• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Mary magnifies the Lord

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by packermann, Dec 24, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    God doesn't have alternate plans. He purposes what will happen and always brings his purposes to finality in the ways he sees fit. See Isaiah chapter 55.

    Some of what you say is correct. Where you got the idea Mary was a perpetual virgin I don't know. Jesus had siblings and they were born from Mary. Some of those wrote scripture.

    Also Mary was a sinner like everyone else on earth except Christ. Anyone who claims to have no sin is a liar, according to scripture. So, since no human can claim that for themself, including Mary, then no human can claim that truthfully for any other human.

    Jehovah's Witnesses claim John 1:1 identifies Christ as having a quality of being divine rather than a position of God over men like his father. In other words they claim he shares the same qualities God has even rulership without being the biblical God. They base that claim on there not being a direct article, the Greek word for 'the,' preceding the Greek word for God, which is theos in John 1:1 where Christ is called theos. Witnesses claim without that direct article preceding theos the word theos means a quality and not a position as the biblical God. In other words they claim Greek scriptures in the Greek language must read THE GOD, in order to speak of the true biblical God.

    However the reasoning is flawed. Because neither are there direct articles preceding the Greek word for God that identify the Father at John 1:6,12,13 or 18. And yet Witnesses believe these verses speak of the true biblical God, even though a direct article in Greek is not preceding the Greek word God in those other scriptures.

    Are their rulers really that ignorant? I do know for a fact they use interlinear translations. Because of that I am sure their writers and Watchtower rulers have seen this just as I have. Yet while associating with them for forty years this was never brought out to the flock. And in all the literature I read that precedes my 40 year association I never saw this brought out. All they bring up is that a direct article is not used when identifying the Word at John 1:1, therefore the Word could not be the true biblical God.

    Contrary to what I believe you claimed Russell who started Watchtower had some of the same apostate views he brought into Watchtower while he participated in denominational Christianity. It was from them he learned some of his chief teachings, which were his false conclusions about Christ returning to Earth in the 19th century. When that false belief didn't materialize he moved Christ return up to 1914. When that didn't happen he claimed Christ did return in 1914 as invisible, soon to take world rulership. When that didn't happen WT taught Christ taking world rulership was imminent and would surely happen before the generation that was ten years old in 1914 all dies of. When that didn't happen WT taught this 1914 generation must be an overlapping generation with every generation that is born while the 1914 generation is still alive. Which will include the grandkids and even great grandchildren of the 1914 generation. WT presently teaches Christ will assume world rulership before these folks die of, so expect him to set up his kingdom over the earth very soon.

    What caused WT to start down that slippery slope that it cannot get off of was false Bible interpretations concerning the return of Christ revealed through biblical chronology that Russell learned from denominational Christianity before he stated WT, not after he started it as I believe you claimed.

    Are you sure you want to claim what is not in scripture is in scripture, because your church teaches it is, or Because some Pope or priest in the second or third century claims it to be true?
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  2. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    542
    +150
    Catholic
    Private
    This is an interesting statement. If you will, could you please inform us by who's or what authority do you have to point out or correct as you say "things that the bible says..... when it doesn't say it" to other people? In other words, are you claiming that your understanding/interpretation of Scripture is without error, and other people's are?
     
  3. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    +330
    Catholic
    US-Republican
     
  4. Maria Billingsley

    Maria Billingsley Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,944
    United States
    Christian
    In Relationship
    During this time, Christmas, I appreciate and love Mary and Joseph for their unwavering commitment to the God Almighty as they ushered Him into this world, God in the flesh , Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Lord and Savior.
    Merry Christmas Everyone!
     
  5. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Interpreting a scripture, even incorrectly, is not the same as claiming things that are not stated in scripture are in scripture.

    For example no scripture claims Mary was not a sinner. And no scripture claims she was forever a virgin.
     
  6. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You failed to address possibly your most important assertion that Mary was sinless. No scripture implies that. Also, no scripture implies she was forever a virgin. Just because you came up with possible alternative explanations for Jesus ' brothers doesn't even come close to claiming scriptures claim Mary was forever a virgin. So, why are you claiming those two things as fact when they have no scriptural backing? And why is it your church claims them?
     
  7. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As what church teaches? If the Catholic Church teaches Mary needed salvation from Jesus as you stated, then that idea contradicts the teaching Mary was sinless. And if she was sinless how does the Catholic Church teach she died? A sinless person wouldn't die a natural death or need salvation from sin from Jesus. So it should be known to the church how Mary died if she is taught sinless. And she would only be the second person that remained sinless. With that unique attribute it seems God would state that in his word. Where is it? I've read the whole Bible and taught it for forty four years, and I never saw a scripture claiming Mary was sinless. Why is that?
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  8. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    In Revelation the lamb representing Christ is seen with seven eyes that are defined as the seven spirits of God sent out into the entire earth. The spirits are shown to be part of the lamb which means Holy Spirit could be part of Christ and part of his Father, since the spirits are also said to be before the thrown of the Father. Holy Spirit could be part of their very being.

    There is not one scripture that calls Holy Spirit God or a separate person in God. There are scriptures that call the Father God, and there are scriptures that call the Son God. Holy Spirit could be considered God, even though scriptures do not label it God, if it is part of the Father and Part of the Son. Being part of them it could be God without being a third person in God. It's possible only the two are God, the Father and Son.

    That gives me enough information to assert that you consider Holy Spirit is a third person forming the collective entity God only because of the long tradition of the church calling for this third person making up the biblical God. Since the Bible never said it was a third person you probably wouldn't consider that if you were taught differently. True there are reasons, like the pronouns used to describe Holy Spirit, suggesting it could be a person separate from the Father and the Son. But that other poster is correct, the idea is scripturally debatable with good cause to be debatable.

    Church tradition is not a logical reason to accept assertions about Bible interpretations. Look where we are with the sinless Mary because of church tradition. You have no proof Mary was sinless even though if true that would be an amazing miracle God should have included in scripture.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    No one is disrespecting Mary by not worshiping her, for claiming she was a sinner, or for claiming she was not a perpetual virgin. We claim the same thing about every human as we should. You make wild assertions about people based on them not following practices your church teaches. And why should we follow your teachers? We follow Christ. If you want to follow men God warns you against that in Psalm 146:3-4, but God's gave you the ability to make a choice to follow them if you wish. We choose not to in obedience to God.

    If men cannot prove their assertions about scripture to me, to my satisfaction not theirs, I don't accept their teaching to be from God. Simple as that for me. I don't accept any church teaching that is not proven to me. And I feel that is the scriptural approach to take before men in any church. It makes no difference to me what church they belong, and personally I wouldn't claim any of them.

    You have not proven Mary was sinless or that she was forever a virgin. The identity of that image of the woman in Revelation cannot be proven one way or another. It's identify is up to interpretation since the vision contained symbolic images.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  10. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +7,613
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    You were telling me you didn't accept the Magnificat because it wasn't Scripture. I referenced it as the Scriptural basis for Mary being saved by her son Jesus. Now you want to claim I said it said something it does not say. I wish people could read for content rather than polemic. I referenced the Magnificat ONLY to show the Scriptural basis for the Catholic belief that Mary was indeed saved by her son. All of this confusion on your part does seem to be a reflecive anti-Catholicism where you have to be in opposition to me to be faithful to your religion. What I wrote was not that difficult. But we aren't communicating and it looks like you need to be contrary.
     
  11. nonaeroterraqueous

    nonaeroterraqueous Nonexistent Member

    +1,946
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    The Catholic position on the status of Mary lays claim to ideas foreign to any interpretation of the Bible. You're a Catholic, therefore by defending the Catholic position you lay claim to ideas not supported by any scripture at all. It's not a matter of interpretation, being that the scripture for "interpreting" these Catholic ideas simply does not exist. You can play coy and say that you never claimed anything unsubstantiated by scripture, which might be true in terms of a single post or even an entire thread, but it still remains that you affirm the Catholic doctrine, which necessitates affirmation of those doctrines about Mary which have absolutely no basis in scripture.
     
  12. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +7,613
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Your claim.
    Rational only if your claim above is actually true.
    Again, your claim.
    OK. So I'm right about some nitpicking thing but because I'm Catholic I'm just totally wrong anyway. Again, your claim. I appreciate hearing from you about this.

    Is this going to degenerate into a 'Catholic bad' thread kind of like all of the 'Orange Man Bad' threads? I don't really need that kind of junk so I'll leave you to carry on without me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  13. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    +330
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    My God is much bigger than that! My God cannot be boxed into a puppet master who just pulls the strings so that we puppets do His will. That is the problem with Calvinism, and is also the problem with Arminianism. One sees it all one way and the other sees it all the other. In doing that, both views simplifies God.

    But God is much more than that. He predestines and yet He gives free will. He selects few to be saved and yet He will all to saved. It is a complete mystery. God is at work in me both to do and the will according to His pleasure and we work out our salvation. To the Calvinist we Catholics are too much into free will. To the Arminian, we are too predestinarian. The Catholic Church teaches that God has been please that both are paradoxically true. We do not understand how both can be true, but that is OK for us. His way are not our ways. God is three and yet one. Christ is 100% God and yet 100% man. In His divinity, He is and was when He walked the earth, all-knowing, all-present. And yet in His humanity, He was limited within a body and grew in wisdom. How is both possible I do not know.

    Catholicism sees God as a mystery, a paradox. He is this and yet He is that. Protestantism, to me, attempts to simplify God. It is like blind men touching an elephant. One blind man touches the ears and say the elephant is flat. Another blind man man touches that trunk and says that he not flat but is a long trunk. Another blind man touches the body and says that the elephant is just big. All are right in what they affirm. But all affirm what they deny. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that only it has the fullness of truth. It embraces the ears, the trunk, the body. It does not accept one one and reject the others.

    The Catholic Church got it from the Bible. Mark 6:3 says that Jesus is THE Son of Mary. He is not A Son of Mary. In NT Greek the definite is very meaningful. It means that Jesus is the one and only Son of Mary, and know one else is - just ask the Bible calling Jesus THE Only-Begotten Son of God means that He and no one else is the Only-Begotten Son of God.

    They never wrote that Mary had other sons. And Mark 6:3 says that Jesus is the only Son of Mary. So if Jesus had brothers, they would need to have been half-brothers from Joseph only - Joseph must have had children from a deceased wife.
    Protestants agree at least one exception, the fully human Jesus. And yet this verse does not give an exception to Jesus. Of course, it is assumes that Jesus was an exception. But if this verse assumes that Jesus was an exception then it is possible that Mary was also an exception.

    Only Mary and Jesus are said to be FULL of grace. Everyone else are simply in grace or have grace. But only Mary and Jesus were full of grace, meaning that they had so much grace that there was no room for sin.

    To say that Mary was a sinner is to take away the majesty and divinity of Jesus. God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. He would not be in the womb of a sinful woman for 9 months. He would make sure that the is pure. The view that Mary was sinner would make God small, a God who tolerates sin. This is why I vigorously oppose this view, not for Mary as much as for the grandeur of God.
    Please look at my previous quotes. I made sure that I wrote that Russell was within a Protestant denomination before he started his cult.
    That is a loaded question. Of course I do not want to claim what is not in scripture is in scripture. I do not believe that I am doing that. I was a Protestant for 15 years. I graduated from evangelical seminary, where I studied the Bible in OT Hebrew NT Greek. I was a Baptist minister for three years. It took a long time, but in studying the Bible in its original languages I found that the Catholic Church was the most faithful to what the Bible taught. I started with the Bible having no idea at all that the Catholic Church could be right, and the Bible led me to the Catholic Church.

    So spend three years studying the Bible in its original languages. If you really believe that the Bible is the Word of God then you would do that. After all, no translation of the Bible is the Word of God, only the original docs, which were written in Hebrew and Greek. Don't just quote from what someone who said what the Hebrew or Greek said. Read the originals yourself.
     
  14. packermann

    packermann Junior Member

    +330
    Catholic
    US-Republican
    I'm rubber and you glue..
     
  15. Peter J Barban

    Peter J Barban Well-Known Member

    +686
    Christian
    Married
    Moses would have said no, that I am certain of.
     
  16. Woke

    Woke Member Supporter

    239
    +80
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Did I say I was a Calvinist? Your church is much smaller than that if you don't accept Isaiah 55, because that means God is not inside it. And God plus one, me outnumbers your church.

    If you follow men over God you have no Christian church, even if you call it that Christ does not.
    Did I say I was a Calvinist? I referred you to Isaiah 55 after I stated God's will is always realized, just as he purposes it. Which is what the scriptures in Isaiah 55 state.

    Isaiah 55:
    “8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,”
    declares the LORD.9“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For just as rain and snow fall from heaven
    and do not return without watering the earth, making it bud and sprout, and providing seed to sow and food to eat,11so My word that proceeds from My mouth will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish what I please, and it will prosper where I send it.

    If you knew scripture well you would know that my statement was correct, stated there, but also the whole Bible contains example after example showing this to be true. Your resume does not impress me. You state you have turned to organizations first and second to reading scriptures, whether in the original languages or not, as your primary sources leading to your scriptural understanding. Neither is your assessment of others impressive. It's based on assumptions. You don't know if I have studied the Bible in original Greek or Hebrew languages at all , yet you speak as you do. Neither do you know what experience I have in teaching scripture but you speak as you do. Informationally I have been teaching scripture 44 or 45 years. I used to teach in various churches every week. And I have led individuals in private Bible studies to Christ. But I hold none of that as any primary credential giving reason for my current understanding of scripture. Neither do I hold teachings from any church as that primary source. Because that is not what causes a member of Christ church to understand scripture.

    Scriptures claim God himself teaches his church members, and they need no man teaching them.
    " 27And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His TRUE and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught." 1 John 2:27
    But that's for Christ's church. The members inside or outside Christian denominations that actually go to heaven and serve with Christ ruling over people on this earth are taught like that. Read and study all you want, but you'll never be selected on the basis of believing what a denomination teaches or on the basis of studying scripture yourself or within a seminary. Christ picks members of his church individually. I have been supernaturally contacted and shown, by God, that I am among this group. Just as you've read about that happening in the Bible. But it was not something I just read about, or some church convinced me of. It was through God supernaturally communicating with me. So I turn to God to inform me of the important points about scripture he wants me to know.

    Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
    Today God still personally contacts some Christians, and he is the one that teaches them.

    Many of your thoughts are assumptions that contradict Bible scriptures. Like these statements from you. "To say that Mary was a sinner is to take away the majesty and divinity of Jesus. God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. He would not be in the womb of a sinful woman for 9 months. He would make sure that the is pure. The view that Mary was sinner would make God small, a God who tolerates sin."

    If God does not tolerate sin then sin would not exist. It only exists because he tolerates it. Go back and read my posted scripture from Isaiah. And here is another, "Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?" And what scripture states God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin? That's the teaching of man that contradicts biblical scripture. Don't you remember God spoke to Satan, in conversation while Satan attended an assembly God held IN HEAVEN, recorded in the book of Job. Don't you remember Christ was in the presence of Satan and Demons and carried on conversation with both. And yet you claim God would not dare be in the presence of Mary's sin? Where did you get that from, your church, or all your own reasoning after all your private Bible studies and seminary lessons? Stop and reason for a minute. Can't you see that teaching is ridiculously unscriptural?

    The whole Bible shows God tolerates sin. But I suppose somewhere in your thought you already know that, and you might be looking for any argument to use in support of your church's teaching.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  17. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +4,428
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    How many would have said "no"? How would you ever be able to assume such a thing?
    Many people, throughout history, have done things equally as great as having a baby.

    Let's face it. Mary had a baby. Yes, she was a virgin. Yes it was the Christ child.

    However, Joseph.... He was the one who took the risk of marrying her while she was pregnant and not by him... out of wedlock....

    Look what Stephen did for Christ and the work of God.
    Don't forget John the Baptist, Peter, Daniel.... Oh ya... Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego...???

    Yes, Mary found favor in God's eyes... Many others gave as much or more than you could argue that she did.

    We must not place the greatness of what the child does.... on the parents. Not unless you want to place the guilt of actions carried out by children on their parents as well.
     
  18. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +4,428
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    Again, this puts the same, or more, honor to Joseph, who listened to the Holy Spirit and took her as his pledged anyway.
     
  19. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +4,428
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    .
     
  20. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth Supporter

    +4,428
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    Who's authority?

    Was not Jesus the Word? The Word was made flesh..

    So, it is the words of Christ. The words of God that are contained in the canon.

    If you want to contradict these words.... Then others, and myself, will call you out on it.

    I may look, to some, as "anti-catholic". However, it's just that many things that the Catholics denomination teach, IMO, are not biblical. I'm not alone in this either.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...