Immaculate conception of Mary?

Well, as I thought. There is no support from Josephus, Philo, Maimonides, or Tertullian, not to mention Gen. 3:15 itself (as NewAdvent.org agrees), for the RC idea of IC.

Standing Up said:

Again, provide the actual quote and the actual source. I looked through B1 C3 and found nothing. It may by B1 C1 (Antiquities), but it says this:

" Besides this, he [God] inserted poison under his [serpent] tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. "
Chapter 1 - Bible Study Tools

So, Josephus translates it "they". Again though, we wouldn't expect Josephus to translate it in Messianic terms.

PS. Please note how to do what I've asked. Quote it and provide the source link. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Your quotation appears to be from a translation given by William Whiston, an 18th century English clergyman and theologian. He has been criticized for rephrasing Josephus and adding words that don't belong to the original text whenever he saw fit to square with his own theological views.

My quotation (correction: Bk.1, Ch. 2) is from the English publication of The Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, by the great Catholic biblical and Hebrew scholar Cornelius 'A Lapide, who originally wrote his 8 volume series in Latin in the 17th century. His source is a Latin translation of the Greek which predates the 7th century. I presented the English translation of the Latin one for the Greek.

Two other notable translators before the 20th century have the woman doing the crushing of the serpent's head. Since Josephus was Jewish, the woman is Eve. The reading "she" aligns with the classical Jewish theology of Josephus' time.

"God took from him the use of speech, put poison under his tongue, condemned him to the loss of his feet and to crawl upon his belly, declared him the enemy of all mankind: and commanded EVE also to tread upon his head, both as the fountain of all our woes and as the part where he most easily receives a mortal wound. After pronouncing these penalties, God turned Adam and Eve out of the garden"
Robert L'estrange

"He also branded him as the avowed enemy of mankind; further predicting, that Eve should tread upon his head, that being the source of all our miseries and the part most susceptible to mortal wound."
Ebenezer Thompson

In the mid-2nd century the ECF Justin Martyr had an extensive dialogue with a Jew by the name of Trypho at Ephesus, who some scholars propose was Rabbi Tarfon, in an attempt to convert him to the Christian faith. What they discussed is recorded in his Apologia (A.D. 155). At one point Mary and her role in the economy of salvation was brought up in their conversation. Justin Martyr presents the Catholic position as an alternative to traditional Jewish belief at this time. Both he and Trypho were on the same page when talking about Eve and Mary, only the latter should see that Mary took the place of Eve as 'mother of all the living' in the new dispensation. Their dialogue involved an explanation of how it was that Mary is the new Eve. There is no record of them debating over who it is that crushes the head of the serpent. Apparently, both men acknowledged the traditional theological views of their respective faiths at that time, and advanced from that point in their discussion. Josephus, too, must have read "aute" in the Septuagint in the 2nd century in keeping with the Jewish oral tradition. Here is the excerpt from the Apologia, Ch. 100:

"We understand that He [Christ] became man by means of the Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed just as it began. Eve, a virgin, having conceived the word of the serpent, gave birth to disobedience and death. Mary on the other hand, conceiving faith and joy, when the Angel Gabriel announced to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her so that the Holy One born of her would be called the Son of God, answered: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word.' ... By her, God destroyed the empire of the serpent and of all the angels and men who become like the serpent , and frees from death those who repent of their faults and believe in Him."

The Masoretic text for one reason is a corrupted text because it is often discordant with the OT and, consequently, with ancient Jewish oral tradition.

She [Jael] put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.
Judges 5, 26

Among some Catholic scholars, it is just highly probable that a copyist error had given us 'ipsa' instead of 'ipse' in the Latin Vulgate. They contend that Jerome wouldn't have changed the reading of the Latin text that he had at his disposal. But there's no reason to assume that he wouldn't have intentionally changed the pronouns, seeing that he consulted with the top Jewish scholars of his day while completing his work at Bethlehem.

PAX

justinangel said:

Your quotation -snip-

Click to expand...

Except for Ebenezer, they agree the quote is "they", not "she". One more.

He deprived the snake of speech, angry at his malice towards Adam, putting poison under his tongue and making him an enemy to humans, which is why they aimed blows at his head, the place of his malice towards men, as the easiest way to take revenge on him.
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1

So again, nothing from Josephus, Philo, or the others to support the RC notion of IC from Gen. 3:15.

Standing Up said:

Except for Ebenezer, they agree the quote is "they", not "she". One more.

He deprived the snake of speech, angry at his malice towards Adam, putting poison under his tongue and making him an enemy to humans, which is why they aimed blows at his head, the place of his malice towards men, as the easiest way to take revenge on him.
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1

So again, nothing from Josephus, Philo, or the others to support the RC notion of IC from Gen. 3:15.

Click to expand...

Who are they other than Ebenezer? Pray tell.

PAX

Standing Up said:

Except for Ebenezer, they agree the quote is "they", not "she". One more.

He deprived the snake of speech, angry at his malice towards Adam, putting poison under his tongue and making him an enemy to humans, which is why they aimed blows at his head, the place of his malice towards men, as the easiest way to take revenge on him.
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1

So again, nothing from Josephus, Philo, or the others to support the RC notion of IC from Gen. 3:15.

Click to expand...

Antiquities of the Jews, Book l, Chapter 2, by Josephus

"God took from him the use of speech, put poison under his tongue, condemned him to the loss of his feet and to crawl upon his belly, declared him the enemy of all mankind: and commanded EVE also to tread upon his head, both as the fountain of all our woes and as the part where he most easily receives a mortal wound. After pronouncing these penalties, God turned Adam and Eve out of the garden"
Robert L'estrange

From Early Christian Writings:

The Works of Philo

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, III{*}
{**Yonge's title, The Third Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six

Days of Creation.

LXVII. (188) And the expression, "He shall watch thy head, and thou shalt watch his Heel,"{93}{#ge 3:15.} is, as to its language, a barbarism, but, as to the meaning which is conveyed by it, a correct expression. Why so? It ought to be expressed with respect to the woman: but the woman is not he, but she. What, then, are we to say? From his discourse about the woman he has digressed to her seed and her beginning. Now the beginning of the outward sense is the mind. But the mind is masculine, in respect of which one may say, he, his, and so on. Very correctly, therefore, does God here say to pleasure, that the mind shall watch your principal and predominant doctrine, and you shall watch the traces of the mind itself, and the foundations of the things which are pleasing to it, to which the heel has very naturally been likened.

PAX

I am a little the worse for wear and have much fewer gray cells than I used to have-so somebody please explain to me what bruising the snakes head (by either male or female) has to do with the concept 0f Immaculate Conception????--Did I miss something?

mmksparbud said:

I am a little the worse for wear and have much fewer gray cells than I used to have-so somebody please explain to me what bruising the snakes head (by either male or female) has to do with the concept 0f Immaculate Conception????--Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Belief in the Immaculate Conception finds its root in the early perception of Mary being the new Eve. Justin Martyr writes: "We understand that He [Christ] became man by means of the Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed just as it began .... By her, God destroyed the empire of the serpent and of all the angels and men who become like the serpent," (Apologia, 100). Irenaeus elaborates even further: "Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve ... was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (Against Heresies, 5:19.1). The idea of the Immaculate Conception implicitly lies in the parallel between Mary and Eve drawn by these two 2nd century Church Fathers, who bear witness to an existing apostolic Marian tradition of the Church.

It was because Eve was sinful that she succumbed to the serpent's temptation and consequently prompted Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit. Mary, on the other hand, was perceived to be the antithesis of Eve in her virginal or originally innocent state. She heard the word of God and observed it for, unlike Eve, she was perfectly pure with no ungodly inclinations. Her soul which 'magnified the Lord', was 'full of grace'. Mary crushed the serpent's head by having no affinity with it and its wicked offspring. Conceived without original sin, not unlike Eve, Mary showed she had a greater facility to cooperate with divine grace than the human race's biological mother had. Her soul was at greater harmony with God. She preserved the highest notion of God's holiness and the infinite glory which belongs to Him alone. Eve, on the contrary, showed an inordinate self-love, and so she denied God the glory that is owed to Him. As Eve's anti-type, created like her in the state of original innocence (God sanctified Mary's soul at the first instant of her conception), Mary possessed a horror for anything evil and hateful to God because of her perfect love for Him. She had a very clear notion of what is righteous in the sight of God and of what offends Him. And since Mary loved only that real good which pleases God, she was intolerant towards any evil thing that originated with the serpent. Eve proved herself to be immeasurably tolerant towards something that pleased the serpent. Thus she fell from God's grace.

According to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, God's plan of reciprocation with a woman's collaboration could not have been fulfilled, if Mary likewise had fallen from her original state of sanctity. She could not be designated as Eve's "advocate" if at any moment in her existence her soul was deprived of sanctifying grace because of the contraction of Adam and Eve's sin or any personal venial or mortal sins, which the rest of us are still subjected to in our wounded state. Satan crushed Eve's soul when he successfully tempted her to reject God by gravely offending Him out of an inordinate self-love. Mary crushed the head of the serpent by resisting Satan through her steadfastness in love and faith. In a secondary way, Mary became "the cause of our salvation" on account of her faith working through love. Because of her collaboration with the Holy Spirit and her cooperation with divine grace and the spiritual gifts which come with it, her Son was pleased to come into the world which had rejected God since the beginning. In this was, the Virgin Mary helped "rescue the world" from the bondage of sin and death in union with her Son.

These Church Fathers allude to Mary as our 'co-Redemptrix'. Mary's virginal obedience to the will of the Father was an integral part of God's plan of salvation just as Christ's virginal obedience was in his assumed humanity. Mary undid that which was wrought by Eve; Christ undid that which was wrought by Adam. Both the Mother and the Son had to be sinless, the former by God's intervening grace, the latter by his substantial grace of union with the Father, in order to meet God's requirements in His plan to reverse the fall of mankind. In the words of Elizabeth: "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled"(Lk 1:42; 45).

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4-6

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to.” St. Ambrose of Milan, The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]

PAX

Where is it stated that whomever bruised it's head had to be sinless?

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Doesn't say anything about a virgin or anyone sinless.

And the JBS states that verse as---(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'


I usually prefer the Jewish translation of the old testament--seeing they should know better than anyone else.

mmksparbud said:

Where is it stated that whomever bruised it's head had to be sinless?

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Doesn't say anything about a virgin or anyone sinless.

Click to expand...

First of all, the KJV is a mistranslation.

Second, in the first clause, it is the woman of promise who is at enmity with the serpent. The Hebrew word for 'enmity' is אֵיבָה (ebah). This means that God shall establish an absolute personal hostility, total opposition, between the woman and the serpent by the power of His grace, since the serpent was the cause of Eve's transgression by deceiving her. This personal hostility and opposition between the woman and the serpent in light of Eve's sin presupposes a complete absence of sin in the woman from the moment God fashioned her soul. Mary was "completely, enduringly, and perfectly" endowed with sanctifying grace (cf. Lk 1:28).* since she was elected to be the mother of the divine Messiah and had a redemptive role to play in union with her Son. For this reason Mary and Satan were diametrically opposed antagonists, which couldn't be the case if Mary had a sinful nature like Eve or had ever sinned herself. Revelation 12 describes the woman as being "clothed with the sun" which characterizes her personal original state of justification and sanctity which Adam, through the words of his helpmate Eve, had forfeited for all his descendants. And so the angel Gabriel said to Mary: 'Fear not, for you have found favour with God' (Lk 1:30). Notice the parallel Luke draws between Mary and the true servant Israel, namely Daughter Zion.

And Mary said:

“My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name."
Luke 1, 46-49

I will rejoice greatly in the Lord;
my soul shall exult in my God;
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robes of righteousness.
Isaiah 61, 10


Shout for joy, O daughter Zion!
sing joyfully, O Israel!
Be glad and exalt with all your heart,
O daughter Jerusalem!
The Lord has removed his judgment against you,
he has turned away your enemies;
The King of Israel is in your midst,
you have no further misfortune to fear."
Zephaniah 3, 14-18

"At that time I will bring you home,
at the time when I will gather you together;
yea, I will make you renowned and praised
among all the peoples of the earth,
when I restore your fortunes
before your eyes, " says the Lord.
Zephaniah 3, 20

When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion,
then we thought we were dreaming.
Our mouths were filled with laughter;
our tongues sang for joy.
Then it was said among the nations,
"The Lord has done great things for them."
The Lord has done great things for us;
Oh, how happy we were.
Psalm 126, 1-3

"You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine"
Leviticus 20:26

"I, your handmaid, have never eaten at the table of Haman, nor have I graced the banquet of the king or drunk the wine of libations. From the day I was brought here till now, your handmaid has had no joy except in you, O Lord, God of Abraham. O God, more powerful than all, hear the voice of those in despair. Save us from the power of the wicked, and deliver me from my fear."
Esther C, 28-30

* "Highly favored" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of 'chartoo' and means endowed with grace ("charis"), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6,...The Vulgate 'gratiae plena' is right if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received;' "
(Plummer). [Robertson, Archibald T., 'Word Pictures in the New Testament', Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 2, p.13]

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

"Chartoo...Highly favoured as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon...it really does not mean to show favor, but to give grace to."
[Lexicon to the Old and New Testaments, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D, 1988 Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publications Inc., p.1739]

"Luke 1:28 This is all one word in Greek 'kecharitomene' a perfect passive participle of the verb ,'Chartoo' ...Abbott-Smith defines 'Chartoo' as follows endow with 'charis' i.e. 1. (a) to make graceful; (b) to endure with grace (i.e. divine favor)"
[Word Meaning in the New Testament, copyright 1986, printed by Henndrickson Publishing, edited by Ralph Earle, p.52]

"O favored one" (kecharitomene), the angel's address to Mary, marks her out recipient of God's special grace... For Luke she is a model beneficiary of God's grace (1:48)."
[The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, copyright 2002, Victor Publishing, edited by Darrell L. Block, p.180]

"...to bestow grace, to show favor to someone...the divine favor for a special vocation...." (Fritz Rienecker/Cleon Rogers in their Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament)

To be completely, perfectly, and enduringly in the state of sanctifying grace is to be at total enmity with Satan.

And the JBS states that verse as---(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

Click to expand...

Jewish scholar Dr. Yuri Josef has convincingly shown that both "it" and "they" are poor translations.

I usually prefer the Jewish translation of the old testament--seeing they should know better than anyone else.

Click to expand...

If by the Jewish translation you mean the Masoretic text, know that it isn't the only one. From Mary Co-Redemptrix, by Brother Thomas Mary Sennot:

' "Moses Maimonides writes, which is indeed amazing, 'But what must be admired most of all, is that the serpent is joined with Eve, that is, its seed with her seed, its head with her heel; that she (Eve) should conquer it (the serpent) in the head, and that it should conquer her in the heel (More Nebochim, Part II, chap. 30).So evidently in Maimonides day there were still some uncorrupted Hebrew texts available." '
À Lapide, Cornelius, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Larousse, Paris, 1848,p. 105

' 'A Lapide adds that even in his day there were two Hebrew codices in the Vatican library that read "she" [according to Kennicott numbers 227 and 239], and another in the Bernard de Rossi library. Also in the same library was an Onkelosi Codex [ a translation from the Hebrew into Aramaic] which read "she."
Ibid., p.105

PAX

mmksparbud said:

Where is it stated that whomever bruised it's head had to be sinless?

(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Doesn't say anything about a virgin or anyone sinless.

And the JBS states that verse as---(Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'.

Click to expand...

Oh well, you've just read the response to that--the Bible is not to be trusted. What a surprise, huh.
But what some saint wrote hundreds of years after Christ...now, THAT you're supposed to take to the bank.

The more these discussions go on, the less anything changes.

Albion, I would rather "take to the bank '' the only interpretation that holds the truth of Holy Scripture and that interpretation is that same interpretation that was used [ guided by the Holy Spirit ] to decipher the correct writings that we find in our completed, compiled bibles today. If that interpretation is correct, as we all agree, [ by acceptance of the NT Books ] then that very same interpretation is then correct today. If the H S is open for guidance for all of us in understanding the Bible then that Holy Spirit is one confused Holy Spirit for allowing different interpretations for all the conflicting churches. nowhere in the bible is private interpretation the norm for complete understanding. Jesus left us with only a completed authoritative, teaching Church , it was that very same apostolic teaching Church that gave us our compiled Holy Bible guided by the Holy Spirit.

The KJV is a mistranslation--even if that were true--The JBS is written as "they" and "their"--and even if it read "she"---there is still no mention of a forever virgin or sinlessness. And to have some "Brother" decide that the Jewish translation is wrong is really bazaar--you'd think they would know their own language a whole lot better than any "Brother"--no matter how many Jewish classes he took!! When does "highly favored" become forever virgin, or "full of grace" become sinless birth and a sinless life?!!!


(Lev 20:25) Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

(Lev 20:26) And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

Where is the mention of a sinless virgin here?? These verses are talking about the people of Israel and what they should or should not do. Certainly not about any one individual! None of these verses have a single thing to do with Mary--not a single one!! "Stretching it" is putting it very, very, very mildly! This is no proof of anything except the far fetched ideas of some man many eons after the fact!! I was expecting a lot more than this.

What you really missed is what the Bible actually says about Mary and you along with many other people refuse to follow the bible. When was the last time you called Mary "blessed" as per bible ?

Albion said:

Oh well, you've just read the response to that--the Bible is not to be trusted. What a surprise, huh.
But what some saint wrote hundreds of years after Christ...now, THAT you're supposed to take to the bank.

The more these discussions go on, the less anything changes.

Click to expand...

Your private interpretation is not to be trusted. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus interpreted Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. They bore witness to what the Church believed about Mary before they even wrote their works.

What some non-Catholic thinks 2000 years after Christ and over a millennium after the patristic age separated from the Church ... now ....

Why change what was believed by Christians, only expressed in less definitive terms, since early time?

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]

PAX

justinangel said:

Your private interpretation is not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

Why is YOUR private interpretation to be trusted, then? Mine at least is based upon relevant information.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus interpreted Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

Click to expand...

So you say.

They bore witness to what the Church believed about Mary before they even wrote their works.

Click to expand...

So you want to believe.

What some non-Catholic thinks 2000 years after Christ and over a millennium after the patristic age separated from the Church ... now ....

Click to expand...

You know, that kind of nonsense -- "I'm a Roman Catholic (or name your preferred denomination), so I can't be wrong" -- doesn't really make a dent with thinking people. It just signals that the speaker hasn't any factual information to contribute.

barryatlake said:

What you really missed is what the Bible actually says about Mary and you along with many other people refuse to follow the bible. When was the last time you called Mary "blessed" as per bible ?

Click to expand...

Can I ask you a simple question? Who the heck are you to judge someone else you know absolutely nothing about except by a few post on a forum to say they refuse to follow the Bible. That to me goes against everything that the Bible is about.

barryatlake said:

What you really missed is what the Bible actually says about Mary and you along with many other people refuse to follow the bible. When was the last time you called Mary "blessed" as per bible ?

Click to expand...

I do not talk to the dead--not really looked on kindly in the bible. I consider Mary to have been a uniquely, supremely blessed and awesome woman who gave birth to the Son of God---no greater honor has been given. But I see nothing in the scriptures that calls her a forever virgin, nor sinless. All I have read is the convoluted thoughts of some men who have stretched a few words into something that is not stated. And that was not an order to go around calling her blessed--it was a statement of fact as to how she would be seen by others. And no one can argue the fact that she was highly blessed.

What you really missed is what the Bible actually says about Mary and you along with many other people refuse to follow the bible. When was the last time you called Mary "blessed" as per bible ?

Click to expand...

I just love the way people say things like "the Bible is just a book" and "It isn't supposed to be a catechism for instructing us" and then immediately repair to the Bible in order to try to prove their points.

But unfortunately, they seldom actually cite the Bible in preference to their own reworded version of some verse. In this case, the Bible does NOT instruct anyone to call Mary "blessed" and certainly not because to fail to do so would mean that they "hate" her. The verse simply has Mary saying that all generationss will call her blessed...which is a prediction, not a command.

mmksparbud, what I meant is why don't you follow the Bible in everything it tells us, isn't it appropriate to write or verbally call Mary "blessed Mary" when the bible tell us to do so?When was the last time you or any other Protestant ever called Mary blessed and why not?
To answer your other question-Try finding sola Scriptura / Bible alone in the bible.

barryatlake said:

mmksparbud, what I meant is why don't you follow the Bible in everything it tells us, isn't it appropriate to write or verbally call Mary "blessed Mary" when the bible tell us to do so?When was the last time you or any other Protestant ever called Mary blessed and why not?
To answer your other question-Try finding sola Scriptura / Bible alone in the bible.

Click to expand...

Every Protestant calls Mary blessed, just not forever virgin or sinless. That has already been explained above. And like I said, which you obviously did not read--that was not a command to call her that but what everyone would think of her.

And how do you know what I do or do not follow??--Is that your definition of someone who is walking with the Lord--has to adore Mary, or burn forever??





(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Good enough for me.