Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Soulx3]

following with interest.
The immaculate conception - is it something we must believe? - hangs on this one word in the gospel of Luke
or is there more to the story?

I pose the following questions to those who don't believe in the Blessed Virgin Mary's immaculate conception:

• Why did the prophet, Isaiah, refer to Mary by the title "the virgin" as opposed to "a virgin," if Her virginal vow was to be temporary?
• Why did Mary need to be a virgin in order to conceive and raise God Incarnate?
• Why did Mary ask the angel, Gabriel, "How is this possible when I know not man?" when She was already married by that time, and if you believe Her and Joseph were having intercourse?
• Why did God have the Ark of the Covenant be made with the purest materials to carry the written Word, but had an impure ark (Mary) carry the Word made flesh?

Jesus is God and thus how could God not preserve Mary's soul from original sin, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate, the most Holy and Perfect One, and because He did that, Mary was able to be full of His grace, just as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. After they sinned, they lost God's Grace, and Grace was accessible to humanity again after Jesus's sacrifice.

What is it that gives light and knowledge to the soul? Grace. What is it that removes Grace? Original sin and the mortal one. Mary, the Immaculate, was never deprived of the remembrance of God, of His closeness, His love, His light, His wisdom. She was therefore able to understand and love when She was but flesh forming around an immaculate soul that continued to love.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus did not disobey God. Neither did infants disobey God. Obviously "all" does NOT mean every individual, it is not meant to say there are no exceptions. Do you believe that when "all of Judea" went to see John the Baptist that every Roman prefect in Judea and every woman in the middle of labor went to see John the Baptist?

Infants have sinned due to the taint of original sin. As I previously pointed out, this is a very different context in which "all" is used than in describing the multitudes that came out to see John the Baptist.

 

[Valletta]

Infants have sinned due to the taint of original sin. As I previously pointed out, this is a very different context in which "all" is used than in describing the multitudes that came out to see John the Baptist.

Having the taint of sin or having original sin or however you want to phrase it is NOT the same as having sinned. You're changing the meaning of the word "sinned." Of course "all" is used in a different overall context for every story, but "all" is commonly used as a way of speaking to not include every single individual. That Jesus and infants have not sinned is proof of the meaning within the text.

 

[JoeT]

In this case, "all" certainly includes everyone. Sin, by definition, is to disobey God; to "miss the mark." Jesus was fully God and fully man. He could not sin since he is God. Clearly, that verse is talking about mankind sinning against their Creator. That cannot apply to Jesus so we don't need to include him as an exception. Same thing when the Bible says "all have sinned." Can God sin? No! Jesus is God. Could Jesus sin? No! Therefore, "all have sinned" could not, by definition, include Jesus so there is no need to make an exception.

"All" did fall in Adam. We are "all" born with a sin nature. There are no exceptions among humanity save Jesus who was more than a man. He was/is God in human flesh. Fully man and fully God. God cannot sin. Jesus was born without a sin nature. He is the lone exception because he is fully God.

Mary is not God. She was born of two earthly parents (unlike Jesus who had no earthly father). Mary is part of the "all." When Paul uses such terms, he is talking about all mankind before God. He is not using those terms in a loose sense like "all Judea went to see John the Baptist." He is making a precise theological argument that we all have sinned and need a savior. Mary needed a savior too. Scripture never says she was born without original sin nor lived sinlessly. I have been challenged here to list her sins. The Bible does not list the sins of lots of people. What about her husband Joseph? What sins did he commit? I don't recall any being listed in Scripture yet no one has said he was sinless. I don't need to know any specific sins of Mary to call her a sinner. She was born one like the rest of us. It is only Catholic theology that declares her sinless and even that was not universally held in the Catholic church throughout history.

You said that Catholics do not believe anyone should add or subtract from the Bible. If so, then why has the church added her being conceived without original sin? Why has it added her living a sinless life? Why has it added her being assumed bodily into heaven? The truth is, the Catholic church believes it has the authority to add to Scripture.

If "all" is to be the whole number then all mankind is both guilty and deserving of punishment due to Adam's, including Christ. But we know that St. Paul was talking to Jews and gentiles present at his preaching , all Jews and all gentiles. St. Paul was using a exaggerated form of speech so that one or the other doesn't become condescending, conceited, or pretentious .

You know Catholics don't worship or think of Mary as God. It's a poor argument, a disingenuous argument being told this many times.


JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I pose the following questions to those who don't believe in the Blessed Virgin Mary's immaculate conception:

• Why did the prophet, Isaiah, refer to Mary by the title "the virgin" as opposed to "a virgin," if Her virginal vow was to be temporary?
• Why did Mary need to be a virgin in order to conceive and raise God Incarnate?
• Why did Mary ask the angel, Gabriel, "How is this possible when I know not man?" when She was already married by that time, and if you believe Her and Joseph were having intercourse?
• Why did God have the Ark of the Covenant be made with the purest materials to carry the written Word, but had an impure ark (Mary) carry the Word made flesh?

Jesus is God and thus how could God not preserve Mary's soul from original sin, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate, the most Holy and Perfect One, and because He did that, Mary was able to be full of His grace, just as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. After they sinned, they lost God's Grace, and Grace was accessible to humanity again after Jesus's sacrifice.

What is it that gives light and knowledge to the soul? Grace. What is it that removes Grace? Original sin and the mortal one. Mary, the Immaculate, was never deprived of the remembrance of God, of His closeness, His love, His light, His wisdom. She was therefore able to understand and love when She was but flesh forming around an immaculate soul that continued to love.

The Ark was not holy because of the quality of the materials it was made of. It was holy because God made it holy by His presence just as we are made holy by the presence of the Holy Spirit within us. Nothing made by man is holy unless God makes it so. Mary was still betrothed to Joseph as not yet married and as such did not have intercourse prior to the birth of Jesus. The Bible plainly states that. Did Mary have to be a virgin to give birth to God incarnate? The Bible does not say she had to be but God, speaking through the prophets, said the Messiah would be born of a virgin so to fulfill prophecy she had to be. Had Joseph and Mary already married, and had children, some might assume Jesus was conceived in the normal manner of humans. To be born of a virgin is indeed a miracle and testimony that Jesus was no ordinary child. Indeed, many assumed Jesus was born out of wedlock for they refused to believe the miracle. I would not say Mary had to be a virgin but that was God's plan from the beginning and nothing about his life was completely ordinary. Isaiah would have called Mary "the virgin" because she alone among virgins was chosen to bear the Messiah. Mary never took a virginal vow other than the expected vow of an unmarried woman to remain a virgin. The angel did not command her to refrain from intercourse until after Jesus was born yet Mary and Joseph chose to have her remain a virgin which makes total sense when one considers the miracle happening. We are not told in Scripture at what point they ended their betrothal and got married. She never took a vow to remain a virgin for life. Calling her "the virgin" does not denote her having taken a lifelong vow of virginity. It rather calls attention to the fact that as a virgin, she gave birth to the Messiah. She is the only virgin in human history to bear a child without being with a man. That qualifies as "the virgin."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

If "all" is to be the whole number then all mankind is both guilty and deserving of punishment due to Adam's, including Christ. But we know that St. Paul was talking to Jews and gentiles present at his preaching , all Jews and all gentiles. St. Paul was using a exaggerated form of speech so that one or the other doesn't become condescending, conceited, or pretentious .

You know Catholics don't worship or think of Mary as God. It's a poor argument, a disingenuous argument being told this many times.


JoeT

Romans 3:23 ESV​

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 John 1:8 ESV​

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV​

Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

Romans 6:23 ESV​

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5:12 ESV​

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

1 John 1:9 ESV​

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 3:23-24 ESV​

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 5:8 ESV​

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

John 3:16 ESV​

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 3:10 ESV​

As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

1 John 1:10 ESV​

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Are all these verses cases of exaggeration?

I never accused Catholics of saying Mary is divine. My point was that "all" would not, by definition, include Jesus since Jesus is God. Since Mary is not, she would naturally be included in "all" as all mankind is sinful as the verses above (and others) demonstrate. Given Scripture's universal condemnation of mankind as sinful, the burden of proof is on you to prove Mary was an unnamed exception rather than trying to argue that "all" is too ambiguous to say Mary must be included.

I don't believe Catholics worship Mary as God but at times they come dangerously close.

 

[Soulx3]

The Ark was not holy because of the quality of the materials it was made of.

I said God had the Ark of the Covenant made with the purest materials to carry the written Word. Why would God show less care about the Word made flesh by creating an impure ark (Mary) to carry Him?

Isaiah would have called Mary "the virgin" because she alone among virgins was chosen to bear the Messiah. Mary never took a virginal vow other than the expected vow of an unmarried woman to remain a virgin. She never took a vow to remain a virgin for life. Calling her "the virgin" does not denote her having taken a lifelong vow of virginity. It rather calls attention to the fact that as a virgin, she gave birth to the Messiah. She is the only virgin in human history to bear a child without being with a man. That qualifies as "the virgin."

If Mary was just a temporary virgin like other women, Isaiah would've referred to Her as "a virgin," but rather "the virgin". The latter indicates a perpetual vow as a virgin as opposed to the former.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I said God had the Ark of the Covenant made with the purest materials to carry the written Word. Why would God show less care about the Word made flesh by creating an impure ark (Mary) to carry Him?



If Mary was just a temporary virgin like other women, Isaiah would've referred to Her as "a virgin," but rather "the virgin". The latter indicates a perpetual vow as a virgin as opposed to the former.

For Jesus to die for our sins, he had to be human. He had to be one of us. Mary was one of us. She was human. She wasn't perfect, she wasn't powerful, she wasn't a queen or a princess, she didn't come from wealth. She was though a virtuous woman, humble, hard-working. Joseph was the same. What made Jesus unique was that he was born without a sin nature and he was fully God as well as fully man. Nothing about his birth or early life was extraordinary. He was born in a manger. His father was a carpenter. His circumstances were very ordinary even though there was nothing ordinary about Jesus.

Many things in the OT were symbols of the reality to come. Think about the Ark of the Covenant. No one could touch it and live. It had to be carried by poles. The one guy who touched it to keep it from falling off a wagon died. Like the priestly garments and utensils, it was made of the finest materials. All of this was symbolic to teach man how holy and glorious God is. The Holy of Holies was also sacred. Only the High Priest could enter and only on the Day of Atonement. They tied a rope to his ankle to pull his body out in case something happened to him while he was inside as no one else dared enter. These things were a shadow of heaven.

They all pointed to the Messiah. Yet when the Messiah came, he was born in a manger to simple parents. Angels appeared in the sky but only to a group of lowly shepherds. Jesus started life as a carpenter's son. He performed no miracles growing up. To the world, he was an ordinary son of an ordinary man. God did not have His son born in the finest palace or arrayed in the finest clothing. During his earthly ministry, Jesus walked everywhere. He wore simple clothes. He often slept outside. We are told there was nothing about his appearance that was special. All the finery of the Temple and the priestly garments and gold vessels are gone. Jesus taught that it was what was on the inside that mattered. In his lineage was a prostitute and a king who committed adultery and had a man killed. Jesus didn't have to be born of a sinless woman. It was what was on the inside (Jesus) that mattered. Mary was a godly woman and Joseph a godly man. Simple, imperfect, but godly. It is us who think his mother had to be perfect.

Isaiah 7:14 states, “the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son,”

Why not "a virgin?" It's "the virgin" because Isaiah's prophecy was about one specific virgin who was to come. He could have said "a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son" and that would have still been true, but he had in mind a specific virgin who would come and she would be unlike any other virgin in the history of the world in that as a virgin she would bear a son. That is worthy of being called "the virgin." In English we sometimes put the word "the" in front of a name for emphasis. The Donald Trump, The Ohio State University, The President of the United States, etc. Using the definite article "the" in no way implies a perpetual vow of virginity. It is simply used for emphasis. No where in Scripture does Mary take a vow of perpetual virginity. To assume it means such a vow was taken is reading something into the passage that is simply not implied by the grammar.

 

[JoeT]

Romans 3:23 ESV​

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 John 1:8 ESV​

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV​

Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

Romans 6:23 ESV​

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5:12 ESV​

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

1 John 1:9 ESV​

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 3:23-24 ESV​

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 5:8 ESV​

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

John 3:16 ESV​

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 3:10 ESV​

As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

1 John 1:10 ESV​

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Are all these verses cases of exaggeration?

I never accused Catholics of saying Mary is divine. My point was that "all" would not, by definition, include Jesus since Jesus is God. Since Mary is not, she would naturally be included in "all" as all mankind is sinful as the verses above (and others) demonstrate. Given Scripture's universal condemnation of mankind as sinful, the burden of proof is on you to prove Mary was an unnamed exception rather than trying to argue that "all" is too ambiguous to say Mary must be included.

I don't believe Catholics worship Mary as God but at times they come dangerously close.

Then I suppose this really doesn't mean "be perfect". Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect [Matthew 5:48]

JoeT

 

[Soulx3]

What made Jesus unique was that he was born without a sin nature and he was fully God as well as fully man.

Correct, but God had the Ark of the Covenant made with the purest materials to carry the written Word. Why would God show less care about the Word made flesh by creating an impure ark (Mary) to carry and even raise Him?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Correct, but God had the Ark of the Covenant made with the purest materials to carry the written Word. Why would God show less care about the Word made flesh by creating an impure ark (Mary) to carry and even raise Him?

That doesn't prove your point. Wood is wood and I don't know how much purer some wood can be than others. Do we know the gold was as pure as it could be? Mary was probably about a pure as a human (with a sin nature) could be just as the wood and gold were as pure as such things could be but not 100% pure or perfect.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Then I suppose this really doesn't mean "be perfect". Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect [Matthew 5:48]

JoeT

Perfection (sinlessness) is always our goal but we cannot achieve it on our own. Paul wrote that the purpose of the Law was to show us that no one can perfectly keep it. That's why we need a Savior. We don't achieve perfection in this life but we strive for it. In heaven, we will have a new nature incapable of sin but not in this life. When Jesus died for us, he not only paid the penalty for our sins but he gave us his righteousness so that we now stand (positionally) righteous before God. We have not and will not achieve actual perfection before death but in the eyes of God we are perfect because he counts not our righteousness but Christ's.

In context, Paul was talking about how to treat your neighbor. At the end, he summarizes by exhorting us to pursue perfection. Pursue. We don't have it but it's a worthy goal. It was Mary's goal as well.

 

[discombobulated1]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

I believe the Catholic Church (the one that was really ONE--which existed before chaos struck in 1958) that teaches that Mary was conceived in the normal way but without original sin. She was not a sinner like you or I.

Somewhere in the Word it says that God's eyes are too pure to look upon sin. There is no way, therefore, that Jesus (who is God) could have lived in the womb of a sinner for 9 months and then been parented by a sinner, although Joseph was not so conceived so he had both kinds of parents..

Maybe that explains why in exorcisms, it is when Mary makes an appearance that the demons are most apt to flee from their victims. Demons like to accuse exorcists and all others at an exorcism of their sins.. Satan is the great Accuser of the Brethren. But of course, he ccan't do that with heavenly beings like Mary

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I believe the Catholic Church (the one that was really ONE--which existed before chaos struck in 1958) that teaches that Mary was conceived in the normal way but without original sin. She was not a sinner like you or I.

Somewhere in the Word it says that God's eyes are too pure to look upon sin. There is no way, therefore, that Jesus (who is God) could have lived in the womb of a sinner for 9 months and then been parented by a sinner, although Joseph was not so conceived so he had both kinds of parents..

Maybe that explains why in exorcisms, it is when Mary makes an appearance that the demons are most apt to flee from their victims. Demons like to accuse exorcists and all others at an exorcism of their sins.. Satan is the great Accuser of the Brethren. But of course, he ccan't do that with heavenly beings like Mary

Mary is not a heavenly being (by birth). She is in heaven now but she was not created as a heavenly being. What the Bible says, is that God cannot allow sin to dwell permanently in His presence. In Job we have Satan having a conversation with God about Job. Satan was in God's presence for that conversation. How did God look upon Moses when he spoke with him or Adam and Eve after the fall? Besides, God does not have eyes. God is spirit. It is saying sin cannot remain in His presence which is why heaven and hell will be separated.

If Jesus could not be parented by a sinner, then explain how Joseph was chosen to be his earthly father? Even if you believe Mary was sinless, I know of no Catholics who claim Joseph was sinless.

When Jesus and the disciples cast demons out of people, Mary was not present or mentioned.

 

[Soulx3]

No where in Scripture does Mary take a vow of perpetual virginity.

That isn't proof She didn't, for the scriptural writings that make up the Bible lack many details about people, events, etc.

Wood is wood and I don't know how much purer some wood can be than others. Do we know the gold was as pure as it could be? Mary was probably about a pure as a human (with a sin nature) could be just as the wood and gold were as pure as such things could be but not 100% pure or perfect.

I think people should consider the level of detail that went into the creation of the Ark of the Covenant to be made worthy to carry the written Word. Jesus is God and thus how could God not preserve Mary's soul from original sin, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate, the most Holy and Perfect One, and because He did that, Mary was able to be full of His grace, just as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. After they sinned, they lost God's Grace, and Grace was accessible to humanity again after Jesus's sacrifice.

Consider also that only a priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity...how much more perfect would one have to be to carry and raise God, the Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

[QUOTE}That isn't proof She didn't, for the scriptural writings that make up the Bible lack many details about people, events, etc.

[/QUOTE]
By that logic, you can make up anything and say it's one of those things where the Bible lacks details. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest Mary took such a vow. We do have suggestions that she and Joseph had other children after Jesus. While you can come up with alternative explanations, you still don't have anything solid to say Mary took a vow of celibacy. The reason Catholics say that is that to them it is unthinkable that the womb that bore Jesus could go on and bear other children. They see Mary's womb as sacred and untouchable after giving birth to Jesus. It is that presupposition that you read back into Scripture and causes you to look for alternative explanations to the plain reading of Scripture. The plain reading of Scripture, is that Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she got pregnant by the Holy Spirit. She remained a virgin until after Jesus' birth. Sometime later, she and Joseph had other children some of whom are named in Scripture. James is referred to as a half-brother of Jesus. He is not named as a cousin and no one ever says Joseph had children from a prior wife who died. Those are speculations to try and accommodate the presupposition that Mary remained a virgin.

Mary did not "raise God." She and Joseph raised Jesus. If it was so necessary for Mary to be perfect to be Jesus' mother, why not Joseph? The father in Jewish culture was responsible for the spiritual education of the children. Mothers were very important as well, but the father was to be the spiritual head of the household. Although Josephy died at some point, we know Jesus was at least old enough to be his apprentice before that happened. We know Joseph was still alive when Jesus was 12 and was left behind in Jerusalem. So Joseph would have had a profound role in Jesus' life growing up. Why did he not have to be perfect? Mary was not a single mom for most of Jesus' upbringing.

The sacred was in Mary's womb but her womb did not have to be sacred. Your analogy to the ark is not proof. The ark was not as pure as could be. The gold was not 100% pure and there really is no such thing as pure wood. From a human viewpoint, it was fine materials and craftsmanship and I would say Mary was a fine and godly woman. If you look at Jesus' genealogy through Mary, it includes a prostitute, murderers, and all of them sinners. God did not have Jesus come from an ancestry of perfect people. If nothing else the Bible shows us how God can use imperfect people to accomplish His will. Name one OT figure that did not have flaws. Even the ark was eventually lost and did not remain in use until Jesus' time. It was lost almost 600 years before the time of Jesus. If Mary was to be the new ark, why did God allow the first ark to be taken by a conquering nation and vanish from history? Why not preserve it until Mary's time? Saying Mary is the ark of the new covenant is an analogy but not strict Biblical teaching. The passages in Revelation used to "prove" Mary is the ark of the new covenant, are not clear enough to be proof. We see a woman, we see there is an ark in heaven but the two are not equated other than being named in consecutive verses. That is not enough to say Mary IS the ark of the new covenant.

If you want to believe Mary was perfect and ever-virgin, be my guest but you can't support it from Scripture. You must admit it is a Catholic teaching that goes beyond the Scriptures based on the self-claimed authority to teaching things not clearly taught in Scripture.

I think people should consider the level of detail that went into the creation of the Ark of the Covenant to be made worthy to carry the written Word. Jesus is God and thus how could God not preserve Mary's soul from original sin, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate, the most Holy and Perfect One, and because He did that, Mary was able to be full of His grace, just as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. After they sinned, they lost God's Grace, and Grace was accessible to humanity again after Jesus's sacrifice.

Consider also that only a priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity...how much more perfect would one have to be to carry and raise God, the Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity.

Adam and Eve did not lose God's grace. If they had, they would have been sentenced to hell right then and there. God's grace was operating even then. He provided animal skins for clothing and allowed them to live. We have no reason to doubt Adam and Eve are in heaven today. It was grace that saved every OT believer. Salvation has always been by grace. It was not lost after the fall until Jesus.

 

[jas3]

The reason Catholics say that is that to them it is unthinkable that the womb that bore Jesus could go on and bear other children. They see Mary's womb as sacred and untouchable after giving birth to Jesus. It is that presupposition that you read back into Scripture and causes you to look for alternative explanations to the plain reading of Scripture.

This is not just a Catholic teaching. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, for example, taught that you weren't a Christian if you rejected Mary's perpetual virginity.

Mary did not "raise God." She and Joseph raised Jesus.

...who is God, as the Nicene Creed says.

If Mary was to be the new ark, why did God allow the first ark to be taken by a conquering nation and vanish from history? Why not preserve it until Mary's time? Saying Mary is the ark of the new covenant is an analogy but not strict Biblical teaching.

It's more than an analogy, it's typology. Typology doesn't require that the type or prototype (the ark of the covenant) be around when the antitype (Mary) is.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

This is not just a Catholic teaching. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, for example, taught that you weren't a Christian if you rejected Mary's perpetual virginity.

...who is God, as the Nicene Creed says.

It's more than an analogy, it's typology. Typology doesn't require that the type or prototype (the ark of the covenant) be around when the antitype (Mary) is.

If that is what John Wesley believed, he was teaching "another gospel" and we know what Paul said about that.

Yes, Jesus was God, but the divine nature of Jesus did not need training or maturing. It was the humanity of Jesus that did. That is why I said they did not "raise God."

I understand typology and I am not saying that because the ark was not present in Jerusalem during Mary's time proves she couldn't be a type of ark. I just find it interesting.

We know that the articles in the tabernacle were “copies of the heavenly things” (Hebrews 9:23) and that the sanctuary itself was but “a copy and shadow of what is in heaven” (Hebrews 8:5). We know in Revelation there is an ark in heaven. That ark may have been there from time eternal and was the "original" from which the earthly ark was copied which would mean Mary is not the ark pictured in Revelation. That is not something we can say for sure but it's plausible and makes as much or more sense than saying Mary is the ark pictured in Revelation.

 

[jas3]

If that is what John Wesley believed, he was teaching "another gospel" and we know what Paul said about that.

His is the more common view historically than yours, though, so it seems unlikely that he was teaching "another gospel."

Yes, Jesus was God, but the divine nature of Jesus did not need training or maturing. It was the humanity of Jesus that did. That is why I said they did not "raise God."

But natures aren't hypostases. You can't "raise a human nature" or "raise a humanity," you raise a man.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

His is the more common view historically than yours, though, so it seems unlikely that he was teaching "another gospel."

But natures aren't hypostases. You can't "raise a human nature" or "raise a humanity," you raise a man.

Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. A belief that Mary was perpetually virgin has never been a part of the Gospel. Peter did not include it in his sermon on Pentecost. Paul never preached it or wrote about it. Mary is barely mentioned after the Book of Acts. To say you could not be a Christian without believing in her perpetual virginity is adding to the Gospel and would indeed to "another gospel."