Marian Dogmas and the Bible

[justasking4]

guanophore;2796618]I think most of the Apostles had the sense that Jesus was coming back any day, and did not give much thought to any of them dying. However, since she was alive when they were, and they could ask her for prayers anytime, why would they give this a second thought? It was commonplace to ask those who have died to continue to pray for them, beginning with St. Stephen, one of the earliest martyrs.

Lets take a couple of examples from scripture where they know they are going to die. Paul and Peter were aware that they were going to die soon and they had great concern for the church. Would you agree with this?

If so, then this would have been an excellent opportunity for them to teach christians to pray to them for help and yet they do not. This tells us that they, the apostles of Christ never believed in such a thing.

This is only a problem for you, JA4, and others who have not followed the instructions in I Thes. 2:15. For those that have been obedient to this commandment, we know other things the apostles taught and did.

You don’t know anything the apostles taught unless its in the written scriptures. There is no good reason to think that the “traditions” Paul was referring to was about the Marian dogmas.

Most of the NT was already written by the time Mary died. However, it does not matter, because any coctrine that emerged in the early centuries that was not consistent with the Apostolic TEachings was thoroughly refuted.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

The canon of the Bible was not formed until that time, either, but you seem to have no trouble accepting that! The same infallible source for both…

The canon of the NT was finished when John finished Revelations. It took centuries before the church had a full understanding of the canon.

 

[guanophore]

Look to the **Letter of Titus **where it is written:

If you read the verse you will find that Paul is quoting what one of their prophets said. He is not personally making the claim that all people living in Crete were liars. Rather he was saying that this was true of false teachers who always lie.

This is why context is so important. Making generalized statements can sound convincing until you examine the parts. So it is here.

Since you can see this, you should be able to understand that Paul is doing the SAME THING in Romans where he talks about “all have sinned”. He states “it is written” showing that he is quoting. IF you go back and look where he took the quote, you can see that the passage is about people who say in their heart “there is no God”. These are the “all” that Paul is talking about in the passage. It is not meant to apply to all of humanity.

Ok. I’m a heritical Sola Scripturalist. Now, please show me from the apostles themselves that they taught any of the Marian dogmas? Since the only teachings we have are from the written-inspired-inerrant scriptures, where do they teach in them: immaculately conceived?
prayed to?
Queen of the apostles and the church?
Assumed into heaven?

If what you say is true then we should see them there. Can you show me?

You misunderstood, ja4. What she is saying is that the full revelation of divine truth is NOT found in the Scriptures. You are limited in what you can understand because you can only accept that portion of the scriptures. You believe that the scripture is “the only teachings we have”. However, those from Apostolic faiths also receive the Sacred Traditions, so we are not limited in the same way that you are.

There are many problems with this. For one, those who have died in Christ are asleep. To be asleep means you are totally unaware of this world. This means prayers to her are not being heard since she and all the saints are asleep and unaware.

This is not the Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

Lets take a couple of examples from scripture where they know they are going to die. Paul and Peter were aware that they were going to die soon and they had great concern for the church. Would you agree with this?

If so, then this would have been an excellent opportunity for them to teach christians to pray to them for help and yet they do not. This tells us that they, the apostles of Christ never believed in such a thing.

It may tell you that, ja4, but those from Apostolic traditions see it differently.

"And when he had spoken thus, he knelt down and prayed with them all. 37 And they all wept and embraced Paul and kissed him, 38 sorrowing most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they brought him to the ship. Acts 20:36-21:1

We don’t know what all Paul told them, but we do know that they knelt and prayed together. Also, the disciples would kneel and pray together even after Paul left. And they would know that Paul was with them in spirit during their prayer. They would not know when, specifically, Paul was martyred, but they would continue to kneel and pray together, knowing that, whether he was dead or alive, he is one in spirit with them.

you don’t know anything the apostles taught unless its in the written scriptures. There is no good reason to think that the “traditions” Paul was referring to was about the Marian dogmas.

Well, speak for your self, ja4:thumbsup: We DO know many things the Apostles taught that are not written in the scriptures. We know that the saints are alive in Christ,a nd that we are members of the same body,a nd that the saints pray for us.

However, I do agree that the Traditions Paul taught were probably not Marian doctrines, since I don’t think those were clearly understood for centuries, just like the Trinity, and the nature of Christ.

Most of the NT was already written by the time Mary died. However, it does not matter, because any doctrine that emerged in the early centuries that was not consistent with the Apostolic TEachings was thoroughly refuted.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

The early church was rabidly defensive about heresies. Whenever someone came up with some bad theology or error, the Church went into action and wrote against it, and had councils defining the truth, so as to distinquish it from error. During the time that the Marian doctrines were being written about, none of this refutation occured, which tells us that these ideas were not considered heretical.

The canon of the NT was finished when John finished Revelations. It took centuries before the church had a full understanding of the canon.

I think you are a little short on your history, ja4. There were hundreds of books and letters floating around and being read during Church meetings. What we know of as the NT was not defined for 400 years, about the same time the Marian doctrines were written down. My point is that it doesn;t matter when it happened,. The same infallible source produced both.

 

[BrewMax]

Jesus said “even more blessed” are those who hear and obey. He was not saying that His mother was not blessed by giving birth to Him, and the joy of being His mother. He is saying that, even greater than this joy is the blessing she has because she heard the Word, and obeyed.

I suppose it is possible. No one has yet lived, however, that kept His word as well as she, so we don’t know!

Ah, I can’t agree. He responded back to those who were completely focused upon the womb of the one who gave birth to the Savior and he simply redirected their focus upon keeping God’s word as being the object of a greater blessing. I am not saying that Mary isn’t blessed. It is spoken of clearly in Scripture that she is blessed, no question. But Jesus is drawing attention to those who keep God’s word as being even more blessed. Pretty clear to me.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

BrewMax,

Perhpas we should examine this in light of one of Luke’s most important themes: the inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of God.

First, Protestant interpreters make an initial assumption here that this woman has some kind of idea of who Jesus’ mother is. The assumption being that she is displaying the prototype of some kind of Marian devotion and that Jesus’ response then, is directed towards this woman’s statement about his mother.

I would contest that Jesus’ response is far more general and, when in context, has no connection to the Virgin Mary. The woman’s statement is in error not because it has an implicit Mariology but because it represents a “theory of blessedness” that Jesus’ ministry is deliberately trying to confront.

As was already established, Luke makes it clear that Mary is “full of grace” and will be called blessed for all ages. So it can not be true that she is not blessed because she is his mother. Also, because those who obey the word of God are blessed and because Mary is the Mother of Christ through her obedience to God’s word, we can see that Mary is, in fact doubly blessed!

Jesus is a very clever person. Quite often in the bible he will use the haphazard, snide or presumptious statements of a person as the springboard for a profound teaching. I think this is the case in Luke chapter 11. By saying “rather, those who hear the word of God and obey it are blessed” he is making a radical shift in the communal relation to God.

We know of Judaism that one’s blood lineage played a significant role in terms of being a “chosen People”. It was a common idea that Jews were especially blessed because of their heritage and Covenant. Christ is changing the terms of this Covenant, as he says in John he can raise children of Abraham from stones. The woman who said “blessed is the womb that bore you” is exemplifying a wrong criteria for blessedness. By saying “rather are those who obey God” Christ is opening up the Covenant relationship to all peoples who can respond to him. Even though the Scriptures change the criteria of what will grant us blessedness in order to include all of humanity, they do not nullify the unique and special place of the Jews. In this same way Mary retains a special place merely by virtue of her physical motherhood of Christ. This role is even moreso venerated by the Church because she did this in combination with the obedience to the word that God asks of his New Covenant Family.

In this way Jesus takes the specific statement about his Mother and uses it to make a general statement about the Covenant relationship. The passage is not about Marian devotion, rather, it is about what God requires of His People according to the terms of the New Covenant.

 

[De_Maria]

.

Lets take one. Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
What does righteous mean in this verse? It means:In the NT those that are called righteous (díkaioi) are those who have conditioned their lives by the standard which is not theirs, but God’s (Rom. 2:13; 5:7; 2 Tim. 1:9). They are the people related to God and who, as a result of this relationship, walk with God
Zodhiates, S. The complete word study dictionary.

But the verse which started this conversation was the one you provided in Romans which said, “there is none righteous, no not one.” So are you saying that the Bible contradicts itself?

A person can be righteous but that does not mean he does not sin.

Is that the point of this discussion? I understood that you were trying to prove that Mary must have sinned because St. Paul said that “none are righeous, no not one.” But as you can see, if NONE are righteous, then St. Luke is wrong. And if St. Luke is right, the St. Paul is wrong.

But if St. Paul was talking about those who say in their hearts, there is no God, then they are both right.

St. Paul also said there are some who have not sinned in the similitude of Adam. Now, if Enoch and Elijah left this earth with out enduring death. And death is the punishment for sin. ergo…

So, are you certain that every single person without exception has committed actual sin?

Even in the catholic church’ saints may be said to be righteous but that does not mean they never sinned.

That is true.

Here is what your catechism teaches about this:

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

As you can see it does teach what i’m saying that no man is without sin. In case of Mary, all you have is an assertion since there is no evidence in scripture that she was kept from sin. Her acknowldegement of a Savior and her making a sin offering in Luke 2:21-24 all indicate she saw herself as a sinner.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

If you read further, you see that the sin the Church is talking about is Original Sin and Original Sin is not ACTUAL sin but a deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice.

I reject what the catholic church teaches about Mary not without reasons but with what the scriptures teach about her and all mankind. Only the scriptures are inspired-inerrant and not any church.

Again, you contradict the Scriptures:

**1 Timothy 3:15
**

15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

What you really mean though, is that you consider your interpretation inspired and inerrant. Because I have an interpretation and you consider mine false. But the Scriptures also say who is the final arbiter in Church doctrine:

Matthew 18:17

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

The Scriptures are inerrant, that is true. But your interpretations are not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[andzy]

Ah, I can’t agree. He responded back to those who were completely focused upon the womb of the one who gave birth to the Savior and he simply redirected their focus upon keeping God’s word as being the object of a greater blessing. I am not saying that Mary isn’t blessed. It is spoken of clearly in Scripture that she is blessed, no question. But Jesus is drawing attention to those who keep God’s word as being even more blessed. Pretty clear to me.

In fact, not that pretty clear at all, unless you take only one possible translation. The Greek “menoun” can be translated not just as “rather”, but also as “indeed” (and it wouldn’t be the only language where one word has seemingly contradicting meanings). In fact, I’ve read a few Protestant(!) translations (in English and other languages), where this verse doesn’t say “rather”, but “indeed”.
I agree with you, that Jesus most likely wanted to stress that a person is blessed not merely because of family ties (cf., “I’m Christian, because my parents are Christians”), but because of doing God’s will. However, we must both agree, that Mary was doing God’s will more than anybody we know, so in no way should this verse be used in order to somehow diminish her role.

 

[andzy]

If it you believe its theologically sound then what do you do with Luke 1:47; Romans 3:9-10, and 5:12? All of these speak of the unversality of sin in all men.

Even though Romans speaks about “all men” sinning, it does not necessary include Mary. You have to realize that the Bible cannot be interpreted in a literalistic way (and even then, it speaks about “men”, which, as we know, Mary was not ).
I always give an example of Mark 1:5: “The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him (John the Baptist). Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.” If you apply the same literalistic interpretation, then you have to conclude that everybody from the entire Judea and Jerusalem confessed their sins and were baptized by John. Obviously, that is false, as it would mean tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, who would have to include not just the common Jews, but also priests, Pharisees (and others who already considered themselves righteous and thus not in need of baptism), as well as Romans and others who were not and never did accept Judaism.
Even today’s language doesn’t fit well with literalistic approach. For example, when we say “the entire day”, it doesn’t necessary mean “24 hours” or “every minute while it was light outside”, but rather “most of the day”.
That’s just one argument, why “all men sinned” does not need to apply to the Virgin Mary.

 

[BrewMax]

In fact, not that pretty clear at all, unless you take only one possible translation. The Greek “menoun” can be translated not just as “rather”, but also as “indeed” (and it wouldn’t be the only language where one word has seemingly contradicting meanings). In fact, I’ve read a few Protestant(!) translations (in English and other languages), where this verse doesn’t say “rather”, but “indeed”.
I agree with you, that Jesus most likely wanted to stress that a person is blessed not merely because of family ties (cf., “I’m Christian, because my parents are Christians”), but because of doing God’s will. However, we must both agree, that Mary was doing God’s will more than anybody we know, so in no way should this verse be used in order to somehow diminish her role.

I’m not implying that her role is diminished. Mary undoubtedly was the greatest woman that ever lived. Scripture teaches that clearly. It also clearly states that she is blessed among all women. I think the case can be made very solid from Scripture that Mary is the Yes where Eve was the No. She is certainly THE Christian model. I am merely saying that Jesus says in Luke 11 that those that keep God’s word are even more blessed than Mary. That is how very important it is to keep God’s word!!

 

[andzy]

I am merely saying that Jesus says in Luke 11 that those that keep God’s word are even more blessed than Mary. That is how very important it is to keep God’s word!!

That would be true, if Mary hadn’t kept God’s word. But she did, and much more so, than any of us. When I take into account both meanings of “menoun” (not just “rather” as in “on the contrary”), Mary’s obedience and such scripture as Luke 1, Rev. 12 etc., I don’t see how Mary’s importance is somehow less significant than “a regular Christian”, as many Protestants imply (and, in the context of the original post, how this passage contradicts any of the Marian dogmas/teachings).

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2797542]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The canon of the NT was finished when John finished Revelations. It took centuries before the church had a full understanding of the canon.

guanophore
I think you are a little short on your history, ja4. There were hundreds of books and letters floating around and being read during Church meetings. What we know of as the NT was not defined for 400 years, about the same time the Marian doctrines were written down. My point is that it doesn;t matter when it happened,.

My point is that when John finished Revelations the canon of the NT was complete even though the church may have been aware of for centuries. These other books and letters that were floating around and used by the church were never in reality inspired scripture.

guanophore
The same infallible source produced both.

Who is this infallible source?

 

[justasking4]

Even though Romans speaks about “all men” sinning, it does not necessary include Mary. You have to realize that the Bible cannot be interpreted in a literalistic way (and even then, it speaks about “men”, which, as we know, Mary was not ).
I always give an example of Mark 1:5: “The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him (John the Baptist). Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.” If you apply the same literalistic interpretation, then you have to conclude that everybody from the entire Judea and Jerusalem confessed their sins and were baptized by John. Obviously, that is false, as it would mean tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, who would have to include not just the common Jews, but also priests, Pharisees (and others who already considered themselves righteous and thus not in need of baptism), as well as Romans and others who were not and never did accept Judaism.
Even today’s language doesn’t fit well with literalistic approach. For example, when we say “the entire day”, it doesn’t necessary mean “24 hours” or “every minute while it was light outside”, but rather “most of the day”.
That’s just one argument, why “all men sinned” does not need to apply to the Virgin Mary.

There are times in the scriptures where all doesn’t mean necessarily all. However in the context of what Paul is referring to in Romans does include the whole of mankind without exception. There is no getting around the fact that all humans born of a man and a woman do inherit the sin of Adam. There are no exceptions to this.
Was Mary born of parents who were fallen?

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;2798305]But the verse which started this conversation was the one you provided in Romans which said, “there is none righteous, no not one.” So are you saying that the Bible contradicts itself?

I was using Luke 1:6 as an example from post #54. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Is that the point of this discussion? I understood that you were trying to prove that Mary must have sinned because St. Paul said that “none are righeous, no not one.” But as you can see, if NONE are righteous, then St. Luke is wrong. And if St. Luke is right, the St. Paul is wrong.

Rightwousness can be used in a number of different senses in the scriptures. A man can be righteous in his living but that does not mean he is sinless. Only Jesus was perfectly righteous in all that He was and did.

But if St. Paul was talking about those who say in their hearts, there is no God, then they are both right.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

St. Paul also said there are some who have not sinned in the similitude of Adam. Now, if Enoch and Elijah left this earth with out enduring death. And death is the punishment for sin. ergo…

Even though these 2 were taken up directly to heaven it does not mean they were sinless. They to were sinners. Also these 2 would be an exception to the rule that all men die before they can enter heaven. The other exception where physical death will not take place is when Christ returns and those who are alive will meet Christ in the air. See I Thes 4:17

De Maria
So, are you certain that every single person without exception has committed actual sin?

That is true.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

De Maria
If you read further, you see that the sin the Church is talking about is Original Sin and Original Sin is not ACTUAL sin but a deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice.

Huh? Original sin is something all humans possess.

Again, you contradict the Scriptures:

**1 Timothy 3:15
**

15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

What you really mean though, is that you consider your interpretation inspired and inerrant. Because I have an interpretation and you consider mine false. But the Scriptures also say who is the final arbiter in Church doctrine:

I don’t consider my interpretations inspired-inerrant. Of course i think i’m right and others who disagree with me are wrong. This also applies to you. You think your right and i’m wrong.

Where does it say in scripture that the “final arbiter in Church doctrine”?

Matthew 18:17

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

The Scriptures are inerrant, that is true. But your interpretations are not.

True. Do you realize that the catholic church has not infallibly interpreted much if any verses of the scriptures?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Justasking4

Even though these 2 were taken up directly to heaven it does not mean they were sinless. They to were sinners. Also these 2 would be an exception to the rule that all men die before they can enter heaven. The other exception where physical death will not take place is when Christ returns and those who are alive will meet Christ in the air. See I Thes 4:17

You are making up your own exceptions.

If Paul is definitively and literally saying that every human has being sinned, why would you not apply the same literalism to his statement that sin brings death?

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

According to your interpretation, Saint Paul is contradicting the assumption of Elijah and Enoch.

If “all men have sinned” means all people have sinned with no exception then “death came to all” must mean all die with no exception.

 

[andzy]

There are times in the scriptures where all doesn’t mean necessarily all. However in the context of what Paul is referring to in Romans does include the whole of mankind without exception.

What makes you so sure that the case in Rom. in certainly different? Because I don’t necessary see that context. To me it would rather look as if Paul is implying that “all men” to his audience, instead of giving a theological lecture on salvation.

There is no getting around the fact that all humans born of a man and a woman do inherit the sin of Adam. There are no exceptions to this.
Was Mary born of parents who were fallen?

Don’t know, if you know it, but the Church doesn’t consider Mary to be some kind of superperson, who just magically or by her powers became sinless. We believe that God took the original sin off of her before her birth and didn’t allow her to be stained by sin. It’s certainly nothing hard for God to do. (Note: whether you agree with it or not, this teaching is not just somebody’s out-of-the-blue idea, but belief that is based on early traditions and theological implications from both the Old and the New Testaments.)

Where does it say in scripture that the “final arbiter in Church doctrine”?

Did you mean “final arbiter is Church doctrine”? In that case, 1 Tim. 3:15 (among other passages).

 

[AgnosTheist]

We believe that God took the original sin off of her before her birth and didn’t allow her to be stained by sin.

Hmmm, if God can do that with Mary, why cant he do that for the rest of us? Save jesus all the trouble. Christianity is so full of loopholes.

 

[justasking4]

Jordan Francis;2799933]Justasking4

You are making up your own exceptions

.
How so. The scriptures certainly teach these things. If these proven exceptions are not allowed then we would have contradictions in the scriptures. Do you believe there are?

If Paul is definitively and literally saying that every human has being sinned, why would you not apply the same literalism to his statement that sin brings death?

Sin does bring spiritual death but sometimes physical death takes longer. In I Thes it will not happen to those who are alive when Christ comes again. Even in this case it does not mean these Christians had not sinned.

According to your interpretation, Saint Paul is contradicting the assumption of Elijah and Enoch.

How so? If God has the power to raise dead sinners from the dead then He also has the power to bring Elijah to heaven.

If “all men have sinned” means all people have sinned with no exception then “death came to all” must mean all die with no exception.

This would be if there are no known exceptions to death. There is no good reason to think for example that Elijah had not sinned and yet he did not die a natural death.

 

[justasking4]

This is talking about original sin. When Jesus talks about the righteous, and other scriptures reference peopel who are saints, or righteous, or blameless, they are referring to personal sin. Apples and oranges.

Do you believe all men are sinners because they have inherited from Adam a “sin nature”?

 

[YADA]

.
How so? **If God has the power to raise dead sinners from the dead then He also has the power to bring Elijah to heaven. **

This would be if there are no known exceptions to death. There is no good reason to think for example that Elijah had not sinned and yet he did not die a natural death.

So you get to interpret scriptures to allow for “your exceptions” but thst Church can not interpret passages for ‘exceptions’?

And look at yor post [where I bolded]…If God has the power to raise dead sinners then He has the power to bring Elijah to heaven…

Well if God has the power to bring Elijah and Enoch to heaven…then God has that same power to take Mary into heaven…

If God [Jesus] has the power to bring salvation to the world by His death on the Cross and His resurrection…then Jesus [who as the Word that was with God and was God in the beginning] has the power to “save” Mary from the stain of original sin at the moment of her conception…this preservation of Mary from the stain of original sin and her following the Word of God [exercising her free will to remain Full of Grace - and Highly Favored of God and Blessed of all Women] was so that Jesus could be fully human and still untouched by sin…

And the charge that Marian beliefs have no foundation is scripture and are creations that came centuries later is spurious…like the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ, the understandings were defined in detail when challenges and mis-understandings arose [heresies]…Mary as Theotokos was defined directly from the heresies over the Two natures of Christ…it was an out growth of the controversy as in the role of Mary as Mother of God was a necessary conslusion of Jesus being Fully God. Specifically, Mary was not determined to be the Mother of God because people were discussing Mary and how to elevate her to Goddess. To imply otherwise is to re-write the history of the early christian church…

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Justasking4

How could God assume Elijah bodily into heaven if he had sinned? I thought that the presence of God can not tolerate sin? Is this not a basic idea behind the need for Atonement and the Incarnation?