did Mary have fallen human nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
this is my thought and reflexing on the Little child Jesus–Saint Teresa–we must be careful not to add our own myths about Mary–Blessed Virgin Mary. In Hebrew there was a Jew that told me I do not quite remember but “virgin” in Hebrew means —woman!

woman and virgin or change or what ever!
Hebrew–Greek–Latin—English

English-- translations made-- can change the whole meaning just one word! How does it read in the Scriptures in Hebrew?
What you are missing is that it really doesn’t matter exactly what the Bible says, as we read it. It only matters what the Church says that it says. In the end, this is realy a meaningless discussion. In order to be Catholic, one must believe whatever interpretation the Church gives because the interpretation is devinely inspired. If you don’t believe in the divine interpretation, you aren’t really Catholic.
 
Yes thats true and God tells us this Truth in His written word, see 1Peter 2:21-22.

Yes the Lord Jesus is fully God & fully man and God tells us this Truth in His written word.

So we know that the Lord Jesus is sinless, fully God & fully man because God tells us these Truths in His written word.

Now we also know that Mary was fully human and a sinner because God tells us so in His written word.

.
NOT correct. The Bible does not say that Mary was a sinner. She is likened to the Ark of the Covenant which contained the Very Holy of Holies. Uzza was instantly stuck dead when he touched it. Such was the HOLINESS of God. We modern folks always forget that. Especially Evangelicals in their readiness to discount Catholic teachings on Mary. The Holiness of God was in Mary’s womb. She would have to be without the stain of Original Sin to be the Bearer of the Saviour. Dave Armstrong’s website has scores of apologetics pages of the correct understanding of Mary’s sinlessness and the Immaculate Conception. Also, Catholic Answers has excellent writings on this. Its interesting that the reformers like Luther , Calvin and Zwingli understood Catholic teaching on Mary and agreed with it but Americanized " Bible Christian" have evolved into misunderstanding everything on this topic. Come and see.!
 
NOT correct. The Bible does not say that Mary was a sinner. She is likened to the Ark of the Covenant which contained the Very Holy of Holies. Uzza was instantly stuck dead when he touched it. Such was the HOLINESS of God. We modern folks always forget that. Especially Evangelicals in their readiness to discount Catholic teachings on Mary. The Holiness of God was in Mary’s womb. She would have to be without the stain of Original Sin to be the Bearer of the Saviour. Dave Armstrong’s website has scores of apologetics pages of the correct understanding of Mary’s sinlessness and the Immaculate Conception. Also, Catholic Answers has excellent writings on this. Its interesting that the reformers like Luther , Calvin and Zwingli understood Catholic teaching on Mary and agreed with it but Americanized " Bible Christian" have evolved into misunderstanding everything on this topic. Come and see.!
I think the answer comes down to if one considers Church teaching ifalllible or not. If one does consider Church teacing infallible, then we all know what we must believe. Scripture does not clearly say one way or the other. If one does not, there is nothing in the Bible which clearly states one way or the other. It could be argued from both sides.
 
What you are missing is that it really doesn’t matter exactly what the Bible says, as we read it. It only matters what the Church says that it says. In the end, this is realy a meaningless discussion. In order to be Catholic, one must believe whatever interpretation the Church gives because the interpretation is devinely inspired. If you don’t believe in the divine interpretation, you aren’t really Catholic.
Expect, Can the Bible exist with out the Church? Can the Church exist without Bible?
 
Such was the HOLINESS of God. We modern folks always forget that. Especially Evangelicals in their readiness to discount Catholic teachings on Mary. The Holiness of God was in Mary’s womb. She would have to be without the stain of Original Sin to be the Bearer of the Saviour.
No! Not true!!! The Church does not teach that Mary has to be without sin to give birth to the Son of God. Yes! That is how God did it. But God the Father could have protected Jesus from the stain of OS if he so chose to do it that way.
The preventive grace God gave Mary from OS was a gift, not a duity.
 
Could you be more clear about this?
St. John did not know he was Mary’s son?
Why would Jesus tell John the obvious?
No! what I am pondering why Jesus did not say to “his mother”, “Mother behold thy son”----Jesus does not call Blessed Mary his mother or addresses Mary as his mother —not mother but-----Jesus calls Mary— woman?

“Woman” behold thy son—then to John—behold they mother!

It is just interesting that is all—You would think Jesus would call his mother, mother don’t you think. Jesus calls Mary “woman” but yet when Jesus speaks to John–Jesus says–“behold thy mother”!

Yet when Jesus is talking in the square remember the people say
" Your mother, your brothers and sister are out side" Yet Jesus goes further ask the crowd “WHO IS MY BROTHER, SISTER AND MOTHER”? Jesus replies: "All who believe in my word are my brothers, sister mother!
  1. In the Ten commandments it says–Honour thy Father and Mother! so the name “Mother” was known right? Also Jesus calls God —Father-- Art Father—Jesus If you know me you know my Father etc. But at no time does Jesus call Blessed Mary —Mother through out the New Testament but Jesus calls her “WOMAN” Jesus said: “woman do you not know my time as not come yet”. Wedding at Cana.
That is what I mean and ponder why?
 
Expect, Can the Bible exist with out the Church? Can the Church exist without Bible?
Yes I believe the bible is God’s word and we are the church. So I would think Yes the bible could exist without the Church, depends on what your meaning or understanding of the word “church” means to you? A building or each one of us make up the church of Christ. “Souls”

God Bless
 
I think the answer comes down to if one considers Church teaching ifalllible or not. If one does consider Church teacing infallible, then we all know what we must believe. Scripture does not clearly say one way or the other. If one does not, there is nothing in the Bible which clearly states one way or the other. It could be argued from both sides.
When I was going up the Catholic Church taught us that Mary was born with out original sin–thus we got the name virgin!
 
St. Jerome in his letter on holy virginity.
"6. Our reply is briefly this,— the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not. Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord’s human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? although elsewhere he says, My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness. I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.
  1. The word of God says in Genesis, And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day. Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day. We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery.
  2. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, Matthew 1:20 that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, Matthew 1:20 Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife. The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord; and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will; and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation; and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? Mary at all events kept all these sayings in her heart. You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, Luke 2:33 His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him. And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.
  3. Helvidius will answer, What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, Genesis 38:26 ‘And he took his wife, and knew her again no more’? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? ‘He knew her not,’ he says, ‘until she brought forth a son.’ He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered.
  4. If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and intercourse. You must not say, If a woman conceive seed and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed thing, and so forth. On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her, and be subject to Jeremiah’s Jeremiah 5:8 reproof, They were as mad horses in respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. Otherwise, how can the words stand good, he knew her not, till she had brought forth a son, if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his lust must brook another long delay of forty days? The mother must go unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus forsooth must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted of falsehood. But God forbid that we should think thus of the Saviour’s mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, Luke 2:7 and laid Him, we are told, in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn." 👍
He ( Joseph) knew her ( Mary) “not till” she “had” a son!
 
He ( Joseph) knew her ( Mary) “not till” she “had” a son!
Doesn’t automatically imply Mary and Joseph had relations. “He knew her not until she had a son.” Doesn’t state that he knew her afterwards, I thought we were champions of accepting what the Bible said? 😛

Another explanation.
 
When I was going up the Catholic Church taught us that Mary was born with out original sin–thus we got the name virgin!
Planter: THINK! How old were you? Is this what you were REALLY taught? Or is this what you REMEMBER being taught? When you grew up, did it occur to you that something so absurd might not be quite what the Church had in mind when promulgating a de fide dogma?

Come ON! Don’t tell me you just accepted this incredibly silly idea as “the teaching of the Church” without questioning the possibility that you might be missing something.

Oh. Wait! We hear that all the time. People will believe without question that the Catholic Church teaches the most ridiculous DRIVEL.
 
Yes I believe the bible is God’s word and we are the church. So I would think Yes the bible could exist without the Church, depends on what your meaning or understanding of the word “church” means to you? A building or each one of us make up the church of Christ. “Souls”

God Bless
I didn’t ask if you thought the Bible was the word of God. I also did not ask if we are the Church.
You believe that the Bible could exist without the Church. Well… Has the Church ever existed with out the Bible?
 
He ( Joseph) knew her ( Mary) “not till” she “had” a son!
“Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord?”- St Jerome
Based on your understanding on the word “till/untill/unto”. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord?
 
No! what I am pondering why Jesus did not say to “his mother”, “Mother behold thy son”----Jesus does not call Blessed Mary his mother or addresses Mary as his mother —not mother but-----Jesus calls Mary— woman?

“Woman” behold thy son—then to John—behold they mother!

It is just interesting that is all—You would think Jesus would call his mother, mother don’t you think. Jesus calls Mary “woman” but yet when Jesus speaks to John–Jesus says–“behold thy mother”!

Yet when Jesus is talking in the square remember the people say
" Your mother, your brothers and sister are out side" Yet Jesus goes further ask the crowd “WHO IS MY BROTHER, SISTER AND MOTHER”? Jesus replies: "All who believe in my word are my brothers, sister mother!
  1. In the Ten commandments it says–Honour thy Father and Mother! so the name “Mother” was known right? Also Jesus calls God —Father-- Art Father—Jesus If you know me you know my Father etc. But at no time does Jesus call Blessed Mary —Mother through out the New Testament but Jesus calls her “WOMAN” Jesus said: “woman do you not know my time as not come yet”. Wedding at Cana.
That is what I mean and ponder why?
New Eve. Thats why Jesus calls Mary woman. In refrence to Eve in Gen.
 
“By special privilege of God”, why didn’t God give us all this “special privilege”, then He wouldn’t have had to send His Son to suffer and die a terrible death on the cross.

but God doesn’t tell in His written word that Mary was sinless in fact He says the following.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12
Mary was granted this singular privilege because she was chosen by God to conceive and bear His Only-begotten Son.

Death did not pass upon Enoch and Elijah, although they were just as implicated in the fatal consequence of original sin as the rest of us. Not “all” have necessarily died or sinned. Mary was implicated in the sin of Adam, along with the human race, so God intervened with her immaculate conception on account of her Divine maternity. No intervention was needed on our Lord’s behalf, for the Son of Man was not implicated in original sin. Mary was excepted because it would be unfitting for our Lord to be conceived and borne by an impure mother.

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.” {Luke 1, 46-49}

Paul is telling us that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile with regard to sin.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
What you are missing is that it really doesn’t matter exactly what the Bible says, as we read it. It only matters what the Church says that it says. In the end, this is realy a meaningless discussion. In order to be Catholic, one must believe whatever interpretation the Church gives because the interpretation is devinely inspired. If you don’t believe in the divine interpretation, you aren’t really Catholic.
The Church explains various doctrines, which we must believe.

In this regard if you do not believe the Catholic Churches “interpretation” of that doctrine then you are not currently fully aligned with Catholic teaching.

With rare exception, I do not see where the Catholic Church provides any specific interpretation for any particular bible verse.

It usually provides supporting arguments for doctrines quoting various bible verses and other historical documents.

Some of those verses explicitly deal with the subject at hand. Others offer implied support. In some cases, the bible may be silent on the subject.

In any case, the Church does not derive new doctrine from scripture.

I am not even sure what “Devine [scriptural] Interpretation” is supposed to mean in the context of the Doctrines that the Church puts forth for belief.

Chuck
 
Planter: THINK! How old were you? Is this what you were REALLY taught? Or is this what you REMEMBER being taught? When you grew up, did it occur to you that something so absurd might not be quite what the Church had in mind when promulgating a de fide dogma?

Come ON! Don’t tell me you just accepted this incredibly silly idea as “the teaching of the Church” without questioning the possibility that you might be missing something.

Oh. Wait! We hear that all the time. People will believe without question that the Catholic Church teaches the most ridiculous DRIVEL.
The only thing I ponder is to seek, ask and knock not to be lead away from God’s truth. Your statement says it all—“without questioning possibility that you might be missing something”

It is the free right of every soul, which we are no longer under bondage like Jesus said. “I have set you free indeed”. To question, ask, seek and knock to know God’s truth and not be lead away with myths, if myths and to beable within our souls to know our Heavenly Father.

Nobody who it is, I think God is pleased when we ask Him, seek him, ask him, serve him and to becareful not to let other souls to lead us by their own beliefs.

How much have you love me?
Why have you turned you back to me?
But you do not ask? Jesus said.
Have you not heard? Have you not studied? Have you not read" How you not read what Issaih said? Have you not known what Mose did…etc. Jesus says!

My faithfulness is to God and God only do I trust. With out him I can accomplish nothing, but with God all things are possible! I believe God hears my prayers, my conversations with him!
I trust in God only.God is not dead, God knows and sees all things, God is eternal!

I choose! For I will be judged by God not by anyone else, for when I stand before Him–How much have you loved me? etc. Only God can save us!

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top