Mary Sinless?

[Lion King]

You know I could put a great big "Disregard" on every opinion you put forth. Are not the opinions of those early Christians as least as valuable as your own? If not, I'd like to know the reason you believe yours are superior.

Do you consider the opinions of the early Christians such as Luther, Calvin, Mrs Ellen White, Joseph Smith etc to be valuable and useful?

Scripture says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Is it in error?

Yes, I fully believe that the RCC is not infallible (when it comes to its doctrines). One only has to look at what happened to the churches in Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira etc in Revelation 2 and 3...

Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.

When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.

When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark.

The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.

When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant | Catholic Answers

Others have claimed that it's Christ (and not Mary) who is the ark of the New Covenant, for various reasons:

-Romans 3:25

-John 1:14 says "the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory." In the Greek the word dwelt is "skeinoo" from the Hebrew word "shekinah" which was the word for "God residing in the Tabernacle." Jesus clothed himself in human flesh (Phil 2:5-8) the ark was His body as it had carried the Creator of the universe. It was not Mary who was the ark, but Jesus Christ's body that was the Tabernacle.

...but I digress.

Christ took flesh from Mary just as Eve took flesh from Adam.

Please identify the statement I made that was blasphemous....

Adam along with Eve gave birth to the old creation. Did Mary (along with Christ-the Last Adam) give birth to the NEW CREATION of God?

Eve is the mother of all living (Old Creation). Is Mary the mother of all living (New Creation)?

Luke 1 "5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. "

As you note below this, we are all born with a propensity to sin. Mary need to be saved in order to enable her to not sin.

Please note that Mary does not refer to this child in her womb as her 'future' Savior. Christ has already saved Mary when she utters the words.

According to you, only Mary was saved in a special way, enabling her to be ever-sinless before God, while the rest of us were not. Why wasn't Adam and Eve saved the same way Mary was (thus "enabling them not to sin in the FIRST place")?

Why wasn't we all saved the same way Mary was, (thus "enabling us not to sin in the FIRST place")? Does this mean that God actually want some of us to burn in hell for eternity, then?

Indeed we are, unless God intervenes.

Which He did. Our God is an awesome God!

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Ezekiel 36:26-27

A few lines above where you deny Mary's unique motherhood of Christ and claim she is no more mother to Christ than any of us.

In essence, Mary was not Christ's mother because she gave birth to the flesh of Christ, but rather, because she obeyed the word of God. Anyone who follows the will of the Father is the "mother, brother and sister" of Jesus the Christ.

How exactly have I denied Mary being the mother of Christ by the above statement? Didn't Christ say that all those who do the will of His Father are His mothers/sisters/brothers?

Just because Christ uses her obedience as a model for us all does not mean she ceases to have her unique role as his mother. This interpretation would contradict Scripture, which cleary and frequently identifies Mary as the mother of Christ.

Matthew 1:18 -- When his mother Mary
Matthew 2:11 -- they saw the child with Mary his mother
Matthew 2:13 -- Rise, take the child and his mother
Matthew 2:14 -- And he rose and took the child and his mother by night
Matthew 2:20 -- Rise, take the child and his mother
Matthew 2:21 -- And he rose and took the child and his mother
Matthew 12:46 -- behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside
Matthew 13:55 -- Is not his mother called Mary
Mark 3:31 -- And his mother and his brothers came
Mark 3:32 -- Your mother and your brothers are outside
Luke 1:43 -- And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me
Luke 2:33 -- And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him
Luke 2:34 -- and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother
Luke 2:48 -- And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him
Luke 2:51 -- and his mother kept all these things in her heart
Luke 8:19 -- Then his mother and his brothers came to him
Luke 8:20 -- Your mother and your brothers are standing outside
John 2:1 -- On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there
John 2:3 -- When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him
John 2:5 -- His mother said to the servants
John 2:12 -- After this he went down to Caper'na-um, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples
John 19:25 -- But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother
John 19:26 -- When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother
Acts 1:14 -- together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus
Matthew 1:16 -- the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born
Luke 2:7 -- And she gave birth to her first-born son
1 Corinthians 11:12 -- for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.
Galatians 4:4 -- God sent forth his Son, born of woman

YES, Mary is the mother of Christ, but so is everyone who believes in Christ.

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:31-35

Christ's own words, not mine.

 

[narnia59]

Do you consider the opinions of the early Christians such as Luther, Calvin, Mrs Ellen White, Joseph Smith etc to be valuable and useful?

No more so than yours. 1500 years+ is not "early" by any standard, nor do they meet the Biblical qualification to teach outlined in 2 Tim 2:2.

Yes, I fully believe that the RCC is not infallible (when it comes to its doctrines). One only has to look at what happened to the churches in Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira etc in Revelation 2 and 3...

My question was if you believed Scripture was in error when it said that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and your response is 'yes'.

Others have claimed that it's Christ (and not Mary) who is the ark of the New Covenant, for various reasons:

-Romans 3:25

-John 1:14 says "the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory." In the Greek the word dwelt is "skeinoo" from the Hebrew word "shekinah" which was the word for "God residing in the Tabernacle." Jesus clothed himself in human flesh (Phil 2:5-8) the ark was His body as it had carried the Creator of the universe. It was not Mary who was the ark, but Jesus Christ's body that was the Tabernacle.

...but I digress.

Some of the earliest church fathers viewed both the Ark of the Covenant and its contents as a type of Christ; eventually there begins to be a distinction made between the Ark and what it contained. The Ark contained 3 items of supernatural origin which all point to Christ -- the stone tablets carved by the finger of God, the staff of the high priest, and the manna. The Ark itself is a 'creation' of natural origin especially prepared as a dwelling place for these things. Luke's Gospel does not make those correlations from Mary back to the Ark for no reason...

Adam along with Eve gave birth to the old creation. Did Mary (along with Christ-the Last Adam) give birth to the NEW CREATION of God?

Eve is the mother of all living (Old Creation). Is Mary the mother of all living (New Creation)?

"And she gave birth to her first-born son". It seems to me she is indeed the mother of Jesus, the first-born of the new creation of God.

According to you, only Mary was saved in a special way, enabling her to be ever-sinless before God, while the rest of us were not. Why wasn't Adam and Eve saved the same way Mary was (thus "enabling them not to sin in the FIRST place")?

Why wasn't we all saved the same way Mary was, (thus "enabling us not to sin in the FIRST place")? Does this mean that God actually want some of us to burn in hell for eternity, then?

Adam and Eve were given the exact same opportunity as Mary -- they were enabled to not sin in the first place. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. They were not created with the tendency to sin -- that is a result of the fall for all of us, including Adam and Eve. Only by God's intervention is Mary returned to the same state, without the inherited tendency to sin. This enables her to choose to not sin -- it does not 'force' her to not sin.

We all have the opportunity to turn towards God and receive His grace. Do you believe that this opportunity is presented to each person at the same moment in their life? We are all saved in exactly the same way and exactly the same time? Why is one person born into a Christian home and learns about Jesus from the moment of their birth, and another born into a situation where they never learn of him at all? Why does one have to struggle with the particulars faith and for another it comes easily? Why do some have so many trials in life, and others seem to have far fewer?

When people rail against Mary's salvation by Christ being unique to her being chosen to be his mother, it quite sounds like "That's not fair! I wasn't saved that way! Why should she be?!!"

I have news for you -- the Gospel nowhere talks about being "fair" by any standards we would place on it. (see the parable of the laborers in the vineyard for example). It is just, but it is not "fair" in the sense you are calling for.

So I do not have to demand that God treats every person in the same way out of some non-Biblical sense of 'fair'.

Which He did. Our God is an awesome God!

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Ezekiel 36:26-27

He indeed is.

In essence, Mary was not Christ's mother because she gave birth to the flesh of Christ, but rather, because she obeyed the word of God. Anyone who follows the will of the Father is the "mother, brother and sister" of Jesus the Christ.

How exactly have I denied Mary being the mother of Christ by the above statement? Didn't Christ say that all those who do the will of His Father are His mothers/sisters/brothers?



YES, Mary is the mother of Christ, but so is everyone who believes in Christ.

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:31-35

Christ's own words, not mine.

Words you have interpreted in a way far from what I am sure Christ intended. You can play with the words all you want (I'm not denying Mary is the mother of Christ, it's just that we all are). That is in fact denying Mary her unique role as the mother of Christ.

In order for it to be "fair" to you, you have determined that the woman God chose to be the mother of Christ is reduced to simply being one of the crowd. It's therefore no wonder you believe that it would be perfectly okay for Christ to chide the Pharisees for for setting aside the commandment to honor their mother but have no problem believing Jesus himself has no such obligation. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I do wonder though why you believe that if he has no obligation towards her as his mother why he seems to feel an obligation to make sure she's cared for from the cross? Surely there are many women within the region who have no children to care for them -- why do you believe he picks her out of the crowd to to address? After all, if she is only his mother in the way all believers are, this would appear to be an unreasonable concern on his part, especially with his dying breaths......

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-This interpretation would contradict Scripture, which cleary and frequently identifies Mary as the mother of Christ.

Matthew 1:18 -- When his mother Mary
Matthew 2:11 -- they saw the child with Mary his mother
Matthew 2:13 -- Rise, take the child and his mother
Matthew 2:14 -- And he rose and took the child and his mother by night
Matthew 2:20 -- Rise, take the child and his mother
Matthew 2:21 -- And he rose and took the child and his mother
Matthew 12:46 -- behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside
Matthew 13:55 -- Is not his mother called Mary
Mark 3:31 -- And his mother and his brothers came
Mark 3:32 -- Your mother and your brothers are outside
Luke 1:43 -- And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me
Luke 2:33 -- And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him
Luke 2:34 -- and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother
Luke 2:48 -- And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him
Luke 2:51 -- and his mother kept all these things in her heart
Luke 8:19 -- Then his mother and his brothers came to him
Luke 8:20 -- Your mother and your brothers are standing outside
John 2:1 -- On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there
John 2:3 -- When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him
John 2:5 -- His mother said to the servants
John 2:12 -- After this he went down to Caper'na-um, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples
John 19:25 -- But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother
John 19:26 -- When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother
Acts 1:14 -- together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus
Matthew 1:16 -- the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born
Luke 2:7 -- And she gave birth to her first-born son
1 Corinthians 11:12 -- for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.
Galatians 4:4 -- God sent forth his Son, born of woman

Those are some great examples that Jesus had brothers after Mary/Joseph.

Do you think that makes Mary "unclean" to have more children?

 

[narnia59]

Those are some great examples that Jesus had brothers after Mary/Joseph.

Do you think that makes Mary "unclean" to have more children?

They would be great examples if any of those Scriptures spoke to Mary giving birth to other children or identified Mary as their mother. I know you've been through enough rounds on the terminology in the Greek to be aware that nothing explicit about the parents of those identified as brothers of Jesus can be determined from the text.

From a Mosaic law perspective women were "unclean" upon having children which is why Mary in observing the law went to the temple for purification.

I don't believe being "unclean" in the sense of the Mosaic law has any direct relationship to being in a state of personal sin however -- do you?

 

[Lion King]

No more so than yours. 1500 years+ is not "early" by any standard, nor do they meet the Biblical qualification to teach outlined in 2 Tim 2:2.

There you go.

I do not hold the opinions of the your early church elders to be valuable and useful in edification, simply because they are not part of MY assembly. The RCC has no authority over me, and the RCC pope ain't my father (for I have only one Holy-Father) nor my Shepherd.

My question was if you believed Scripture was in error when it said that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and your response is 'yes'.

Nice try, but we both know I never actually said that.

For the record, I fully believe that the CHURCH of the living God is the pillar and foundation of Truth as stated in the Scriptures. However, I just don't believe that this CHURCH of the living God is the RCC. If I believed that, I would certainly be part of their congregation.

Some of the earliest church fathers viewed both the Ark of the Covenant and its contents as a type of Christ; eventually there begins to be a distinction made between the Ark and what it contained. The Ark contained 3 items of supernatural origin which all point to Christ -- the stone tablets carved by the finger of God, the staff of the high priest, and the manna. The Ark itself is a 'creation' of natural origin especially prepared as a dwelling place for these things. Luke's Gospel does not make those correlations from Mary back to the Ark for no reason...

As I said earlier, I do not pay heed to what your early church elders taught, but only the word of God. No offense, but the sooner you accept that, the better off it will be for both of us.

"And she gave birth to her first-born son". It seems to me she is indeed the mother of Jesus, the first-born of the new creation of God.

WOW! Is Mary the mother of all those who are "born again"? Funny, I was under the impression that heavenly Jerusalem was our Mother.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Galatians 4:26

I dunno about about you, but my Scriptures say I was born of God, and not Mary.

For whoever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4

Adam and Eve were given the exact same opportunity as Mary -- they were enabled to not sin in the first place. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. They were not created with the tendency to sin -- that is a result of the fall for all of us, including Adam and Eve. Only by God's intervention is Mary returned to the same state, without the inherited tendency to sin. This enables her to choose to not sin -- it does not 'force' her to not sin.

We all have the opportunity to turn towards God and receive His grace. Do you believe that this opportunity is presented to each person at the same moment in their life? We are all saved in exactly the same way and exactly the same time? Why is one person born into a Christian home and learns about Jesus from the moment of their birth, and another born into a situation where they never learn of him at all? Why does one have to struggle with the particulars faith and for another it comes easily? Why do some have so many trials in life, and others seem to have far fewer?

When people rail against Mary's salvation by Christ being unique to her being chosen to be his mother, it quite sounds like "That's not fair! I wasn't saved that way! Why should she be?!!"

I have news for you -- the Gospel nowhere talks about being "fair" by any standards we would place on it. (see the parable of the laborers in the vineyard for example). It is just, but it is not "fair" in the sense you are calling for.

So I do not have to demand that God treats every person in the same way out of some non-Biblical sense of 'fair'.

The only problem with your analysis is that there is no shred of Scriptural evidence to back up your claims. Scriptures clearly state that Christ had no sin in Him, but nothing like that is ever said of Mary. Should I take your denomination's word for it? I do not think so...

SCRIPTURES PLEASE!!

Words you have interpreted in a way far from what I am sure Christ intended. You can play with the words all you want (I'm not denying Mary is the mother of Christ, it's just that we all are). That is in fact denying Mary her unique role as the mother of Christ.

In order for it to be "fair" to you, you have determined that the woman God chose to be the mother of Christ is reduced to simply being one of the crowd. It's therefore no wonder you believe that it would be perfectly okay for Christ to chide the Pharisees for for setting aside the commandment to honor their mother but have no problem believing Jesus himself has no such obligation. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I do wonder though why you believe that if he has no obligation towards her as his mother why he seems to feel an obligation to make sure she's cared for from the cross? Surely there are many women within the region who have no children to care for them -- why do you believe he picks her out of the crowd to to address? After all, if she is only his mother in the way all believers are, this would appear to be an unreasonable concern on his part, especially with his dying breaths......

Your problem is not with me, but the Scriptures. I suggest, you take it up with the LORD. Christ said that His "mothers/sisters/brothers" are those who do the will of the Father...you know what, I BELIEVE HIM WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:35

That is the TRUE family of Christ; those who do the will of God (Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit).

 

[narnia59]

There you go.

I do not hold the opinions of the your early church elders to be valuable and useful in edification, simply because they are not part of MY assembly. The RCC has no authority over me, and the RCC pope ain't my father (for I have only one Holy-Father) nor my Shepherd.

So all the different Christians have "MY" assembly in which they hold the opinions of "THEIR" elders to be of value and to have authority over them.

True enough to the state of things, but does nothing to resolve that THE CHURCH is the pillar and ground of THE TRUTH. Do you profess that your assembly is THE CHURCH spoken of in Scripture that is the pillar and ground of THE TRUTH?

Nice try, but we both know I never actually said that.

For the record, I fully believe that the CHURCH of the living God is the pillar and foundation of Truth as stated in the Scriptures. However, I just don't believe that this CHURCH of the living God is the RCC. If I believed that, I would certainly be part of their congregation.

Actually you did say that which is why it puzzled me.

Could you please identify the congregation you are part of that you believe is the CHURCH identified in Scripture? Do you believe that it is infallible in its teachings?

As I said earlier, I do not pay heed to what your early church elders taught, but only the word of God. No offense, but the sooner you accept that, the better off it will be for both of us.

No offense to you either, but I don't pay any heed to what you teach nor your interpretations of Scripture. The sword cuts both ways.

WOW! Is Mary the mother of all those who are "born again"? Funny, I was under the impression that heavenly Jerusalem was our Mother.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Galatians 4:26

I dunno about about you, but my Scriptures say I was born of God, and not Mary.

For whoever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Assume from that what you will.

The only problem with your analysis is that there is no shred of Scriptural evidence to back up your claims. Scriptures clearly state that Christ had no sin in Him, but nothing like that is ever said of Mary. Should I take your denomination's word for it? I do not think so...

SCRIPTURES PLEASE!!

The Scripture that identifies Mary sinned please? Should I take your word for it that she has? I do not think so....

Your problem is not with me, but the Scriptures. I suggest, you take it up with the LORD. Christ said that His "mothers/sisters/brothers" are those who do the will of the Father...you know what, I BELIEVE HIM WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:35

That is the TRUE family of Christ; those who do the will of God (Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit).

I have no problem with the Scriptures. I have a problem with your interpretation of Christ's words to mean that Mary's motherhood of Christ is no different than your 'motherhood' of Christ. Please do not confuse and place your "interpretation" to be one and the same as Scripture, which is what you do when you say something like "Your problem is not with me, but the Scriptures. I suggest, you take it up with the LORD." It is the height of promotion of oneself to a level of infallibility you claim no person can have.....

You did not answer why you thought Jesus needed to pick Mary out of the crowd of "mothers" he had at the cross to assure she was taken care of. For that matter with an identifiable group of believers present, why does St. John refer to only Mary as "his mother"?

 

[Lion King]

So all the different Christians have "MY" assembly in which they hold the opinions of "THEIR" elders to be of value and to have authority over them.

Pretty much so. The SDA look up to their elders for answers, the Mormons look up to Joseph Smith's teachings for guidance, the RCC look up their pope and so forth.

With that said, who looks up to God?

Actually you did say that which is why it puzzled me.

Could you please identify the congregation you are part of that you believe is the CHURCH identified in Scripture? Do you believe that it is infallible in its teachings?

I do not have a congregation at the moment, so I guess you can call me a seeker.

PS. The church identified in the Scriptures is simply the one that does the will of the LORD. Example include, the church in Philadelphia (Rev 3).

No offense to you either, but I don't pay any heed to what you teach nor your interpretations of Scripture. The sword cuts both ways.

Understood.

It's nothing personal though, just the way I was raised. Without Scripture, it's in one ear and straight out the other..just too many anti-christs and "super-apostles" out there.

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Assume from that what you will.

Yes, she sure is.

However she is not the mother of those born again (i.e Christians), heavenly Jerusalem is. God begot me, not Mary.

The Scripture that identifies Mary sinned please? Should I take your word for it that she has? I do not think so....

Actually, they do. Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us, thus need a Savior. Don't take my word for it, only take the LORD's:

If they sin against you, (for there is no man that sins not,) and you are angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near. 1 Kings 8:46


For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23


For there is not a just man on earth, that does good, and sins not. Ecclesiastes 7:20

The Scriptures says it, I believe it, and that settles it.

I have no problem with the Scriptures. I have a problem with your interpretation of Christ's words to mean that Mary's motherhood of Christ is no different than your 'motherhood' of Christ. Please do not confuse and place your "interpretation" to be one and the same as Scripture, which is what you do when you say something like "Your problem is not with me, but the Scriptures. I suggest, you take it up with the LORD." It is the height of promotion of oneself to a level of infallibility you claim no person can have.....

You did not answer why you thought Jesus needed to pick Mary out of the crowd of "mothers" he had at the cross to assure she was taken care of. For that matter with an identifiable group of believers present, why does St. John refer to only Mary as "his mother"?

Indeed, you are correct, it could be very well that I got my interpretation wrong. So, could you please give us your interpretation to the passage below?

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:31-35

 

[narnia59]

Pretty much so. The SDA look up to their elders for answers, the Mormons look up to Joseph Smith's teachings for guidance, the RCC look up their pope and so forth.

With that said, who looks up to God?

Why do so many who look up to God for their guidance (via the Scriptures) come up with such different answers to such important questions?

I believe it is God who gave us the apostolic church to help guide us, so the looking to man vs looking to God dichotomy I believe to be false.

I do not have a congregation at the moment, so I guess you can call me a seeker.

PS. The church identified in the Scriptures is simply the one that does the will of the LORD. Example include, the church in Philadelphia (Rev 3).



Understood.

It's nothing personal though, just the way I was raised. Without Scripture, it's in one ear and straight out the other..just too many anti-christs and "super-apostles" out there.

True enough. I would suggest a deep search to figure out wherin lies the church identified by Scripture as the pillar and ground of the truth.

Yes, she sure is.

However she is not the mother of those born again (i.e Christians), heavenly Jerusalem is. God begot me, not Mary.

I'm not sure how one can so easily dismiss the woman who said yes to become the mother of Christ (upon whom our salvation depends) as having no 'role' at all in the big scheme of things.

Actually, they do. Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us, thus need a Savior. Don't take my word for it, only take the LORD's:

If they sin against you, (for there is no man that sins not,) and you are angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near. 1 Kings 8:46


For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23


For there is not a just man on earth, that does good, and sins not. Ecclesiastes 7:20

The Scriptures says it, I believe it, and that settles it.

There is no debate over whether Mary needed a Savior. The disconnect seems to be that you believe that before Christ could save Mary, he was somehow required to first let her fall into sin. I disagree.

Scripture in Romans 3 also says that "no one seeks for God".

Do you interpret that to mean that actually there is no individual who seeks for God, including yourself? It would seem to me that based upon the standard for interpretation you have established, that would be your only choice.

Indeed, you are correct, it could be very well that I got my interpretation wrong. So, could you please give us your interpretation to the passage below?

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:31-35

I think that Jesus in a very grandiose, poetic way is telling us that life in Him is open to all who are willing to do God's will.

I do not think he is denying or dismissing his human nature, which is part of a human family and includes very human relationships that are meaningful to him. So we read in John 11 that "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus". Does he love us all in the same way? If so, there is no point in John's telling us this -- he is identifying a special love Christ has for these three friends. We can certainly look at Jesus' divine nature as the creator of us all and understand his love for all those He created as having some commonality. But in his human nature, he loved Martha and Mary and Lazarus in a way not all were privileged to share. And so we see that at their sorrow, "Jesus wept".

Likewise in his human nature, he has a mother, and that mother is not some generic "crowd". She gave birth to him, nursed him, reared him and followed him all the way to the cross. In his human nature that relationship is one of loving son and devoted mother, a son who looks down at her from the cross with concern for her well-being.

I believe your interpretation of that Scripture which removes any relationships forged through his human nature actually serves to de-humanize him which would make it impossible for him to identify with our temptations and weaknesses.

Thank you for the concilatory nature of your tone. I pray you find a church home that edifies you.

 

[Lion King]

Why do so many who look up to God for their guidance (via the Scriptures) come up with such different answers to such important questions?

The answer to that question is quite simple; not everyone is truly seeking the LORD with all their heart (under the guidance of the Holy-Spirit). Sad but true. Unfortunately, some of us only do it heart-heartedly, and unwilling to let go of our past life first. Kinda like "having one's cake and eating it too", so to speak.

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. James 1:5-8

I believe it is God who gave us the apostolic church to help guide us, so the looking to man vs looking to God dichotomy I believe to be false.

True enough. I would suggest a deep search to figure out wherin lies the church identified by Scripture as the pillar and ground of the truth.

However, there is one thing I'm not sure you fully understand: the church that belongs to the LORD can sometimes go apostasy. Christ never guaranteed that His assembly on earth would be infallible, that's just a man-made teaching designed to fool unstable souls. One only needs to take a look at Revelation 2 and 3 to witness the truth. If everyone in Thyatira, Sardis or Ephesus had believed what you preach (that their churches are infallible in their doctrines), they would have surely all perished.

I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.2 Corinthians 11:1-4

I'm not sure how one can so easily dismiss the woman who said yes to become the mother of Christ (upon whom our salvation depends) as having no 'role' at all in the big scheme of things.

Quite easy, actually.

Scriptures say that Heavenly Jerusalem (and not Mary) is the mother of us all. The same Scriptures also go on to carefully state on numerous occasions that all those who are born-again, have been begotten by the LORD. They are a New Creation, in the LORD and not Mary.

So, really I do not see the need to try and place Mary where she clearly don't belong. But hey, to each his own...We were all given free-will, after all.

There is no debate over whether Mary needed a Savior. The disconnect seems to be that you believe that before Christ could save Mary, he was somehow required to first let her fall into sin. I disagree.

Scripture in Romans 3 also says that "no one seeks for God".

Do you interpret that to mean that actually there is no individual who seeks for God, including yourself? It would seem to me that based upon the standard for interpretation you have established, that would be your only choice.

This is the problem we keep having; you are not providing any Scriptures that actually asserts your position. Instead of simply quoting the biblical references that state that Mary was indeed sinless (and not a sinner like I claim), you repeatedly try to plant seeds of doubt in my mind by asking questions that do not even make sense (which by the way is so not working).

As I said earlier, without Scripture, it's in one ear and out the other.

PS. Yes, no one seeks the Lord, no one is truly understanding. If humans were left to their own devices, no one would do good! If Christ did not come down to redeem us and reconcile us with God, we would all have been dead, each and everyone of us! If you want proof:

Is there any human being who can say say there are without sin, and have kept their heart pure?

All glory be to the LORD alone for having mercy on us, even though we did not deserve it.

I think that Jesus in a very grandiose, poetic way is telling us that life in Him is open to all who are willing to do God's will.

I do not think he is denying or dismissing his human nature, which is part of a human family and includes very human relationships that are meaningful to him. So we read in John 11 that "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus". Does he love us all in the same way? If so, there is no point in John's telling us this -- he is identifying a special love Christ has for these three friends. We can certainly look at Jesus' divine nature as the creator of us all and understand his love for all those He created as having some commonality. But in his human nature, he loved Martha and Mary and Lazarus in a way not all were privileged to share. And so we see that at their sorrow, "Jesus wept".

Likewise in his human nature, he has a mother, and that mother is not some generic "crowd". She gave birth to him, nursed him, reared him and followed him all the way to the cross. In his human nature that relationship is one of loving son and devoted mother, a son who looks down at her from the cross with concern for her well-being.

I believe your interpretation of that Scripture which removes any relationships forged through his human nature actually serves to de-humanize him which would make it impossible for him to identify with our temptations and weaknesses.

Thank you for the concilatory nature of your tone. I pray you find a church home that edifies you.

Forgive me, but where is the interpretation of Mark 3:31-35?

Did Christ say that His "mother/brother/sister" are those who do the will of God? Yes or No?

 

[jackmt]

The typical RC response to Scripture Alone is "We wrote it and we reserve the right to its proper interpretation. To the infallibility of the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are infallible; therefore if he made a mistake, he was not speaking ex cathedra. This is tautalogical and circular reasoning.

The RCC's entire basis for claiming authority is circular as well, but a whole lot less sound (I use the word advisedly) than the above reasoning. They claim that Peter was their first pope on the basis of Jesus' pronouncement "Thou art Peter..." But why should we believe that, if the institution of the office of pope is the proper interpreting of that passage (it is not), that their church is the one he heads? The other liturgical churches claim historical authority as well. When the split occurred, why should we say it was a split from the RCC and not the other way around?

More to say. I'll be Bach soon, Offenbach sooner.

 

[narnia59]

The answer to that question is quite simple; not everyone is truly seeking the LORD with all their heart (under the guidance of the Holy-Spirit). Sad but true. Unfortunately, some of us only do it heart-heartedly, and unwilling to let go of our past life first. Kinda like "having one's cake and eating it too", so to speak.

When one approaches discussion from the POV that not everyone (those who disagree with me) are truly seeking the Lord with all their heart, under the guidance of the Holy-Spirit (as I am), and that some are unwilling to let go of their past life first (those who disagree with me) -- there is little reason to proceed that I can see.

Did Christ say that His "mother/brother/sister" are those who do the will of God? Yes or No?

Yes he does.

And Scripture continues to refer to only Mary as "his" mother and "the" mother of Jesus.

 

[narnia59]

The typical RC response to Scripture Alone is "We wrote it and we reserve the right to its proper interpretation. To the infallibility of the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are infallible; therefore if he made a mistake, he was not speaking ex cathedra. This is tautalogical and circular reasoning.

The RCC's entire basis for claiming authority is circular as well, but a whole lot less sound (I use the word advisedly) than the above reasoning. They claim that Peter was their first pope on the basis of Jesus' pronouncement "Thou art Peter..." But why should we believe that, if the institution of the office of pope is the proper interpreting of that passage (it is not), that their church is the one he heads? The other liturgical churches claim historical authority as well. When the split occurred, why should we say it was a split from the RCC and not the other way around?

More to say. I'll be Bach soon, Offenbach sooner.

That the bible is self-authenticating is circular reasoning. Just because a book professes to be divinely inspired (as many do) does not make it so. The divine inspiration of Scripture is authenticated by the church, i.e. those witnesses who testified that the Gospel of Matthew was really written by Matthew, etc....

I would be quite interested to see you and Lion King align your doctrines on a number of key issues based upon Scripture alone, and when you disagree resolve which of you is truly seeking God and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lion King]

When one approaches discussion from the POV that not everyone (those who disagree with me) are truly seeking the Lord with all their heart, under the guidance of the Holy-Spirit (as I am), and that some are unwilling to let go of their past life first (those who disagree with me) -- there is little reason to proceed that I can see.

Understood.

Yes he does.

And Scripture continues to refer to only Mary as "his" mother and "the" mother of Jesus.

So, am I incorrect in stating that all who do God's will are the "mother/brother/sister" of the Christ?

 

[narnia59]

Understood.



So, am I incorrect in stating that all who do God's will are the "mother/brother/sister" of the Christ?

You are incorrect in concluding that you are the mother of Christ in the same way that Mary is.

 

[Lion King]

You are incorrect in concluding that you are the mother of Christ in the same way that Mary is.

Am I a woman that I should be Christ's mother? Am I not his brother, instead?

 

[narnia59]

Am I a woman that I should be Christ's mother? Am I not his brother, instead?

You are incorrect in concluding that anyone is Christ's mother in the same way that Mary is. Good night.

 

[Lion King]

You are incorrect in concluding that anyone is Christ's mother in the same way that Mary is. Good night.

Well, although I do not agree with it, you are still entitled to your own opinion. Goodnight and God bless.

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:46-50

 

[Standing Up]

They would be great examples if any of those Scriptures spoke to Mary giving birth to other children or identified Mary as their mother. I know you've been through enough rounds on the terminology in the Greek to be aware that nothing explicit about the parents of those identified as brothers of Jesus can be determined from the text.

From a Mosaic law perspective women were "unclean" upon having children which is why Mary in observing the law went to the temple for purification.

I don't believe being "unclean" in the sense of the Mosaic law has any direct relationship to being in a state of personal sin however -- do you?

Okay, just checking to make sure the concept of her giving birth didn't automatically disqualify her for some reason for RC.

As to the first point, we have talked about this. I think what has been missed is the context at that time 2000 years ago. IOW, the only alternative to believing what scripture says (she had at least 6 more children) is to adopt the docetic, nonapostolic Protoevangelium of James. There is no other choice 2000 years ago.

Here is what they believed:

1) Joseph/Mary had children after Jesus---scripture.
2) Joseph/former wife had children before Jesus---the docetic Protoevangelium of James.

Now, you should know that Origen, when faced with those two choices, picked #2. How about you?

 

[Standing Up]

That the bible is self-authenticating is circular reasoning. Just because a book professes to be divinely inspired (as many do) does not make it so. The divine inspiration of Scripture is authenticated by the church, i.e. those witnesses who testified that the Gospel of Matthew was really written by Matthew, etc....

But it is self-authenticating. Here's an easy example: OT prophesied to Christ. NT shows fulfillment.

I would be quite interested to see you and Lion King align your doctrines on a number of key issues based upon Scripture alone, and when you disagree resolve which of you is truly seeking God and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That'd be interesting. Of course, we do that anyway with P, RC, EO, LDS, anyway.

 

[justinangel]

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. Acts 6:8.

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

Honestly, Lion King, I wish you would pay closer attention to what I say. Stephen was "full of" or "filled with" grace and "power" or "fortitude" at the time he was disputing with the chief priests in the synagogue and managed to convert some of them. He was bestowed with grace that was "plentiful" enough to grant him the wisdom and strength to bear the adversity he would have to face during the time of his mission. A cabinet can be full of medicine or "abundant" with medicine making it "well-supplied" for the time of need. And although the cabinet is full of the required medicine for a particular ailment, it doesn't mean that in order to be full the cabinet must contain all the medicines that have ever been produced even for more serious ailments.

When the angel Gabriel addressed Mary with the title kecharitomene - having been completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace (charis) - he wasn't simply describing her at a given instance in time as Stephen is in the Book of Acts. And by grace the angel did not mean the actual graces of wisdom and fortitude, which are helping or signal graces that lead to the state of sanctification. The grace the angel had in mind was that of sanctification itself which Eve had helped forfeit for her biological descendants by listening to the word of the fallen angel.

The Greek singular female vocative can be paraphrased or translated in the Latin to mean "full of grace", for Mary had been endowed with a fullness of sanctifying grace to the "extreme capacity", having been "completely and perfectly" endowed with grace in view of her maternal vocation, which required that she be preserved free from all the grave spiritual ailments caused by the stain of original sin: concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life. To conceive and bear the holy Child of God as a mother worthy of him, the spiritual gifts of wisdom and fortitude, however plentiful and well-supplied in her soul, wouldn't be enough to meet her divine call. Mary had to be perpetually holy - from the moment she was conceived to the time of her dormition - in order to be the mother of the divine Son. Her mission was lifelong. She already was the mother of our Lord before the Annunciation and Incarnation by God's eternal decree once God created her in time. Until Mary was conceived and born, she always existed as an idea in the eternal mind of God.

Already you knew my soul,
my body held no secret from you
when I was being fashioned in secret
and molded in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw all my actions,
they were all of them written in your book;
every one of my days was decreed
before one of them came into being.
Psalm 139

Christ is the seed of Abraham, and was richly blessed by the LORD. Shall we assume that Abraham is SINLESS also?

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Genesis 22:19

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. Galatians 3:16

"I will surely bless you and make your descendants (seed) as numerous as the stars of the sky and as the sand on the seashore."
Genesis 22, 17

I will make your descendants (seed) as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands and through your offspring (seed) all nations on earth will be blessed.
Genesis 26, 4


Christ is Abraham's seed by bloodline and ethnic ancestry through Isaac, as all Jews are, though only a remnant will be saved, and even the Gentiles who would come to embrace the faith at the time of the New Covenant can be counted as Abraham's descendants in spirit. Jesus is Mary's seed by being her actual biological offspring and the "fruit of her womb", unlike any other Jew. When God spoke to the serpent about the woman Eve (Gen 3:15), he prophetically alluded to both Israel and Mary (cf. Rev 12). Figuratively, Israel is the mother of Christ as she is of all Jews who come from her. The psalmist tells us: "Zion shall be called mother, for all shall be her children." Israel (Jacob) is a corporate entity descended from Abraham through Isaac, who prefigures Christ. Through Israel the promises made to Abraham find their fulfillment. All nations shall be blessed only in Christ, a son of Israel. "Salvation comes from the Jews," Jesus told the Samaritan woman, though not through the law but by faith. However, Mary is more than the actual mother of Christ; she was also his personal tabernacle or dwelling place typical of the ark of the Old Covenant. And so as a personal individual entity, Mary was fashioned pure and spotless as a living, sacred temple to be fit enough to harbour the actual presence of God when being overshadowed (episkiasei) by the Holy Spirit just as the glory cloud (shekinah) had covered (epikiasei) the meeting tent in which the ark rested. Thus Jesus was Abraham's seed by being born of a Jewish woman and descendant of Abraham through Isaac. But he became man by being born of a woman, notwithstanding whether she was Jewish, who according to God's specifications, had to be pure and righteous as he was in his humanity to be worthy of her divine maternity. The blessing of all nations finds its fulfillment in the divine Messiah, the offspring of Abraham by bloodline and ethnic ancestry through Mary his Jewish mother. God's words to the serpent could not have been realized by his decree without the virgin birth.

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 12, 17

PS. I will keep asking you for Scriptures since you explicitly stated in one your previous post, that there is nothing contained in your tradition that is not found in the Scriptures.

True, but not everything contained in Tradition is "explicitly" found in Scripture. We must often read the Scriptures in a spiritual sense.

Stephen was a man endowed with full of grace and power by the LORD, yet he was a sinner?

Obviously he wasn't sinning while preaching.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

That is because, unlike Mary, we have contracted the stain of original sin.

Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? Proverbs 20:9

Not without the grace of God. We cleanse our hearts and purify ourselves by accepting and cooperating with the graces we have received through the Holy Spirit.

If it was really from the LORD what they taught, then it should correlate with the written word of God. However, since it does not, I disregard these statements and dismiss them as mere opinions, and not the word of God!

I'm afraid there is no correlation here with the word of Lion King.

By which are given unto us exceedingly great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:4

We are all partakers of Christ's divine nature, but that does mean that we are sinless now, does it?

We partake of the divine life when being in the state of sanctifying grace. This is lost when we commit a mortal sin (i.e., murder or adultery) until we sincerely repent and do penance, ideally through the sacrament of reconciliation. The more venial sins we commit, the less holy we are in God's sight while still in the state of sanctification, and the more time we have to spend in purgatory to make satisfaction and appease the Father's justice by being cleansed of and temporally punished for the remnants of sin. Again, Mary was permanently and completely graced, and so she could never have fallen from or regressed in grace in spite of her free will. Her soul constantly "magnified" the Lord.

PAX