Catholics...Why Do Beliefs About Mary Matter?

[amariselle]

That is an interesting take on it, but I would not necessarily view Luke 11:27-28 as Jesus teaching that Mary is not a woman who is blessed among women, or that it is wrong for people to believe that. I would read it as Jesus trying to teach the particular person something in addition to what she said.

Let's take a look at Luke 1:
39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would beg a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

Above, you will note that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she said "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

So I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is a good thing for people to call Mary blessed among women, because the Holy Spirit inspired Elizabeth to do just that, and the Holy Spirit only inspires people to do what is good.

You also have the Magnificat:
46 And Mary said,
“My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.

Here, Mary and Scripture testify that generations forever will call Mary blessed. That certainly does not apply to all Christians. God seems to bless some his creatures more than others, but we are all blessed and loved by God.

I agree that Mary is blessed. This isn't because she was sinless, however, (as you have quoted above, she acknowledged her need for a Saviour).

There is a huge difference though between acknowledging that because God chose her to be the earthly mother of Jesus, she is blessed and the veneration she is given (along with the various titles) in the Catholic Church today.

There is no doubt she had a role no other woman was given, but I honestly and firmly disagree with the claims (in light of Scripture) that the Catholic Church makes about her. (Considering her a mediator for example).

 

[Fidelibus]

The Bible forbids necromancy (praying to the dead) Isaiah 8:19, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 2 Kings 21:6

"Sacred Tradition" encourages praying to Mary and the saints (people who have died).

Actually, what is being condemned in these texts from Deuteronomy and Isaiah is conjuring up the dead through wizards and mediums, not praying to saints. Now amariselle, if you study official Catholic teachings like you say you do, you would know The Catholic Church has always condemned this. Mediums attempt to conjure up spirits and manipulate the spiritual realm at will. This is categorically different from Christians asking for the intercession of their brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not "conjure up" or manipulate anything or anyone. True prayer—whether to God or the angels and saints—changes the pray-er, not the pray-ee.
Now if your personal interpretation of these passages is that there is to be no communication between those of us still living and the dead what so ever, well then that puts Jesus in a pickle! Because He would be guilty according to Lk.9:29-31.
"And as Jesus was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem."
As you may well know according to Deut. 34:5, Moses was dead. And yet Jesus was communicating with him and Elijah about the most important event in human history.... the redemption! Looks like Jesus does not agree with you.
Then we have the New Testament that give many example of the faithful on earth initiating communication with the saints in heaven. First, we have Heb. 11-12. Chapter 11 gives us what Catholics call the "hall of faith" wherein the lives of many of the Old Testament saints are recounted. Then, the inspired author encourages these to whom he referred earlier as a people who were being persecuted for their faith (10:32-35), to consider that they are "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses," encouraging them to "run the race" of faith set before them. Then, beginning in 12:18, he encourages these New Covenant faithful by reminding them that their covenant—the New Covenant—is far superior to the Old:
"For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire … darkness … gloom … and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them…
But you have come to… the city of the living God… and to innumerable angels… and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven… and to… God… and to the spirits of just men made perfect… and to Jesus…"
Notice, in the Old Covenant the faithful approached God alone and with trepidation. But in the New Covenant, the faithful have experienced a radical change for the better. "But you have come to … and to … and to … and to." In the same way we can initiate prayer and in so doing "come to" God and Jesus, we can also "come to" the angels and "the spirits of just men made perfect." Those would be the saints in heaven. In the fellowship of the saints, we have the aid and encouragement of the whole family of God.
The Book of Revelation gives us an even better description of this communication between heaven and earth:
The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints … the elders fell down and worshipped (5:8-14).
These "elders" are offering the prayers of the faithful symbolized by incense filtering upward from the earth to heaven. And because they are seen receiving these prayers, we can reasonably conclude they were both directed to these saints in heaven and that they were initiated by the faithful living on earth. We also see this same phenomenon being performed by the angels in Revelation 8:3-4:
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
The bottom line is this: Both the faithful on earth and our brothers and sisters in heaven are all acting just as Catholics would expect. Believers on earth are initiating prayers which the saints and angels in heaven are receiving. Is this the necromancy condemned in Deuteronomy and Isaiah? Absolutely not! This is New Testament Christianity.

(source: Catholic answers.com)
If you havent noticed, I didn't even bring up 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 for know you would wrongly reject it. But thats a differnt thread. However, it is echoed in the New Testament when Paul offers a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: "May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day"(2 Timothy 1:18).
Here's another tid-bit of tnfo that may be of intersts you. The cavelike tombs under the city of Rome, which we call catacombs, bear evidence that members of the Roman Christian community gathered there to pray for their fellow followers of Christ who lay buried there. By the fourth century prayers for the dead are mentioned in Christian literature as though they were already a longstanding custom.

"Sacred Tradition" encourages praying to Mary and the saints (people who have died).

So does Scripture as I just proved. Soooooo... does Sacred Tradition contradict Sacred Scripture when it comes to intercessary prayer???? I think not!

 

[PeaceB]

I agree that Mary is blessed. This isn't because she was sinless, however, (as you have quoted above, she acknowledged her need for a Saviour).

The Catholic Church recognizes that Mary needed Jesus as a savior (as do infants who die without committing any personal sins). But I can understand how you view it, as many of the Marian dogmas are not explicitly found in Scripture but based more-so in Tradition.

There is a huge difference though between acknowledging that because God chose her to be the earthly mother of Jesus, she is blessed and the veneration she is given (along with the various titles) in the Catholic Church today.

Well. I do not think that we can venerate Mary any more-so than God has already venerated her, by choosing her to give birth to our Lord. But that is cool. I can see it from your perspective. The Marian dogmas were a big stumbling block for me too, before I became Catholic.

There is no doubt she had a role no other woman was given, but I honestly and firmly disagree with the claims (in light of Scripture) that the Catholic Church makes about her. (Considering her a mediator for example).

Well, to be technical I think the Church teaches that Jesus share's his unique mediatorship with Mary, as Jesus also shares his mediatorship with you and me, by which we can pray for each other. If Jesus is the president with all of the power, you might think of Mary and other Christians as Vice-Presidents and managers that Jesus uses for various purposes. The Church does not teach that Mary and other Christians are presidents along with Jesus, to stick with the analogy. We all remain subordinate to Jesus.

 

[Fidelibus]

[QUOTE="amariselle, post: 71548826, member: 8606]

Actually, no. I do not believe everything Jesus said (or did) is recorded in Scripture. [/QUOTE]




So if all these many things Jesus did are not written or contained in Scripture, how do you think the Apostles preached of them if not by word of mouth? Surlely you dont beleive these other things He (Jesus) did were of no importance and dis-reguarded as moot? The only other conclusion would be by Sacred Tradition. (i.e. word of mouth!)

Many people use the above verse to argue for all sorts of unbiblical teachings that contradict God's word.

So who do you beleive determines these teachings to be unbiblical? You? The Protestant preacher down the street? A mega-church pastor on t.v.?

I believe Jesus obviously said and did many many things not recorded in Scripture, but none of those things would have contradicted what we know He said and did by what we are given to know in Scripture.

Again, what do you beleive these many many things Jesus did if not recorded in Scripture, and who decides if they contradict Scripture or not?

God does not contradict Himself.

This I can agree.

 

[amariselle]

Actually, what is being condemned in these texts from Deuteronomy and Isaiah is conjuring up the dead through wizards and mediums, not praying to saints. Now amariselle, if you study official Catholic teachings like you say you do, you would know The Catholic Church has always condemned this. Mediums attempt to conjure up spirits and manipulate the spiritual realm at will. This is categorically different from Christians asking for the intercession of their brothers and sisters in Christ.

There is nothing wrong with asking for advise and prayers from those still living. However, attempting to have some communication with the dead is in fact still a form of necromancy, if not done, as it is in the Occult, through a medium.

We do not "conjure up" or manipulate anything or anyone. True prayer—whether to God or the angels and saints—changes the pray-er, not the pray-ee.

Where is Scripture are we ever told to pray directly to angels or believers who have died? Why is it okay to seek any kind of communication with the dead?

Now if your personal interpretation of these passages is that there is to be no communication between those of us still living and the dead what so ever, well then that puts Jesus in a pickle! Because He would be guilty according to Lk.9:29-31.
"And as Jesus was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem."
As you may well know according to Deut. 34:5, Moses was dead. And yet Jesus was communicating with him and Elijah about the most important event in human history.... the redemption! Looks like Jesus does not agree with you.

We need to understand the significance of this event (Jesus' transfiguration). The importance of Elijah and Moses being there with Jesus is that it was a confirmation of who He was, the Messiah, as witnessed by both the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).

If we miss this then we could easily think that Jesus was simply summoning dead people. In reality, we need to understand what was really going on. (Which at the time, it appears Peter may not have either).

In any case, obviously, I'm sure you agree that Jesus, being God, is able to call forth whoever He pleases. I wouldn't ever want to equate that to the practice of communing with the dead, which is forbidden to us, as mortal human beings.

After all, God has all power over life and death, the living and the dead. That doesn't mean we get to cross the boundaries that He has put in place for us.

Then we have the New Testament that give many example of the faithful on earth initiating communication with the saints in heaven. First, we have Heb. 11-12. Chapter 11 gives us what Catholics call the "hall of faith" wherein the lives of many of the Old Testament saints are recounted. Then, the inspired author encourages these to whom he referred earlier as a people who were being persecuted for their faith (10:32-35), to consider that they are "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses," encouraging them to "run the race" of faith set before them. Then, beginning in 12:18, he encourages these New Covenant faithful by reminding them that their covenant—the New Covenant—is far superior to the Old:
"For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire … darkness … gloom … and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them…
But you have come to… the city of the living God… and to innumerable angels… and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven… and to… God… and to the spirits of just men made perfect… and to Jesus…"
Notice, in the Old Covenant the faithful approached God alone and with trepidation. But in the New Covenant, the faithful have experienced a radical change for the better. "But you have come to … and to … and to … and to." In the same way we can initiate prayer and in so doing "come to" God and Jesus, we can also "come to" the angels and "the spirits of just men made perfect." Those would be the saints in heaven. In the fellowship of the saints, we have the aid and encouragement of the whole family of God.

Actually, what "the hall of faith" is referring to is all the people who had gone before, who are examples of people (who though far from perfect) had been righteous before God because of their faith and trust in Him.

Nowhere does it say we should be praying to these people, but that we should consider them examples of those who had led faithful lives before God.

The Book of Revelation gives us an even better description of this communication between heaven and earth:
The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints … the elders fell down and worshipped (5:8-14).
These "elders" are offering the prayers of the faithful symbolized by incense filtering upward from the earth to heaven. And because they are seen receiving these prayers, we can reasonably conclude they were both directed to these saints in heaven and that they were initiated by the faithful living on earth. We also see this same phenomenon being performed by the angels in Revelation 8:3-4:
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
The bottom line is this: Both the faithful on earth and our brothers and sisters in heaven are all acting just as Catholics would expect. Believers on earth are initiating prayers which the saints and angels in heaven are receiving. Is this the necromancy condemned in Deuteronomy and Isaiah? Absolutely not! This is New Testament Christianity.

There is much I don't understand about Revelation. However, that there are angels and "saints" in heaven (as in the faithful who have died) of course that's true.

Again, however, where in Scripture does it teach us to be praying directly to the saints or angels, rather than coming to God directly, knowing that we have ONE Mediator, our High Priest, Who makes intercession for us?

(Not to mention the fact that the Catholic practice of "canonizing" saints as well as having certain saints for certain "causes", problems or concerns is entirely different than the belief that ALL believers are saints.)

The practice of praying to a particular saint for a particular problem is again something entirely foreign to Scripture. We should rather, as Scripture says, come boldly before the throne of grace, knowing we can cast ALL our cares on God.

(source: Catholic answers.com)
If you havent noticed, I didn't even bring up 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 for know you would wrongly reject it. But thats a differnt thread. However, it is echoed in the New Testament when Paul offers a prayer for a man named Onesiphorus who had died: "May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day"(2 Timothy 1:18).

I don't see that as a prayer directly to Onesiphorus, but rather Paul expressing his hopes for his salvation. Like if I said I really hope my grandmother finds mercy from the Lord. I'm not praying to her, but expressing my hope for her.

Here's another tid-bit of tnfo that may be of intersts you. The cavelike tombs under the city of Rome, which we call catacombs, bear evidence that members of the Roman Christian community gathered there to pray for their fellow followers of Christ who lay buried there. By the fourth century prayers for the dead are mentioned in Christian literature as though they were already a longstanding custom.

Just because many early Christians may or may not have been doing so, does not automatically make this practice right. Error is still error, no matter how far back it goes.

This is precisely why I believe we should be "Sola Scriptura." Teachings and traditions of men must be compared with the divinely inspired word of God.

So does Scripture as I just proved. Soooooo... does Sacred Tradition contradict Sacred Scripture when it comes to intercessary prayer???? I think not!

I read all of what you wrote. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

That being said, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I do not believe that the Bible's support for faithful believers being in Heaven gives us any permission to be praying to them (or angels) rather than to God alone.

 

[amariselle]

The Catholic Church recognizes that Mary needed Jesus as a savior (as do infants who die without committing any personal sins). But I can understand how you view it, as many of the Marian dogmas are not explicitly found in Scripture but based more-so in Tradition.


Well. I do not think that we can venerate Mary any more-so than God has already venerated her, by choosing her to give birth to our Lord. But that is cool. I can see it from your perspective. The Marian dogmas were a big stumbling block for me too, before I became Catholic.


Well, to be technical I think the Church teaches that Jesus share's his unique mediatorship with Mary, as Jesus also shares his mediatorship with you and me, by which we can pray for each other. If Jesus is the president with all of the power, you might think of Mary and other Christians as Vice-Presidents and managers that Jesus uses for various purposes. The Church does not teach that Mary and other Christians are presidents along with Jesus, to stick with the analogy. We all remain subordinate to Jesus.

Thank you for your answers. I just want to say that I'm glad we can discuss this without being rude or insensitive toward one another.

We disagree on a number of things, that's clear, but I do respect your right to choose what you believe as I have chosen what I believe as well.

Don't get me wrong, I know these are not trivial matters by any means, but I'm glad we can respect that each person is accountable before God and that we cannot force our beliefs on others.

It must be each person's choice.

 

[PeaceB]

There is nothing wrong with asking for advise and prayers from those still living. However, attempting to have some communication with the dead is in fact still a form of necromancy, if not done, as it is in the Occult, through a medium.



Where is Scripture are we ever told to pray directly to angels or believers who have died? Why is it okay to seek any kind of communication with the dead?



We need to understand the significance of this event (Jesus' transfiguration). The importance of Elijah and Moses being there with Jesus is that it was a confirmation of who He was, the Messiah, as witnessed by both the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).

If we miss this then we could easily think that Jesus was simply summoning dead people. In reality, we need to understand what was really going on. (Which at the time, it appears Peter may not have either).

In any case, obviously, I'm sure you agree that Jesus, being God, is able to call forth whoever He pleases. I wouldn't ever want to equate that to the practice of communing with the dead, which is forbidden to us, as mortal human beings.

After all, God has all power over life and death, the living and the dead. That doesn't mean we get to cross the boundaries that He has put in place for us.



Actually, what "the hall of faith" is referring to is all the people who had gone before, who are examples of people (who though far from perfect) had been righteous before God because of their faith and trust in Him.

Nowhere does it say we should be praying to these people, but that we should consider them examples of those who had led faithful lives before God.



There is much I don't understand about Revelation. However, that there are angels and "saints" in heaven (as in the faithful who have died) of course that's true.

Again, however, where in Scripture does it teach us to be praying directly to the saints or angels, rather than coming to God directly, knowing that we have ONE Mediator, our High Priest, Who makes intercession for us?

(Not to mention the fact that the Catholic practice of "canonizing" saints as well as having certain saints for certain "causes", problems or concerns is entirely different than the belief that ALL believers are saints.)

The practice of praying to a particular saint for a particular problem is again something entirely foreign to Scripture. We should rather, as Scripture says, come boldly before the throne of grace, knowing we can cast ALL our cares on God.



I don't see that as a prayer directly to Onesiphorus, but rather Paul expressing his hopes for his salvation. Like if I said I really hope my grandmother finds mercy from the Lord. I'm not praying to her, but expressing my hope for her.



Just because many early Christians may or may not have been doing so, does not automatically make this practice right. Error is still error, no matter how far back it goes.

This is precisely why I believe we should be "Sola Scriptura." Teachings and traditions of men must be compared with the divinely inspired word of God.



I read all of what you wrote. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

That being said, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I do not believe that the Bible's support for faithful believers being in Heaven gives us any permission to be praying to them (or angels) rather than to God alone.

We certainly can't prove all of the Catholic faith and practice from Scripture. If we could there would be no need of Tradition, by which certain divine truths not found within Scripture are passed down from generation to generation.

I think that if you are honest with yourself, you can see that certain beliefs that you hold as true are also based in Tradition, and not to be found within the Bible. As one example, you believe that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture, but neither the letter to the Hebrews nor any other book of the Bible teaches that the letter is Scripture. You believe this because it is the Tradition of the church that has been passed down to you.

 

[amariselle]

We certainly can't prove all of the Catholic faith and practice from Scripture. If we could there would be no need of Tradition, by which certain divine truths not found within Scripture are passed down from generation to generation.

I think that if you are honest with yourself, you can see that certain beliefs that you hold as true are also based in Tradition, and not to be found within the Bible. As one example, you believe that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture, but neither the letter to the Hebrews nor any other book of the Bible teaches that the letter is Scripture. You believe this because it is the Tradition of the church that has been passed down to you.

No, I believe that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture because it is included in the Bible.

The Bible is not a product of tradition, it is the divinely inspired word of God.

And actually, as I've been thinking of this more and more, I have come to realize that if it were nothing more than a product of tradition, it would agree with "tradition" in every case.

It does not. God has preserved His word faithfully.

 

[PeaceB]

No, I believe that the letter to the Hebrews is Scripture because it is included in the Bible.

The Bible is not a product of tradition, it is the divinely inspired word of God.

And actually, as I've been thinking of this more and more, I have come to realize that if it were nothing more than a product of tradition, it would agree with "tradition" in every case.

It does not. God has preserved His word faithfully.

Well. If you went to a bookstore, picked up a Bible, and it contained 2 Maccabees, as many Bibles do, would that make 2 Maccabees Scripture? This seems to be the argument that you are using with respect to the letter to the Hebrews.

Tradition does not make the books of the Bible the inspired word of God. The books were inspired before the Bible as we know it today was made known. God makes the books inspired. But what God did not do was provide anyone with a written list of writings that are inspired Scripture and those that are not Scripture. God did not provide a written list of books that are in the Bible.

How do you know that the letter to the Hebrews is in the Bible? Because the Bible that you bought from Amazon or that a friend or a pastor gave you contains the book? It is not as if the Bible dropped out of the sky as the leather bound set that is on your shelf. There was no set of books known as the Bible until the fourth century when people in the church declared that X books are Scripture and that Y books are not Scripture. Christian tradition tells you which books are in the Bible, and which books are not in the Bible, does it not?

 

[Erose]

again I agree we are his children his sons and daughters.... but not sure how that = his brethren or sisters while he walked the Earth

Look if you want to follow some theology that seemingly makes Mary the core focus of the Gospel then do so...but there's no need to coerce that onto anyone else.

Just curious are you a Modalist or "Oneness" Christian?

 

[Erose]

You do realize that there are several outstanding figures in the OT to whom God sent His Spirit and/or even met directly with, right?

Take Moses for example. He actually went up Mount Sinai into the very prescience of the Lord, and even interceded for Israel directly.

Or what about Abraham discussing with the Lord the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? He too interceded and even seems to have negotiated with God.

Does this make them sinless? Absolutely not. In fact it shows all the more the grace and mercy of God and His willingness to deal kindly with those who come to Him.

Which one was also given the title of "Highly Favored One" or "Full of Grace"?

If you want to believe that saying Mary was a sinner puts limitations on God, so be it. That's your choice. That doesn't give you any right to say I believe God is limited however, nothing could be further from the truth.

We are not talking about that part of the question. The question is can God save someone at any point in their lives including at conception?

This shouldn't even be a question. Of course He is. He was not just a man, He is God.

So if He is a man, using you line of logic concerning that verse then He must be a sinner. If all men have sinned, and Christ is a man, then Christ is a sinner. That is the conclusion from your hard line of thinking on that verse.

We are all under the curse of sin. Thankfully God, in His perfect righteousness will judge. As I said, He knows who is truly accountable and who is not.

Again are babies and extremely mental disabled sinners?

 

[Goatee]

God would not have put His Son in anything but a spotless vessel. Simple.

 

[amariselle]

Well. If you went to a bookstore, picked up a Bible, and it contained 2 Maccabees, as many Bibles do, would that make 2 Maccabees Scripture? This seems to be the argument that you are using with respect to the letter to the Hebrews.

Tradition does not make the books of the Bible the inspired word of God. The books were inspired before the Bible as we know it today was made known. God makes the books inspired. But what God did not do was provide anyone with a written list of writings that are inspired Scripture and those that are not Scripture. God did not provide a written list of books that are in the Bible.

How do you know that the letter to the Hebrews is in the Bible? Because the Bible that you bought from Amazon or that a friend or a pastor gave you contains the book? It is not as if the Bible dropped out of the sky as the leather bound set that is on your shelf. There was no set of books known as the Bible until the fourth century when people in the church declared that X books are Scripture and that Y books are not Scripture. Christian tradition tells you which books are in the Bible, and which books are not in the Bible, does it not?

Do you believe that God worked through people in regard to the writing and formation of His word?

I do.

God cares deeply about His word for it is the only way we know Him specifically. Without it we are left with nothing more than vague generalities and uncertainty.

 

[amariselle]

Which one was also given the title of "Highly Favored One" or "Full of Grace"?

She was "highly favoured" only because God chose her. Just as God chose Israel itself as a nation, through no special merit of their own.

We are not talking about that part of the question. The question is can God save someone at any point in their lives including at conception?

God can do whatever He pleases. The point is there is no evidence or support in Scripture to conclude that Mary was saved "at conception."

The Bible is utterly silent on Mary's conception. In fact, it doesn't tell us much about her at all. That she found favour with God? Absolutely. That she herself knew she needed a Saviour? Yes.

So if He is a man, using you line of logic concerning that verse then He must be a sinner. If all men have sinned, and Christ is a man, then Christ is a sinner. That is the conclusion from your hard line of thinking on that verse.

Absolutely not. You know as well as I do that Jesus was not only a man, but He was God.

I honestly wish you would stop implying that I am suggesting that Jesus too was a sinner. That is blasphemy.

Again are babies and extremely mental disabled sinners?

I have answered this and will not be repeating myself.

 

[amariselle]

God would not have put His Son in anything but a spotless vessel. Simple.

See, this is what doesn't make sense to me. Somehow God wasn't able to preserve Jesus from sin though He was (as a man) conceived in sinful flesh. And yet, God was able to preserve Mary from sin though she also was concieved in sinful flesh.

Keep in mind also that Mary's conception was entirely natural. Jesus, however, was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Also, God cannot sin, and Jesus was also fully God. Therefore, by His very nature, there can never be any sin or darkness in Him.

 

[Goatee]

Mary, most Holy Tabernacle.

 

[Erose]

Do you believe that God worked through people in regard to the writing and formation of His word?

I do.

God cares deeply about His word for it is the only way we know Him specifically. Without it we are left with nothing more than vague generalities abd uncertainty.

It seems that you are making progress here. So here is the question then. If you don't accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or its authority, then why do you accept the Catholic Church's authority in setting the table of contents for the New Testament?

 

[Major1]

Major1

Consider this:

John implies that Mary is the ark of the covenant in Revelation 11:19, Rev 12:1a-6(RSVCE) "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days." The ark John saw was Mary.
Consider this also:
Luke 1:39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth said, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Like the ark, Mary went to the hill country just as the Ark was brought to Jerusalem in 1 Samuel 6. In 1 Samuel 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” The Ark was so holy that it could not be touched. This prefigures Mary's sinlessness.

Hebrews 9:4 states that the Ark contained "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant."

Like the Ark, Mary carried in her womb the Word of God (John 1), the bread of life (John 6) and the maker of the New Covenant (Matt 26:26-29).
This is a typological interpretation of how the Ark prefigured Mary giving birth to our savior.

i will be more than honored to discuss the Scriptures with you.

You posted Rev. 11:19 and 12:1-6 and stated that John was implying that Mary was the Ark of the Covenant. I am sure that you believe that because it is what the RCC has taught you.

However that is very, very far from the truth and the correct understanding of those verses. The WOMAN represents the nation of Israel and can not be Mary nether can it be the church.

The Church did not being forth the Messiah, Jesus Christ, but instead HE brought forth the church. The woman can not be Mary for the simple reason that she was never comforted by God for 1260 days in the wilderness. No where in the Scriptures is there such an event explained.

No where in the verses you posted, or for that matter, no where in the Scriptures at all is the suggestion that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. You are displaying one of the failures of Bible hermeneutics and that is the process of making the Scriptures say what YOU want them to say instead of understanding what they are actually saying.

Now the reality is different than Catholic triditions and dogma. Since through Eve the original fall occurred it is through the 2nd woman mankind would be restored. There is no term for a second Eve, but there is a last Adam. In 1 Cor.15. Jesus is called this because both Adam and He had a supernatural birth. God blamed Adam for the fall; Jesus brings us back from the fall to restore us to God not Mary.

Eve had other children, Eve also fell before she had other children; Eve had sin. If there is any correlation, so did Mary. Yet Catholics deny Mary had a family and make up the story that the BROTHERS recorded in Scripture were from the 1st marriage of Joseph of which there is NO Bible record..

Some Catholics even claim Mary was the first Christian; the very definition of being a Christian means one is a sinner in need of a Savior. To say this means she is sinful not sinless. Something the Mary of the Scripture would agree with but the Catholic church does not. Yet Scripture records she said, I rejoice in God my savior..

Now YOU have gone as far as to claim Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant.

Jn.1:14........
"word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory".

In the Greek the word dwelt is skeinoo from the Hebrew word shekinah which was the word for God residing in the tabernacle. Jesus clothed himself in human flesh Phil.2:5-8, the ark was His body it had carried the creator of the universe. It was not Mary who was the ark Jesus’ body was the tabernacle. Mary is not the fullness of Graces the scripture is clear on this particular matter. The law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ and it does state of his fullness we have received grace by grace. (Titus 2:11) For the grace of God has appeared to all men. Through all of the letters we find Grace to you and peace from God our father and the lord Jesus Christ. There is no Mary involved in dispensing grace.

 

[Erose]

She was "highly favoured" only because God chose her. Just as God chose Israel itself as a nation, through no special merit of their own.

Now we are making progress in our discussion. You agree then that Mary was chosen by God for a unique purpose?

God can do whatever He pleases. The point is there is no evidence or support in Scripture to conclude that Mary was saved "at conception."

The Bible is utterly silent on Mary's conception. In fact, it doesn't tell us much about her at all. That she found favour with God? Absolutely. That she herself knew she needed a Saviour? Yes.

Here is the thing to look at though. At the point that she sang that canticle or prayer, she didn't need a Savior. She already had one. The question is when was she saved?

Absolutely not. You know as well as I do that Jesus was not only a man, but He was God.

I honestly wish you would stop implying that I am suggesting that Jesus too was a sinner. That is blasphemy.

I'm not trying to imply that you are suggesting anything. What I am trying to point out is that your original argument is flawed.

 

[Erose]

See, this is what doesn't make sense to me. Somehow God wasn't able to preserve Jesus from sin though He was (as a man) conceived in sinful flesh. And yet, God was able to preserve Mary from sin though she also was concieved in sinful flesh.

Keep in mind also that Mary's conception was entirely natural. Jesus, however, was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Also, God cannot sin, and Jesus was also fully God. Therefore, by His very nature, there can never be any sin or darkness in Him.

By His divine nature, Jesus could not nor can not sin. By His human nature, there was the possibility. That is why Satan, knowing who He is, tried to tempt Him to sin. Don't confuse the two natures of Christ.