ancestors of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter villaneweva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cornerstone:
Romans 3:20-23
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:** for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God**

your burden now
Click to expand...
So Jesus was a sinner?
 
40.png
kpnuts2k:
since i started thuis debate id beter sort u guys out

if you belive that mary was without sin show us where it said that is the bible also while your there show us where it says that she stayed a virgin and where it says that she didnt die but assended into heaven
Click to expand...
Well, this is just plain silly. The Bible (more especially the Gospels and the rest of the NT) was written (and compiled and canonised by the Catholic Church, I must say) in account of and about Christ. Telling the stories of Mary was not in the agenda of the four Evangelists. Asking for explicit proofs, therefore, is just plain silly. (It is implicitly said in OT, scattered here and there in forms of figures, types, prophecies anyway… :rolleyes: )

What can be proven, however, is the instruction to “hold fast to the traditions that [the Apostles] handed down” – either “written” (the eventual NT Scriptures) or “oral” (Sacred Tradition). This is from one of the epistles; can’t remember which one. 😛

And, Sacred Tradition holds these Marian dogmas – so we hold and believe them, too. :cool:
 
40.png
Vitus:
Attacking? No. Defending from an attack? Absolutely.

I’ve read all your posts actually. They stand out like sore thumbs. And if I thought you were here for genuine reasons (such as sharing the faith or learning), things might be phrased differently.

Which books of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic btw?

And which died first, Aramaic or Latin?
Click to expand...
read this forum and you will find that out
i am still waiting for someone to show me where the Bible talks about a sinless Mary.
 
to vitus:
40.png
Vitus:
Ignorance is bliss, eh JesusTheSavior? I mean cornerstone, although your writing styles are eerily similar. But I digress.

So if Latin was not a language “on the Bible”, what exactly was? If you are such a linguistic purist, please recite to us a verse from that Bible you worship in the language the Apostles spoke. I’ll even give you a hint (since I doubt you know what language it was), it’s a dead language as well. Then you can tell us which became a dead language first.

As for challenging what Catholics believe, that is laughable. Catholics understand their faith, something you obviously do not. No knowledgeble Catholic is afraid of the truth because they already have it. Close minded, hard hearted people who come around thowing Jack Chick-isms around (like JesusIsTheWay has done) aren’t to be feared, they are to be shown pity and prayed for.
Click to expand...
Thank so much for bringing me in this vitus,sorry i am not cornerstone.
I hope you do know how to speak arameic and greek wich it was the language that the apostles spoke in those days.
If cornerstone,JesusistheWay and i are closed minded like you say, we are blessed that we are strong in our faith to not only be able to quote verses of the bible,wich we base our faith and the love that only Jesus can put in our hearts for those who are not.
You pity us?we pray for you,so the truth can be share in this forum and may the Lord God open your heart, to not condem but to be able to share your believe base on the truth of the Word of God nothing else.
 
Morning!

Luke 1:28—The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Luke 1:30—But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.”

Luke 1:42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!”

God was obviously with the Virgin Mary. Think about this—when you wake up in the morning, and you want a nice, cold glass of orange juice, would you put that juice in a dirty glass? Then, why would God put our Lord Jesus in a sinful vessel? God protected the Virgin Mary from sin. She was the spouse of the Holy Spirit (see next chapter and verse)-------(Luke 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”

She did not have any other children other than her son the Lord Jesus Christ. BTW, when I was a Baptist, I had the same questions about Mary that many of you on this thread do. I feel that she will be bringing you back into the Roman Catholic Church, just as she brought me home. Remember, she will always point you to her Son!

Praise to the Lord Jesus Christ, forever and ever!!
journey
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
… and Man!
Click to expand...
Like John 1:14 said: And Word became flesh and dwelt among us,and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Fther,full of grace and truth.

Yes He was a man but He was the Son of God,born with no sin.
You can not compare a regular man with Jesus he was born with out sin.
 
To think that God wished His eternally-begotted only Son, the God-Man, to be born from the womb of a sinner is down-right blasphemous! :banghead:
 
40.png
cornerstone:
NONE of the passages that you mention say that Mary was sinless.
Click to expand...
The point is it doesn’t “need” to be in Scripture. That’s what we’re saying, sola Scriptura is NOT Biblical, and in fact it goes against Scripture.
40.png
cornerstone:
the Catholic Church was never really interested on people reading the Bible.
Click to expand...
And your proof for this ridiculous statement? Not from the 16th century when erroneous Bibles were printed and the Church wanted to protect its members from the wrong word surely.
40.png
cornerstone:
not too many years ago, as all of you know, the mass was given in latin. what benefit is listening to a sermon that is not on a language that you can understand?
Click to expand...
You are really misinformed about the Catholic Church aren’t you? The readings from Scripture and the sermon were always in the native tongue.
40.png
cornerstone:
why would Jesus warn about adding or taking out from the Scriptures if then other doctrines can be verbally added as we go? (Revelation 22:18-19)
Click to expand...
First of all this wasn’t Jesus, but it doesn’t really matter, they were referring to that one book, Revelation, not the entire Bible, the entire Bible hadn’t even been written by then. Using your reasoning we’d have to throw out half of the New Testament which was written after Revelations.
40.png
cornerstone:
why would the apostles warn about other gospels and then add other doctrines like purgatory?
Click to expand...
Purgatory is in the Scripture.
 
40.png
JesustheSavior:
Like John 1:14 said: And Word became flesh and dwelt among us,and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Fther,full of grace and truth.

Yes He was a man but He was the Son of God,born with no sin.
You can not compare a regular man with Jesus he was born with out sin.
Click to expand...
I know that!

But my point is, He was a Man, nonetheless. Therefore you are applying a double standard in your previous argument!
 
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,and we beheld His glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,full of grace and truth.

Jesus was the son of God not just a regular man He was born with no sin.
 
cornerstone: my burden is light. This is from Dave Armstrong:

"MARY’S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
  1. Luke 1:28 The Gk. word rendered “highly favoured” here (KJV) and in many translations, is “kecharitomene.” Catholic Bibles usually translate it “full of grace,” which is permissible, and not merely a biased position. E.g., the Protestant Amplified Bible mentions in a note that “endued with grace” is the “literal translation.” W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, a standard Protestant reference, states that the word means “to make graceful or gracious . . . grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained.”
If this be true, the Catholic rendering makes more clear the Catholic position that Mary’s Immaculate Conception is entirely unmerited on her part, a sheer act of mercy and grace performed solely by God. “Favour” may imply otherwise. “Kecharitomene,” in any event, is derived from the root “charis,” whose literal meaning is “grace” (it is translated as “grace” 129 out of 150 times in the KJV).
  1. Catholicism needs only to show the harmony of a doctrine with the Bible. It is not our view that every doctrine of Christianity must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We have also Sacred Tradition, Church Authority, and an acceptance of the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths. A belief implicitly biblical is not “anti-biblical” or “unbiblical,” as many Protestants would have us believe.
  2. Luke 1:35 This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for “overshadow” (“episkiasei”) was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God’s Presence (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.
Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God’s Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as “Spouse”), and God the Father (as “Daughter of Zion”), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.
  1. Other biblical parallels to the Immaculate Conception exist. Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and John the Baptist (Lk 1:15) were sanctified from the womb for the serious tasks to which God was calling them. The Apostles were endowed with many extraordinary gifts for their unique role in the history of Christianity (Acts 2; 2 Cor 3:5-6). Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were immaculate and without sin. They were brought forth from an immaculate earth, just as Jesus came forth from the immaculate Mary. Mary is the “second Eve” just as Jesus was the “second Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22,45). Mary, by her profound obedience (Lk 1:38), “undoes” Eve’s disobedience in the Garden. Saints in heaven are completely holy (Rev 14:5).
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ153.HTM

I hope this helps! You still need to show me that Mary was sinful.
 
40.png
kpnuts2k:
it doesnt say that she was a sinner but it doesnt say that moses was a sinnder but he was
Click to expand...
as i recall, and i didn’t recheck scripture so i could be wrong, but i thought moses was denied entry into the promised land cuz he killed the egyptian guard. wouldn’t that indicate Daddy considered it a sin, and him a sinner?
what do you take the title, ‘full of grace’, to mean or signify?
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry
 
To Tom:

Can you please find me verses in the bible that say that?
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
I know that!

But my point is, He was a Man, nonetheless. Therefore you are applying a double standard in your previous argument!
Click to expand...
And you are making Jesus equal to you that means you have no sin?
 
Many Protestants think that Mary had more children because it says in the Bible that
  1. Jesus was her firstborn. (thinking that therefore there would have to be later borns for Him to be “first” born). But that is wrong. Look in Samuel. Samuel was the ONLY child yet he is referred to as “the firstborn” because of Jewish tradition that required the purification of the mother and the consecration of the “firstborn” male in ANY family.
  2. It says in the Bible that Mary had no relations with Joseph UNTIL the birth of Jesus. But. . .the word “until” is used in many scriptural passages, not in the way we use “until” today. Scripture says, for example, that Moses did not see the Promised Land “until he died”. So, did he see the Promised Land AFTER he died? NO!
    She had no relations with Joseph before OR after the birth of Jesus.
    Biblically speaking, Mary was the betrothed of Joseph. Now, when the angel Gabriel approached her and asked her to be the mother of the Messiah, WHY did Mary say, “How can this be since I do not know man?” She was GOING TO MARRY JOSEPH. She had had a ceremony. Wouldn’t she have expected to “know man” and that she and JOSEPH would have the Messiah–who was supposed to be, in Jewish tradition, a leader of the people, of the line of David–which was Joseph’s line, you know.
BUT. . .if (and this was not unknown in Mary’s culture and tradition) she and Joseph were going to be married but LIVE AS BROTHER AND SISTER–a tradition which would have been very familiar to them if Mary was of the priestly household–and since her cousin Zacariah was a priest this seems indicated), then she WOULD have asked, “how can this be?”

She intended to live in her marriage as a virgin, with a chaste and virginal spouse. THAT’s why she asked. That’s why she REMAINED A VIRGIN.

And remember, right there in the Bible, at the cross Jesus consigned his Mother to the care of John the evangelist. According to Jewish custom and tradition, this COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if Mary had other sons. In fact, this would not have happened even if she had had only daughters, as their husbands would have taken her in. And the whole Bible point of “the brothers of Jesus” hangs again on those who cannot understand that the original language of the scriptural passages used the term “brethren” for relatives outside siblings. Look in Genesis where Lot, Abram’s NEPHEW, is called his BROTHER.
 
40.png
mrS4ntA:
… and Man!
Click to expand...
(First and foremost this post is not just directed at one person who I am quoting here. This involved multiple users… you know who you are…)

HI!!! ME AGAIN!!! I had nothing to do with this post but if you want to drag me into this, I will jump in with a cannonball! 2 points to make here:
  1. So am I hearting you correctly that if Jesus was Man… (which his is) does that mean by default he is a sinner? You are telling me that through everything he went through, everything he did for us, you are telling me somewhere in there he transgrfessed the law? Even though the whole point of him being here was to save us from our sinful lives?? AND THEN you turn around and say that Mary is the One who led a sinless life??
HERETIC TALK!!!

If this was not your inbtention or your point, I suggest you correct yourself really quick because that is the impression I am getting…
  1. What is the point? You come in here and start labelling me with “Jack Chick-isms”? I saw something that looked interesting and related to that topic of discussion! You start talking about me and JesustheSavior and Cornerstone like you are “Holier than Thou”?? That doesn’t sound like the type of person who would wash his brothers feet. I can speak for the 3 of us when I say we are Saved! We believe in Jesus as our Lord and Savior. He died for our sins, He, and He alone, paid the Ultimate sacrifice for our sins. We have our relation ship with God, we confess our sins to Christ, and we try as hard as we can to stay in his good graces and do his will… and THAT is most important… NOT the mud slinging that this has evolved to…
 
40.png
JesustheSavior:
To Tom:

Can you please find me verses in the bible that say that?
Click to expand...
like I said before,
Well, this is just plain silly. The Bible (more especially the Gospels and the rest of the NT) was written (and compiled and canonised by the Catholic Church, I must say) in account of and about Christ. Telling the stories of Mary was not in the agenda of the four Evangelists. Asking for explicit proofs, therefore, is just plain silly. (It is implicitly said in OT, scattered here and there in forms of figures, types, prophecies anyway… )
Click to expand...
**What can be proven, however, is the instruction to “hold fast to the traditions that [the Apostles] handed down” – either “written” (the eventual NT Scriptures) or “oral” (Sacred Tradition). This is from one of the epistles; can’t remember which one. **
And, Sacred Tradition holds these Marian dogmas – so we hold and believe them, too.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you hadn’t bothered to read it… :mad:

Anyway, I’ve found the exact verse, here they are:

*“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the **traditions ** even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2),

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the **traditions ** which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and **not in accord with the tradition ** that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

Further,
“[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).*
(referring to the Apostolic Succession)

In Christ through Mary,
S4ntA.
 
40.png
JesustheSavior:
And you are making Jesus equal to you that means you have no sin?
Click to expand...
Holy Cow, no! I was just making the emphasis that Jesus is not just God, He is also Man – He is God-Man. Your argument using “for all men sinned” is then, to me at least, a double standard and falls short if you take Jesus into consideration. It’s the argument that I wanted to point out, not the sinlessness of Jesus – of course he is (and was conceived sinless), He is God!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top