Co-Redeemer?

[repentant]

Thats because we as protestants don't need to change the wording or explain them away to keep a belief that is not in scripture. So when we see that Jesus had brothers we do not need to question for we take God at His word..If the bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters we really don't have a reason to say no these were cousins.. For we don't believe that Mary was PV for there really was no reason for her to Be because all we need is contained in Christ alone..

I asked you to reference ANY verse saying that Mary had other children. You couldn't. You only posted verses claiming Jesus had brother's. You also posted a Psalm which had nothing to do with Mary or Jesus, unless like I said you believe Jesus sinned.

What we have here is a Protestant belief based on an assumption. You believe that because the Bible says Jesus had brethren, that these were Mary's children. This is an assumption you make, based on something the Bible doesn't say. It does not ever once mention Mary having other children. Not once in 27 books.

What WE have is the teachings of the early Church. We have those who were in contact with the Apostles, and people who were in contact with them. This teaching of the PV of Mary has been held since the begining of the Church. It wasn't until only recently that someoned decided that because Scripture said Jesus had "brother's" (aldephos in Greek, which does not always mean brother) they assume that Mary had other children. Funny thing is that Scripture never ONCE says this. Never said Mary had other children. This belief is extra Biblical, it has to be, Bible doesn't say she had other kids. Not to mention it goes against 2000 years of Christian teaching, people who were in the know, and people who spoke and wrote in the language and culture the Bible was written in, to know what adelphos means. SO basically we have the Protestants going against all 3 of these things, with a belief that is not even in Scripture...

Not to mention the James reffered to as the Lord's brother, is one of 2 Apostles who were not Mary's nor Joseph's children...

 

[repentant]

In Psalms David prophesied about Christ while also crying out to God for his own distress.. Many of Davids Psalms do this.. Even written in the NT is scripture referred to as the Psalms..

Yea, he went back in forth in 2 verses...



Talk about twisting Scripture...

 

[HisKid1973]

There is assumption on your side also...The whole deal with He didn't "know" her till..Know was intimacy..Why was that sentence even put there?

 

[Uphill Battle]

How did you come to have Christ??

Did He, the Father whom you pray to, not request Our Lady to give birth to the Son??

How would you have the Father, and the Son, or the Holy Spirit if you do not have Mary??:o

no, he did not "request."

We would have all three without Mary, they are eternally pre existant.

The incarnation did not hinge on the say so of a human.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I asked you to reference ANY verse saying that Mary had other children. You couldn't. You only posted verses claiming Jesus had brother's. You also posted a Psalm which had nothing to do with Mary or Jesus, unless like I said you believe Jesus sinned.

What we have here is a Protestant belief based on an assumption. You believe that because the Bible says Jesus had brethren, that these were Mary's children. This is an assumption you make, based on something the Bible doesn't say. It does not ever once mention Mary having other children. Not once in 27 books.

What WE have is the teachings of the early Church. We have those who were in contact with the Apostles, and people who were in contact with them. This teaching of the PV of Mary has been held since the begining of the Church. It wasn't until only recently that someoned decided that because Scripture said Jesus had "brother's" (aldephos in Greek, which does not always mean brother) they assume that Mary had other children. Funny thing is that Scripture never ONCE says this. Never said Mary had other children. This belief is extra Biblical, it has to be, Bible doesn't say she had other kids. Not to mention it goes against 2000 years of Christian teaching, people who were in the know, and people who spoke and wrote in the language and culture the Bible was written in, to know what adelphos means. SO basically we have the Protestants going against all 3 of these things, with a belief that is not even in Scripture...

Not to mention the James reffered to as the Lord's brother, is one of 2 Apostles who were not Mary's nor Joseph's children...

you have 1 thing, not three, that we disagree with, really.

1) you claim that for 2000 years it's been believed that she had no other children. We don't believe it has been taught as such for 2000 years. We see no record of this at all until after 300 AD.

Does scripture have to say " and Mary had other sons and daughters" when you have

1) Brothers and Sisters
2) didn't know her "until" Jesus was born
3) straightforward logic that married couples will have kids (unless you need them to fit your particular belief about it)

An unforced reading of scripture would point to other children. It can't be said 100% that it is so, there ever remains a possibility that she, despite what scripture says, didn't.

But we don't hinge any doctrine on it. We just reject the doctrine as either necessarily true, or even essential to anyone who believes in Christ.

I for one, can't understand why the bible would go to such lengths to say things as "didn't know her until she had Jesus" when a simple "She never new relations" or
"she remained a virgin" would do just fine.... do you take the Gospel writers for bumbling morons who would right the most convoluted way of saying it possible?

 

[IamAdopted]

I asked you to reference ANY verse saying that Mary had other children. You couldn't. You only posted verses claiming Jesus had brother's. You also posted a Psalm which had nothing to do with Mary or Jesus, unless like I said you believe Jesus sinned.

What we have here is a Protestant belief based on an assumption. You believe that because the Bible says Jesus had brethren, that these were Mary's children. This is an assumption you make, based on something the Bible doesn't say. It does not ever once mention Mary having other children. Not once in 27 books.

What WE have is the teachings of the early Church. We have those who were in contact with the Apostles, and people who were in contact with them. This teaching of the PV of Mary has been held since the begining of the Church. It wasn't until only recently that someoned decided that because Scripture said Jesus had "brother's" (aldephos in Greek, which does not always mean brother) they assume that Mary had other children. Funny thing is that Scripture never ONCE says this. Never said Mary had other children. This belief is extra Biblical, it has to be, Bible doesn't say she had other kids. Not to mention it goes against 2000 years of Christian teaching, people who were in the know, and people who spoke and wrote in the language and culture the Bible was written in, to know what adelphos means. SO basically we have the Protestants going against all 3 of these things, with a belief that is not even in Scripture...

Not to mention the James reffered to as the Lord's brother, is one of 2 Apostles who were not Mary's nor Joseph's children...

I did post scripture.. You just choose to say the bible isn't saying what it is saying and calling them cousins ect.. If this is being the case why are they always with Mary? And not their own mother? They are always with her and The bible calls them Jesus brothers and sisters.. The word used means this.. When speaking of Barnabus the word for cousin is used. When speaking of Jesus brothers they use the word for brother.. This is what I am saying. We take Gods word as truth. We do not have a belief system where we need to deny the word used and say it means something else. For we do not have a belief that is not written in scripture.. For this was the first History of the Church.. It has been recorded for all of us to see..

 

[Iollain]

I asked you to reference ANY verse saying that Mary had other children. You couldn't. You only posted verses claiming Jesus had brother's. You also posted a Psalm which had nothing to do with Mary or Jesus, unless like I said you believe Jesus sinned.

Could be there because Jesus bore our sins:

2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 4in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."


And the verse right after this one is definitly Jesus:

Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.


Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.


Jhn 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

 

[IamAdopted]

Could be there because Jesus bore our sins:

2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 4in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."


And the verse right after this one is definitly Jesus:

Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.


Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.


Jhn 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Exactly...

 

[Iollain]

Ok, with all the back and forth that's gone on in this thread, we still haven't settled much.

Again I ask... if Co redeemer is a term that can be applied to any Christian who is doing the Lords work, "helping" in the process of salvation, why then, is it a title given to Mary, and Mary alone? Why isn't it "Co-redeemer bob" and such?

Makes little sense, unless she is held as a co redeemer where others are not.

Actually they use that reasoning that we are all co-redeemers, so they say Mary is the main co-redeemer so she gets the title of Co-Redeemer, so make a big jump there where there is not one and you've got it.

 

[IamAdopted]

The only way to be redeemed is by the blood of the lamb.. The blood.. Of Christ. For redemption of man.. He is the only one who shed His blood.. No other did or could have for He is the spotless lamb.. So therefore there is no Co-redeemer.. For it is the blood of Christ that redeems us from sins stain..

 

[Mobiosity]

"Therefore, may God forbid that anyone should attempt to defraud Holy Mary of her privilege of divine grace and her special glory. For by a unique favor of our Lord and God she is confessed to be the most true and most blessed Mother of God."- St. Vincent of Lerins 434 AD

Does this mean that you think there is something being taken from Mary when we talk about her children?

 

[Mobiosity]

you have 1 thing, not three, that we disagree with, really.

1) you claim that for 2000 years it's been believed that she had no other children. We don't believe it has been taught as such for 2000 years. We see no record of this at all until after 300 AD.

Does scripture have to say " and Mary had other sons and daughters" when you have

1) Brothers and Sisters
2) didn't know her "until" Jesus was born
3) straightforward logic that married couples will have kids (unless you need them to fit your particular belief about it)

An unforced reading of scripture would point to other children. It can't be said 100% that it is so, there ever remains a possibility that she, despite what scripture says, didn't.

But we don't hinge any doctrine on it. We just reject the doctrine as either necessarily true, or even essential to anyone who believes in Christ.

I for one, can't understand why the bible would go to such lengths to say things as "didn't know her until she had Jesus" when a simple "She never new relations" or
"she remained a virgin" would do just fine.... do you take the Gospel writers for bumbling morons who would right the most convoluted way of saying it possible?

Sing it out bro.

 

[sunlover1]

The only way to be redeemed is by the blood of the lamb.. The blood.. Of Christ. For redemption of man.. He is the only one who shed His blood.. No other did or could have for He is the spotless lamb.. So therefore there is no Co-redeemer.. For it is the blood of Christ that redeems us from sins stain..

But she is spotless too...
I have heard..

I don't see how that can be
without breaking scripture.
But it's what people believe.

If I tell others their belief is
anti Christ or anti Bible,
does that make me a hater?

I don't want to be a hater.
I want to be a lover!

 

[Mobiosity]

I did post scripture.. You just choose to say the bible isn't saying what it is saying and calling them cousins ect.. If this is being the case why are they always with Mary? And not their own mother? They are always with her and The bible calls them Jesus brothers and sisters.. The word used means this.. When speaking of Barnabus the word for cousin is used. When speaking of Jesus brothers they use the word for brother.. This is what I am saying. We take Gods word as truth. We do not have a belief system where we need to deny the word used and say it means something else. For we do not have a belief that is not written in scripture.. For this was the first History of the Church.. It has been recorded for all of us to see..

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

 

[Mobiosity]

The only way to be redeemed is by the blood of the lamb.. The blood.. Of Christ. For redemption of man.. He is the only one who shed His blood.. No other did or could have for He is the spotless lamb.. So therefore there is no Co-redeemer.. For it is the blood of Christ that redeems us from sins stain..

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

You are a might warrior for God's word.

 

[Benedicta00]

But she is spotless too...
I have heard..

I don't see how that can be
without breaking scripture.
But it's what people believe.

If I tell others their belief is
anti Christ or anti Bible,
does that make me a hater?

I don't want to be a hater.
I want to be a lover!

How is scripture being broken? Where does the scripture speak of Mary as being impure in anyway?

It is one thing to say it's not said in scripture. A whole nother deal to say it is against scripture. How is Mary purity against scripture? In what way? i really will be waiting you show me this because no offense but I'm growing tried of claims that go unsupported, unproven.

 

[Benedicta00]

There is assumption on your side also...The whole deal with He didn't "know" her till..Know was intimacy..Why was that sentence even put there?

And Jesus will be with us until the end of time. Then what? Does he go away?

Until can mean up and until the event with out ever speaking about what happens after.

 

[IamAdopted]

How is scripture being broken? Where does the scripture speak of Mary as being impure in anyway?

It is one thing to say it's not said in scripture. A whole nother deal to say it is against scripture. How is Mary purity against scripture? In what way? i really will be waiting you show me this because no offense but I'm growing tried of claims that go unsupported, unproven.

It speaks of all men being born in sin. Including Mary. There is only one that knew no Sin.. Jesus . From the fall of man through Adam sin was brought into the world.. Until Christ who knew no sin became sin for us. We can see in scripture that all have sinned except Christ for He was not born from the seed of man as Mary was.. Therefore there is only one that was without sin.

 

[Benedicta00]

It speaks of all men being born in sin. Including Mary. There is only one that knew no Sin.. Jesus . From the fall of man through Adam sin was brought into the world.. Until Christ who knew no sin became sin for us. We can see in scripture that all have sinned except Christ for He was not born from the seed of man as Mary was.. Therefore there is only one that was without sin.

No, scripture does not say that all have sinned, including Mary. It says all man has sinned and has fallen short of God's glory. We agree. Mankind sinned and fell from grace.

No man is sinless by their nature anymore since the fall, certainly not Mary. So yes, all, including Mary have fallen short of glory, which is why God had to save Mary.

If God would not have saved her when he did, she would have been born in sin. So there truly is no righteous among us.

You do realize Paul is speaking in reference to being born righteous by our own nature? No one is self righteous, Mankind's is not righteous by nature.

We are righteous by grace, Mary was saved by grace. She was sinless by grace, not by her nature.

 

[lionroar0]

I for one, can't understand why the bible would go to such lengths to say things as "didn't know her until she had Jesus" when a simple "She never new relations" or
"she remained a virgin" would do just fine.... do you take the Gospel writers for bumbling morons who would right the most convoluted way of saying it possible?

They weren't morons and they did not write that Mary had other children. No where in Scriptures are the children of Mary mentioned.


Peace