Co-Redeemer?

[Iollain]

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.

YOu've got some really bad circular reasoning there, Mary did not exist before her beginning in the womb, so to say she was saved before she existed is not logical.



...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



YOur saying Mary existed before she was by saying this, and your also saying that Mary is not of Adam's fallen race. Mary could not have fallen short AND be created sinless, she did not exist prior to her conception. So Immaculate Conception does not work.

 

[tulc]

No where in Scriptures are the children of Mary mentioned.

well...except here:

Matt. 13: 54-56 54And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (emph added)

or here:

Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

...and 4 or 5 other places but yeah except for those they weren't mentioned much.
tulc(just trying to help)

 

[HisKid1973]

The whole co-redeemer title is irrelevant. Why do we even need the word.If a co-redeemer is important why wasn't it mentioned..Why does man have to ever introduce extra concepts?

 

[repentant]

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?

That was used to show that Mary was Virgin when Jesus was born. It did not imply that she had sexual reltions after that. Eos ou, as it is in the Greek does not imply something having happened after this point. Eos ou, or until is used many times in Scripture to define an infinite meaning. "I shall be with you even UNTIL the end of ages"...same thing here...

Also assumptions are not made when people who know tell you...

 

[repentant]

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?

1) Brothers and Sisters

Again half brother's of Jesus, or close kin..

2) didn't know her "until" Jesus was born

Read my last post..

3) straightforward logic that married couples will have kids (unless you need them to fit your particular belief about it)

They weren't married. Not to mention there are many couples who have never had kids..

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?

No they were not morons, they just wrote in a way that made sense in the language and culture they were writing in. The way they wrote does not exactly fit in translated into an unkown language at the time. Not to mention culture. Give me someone who is not Greek and did not grow up in the culture, but understands/speaks/writes/reads Greek, and I can tell them things, and they would have no clue what I was saying. They will understand the words, but not the meaning behind it. To know the meaning, one would have to grow up in the culture..

Example...Na fas xilo..


Forgot to mention this..

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.

And the virginity of Mary, and her giving birth,
were hidden from the prince of this world,
as was the death of the Lord.
Three mysteries of a cry which were wrought in the stillness of God.
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 18-19, 1st century..

It was only in the 4th that it was made Doctrine because of heresy, just like any other Doctrine..

 

[repentant]

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..

I asked for Scripture that said that Mary had other children, not that Jesus had brother's. We know Jesus had brother's who were Josephs from a previous marriage. And they reason why they were always with Mary and not their own mother is because she was dead..

 

[StTherese]

The whole co-redeemer title is irrelevant. Why do we even need the word.If a co-redeemer is important why wasn't it mentioned..Why does man have to ever introduce extra concepts?

What we share with Christ

We also share his priesthood. It is Christ himself who has given all his members, Mary included, a share in his own priesthood. "He has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father" (Rev. 1:6, 5:10,20:6). We all share in his priesthood, our Mother and ourselves, all his disciples (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).

But what about the priestly function of making expiation for sin? Every Christian including Mary must do this in Christ - that is what taking up our cross daily and following him means. "Christ's sufferings overflow to us" (2 Cor. 1:5). "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, on behalf of his body, the Church" (Col. 1:24).

That is shared priestly expiation. We are partners and cooperators with Christ in our own salvation and in the redemption of others. We are all coredeemers and mediators with him, Mother and children alike. How? Why? Because that is the way his love has arranged our salvation. The branches live with the life of the vine, and the branches bear the fruit of eternal life (John 15:5-8), because they are united to Christ the vine.

From: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211fea3.asp

 

[IamAdopted]

I asked for Scripture that said that Mary had other children, not that Jesus had brother's. We know Jesus had brother's who were Josephs from a previous marriage. And they reason why they were always with Mary and not their own mother is because she was dead..

The prophecy in Psalms is about Jesus and and His mothers Children. The bible shows us that Jesus was Gods only begotten and Marys firstborn son. We don't need to change words to fit a belief that isn't scriptual. We take God at His word and allow Him to tell us what is truth instead of us trying to fit scripture in to what we want to believe is true according to tradition..

 

[repentant]

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.

yea justify Jesus being a sinner..

 

[IamAdopted]

God did not need human to redeem man.. For it is Christ shed blood that is the redemption of man. Not His birth but His death. So this leaves Mary out of redemption for it is in Christ blood that was shed..

 

[repentant]

well...except here:

or here:

...and 4 or 5 other places but yeah except for those they weren't mentioned much.
tulc(just trying to help)

Yea those don't mention Mary having other children...

and in Mark SON OF MARY is talking about Jesus.....

 

[IamAdopted]

yea justify Jesus being a sinner..

Huh???

 

[repentant]

The prophecy in Psalms is about Jesus and and His mothers Children. The bible shows us that Jesus was Gods only begotten and Marys firstborn son. We don't need to change words to fit a belief that isn't scriptual. We take God at His word and allow Him to tell us what is truth instead of us trying to fit scripture in to what we want to believe is true according to tradition..

Ok believe that Psalm is about Jesus. I guess you believe He is a sinner too. Obviously you will try to justify your beliefs, even if it calls Jesus a sinner. That is on you, not me..but trying to justify that the Psalm is about Jesus, is trying to fit Scripture to what YOU believe..just so you know..

And Mary having other children is unScriptural. You have yet to post one verse speaking of Mary's children...un Scriptural..

 

[repentant]

Huh???

If that Psalm is about Jesus and His mother as you insist, than you are saying Jesus is a sinner.

 

[StTherese]

God did not need human to redeem man.. For it is Christ shed blood that is the redemption of man. Not His birth but His death. So this leaves Mary out of redemption for it is in Christ blood that was shed..

How could He have shed His Blood without being born?

 

[Mobiosity]

Why is it so important to you that Mary was unable to conceive other children? Or is is important to you that she didn't sleep with her husband? Why would that be important to you?

 

[repentant]

Why is it so important to you that Mary was unable to conceive other children? Or is is important to you that she didn't sleep with her husband? Why would that be important to you?

Not that she was unable to, it is that she didn't. Also Mary did not have a husband to sleep with. Mary and Jesus being married is a misconception and a result of bad translation into English. I guess it is important because it is the Truth. Why not keep the Truth as it was taught, instead of spreading lies about the Mother of God? It is also important because God spoke of His mother's ever virginity in Isaiah. So saying she had other children, is calling Him a liar. Which I guess bodes fine with some, since they instist on saying He was a sinner...

 

[tulc]

Also Mary did not have a husband to sleep with. Mary and Jesus being married is a misconception and a result of bad translation into English. (emph. added)

uhmmm you mean Joseph not Jesus right?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[tulc]

Anyway, you're saying Joseph was never married to Mary? Then who are Jesus brothers and sisters talked about in scripture?
tulc(getting curious now)

 

[repentant]

uhmmm you mean Joseph not Jesus right?
tulc(just wondering)

Yea that too...