If Mary was sinless?

[thereselittleflower]

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 it has, bit it seems it can never be pointed out enough.

Thank you for pointing it again.


Peace

 

[Cyberdyne1]

Have you ever considered things from another perspective?

Oh yes... I'm getting quite the perspective here. The catholic church is hung up on Mary plain and simple. They seem to believe all kinds of things that quite frankly are meaningless to the salvation of my soul. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the price. Mary did nothing for me. She had Jesus so fine. But if not Mary do you not think that God could not have found someone else? What she did another could have done, but what Jesus did no one else could have done...

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

Yes, it will go round and round.
I see implicit support in scripture for the Trinity...and none for the 'sinlessness of Mary'. And I see no support implicit or explicit, for the claim that mary and Joseph were not married or that Joseph had other children. Oh well...

 

[JJB]

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.

I agree with you and Lynn. The subject has been expressed, and readers can decide where the weight of evidence lies.

 

[tall73]

Joseph was 110 when he died and was burried by Christ himself the year before his public ministry began.

That puts him at 80 years old when Christ was born.... Mary was around 15 years old.

Mary was betrothed to Joseph... but marriage (being consumated by sexual intercourse) never happened.

Hence, they were never married.

Joseph was chosen by the "Temple Priests" for Mary, for this very reason. (His age and that he was a widower.)

Don't bother looking for it in Scriptures.... it's not there. Only from within The Ancient Church do we have this information available to us..

Forgive me.....

Quick clarification here, does the tradition say why the temple priests were selecting a mate for Joseph in the first place?

 

[Lynn73]

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.

I've heard and understand the concept, thanks for explaining it to us. I still disagree that any such thing was done, though.

 

[tall73]

I would tweak the first sentence a little . .. . For the Savior to inherit an unwounded, perfect human nature He need to be born of a woman who could naturally pass on to Him a perfect human nature.

This statement is the part that doesn't make sense to me. I reserve the right to debate the point, but for now I am simply looking for clarification either from you or others, because I may be missing some nuances.

a. The statement is made that for Christ to inherit a perfect human nature he has to be born of a woman who could naturally pass on to Him a perfect human nature.

b. I readily acknowledge that God COULD do what you have said, and make her sinless right at the point of conception. God is not limited by our notions.

c. But then why could God not do the same with Christ and skip the middle-woman so to speak? If He could make Mary perfect at conception He could do the same with Christ and Mary would not need to pass on anything.


Now, a few points more.

If it is said that he has to naturally inheret this...why?

If it is said that he could not have a different human nature, isn't this already different? No one else is said to have a perfect nature from the beginning.

 

[Benedicta00]

Oh yes... I'm getting quite the perspective here. The catholic church is hung up on Mary plain and simple. They seem to believe all kinds of things that quite frankly are meaningless to the salvation of my soul. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the price. Mary did nothing for me. She had Jesus so fine. But if not Mary do you not think that God could not have found someone else? What she did another could have done, but what Jesus did no one else could have done...

We're only hung up on her because God gave her such an important part to play in His plan. We are about as hung up on her as God himself is.

Just as Eve played a role in our fall, Mary does play a role in our redemption. Plainly put. These are not random roles they played. God ordained each women their roles in the fall and in our redemption.

 

[tall73]

These are not random roles they played. God ordained each women their roles in the fall and in our redemption.

Are you here saying that you believe Eve was ordained to fall?

 

[Lynn73]

We're only hung up on her because God gave her such an important part to play in His plan. We are about as hung up on her as God himself is.

Just as Eve played a role in our fall, Mary does play a role in our redemption. Plainly put. These are not random roles they played. God ordained each women their roles in the fall and in our redemption.

The only "role" Mary has in our salvation is that she gave birth to Christ. If it wasn't her, it would have been someone else. She has nothing more to do with our salvation at all. Christ, however, has everything to do with it.

 

[Qoheleth]

The only "role" Mary has in our salvation is that she gave birth to Christ. If it wasn't her, it would have been someone else. She has nothing more to do with our salvation at all. Christ, however, has everything to do with it.

This seems to be a bit dismissive of the persons involved in our salvation history.

I suppose that we could also say that Adam the first human creation, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Abraham the father of a great nation, Moses the deliveror, Solomon, King David, Daniel, Joseph, Mary the Theotokos, Elizabeth, Nicodemus, Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, John, John the baptist, Philip and so on, are really unimportant figures and can be readily ignored because they have nothing more to do with our salvation.

We do not need any of these persons or their stories and testimonies and work, just the red letters of Christ. The Holy Spirit must have just decided that naming these people would make for a good novel, thats all. Oh well


Q

 

[Lotar]

Quick clarification here, does the tradition say why the temple priests were selecting a mate for Joseph in the first place?

They were choosing a husband for Theotokos, and St Joseph was chosen, not the other way around. He was chosen because he was an upright man, was widowed, and could support her.

 

[SumTinWong]

a. The statement is made that for Christ to inherit a perfect human nature he has to be born of a woman who could natrally pass on to Him a perfect human nature.

b. I readily acknowledge that God COULD do what you have said, and make her sinless right at the point of conception. God is not limited by our notions.

c. But then why could God not do the same with Christ and skip the middle-woman so to speak? If He could make Mary perfect at conception He could do the same with Christ and Mary would not need to pass on anything.

great question

 

[Lynn73]

This seems to be a bit dismissive of the persons involved in our salvation history.

I suppose that we could also say that Adam the first human creation, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Abraham the father of a great nation, Moses the deliveror, Solomon, King David, Daniel, Joseph, Mary the Theotokos, Elizabeth, Nicodemus, Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, John, John the baptist, Philip and so on, are really unimportant figures and can be readily ignored because they have nothing more to do with our salvation.

We do not need any of these persons or their stories and testimonies and work, just the red letters of Christ. The Holy Spirit must have just decided that naming these people would make for a good novel that all. Oh well


Q

I'm not ignoring the people of Scripture but when it comes to our salvtion, it's Jesus who died on the cross for our sins, not Mary or Moses ar Solomon or Peter or Paul. Jesus. He's the Author of our salvtion, he paid the price. Our salvation is in Him alone and no one else. Acts 4:12 says there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. 1 Timothy 2:5 says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. No one else helps save us. Christ alone saves us. I do not say that all the people God tells us about in Scripture are unimportant but they aren't our Savior. Do you understand?

 

[tall73]

They were choosing a husband for Theotokos, and St Joseph was chosen, not the other way around. He was chosen because he was an upright man, was widowed, and could support her.

So again to clarify, how would they know she was Theotokos?

They were betrothed at the time she found out.

Luk 1:26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
Luk 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

And if I understand correctly the temple priests were not very keen on the claim that she was the Theotokos.

 

[Lotar]

So again to clarify, how would they know she was Theotokos?

They were betrothed at the time she found out.

Luk 1:26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
Luk 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

And if I understand correctly the temple priests were not very keen on the claim that she was the Theotokos.

They didn't. They were search for a husband for her because she was a temple virgin.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So again to clarify, how would they know she was Theotokos?

They were betrothed at the time she found out.

Luk 1:26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
Luk 1:27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

And if I understand correctly the temple priests were not very keen on the claim that she was the Theotokos.

I think they get all this stuff from later writings - the Protoevangelism of James and the Golden Legend.

 

[Qoheleth]

I'm not ignoring the people of Scripture but when it comes to our salvtion, it's Jesus who died on the cross for our sins, not Mary or Moses ar Solomon or Peter or Paul. Jesus. He's the Author of our salvtion, he paid the price. Our salvation is in Him alone and no one else. Acts 4:12 says there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. 1 Timothy 2:5 says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. No one else helps save us. Christ alone saves us. I do not say that all the people God tells us about in Scripture are unimportant but they aren't our Savior. Do you understand?

Of course we have only one Savior. That is never questioned or denied.


Seems to me that all of these persons of the bible were very necessary and integral parts of our salvation. They Holy Spirit made sure that all of this was communicated to us.

One could rightly ask, why didnt Christ God skip over all these simple vessels and events and get right to the cross.

So then, how important do you think all of these persons really are if by purpose and design they can not be detached from your salvation?



Q

 

[Qoheleth]

The catholic church is hung up on Mary plain and simple. They seem to believe all kinds of things that quite frankly are meaningless to the salvation of my soul.

As these things pertain to salvation, I hardly see them as meaningless.

A few thoughts...



The Church has taught from the very beginning that Mary is the supreme example, or prototype, of what happens to a person who fully places trust and faith in God. Everything we aspire to become in Christ, she already is. We are all to "receive" Christ (John 1:12). Mary was the first human being who did receive Christ. Mary's was the first.

Therefore, whatever promises the Holy Scriptures hold for us, Mary already possesses. If the sacred Scriptures declare that we are all kings (Revelation 1:6), is it so strange that the Church refers to Mary as Queen?

If the Holy Bible promised that you and I shall judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3), is it so odd that the Church should sing that Mary is "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim"?

[FONT=&quot] If we who are called "holy brethren" (Hebrews 3:1) are commanded to be holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:15, 16) and are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1), is it so unthinkable that she whose holy body was the recipient of God Incarnate should be called "most holy" by the Church?

If Saint Paul instructs us to "[pray] always . . . for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18), is it so outrageous to confess with the Church that Holy Mary (along with all the saints who have passed from death to life and continually stand in the presence of Christ) intercedes before her Son on behalf of all men? Mary volitionally relinquished her will to the will of God, thus cooperating fully with the purpose of God.



Q

[/FONT]

 

[tall73]

They didn't. They were search for a husband for her because she was a temple virgin.

Ok, now that is making more sense. So they would always betroth temple virgins?

Within that framework, how do you interpret this verse?

Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

The angel seems to indicate that Joseph can marry...which if the previous claim was true, includes consumation. Why would the angel suggest that if she had taken a vow of virginity?