Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quote the KJV? Maybe all the Catholics you know, but I am not in the habit of quoting from that one at all. Nor do I know many who use the KJV.Well, it is what Catholics normally quote when arguing for the Immaculate Conception or the sinlessness of Mary.
I did mention that doing so seems odd for the very reason you are referring to now.
John 19: 26-27. As for the beloved disciple so too for us all.Please show me one single verse, in context, in God's Holy Word which clearly and directly supports your opinion that Jesus' mother "becomes our mother in the faith." To make such a statement equates Jesus' human, sinful, mother to God the sinless, Holy Father; our Father whereby we may also name Abba, Daddy. The idea that Jesus' mother is also our mother in the faith, a goddess so to speak-someone to pray to and worship, is merely a conjecture, opinion, erroneously and widely embraced and sub-sequentially humanly indoctrinated and established. But you and yours are free, by the grace of God, to believe whatever you want to believe. Just remember that Jesus said that there is ONLY ONE WAY to the father in heaven in John 14:6, NOT through our "good" works/sacraments, NOT through ANY human being including his mother or the President, Pope, or Indian Chief; but only and exclusively through HIM, Jesus, the Messiah, God the Son, the one and only Scriptural Mediator between God and man, Creator and Sustainer of all.
Good for you, but then what is your Scriptural evidence for believing in Mary as sinless at the time of the Annunication?Quote the KJV? Maybe all the Catholics you know, but I am not in the habit of quoting from that one at all.
The Greek text of Luke 1:28.Good for you, but then what is your Scriptural evidence for believing in Mary as sinless at the time of the Annunication?
You have your reading of Luke 1:28 that says Mary is nothing special. You haven't bothered with the link I provided earlier on Luke 1:28 so I leave you to your interpretation. For other people who wonder how I get more than 'favored' out of Luke 1:28 please see: What Do We Mean By Full of Grace?Being "favored" by God for some assignment or honor means that you are sinless???
If so, there are actually a lot of people in Scripture who we would have to declare to be sinless.
No one has said that. She was favored or singled out. That's not to be "nothing special." It is, in fact, the exact opposite.You have your reading of Luke 1:28 that says Mary is nothing special.
John 19: 26-27. As for the beloved disciple so too for us all.
Your whole 'goddess' thing is a red herring. As is your whole 'Indian Chief' thing.
Thank you so much for telling me I'm terribly mistaken.You are terribly mistaken, sir. I looked up the quote you gave and in fact, the verse you gave and several other translations ALL tell us that Jesus was talking exclusively to a single-out disciple (his brother, John, most believe), " 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home].
There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE in what you claim Holy Scripture says and what it REALLY says. This is exactly the erroneous nature of what I was describing. Thank you for pointing it out.
Everything you posted above is just your fallible, non-authoritative, opinion which is subject to error,
Again, thanks for your opinion that is subject to error. However, if one is going to be a adherent to the sola scriptural doctrine, you need to be able to backup your beliefs with Scripture. If not, one would be going out side of Scripture would seem the the doctrine of the Bible alone moot.Of course it's a "gotcha" question to request a verse from the Bible that DISproves something that isn't taught by the Bible and should not, therefore, be made into a doctrine by any church.
Doing that is no different from asking the proverbial "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.
Yes. Sola Scriptura does not describe a belief that everything that can be known is in the Bible somewhere. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone contains what is necessary for our salvation.However, if one is going to be a adherent to the sola scriptural doctrine, you need to be able to backup your beliefs with Scripture.
κεχαριτωμένη,
Being "favored" by God for some assignment or honor means that you are sinless???
If so, there are actually a lot of people in Scripture who we would have to declare to be sinless.
Yeah, right from the top of my head I think of Job. God, when challenged by satan himself, looked over the whole world and cited Job as an extremely righteous man and handed Job over to satan to be tested. Now that is a Shinning example!
Certainly not with any Scripture that your "Tradition" wouldn't just explain away. I've played this game before, and I know how it always comes out.I will, and with that being said, I am guessing you cannot back up your talking points with Scripture.
Nobody cares, but the inventer of Sola Scriptura also believed Mary to be sinless. Lutheran Mariology - WikipediaYes. Sola Scriptura does not describe a belief that everything that can be known is in the Bible somewhere. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone contains what is necessary for our salvation.
If understood correctly then, unless the Bible describes something that must be believed, no church is at liberty to impose that idea upon anyone.
In this case, there IS NO verse which teaches that Mary was sinless, so it cannot be made into a doctrine.
Scripture does not, in other words, allow anyone to invent a doctrine simply by saying that the Bible didn't rule it out, so therefore it's okay.
That in fact is exactly what the term literally means (Scripture Alone=No unScriptural dogmas attributed to traditions, theological opinions, legends, customs, folklore, or etc.)
As you say, it doesn't matter. Not to the topic here, anyway. That's because what you are referring to is not about the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture.Nobody cares, but the inventer of Sola Scriptura also believed Mary to be sinless. Lutheran Mariology - Wikipedia
Of course you don't. It would upset a large apple cart in your theology if you interpreted Luke 1:28 as something beyond 'favored'. I think the word 'kecharitōmenē' demands a more expansive meaning. That is not a 'hint' but to me it is clear and Biblical. She was so graced that there was no room for sin in her life. And it was fitting to have that sort of mother to raise the Son of Man. She was not blessed merely for being a biological mother. She was blessed before she became a biological mother according to the text.
We Catholics, of course would agree with you totally. But there are folks out there who say that Jesus only became God later, or maybe hold to some more Arian interpretation. People for whom Mary bore a human son but did not bear God incarnate, people who deny that Mary was the mother of God, the theotokos. There are a jumble of different beliefs out there.
For those of us who are traditional Christians we understand that Mary is theotokos because Jesus was God from the moment of conception, that Jesus didn't pick up divinity later. You are preaching to the choir on that one. At least with the Catholics and the Orthodox in this discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?