Jesus is God Means Mary Is The Mother of God?

[newbie1234]

I have addressed each and every one of these statements in replying to your post above, which you are merely repeating without directly addressing what I and others are saying. Repeating the same error over and over does not make it true, my friend. Engage in the conversation and truly discuss, and you will learn.

Sometimes it takes hours for you to see them. And it is difficult to have a discussion in a timely manner. Sorry if I did not address anything. I wonder if you have a strongs concordance with greek and hebrew dictionaries? If so we can both use the same book and do the translating. I did look at the website mentioned earlier and it does not agree with what it says in my concordance. So I guess we are at an impasse.I know I can see the translation in black and white. As for the website, could it be the writers interpretation is erroneous?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

If Mary never sinned why was she bringing doves to sacrifice at the temple luke 2:24?

It isn’t a burnt offering which was for committing a sin as you allege. Mary was under no obligation to do the offering to God because she remained a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus. But as a Jewish woman, there are many rituals which they follow. And for childbirth, a Jewish woman is usually required to offer turtle-doves 40 days after the birth of a son to the Lord God to become ritually “clean” again (although this in no way implies a personal sin committed by the person giving the offering).

 

[newbie1234]

It isn’t a burnt offering which was for committing a sin as you allege. Mary was under no obligation to do the offering to God because she remained a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus. But as a Jewish woman, there are many rituals which they follow. And for childbirth, a Jewish woman is usually required to offer turtle-doves 40 days after the birth of a son to the Lord God to become ritually “clean” again (although this in no way implies a personal sin committed by the person giving the offering).

Read lev 12. It explains the sin offering.
There is that sin issue again.
So to sum up, Mary needed a savior- luke 1:47
She had to make offering for sin luke2:24
But somehow we know that from the moment of her conception she was sinless till the day she died or was assumed up to heaven.
So we know every thought that ever went through her head and not one was sinful. Never a lustful thought. Never a covetous thought in her whole life. She never even told a lie.
And this miraculous perfect life was never profesied in the OT?
Only that she would be a virgin was prophesied Isaiah7:4
And also no NT writers give testimony to her having a perfect sinless life. Gabriel said she was blessed and highly favored luke 1:28.
Don’t you think Paul would have mentioned Mary’s perfect sinless model life that all women should follow in one of the epistles?

 

[6glargento]

Read lev 12. It explains the sin offering.
There is that sin issue again.

lev 12 commands ALL women to observe this, so even though mary was without sin she would still have had to observe this beceause she was born under the law. just as christ was circumsized and baptised, eventhough circumsizion and
baptism are for sinners but christ has without sin.

So to sum up, Mary needed a savior- luke 1:47

God saved mary by his grace by preserving her from sin. without that grace she would have still have fallen into sin. this shows that you do not understand the immaculate conception.

She had to make offering for sin luke2:24

like i said before, the command in lev 12 applies to all women who have given birth, so mary would have needed to make the ofering even though she was without sin because it was part of the law.

But somehow we know that from the moment of her conception she was sinless till the day she died or was assumed up to heaven.

thats right. this is why mary calls God her savior because it was by his grace alone that she was preserved from all sin.

So we know every thought that ever went through her head and not one was sinful. Never a lustful thought. Never a covetous thought in her whole life. She never even told a lie.

yep thats what it means to be sinless…

And this miraculous perfect life was never profesied in the OT?

it was, read genesis 3:15 it says that both the seed (jesus) AND the woman (his mother) would be at emnithy with the devil. how could mary be at emnity with the devil like jesus is but at the same time be in sin?

And also no NT writers give testimony to her having a perfect sinless life. Gabriel said she was blessed and highly favored luke 1:28.

we have aloready shown you that the word “kecaretonine” means to be full of grace, or perfected by grace in a past event. if you i ntend on following the innacurate translation of “highly favored” that is your concern.

Don’t you think Paul would have mentioned Mary’s perfect sinless model life that all women should follow in one of the epistles?

this is an illogical assumption. we must regect the immaculate conception because paul never wrote about it?

 

[newbie1234]

lev 12 commands ALL women to observe this, so even though mary was without sin she would still have had to observe this beceause she was born under the law. just as christ was circumsized and baptised, eventhough circumsizion and
baptism are for sinners but christ has without sin.

If you really believe that she is sinless and never even had a sinful thought, then go right ahead adore her or pray to her or whatever you call it.
But if there is even a hint of doubt, or that little tugging feeling that something is not right, then I encourage you to test all things 1thess5:21.
If you get no conviction over these beliefs, then go right ahead. I will cease and desist.

God saved mary by his grace by preserving her from sin. without that grace she would have still have fallen into sin. this shows that you do not understand the immaculate conception.

like i said before, the command in lev 12 applies to all women who have given birth, so mary would have needed to make the ofering even though she was without sin because it was part of the law.

thats right. this is why mary calls God her savior because it was by his grace alone that she was preserved from all sin.

yep thats what it means to be sinless…

it was, read genesis 3:15 it says that both the seed (jesus) AND the woman (his mother) would be at emnithy with the devil. how could mary be at emnity with the devil like jesus is but at the same time be in sin?

we have aloready shown you that the word “kecaretonine” means to be full of grace, or perfected by grace in a past event. if you i ntend on following the innacurate translation of “highly favored” that is your concern.

this is an illogical assumption. we must regect the immaculate conception because paul never wrote about it?

 

[newbie1234]

If you can study the bible and find that Mary was sinless for her whole life, and somehow know that she never even had a sinful thought for all her days, and make statues and pray to and adore her, go right ahead.
If there is no conviction from the Holy Spirit (that little tugging feeling that something is just not right) then continue.
But if there is some doubt, I encourage you to test all things 1Thess5:21.

 

[Fidelis]

Read lev 12. It explains the sin offering.There is that sin issue again. So to sum up, Mary needed a savior- luke 1:47 She had to make offering for sin luke2:24

That has already been explained.

But somehow we know that from the moment of her conception she was sinless till the day she died or was assumed up to heaven.
So we know every thought that ever went through her head and not one was sinful. Never a lustful thought. Never a covetous thought in her whole life. She never even told a lie.

That’s right.

And this miraculous perfect life was never profesied in the OT?
Only that she would be a virgin was prophesied Isaiah7:4
And also no NT writers give testimony to her having a perfect sinless life. Gabriel said she was blessed and highly favored luke 1:28.
Don’t you think Paul would have mentioned Mary’s perfect sinless model life that all women should follow in one of the epistles?

That’s why *Sola Scriptura *is illogical, not to mention unhistorical, unworkable, and unbiblical.The fact that something is not mentioned in Scripture, does not mean that it never happened. And since I am sure you have studied basic logic, you well know that the argument from silence is the weakest type of argument there is.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

If you can study the bible and find that Mary was sinless for her whole life, and somehow know that she never even had a sinful thought for all her days, and make statues and pray to and adore her, go right ahead.
If there is no conviction from the Holy Spirit (that little tugging feeling that something is just not right) then continue.
But if there is some doubt, I encourage you to test all things 1Thess5:21.

Sorry, Catholics, eastern or western, do not adore the Blessed Virgin. We only adore the one Triune Godhead. Adoration is due to God alone.

We recognize Mary for what She truly is. That is, the Mother of God, Immaculate, Conceived without the stain of original sin and therefore never committing a personal sin (not one time is it shown in Sacred Scripture that She sinned) and ever-virgin. You can’t prove from scripture alone (the only thing that unites Protestantism) that Mary led the life of a sinner, therefore you are following a man-made heretical tradition, one your Protestant fathers didn’t even dare allege.

 

[6glargento]

If you can study the bible and find that Mary was sinless for her whole life, and somehow know that she never even had a sinful thought for all her days, and make statues and pray to and adore her, go right ahead.
If there is no conviction from the Holy Spirit (that little tugging feeling that something is just not right) then continue.
But if there is some doubt, I encourage you to test all things 1Thess5:21.

well if sola scriptura is true and everyone has the right to interpret the bible privatly for themselves, then that means that my interpretation that mary was sinnless is a potenitally valid one. right?

 

[dianeeh]

Really? The spouse of the holy spirit? So she’s the mother, and wife of God? So the church is her beloved daughter in law since Jesus’s wife is the church? I’m so confused! Help an RCIA candidate out!

 

[newbie1234]

well if sola scriptura is true and everyone has the right to interpret the bible privatly for themselves, then that means that my interpretation that mary was sinless is a potenitally valid one. right?

It could be valid.
But the rule is scripture interprets scripture.
The statement that Mary was sinless is easily disproven because she needed a savior. Luke 1:46 .So it can not be true.
If an interpretation of scripture conflicts with any other part of scripture the interpretation is false.
The catholic doctrine of sinless Mary comes from sacred tradition. It doesn’t come from scripture.

 

[Zirconia]

Thank you, Zirconia, for the information. I did take *Human Physiology 101 *in college, but that was a long, long time ago… I can say all that you’ve written is consistent with what I remember.

I suppose my question boils down to the origin of the Y chromosome that was paired with Mary’s X chromosome in her womb to form Jesus. And I think all Christians are in agreement as to that origin.

Yes, the ability of God to make DNA is not under dispute…

This does bring up another interesting point: was Jesus diploid? If so, He would need another set of 23 non-sex chromosomes (autosomes) to complement the 23 found in Mary’s egg, to bring the total to 46; as you know, this is the normal human chromosomal complement. But if His autosomes only came from Mary, then there would only be half the usual number (haploid instead of diploid).

While no completely haploid human is known, and while this would have serious implications for all reproductive cells, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility, considering Who we are talking about. Plus it would make a great refutation to the “DaVinci Code”

Maybe we need another thread to discuss this; it is quite interesting in and of itself. But it doesn’t really seem to belong anywhere else, does it?

I also think it must be said that in this area I do not believe we are limited solely to “the possible” or solely to “human genetics”, and I believe you qualified your statements twice in your post to also point this out.

Yes, plus I do not relish the idea of getting struck by lightning…

In peace.

Zirconia

 

[6glargento]

Really? The spouse of the holy spirit? So she’s the mother, and wife of God? So the church is her beloved daughter in law since Jesus’s wife is the church? I’m so confused! Help an RCIA candidate out!

when tey say “spouse of the holy spirit” i don’t know if this is to be taken literally

 

[VociMike]

well if sola scriptura is true and everyone has the right to interpret the bible privatly for themselves, then that means that my interpretation that mary was sinnless is a potenitally valid one. right?

That is an excellent point. Surely such an interpretation of the various scriptures is a reasonable one. So do we not have the soul liberty to believe it without being told over and over that we are wrong?

 

[Bishopite]

newbie1234;1872915]If you can study the bible and find that Mary was sinless for her whole life, and somehow know that she never even had a sinful thought for all her days, and make statues and pray to and adore her, go right ahead.

We know Mary was sinless because Jesus established one Church with His authority behind it and the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to truth and it gives us the correct interpretation of Scripture which it guarded throughout the ages, and gave us the canon, that’s why you don’t have 26 inspired books nor 28 but 27 New Testament books, God allowed the Catholic Church to recognize the correct inspired books.

And if you are insinuating by using the word “adore” that we Catholics worship Mary or statues then you are wrong again and using a straw man argument and is frankly out of ignorance that you say such a crazy thing. We only give adoration to God the Trinity; another theological term you wouldn’t know if it wasn’t the council of Nicea in 325 creating the Greek word “homoosius” which means “of the same substance” and also the Latin word Triunitos (Trinity) so that you and I would better understand the Godhead.

And perhaps you haven’t read your bible enough for Moses, King David and his son Solomon all created statues that were commanded by God…

"During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9). When the time came to build the Temple in Jerusalem, God inspired David’s plans for it, which included “his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing from the hand of the Lord concerning it, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19).

In obedience to this divinely inspired plan, **Solomon built two gigantic, golden statues of cherubim: **“In the most holy place he made two cherubim of wood and overlaid them with gold. The wings of the cherubim together extended twenty cubits: one wing of the one, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and its other wing, of five cubits, touched the wing of the other cherub; and of this cherub, one wing, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and the other wing, also of five cubits, was joined to the wing of the first cherub. The wings of these cherubim extended twenty cubits; the cherubim stood on their feet, facing the nave. And he made the veil of blue and purple and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and worked cherubim on it” (2 Chr. 3:10–14)."
catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

So, before accusing Catholics of worshiping Mary or statues, you perhaps may want to read and study your bible first next time.

If there is no conviction from the Holy Spirit (that little tugging feeling that something is just not right) then continue.
But if there is some doubt, I encourage you to test all things 1Thess5:21.

Why don’t YOU test all things, theologically or perhaps logically?

Think about this…would an infallible Holy Spirit confuse so many differing Protestants?
Would the Holy Spirit guide some to “once saved always saved” and others to “loose their salvation”
Or perhaps worship ONLY on Saturday?
Or perhaps have women in the pastorate?
Others condemn women as pastors.
Or padeo baptism for some but not for others?
Or sacraments for some but not for others?
Or the rapture for some and not for others?
Or pretribulation for some?
Or post tribulation for others?
Or amillenialism for others?
Or 1,2,3 raptures for some and not for others?
Or the non use of instruments in worship for some but the use for others?
Or not allowing men to be elders or deacons because of a past divorce?

All of these differing “doctrines” or authoritative decisions are part of Protestantism and yet you so faciley tell us Catholics to listen to the Holy Spirit?
We do listen to the Holy Spirit for He guides His Church, that’s why we listen to the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you need to read 1 Tim 3:15…
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

**The pillar and foundation of truth is the Church which correctly interprets Scripture. **

You need to listen to the Church Jesus established and a bit of good salvific history would certainly help clear up your misconceptions you have about Catholicism

 

[newbie1234]

We know Mary was sinless because Jesus established one Church with His authority behind it and the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to truth and it gives us the correct interpretation of Scripture which it guarded throughout the ages, and gave us the canon, that’s why you don’t have 26 inspired books nor 28 but 27 New Testament books, God allowed the Catholic Church to recognize the correct inspired books.

And if you are insinuating by using the word “adore” that we Catholics worship Mary or statues then you are wrong again and using a straw man argument and is frankly out of ignorance that you say such a crazy thing. We only give adoration to God the Trinity; another theological term you wouldn’t know if it wasn’t the council of Nicea in 325 creating the Greek word “homoosius” which means “of the same substance” and also the Latin word Triunitos (Trinity) so that you and I would better understand the Godhead.

And perhaps you haven’t read your bible enough for Moses, King David and his son Solomon all created statues that were commanded by God…

"During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9). When the time came to build the Temple in Jerusalem, God inspired David’s plans for it, which included “his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing from the hand of the Lord concerning it, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19).

In obedience to this divinely inspired plan, **Solomon built two gigantic, golden statues of cherubim: **“In the most holy place he made two cherubim of wood and overlaid them with gold. The wings of the cherubim together extended twenty cubits: one wing of the one, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and its other wing, of five cubits, touched the wing of the other cherub; and of this cherub, one wing, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and the other wing, also of five cubits, was joined to the wing of the first cherub. The wings of these cherubim extended twenty cubits; the cherubim stood on their feet, facing the nave. And he made the veil of blue and purple and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and worked cherubim on it” (2 Chr. 3:10–14)."
catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

So, before accusing Catholics of worshiping Mary or statues, you perhaps may want to read and study your bible first next time.

Why don’t YOU test all things, theologically or perhaps logically?

Think about this…would an infallible Holy Spirit confuse so many differing Protestants?
Would the Holy Spirit guide some to “once saved always saved” and others to “loose their salvation”
Or perhaps worship ONLY on Saturday?
Or perhaps have women in the pastorate?
Others condemn women as pastors.
Or padeo baptism for some but not for others?
Or sacraments for some but not for others?
Or the rapture for some and not for others?
Or pretribulation for some?
Or post tribulation for others?
Or amillenialism for others?
Or 1,2,3 raptures for some and not for others?
Or the non use of instruments in worship for some but the use for others?
Or not allowing men to be elders or deacons because of a past divorce?

All of these differing “doctrines” or authoritative decisions are part of Protestantism and yet you so faciley tell us Catholics to listen to the Holy Spirit?
We do listen to the Holy Spirit for He guides His Church, that’s why we listen to the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you need to read 1 Tim 3:15…
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

**The pillar and foundation of truth is the Church which correctly interprets Scripture. **

You need to listen to the Church Jesus established and a bit of good salvific history would certainly help clear up your misconceptions you have about Catholicism

Like I said, if you don’t personally hear the Holy Spirit telling you NOT to kneel in front of, and pray to, or kiss the feet of your statues, then go right ahead.

 

[Church_Militant]

It could be valid.
But the rule is scripture interprets scripture.
The statement that Mary was sinless is easily disproven because she needed a savior. Luke 1:46 .So it can not be true.
If an interpretation of scripture conflicts with any other part of scripture the interpretation is false.
The catholic doctrine of sinless Mary comes from sacred tradition. It doesn’t come from scripture.

Not so…in fact the passage that you cite refutes you.

Were the Old Testament saints saved? By the sacrifice of Christ right? Yet they were not even alive when that sacrifice was made, right? Yet it was applied to them as well without regard to their temporal proximity to that sacrifice, correct?

Therefore, because Mary was born before that sacrifice she would also fall under that ex post facto sacrifice for sins. Hers was a preemptive application because next to Our Lord Himself she is the most unique soul in all of human history. (A self evident fact).

IOW, I’m saying that since the sacrifice of Christ extends in both directions in time then because all things are possible with God the scripture does indeed teach that she was immaculately conceived and since there is no evidence that she ever sinned (having a far more intimate personal relationship with Jesus than even we can!) it is not unscriptural or illogical to believe that she lived a life of sanctifying grace.

To assert that she did sin is an agenda driven unscriptural error.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

Like I said, if you don’t personally hear the Holy Spirit telling you NOT to kneel in front of, and pray to, or kiss the feet of your statues, then go right ahead.

Thank you…I will.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Like I said, if you don’t personally hear the Holy Spirit telling you NOT to kneel in front of, and pray to, or kiss the feet of your statues, then go right ahead.

I plan to continue until the day that I die.

 

[exiled]

It could be valid.
But the rule is scripture interprets scripture.
The statement that Mary was sinless is easily disproven because she needed a savior. Luke 1:46 .So it can not be true.
If an interpretation of scripture conflicts with any other part of scripture the interpretation is false.
The catholic doctrine of sinless Mary comes from sacred tradition. It doesn’t come from scripture.

And Scripture says it needs to be interpreted by a teacher, but I guess that must have meant something else.