Protestants and Mary

[Follow_Yeshua]

Though it does not say explicitly in the Scriptures Mary was sinless, neither does it go against the Scriptures that Mary was sinless or that she could have been conceived without sin. First I will address the sinlessness question. Many Protestants use Romans 5:12 to say that everybody sins:

*12: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --/I]

To use this verse as evidence that Mary must have* sinned is somewhat problematic. The first is that we all know of a man who did not sin: Jesus Christ. Yes Jesus was fully God, but at the same time he was fully man. So there is one man who did not sin. Also, to say that absolutely everybody sins, you must claim that infants who day after just a few days have personal sin. Is that true? Of course not. Next, we will look at another a couple of more passages, to establish the meaning of “all” within the context of this verse.

From Hebrews:

11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.

From Genesis:

5:22 Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methu’selah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.
5:23 Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
5:24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

From 2 Kings:

2:11 And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

I have now shown you some examples that not everyone has died. Neither Elijah nor Enoch died. So we can safely assume that the “all” in reference to death can be taken to mean “As a general rule, everybody does, bit there can be exceptions”. It would be a mistake to think that the “all” in reference to sin means “absolutely all,” while the “all” in reference to death means “generally everybody, with some exceptions”

Of course you could also try to justify your position by using another verse in Romans:

3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;

The important part of this verse is the phrase “as it is written.” This is our clue to tell us that St. Paul is quoting the Old Testament. If you look at the whole passage you will see that Psalm 53 is being quoted. :

1: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good.
2: God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any that are wise, that seek after God.
3: *They have all fallen away; they are all alike depraved; there is none that does good, no, not one. *
4: Have those who work evil no understanding, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God?
5: There they are, in great terror, in terror such as has not been! For God will scatter the bones of the ungodly; they will be put to shame, for God has rejected them.
6: O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion! When God restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob will rejoice and Israel be glad.

As you see, the reference to none being righteous is talking about who? Everybody? No. The Psalm is talking about the enemies of His people. So is St. Paul misrepresenting what David wrote in the Psalms in his epistle to the Romans? Is Scripture misrepresenting Scripture? Of course not. So what can we say? We can say that though not explicitly in Scripture, the teaching that Our Blessed Mother lived her life without sin is in no way contrary to the Scriptures.

Romans 3
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:** for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God**;

 

[guanophore]

You don’t have a high enough opinion of Jesus’ ability to deal with sin, IMO. Jesus touched sinners all the time. The Jewish religious leaders tried to point out Jesus was a sinner because He touched sinners. What a small problem for Jesus to be inside Mary and Mary being a sinner.

And also a small problem for Jesus to preserve her from sin so that when He took flesh of her flesh, it would be pure. This idea of Jesus “passing through” her as opposed to being born “of” her is reminiscent of some early heresies.

Also, the Pharisees did not equate touching a sinner with becoming one, but of becoming ritually unclean.

-I don’t think Mary is the 2nd Eve. There is no Biblical reason to believe so. I answered someone else on this point. Maybe you can refer to this for my reasoning.

Your reasoning is pretty irrlevant. What is relevant is the title “Woman” given to her by Christ. The Bible reflects what God has done, it is not the Source.

-Not only did Jesus call Mary woman, but in John 2 He said, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?” IMO, not exactly what you’d think Jesus would say to Mary if your understanding of Mary is correct.

Indeed, this is exactly what we expect! Jesus had spent 30 years with His mother, more so than any other human on earth. They both knew that, as soon as He started His public ministry, it was a straight shot to the cross. He allowed her to choose the moment that she was willing to give Him over to His ministry. As soon as He worked this miracle for her (who knows how many hundreds preceeded it?) He was revealed to His disciples, and also to the world.

Our modern misogynistic culture cannot fathom the honor and respect Jesus has for His mother.

 

[guanophore]

excellent point…it is not about what Christ deserved, after all he did not deserve to be crucified, but he chose to undergo that death for us. During the incarnation he chose to lower himself and take on human flesh. To claim that he could/would not dwell in the womb of a sinner is to diminish the extent by which he lowered himself to save our souls.

No, it does not. He took on the FORM of a slave (human) but not the sin nature. He preserved Mary from this sin nature so that she could be a pure vessel, His tabernacle in which He would take on that form, His Ark of the new covenant. One has only to look at the care He directed for the Ark of the old covenant to see how concerned He is about that preparation.

 

[Justy90]

Romans 3
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:** for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God**;

There’s no twisting that to pieces or explaining it away.

 

[Justy90]

No, it does not. He took on the FORM of a slave (human) but not the sin nature. He preserved Mary from this sin nature so that she could be a pure vessel, His tabernacle in which He would take on that form, His Ark of the new covenant. One has only to look at the care He directed for the Ark of the old covenant to see how concerned He is about that preparation.

And where is that exactly in Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

If Jesus ever lives to make intersession for us, do we need anyone else?

God chooses to work through us for one another. He created a Body, and made us members of one another. He did not need to become man, either, but He did.​

-Jesus spoke to John about behold his mother, not us. John was to take care of her.

Actually, the disciple at the foot of the cross is never named, nor the writer of the Gospel. The early Fathers understood this as a literary device to indicate that Jesus gives His mother to all who stand at the foot of the cross.

-There is no indication Jesus put Mary on a pedestal.

No, He made her a Queen, and took her to heaven with Him, and fashioned for her a crown of stars. He made her the mother of the New Covenant in His blood. I am not sure what is meant by “pedestal” in this context, but it is clear that she is blessed among women, and that God has raised her up from the lowly.​

• Could you please point to a Scripture that tells us anyone but Jesus was sinless? Could you point to a Scripture that tells us to pray to Mary?

This is how we understand the prophesy in Gen. about Mary being at enmity with the devil, and the greeting of the angel “Hail, Full of Grace”. This title belonged to Mary at the moment of her conception, and we know there is no sin where grace is full.

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

There’s no twisting that to pieces or explaining it away.

Abosolutely,

The thing is about believing in the Word…the word will bear testimony to the Word.

Not man’s teaching nor my thinking. It is the Word.

 

[guanophore]

Humans are the crown creation of God, not gold.

Absolutely, and His Mother the top of the crown! She embodies the humanity He intended for us.

Gold was used as a prefigurement, as the most valuable substance.

 

[Justy90]

Abosolutely,

The thing is about believing in the Word…the word will bear testimony to the Word.

Not man’s teaching nor my thinking. It is the Word.

Amen to that. It took me years to discover God’s truth through his word. I wouldn’t trade it for the world!

 

[elvisman]

Post #120. You can’t even remember what you wrote.

**Again -
Name ONE unfounded attack.
There is nothing in post #120 that is unfounded
There is nothing in that posts that accuses you are ALL Protestants.

You really should expend your energy on valid arguments - rather than unfounded accusations and ad hominem assaults.

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

Absolutely, and His Mother the top of the crown! She embodies the humanity He intended for us.

Gold was used as a prefigurement, as the most valuable substance.

Luke 11
27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

 

[elvisman]

Romans 3
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:** for there is no difference:**
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

There’s no twisting that to pieces or explaining it away.

Yes, there is – and you BOTH have done it by leaving out the verse right before it:
Verse 21** says:**
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, **
THEN he says:**
***“There is no one righteous, not even one; *For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” **

Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and don’t have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? St. Paul is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.

---

In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”
St. Paul was using inclusive** language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.

Neither of you understands what Paul was saying.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t read anywhere that the stone tablets deserved anything…the chest, although covered in gold inside and out was still merely wood at its core. The poles that where used to carry the ark where also covered in gold. The lid, the place where sin would be paid for, was made of pure gold. The tablets were to be placed in the chest by Moses.

Mary did not “deserve” to be preserved from sin any more than the rest of us. We are all saved by grace. All the contents of the ark were very revered. It was what they symbolized, and that they embodied that which they represent.

First, you draw a questionable parallel between the ark and Mary.

Look at the contents of the Ark. The Word, the rod of Aaron, and the Manna. Jesus embodies and fulfills all of these prefigures.

Then you pick and choose from the ark’s characteristics to support your doctrine regarding Mary. You say Mary is sinless b/c the chest was lined with gold, but why not conclude that she wasn’t sinless, b/c at its heart the chest was still wood?

Because wood, in and of itself, is not “sinful”. Neither is humanity created to be “sinful”. Mankind fell into sin, but was not created in sin. Mary was created just as Eve was. The “wood” was as He intended, sinless.

If the lining of the chest indicates that Mary was sinless, does the covering of the poles with gold mean that the donkey that carried Mary to Bethlehem (whilst the Word was inside of her) was also sinless?

If you compare the journey of Mary with that of the Ark, there is a clear parallel in Luke. This is no accident.

(Please do not take this “donkey” question as an attempt to be disrespectful, but rather take it as an effort to show inconsistency) Although Moses places the tablets in the ark, a mere man does not place the Word within Mary. It is not a case that the details of the ark require one to see a prefiguring of Mary in it and it is not the case that the details of the ark require one to take the next step and say that Mary was sinless. Rather, IMHO it is the case that Catholics tend to read back their Mariology into the details of the ark…and then claim it as proof of their view.

It is true that we do understand the Scripture in the light of what the Apostles taught. Our separated brethren have lost this perspective, and have compensated by taking their understanding out of Scripture in separation from the Apostolic Teaching. Catholics understand that Scripture reflects what the Church believes, but is not the Source of that Faith. Jesus is our Source. What He taught the Apostles was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

I think we can agree that it comes down to what God would require…and I don’t see any support in scripture or in the earliest of the ECFs for the idea that God required Mary to be sinless. Purity by way of virginity is repeatedly referenced in those sources, but not sinlessness.

How does it come down to that? Why can’t God do whatever He wants? Why does He have to suit your “requirements”? If He wants to create another human woman without sin like He did Eve, and call her by the title “Woman”, why can’t He?

 

[Justy90]

Yes, there is – and you BOTH have done it by leaving out the verse right before it:
Verse 21** says:**
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, **
THEN he says:**
***“There is no one righteous, not even one; ***For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.”

Is that so? How about babies or toddlers below the age of reason? What about those who are mentally challenged and don’t have full use of their intellect and will? What about Jesus? St. Paul is speaking about those who trust in the Mosaic Law for their salvation.

---

In this passage, St. Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” Later in the same Psalm, we hear that “God is present in the company of the “righteous.”
St. Paul was using inclusive** language. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the carnival last year. He is referring to the mass of mankind but God can and does make exceptions for anybody he wishes.

Neither of you understands what Paul was saying.

my oh my. You are really something else.

 

[elvisman]

my oh my. You are really something else.

**Again with the hit-and-run remarks - but NO substance, no educated reply . . .

 

[Radical]

No, it does not. He took on the FORM of a slave (human) but not the sin nature. He preserved Mary from this sin nature so that she could be a pure vessel, His tabernacle in which He would take on that form, His Ark of the new covenant. One has only to look at the care He directed for the Ark of the old covenant to see how concerned He is about that preparation.

One only has to look at the NT to see how Jesus was not at all troubled by touching the sinner…your claim for the sinlessness of Mary is w/o any scriptural warrant. Your claim that Mary must have been sinless b/c such care was taken in construction of the ark encounters a serious problem when one notes that no one could even look upon God in the OT, whereas in the NT the people have no trouble at all in looking at and in touching Jesus. Things had changed and changed drastically. If Jesus (aka the Word) had to be kept from any impurity whilst in the womb, then it follows that he would have had to be kept from any impurity after he left the womb, b/c he was still the Word…but we just don’t see that in the NT. Instead we see the opposite. Further, even if there was some requirement for Mary to be sinless, such requirement would have only extended to the approx 9 month period of gestation. God could have purified her just before conception (as easily as he allegedly did from her start)…and who knows if she would have/could have reverted to being a sinning wretch (like the rest of us) thereafter. IMHO it is exactly the type of reasoning that you provided that led to the fabrication of Mary’s sinlessness about 150 years after Christ’s birth. The idea is absolutely absent from the historical record before that time.

 

[elvisman]

Luke 11
27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

This wasn’t an insult against his mother. It was a commendation because Mary’s example is the fact that she heard the word of God and kept it by doing His will.

 

[elvisman]

One only has to look at the NT to see how Jesus was not at all troubled by touching the sinner…your claim for the sinlessness of Mary is w/o any scriptural warrant. Your claim that Mary must have been sinless b/c such care was taken in construction of the ark encounters a serious problem when one notes that no one could even look upon God in the OT, whereas in the NT the people have no trouble at all in looking at and in touching Jesus. Things had changed and changed drastically. If Jesus (aka the Word) had to be kept from any impurity whilst in the womb, then it follows that he would have had to be kept from any impurity after he left the womb, b/c he was still the Word…but we just don’t see that in the NT. Instead we see the opposite. Further, even if there was some requirement for Mary to be sinless, such requirement would have only extended to the approx 9 month period of gestation. God could have purified her just before conception (as easily as he allegedly did from her start)…and who knows if she would have/could have reverted to being a sinning wretch (like the rest of us) thereafter. IMHO it is exactly the type of reasoning that you provided that led to the fabrication of Mary’s sinlessness about 150 years after Christ’s birth. The idea is absolutely absent from the historical record before that time.

**As has already been explained to you - New Testament fulfillments of types found in the Old Testament are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than the type itself. This rule of Scripture is withoutexception.

**Anyway - the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy spirit would lead his Church to ALL truth and that the Holy spirit would take from what was his (Jesus) and declare it to the Church (John 16:13-15) makes this entire thread moot anyway . . . **

You don’t have a leg to stand on - WE do.

 

[Radical]

Are you still a work in progress?

most certainly

Or are you firm in what you believe now?

some things yes, some things, no…regarding my rejection of the CC’s Marion doctrines I am firm (based on their total absence from the historical record of the first 100 years)

 

[Justy90]

This wasn’t an insult against his mother. It was a commendation because Mary’s example is the fact that she heard the word of God and kept it by doing His will.

You twist and distort and completely metamorphasize the entire meaning of Scripture. What more can I say?