How to explain Mary to a Protestant?

[Duane1966]

Of course not. But Gabriel wasnt kneeling to mary or to a statue of her.
Exodus 20:4 KJV
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

I do seek God, along with everyone else that has been called. But here’s what Jesus said -
John 6:44 KJV
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus was of the spirit, Mary was blessed but was fully conceived herself through flesh. The original sin of Adam makes her an imperfect sinner and equally culpable under the law, just like you and me. Only through faith are we saved.

Wrong, quite the opposite.
2 Timothy 3:14-16 KJV

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Grace is the act of mercy from Go- through Jesus. We’re sinful under the law of flesh but not under the law of grace.

Notice St. Paul says all scripture, not ONLY scripture. And what scripture is he talking about? Certainly NOT the New Testament! His epistles were written BEFORE the gospels. The scripture he is talking about here is the Old Testament.

Don’t foget 2 Thessalonians 15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to your traditions you have been taught by word of mouth or our epistle. One of our TRADITIONS we are holding fast to is the Immaculate Conception, handed down from the early church!

 

[zz912]

Of course not. But Gabriel wasnt kneeling to mary or to a statue of her.
Exodus 20:4 KJV
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Were the Israelites sinning when they looked upon the bronze serpent, or knelt before it, or prayed in front of it? Was Abraham sinning when he bowed and prostrated himself before the angel? Were the Israelites sinning when they knelt and prayed towards the Ark?

I do seek God, along with everyone else that has been called.

Great! So you agree that your interpretation of “all have sinned” was wrong, and it obviously was not meant to include every single human who ever existed.

Mary was blessed but was fully conceived herself through flesh. The original sin of Adam makes her an imperfect sinner and equally culpable under the law, just like you and me.

Chapter and verse for this extra-biblical teaching. Scripture never states that Mary was stained with Original Sin. That is your fallible, man-made tradition.

Wrong, quite the opposite.
2 Timothy 3:14-16 KJV

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That verse doesn’t say what you think it does. It says that Scripture is given by God, and is profitable. It does NOT say that Scripture contains everything about the Christian faith. The Bible explicitly teaches the opposite. St Paul tells Timothy to hold fast to what he had taught Timothy. Notice, St. Paul, doesn’t actually write down these teachings. St Paul also teaches to hold fast to the traditions received EITHER by letter OR word of mouth. It doesn’t get more explicit than that. Why do you reject these oral teachings? St. Paul says NOT to do that.

Grace is the act of mercy from Go- through Jesus. We’re sinful under the law of flesh but not under the law of grace.

You are intentionally avoiding my question. Why?

I’ll restate it for you:

So you are stating that someone who is full of God’s grace still has sin remaining in them? When is this sin removed, since nothing unclean can enter Heaven?

 

[steve_b]

1.If he’s a Protestant, he believes in Original Sin.
2.Jesus could not have been born with Original Sin
3.If Mary had original sin it would be transmitted to her child
4.Jesus was Mary’s child
5.Therefore, Mary could not have been born with Original Sin (the Immaculate Conception)

6.If Mary sinned prior to Jesus’ birth, she would have committed Adam’s sin again
7.So the sin would have been transmitted to Jesus
8.Therefore, Mary was sinless prior to Jesus’ birth

I’m Orthodox, and we don’t believe in original sin. But the concept of original sin makes all the Roman Catholic theological baggage necessary.

What baggage are you talking about?

From the Catechism of the Cathoklic Church (CCC) 405

 

[Goya]

For perspective, I like how St. Thomas Aquinas put it:

*THE ANGELIC SALUTATION

This salutation has three parts. The Angel gave one part, namely: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women."[1] The other part was given by Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, namely: “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”[2] The Church adds the third part, that is, “Mary,” because the Angel did not say, “Hail, Mary,” but “Hail, full of grace.” But, as we shall see, this name, “Mary,” according to its meaning agrees with the words of the Angels.[3]

“HAIL MARY”

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all courtesy and showed them reverence. But that an Angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: “Hail.”

THE ANGEL’S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: “Who makest Thy angels spirits.”[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said: "I

will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes."[5] It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”[6] Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off.”[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His light arise?”[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light, hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men–and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: “Ave (Hail).”

“FULL OF GRACE”

The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the Angels in the fullness of grace, and as an indication of this the Angel showed reverence to her by saying: “Full of grace.” This is as if he said: “I show thee reverence because thou dost excel me in the fullness of grace.”

The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace in three ways. First, as regards her soul she was full of grace. The grace of God is given for two chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other Saint after Christ. Thus it is said: “Thou art fair, My beloved, and there is not a spot in thee.”[9] St. Augustine says: "If we could bring together all the Saints and ask them if they were entirely without sin, all of them, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, would say with one voice: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.’[10] I except, however, this holy Virgin of whom, because of the honor of God, I wish to omit all mention of sin."[11] For we know that to her was granted grace to overcome every kind of sin by Him whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, and He certainly was wholly without sin. *

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/apray-hm.htm

FWIW.

 

[Goya]

Cut & pasted from older thread:

*Originally Posted by Goya View Post
Rather than addressing your question from an ‘academic’ or even theological perspective, I’m going to address it personally.

For reference–my wife is evangelical protestant. To her and her people, Mary is like repellant. It freaks her and her family, and all her people, out. Truly freaks them out.

Let me put it to you this way–Mary is the Mother of Chirst; yet they can not, to save their lives, formulate a positive comment about her, that isn’t immediately nagated with “but…”.

As in, “Mary was the Jesus’s mother…BUT that’s all”.

or “…BUT she was also a sinner”

or “…BUT she’s just another human being”

or “…BUT she had relations with Joseph, and had other children…”

I volunteer this for reference.

Now, here’s what brought be BACK to Mary:

When I looked at the Christians throughout history, what the Church Fathers had to say, as well as what contemporary Christians say…I realized that my aspirational peers were Catholic, and many/most held the Virgin Mary in the highest esteem.

I chose to–in fact, continuously choose to–strive to be like them.

As with so much of my search into protestantism, it almost always came down to:

The Church Fathers and the Saints (never mind the Popes) on one side; and the Reformers on the other. (e.g.–wrt—the Real Presence/Eucharist; confession; celibate priesthood; male priesthood; Baptism; basically the sacraments…).

So, I suggest stepping back, and asking yourself–as a Christian, who do you want to seek to emulate, and be more like?

St. Joseph her spouse, St. John (the Evangelist and Apostle, with whom Mary lived in Ephesus, [modern day] Turkey, after Christ’s ascension), St. Polycarp, St. Ireneaus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Dominic, St. Francis of assisi, St. Basil, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Moore, St. Therese of Lisseux, Pope Paul VI, Blessed Mother of Calcutta, Blessed Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, just to name a few that come to mind…

–or–

Martin Luther, John Calvin, “Drs.” Spurgeon Sr &/Jr., Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, or Joel Osteen…

Then ask yourself where each/they stood, vis a vis the Virgin Mary.

NOTE: worth noting–before the ‘Reform movement’ fully lost its way (i.e. the movement that would stray and later be named --rather self-servingly, and inaccurately imo, as the Reformation) Martin Luther–(even AFTER he had been defrocked and excommunicated), made many statements that were very flattering to the Virgin Mary–read into that, what you will.

But, for good measure, here is a quote from St. Irenaeus:

"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word

. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:547
…
*Now, in addition to those Saints I mentioned above, having a sincere devotion to Mary, I’ll take this opportunity to supplement:

Begin with: Blessed Mother TERESA of Calcutta (as I forgot to include the capped in prior post);

Add:

–Saint Louis Marie de Montfort
–St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori
–St. Faustina
–Saint Maximilian Kolbe
–St. Josemaria Escriva
–Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church
–St. John Vianney
–Saint Francis de Sales
–Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop
–Saint John Damascene
–Saint Germanus of Constantinople, Patriarch of Constantinople
–Pope Saint Gregory VII
–Saint Anselm, Archbishop and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Bonaventure, Cardinal-Bishop and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Cajetan, Founder of the Theatines
–Saint Francis Borgia
–Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal-Bishop and Doctor of the Church
–Saint John Eudes
–Blessed William Joseph Chaminade
–Pope Pius XII, 1876-1958 AD
–Saint Hilary of Poitiers - Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Anthony of Padua, Doctor of the Church
–Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Father and Doctor of the Church
–Saint John Damascene, Father and Doctor of the Church
–Saint Padre Pio
–Pope Saint Pius X
–Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman
–St. Clare ('Poor Clares)
–St. Rose of Lima
–St. Joan of Arc
–St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
–St. Bernadette of Lourdes

Still others–perhaps I’ll post somemore–but I’ll close out this post, with a quote from St. Louis de Montfort, that seems to express the point rather well:

“The greatest saints, those richest in grace and virtue will be the most assiduous in praying to the most Blessed Virgin, looking up to her as the perfect model to imitate and as a powerful helper to assist them.”

–Saint Louis Marie de Montfort *

 

[Goya]

…and finally, another quote I recently came across that I find rather compelling (paraphrasing, as I don’t have the actual quote handy):

“…God came to Man through the Virgin Mary…it is therefore fitting, that Man should come to God, through the Virgin Mary.”

–St. Bernard of Clarivaux.

IOW–as we like to say:

To Christ, through Mary.

 

[Goya]

Finally, just to further some of the points above and to add some, for general perspective:

God chose to become Man. God became Man. God could have “poofed” into existence. Re-created a man, out of dust, as He did with Adam…or from a rib of an existing human being, as He did with Eve…

God chose to be conceived in a womb. A fetus. Born an infant. To an existing human being.

As such, God left Himself completely vulnerable, and entrusted Himself, completely, to a human being.

That must have been one pretty darn special human being.

That human being was the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, Theotokos.

Our celestial Mother, whom Christ bequeathed to us, at the foot of the Cross.

Imagine–of all the things that Christ could have said on the Cross–one of the 'Seven Last Words", was to bequeath His mother, to us.

She was present at the Conception of Christ, at His birth, with Him through His infancy, toddlerhood, childhood, teenage years, through puberty, into His adulthood. Present at, and in fact, instigated His first miracle at Cana. Present at the crucifixion, when His Apostles ran and hid. Present at the Pentecost, when Christ sent His Holy Spirit to His Church, His Apostles (the only person present aside from His Apostles).

Frankly, it’s hard to imagine one purporting to be Christian, without venerating Christ’s Blessed Mother. She points us to Him. She leads us to Him. She instructs us in HOW to BE Christian; how to follow Him.

 

[Goya]

Removed (didn’t realize I hit quote instead of edit, and wound up re-posting same post).

 

[nojesusnopeace]

Were the Israelites sinning when they looked upon the bronze serpent, or knelt before it, or prayed in front of it? Was Abraham sinning when he bowed and prostrated himself before the angel? Were the Israelites sinning when they knelt and prayed towards the Ark?

Abraham also married and had relations that usually come with marriage with his sister, Sarah, which is strictly prohibited. That doesn’t mean Go- didn’t love and forgive him, because he was a man of great faith. As for the Isrealites, they were a rebellious bunch. They constantly complained and rebelled when they started losing faith, and they were very demanding. Go- made a covenant with them, and hence The Commandments and the ark carrying it. The ark was Go-'s design to bring the Isrealites into communion with him.

Great! So you agree that your interpretation of “all have sinned” was wrong, and it obviously was not meant to include every single human who ever existed

That’s not what scripture says, and that’s what I’m going by. As Paul said in Romans 3:9-12, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth,there is none that seeketh after GodThey are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Chapter and verse for this extra-biblical teaching. Scripture never states that Mary was stained with Original Sin. That is your fallible, man-made tradition.

Scripture also never states she wasn’t, so all we have to go by is the context, shown here-

1. We are born sinners, and in our nature sinners. psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
2. We’re unrighteous from the very nanosecond we leave the mother’s womb. Proverbs 22:15 “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
3. Infants die, so therefore are unrighteous. In the Catholic version of Hell, don’t unbaptized and stillbirth babies go to limbo (i.e, Hell “light”)? Romans 5:12 “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”

That verse doesn’t say what you think it does. It says that Scripture is given by God, and is profitable. It does NOT say that Scripture contains everything about the Christian faith.The Bible explicitly teaches the opposite.

Go- promised to preserve his word, he didn’t promise to confuse and divide, so why not everything in one book if it was supposed to be there?
Psalms 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

So you are stating that someone who is full of God’s grace still has sin remaining in them? When is this sin removed, since nothing unclean can enter Heaven?

The sin of the flesh remains, but the spirit is in grace. Your body doesn’t go to heaven, your spirit does.

 

[Goya]

…
…

Scripture also never states she wasn’t, so all we have to go by is the context, shown here-

1. We are born sinners, and in our nature sinners. psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
2. We’re unrighteous from the very nanosecond we leave the mother’s womb. Proverbs 22:15 “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
3. Infants die, so therefore are unrighteous. In the Catholic version of Hell, don’t unbaptized and stillbirth babies go to limbo (i.e, Hell “light”)? Romans 5:12 “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”

 

[Della]

Go- made a covenant with them [Israelites], and hence The Commandments and the ark carrying it. The ark was Go-'s design to bring the Isrealites into communion with him.

[shortened for space and relevancy]

And who is the embodiment (for lack of a better term) of God’s commandments than Christ? And who, like the Ark, which was sacred to God alone, bore him in her womb? If a box made of wood and lined with gold was so sacred that none but the priests could touch it, how much more the Mother of Our Savior? Gold is a biblical symbol of purity and divinity. The wood (of the earth) Mary’s humanity, was overlaid/overshadowed by divinity. God preserved her free from original sin to make her fit to be Jesus’ mother, not for her own sake, and not apart from Christ’s redemptive act, but through it. Mary was saved at the moment of her conception because God willed it so–for the sake of his Son, Jesus, and not merely to exult her, although it did that too. Let us not be jealous of God’s special favors to others besides ourselves.

That’s not what scripture says, and that’s what I’m going by. As Paul said in Romans 3:9-12, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth,there is none that seeketh after GodThey are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

It does no good to take passages out of context or to ignore the interpretation of the Church Christ founded. St. Paul was talking about whether or not the Jews had any more claim to righteousness than the newly converted Gentile Christians. That was his topic, and within that topic he says that all, Jews and Gentiles alike, have no more claim to righteousness. Let us keep verses within their context or we’ll end up making them say whatever else we wish them to say. All humans are born in origianl sin unless God makes an exception through the redemption of Christ, as he did in Mary’s case–again, so that she would be fit to be the Mother of Christ–it’s all about Jesus and not about Mary, per se. Jesus himself would have had to have been born a sinner if we are going to say that all in this references refers to all human beings, and so even to Jesus himself.

Scripture also never states she wasn’t, so all we have to go by is the context, shown here-

1. We are born sinners, and in our nature sinners. psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
2. We’re unrighteous from the very nanosecond we leave the mother’s womb. Proverbs 22:15 “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
3. Infants die, so therefore are unrighteous. In the Catholic version of Hell, don’t unbaptized and stillbirth babies go to limbo (i.e, Hell “light”)? Romans 5:12 “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”

First of all, Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition, not separate from it. The Bible is the witness to God’s work among men not the arbitor of men. It is a guide that helps us–as a reference and resource, but it is not a ruler of men. God set up his Church to do that–that is the biblical model.

Not everything we believe is explicitly stated in the Bible. For instance, is Jesus a man touched by divinity or is he merely a prophet or he is fully God and fully man? The NT is not clear on this point. Jesus’ nature, that of fully man and fully God was decided in a Church council in the 4th century, and yet you accept it without any verses telling us this truth.

The teaching of Mary’s immaculate conception flows naturally from her role as the Theotokos, the God-bearer. We see implicit evidence for this in the Bible, although, like the nature of Christ, it is not explicitly stated.

Go- promised to preserve his word, he didn’t promise to confuse and divide, so why not everything in one book if it was supposed to be there?
Psalms 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Christ never gave us a book–he founded and gave us a Church. The NT was written by members of that Church. Those writings weren’t considered Scripture until the Church compiled them into one book–centuries after they were written. Christ gave his Church the authority to baptize and teach all men, not a book. The Church has spoken and does speak quite clearly about what is truth and what isn’t.

The sin of the flesh remains, but the spirit is in grace. Your body doesn’t go to heaven, your spirit does.

So, you don’t believe in the resurrection of the body, then? And where are Enoch and Elijah? I suggest you rethink these things.

 

[pablope]

Never understood the deal with Mary. She was an instrument of Go-'s will, a vessel no more no less. Every time I hear the words “hail mary” I scratch my head and think idolatry. I don’t doubt the virgin birth of Christ, nor doubt Mary was a great human being worthy of respect, but she was human, and a sinner like the rest of us. If she was perfect and sinless, we wouldnt have needed Jesus and Mary could have died for our sins, but that is not the case.
Romans 3:23 KJV
For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Secondly, Jesus was conceived by Mary the virgin, but was of The Holy Spirit.

This isn’t fact, just my theory, but since the conception was of the spirit, wouldn’t that negate marys sinful flesh, and allow the perfect and stainless lamb to be born? Just something to consider. Further, I recall nothing in scripture stating mary was sinless. If there is, im open to reading it if you provide the verse. Full of grace does NOT equal sinless.

What you stated here is so far removed from the beliefs of your Protestant grandfathers, especially Luther which bears your faith tradition.

I would suggest this as a start: chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mary.pdf

Look for this article:

Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary
Dave Armstrong

Despite the radicalism of early Protestantism toward many ancient Catholic “distinctives,” such as the Communion of the Saints, Penance, Purgatory, Infused Justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, sacramental marriage, etc., it may surprise many to discover that Martin Luther was rather conservative in some of his doctrinal views, such as on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and particularly the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther’s
own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther’s position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine. Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus
had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Christ…was the only Son of Mary,and the Virgin Mary bore no childrenbesides Him… “brothers”
really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on
John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was the realand natural fruit of Mary’s virginalwomb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remaineda virgin after that. (Ibid.)

Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until
1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent
Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine

 

[nojesusnopeace]

…but the Ark of the New Covenant, bearing the Word of God Incarnate–(John 1:1)–i.e.–the Blessed Virgin Mary, bearing Christ–somehow, you reconcile that it makes sense that that Ark, should be contaminated with sin?

I don’t believe that to be a valid analogy. The ark that held the commandments was to hold the tablets for all time. Mary carried Christ for 9 months… big difference.

So why isn’t this supposedly all-inclusive book prophesied in itself?

I explained this in depth in another thread, but here I’ll provide a chart to support scripture alone. This is just a comparison to another translation, but if you’ll look at the origins of the King James Version, you’ll see why many conclude that The Bible, The KJB in particular, is the inspired and sole word of Go-.
i136.photobucket.com/albums/q193/crinie123/bib1.jpg

 

[steve_b]

Abraham also married and had relations that usually come with marriage with his sister, Sarah, which is strictly prohibited. That doesn’t mean Go- didn’t love and forgive him, because he was a man of great faith.

To that point, when it was just A & E , the children that came from them and in extension for their children, family members would have had to intermarry brother and sister to build the human race. As history progressed, God gave specific laws in all areas of behavior . When we think of what Paul said “sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law” Romans 5:13 .

For example

God commanded A&E not to eat a certain fruit. They disobeyed the command and committed the first sin

 

[pablope]

Quote:
That verse doesn’t say what you think it does. It says that Scripture is given by God, and is profitable. It does NOT say that Scripture contains everything about the Christian faith.The Bible explicitly teaches the opposite.

Where does the Psalm 12:6-7 says it refers to the written word in the Bible? You are way extending the passage.

Besides, if you take note and notice, the Psalms were all oral before they were written down.

So word here could refer to the oral word, not the written word, exclusively as you are trying to suggest here.

And is God limited to the written word?

 

[pablope]

Quote:
Scripture explicitly states that it does not contain everything about the Christian faith

Wrong intent here my friend. Even the passage you quoted disproves yourself.

Look at v14…But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

This speaks of oral teaching, instruction, which Timothy received from Paul. So taking into account this, it is not Scripture alone, but oral instruction too…is included, and most specially…know from whom you have learned, implying something else that is important.

 

[Della]

I don’t believe that to be a valid analogy. The ark that held the commandments was to hold the tablets for all time. Mary carried Christ for 9 months… big difference.

So a mother is only a mother as long as the baby is in her womb? Really? Try telling your mother that. And Mary didn’t stand at the foot of Christ’s cross when all his disciples and Apostles had deserted him except St. John. And she wasn’t there on the day of Pentecost in the Upper Room? Your bias rather than you knowledge is on display.

I explained this in depth in another thread, but here I’ll provide a chart to support scripture alone. This is just a comparison to another translation, but if you’ll look at the origins of the King James Version, you’ll see why many conclude that The Bible, The KJB in particular, is the inspired and sole word of Go-.
i136.photobucket.com/albums/q193/crinie123/bib1.jpg

Sorry, it “proves” nothing at all. Charts only hold the information the chart maker decides to include. Real history is what I’m talking about. And real history tells a very different story.

 

[Duane1966]

Let’s see, I can go with what nojesusnopeace believes, or I can go with the early church fathers. What a dilemma!

 

[nojesusnopeace]

Let’s see, I can go with what nojesusnopeace believes, or I can go with the early church fathers. What a dilemma!

But how do you know what the early church believed unless you read their inspired text true to original form? Do they support the commandment that you will not make graven images then bow down and pray to them? As in legal matters, I feel the same philosophy holds true for holy scriptures. It’s always more credible in writing. Otherwise it comes down to “he said she said,” over the course of hundreds of generations.

 

[pablope]

But how do you know what the early church believed unless you read their inspired text true to original form?

What you are saying here is a man-made belief and declaration, and is not even in the Bible…so why do you believe this?

The original texts, in their true original form…do not exist anymore. There were burned by the Romans during the Roman persecution of the first 3 centuries of Christianity.

What we have are copies of copies of copies of copies.

But we know what the early Christians believed because it has always been handed down as what Jesus originally commanded…“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Jesus did not say…he who reads.

So what you have in your bible are copies of copies of copies of the originals preserved by Catholic bishops and monks, who made painstaking hand written copies…and their testimony that these are copies of the originals.

Do they support the commandment that you will not make graven images then bow down and pray to them? As in legal matters, I feel the same philosophy holds true for holy scriptures. It’s always more credible in writing. Otherwise it comes down to “he said she said,” over the course of hundreds of generations.