Mary for Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
not only the virgin mary wasgiven the honor of been jesus mother but she also endured the suffering of her son in the cross. in my heart she is a very special place an as a mother i always pray to her so i can be a good mom too to my son. hail mary,full of grace! the lord is with thee:amen:
 
40.png
Curious:
LOL! Rats! I’d make a pitiful Catholic AND Protestant! :crying:

j/k. I was merely pointing out that Tom made sense. I guess I’ve been guilty sometimes of just glossing over the scriptures, assuming I understand their meaning, when sometimes I probably don’t even get the gist of it! :eek:

Hrm…I guess I have more questions/concerns about Mary’s Assumption then perpetual virginity. But that’s for another topic.
Good thread ya’ll. 👍

P.S. I’m not a fella 😉
Click to expand...
LOL…ok, sorry sis my apologies…guess I’m the knucklehead:whacky:
God Bless!
 
My Protestant Mary question: Why wasn’t it made clear in the Bible that she was without sin? Wouldn’t that have been a big deal to the disciples? And yes, I know it says she is full of grace but I wonder why they didn’t go on about how she was without sin her whole life which would have been so noteable and surely if it is as important a point that Catholics make it seem, why didn’t God insipre the Bible writers to record that?
 
carol marie:
My Protestant Mary question: Why wasn’t it made clear in the Bible that she was without sin? Wouldn’t that have been a big deal to the disciples? And yes, I know it says she is full of grace but I wonder why they didn’t go on about how she was without sin her whole life which would have been so noteable and surely if it is as important a point that Catholics make it seem, why didn’t God insipre the Bible writers to record that?
Click to expand...
It was told to me that scholars believe St. Luke probably interviewed Our Lady, but she requested that some things not be written explicitly as it could harm the Cause of Jesus’ Good News by being too confusing or as I would term it “too much information, too fast”.

As a side note, I saved this article called “Linked for Life” from our local newspaper from Mother’s Day, 2003, called *“Mom’s Connection. Scientists say that about 90 percent of mothers carry cells in their blood and tissue that came from their children during pregnancy. Source: Thomas Jefferson University” *
I couldn’t help but make this jump between Jesus and Mary. How science even proves that Our Blessed Mother is not just an ordinary woman, or just a holy person. She, by virtue of Jesus himself, shares His cells and vice versa. So if Mary was in any way NOT perfect when she conceived, Jesus would have been polluted, (and that could not happen of course). Shetruly was the Ark of the Covenant.

Jen
 
carol marie maybe you can find answers to your question about the virgin mary in scott hahn website. go to selected audio reserves an listen to the ones related to mary. hopefully they will help:blessyou:
 
I would Like to show how i came to understand the Virginity of Mary. First, lets look at this.

The Angel said, “Behold you will conceive in your wound and bear a son…”

Ok, well, if Mary was planning to have relations to Joseph and have a kids, She wouldv’e been like:

"Well DUH Mr. Angel, of course I’m ganna have Kids, of course im Ganna have Sex, you Angels must not be all that smart. "

But the Angel hadn’t told her yet HOW she will Conceive, he hadn’t mentioned the HOLY SPIRIT, in the whole ball of things.

So she said, “How can this be, since I know not Man.”

Why would a Woman Planning to have Kids, and planning to have sex say such a thing? So thats how I came to understand it, I just brought it down to my 15 year old level of Understanding
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
I would Like to show how i came to understand the Virginity of Mary. First, lets look at this.

The Angel said, “Behold you will conceive in your wound and bear a son…”

Ok, well, if Mary was planning to have relations to Joseph and have a kids, She wouldv’e been like:

"Well DUH Mr. Angel, of course I’m ganna have Kids, of course im Ganna have Sex, you Angels must not be all that smart. "

But the Angel hadn’t told her yet HOW she will Conceive, he hadn’t mentioned the HOLY SPIRIT, in the whole ball of things.

So she said, “How can this be, since I know not Man.”

Why would a Woman Planning to have Kids, and planning to have sex say such a thing? So thats how I came to understand it, I just brought it down to my 15 year old level of Understanding.
Click to expand...
That is a very good explaination. St. Jerome went over that issue in his arguement against Helvidius on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
 
Ok, well, if Mary was planning to have relations to Joseph and have a kids, She wouldv’e been like:
Click to expand...
"Well DUH Mr. Angel, of course I’m ganna have Kids, of course im Ganna have Sex, you Angels must not be all that smart
Click to expand...
LOL…not only was that funny but a good explanation. 😉

:rotfl: :rotfl:
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
thanks to everyone who contributed here. i’ve learned much, which is unusual for me. 🙂 i’m a convert, and have a degree in baptist theology. i’d not heard many of the teachings here, such as the tradition in jewish society for young women to remain virgins and have ‘guardians’.

i’d like to point out, though, that ‘Would not Mary and Joseph have recognized this, and respected her womb as the place God first entered the world, and kept it sacred?’ makes it sound as though the marital act is less than sacred. care to clarify?
Click to expand...
This can be understood in light of the ark of the covenant which Luke purposely makes Mary in the new covenant in his gospel account. It truly is absurd to think that Mary had relations after Jesus. That was unheard of in Christianity for over 1500 years. It’s not that sex between a man and wife is not sacred, it’s that where God (perfect holiness and sacredness) has dwelled, no man must. Again this is in light of the ark. Another example from sripture is Ezekial 44:1-2, “…He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.” Just as the Lord entered through Mary, so no other shall enter through her.
 
carol marie:
My Protestant Mary question: Why wasn’t it made clear in the Bible that she was without sin? Wouldn’t that have been a big deal to the disciples? And yes, I know it says she is full of grace but I wonder why they didn’t go on about how she was without sin her whole life which would have been so noteable and surely if it is as important a point that Catholics make it seem, why didn’t God insipre the Bible writers to record that?
Click to expand...
That’s speculation. Why didn’t the “Bible writers” just say that there is one God and three persons which Christians will call the trinity. That’s the most important doctrine for any Christian yet it is never made clear in scripture. That’s why they do say to hold fast to written and oral tradition; it is a part of the living tradition of the apostles that Mary was conceived without sin. The Catholic Church doesn’t just make things up out of the blue. You seriously think the pope sitting around one day said, Hey let’s say Mary was sinless, that sounds good. excuse my sarcasm.
 
40.png
jenrasusa:
I couldn’t help but make this jump between Jesus and Mary. How science even proves that Our Blessed Mother is not just an ordinary woman, or just a holy person. She, by virtue of Jesus himself, shares His cells and vice versa. So if Mary was in any way NOT perfect when she conceived, Jesus would have been polluted, (and that could not happen of course). Shetruly was the Ark of the Covenant.

Jen
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but don’t go too far. Mary didn’t have to be conceived without sin, but it was obviously more fitting. Jesus would not have been polluted either way, but keep the zeal for your faith.
 
carol marie:
My Protestant Mary question: Why wasn’t it made clear in the Bible that she was without sin? Wouldn’t that have been a big deal to the disciples? And yes, I know it says she is full of grace but I wonder why they didn’t go on about how she was without sin her whole life which would have been so noteable and surely if it is as important a point that Catholics make it seem, why didn’t God insipre the Bible writers to record that?
Click to expand...
Wonderful question. Keep in mind what Scripture says about Scripture. Not all is written here! It even says that if all that Jesus said and did were included in Scripture that there wouldn’t be enough books to contain it! So, not even all that Jesus did was recorded, and we should think that the partiiculars of Mary, who is not God, should be recorded? Mary isn’t the central point of Scripture, wasn’t then and isn’t now. When the angel claimed her to be “full of grace” he was proclaiming her immaculate conception. She was already, full of grace, it wasn’t a gift the angel was imparting, it was already fact.
 
Have you ever wondered where the stories at the beginning of Lukes gospel came from?

There are two alternatives, someone made them up or someone remembered them.

I think the clue is there in the Gospel, “she pondered all these things in her heart”.

There is only one possible person who could have recounted these stories at the time, and that is Mary.

Mary is the model christian, those stories are beautiful. She is a deeply spirtual person as the stories tell us.

Also Mary in St John’s Gospel “Do whatever he tells you”. That is her message.

She is our perfect example in how to follow Christ her son.
 
Mary was the topic in Mass last week and as a new Catholic I must admit I am little troubled by the position the Priest put forward. I don’t know if it was his opinion or the Church position. He said she never sined. This seems beyond reason to me since the Bible clearly states we are all sinners. Also if Mary was without sin she would in fact be God and would be on a equal plane with the Father and Son. He also said her body never degraded. If this is true she would not have aged as her life progressed and this would have surley been noted by others. Please don’t take these questions as offensive. I have great respect and love for Mary but I think she too would be as upset as Paul was when others tried to deify him. This issue is difficult for me as a former Protastant.
 
Adam and Eve were initially without sin, but that did not make them God.

Mary was preserved from sin from conception onwards, this was purely an act of grace from God.

As to Mary’s body not degrading, I think the Priest meant corrupting after death. Mary aged the same as everyone else, but her body was assumed immediately into Heaven before corruption set in, much the same way as as Elijah was assumed into heaven.
 
40.png
Bates:
Mary was the topic in Mass last week and as a new Catholic I must admit I am little troubled by the position the Priest put forward. I don’t know if it was his opinion or the Church position. He said she never sined. This seems beyond reason to me since the Bible clearly states we are all sinners. Also if Mary was without sin she would in fact be God and would be on a equal plane with the Father and Son. He also said her body never degraded. If this is true she would not have aged as her life progressed and this would have surley been noted by others. Please don’t take these questions as offensive. I have great respect and love for Mary but I think she too would be as upset as Paul was when others tried to deify him. This issue is difficult for me as a former Protastant.
Click to expand...
Sinlessness does not qualify you as God. The Catholic church is not deifying Mary by saying this. In fact, there was a heresy around the 3rd or 4th century in which people did worship Mary and the church quickly acknowleded that it was heresy. Read the catechism of the church and try the New Eve by John Henry Newman which is a great, little book that explains it very well.
 
40.png
Bates:
He said she never sined. This seems beyond reason to me since the Bible clearly states we are all sinners. Also if Mary was without sin she would in fact be God and would be on a equal plane with the Father and Son. He also said her body never degraded. If this is true she would not have aged as her life progressed and this would have surley been noted by others.
Click to expand...
From biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.asp?id=19

Paul is quoting from the O.T., Psalm 14 to be exact. In Psalm 14 it says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” But then that same psalm goes on to talk about the “righteous.” Well, if none has done good, who are these righteous the psalm is talking about? Obviously, when the psalmist says that none has done good, he is talking about the fools who say there is no God. He is not talking about absolutely everyone.
Just so Paul when he quotes from this psalm. Paul is not saying absolutely no one is righteous, if he was, then how do you explain all the Old and New Testament passages that refer to the righteous? In Romans 3:11 it says that no one seeks for God. Does that mean that absolutely no one seeking God? No, to interpret it that way would be ludicrous!

Just so verse 23 which says that “all have sinned”. Babies haven’t sinned, have they? Little children haven’t sinned, have they? No! This is not an absolute. There are exceptions. What about John the Baptist? Did he sin? Scripture says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb. Can someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life ever sin? It’s something to think about.
 
I don’t think anything in Scripture is by chance, it all has a purpose. I’m not a quoter, I feel giving exact verses often results in taking things out of context, so I will only site chapter, read it all, it won’t hurt.
I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows. So the question we need to ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have normal sexual relations after their marriage?
First we’ll take the position of yes, they intended to have sexual relations. When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”?
The question “how can this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how can this be”?
Now we’ll take the position of no, they did not intend to have sexual relations, Mary was a consecrated virgin, under a vow of virginity. Read Lk again. The angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Wait a second!!! I’m a dedicated virgin, under a vow of virginity, “how can this be?” This question of her’s only makes sense if she did not intend to have normal sexual relation, if she were under a vow of virginity. Now read Numbers chap 30 about a man taking a woman into his house as hios wife who is under a vow. This is the reason Mt talks about Joseph’s side, to insure he knows of the vow, to make sure he knows the true “Father” of the child, to make sure he knows the intimate relationship between Mary and God.
 
I don’t think anything in Scripture is by chance, it all has a purpose. I’m not a quoter, I feel giving exact verses often results in taking things out of context, so I will only site chapter, read it all, it won’t hurt.
I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows. So the question we need to ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have normal sexual relations after their marriage?
First we’ll take the position of yes, they intended to have sexual relations. When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”?
The question “how can this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how can this be”?
Now we’ll take the position of no, they did not intend to have sexual relations, Mary was a consecrated virgin, under a vow of virginity. Read Lk again. The angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Wait a second!!! I’m a dedicated virgin, under a vow of virginity, “how can this be?” This question of her’s only makes sense if she did not intend to have normal sexual relation, if she were under a vow of virginity. Now read Numbers chap 30 about a man taking a woman into his house as his wife who is under a vow. This is the reason Mt talks about Joseph’s side, to insure he knows of the vow, to make sure he knows the true “Father” of the child, to make sure he knows the intimate relationship between Mary and God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top