Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[kellerk]

Let me say, first off, that I love the Quakers and their peace testimony.

I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage (French Canadian, Yankee Puritan), and have been interested in warm relations among all Christians - and, beyond that, among those of every faith community. I have concluded over the years that none of us know all that much about eternal truth, that this mammoth and miraculous and mysterious universe is beyond human understanding. All that fortifies my awe before God however. It increases my simple faith rather than undercuts it.

My problem with traditional Catholicism is that it too often has the attitude of years ago: error has no rights. This is the core conviction of all forms of totalitarianism, whether in religion or in politics (e. g., Nazism and Communism).

]Our King is not of this world, His ways are not our ways.

Call it what you will (and it usually is denounced as egotism) but I guess I’m too much of an independent thinker, have read too many Church Fathers (brilliant for their era but naive in light of our knowledge today), have become too well acquainted with Christian history and its cruel chapters, have questioned too many required doctrines (e. g… transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility in faith and morals) - well, etc.

 As for evangelical Protestantism, much of it parallels traditional Catholicism in that it, too, insists that it has all the important answers. I have attended enough of its worship services to respect its enthusiasm and its sincerity, but have found it full of qustionable teachings along with all sorts of conflicting denominations, those who have infant baptism and those who don't, those who believe once saved always saved and those who don't. those who insist upon the rapture and those who don't - etc,

 Over the years I have drawn closest to mainline Protestantism, denominations such as Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians which have room for a variety of theological perspectives, where Bible classes welcome divergent views, where there is humility when it comes to matters of doctrine, where conflicting opinions are respected in an atmosphere of :'think and let think'.

 Finally, isn't it a shame that so many insane wars, so much hatred and bigotry, has been motivated by 'religious' people of various faiths - Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others? I perceive God to be a friend of all those who seriously seek him and seek to serve him, those who love God and one another (as Christ commanded), whatever their faith 'label'. I suspect that God is far more interested in the love we exhibit than in which religious tribe we.belong to. 

 Now, as for Mary, all Christians admire her. Perhaps Protestants went too far in minimizing her. However, this came as a reaction to the way in which Catholicism seemed to deify her, make her basically part of the Godhead by insisting that she - for  example - was the one and only person who never sinned. I know that Catholics do not worship Mary, but an alien from another planet would surely think they did after experiencing Catholicism. And why doesn't even one of all those New Testament epistles addressed to early Christians make mention of Mary? Paul and other writers certainly were advising those Christians on what to believe.  

 God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. True religion should humbly seek to build bridges rather than boast that it alone knows and owns the pathway to eternal life.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE] since the church and the oral teachings and traditions were passed on before the bible was ever compiled.

Hi Kellerk. I know this is what you are taught and believe, and Protestants do not hide from history. I find it hard to believe that anything important was left out of scripture, that scripture would not be sufficient as Timothy tells us. Jesus usually cited scripture, and if he mentioned tradition, it was in a negative way. We have strong documentation as to just when the NT was “compiled”. Within a hundred years into the church many books are quoted by church Fathers. Iraneus before 200 AD quotes from most of the 27 books as “scripture”. Origen has the 27 books also (230AD). Again why oral tradition would differ at all from scripture is beyond me .Moses wrote our first five books ,100’s of years later, and Jesus does not insinuate Moses missed anything, or that tradition could “enlighten” anything more.Barnabus also says, “Meditate how to save a soul by the Word.” I would suggest God’s “program” with His written word carried over to new testament. As far “missing books”, well the CC does not have them all either .That is she did not include all that were in Septuagaint. She was discerning also. Protestant bibles merely mirror Hebrew bibles, not the Greek Sept.

I wonder if you have ever attended mass yourself.

As you say it is very much scripture laden with one exception, perhaps minor ? The bible is emphatic that God gave us His son. He offered Himself for us. The mass says we offer the Son up to God, the reverse.( " We offer to you, God of Glory and Majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice the bread of life and cup of eternal salvation". “Look with favor on these offerings (elements about to be changed) and accept them as you once accepted the gifts of your servant Abel and Abraham” - either version, amongst others, could be said at Mass). I believe we offer a sacrifice of praise, of thanksgiving, for His gift /offering to us. They use to call them “love feast’ , and “eucharist” is simply” thanksgiving" in Greek. thanks for listening.

 

[Journey322]

This is for the Protestants who never knew much about our faith, and the true teaching’s of what our faith teaches on the Blessed Mother.

Has you changed your opinion any from the first time you started on this site, until now your feeling’s about her.

Is your understanding of what we really teach and what you thought we taught alot different?

I was a devout Southern Baptist before my involvement with the Catholic church. I began visiting this site right about the time I began attending a faith formation class I was invited to by a friend this time last year. Anyway, I used to believe that Catholics were pagan who worshipped idols, Mary being one of those idols. This site did serve to reinforce what I was being taught St the parish I now attend.

 

[jerry_joseph]

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/550955_311216902292073_1941140222_n.jpg

 

[Lincoln7]

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/550955_311216902292073_1941140222_n.jpg

I’d be wary of jumping from one small Luther quote and assuming his mariology is essentially the same as that in the CC - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/luthers-theology-of-mary.html

A detailed treatment of Luthers exposition of the Magnificat is also here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/luthers-magnificat-representation-of.html

Lincs

 

[TarkanAttila]

So God couldn’t become flesh in an ordinary daughter of Eve, to show He is one of us, just like us, to take on sin and crucify it ? Would He have really come out different being born to a woman washed of original sin the established way ?

**There was no established way back then. Until He started His church and commissioned His Apostles to baptise for the forgiveness of sins, original sin marked all men’s souls. **

Would He have really come out any differently if Mary were indeed just like us,with human weakness, even with sin ?

**Considering Christ’s DNA would have come from the sinful flesh of a sinful woman… yes, yes I believe so.

Remember, David, anything we believe about Mary is a reflection of the Saviour we worship. What would it say about Jesus if He were the Son of a sinner? If His flesh and bone were subject to the same decay that comes because of sin? After all, when Jesus took on flesh, He became like us - an embodied spirit, or a spirited body. Angels are bodiless spirits. Humans are both flesh and spirit. That is why we believe in a physical resurrection.

So would it be fitting for the Saviour of the world to be born into a corruptible body born into sin? Of course not. If God is perfection, not even His body should be corruptible!**

Did she ever get tired, angry, inatentive, misunderstanding ?

**Sure could. Not the same thing as being sinful. Why do you equate human needs with sinfulness? Is your head simply that thick that you can’t distinguish sin from sinless human needs? Even Jesus got hungry! Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were hungry. But they would not die. Men with the mark of original sin die and their bodies decompose and bloat and rot. Jesus’s body was badly marred. But it did not decompose. It rose to New Life.

Ergo, the flesh of His flesh must have been pure, as before the Fall. But what sinless source could incorruptible flesh come from?**

To make Mary above all other woman /perfect, we make the statement null and void where it says Jesus was tempted in all ways human .
**
Not at all. He could still certainly feel the effects of tempting. It’s unnerving, sometimes even painful, to be tempted, even - I imagine - if you are incapable of falling into sin. That part of being tempted - the difficultly of saying “no” - would certainly have still applied to Jesus, just as it did to Adam and Eve, even if He could only answer “no”. Remember, He sweat blood and water in Gethsemane. The anxiety of it is like the anxiety we all feel in doing something difficult. But it made Him no less perfect.**

I propose flesh is flesh and God can not be tainted by it.

So you think nothing changed before the Fall and After the Fall? You think God’s words “if you eat the fruit of this tree you shall die” had no impact on the outcome of Adam and Eve? You think they would have died all the same even if they never ate the fruit? How foolish you are!

I repeat also He became sin, took it on for us at Calvary.
**
That does not mean He took on corrupted flesh. Show me where it says that means His flesh was corrupted.
**

The primary inference of scripture is that she be in the line of David, a virgin,and blessed with the grace /faith to be obedient to bring Him forth. For this she will be called blessed.Do you need her to be Immaculate, Assumed to call her blessed ?

**In the Latin it says “plena gratia”. In the Greek, “kecharitomene”. The only other time these words are used are in John 1:14:

KJV:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

**

Christ was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. Now what does “grace” mean in your vocabulary? Is it not the opposite of sin? If Christ was “full of grace”, not even His flesh could be of sin. As Paul writes in his letter to the Hebrews:

KJV:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

If not even His flesh was corrupted, as this letter indicates, and as John indicates, and as our entire history and theology indicate, where could uncorrupted flesh have come from but from an uncorrupted Mother?

“Full of Grace”. Ponder it a while.

Secondary inferences/meanings are just that, and such nitpicking is allowed, as long as it doesn’t override primary meanings of scripture (like all have sinned, and we are washed by faith in the promise,made perfect before God
**
Who’s overriding? It may not be explicitly in the Bible. Then again, a vast number of things even Protestants like you believe in aren’t explicitly in the Bible (and I’m not getting into that).

Recall that Mary is not sinless of herself. God made her sinless. He is the one who saved her from birth, so His Son could be pure from birth, with not even bodily corruption.

MARY’S ENTIRE LIFE REVOLVES AROUND JESUS.**

Requiescant in pacem, David,

Attila

 

[brumano]

 Now, as for Mary, all Christians admire her. Perhaps Protestants went too far in minimizing her

 

[Roy5]

A couple other quick points.

 Over the years I have heard priests say, in effect: "Pray to Mary, because as the mother of Christ she has special influence with him." This implies some strange game of getting favors through Mary because of her unusual power. I don't know why this whole thing sounds so weird and even pagan to me. Doesn't it to anyone else? Like a prayer wheel among the Tibetan Buddhists. I'm not even sure God isn't too busy to manipulate millions of details in our daily lives in response to the multi-millions of prayers that ascend daily. 

  Protestants always - to my knowledge - focused on Mary at Christmas. Many churches have nativitiy pageants, often outdoors, and the role of Mary is coveted above any other. Then, on Good Friday, many thousands of Protestant ministers participate in 'seven last words' services in which Jesus assigns the care of Mary to John.

  Now, there are only two references to Mary in the gospels aside from those two scenarios. One is in Matt. 12:46-50 when Mary arrives. When Jesus is told that his mother is outside, he responds with this question: "Who is my mother?" Sorry, but that sounds dismissive to me. In John 2:4 he asks: "Why do you involve me?" In this situation, too, Christ can appear a bit dismissive. Two rather strange encounters of Jesus with his mother.  

  Again, this is not to show disrespect for Mary, the mother of Christ. However, one wonders if it justifies the veneration given her among Catholics. I seem to have the problem Nestorius and other had centuries ago. How can any person be called the mother of God? Did God really have a mother? Christ-bearer yes, but it strikes me as contradictory to say that God created all things, including Mary, but she was/is his mother. A theological, logical or linguistic problem?

  Yes, I know. Heresy, heresy. They murdered thousands of heretics over the centuries. My own view is that this actually was a far more serious heresy - killing heretics! I wrote an undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas Aquinas, and thought very highly of him until I was shocked when I came across his passage that suggested the Church should turn heretics over to the state which should then execute them.

  Then, again, if good Christian people want to venerate Mary, pray to her for special blessings, kneel before her statues, travel to Fatima and Lourdes and elsewhere, recite the Rosary with ten "Hail Marys" to every one "Our Father" - fine. I respect all faiths that teach love of God and one another. On that key teaching of Christ hangs all the law and the prophets. Christians should have the freedom to have various views when it comes to many of the ancient doctrines formulated by ancient councils and made into creeds. How many of us believe that our bodies resurrect? I believe in our spiritual resurrection but probably not our bodily resurrection. Yet, the Apostles Creed ends with an affirmation of our individual bodily resurrections.

  Keep smiling. We read in scripture that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. I'm sure our posters here do, with few exceptions. So, we can relax and enjoy the benefits of simple faith without all the massive theological systems that can divide us.

 

[hawkeye125646]

    Now, there are only two references to Mary in the gospels aside from those two scenarios. One is in Matt. 12:46-50 when Mary arrives. When Jesus is told that his mother is outside, he responds with this question: "Who is my mother?" Sorry, but that sounds dismissive to me. In John 2:4 he asks: "Why do you involve me?" In this situation, too, Christ can appear a bit dismissive. Two rather strange encounters of Jesus with his mother..

In regards to that, would you like to discuss the Typology of sacred scripture, like the Ark of the Covenant, Queen mother of the Davidic line, or ever virgin? As for the " Why do you involve me?" When you read it several verses later, you see that Jesus does aquiense to her request. Actually, in regards to our honouring Mary, it is actually in Jesus, that we do it… Where, Jesus was the perfect Jew… He obeyed all the commandments, including honouring thy mother and father. We have to try and imitate our Lord and Saviour…

 Again, this is not to show disrespect for Mary, the mother of Christ. However, one wonders if it justifies the veneration given her among Catholics. I seem to have the problem Nestorius and other had centuries ago. How can any person be called the mother of God? Did God really have a mother? Christ-bearer yes, but it strikes me as contradictory to say that God created all things, including Mary, but she was/is his mother. A theological, logical or linguistic problem?./QUOTE]

This has to do with the Davidic line of Jewish Kings and the offices, created by God… The Queen was always the mother… As you, know Jesus is the EVERLASTING KING, from the Davidic line… As such, there has to be a Queen mother, because God established it! I know that you show no disrespect… For that, I am honoured to discuss this with you!

. Keep smiling. We read in scripture that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. I’m sure our posters here do, with few exceptions. So, we can relax and enjoy the benefits of simple faith without all the massive theological systems that can divide us./QUOTE]

I promise I will keep smiling… You are very eloquient in thought… May you continue to serve our Lord and God, Jesus Christ!

 

[TarkanAttila]

A couple other quick points.

 Over the years I have heard priests say, in effect: "Pray to Mary, because as the mother of Christ she has special influence with him." This implies some strange game of getting favors through Mary because of her unusual power. I don't know why this whole thing sounds so weird and even pagan to me. Doesn't it to anyone else?

**Ah… you might want to re-read your Bible:
John 14:12-14:

12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me[e] anything in my name, I will do it.

**

Whatever you pray for, whether to the Father directly, or to the Father through Mary, or to the Father through Peter, or to the Father through Jesus, you must believe in Jesus. In other words, if you love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength, then will your prayers be efficacious. And rightly so, for then your mind will be in the mind of God.

It’s not a pagan game of “get God to do what you want”. It’s you asking for His help to do His will - except we ask Mary to ask Jesus for us. You’re not asking Jesus to bend the world to your desires. You’re asking Him to bend you to His desires and to accomplish His will in your life, whatever it may be.

  Now, there are only two references to Mary in the gospels aside from those two scenarios. One is in Matt. 12:46-50 when Mary arrives. When Jesus is told that his mother is outside, he responds with this question: "Who is my mother?" Sorry, but that sounds dismissive to me. In John 2:4 he asks: "Why do you involve me?" In this situation, too, Christ can appear a bit dismissive. Two rather strange encounters of Jesus with his mother.

**
And how do you know what Jesus sounded like in Aramaic - especially considering the Gospels were written in Greek? You’re reading something into the text that simply is not there.

Jesus is not dismissing His mother. Read a bit further in that passage: ‘And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."’ (Matt 12:49-50) He is using this not as a moment to dismiss His mother, but to teach us Whoever does the Father’s will is our brother and mother. It doesn’t clearly indicate anything at all about Mary. It might as easily be read that Jesus was proclaiming His mother as one who “does the will of [His] Father”. After all, what other reason has He to say “mother”?**

  Again, this is not to show disrespect for Mary, the mother of Christ. However, one wonders if it justifies the veneration given her among Catholics. I seem to have the problem Nestorius and other had centuries ago. How can any person be called the mother of God? Did God really have a mother? Christ-bearer yes, but it strikes me as contradictory to say that God created all things, including Mary, but she was/is his mother. A theological, logical or linguistic problem?

"Mother of God" is, I think, more than anything, a logical conclusion. One way to look at it might be that Mary did give God her flesh so He could be incarnate. He always existed, but it was when He was conceived that He took on flesh and dwelt in time and space.

Yes, I know. Heresy, heresy. They murdered thousands of heretics over the centuries. My own view is that this actually was a far more serious heresy - killing heretics! I wrote an undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas Aquinas, and thought very highly of him until I was shocked when I came across his passage that suggested the Church should turn heretics over to the state which should then execute them.

**Heresy was - and is - a political threat. When people teach lies and distort the truth, they threaten the very fabric of society, which depends on moral truth to survive. A heresy is just that - an untruth. A lie. Like the lie that human life doesn’t begin at conception. Or the lie that anyone can read the Bible and immediately know the Truth. The latter has torn Christianity to shreds and shredded the Church’s credibility. The former threatens to this day to extinguish civilization and the human race.

Heresy seems a trivial thing. But when Truth becomes the deciding factor between belief and doubt, between life and death - I think whomever is lying ought to adopt the truth or be shot. Not in all cases - I mean, it’s not usually life-threatening if you think 2+2=5 or English has an extra “r” in it. But… I think some lies are damnable.**

How many of us believe that our bodies resurrect? I believe in our spiritual resurrection but probably not our bodily resurrection. Yet, the Apostles Creed ends with an affirmation of our individual bodily resurrections.

Your belief is unbiblical. Even if it were not provable by the Bible, but only Tradition, still, must you not believe the truth if the truth can be known? Did not Christ say “I am the Truth?” And if we the truth is out there, shouldn’t we find it, and proclaim it?

I’m not saying everything the Catholic Church teaches is set in granite. but like science, if we can come to know the truth, we ought to for God’s sake and our own.

  Keep smiling. We read in scripture that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord. I'm sure our posters here do, with few exceptions. So, we can relax and enjoy the benefits of simple faith without all the massive theological systems that can divide us.

Someday we will all come to know the Truth, whether it is on this plane or in Heaven. Let us hope it is in Heaven, rather than Hell.

Peace be with you,

Attila

 

[Roy5]

TarkanAttila. Now I respect all sorts of viewpoints and am happy to let God work out the Lord’s will in this world and the world to come. No anxieties when it comes to that.

However, when a fellow Christian seems to suggest that heretics should be shot (as you appear to), well, that is difficult to respect. I certainly have no respect for Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism. Or for the cruelty of Attila the Hun (I took note of your poster name). Should we really respect a religion which proposes killing those who spread (in its view) untruths? Certain Muslim extremists appear to embrace such fanaticism and I consider them enemies of the freedom I favor and enjoy. After all, heretics started our wonderful nation. 55 of the original 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were 'heretics' from what was once the official Catholic position. Thank god for John XXIII who began to call Protestants 'separated brothers and sisters'.

 Nonetheless, keep smiling. May God bless his children of every creed, color, country and culture. True religion, in my personal opinion, earnestly seeks to build bridges and not barriers.

 

[david_ruiz]

loko;9352203:

Catholics aren’t too much different…all Protestants use the Bible as the source of their teachings…a SINGLE SOURCE…just disagree among themselfves concerning certain teachngs from the SINGLE SOURCE…Catholics too have a SINGLE SOURCE for their beliefs…just disagree among themselves concerning certain teachings fromt the SINGLE SOURCE.

Just as most Catholics will worship together without too much problem…so most Protestants can and do worship together…because the teachings between most Protestant denominations are so similar…the differences between them and the focus on certain points of doctrine don’t keep us from realizing our Source of Unity is Jesus Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit…not the name on the sign in front of our meeting house.

Very good .Thanks .Blessings to all.

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
Originally Posted by david ruiz View Post
So God couldn’t become flesh in an ordinary daughter of Eve, to show He is one of us, just like us, to take on sin and crucify it ? Would He have really come out different being born to a woman washed of original sin the established way ?

There was no established way back then. Until He started His church and commissioned His Apostles to baptise for the forgiveness of sins, original sin marked all men’s souls.

Attila

Quite right, for it was not until the cross and resurrection that he led captivity(old testament saints) captive, up to heaven, from a paradise that was beneath (hades) Yet, where was Enoch or Elijah translated to, it was “up” . How was Job perfect ? Were OT saints not justified ? Saved /regenerated ? My point is that there is and always has been a way to remit/cover sins, to be justified, by the shedding of blood and faith in the promises of God, and the biggest promise was of course Calvary, foretold at the very beginning in Genesis. There was a way to be justified before God for Mary without declaring immaculacy From my understanding the doctrine says the source of remission is the same as I have described ,by the Cross .OT looked/ believed forward to Calvary, as we look /believe backward to Calvary

 

[Patavium]

Catholics aren’t too much different…all Protestants use the Bible as the source of their teachings…a SINGLE SOURCE…just disagree among themselfves concerning certain teachngs from the SINGLE SOURCE…Catholics too have a SINGLE SOURCE for their beliefs…just disagree among themselves concerning certain teachings fromt the SINGLE SOURCE.

Just as most Catholics will worship together without too much problem…so most Protestants can and do worship together…because the teachings between most Protestant denominations are so similar…the differences between them and the focus on certain points of doctrine don’t keep us from realizing our Source of Unity is Jesus Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit…not the name on the sign in front of our meeting house.

Then tell me this, brother. Why then Protestants don’t call themselves the Protestant Church of Christ, and simply worship together instead of having so many different denominations?

How come Catholics can do this, but Protestants cannot ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
Considering Christ’s DNA would have come from the sinful flesh of a sinful woman… yes, yes I believe so.

Remember, David, anything we believe about Mary is a reflection of the Saviour we worship.
Attila

Great thought DNA .But think further .I believe Eve had perfect DNA and would live forever, except for sin entering in, and everything suffered -soul spirit ,body, dna, even the earth. Now if Mary were the new Eve, perfect, without sin, perfect dna, she would not have died, but she did. That does not match. She should not have aged/ died (the soul that sinneth shall surely die,), but the curse was on her and she did die. If you say she died mercifully so she could go to heaven, then why not assume her before death like Enoch and Elijah ? As far as Christ it says he was not "attractive " comely. Tell me what would a perfect Adam and Eve look like -brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie ? Not ! But you get my drift ? There is no evidence that they were not like all those around them in appearance or stature…We know Christ did not sin for scripture tells us so, but not because of his human flesh, but because He was fully God.

What would it say about Jesus if He were the Son of a sinner?

Good point. Well they called him worse, even a bastard son. .No, it would mean He was born to a woman (virgin), just like us, that he was fully human, nothing “super” in their flesh about them .This would be distancing themselves from our afflictions which he understood and experienced fully, especially at the cross where HE BECAME SIN. They are a new Adam /Eve type spiritually speaking only. More to your point ,no one is saying He was born to a prostitute or scoundrel .She was a Jew, a devout Jew, full of faith and knowledge of the promise of the messiah . Don’t belittle Judaism. She was righteous, justified, perfect in faith before our holy God, therefore fit to receive His diety. To say she wasn’t fit by Judaism alone is like saying Mother Theresa wouldn’t have been fit.

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
He could still certainly feel the effects of tempting.
Attila

He was not tempted in one of the most basic ways that comes from being fully human , having an imperfect/fallen mother according to CC. Sin is missing the mark. CC says Mary hit the bullseye in everything of motherhood. That is not normal . Jesus did not have a normal childhood in that regard, and creates a barrier between those He would save .Empathy is much better than sympathy .I am not saying He had to come from a broken/abusive home to have empathy, but to experience no sin from the mother is other worldly.

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
So you think nothing changed before the Fall and After the Fall? You think God’s words “if you eat the fruit of this tree you shall die” had no impact on the outcome of Adam and Eve? You think they would have died all the same even if they never ate the fruit? How foolish you are!

Attila

Did Adam have flesh before the fall ? Did he have flesh after the fall ? Did he die the day he ate it as God promised ? Not his flesh. That lived hundreds and hundreds of years more .His spirit union with God died that day,that moment ,much more important than any fleshly consequence. That we physically die is a curse/blessing . That we die spiritually is a curse period… From God’s throne and Majesty of existence, that He became human at all is the big deal . Whether it was thru pre or post -fall flesh seems minor in comparison. That is all I was saying with flesh is still flesh, by comparison to His pre-human existence. Can we not agree on that ? Does not our bible write of this extraordinary event, God becoming man, peroid ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
That does not mean He took on corrupted flesh. Show me where it says that means His flesh was corrupted.

Attila

Would you at least agree it happened at the cross ? And just what does that mean ? We dichotomize too much ? Does your flesh sin or is it your soul and spirit that is flawed, sinful .Is your mouth made wrong(sin) ,or is it what comes forth from the mouth that defiles . I say the mouth is neutral but the spirit and soul rule, Show me where it says his body was perfect ? We both agree that the body was in perfect subjectation to His perfect soul and spirit. I definitely would say His body did not sin, was without blemish that way . I would not say that necessitated an immaculate Mary.

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
In the Latin it says “plena gratia”. In the Greek, “kecharitomene”. The only other time these words are used are in John 1:14:
Attila

Understand .Again ,it is subjective to take it as meaning graced from original sin .The greek term has been debated from both sides for centuries .You can not get she was a new Eve from this …There are times God does say special things, even unique things about His saints. Take it for what it means, no more no less. For instance David was a man after God’s own heart , Job was ‘perfect’ , Enoch was just "taken’ , no one was greater than John the baptist, per Jesus words, no one had greater faith in all of Israel than that of the captain of a Roman guard .etc…

 

[david_ruiz]

Requiescant in pacem, David,
Who’s overriding? It may not be explicitly in the Bible. Then again, a vast number of things even Protestants like you believe in aren’t explicitly in the Bible (and I’m not getting into that).

Attila

The Immaculate Conception dogma override, even contradicts several scriptures explicitly (all have sinned…the soul that sinneth shall surely die).