If Mary was sinless?

[JJB]

Do you want scriptures that specifically state that Mary can or just that the dead can?

I'm sure you've seen earlier posts here (and other places)with the Church fathers stuff ( and the belief we have as far as Apostolic tradition. I think for the most part we will have to agree to disagee on that front ) and since you want just scripture, I won't go into that.

There is a site Scripture Catholic (link) that has our scriptural view on saints and intercession and such.

Here is a link to an article called "Finding Mary in scriptures" (link)

I'll be going away for a few days (thurs-sun) and that is why I gave you the site. If this thread is still going when I get back I can rejoin the conversation then. If it is not we could continue this with PM's or meet again later in one of the Mary threads that is bound to come up in GT

Even though I think we will disagree a bit over our different interpetations of Scripture on the sites, I believe they can be a basis for future dialogue.

More unites us than divides us. May our conversations continue in the Love of Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

And may all forgive each other on both sides for harsh words that come up at times in threads like these.

Davidnic, there were not bible verses in either of those links pertaining to Mary having the ability to hear our prayers in heaven, so I guess the answer to my question is a no.

 

[JJB]

the Catholics view is that Mary is the Mother of God. If you feel this is distorted, well...I'm sorry to hear that, because she is the Mother of God. Don't you follow the Nicene Creed, I thought all Christians did.

But one of the most beautiful thing about Mary, the Mother of God is that even though you do have all of these negative things to say about Jesus' mom, she still loves you very much and so do I. So...Peace be with you!!!

vrunca, the problem with your first paragraph is the first sentence. Protestants can agree with that first sentence. No biggie. What we cannot agree to is all the other things attributed to Mary by Roman Catholicism: a sinless perpetual virgin who is Queen of Heaven, co-redeemer, dispenser of all grace, etc.

 

[Cyberdyne1]

Where is the larger number? ie the 'more people'?

This "more people" includes all of the entire 6 billion that are not Christian...

 

[Cyberdyne1]

That is why the Holy family should not be just a model in our family lives,

But Mary was a sex-less virgin according to the catholic church. So are you telling all the catholic men, no more sex???

(Tonge in cheek here)...

 

[Benedicta00]

That sure sounds like they are doing something.

Psa 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

Since you are coming from a different perspective altogether then the traditional orthodox perspective I am not all that inclined to address this but I’ll say just this, the dead are the damned, the silent are the damned.

The souls who have left this world in Christ friendship do not die, nor do they sleep, they are not lying dormant somewhere either, they live with Christ. Christ said to the good thief “On this day” he will be with Him. Jesus also indeed said He was a God of the living, not the dead or the dormant/sleeping.

 

[Benedicta00]

But Mary was a sex-less virgin according to the catholic church. So are you telling all the catholic men, no more sex???

(Tonge in cheek here)...

This comment displays gross misunderstanding. This is evident from this comment.

No, catholic men are not call to be sexless but to be fruitful and to multiply. What the Holy Family’s example is to us is purity our marriage, in our intimate relationship with each other.

We are called to purity no matter your state in life. No one has permission to lust after their spouse. Sex is to be respected and not frivolously used and abused just because they are married.

To take us down yet another rabbit trail, Joseph and Mary did not have a sexual relationship because Mary was the vessel who carried God in her womb.

Think about this for a second, when God’s presence was known to be on Mt. Sinai didn’t Moses take great care to enter? Wasn’t he the only one who was allowed by God to enter and that is the only reason why he did?

Did anyone else dare to enter where God’s presence was? In Exodus, who dared enter the temple where God said He was present? Only His priests could enter in and what happened to them if one of their thoughts were found to be impure? That’s’ right they didn’t survive.

The Jews of the old covenant would not DARE enter where God’s presence was. Joseph was an observing, obedient, God fearing JEW. He would not have relations with Mary because after God passed through Mary’s body this was holy ground. Do you really think an old covenant JEW would have sex with a woman who gave birth to GOD? Does this even sound realistic to you?

Have you ever considered things from another perspective?

 

[Benedicta00]

vrunca, the problem with your first paragraph is the first sentence. Protestants can agree with that first sentence. No biggie. What we cannot agree to is all the other things attributed to Mary by Roman Catholicism: a sinless perpetual virgin who is Queen of Heaven, co-redeemer, dispenser of all grace, etc.

Well, if you agree Mary is the mother of God then I think maybe you should try another perspective in considering on what that means to be His mother. It’s not just a really neat privilege and that’s all. It’s GOD were talking about here, being his mother is no small affair.

Think of your best, perfect ideal mother and son relationship two people ever share and magnify that by 20 billion trillion and then you might be able to see the connection between Christ and Mary was no small thing.

If God incarnate was your son, biological son don’t you think that relationship would not be a ordinary relationship?

If you know God and I mean really and truly thinking about this realistically, know that the woman you were married to gave birth to GOD Almighty in the flesh, that He passed through her body would you go on to have sex with her and defile her like that?

 

[Benedicta00]

Davidnic, there were not bible verses in either of those links pertaining to Mary having the ability to hear our prayers in heaven, so I guess the answer to my question is a no.

“All of heaven rejoices when one sinner repents”. How can "all of heaven rejoyce" they if they can’t hear us?

 

[Ravenchica]

I don't know if this has been said because I really don't have time to read 29 pages but this is refering to the Magnificat where Mary "rejoices in God my savior". If God saved her from ever being born in sin then he would still be her savior. For example: If there is a mud puddle and we all fell into it but God pulled us out He would have saved us but at the same time if he stopped Mary from ever falling in he was still her savior.

 

[JJB]

Well, if you agree Mary is the mother of God then I think maybe you should try another perspective in considering on what that means to be His mother. It’s not just a really neat privilege and that’s all. It’s GOD were talking about here, being his mother is no small affair.

Think of your best, perfect ideal mother and son relationship two people ever share and magnify that by 20 billion trillion and then you might be able to see the connection between Christ and Mary was no small thing.

If God incarnate was your son, biological son don’t you think that relationship would not be a ordinary relationship?

If you know God and I mean really and truly thinking about this realistically, know that the woman you were married to gave birth to GOD Almighty in the flesh, that He passed through her body would you go on to have sex with her and defile her like that?

I'm sure Jesus was an extraordinary child. Even at a young age he was at temple teaching. Yet, as DeaconDean pointed out, he would not be permitted to do so had Mary and Joseph not been married.

Mary was a woman who needed a savior. No where in the holy scripture does it say that she was conceived immaculately.

I would not marry a woman. I am married to a man. I don't understand your question to me.

Sex is ordained by God -- He calls it good. He is the one who gave us sex. How would Joseph be defiling his wife by consummating their marriage?

Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous


"all" includes Mary and Joseph.

 

[Benedicta00]

I don't know if this has been said because I really don't have time to read 29 pages but this is refering to the Magnificat where Mary "rejoices in God my savior". If God saved her from ever being born in sin then he would still be her savior. For example: If there is a mud puddle and we all fell into it but God pulled us out He would have saved us but at the same time if he stopped Mary from ever falling in he was still her savior.

Yes, we have pointed this out about 50,000 million trillion times.

 

[thereselittleflower]

And even if Mary and grandma can hear us, they sure can't do anything about it.

You mean that even though they are before they very throne of God, if they can hear us, they can't pray for us?




Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Davidnic, there were not bible verses in either of those links pertaining to Mary having the ability to hear our prayers in heaven, so I guess the answer to my question is a no.

Which I guess means the answer to my quesiton is no implicit support will be accepted, only explicit statements from scripture.


Of course, since we have been over this before, this will not be anything new, but still the proplem will not go away simply because one chooses to ignore it.



For all once again:


To require explicit evidence from scripture to support the Catholic teachings on Mary is to hold Catholics to a DIFFERENT standard than those who make such requiements hold themselves to.

That means that those who make such requiements of Catholics are holding us to a doulbe standard whch makes their requirement for explicit evidence from scripture INVALID.


THE DOUBLE STANDARD:


If one is posting in this seciton of CF, then one is announcing and affirming that one believes in the Trinity teachings. . . this includes what this teaching tells us about the Holy Spirit, which includes teaching us that the Holy Spirit is:

• 1. Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
  2. Co-eternal with the Father and the Son
  3. Co-eternally pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Yet we run into a strange dilema for those wh insist on explict proof from scripture regarding our Mairan doctrines. .


THERE IS NO EXPLICIT EVIDENCE FROM SCRIPTURE THAT STATES THE ABOVE DOCTRINES REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT!


None!


So . . we have a double standard -

• 1. one standard being errected regarding Marian doctrines -
     1. that standard is EXPLICIT EVIDENCE,
  2. but a DIFFERENT standard being applied for the above doctrines regarding the Holy Spirit -
     1. that standard being IMPLICIT EVIDENCE. . .

For myself, I have not yet found a way to make knowingly holding a double standard and purusing the fruits of the spirit compatible.




Peace

 

[Lynn73]

There's absolutely no offense intended, but to me it just seems like a bunch of semantics or word games. In my evidence there is evidence in Scripture for the trinity and the Holy Spirit being those three things you state. If lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God, then how can the Holy Spirit not be equal with God. However, there's absolutely no evidence at all imho for us to be praying to any physically dead people, including Mary. But all this is just going to go round and round like it usually does.

 

[icedtea]

Yes, Lynn, but we have made our points. The other side have stated theirs. Now people can read both and decide which seems right.
Thats what forums are for!
People express their points, others read them and learn.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm sure Jesus was an extraordinary child. Even at a young age he was at temple teaching. Yet, as DeaconDean pointed out, he would not be permitted to do so had Mary and Joseph not been married.

Were Mary and Joseph married before Jesus was born?

Mary was a woman who needed a savior. No where in the holy scripture does it say that she was conceived immaculately.

Where does it say she wasn't?

Why would being conceived immaculate obviate the need for a savior?

I would not marry a woman. I am married to a man. I don't understand your question to me.

Sex is ordained by God -- He calls it good. He is the one who gave us sex. How would Joseph be defiling his wife by consummating their marriage?

One would have to be able to understand the ancient Jewish mind and understanding of sacred and holy things and how what God has used and taken for His own glory being set apart unto God and no longer to be used in common ways in order to understand why Joseph would have understood he could not consumate his marriage.

No amount of explaining will suffice if someone is unable to understand this concept.

Hebrews 13:4
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous

How does this say that inorder for a marriage to be honored that the couple must engage in sex?

It speaks of not defiling marraige by being sexually immoral and adulterous. . .

This is not speaking of the marital act itself.

The message of this verse is:

"Let the marriage bed be undefiled"
​

in other words, don't engage in extramarital sexual activity.

This doesn't apply the way you are tring to make it apply to Mary and Joseph's relationship, otherwise we have a problem, for Mary had a child by someone other than her husband . . . .


Now, how this DOES apply is this . . .


Mary had a child by someone other than Joseph!

This someone else happens to be GOD.

This means that Joseph would have understood that God had taken Mary to Himself in a special marital relationship, othrwise Jesus would have been born illegitimate.

For Jesus to have been born a legitimate child, his mother would have to have be wed to his actual father.


Was Joseph his father? No . . .

His Father was GOD.

Joseph would have understood this and all its implications and rammifications.

He would have understood that Mary was joined to God in a special union, a superior union to that of one after the flesh, which his betrothal after the flesh could never supercede.

He would have understood that God had set Mary apart for His Own Self.

He would have understood that means Mary was set apart as a holy thing.

He would have also understood that once God sets apart something or someone as a holy thing, for His use and purpose, God NEVER returns it to common use. It is a PERMENANT CONDITION AND STATE.



Holy things set apart by God are never to be used for common purposes or in common ways.

The marital act within marriage is very, very common.

Mary, having been set apart for special union with Himself to bring into the world the Christ, would have never, ever been returned to the state of a common wife.

Her STATE of being set apart for God would have been PERMENANT . . . which Joseph would have been accutely aware of.


So Joseph would have never, ever considered defiling one God had set apart forever as His own . . .

He would have accepted the charge given him by God to protect and help Mary raise Jesus . . and because they had already been betrothed, all was legitimate in appearances to man as well and Jesus was accepted as Joseph's child.



Ihope you can better see how this would mean that for Joseph to touch Mary in a manner consistant with mairtal relations, would be to defile the "marriage bed"

"all" includes Mary and Joseph.

Yes it does, but not in the mannner you presuppose. . . .



Peace

 

[Benedicta00]

There's absolutely no offense intended, but to me it just seems like a bunch of semantics or word games. In my evidence there is evidence in Scripture for the trinity and the Holy Spirit being those three things you state. If lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God, then how can the Holy Spirit not be equal with God. However, there's absolutely no evidence at all imho for us to be praying to any physically dead people, including Mary. But all this is just going to go round and round like it usually does.

Well I'm insisting that there is evidence; you just disagree that there is.

All of heaven rejoices when one sinner repents. Obviously there is some level of consciousness for what is happening down here if all of heaven can rejoice when one sinner repents.

In other words, I’ll eat my hat if that is not bible evidence that concludes saints can hear us.

Paul said we are surrounded by a cloud of great witnesses who have gone before us. This is evidnce that concludes there is a communion of saints.

I’ll again eat my hat if that does not conclude that we are all… those in heaven and us down here on our way to heaven, is not all in the body of Christ together.

Paul also said that nothing separates us from the love of God not even physical death. Again more evidence that concludes there is a communion of saints. I’ll eat my hat if the bible does not give us evidence that concludes the communion of the saints.

They are fellow Christians up there who are with God face to face and there is no reason what so ever any Christian who is still living in this world of exile down here making there way to heaven can not ask them from their prayers.

 

[thereselittleflower]

There's absolutely no offense intended, but to me it just seems like a bunch of semantics or word games. In my evidence there is evidence in Scripture for the trinity and the Holy Spirit being those three things you state. If lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God, then how can the Holy Spirit not be equal with God.

First, to keep this focused before going off into an explanation that deals with your actual quesiton, I have to point out that the example you gave is not an EXPLICIT statement that the Holy Spirit is co-equal with God, but simply IMPLICIT EVIDENCE that He is.

So my argument that there is only IMPLICIT evidence is not disproven . . but actually supported by what you offer as an example.


I never said that the Holy Spirit being co-equal is not supported by scripture .. I said it is not EXPLICITLY STATED . .

Now, you yourself said, either in this thread or another, that these doctrines are ALLUDED to in scripture . .

Adn that is my point . . . They are ALLUDED to . . not explicitly stated . . hence the double standard.



Now, as far as your question regarding the specific example. . .

It CAN imply that the Holy Spirit is God .. .

BUT, it can also imply that the Holy Spirit is simply the official representative of God, and so whatever one does to the Holy Spirit is also done to God. And so there would be no need for the Holy Spirit to be God in order for that statement by Peter to be true.

This implied evidence is ambiguous, open to interpretation.

Yet, even as ambiguous as it is, it is accepted as evidence for this belief regarding the Holy Spirit.


Yet, evidence which we present in support of doctrines regarding Mary which have ambiguity are summarily dismissed as irrelevant, even though the same one's who so dismiss this evidence regarding Mary have no problem accepting ambiguous evidence to support their beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit . . .




It is quite a dilema and cotradiction!

However, there's absolutely no evidence at all imho for us to be praying to any physically dead people, including Mary. But all this is just going to go round and round like it usually does.

Yes, because the same peolpe who accept ambiguous evidence for certain beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit wthout qualms, yet strain at the ame level of evidence presented for Marian doctrines, keep doing so over and over again.


So they refuse to give the time of day to the evidence we present, while continuing to demand a higher level of eveidence than they require for themselves to believe these docrines of the Holy Spirit . .

And round and round and round we go . . . .






Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

But Mary was a sex-less virgin according to the catholic church. So are you telling all the catholic men, no more sex???

(Tonge in cheek here)...

This has got to be one of the most bizarre arguments I have ever seein!


What in the heck could be the possible logical connection between what one woman did to what all Catholic men are suppoesd to do?




Of course, this is pure logical fallacy - actually several . . it is of course primarily a non-sequitur . . the conclusion does not follow . . .



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

This "more people" includes all of the entire 6 billion that are not Christian...

And what would you estimate that number to be?


Peace