In that case, Mary's mother also had to be sinless. And her grandmother. And her great-grandmother. And so on, back to Eve.

NorrinRadd said:

Where does *Scripture* say that?

Nice story. Where is it found *in Scripture*?

Click to expand...

If you want to discuss such issues with someone outside of your solo scriptura camp, you may wish to note that theological extrapolations from the text are entirely legitimate as support of a doctrine, if that doctrine is taught as an authoritative religious tradition.

You might also wish to note that most Protestants are hypocritical on this point, since they hold many religious beliefs that are not found explicitly in scripture, but rather are theological extrapolations no different from Mary's sinless birth. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the snake in the garden of Eden was actually the devil.

ittarter said:

If you want to discuss such issues with someone outside of your solo scriptura camp, you may wish to note that theological extrapolations from the text are entirely legitimate as support of a doctrine, if that doctrine is taught as an authoritative religious tradition.

Click to expand...

Fine. By way of recap, the exchange went thus:

"Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception."

To which I replied,

"Where does *Scripture* say that?"

Please feel free to "educate" me regarding the Scriptures from which this is reasonably extrapolated -- unless of course they are limited to the ones already presented, which show no such thing.


Likewise the following:

"Mary's sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud puddle, and then washed us in baptism. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ's redemption."

To which I reply: "Nice story. Where is it found *in Scripture*?"


What collection of Scriptures even reasonably *suggest* that Mary was Providentially kept "clean" in a way unique to her?

You might also wish to note that most Protestants are hypocritical on this point, since they hold many religious beliefs that are not found explicitly in scripture, but rather are theological extrapolations no different from Mary's sinless birth. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the snake in the garden of Eden was actually the devil.

Click to expand...

I'll note that such is your opinion, but you'll have to perform some astounding exposition and exegesis to convince me that Scripture supports Mary's sinlessness in a way even distantly approaching the way it supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

NorrinRadd said:

Please feel free to "educate" me regarding the Scriptures from which this is reasonably extrapolated -- unless of course they are limited to the ones already presented, which show no such thing.

I'll note that such is your opinion, but you'll have to perform some astounding exposition and exegesis to convince me that Scripture supports Mary's sinlessness in a way even distantly approaching the way it supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

First, if you are actually interested in understanding Mary's role in the Christian life (rather than as an issue of controversy separating Protestants from Catholics), you might consider reading the Marialis Cultus, available online here. Read it with the understanding that it was written by Catholics, so it will come across as pretty hard-nosed, but also that they are trying to make some concessions to Protestants in order to foster some ecumenical development, for example, by citing scripture regularly.

Okay, here it is.

Historically the spiritually elevation of Mary takes place simultaneously to the elevation of Christ. The Nicene Creed tells us that he is "very God of very God," and this, conveniently, is around the time that Mary is declared "Theotokos." (In fact the title was meant as an apologetic for a high christology, using the Marian devotion popular among the church to foster certain theological views about her son.)

Furthermore, he was "very God of very God" upon entry into Mary's womb, for the fourth gospel says that "the word become flesh and dwelt among us." The problem then becomes, if we take God's holiness seriously, and believe that Jesus was truly without sin, how then could he be born through a sinful mother? How could Jesus avoid inheriting the sinful nature, although being so intimately joined to a sinful person? The traditional solution to this problem was to suppose that Mary herself was conceived immaculately.

This is what I mean by theological extrapolation of texts. The immaculate conception is born out of a certain understanding of Christ's person, of the transmission of sin through procreation, of the nature of God, and so forth.

I will emphasize that the importance of Mary is not solely her immaculate nature. There are many other things of a more practical nature, which you might find if you read through the Marialis Cultus.

Another book you might consider is Mary for Evangelicals by Dr. Tim Perry, published by IVP a couple years ago. Perry is an evangelical Anglican who is very strong in theology and New Testament, and it's probably one of the best books out there for this discussion.

I hope these reflections are helpful to you.

NorrinRadd said:

I'll note that such is your opinion, but you'll have to perform some astounding exposition and exegesis to convince me that Scripture supports Mary's sinlessness in a way even distantly approaching the way it supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Now it's your turn. Please support with scripture the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined in relevant article on Wikipedia, or, if you wish, as you yourself define it):

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The concept of personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity." To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well." The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being. Each of the persons is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. Since the beginning of the third century the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Click to expand...

We will see if your defense is qualitatively different than one that supports Mary's sinless birth. While it is hardly difficult to show that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in some way divine, getting from there to the Trinity is impossible (in my opinion) using scripture alone. Small wonder it was still such an issue of controversy at Nicea, even after three hundred years of doctrinal centralization.

Sub Tuum - 3rd century papyrus, published 1938.

Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God; do not reject our supplications in necessity. But deliver us from danger. [You] alone are chaste, alone blessed.

ittarter said:

Now it's your turn. Please support with scripture the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined in relevant article on Wikipedia, or, if you wish, as you yourself define it):

Click to expand...

I'd define the Trinity along the lines of, "There is one God, simultaneously comprising three distinct Persons that we know as Father, Son, and Spirit."

We will see if your defense is qualitatively different than one that supports Mary's sinless birth. While it is hardly difficult to show that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in some way divine, getting from there to the Trinity is impossible (in my opinion) using scripture alone. Small wonder it was still such an issue of controversy at Nicea, even after three hundred years of doctrinal centralization.

Click to expand...

My usual approach would be to mainly work through the Johannine corpus to demonstrate the deity of Christ -- not just that He is "in some way divine," but that He *explicitly* self-identifies as "I AM." And just as the writers of the New Testament employed some freedom in choosing OT translations to cite, I would choose NT translations that best support my case.

I would also use the Johannine corpus to demonstrate the deity of the Spirit, which is admittedly less explicitly defined than the deity of Christ.

And I would then use other Scriptures -- things such as Jesus affirming the Shema in Matthew; places in the Gospels where two or more members of the Trinity interact with each other; places in the epistles where God, Lord, and Spirit occur as parallel terms; and places where OT quotations about the "LORD" (YHWH) are applied to Jesus in the NT -- as additional supports.

Sorry for the lack of detail at this time. My PC did a self-update of Windows XP, auto-rebooted, and it took me a while to get it back in usable form. If you want to see more detail of the approach I'd take, let me know.

ittarter said:

Now it's your turn. Please support with scripture the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined in relevant article on Wikipedia, or, if you wish, as you yourself define it):

Click to expand...

Hi Ittarter,

How about:-

John 10:38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father [is] in Me, and I in Him."

Believe the above shows you that Daddy & Christ are one?

Joe 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.

Above refers to GOD's Spirit for which we have thew Holy Spirit Indwelling the Believer from which Christ spoke of in:-

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

To show you that the Holy Spirit refers to GOD also, it's as follow:-

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

Your turn, please show Scripture advocating same stance as you are in referring to mary being sinless

Keepon said:

Many Protestants often use Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Protestants use this verse to go against.....Mother Mary is sinless.

First if all have sinned, that means Jesus sinned, but we know Jesus did not sin. Therefore, if Jesus is an exception, Mary can be as well.

Second, Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. Mary's sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud puddle, and then washed us in baptism. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ's redemption.

Third, not "all have sinned," because babies, the mentally retarded, and the senile cannot sin (that is, they are not culpable for their sin). A two year old does not know the difference between right and wrong; therefore it can not sin.

Fourth, the word "all" in Romans 3:23 in Greek is PANTES. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul says "all" have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven. This means that when Paul says "all" (PANTES), he does not mean every single one. In fact, Paul says in Romans 5:19 that "many" were made sinners. This means that when Paul says "all" in regard to sinners, he really means "many."

Jesus Christ's mother Mother Mary was sinless "full of grace"

Click to expand...

Hello,

This is the argument that I like to use to against the theology that Mary the mother of Jesus is sinless.

Instead of Romans 3:23, I like to use Galatians 3:22.

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

For God's perfect will is manifest in this: that Satan will sin and will bring evil to man and that man will sin and will bring death into the world, and that the Son of God is manifest to destroy the works of the devil and those who believe in Jesus Christ should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Why Galatians 3:22?

Well, Mary the mother of Jesus was a believer of Jesus Christ.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

So the question arises.

If Mary was born without sin, then why is she a believer of Jesus Christ? What does she need saving from? From death?

Now I am not anti-Catholic.

Rather, Mary was born with sin, but was kept from sin when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and she was kept from sin by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 John 3:9) until Jesus was born.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

1 John 3:9 For whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

For until Pentecost, the OT visitations of the Holy Spirit was not permanent with the exception of John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).

For Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zacharias (Luke 1:67), Simeon (Luke 1:25), and Anna (Luke 1:36 prophetess) experienced the Holy Spirit under OT conditions.

John's special Holy Spirit filled from conception experience anticipated Pentecost, the permanent coming and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The point is:

When the Holy Spirit came upon a person, the person was kept from sin by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 John 3:9), moved by the Holy Spirit to speak the prophetic word of God (2 Peter 1:21), etc.

When the Holy Spirit departed, the person is a ordinary person.

ittarter said:

Now it's your turn. Please support with scripture the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined in relevant article on Wikipedia, or, if you wish, as you yourself define it):

Click to expand...

This is the real Trinity.

The role of the Father, the role of the Son, and the role of the Holy Spirit is one God. Yes, three Role of one God.

For one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

For God is operating through the role of the Father, the role of the Son, and the role of the Holy Spirit.

For God is one Spirit in essence.

The Holy Spirit is God.

jpark43 said:

This is the real Trinity.

The role of the Father, the role of the Son, and the role of the Holy Spirit is one God. Yes, three Role of one God.

For one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

For God is operating through the role of the Father, the role of the Son, and the role of the Holy Spirit.

For God is one Spirit in essence.

The Holy Spirit is God.

Click to expand...

I'm not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, jpark. My point is that scripture by itself is insufficient for modern Christians to come to the conclusion that the nature of the deity is defined best by that doctrine. Tradition plays a major role, and without it there would be no Trinitarians alive today.

Thus, Protestants should not treat Marian dogmas (or any Catholic or Orthodox dogma, for that matter) so lightly, as if that their open reliance upon tradition somehow tainted them.

(The Big Secret that most conservative evangelicals don't get is that scripture itself is a manifestation of religious tradition. Accordingly, the contrast drawn by the concept of sola scriptura is capable of being misleading.)