Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

Part 2

The Virgin Mary observed this Law not because She believed Herself to be defiled by giving birth to Christ, but to give an example of humility and obedience by fulfilling all outward observances.

Huh? The context does not support your conclusion. Leviticus 12:2-5 considers a woman who has a male child to be unclean. In light of this she certainly did consider herself to be unclean.

For the Virgin Mary was not subject to this particular law by virtue of what God Himself had laid down in prefacing it: “If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days…” (v. 2 [Douai]).

This is pure speculation that she was not subject to this particular law. There is nothing in the passage that indicates this.

The conception and birth of Christ was not due to the reception of male seed but rather to the power of the Holy Spirit. In no way can it be claimed that in conceiving, bearing and delivering Christ the Virgin Mary was made “unclean.”

If what you say is true then it would make no sense for her to do the offering.

In fact, the opposite would have occurred, that is, She would have received an augmentation of grace.20

This is more speculation since there is nothing in scripture that tells us that grace works this way. Maybe i missed it. If so, do you know where grace is described this way in scripture?

That God should have created the Virgin Mary in a state of holiness as He had formed Eve and the angels is also befitting the honour of God: of the Father, whose daughter She is; of the Son, whose mother She is;and of the Holy Spirit, who, in the incarnation, took the Virgin Mary to be His spouse.

Again you have more speculations. This last part is especially troubling in light that the scriptures never come close to saying she is “His spouse”. This is a clear false teaching of your church.

Further, as the “new Eve” and mother of the new Adam, the Virgin Mary cannot appropriately be anything less than the original Eve; on the contrary, as Christ excelled Adam, so the Virgin Mary (though to a lesser degree) should excel Eve. Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church has consistently and universally proclaimed the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary:

This is absolutely amazing. There is not one shred of evidence in the scriptures for this claim. It is also true that this was totally unknown for centuries.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2617029]Are Maccabees part of your Inspired Canon? Tobit? If not, then someone threw them out (among, of course, a total of 7 books), because they were considered Canon for 1100 years prior to the New New Testament (give or take 100 years).

These books were considered “deutrocanical” i.e. disputed books and not considered fully canonical until they were declared so around 1600 in response to the reformation.

Tobit is part of the apocphyra and is widely disputed. However, this last part reminds me of the passage in Revelation which essentially says the same thing. The key word here is “present”. Do you happen to know what that word means here in this context?
Does it mean someone praying to another creature?

Define widely disputed.
Not accepted by the church universally to be inspired-inerrant scripture.

 

[justasking4]

My take on communication among the members of the body comes from 1 Corinthians, chapter 12: Now, their inability to say this comes not from their inability to communicate. It comes from their need for one another.

To further this point, Now, I ask you, how can one part of the Body “affect” another, but not communicate?

What is the context of I Cor 12? Is Paul speaking about those who have died or the living here?

If you say that it refers to those who have died then you are going to need to give a verse or 2 to support that.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2608196]No you don’t - if one member of ONE SINGLE body can’t communicate with the other members (via the brain and the nervous and circulatory systems) it’s no longer a member of the body. It’s either a dead appendage or belongs to a different body. Remember we’re not separate entities in spiritual terms - we’re all members of the ONE SINGLE BODY. Surely then we can all communicate on a spiritual level.

Not so. It does not follow we can communicate with those who have died. You can be part of something as a groupl or a body and that does not mean you can communicate.

Yes it does - we’re part of one (single) body, very scriptural. Not a community, a BODY - Christ’s body.

Your hand, foot, eyes, heart and lungs all tell each other what to do - sometimes via the brain, but not necessarily ALWAYS having to go to it.

That’s the reason you have a spine - it’s a shortcut in the nervous system so that in certain situations body parts can DIRECTLY communicate with each other since it’s quicker.

So does Christ allow all earthly and heavenly members of his body to communicate on a spiritual level -with each other as well as Him.

And common sense certainly does tell us too. We’re not one body if we can’t communicate on a spiritual level with each other.

What you write here sounds reasonable but its not scriptural. In fact the scriptures forbid such communications.

Remember as spiritual beings Christ and the saints don’t suffer the physical barriers to communication that occur in regard to physical bodies. Communication is absolutely possible betwen all members through Christ.

You have no evidence for this. If this were true, we would see the apostles themselves speaking of it and exhorting the church to pray to them when they die so they can continue to help the church. The fact that both Peter and Paul never ever mention such a thing.

Hence Christ telling both Paul and Ananias what to do. Hence Phillip being relocated after baptising the Ethiopian. Hence the angel opening the jail doors for Peter. There are no barriers between the earthly and heavenly in Christ - his power bridges that gap.

Christ Himself has the power to overcome this barrier but those who have died do not have such power.

 

[LilyM]

Christ Himself has the power to overcome this barrier but those who have died do not have such power.

OF COURSE they do - if they are members of his ONE body! ‘We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is’ - that includes having a share in His powers, no? Including the power to transcend space and time and walk through walls as He did. As Philip did after baptising the Ethiopian, as John did in Revelationwhen he saw and heard everyone on earth in heaven and under the earth alltogether.

And Paul said we will be much MORE like Him in heaven than we are now. Our powers will be that much greater.

Remember this - the angels can communicate with humans. Clearly. They can intercede for them and present their prayers to God. Tobit shows this, Revelation shows this.

Do you think we’ll be less powerful than they, or instead will we be ‘little less than God’ as Psalm 8 says - which is never said about the angels. They are MUCH less than God. THEY cover their faces in His presence, I think Isaiah shows this. WE will see Him face to face. Clearly we will be MORE honoured and exalted than they. And yet they can do all the things that you think the heavenly saints can’t?? Preposterous.

Revelation shows the deceased martyrs praying about events on earth ‘how long, O Lord, before you avenge us …’. They are most certainly aware of and praying about everything that goes on on earth, obviously can see and hear ALL of it, and yet you think they can’t hear us if we address them? In a word, nonsense.

 

[NotWorthy]

What is the context of I Cor 12? Is Paul speaking about those who have died or the living here?

If you say that it refers to those who have died then you are going to need to give a verse or 2 to support that.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your point. Where does it say in Scripture that it has to be in Scripture to be true?

But to your question, I thought it was about all of those who are part of the Body of Christ. The Church teaches that this is the Church Triumphant (those in heaven), the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory), and the Church Militant (Christians of this world). No where does Paul say that some parts can’t talk because they are of different worlds.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What books did Luther throw out?

Tobit is part of the apocphyra and is widely disputed. However, this last part reminds me of the passage in Revelation which essentially says the same thing. The key word here is “present”. Do you happen to know what that word means here in this context?
Does it mean someone praying to another creature?

Tobit is also refer to by the Apostles and Jesus. These aren’t apocryphal.

They have been a part of the Christian Canon long before the Reformation. If you even read the Wycliff Bible translation his book has them.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2617735]Tobit is part of the apocphyra and is widely disputed. However, this last part reminds me of the passage in Revelation which essentially says the same thing. The key word here is “present”. Do you happen to know what that word means here in this context?
Does it mean someone praying to another creature?

Tobit is also refer to by the Apostles and Jesus. These aren’t apocryphal.

Would happen to have a NT reference for this?
Is not true that Tobit and the various other books such as Judith and 1+2 Maccabees etc were considered deuterocanonical i.e. second canon of books that were not considered inspired-inerrant as the other books of the OT until around 1600?

They have been a part of the Christian Canon long before the Reformation.

They may have been part of the canon but they did not have the same status or authority as the other books.

If you even read the Wycliff Bible translation his book has them.

It is true that some protestant bibles do contain them. However as far as i know they are not in the same class as the other accepted inspired books.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Do you know if these are direct quotes or allusions?

Do you know if these works were written by a prophet of God and did the Jews accept them as sacred scripture?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2617647]I’m sorry, I don’t understand your point. Where does it say in Scripture that it has to be in Scripture to be true?

It doesn’t. However, do you believe that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?

But to your question, I thought it was about all of those who are part of the Body of Christ. The Church teaches that this is the Church Triumphant (those in heaven), the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory), and the Church Militant (Christians of this world). No where does Paul say that some parts can’t talk because they are of different worlds.

Your church is claiming that communication with those who have died and supposedly in heaven is true. What i’m asking is where is this taught in scripture? So far the passages used don’t support the catholic teaching on this.

The other issue is where do we see this developing in history if not taught in the scriptures? Who spoke of these things and why?
When did they?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Funnily enough, those who spoke of ‘the communion of saints’ and taught the saints being ‘alive’ in Heaven, and who prayed to those in heaven, etc. did so in the earliest years of the church and throughout to the present. . .

While those who DENIED the saints being’ alive’ in Heaven, insisted that they were ‘dead’ or ‘asleep’, and that no one SHOULD pray to anyone but God alone. . .

Have only been doing so for the past 500 years. . .DENYING 1500 years’ worth of the practice of teaching that is both from Scripture and from Sacred Tradition, neither contradicting the other.

 

[justasking4]

OF COURSE they do - if they are members of his ONE body! ‘We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is’ - that includes having a share in His powers, no? Including the power to transcend space and time and walk through walls as He did. As Philip did after baptising the Ethiopian, as John did in Revelationwhen he saw and heard everyone on earth in heaven and under the earth alltogether.

And Paul said we will be much MORE like Him in heaven than we are now. Our powers will be that much greater.

Remember this - the angels can communicate with humans. Clearly. They can intercede for them and present their prayers to God. Tobit shows this, Revelation shows this.

Do you think we’ll be less powerful than they, or instead will we be ‘little less than God’ as Psalm 8 says - which is never said about the angels. They are MUCH less than God. THEY cover their faces in His presence, I think Isaiah shows this. WE will see Him face to face. Clearly we will be MORE honoured and exalted than they. And yet they can do all the things that you think the heavenly saints can’t?? Preposterous.

Revelation shows the deceased martyrs praying about events on earth ‘how long, O Lord, before you avenge us …’. They are most certainly aware of and praying about everything that goes on on earth, obviously can see and hear ALL of it, and yet you think they can’t hear us if we address them? In a word, nonsense.

The problem is that even though certain events happened in the past does not mean its true for us today. Take your example of Philip who was miraculously transported to another location. Are we to believe that is a mode of transportation for us today? Or the amazing miracles done by the hands of the apostles. Is that power given to all of us at all times? I think not. Those things took place for a specific purpose and is not the norm for believers today.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Base on my observation the Protestant Christians objection on Marian doctrine seem to be that they don’t God can assumed Mary into heaven. That God cannot preserve Mary from being free of sin. I hardly think God is limited.

I have read the dogma about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There is one thing I see in those dogma. God set these in motion.

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. (MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, 1950, POPE PIUS XII

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. - Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX

Protestant say God cannot do it and that it is impossible. The Catholic Church proclaimed that God can and He did.

For with God, all things are possible.

 

[NotWorthy]

It doesn’t. However, do you believe that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?Why, of course I do. But they don’t contain the entirety of God’s Truth. Jesus left a Church to spread the rest of His Truth until He returns.

In regards to the question, “Where does it say in Scripture that it has to be in Scripture to be true”, I assume that since you answer every statement with the question, “Where is that in Scripture”, you must believe that this is the only source of truth. It’s a novel idea, one that has only been around for a few hundred years.

Your church is claiming that communication with those who have died and supposedly in heaven is true. What i’m asking is where is this taught in scripture? So far the passages used don’t support the catholic teaching on this.I’m sorry, but I thought they did. Why do you think they don’t?

The other issue is where do we see this developing in history if not taught in the scriptures? Who spoke of these things and why?
When did they?

Don’t know. I just know that the Church teaches it. If it’s not good enough for you, we can see if there are people more expert in the field, but I don’t have the time right now.

Sorry.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Would happen to have a NT reference for this?
Is not true that Tobit and the various other books such as Judith and 1+2 Maccabees etc were considered deuterocanonical i.e. second canon of books that were not considered inspired-inerrant as the other books of the OT until around 1600?

They may have been part of the canon but they did not have the same status or authority as the other books.

It is true that some protestant bibles do contain them. However as far as i know they are not in the same class as the other accepted inspired books.

Do you know if these are direct quotes or allusions?

Do you know if these works were written by a prophet of God and did the Jews accept them as sacred scripture?

The Deutrocanonical Books / Septuagint have always been part of the Christian canon of Scripture for over 2,000 yrs. Did the Jews accepted Jesus Christ? Well, the majority of them rejected Jesus as Messiah… I rather go with the Early Christian Church than a Jew who does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Deutrocanonical Books / Septuagint have always been part of the Christian canon of Scripture for over 2,000 yrs. Did the Jews accepted Jesus Christ? Well, the majority of them rejected Jesus as Messiah… I rather go with the Early Christian Church than a Jew who does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

Especially since we should read all OT Scriptures in the light of Christ!!!

Good point, Manny!!!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Especially since we should read all OT Scriptures in the light of Christ!!!

Good point, Manny!!!

We should. My love for the Christ is the reason why I love His Bride, the Church very much.

 

[stranger_1991]

Stranger?

I’m not sure that it is the role of the Bible to list the sins of all the sinners. I agree with you that Mary is sinless, but I don’t agree with the logic that you are using to show her sinlessness. If the Bible had previously cataloged other people’s sins, then I’d say, "You go, Stranger!!!’ But, alas, it doesn’t.

Hi NotWorthy,

The arguments for and against Mary’s sinlessness have to be based upon something - call it negative or positive proofs if you will. Protestants don’t base the arguments upon tradition but upon scripture - and what can be observed or proven from it. I am not talking about a catalogue of sins - but something that has precedence in the scriptures. . .eg ‘he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord’ or ‘Job was blameless and upright’. Statements such as these sum up holy or unholy living. In Mary’s case there are are sufficient references to conclude Some Protestants who argue against this ‘conclusion’ need to produce evidence.

The mention of sin is sometimes incidental, but somethimes it forms the basis why the Lord rejects an individual eg King Saul.

blessings

 

[stranger_1991]

How would you do this? Were both her parents human? If so, she is in Adam.

Yes. All Christians are.

He presumed to know things that he really didn’t. See Job 42:1-6

Scripture does not mention any specific sin of Mary nor does it of most others either. The burden of proof is on those who claim she was without sin. What God could do is not an argument. What we need to see in scripture that she is somehow an exception to this. The fact of the matter there is none.
Romans 3:9-10 would be one place to look that identifies all men without exception are sinners.

Thanks for your response. Unless someone can convince you that Christians are in Christ and not in Adam then you will hold to what you have been saying. We agree that Mary as she is found in the scriptures did not sin. Therefore the discussion moves to the establishment of Mary in Christ or in Adam. I even agree that IF Mary is in Adam or in Adam and in Christ THEN it follows she is not sinless. But I think this is not supported in God’s word. No way.

So you say Christians *are *in Adam? Do you mean that they were in Adam but are no longer so?

Clearly the chain of sin from Adam had to be broken in Mary’s case - but why do you see that Mary having sinless parents is the only possibility? Surely nothing is impossible for God and if Adam, who was created without sin, could become corrupted, why can’t God redeem the corrupted and make/recreate them as pure vessels? Isn’t this what God aims to do in redeeming a lost humanity? Or is God helpless in the face of a corrupted human nature? I agree with an earlier post that said God’s presence has a sanctifying affect. . . . Think alone these lines.

I am not sure upon whom the burden of proof falls in this discussion.

Comment about Job. . . It is true that Job repented in dust and ashes. But is it not also true that Job spoke rightly about God? And even if Job became presumptuous what was he before that?
Being sinless does not mean that you cannot sin. Adam was sinless when created - yet he sinned.

You are not going far enough with your example. If this was a court of law the prosecution would have interviewed the people who knew her and also bring her to the witness stand to answer questions to determine if she had.

In a sense Mary is on trial together with the faith of many! I have not put Mary on trial - because I believe she was sinless.

blessings:

stranger 1991

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2622803]Base on my observation the Protestant Christians objection on Marian doctrine seem to be that they don’t God can assumed Mary into heaven. That God cannot preserve Mary from being free of sin. I hardly think God is limited.

All you are doing here is expressing your opinion and not a fact. The question is not if God could do these things to Mary but did He? If He did, then where is the proof? Its not in scripture. Without that you must speculate and speculations are not facts of truth.

I

have read the dogma about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There is one thing I see in those dogma. God set these in motion.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Protestant say God cannot do it and that it is impossible. The Catholic Church proclaimed that God can and He did.

Just because someone proclaims something about what God can do does not mean He did. There is no proof that Mary was without sin. You won’t find such statements in the NT that comes even close to saying that about her. The same can be said of her assumption. There is no mention of it. Even those who claim that she was admit there is no evidence for it.

For with God, all things are possible.

This statement needs to be qualifiied since there are things He cannot do.

 

[zemi]

Justasking,

think about it and give me your criteria of when you assess a belief to be trustworthy (e.g. it has to be in the Bible etc.) State it in points if possible, please. Thank you.