J
justasking4
Guest
How so?All this goes to show that everything the Catholic Church says about the Mother of God, Mary,conferms a truth about Jesus.:harp:
Pat
- Status
H
honeysuckle
Guest
This is the point you keep missing. Preservation from sin is not the same thing as being God incarnate who does not need to be preserved from sin.
Your idea that salvation cannot be by preservation is unscriptural.
E
elvisman
Guest
NDfan -
You and many other Protestant use the terms, “I think” or “I don’t think” or, “In my opinion”. This is precisely that damage that Protestantism has brought about. Too many differing opinions and misinterpretations.
If you had read my last post about what Athanasius had to say about the comparison between Mary and the Ark, you would see that this was what the Church teaches. When you read the Early Fathers, it is clear that they were Catholic.
I would believe THEIR interpretations over yours or ANYbody else who came along 1500 years later because they were closer to the actual events. They were students of the students of the aposts. Some of them were students of the actual Apostles (Ignatius, Polycarp) and learned the traditions that were passed down by them (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Corinthians 7:17; 11:23; 14:33; 2 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 1:8; Colossians 2:6, 7; 2 Timothy 1:13, 14; 2:2; 3:14; 2 John 1:12; 3 John 13).
Regarding my last post where I illustrated the comp[arisons between Mary and the Ark, here is some further information:[/COLOR]
**
1. Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided) 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
4. The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).
**
N
NDfan
Guest
So you’re making the assumption that by this statement Mary is implying she is sinless.
I never put a constraint on GOD. I’m stating what GOD chose to do and the parameters that GOD layed out for the atonement of sin. If GOD wants to redeem us differently than HE most certainly could. But HE hasn’t chosen to do that so it’s all a moot point.
Again you are putting a constraint on GOD. You are saying that GOD has to conceive Mary without sin so Jesus would be sinless. You accuse me of putting constraints on GOD but then you do the very same thing by stating “the only way”.
We’re spinning our wheels here brother. Again I never put constraints on GOD.God freely ordained these paths in his wise plan of salvation. He has revealed his scheme to us through His Church: “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. God has his reasons. So don’t try to constrain God by dictating to us he chooses only to do how you privately interpret “everything” in Scripture.
PEACE to youPax vobiscum
Good Fella
N
NDfan
Guest
You are confirming my point and don’t even realize it. If you say GOD doesn’t need to be preserved from sin then Mary doesn’t need to be preserved either because Jesus is GOD. There’s no way a sinful Mary can taint a sinless GOD.
I never said salvation could not be by preservation. GOD can save us anyway HE wants.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Elephant in the room which you continue to ignore is the whole discussion is a dispute over your personal interpreattion of scripture as opposed to others personal interpretation of Scripture. It, of course, can never be resolved because your interperation is no more valid than theirs. Fortuanately Christ left us his Church to sort all this out.
J
justasking4
Guest
This is a very good point.
If Mary was preserved from sin the scriptures never speak of such a thing. To say that she was is but speculation and it makes other passages such as Romans 5:12 to be false.
J
justasking4
Guest
See Juniper Carol --Mariology p147
No. You are making a category mistake here. God is not a man.
Here need of a Savior is one indicator. The other would be Romans 5:12 and Jesus nor His apostles ever taught she was without sin.
Did Mary grow old and die? What is the tradition on this?
No fallen human being can stop from sinning.
I still sin though as you and everyone else does. If there is “protection” its not that great. If anything i’m more aware of my sins than ever.
Have you looked at the context for this verse? Its about church discipline and not settling theological issues…
L
Lapell
Guest
Ever read Jesus’ word about the new wine having to be put in new wineskins, otherwise you would lose both the wine and the wineskin? Well, this passage helped me accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Jesus being the new wine and Mary being the wineskin which had to be new… does this make sense to you?
M
MrS
Guest
Yes, Mary needed a Savior, and she says as much. But a Savior does not remove your free will to sin. Jesus came to reopen the gates of heaven so that all mankind “could have a chance” to spend eternity there with God.
Mary required this “re-opening” also. And this is NO indication that she sinned.
“Full of Grace”, in its perfect past participle, as used in the infallible Scriptures, however, IS the indication that she was always free of sin. That sin, original sin, was simply removed for her, by God, before her conception. Nothing is impossible with God.
Mary did grow older. The Church has made no position of whether she was assumed prior to, or at, or right after her “death”… only that “at the end of her earthly life” she was assumed… unless you have evidence of her burial place as with all the Apostles, and numerous other Christians.
J
justasking4
Guest
What is vitally important in studying Scripture is the context. The context of the wine and wineskins has nothing to do with Mary but on the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God was something totally new and different than what preceded it.Ever read Jesus’ word about the new wine having to be put in new wineskins, otherwise you would lose both the wine and the wineskin? Well, this passage helped me accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Jesus being the new wine and Mary being the wineskin which had to be new… does this make sense to you?
N
NDfan
Guest
The RCC does the same thing. They publish what they think scripture is saying. I believe I’m being guided by the Holy Spirit just as you do.
But you automatically think because an ECF supports your claim you are 100% right. The ECFs are stating what they think just like everyone else but somehow you want to raise them above everyone as if they are somehow more authoritative. In 2000 years if the earth still exists, some will point back to Pope Benedict and say “even Pope Benedict made this claim”.
You’re making an assumption the things they say are what they were taught. If you read anything from Polycarp or Ignatius, they never say “this is what the Apostle John taught me”. The closest thing we have is from I believe Irenaeus or Clement that cites an Apostolic directive. That directive was to place leaders in the churches that were consistent with Apostolic teachings. Also if you ever take time to read all writings from the ECFs from say 100AD to 200AD at the latest you will notice an extreme change in posture on many issues. Show me something from Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement that confirms anything about Mary that states they were taught this by the Apostles.
And all these deductions and comparisons you are making are very nice. But unfortunately they don’t prove that Mary was sinless. The sinless nature of Mary is not what is stressed. It’s the fact that Jesus was born of a Virgin. The Ark had to be lined with Gold to carry the ten commandments and the scrolls containing the law that GOD commanded Moses to write. Mary’s womb had to have a similar purity in order to carry Jesus. And it was. She was a virgin who was undefiled by any man. We don’t compare the Ark to Mary’s body. We compare the Ark to Mary’s womb.
PEACE
L
Lampo
Guest
This is according to your (already admitted by you) fallible interpretation of Scripture, correct?
J
justasking4
Guest
If you want to argue from silence in regards to Mary sinning or not then i could say all kinds of people in the NT for example were without sin also since it never mentions them. For exanple there is no record that Andrew sinned. Should i assume he did not?
If look up this term in a NT Greek lexicon you will nothing in the defintion about her being free from sin or anything like that.
There is no evidence for this in Scripture. It is speculation.
Here is a catholic source on this issue:
"The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
Secondly, its interesting to note that her supposed assumption was considered a hersey by the early church. “In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation.”
J
justasking4
Guest
For you to claim it is incorrect would mean you have the correct infallible interpretation. Do you have that and where i can find it?
L
Lampo
Guest
The same way you do for infant baptism?
L
Lampo
Guest
I’ll answer your question with a yes or no if you answer mine first with a yes or no. Deal? Here’s the question again:
H
honeysuckle
Guest
Actually, you are confirming my point here.
When God was in the womb of Mary, was He is in an incubator that had no relevance to His Person? No, the hypostasis is dependent on God being fully human. Therefore, it is not, as you suggest, a situation where God must be “preserved” from the sin of His mother, as if His nature was fully formed and simply used the body of His mother as a vehicle to come to earth. As if He inherited only her skin and eyes, but nothing else from her.
But that is really is what you are arguing. You are arguing that Mary’s sinfulness was irrelevant because God is holy. Right. So what does that imply? Does that imply that He tolerated her sinfulness, and “preserved” Himself from it? Or does it imply that by logical necessity anything that God is joined to is pure, and redeemed? Does it not imply that for God to become one flesh with Mary, she must have been first cleansed from sin? God did not wrap himself in saran wrap, He purified His bride, the Church, who become one with Christ, of whom Mary is the first member.
Jesus inherited His soul from His mother, not simply His body, because the soul is human.He inherited every aspect of His person. To draw from that person, it must have been an untainted personhood.
And once again, being untainted, and without sin, is NOT the equivalent of divinity This is the biggest misunderstanding of Protestantism.
J
justasking4
Guest
Correct. Also keep in mind there is no one and no church that infallibly interprets scripture. We are all fallible interpreters.
L
Lampo
Guest
How do you know this based on your fallible interpretation?
- Status