All have sinned.. including Mary.

[Gara3987]

It is a bit of a leap thoughtwise to be sure. Trying to assert anything here would imply one has an idea of what God was thinking.

Rev Albert Joseph Mary Shamon, in one of his books, “Our Lady Teaches About Sacramentals and Blessed Objects” (pgs 8, 9 & frequently interspersed elsewhere) believes he’s on to one of the tangents of our Lord’s thought. He writes:

"It is beneath the dignity of God to take on Satan directly. God would not give him that satisfaction. So He used St. Michael the Archangel to kick him out of the created Heavens (Rev. 12:7-9), and a frail woman’s seed to crush his infernal head (Gen. 3:15).

“For God the Creator to take Satan on directly would dignify the fiend. Instead, God uses creatures, the weak things of the world, to confound the proud.”

One possible explanation might be (not trying to offend non- Catholics here) as Eve is the mother of all in the human order and the man’s/ Adam’s fall came about with her co-operaton, God might will that it also be through Mary - our mother in the spiritual order (John 19:26,27), that is through her co-operation Christ - the new Adam raised mankind’s dignity far higher than it was before the fall.

If the last 3 paragraphs are accurate, it would mean that nobody is actually wrong or right when it comes to specifying seed gender. The work of the redemption is Christ’s, yet He saw fit to intimately interweave his Mother - the Creator’s Masterpiece, into his work.

Please note dear fellow members: Mine is not a circular argument…it’s a square argument with round corners.

Great Post

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How has Mary sinned? Be specific; give book, chapter, and verse.

And if Romans 3:23 is to be understood absolutely, it means that Jesus sinned. How did Jesus sin?

**It means that only if it is ripped out of context & the argument of the Apostle is ignored - but as Christ is the propitiation for sin (see the verses which follow) it is obvious that He is not included. The drift of the Apostle’s argument is perfectly clear - so if men twist his words to their own destruction (as St. Peter notes elsewhere had happened), that is their problem; n****ot St. Paul’s. If that makes difficulties for doctrines about Mary, that is better than to evacuate the meaning of God’s Word written in order to safeguard a dogma or doctrine which rests on less certain authority. **​

**No author, not even a God-inspired Apostle, is proof against the frivolous complaints of those who are absolutely set on convicting him of talking nonsense; there is no protection against the wickedness & folly of the corrupted human heart, for its sinfulness is unfathomable - Jeremiah notices this That is no argument against the doctrine declared by the Apostle: instead, those who contradict Him only show their own depravity & rebellion. **

**St. Paul in any case makes perfectly clear - as does Hebrews - that Jesus was without sin. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To be honest “He” does not make any sense at all, for the one that will crush Lucifer’s head is the blessed mother. This was the threat God made to Lucifer due to his Arrogance for he (Lucifer) was angered at the fact that he an angle would be lower than a mere human the Mother of the Word.

One teeny hitch - the reading in the Vulgate textual tradition which underlies that idea:​

• 1. Is most probably not what St. Jerome wrote
• 2. Is late in being recorded in the textual tradition
• **3. Cannot be squared with the meaning of the Hebrew **
  **It’s the Catholic counterpart of JW manipulations of John 1.1 or Colossians 1.16. And unlike Luther’s famous “allein”, in his translation of Romans, it cannot be defended as an amplification intended to bring out St. Paul’s meaning. It is a mistranslation, pure & simple, & if it had appeared in the JW Bible it would undoubtedly have been used as yet more proof of how unreliable the JW translation is. It’s only support is long usage in the Church - IOW, custom: but that does not in the slightest make it anything else than a misreading & a misrepresention of the Hebrew text. **

Thus Lucifer made a threat to destroy the Blessed Mother and the Word (Christ), you can refer to Apocalypse Chapter twelve. This took place on the day where light was created [Gen. 1, 3-5] (and yet it also took place through out the years through Christ’s first coming; it was something that Lucifer was trying to prevent) the literal sense of these passages are easy to understand, God created light; day and night. The Mystical sense, God Created the Angelic form, Light and day would be the Angels, darkness and night is referring to the fallen angels.

This is nonsense, & a perversion of the meaning of Gen.1. All of this is much of a fantasy as “Star Wars”. There is no basis for any of it in the text - the trouble with imposing a mystical sense on the text is that that replaces the proper sense of the text, so that the chapter becomes a fantasy about the Virgin & the true purpose of it - to speak of the creation by the One God - is lost. If we can see angels in the text - though they are entirely absent - then there is no reason not to see anything else our fancy suggests: Martians, Klingons, Orcs, or anything else.​

Thus “And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun(1), and* the moon under her feet*(2), and on her head a crown of twelve stars(3)”

(1) Represents that Christ Himself is protecting His Mother, with the Angels.

**Even though He is not born till some verses later ? **​

(2) Represents the fallen angels beneath Her feet, who will never proceed passed Her feet.

**So how come they do not fall till some verses later ? **​

(3) The Crown of twelve stars are the twelve Virtues.

Very unlikely - much more probable is an allusion to the twelve tribes​

This threat was made to Lucifer more than once, Gen. 3, 15 was a reminder due to Lucifer thinking that he had seduced the Mother of the Word, basically he thought that Eve was the Mother and Adam was Christ, the creation of man was concealed from the devil, Adam was created at age 33, the age Our Lord was crucified. Eve looked exactly like the image of the Blessed Mother when God show the Angels who was to be Mother of The Word.

This information came from Ven Mary of Agreda, who passed away 341 years ago.

Her idea of Adam’s age is hard to square with Gen. 5 (to put it no more strongly). In view of her assertion that the BVM had informed her that the heavens are made of crystal - which is titanically difficult to reconcile with the journeys of modern astronauts - that item of gossip does not carry much weight​

She was ordered by God to write down the revelations that He (the Holy Trinity) and the Blessed Mother where to show her. The books that she wrote were titled Cuidad de Dios., The Mystical City of God. Ven Mary Ageda’s Body is currently in Spain in an open casket, her

Body has Remained Incorrupt for more than 340 years.

There is a discussion of some of the absurdities in her book in Father Auguste Poulain’s “The Graces of Interior Prayer” - it received the commendation of the then Pope, so it cannot be dismissed as lightly as criticisms of visionaries sometimes are. The Sister’s book very nearly sank her cause.​

 

[Good_Fella]

Then we agree on this it seems. If Mary were sinless then He would reveal it. Now the only revelation we have are the inspired-inerrant Scriptures and it never says any such thing.

Jesus Himself said He was without sin. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21 says essentially the same thing.

Thats the problem. The authors of scripture give no such indication in the least.

.You can say this but you won’t find such teachings in the scriptures though. Do the scriptures describe her birth in any supernatural way?

Look at whom Jesus is speaking to. Its His own disciples and He is not referring to the church in the later centuries.

If you read these texts in context you will find they have nothing to do her being sinless. Truly she was blessed but it does not follow that she was without sin. Christians also are blessed but they are not without sin.

This is one of the strongest verses that demonstrates why all born of human parents are sinners and why.

The sinlessness of Mary is implicitly revealed in Scripture - but revealed nonetheless. Scripture is materially sufficient on that score. Yet Scripture is formally insufficient. What lacks explicitness in Scripture must be clarified by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church in light of the Tradition from which Scripture has sprung. The Church’s doctrines are essentially God’s revelation in Scripture made explicitly clear. Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, but it is not a theologically systematic presentation of all that comprises the Deposit of Faith. The doctrines of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of two natures in Christ, and the ontology of the Holy Spirit were the subject of controversies and heresies necessitating the convocation of Church councils to resolve the matter. And this could only be achieved through an interpretation of Scripture by the Apostolic teaching authorty of the Church. None of the New Testament authors explicitly write that Mary was sinless, but neither do they write that the Holy Spirit is God. For all we know, they may have held the Judaic notion of the Spirit of God (shekinah, nefesh, and ruac: aspects, attributes, or effects of the Father alone) since they were Jews and worshipped in the Temple even after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. God’s revelation to the Church has gradually unfolded over time. This would include the revelations she has received regarding Mary. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not Scripture.

You suggested that the evangelists would have written that Mary was sinless by simply knowing her. Only God is omniscient and can read the human heart. But if He wants us to know that Mary was sinless, He will reveal it to us in the Deposit of Faith: Scripture and Tradition. Tradition makes explicit what is implicit in Scripture, for the latter emerges from the former.

Please cite the passage in which Jesus himself tells us that he was sinless. I cannot recall having read such a verse. Again, Paul would naturally tell us that Jesus was sinless, because he believed Jesus Christ was the Lord, although he uses the title “God” only when referring to the Father. Many religious scholars question whether Paul actually understood that Jesus was consubstantially one with the Father rather than a human being who was endowed with divine powers like the avitars of Hinduism and the bodhisattva of Buddhism, first century concepts. Paul is not explicit enough in revealing the Christian truth or disclosing what he understood about the Person of Christ. Church councils serve to clarify and define the truth, not Scripture. Our Catholic Trinitarian and Christological doctrines weren’t defined and made explicit until the fourth century (sola scriptura > heresies). Christ reveals the fullness of truth through the Apostolic teaching authority of his Church in time and until its end by the mediation of the Paraclete.

In Matthew 28:18-20, Christ commissions his Apostles to preach the Gospel and minister the sacraments to all nations until the end of time. If Jesus had simply granted this authority to only his disciples personally, then this commission would have come to an end when the last apostle died. We can safely assume that Jesus had their appointed successors in mind as well. Our Lord promised infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching to both the Apostolic college and the hierarchical college of the Church that was to succeed the Apostles. The Magisterium is endowed with the same power Christ communicated to his Apostles, having received that authority himself from the Father. The Church has infallibly declared Mary conceived without original sin and sinless throughout her entire life with Divine assistance.

Concerning Luke 1:42, the English translation reads “most blessed among women”, since there is no superlative in the Hebrew or Aramaic language. Luke originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic before it was translated into the Greek, a vernacular language of the Roman empire. Elizabeth’s words literally mean that Mary is the holiest (blessed) among women, as the fruit of her womb is the holiest (blessed) among men. Both mother and child were sinless. Mary’s blessing from God is compared to the blessing that rests on her Son. Jesus was blessed in his humanity by being sinless (Hebrews 4, 15).

Hence, the immaculate elements (pristine matter) from which the original Adam took his substance (Man was originally good and in friendship with God before the Fall.) prefigured the immaculate Mother from whom the new Adam (Rom 5, 14) took his pristine human substance. The Apostle Paul saw Jesus as the New Adam, as the Church Father, Justin Martyr (A.D. 155), perceived Mary as the New Eve. God gradually reveals the fullness of his truth to the Church in time.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NDfan]

The sinlessness of Mary is implicitly revealed in Scripture - but revealed nonetheless. Scripture is materially sufficient on that score. Yet Scripture is formally insufficient. What lacks explicitness in Scripture must be clarified by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church in light of the Tradition from which Scripture has sprung. The Church’s doctrines are essentially God’s revelation in Scripture made explicitly clear. Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, but it is not a theologically systematic presentation of all that comprises the Deposit of Faith. The doctrines of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of two natures in Christ, and the ontology of the Holy Spirit were the subject of controversies and heresies necessitating the convocation of Church councils to resolve the matter. And this could only be achieved through an interpretation of Scripture by the Apostolic teaching authorty of the Church. None of the New Testament authors explicitly write that Mary was sinless, but neither do they write that the Holy Spirit is God. For all we know, they may have held the Judaic notion of the Spirit of God (shekinah, nefesh, and ruac: aspects, attributes, or effects of the Father alone) since they were Jews and worshipped in the Temple even after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. God’s revelation to the Church has gradually unfolded over time. This would include the revelations she has received regarding Mary. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not Scripture.

You suggested that the evangelists would have written that Mary was sinless by simply knowing her. Only God is omniscient and can read the human heart. But if He wants us to know that Mary was sinless, He will reveal it to us in the Deposit of Faith: Scripture and Tradition. Tradition makes explicit what is implicit in Scripture, for the latter emerges from the former.

Please cite the passage in which Jesus himself tells us that he was sinless. I cannot recall having read such a verse. Again, Paul would naturally tell us that Jesus was sinless, because he believed Jesus Christ was the Lord, although he uses the title “God” only when referring to the Father. Many religious scholars question whether Paul actually understood that Jesus was consubstantially one with the Father rather than a human being who was endowed with divine powers like the avitars of Hinduism and the bodhisattva of Buddhism, first century concepts. Paul is not explicit enough in revealing the Christian truth or disclosing what he understood about the Person of Christ. Church councils serve to clarify and define the truth, not Scripture. Our Catholic Trinitarian and Christological doctrines weren’t defined and made explicit until the fourth century (sola scriptura > heresies). Christ reveals the fullness of truth through the Apostolic teaching authority of his Church in time and until its end by the mediation of the Paraclete.

In Matthew 28:18-20, Christ commissions his Apostles to preach the Gospel and minister the sacraments to all nations until the end of time. If Jesus had simply granted this authority to only his disciples personally, then this commission would have come to an end when the last apostle died. We can safely assume that Jesus had their appointed successors in mind as well. Our Lord promised infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching to both the Apostolic college and the hierarchical college of the Church that was to succeed the Apostles. The Magisterium is endowed with the same power Christ communicated to his Apostles, having received that authority himself from the Father. The Church has infallibly declared Mary conceived without original sin and sinless throughout her entire life with Divine assistance.

Concerning Luke 1:42, the English translation reads “most blessed among women”, since there is no superlative in the Hebrew or Aramaic language. Luke originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic before it was translated into the Greek, a vernacular language of the Roman empire. Elizabeth’s words literally mean that Mary is the holiest (blessed) among women, as the fruit of her womb is the holiest (blessed) among men. Both mother and child were sinless. Mary’s blessing from God is compared to the blessing that rests on her Son. Jesus was blessed in his humanity by being sinless (Hebrews 4, 15).

Hence, the immaculate elements (pristine matter) from which the original Adam took his substance (Man was originally good and in friendship with God before the Fall.) prefigured the immaculate Mother from whom the new Adam (Rom 5, 14) took his pristine human substance. The Apostle Paul saw Jesus as the New Adam, as the Church Father, Justin Martyr (A.D. 155), perceived Mary as the New Eve. God gradually reveals the fullness of his truth to the Church in time.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Goodfella the problem with your argument is that you first question the validity of Paul but then use his letter to support your claim.

The new eve as you are trying to claim as Mary being sinless in order to create Jesus as sinless is ridiculous. Consider:

2 Corinthians: 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul says that GOD made Jesus to be sin, meaning Jesus was going to take on all our sins, but that Jesus didn’t know sin. So GOD made Jesus sinless. Mary didn’t make Jesus sinless.

PEACE

 

[justinthemartyr]

Goodfella the problem with your argument is that you first question the validity of Paul but then use his letter to support your claim.

The new eve as you are trying to claim as Mary being sinless in order to create Jesus as sinless is ridiculous. Consider:

2 Corinthians: 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul says that GOD made Jesus to be sin, meaning Jesus was going to take on all our sins, but that Jesus didn’t know sin. So GOD made Jesus sinless. Mary didn’t make Jesus sinless.

PEACE

But mary certainly would have given him sin nature because Christ was also fully human 100%, and fully God 100%.

God preprepared Mary for this. Also, God would not conceive of a child with Mary if she had sin.

All of the deformers agree.

 

[planten]

But mary certainly would have given him sin nature because Christ was also fully human 100%, and fully God 100%.

God preprepared Mary for this. Also, God would not conceive of a child with Mary if she had sin.

All of the deformers agree.

**Different groups of christians are arguing about Mary being a sinner or not sinner. They cannot agree to any one idea. It means they are not sure and they do not know the truth.
That is a great weakness of their religion. The religion has not taught many good things to the christians.
We Muslims do not believe that Mary, or any one else new born, is a sinner. But we do not care what the church says. They can make her a sinner as they like. It is the bad result of their belief in the original sin (Which also the muslims do not believe).

I do not know what will be the end result of this discussion and when we will be able to know that Mary was sinless or a sinner. Until then her (Mary’s) status is hanging in the balance.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**Different groups of christians are arguing about Mary being a sinner or not sinner. They cannot agree to any one idea. It means they are not sure and they do not know the truth.
That is a great weakness of their religion. The religion has not taught many good things to the christians.
We Muslims do not believe that Mary, or any one else new born, is a sinner. But we do not care what the church says. They can make her a sinner as they like. It is the bad result of their belief in the original sin (Which also the muslims do not believe).

I do not know what will be the end result of this discussion and when we will be able to know that Mary was sinless or a sinner. Until then her (Mary’s) status is hanging in the balance.**

I disagree with you. Mary’s immaculate conception and sinless life does not hang anywhere, because this is the belief of the Roman Catholic church. Non believers that are not of the apostolic teaching, have not come to the full knowledge of their hope. Mary’s life reflects what is going to happen to all of us at the end.

As far as muslims not believing in original sin, explains volumes of your understqnding of Adam and Eve, and Old testament and the covenants of God. Not to mention the many wars and contentions among tribes in the middle east. Believing one is without sin is a mortal cry from Satan himself.

Muslims believe in Fatima? Mary appeared at Fatima the city named after her, by her Catholic husband. You are not defaming the blessed mother Mary by not accepting the Church’'s belief in her immaculate conception and sinless life? I have found Muslims that have a respect for our blessed Mother, including Fatima. Was I misinformed by Muslims?

Peace be with you

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Fella;3570463]The sinlessness of Mary is implicitly revealed in Scripture - but revealed nonetheless. Scripture is materially sufficient on that score. Yet Scripture is formally insufficient. What lacks explicitness in Scripture must be clarified by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church in light of the Tradition from which Scripture has sprung.

What is this “Tradition” that you refer to? If its not found in the scriptures then it has to come originally from the mind of a man. In regards to this topic we both agree that the scriptures do not even come close to mentioning it. Not even implicitedly.

The Church’s doctrines are essentially God’s revelation in Scripture made explicitly clear. Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, but it is not a theologically systematic presentation of all that comprises the Deposit of Faith. The doctrines of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of two natures in Christ, and the ontology of the Holy Spirit were the subject of controversies and heresies necessitating the convocation of Church councils to resolve the matter. And this could only be achieved through an interpretation of Scripture by the Apostolic teaching authorty of the Church. None of the New Testament authors explicitly write that Mary was sinless, but neither do they write that the Holy Spirit is God.

Your comparison between the doctrine of the HS being God and Mary are not comparable. We know the HS is God by the various texts of Scripture that does not require us to take verses out of context. When we look for the support for Mary being sinless there is not only statements in Scripture for it but it also nullifies other scriptrues that tell us all men born of human parents are sinners.

For all we know, they may have held the Judaic notion of the Spirit of God (shekinah, nefesh, and ruac: aspects, attributes, or effects of the Father alone) since they were Jews and worshipped in the Temple even after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. God’s revelation to the Church has gradually unfolded over time.

I can understand the church over a short period of time coming to a proper understanding of the doctrine of God i.e. the deity of Christ. What has happened in the catholic church is that it no longer liimits itself to the scriptures in it doctrines but goes far beyond them. This is what has happened to Mary. It has added so much to her in catholic doctrine that its not the same Mary we see portrayed in the Scriptures.

This would include the revelations she has received regarding Mary. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not Scripture.

This still does not mean a church cannot err in doctrine. Being the support and foundation of the truth does not mean it cannot err. Secondly, the Scriptures warn of false teachers coming into the church itself and decieving.

You suggested that the evangelists would have written that Mary was sinless by simply knowing her. Only God is omniscient and can read the human heart. But if He wants us to know that Mary was sinless, He will reveal it to us in the Deposit of Faith: Scripture and Tradition. Tradition makes explicit what is implicit in Scripture, for the latter emerges from the former.

What Trraditon outside of the NT says the she was sinless? To whom was this “revealed” to?

Please cite the passage in which Jesus himself tells us that he was sinless. I cannot recall having read such a verse.

John 8:46–“Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

Again, Paul would naturally tell us that Jesus was sinless, because he believed Jesus Christ was the Lord, although he uses the title “God” only when referring to the Father. Many religious scholars question whether Paul actually understood that Jesus was consubstantially one with the Father rather than a human being who was endowed with divine powers like the avitars of Hinduism and the bodhisattva of Buddhism, first century concepts. Paul is not explicit enough in revealing the Christian truth or disclosing what he understood about the Person of Christ.

Paul is quite clear in his understanding that Christ is God. Here is one from Titus 2:13—looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Or Colossians 1:15-17
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Church councils serve to clarify and define the truth, not Scripture. Our Catholic Trinitarian and Christological doctrines weren’t defined and made explicit until the fourth century (sola scriptura > heresies). Christ reveals the fullness of truth through the Apostolic teaching authority of his Church in time and until its end by the mediation of the Paraclete.

In Matthew 28:18-20, Christ commissions his Apostles to preach the Gospel and minister the sacraments to all nations until the end of time.

What do you mean by sacraments? Its not even mentioned in this verse.

If Jesus had simply granted this authority to only his disciples personally, then this commission would have come to an end when the last apostle died. We can safely assume that Jesus had their appointed successors in mind as well. Our Lord promised infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching to both the Apostolic college and the hierarchical college of the Church that was to succeed the Apostles. The Magisterium is endowed with the same power Christ communicated to his Apostles, having received that authority himself from the Father. The Church has infallibly declared Mary conceived without original sin and sinless throughout her entire life with Divine assistance.

You can claim the catholic church “has infallibly declared Mary conceived without original sin and sinless throughout her entire life” but that does not make the doctrine true. The simple fact is that there is no evidence for it.

Concerning Luke 1:42, the English translation reads “most blessed among women”, since there is no superlative in the Hebrew or Aramaic language. Luke originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic before it was translated into the Greek, a vernacular language of the Roman empire.

What is the source for your saying that " Luke originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic before it was translated into the Greek"? I have never seen this and I’d be curious to see who says this.

Elizabeth’s words literally mean that Mary is the holiest (blessed) among women, as the fruit of her womb is the holiest (blessed) among men. Both mother and child were sinless.

The problem is that you are not getting this from the defintion of the words in the texts. It says nothing about a person being sinless.

Mary’s blessing from God is compared to the blessing that rests on her Son. Jesus was blessed in his humanity by being sinless (Hebrews 4, 15).

Just because there may be comparisons does not mean they are the same things. Jesus was sinless because of His unique conception while Mary was conceived in the same manner as the rest of mankind. She inherits the effects of sin from Adam since she was born of human parents.

Hence, the immaculate elements (pristine matter) from which the original Adam took his substance (Man was originally good and in friendship with God before the Fall.) prefigured the immaculate Mother from whom the new Adam (Rom 5, 14) took his pristine human substance. The Apostle Paul saw Jesus as the New Adam, as the Church Father, Justin Martyr (A.D. 155), perceived Mary as the New Eve. God gradually reveals the fullness of his truth to the Church in time.

Your last statement is one of the key differences between us.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pinkyyy]

God confirmed that the Virgin Mary is sinless, as confirmed by the constant teaching of the Magisterium, and yes, that is enough for me.

She is also a Virgin.

She was also conceived without original sin.

She is also in heaven, body and soul.

God also confirmed these truths, though the legitimate teaching authority of the Church.

She is blessed indeed, as she said.

Scott

Scott, where does it say that Mary remained a forever-virgin? I see this often, and I just don’t believe it. God called her to marriage - and even if you say that it was so she would be “respected” or something like that and not have a child out of wedlock, it still indeed was a marriage. I thought that God always keeps His word and why would he push Mary into a false marriage with Joseph then? His word states through the bible just what is required for a marriage - including intercourse. and the bible even talks of Jesus’s sisters and brothers - and I do not believe they are talking of cousins for if they were, they would have said the son or daughter of so and so.

Do you believe this because they CC sets up a theory of this can’t be because we don’t believe the mother of God can do this, so we’ll make her an ever-lasting virgin? Where is the proof?

 

[DLC]

This is anathama for it is idol worship plane and simple.

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all, O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”
St. Athanasius (ante A.D. 373)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

This is anathama fo it is idol worship.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

This is anathama for it is idol worship plane and simple.

This is anathama fo it is idol worship.

How? No where does it say anything to suggest she is greater then God, only the greatest of his creations, which is true.

 

[DCD]

Scott, where does it say that Mary remained a forever-virgin? I see this often, and I just don’t believe it. God called her to marriage - and even if you say that it was so she would be “respected” or something like that and not have a child out of wedlock, it still indeed was a marriage. I thought that God always keeps His word and why would he push Mary into a false marriage with Joseph then? His word states through the bible just what is required for a marriage - including intercourse. and the bible even talks of Jesus’s sisters and brothers - and I do not believe they are talking of cousins for if they were, they would have said the son or daughter of so and so.

Do you believe this because they CC sets up a theory of this can’t be because we don’t believe the mother of God can do this, so we’ll make her an ever-lasting virgin? Where is the proof?

Through the constant teaching of The Church founded by Jesus Christ. The proof is in the 2000 years of historical record.

God Bless
DCD

 

[NeedImprovement]

Scott, where does it say that Mary remained a forever-virgin? I see this often, and I just don’t believe it. God called her to marriage - and even if you say that it was so she would be “respected” or something like that and not have a child out of wedlock, it still indeed was a marriage. I thought that God always keeps His word and why would he push Mary into a false marriage with Joseph then? His word states through the bible just what is required for a marriage - including intercourse. and the bible even talks of Jesus’s sisters and brothers - and I do not believe they are talking of cousins for if they were, they would have said the son or daughter of so and so.

Do you believe this because they CC sets up a theory of this can’t be because we don’t believe the mother of God can do this, so we’ll make her an ever-lasting virgin? Where is the proof?

Specific arguments are a little easier to understand if the pertinent passages from scripture can possibly be provided periodically. Generalizations and random references can make it difficult to understand another’s perspective.

Many of us (including some modern day biblical translators) have been fooled by our “modern day” definition of the word “engagement”. When the Angels appeared to Mary and Joseph respectively, to announce God’s invitation to them , they were already married [Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27; 2:5]. They were “betrothed”. In simple terms, it means they were already married but not living together. Betrothal usually had a period of about 12 months before the wife was brought to the husband’s home. Don’t take my word for it - *Jewishencyclopedia.com *can tell you all about it.It’s a fantastic site.Technically they summarize betrothal this way:

"…in strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that betrothal 2 Sam 3:14 ; Deut 22:24] is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by formal divorce."

…so God didn’t “push” Mary into anything. He gave us a free will, and both Mary and the holy Angels bow down before the free will God gave us…it’s what defines our freedom - when love is free, it’s true love.

If we knew which part of the Old Testament you’re referring to Pinkyyy, when it comes to intercourse being “just what is required for marriage” it would be easier to grasp.

Here is what scripture says concerning the above as it pertains to Jesus’ conception: That Mary conceived Jesus by the power of God the Holy Spirit - not by human intervention [Matt 1:18 ; Luke 1: 34-35] ; and that Joseph had no relations any time with Mary before she bore her son [Matt 1:25]. Someone who doesn’t believe this is saying the bible is a lie. I find it interesting that scripture only went thus far; meaning it stopped there and **didn’t say **that Mary had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus.

Sometimes it’s what isn’t written in scripture that we’re meant to understand.

The “brothers and sisters”…[Mark 6:3] “Is this not the carpenter {Luke 4:22 says ‘carpenter’s son’}, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not his sisters our neighbors here?” One can’t base the answer on linguistic grounds here. Greek-speaking Semites used the terms “adelphos” and “adelphe”, not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother and sister, but also for nephew, neice, half brother, half sister and cousin. Certain African peoples still do the same. True,… the question of meaning wouldn’t have arisen but for the faith of the Catholic church in Mary’s perpetual virginity; again, I believe it’s what isn’t written which connects the pieces of the puzzle. We only need to ask ourselves this question:

Why, did the Gospel writers [Luke 5:10 ; Matt 4:18-22] deem it so important to mention that James was John’s blood brother and vice versa, and that Andrew was Peter’s blood brother and vice versa ? Wouldn’t anybody who thought it important enough to mention those facts in their account of the Son of God among us have thought it all the more important to mention if this Son of God had any blood brothers or sisters, born of the womb of Mary? It would only be logical.

 

[guanophore]

What is this “Tradition” that you refer to? If its not found in the scriptures then it has to come originally from the mind of a man.

This is an amazing and mind boggling assertion. Basically, what you are saying is that everything the Apostles taught before it was written did not come from Christ, but from man! It means that you cannot trust your bible at all!

I also discounts the gift of prophesy completely. Do you reject the spiritual gifts also?

I can understand the church over a short period of time coming to a proper understanding of the doctrine of God i.e. the deity of Christ. What has happened in the catholic church is that it no longer liimits itself to the scriptures in it doctrines but goes far beyond them. This is what has happened to Mary. It has added so much to her in catholic doctrine that its not the same Mary we see portrayed in the Scriptures.

You are making false accusations against your neighbor again, ja4. This one seems to be one of your favorites too. The Catholic Church never “limits itself to the scriptures in its doctrines”. The Church created the NT, and all the doctrines were solid prior to a word of it. The Catholic Church doctrine comes from Christ, not the Bible. It is reflected in the Bible, but in this much you are right, that the doctrine “goes far beyond” scripture. Unfortunately you cannot have access to the remainder, because you have convinced yourself that it does not exist.

This still does not mean a church cannot err in doctrine. Being the support and foundation of the truth does not mean it cannot err.

Can you explain how we can be the pillar and support of the Truth, if we don’t know what it is?

Secondly, the Scriptures warn of false teachers coming into the church itself and decieving.

No need to draw attention to yourself, ja4, we know you are here.

What Trraditon outside of the NT says the she was sinless? To whom was this “revealed” to?

Catholics do not distinguish the Gospel that is contained within the Holy Writings from that which is without. In either case talking to you about Sacred Tradition would be like throwing pearls somewhere they don’t belong.

What is so interesting is that you cannot seem to get past all these problems you are having, and you keep bringing them up. For a year and a half you have been getting the same answers to the same questions, and yet you still don’t have your needs met, and you are still disturbed by it.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim 3:16-17

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I(Jesus) said to you. John 14:26

.

How do these verses imply that the Scripture should be separated from the inspired persons that wrote it, those appointed by God to teach it, and the persons God ordained to transmit that HS through the laying on of hands?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pinkyyy]

Specific arguments are a little easier to understand if the pertinent passages from scripture can possibly be provided periodically. Generalizations and random references can make it difficult to understand another’s perspective.

Many of us (including some modern day biblical translators) have been fooled by our “modern day” definition of the word “engagement”. When the Angels appeared to Mary and Joseph respectively, to announce God’s invitation to them , they were already married [Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27; 2:5]. They were “betrothed”. In simple terms, it means they were already married but not living together. Betrothal usually had a period of about 12 months before the wife was brought to the husband’s home. Don’t take my word for it - *Jewishencyclopedia.com *can tell you all about it.It’s a fantastic site.Technically they summarize betrothal this way:

"…in strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that betrothal 2 Sam 3:14 ; Deut 22:24] is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by formal divorce."

…so God didn’t “push” Mary into anything. He gave us a free will, and both Mary and the holy Angels bow down before the free will God gave us…it’s what defines our freedom - when love is free, it’s true love.

If we knew which part of the Old Testament you’re referring to Pinkyyy, when it comes to intercourse being “just what is required for marriage” it would be easier to grasp.

Here is what scripture says concerning the above as it pertains to Jesus’ conception: That Mary conceived Jesus by the power of God the Holy Spirit - not by human intervention [Matt 1:18 ; Luke 1: 34-35] ; and that Joseph had no relations any time with Mary before she bore her son [Matt 1:25]. Someone who doesn’t believe this is saying the bible is a lie. I find it interesting that scripture only went thus far; meaning it stopped there and **didn’t say **that Mary had relations with Joseph after she bore Jesus.

Sometimes it’s what isn’t written in scripture that we’re meant to understand.

The “brothers and sisters”…[Mark 6:3] “Is this not the carpenter {Luke 4:22 says ‘carpenter’s son’}, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not his sisters our neighbors here?” One can’t base the answer on linguistic grounds here. Greek-speaking Semites used the terms “adelphos” and “adelphe”, not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother and sister, but also for nephew, neice, half brother, half sister and cousin. Certain African peoples still do the same. True,… the question of meaning wouldn’t have arisen but for the faith of the Catholic church in Mary’s perpetual virginity; again, I believe it’s what isn’t written which connects the pieces of the puzzle. We only need to ask ourselves this question:

Why, did the Gospel writers [Luke 5:10 ; Matt 4:18-22] deem it so important to mention that James was John’s blood brother and vice versa, and that Andrew was Peter’s blood brother and vice versa ? Wouldn’t anybody who thought it important enough to mention those facts in their account of the Son of God among us have thought it all the more important to mention if this Son of God had any blood brothers or sisters, born of the womb of Mary? It would only be logical.

hi Needs, thanks for taking the time to write me. When I mention that intercourse is needed, I am generalizing what I have read here on the boards - a paralized man for example can not marry a woman in the CC b/c he can not consumate the marriage - and that it is not sterility that makes it void, it’s the fact that it MUST be consumated (not my words, but the words on here I have read from Catholics). So, my thinking is why would Mary be any different? Wouldn’t she be the one most likely to do as God commands (which is intercourse is needed or there is no marriage).

I just wanted to mention that I wasn’t trying to imply they had relations before Jesus was born - I know they did not - I was meaning after He was born.

Yes it would be logical to mention such a thing. I guess the thing I am not getting though is how the CC gets that she was a perpetual virgin when it’s not mentioned - at all. I mean, we really don’t know, right? We don’t know if those brothers and sisters they were talking of were brothers and sisters for real, or extended family b/c it doesn’t say for sure (even if it’s logical, it’s not clear one way of the other) - how sad that we don’t have sometimes a clear view of things. I just am careful not to “assume” as I feel the CC sometimes does in issues as this because it “makes sense” and fits.

 

[justinthemartyr]

**Different groups of christians are arguing about Mary being a sinner or not sinner. They cannot agree to any one idea. It means they are not sure and they do not know the truth.
That is a great weakness of their religion. The religion has not taught many good things to the christians.
We Muslims do not believe that Mary, or any one else new born, is a sinner. But we do not care what the church says. They can make her a sinner as they like. It is the bad result of their belief in the original sin (Which also the muslims do not believe).

I do not know what will be the end result of this discussion and when we will be able to know that Mary was sinless or a sinner. Until then her (Mary’s) status is hanging in the balance.**

Planten,
sorry to burst your bubble, but Christians were in unanimous agreement previous to the 16th century, which means that 1500 years of Christendom was in agreement and one.

The muslim world is so schizophrenic in teachings that no one knows what the muslim faith actually teaches, and it has always been that way.
Your authority is a book, claimed to have been written by a mere man, claiming that god directed him in having others write it for him. There are many, many sects of islam in disagreement on several major points of doctrine.

Christ built one church and that church remained virtually one, a monolith for the first 1500 years other than the orthodox split in which the eastern church still held to over 98% of the doctrines of the one Church Christ built.

 

[NeedImprovement]

hi Needs, thanks for taking the time to write me. When I mention that intercourse is needed, I am generalizing what I have read here on the boards - a paralized man for example can not marry a woman in the CC b/c he can not consumate the marriage - and that it is not sterility that makes it void, it’s the fact that it MUST be consumated (not my words, but the words on here I have read from Catholics). So, my thinking is why would Mary be any different? Wouldn’t she be the one most likely to do as God commands (which is intercourse is needed or there is no marriage).

I just wanted to mention that I wasn’t trying to imply they had relations before Jesus was born - I know they did not - I was meaning after He was born.

Yes it would be logical to mention such a thing. I guess the thing I am not getting though is how the CC gets that she was a perpetual virgin when it’s not mentioned - at all. I mean, we really don’t know, right? We don’t know if those brothers and sisters they were talking of were brothers and sisters for real, or extended family b/c it doesn’t say for sure (even if it’s logical, it’s not clear one way of the other) - how sad that we don’t have sometimes a clear view of things. I just am careful not to “assume” as I feel the CC sometimes does in issues as this because it “makes sense” and fits.

Nice reply Pinkyyy…

I get you now. Thx.

My point about brothers and sisters is that everyone else’s (including Lazarus’ sisters Martha and Mary or their brother Lazarus) who are in the circle of Jesus’ friends/relatives are each given a name, so I don’t think I could reconcile the fact that a blood brother or sister of Jesus weren’t even given a name or that they were nowhere to be found during Jesus’ arrest and Crucifixion.

You’re right on several other counts too.We consider intercourse , or the “marriage act” as being the determining factor in consummation of the marriage. A while back I’d attended two different “civil marriage ceremonies” of friends at city hall and I found it weird that each time the judge felt it necessary to explain to the couple that the husband and wife had to sleep together (duhhh!).

You’re to be commended for using the proper term "perpetual virginity " of Mary (…don’t know if the majority of catholics even use this term properly). As I said, it’s something Catholics have to take on faith…kind of like accepting it…we are asked to give our assent. Some of us won’t admit it, but when it gets right down to the facts we find ourselves grappling and doing mental gymnastics sometimes while attempting to visualize. Try asking one of us catholics about the “miraculous birth” and tell me what kind of a look you see on our face.

I think you’ll get what I’m saying, again by what I don’t write next. This is a prayer some of us were taught to say when we were younger:
Mary, virgin before Christ’s birth, pray for us.
Mary, virgin during Christ’s birth, pray for us.
Mary, virgin after Christ’s birth, pray for us.

God bless all who post here.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Not really assuming, but delving somewhat into the sphere of speculative thought can actually be quite beneficial.I’ve discovered the more I read between the lines in the Gospel accounts, the more weight the argumentation of Jesus having no blood brothers or sisters gains.

In John 19: 25-27 we are told that from the Cross Jesus gave the disciple whom he loved to his mother Mary and his mother Mary to the disciple whom he loved. It is recounted that from that moment on, that disciple took Mary into his care.

If Jesus had any blood brothers or sisters…born of the womb of Mary, they would have been the ones to take Mary into their care.