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

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;9464052:

Funny how protestants love to show the scripture that ALL have sinned. Especially when you feel it works to condemn the Mother of Christ

.This is not nice nor accurate .Mary does not need protection from something that is innacurate (her being “condemned”).We are all condemned before we are saved, by the grace of God and by the blood of the Lamb. The discussion is if Mary had a peculair method to that salvation. The means are the same - grace , His blood . It is a timing/method issue. Mary was condemned until the IC (CC’s view) or the normal method of salvation /justification.(protestants). Again, have not heard any one say here Mary was not saved ,that Jesus was not her savior, and if so, saved from condemnation that befits us all because of the fall in the garden.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Humans can’t save themselves, Mary is human, therefore, Mary needed the Savior many would claim more than anyone because of Her faith which is relevant to the Incarnation. Or from St Irenaeus “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”

All have sinned of course has to be viewed in content/context of entire Scripture, here ALL has various meanings. So in this sense we can’t automatically assign ALL to literally mean ALL.

However, With the IC God saved Mary before she was stained by sin, so subjection to being saved by God is still relevant. So Mary not only needed a Savior, She gave birth to the Savior by His predestined will.

The basis of the arguement becomes what would have been the most fitting way to accomplish this? The IC is sound doctrine. As far back as we can view recorded Christian history Mary was always considered Immaculate, free of all spot or stain. This also being the definition of Immaculate.

 

[rinnie]

Humans can’t save themselves, Mary is human, therefore, Mary needed the Savior many would claim more than anyone because of Her faith which is relevant to the Incarnation. Or from St Irenaeus “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”

All have sinned of course has to be viewed in content/context of entire Scripture, here ALL has various meanings. So in this sense we can’t automatically assign ALL to literally mean ALL.

However, With the IC God saved Mary before she was stained by sin, so subjection to being saved by God is still relevant. So Mary not only needed a Savior, She gave birth to the Savior by His predestined will.

The basis of the arguement becomes what would have been the most fitting way to accomplish this? The IC is sound doctrine. As far back as we can view recorded Christian history Mary was always considered Immaculate, free of all spot or stain. This also being the definition of Immaculate.

Amen! And I pray that all can come to this understanding sometime in their life, and see what a wonderful Mother God created for us all, and can come to feel the LOVE that she has for us. I pray all can feel as close to her and love her as I do.

When I am in trouble I run to my Mother and pray and ask her to go with me to God for his help. And she always does. And her answer is the same today as the day she walked this earth.

Go to my Son and listen to him and do as he says. She is the greatest example we have to trust and follow her son. And we do!

Off subject, but my husband rides bikes. He loves them, and this came to my mind. My daughter bought me a pin for my vest, it say’s Follow the SON! My Son bought me a patch. Loud pipes saves lives Jesus Christ saves Souls!!

We all need to take the advice of our MOTHER listen to her SON! Pray with your Mother, she is close to God, She will protect you from evil, because she has the CONNECTIONS to get the Job done!

 

[rinnie]

rinnie;9464535:

david ruiz;9464052:

.This is not nice nor accurate .Mary does not need protection from something that is innacurate (her being “condemned”).We are all condemned before we are saved, by the grace of God and by the blood of the Lamb. The discussion is if Mary had a peculair method to that salvation. The means are the same - grace , His blood . It is a timing/method issue. Mary was condemned until the IC (CC’s view) or the normal method of salvation /justification.(protestants). Again, have not heard any one say here Mary was not saved ,that Jesus was not her savior, and if so, saved from condemnation that befits us all because of the fall in the garden.

Seems david you are having a hard time saying that the Blessd Mother is condemned. You claim it is not accurate to say this, and then you trun around and say we are all condemned.

You must ask yourself, WhY? Why is it so hard for you to condemn her, and then defend her?

I wish it were true that the Blessed Mother did not need protection from something that is not accurate, but its not true.

We must protect and defend her great name, and we must defend her honor when people say she is a sinner. She is not a sinner. She is Blessed Among all women. She carried the fruit in her womb of our dear Savior Jesus.

God bless you all and have a great and safe 4th of July weekend.

I am not sure about you guys but its going to be 90" and more here.:tanning::coolinoff:

 

[kellerk]

I wouldn’t put it exactly like that-the idea that one is "not sure’ when writing by the inspiration of the holy Ghost .

You are right, I should not have said “not sure”, maybe “unwilling to”, or “led not to do so” would have been a better choice of words…you get my meaning though. This is what I mean by some comments of yours can be misleading. When you state that the scriptures were written in Greek, you conviently leave out the important details in an effort to prove a point. This can be very misleading to one who does not know better. Someone like me, who is very vulnerable and not as learned as most on this site, who is here only to learn. “Thou shall not bare false witness” comes to mind.

Nicea is correct that "brother " can mean brother ,or relative or kinsmen . The meaning ,which one is meant, must be discerned from the context.

I ask you…By whom? I will just say, this goes back to why we should not lean too much on our own interpretations and why we must not disregard the sacred traditions and teaching of the early church fathers.

If Jesus is addressing a Jewish village he might say brethren,meaning kinsmen. If one says Jesus brethren it may mean extended family or immediate .If one says his mother and brethren,being more specific already with “mother” it may mean actual brothers .It must be remembered kinsmen and cousin can always be used also .For instance we know Jesus and John were cousins because it pretty much says so-Mary and Elizabeth were cousins.Elizabeth had “neighbors” and "kindred’. The aramaic which had more limited vocabulary in this area ,still can be accurate by the context.I do not believe they didn’t know which was being inferred when the term “brethren” was used… I would think one reading scripture would render brethren for for brothers apart from any doctrines on Mary .It is only when these doctrines are considered does one put them in a different context .Another words ,does Marion doctrine interpret “brethren” or should “brethren” form Marion doctrine .If one already believes Mary to be ever virgin then of course one must render brethren not to mean siblings.

As for the rest of your statement, I believe this argument also has been covered extensively and I believe there has been a sufficient amount of response, so I will not bother you with another long, drawn out response. I will say again, I strive not to let these disagreements distract us from what is most important…UNITY.

 

[kellerk]

david ruiz;9461832:

How? Baby;s are born with original sin and faultless and born with sin, How is that in conflict with the word of God.

The CC teaches you cannot have Actual sin until the age of reason. So are you saying yes they can? That a newborn infant born into this world for lets say 5 seconds can actually commit actual sin? How?

Again…this has also been covered. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the CC does not take a definate stance on a child’s death (re: original sin) before baptism but instead leaves it up to the Mercy of God. Something like that…Actual Sin???..remember there are differences in original sin and personal sin, do you not agree?

 

[david_ruiz]

rinnie;9464540:

Again…this has also been covered. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the CC does not take a definate stance on a child’s death (re: original sin) before baptism but instead leaves it up to the Mercy of God. Something like that…Actual Sin???..remember there are differences in original sin and personal sin, do you not agree?

I think we are all in agreement on a childs death and God’s justice and mercy and just what original sin is. We do differ on how to remove original sin as far as baptisms. Yes there is personal sin , acountable sin ,differing from unacountable original sin in a child. However when we reach the age of accountability we need a remedy for original and personal sin, they stem from one another and are inseperable, before rebirth …By the way, where did you get the quote from ? It is not mine . I some times goof up and the person I am quoting is not highlighted or traceable or transferred.

 

[david_ruiz]

As for the rest of your statement, I believe this argument also has been covered extensively and I believe there has been a sufficient amount of response, so I will not bother you with another long, drawn out response. I will say again, I strive not to let these disagreements distract us from what is most important…UNITY.

I am sorry you felt misled by stating the greek is what is inspired ,not Aramaic.

I conveniently left nothing out.When the words were spoken in Aramaic, people knew exactly what was meant by the context . When the words were inspired in the Greek, the accurate meaning is conveyed by the context . This is true for many scriptures. We can never get away from the need to discern and discern correctly, Greek or Aramaic or English or Latin. Sorry though for my tit for tat response ,but that is how the arguments /discussions flow sometimes. If I were really trying ot be sneeky I would not have acknowledged and voluntarily elaborated and added much more to Nicea’s “tat” (rebuttal) .

 

[Nicea325]

I wouldn’t put it exactly like that-the idea that one is "not sure’ when writing by the inspiration of the holy Ghost . Nicea is correct that "brother " can mean brother ,or relative or kinsmen . The meaning ,which one is meant, must be discerned from the context. If Jesus is addressing a Jewish village he might say brethren,meaning kinsmen. If one says Jesus brethren it may mean extended family or immediate .If one says his mother and brethren,being more specific already with “mother” it may mean actual brothers .It must be remembered kinsmen and cousin can always be used also .For instance we know Jesus and John were cousins because it pretty much says so-Mary and Elizabeth were cousins.Elizabeth had “neighbors” and "kindred’. The aramaic which had more limited vocabulary in this area ,still can be accurate by the context.I do not believe they didn’t know which was being inferred when the term “brethren” was used… I would think one reading scripture would render brethren for for brothers apart from any doctrines on Mary .It is only when these doctrines are considered does one put them in a different context .Another words ,does Marion doctrine interpret “brethren” or should “brethren” form Marion doctrine .If one already believes Mary to be ever virgin then of course one must render brethren not to mean siblings.

I have yet to read anywhere in the NT clearly stating Mary gave birth to other children. The term “brothers” has been taken way out-of-context by so many Protestants it is pointless to rebuke the same common error.

 

[david_ruiz]

One can understand the Protestant desire to relate all doctrine to Scripture. This because The New Testament is a historical document, and doctrines such as the immaculate conception can seem very derivative. With regard to the question of the “brothers and siisters” of Jesus, the New Testament is ambiguous.perhaps because its immediate audience knew precisely what he meant, but we cannot find this out just from the text. Every man who is called a brother can be connected with another woman. Name are just tossed off without really identifying them. So the written word is unclear. At some point we have to resort to some source outside the Scripture.

Howdy.The NT is indeed historical,but much more. It is loaded with doctrine .There are a lot of derivatives though that can be had,perhaps because Christianity is not a religion,but a relationship.I thought the early church kept things simple,much more so than OT. …I do not believe scripture to be ambiguous with "brothers and sisters .If you believe them to be cousins perhaps ,for why didn’t scripture just say cousins .That is ambiguous .If you believe them to be half brothers that is less ambiguos but still not succint. If you believe them to be real brother and sisters , scripture is quite succint and calls them that .There are no other greek words that could be used succintly,as you could with cousins etc.Brother is brother in that case…The ambiguity only arises when the primary contextual meaning is passed over…To me from your point of view , half-brothers is the second most accurate rendering .There is still a problem there though due to the teaching that Joseph also was ever-virgin. So if one doesn’t believe that Joseph was previously married with chidren, the wife passing away , one is left with “cousins” as the 3rd alternative , but which is furthest from normal contextual rendering. Having said that I understand most Catholics then believe them to be cousins , children of Mary’s sister.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE]Originally Posted by rinnie Protestants can say she is not Blessed

Inaccurate again. Please inform me who calls her not blessed,and we can both show them the light , the truth that she is forever blessed.

 

[david_ruiz]

I have yet to read anywhere in the NT clearly stating Mary gave birth to other children. The term “brothers” has been taken way out-of-context by so many Protestants it is pointless to rebuke the same common error.

Again,why can’t brothers mean brothers ? What could be more simple ? Is it not because of preconceived ideas /oral tradition that you object ? That is what others are resting on and that is OK, for them. There is a place for that but I would say a much larger place to stick to scripture as church Father Barnabus warns , " Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, abide by them, as many as are written"

 

[Nicea325]

Again,why can’t brothers mean brothers ? What could be more simple ? Is it not because of preconceived ideas /oral tradition that you object ? That is what others are resting on and that is OK, for them. There is a place for that but I would say a much larger place to stick to scripture as church Father Barnabus warns , " Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, abide by them, as many as are written"

Again,why push a novel teaching about Mary having other children? It is nothing more than pushing a personal agenda. If it is so simple,how strange that not one NT writer couldn’t simply say: And Mary also gave birth to son X,daughter Y, and so on being the fact they are related to the Son of God? Like I said, I want read anywhere in the NT clearly stating Mary gave birth to other children,besides Jesus?

 

[Patavium]

David,

The VERY SAME arguments you are giving us here against the perpetual virginity of Mary were refuted by St. Jerome, himself many years ago.

Here: cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

 

[brumano]

brumano;9462508:

I only repeated scripture on Job being perfect .I have not talked about what that means ,as you have wonderfully started. All these scriptures must be put together ,in harmony .Just as you have done it to show that Job was "perfect’ or faultless yet a fallen (sinner)human.putting many scriptures in harmony. Just as you do it with Job ,one can do it with Mary .She is perfect ,even though she is a fallen (sinner) human.

As promised here are a few more Bibles that do not have the word perfect in the book of Job- NKJV Thom.Nelson. c1979, The Good News Bible translated by the Amer.Bible Soc. c1976, The NRSV C.S.Lewis Bible. Harper and Colliers, 2010. - “blameless and upright”. He was by no means free from original sin and the faults and weaknesses that accompany it’s impact on our human nature.

No, she is perfect because she loved God totally; with her whole heart her whole mind and her whole strength and all of us as herself.
You have’nt done anything with anybody, by constructing your own personal doctrines as if they were absolute, it’s not what we do with Mary it’s what God has done with Mary, and how she responded to Him.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Fix your quote systems guys.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

Please provide a reference link to these ‘good Catholics’ you are referring to regarding some of these ‘Mary doctrine for centuries’ (?)

Thanks

God bless

NO. I have only read forefathers up to that point ,so i only speak up to that point .Furthermore , I think the earliest Father quoted on this thread showing strong Marion doctrines is dated 160 AD and then one around 220 AD,I think .That is allIi mean.Have not read fathers after 130 AD systematically, so don’t want to speak for them. As far as “theological corruption” , that was the allegation from both sides on some Mary doctrine for centuries.This came from good Catholics , one to another.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

Yu really need to reference your statements.

Here are three links that specifically contradicts your statement:

catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

catholic.com/documents/bad-aramaic-made-easy

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=27h

This is not to say that there are not Protestant statements that Mary was not Ever Virgin - but, what is curious is that such a critical element must wait until the 16th Century - and then in contradiction to statements by Luther and Calvin who revered the Blessed Virgin Mary! Truly, what you have identified is just one more item of Protestant disorganization, error and discord over doctrine in a ‘Johnny-come-lately’ approach.

God bless

The Holy Scripture was written in Greek ,where there is a word for cousins and for brother .The Lord chose “brother”, not “cousin”. The inspired word was written in Greek, not Aramaic. Scripture was not mistaken when written .

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

Here we go again - as we move from one language to another, some things are missed because what is clearly understood in one language is not quite caught in the next language. Aramaic and Hebrew had limited readership - but, Greek was the language of the known world, soon to be overtaken by Latin.

Ultimately, it boils down to a simple issue: who interprets the Word of God in the words of men? Protestantism, by definition, must reject the Catholic Church as the official source of correct interpretation - even though Christ founed His Chruch on Peter (Matt 16) and that the Holy Spirit would protect it from error (John 20) . And, there’s the rub - after the 16th Century revolt, everyone could interepret Scripture as they wished. Today we see the fruit of such an approach - 30,000+ denominations all claiming to be the True Way to God while discounting the legitimacy of any of the other competing denominations. Anyone can pick who they wish to believe as they uniquely try to build on sand.

Arguing about ‘brothers vs cousins’ is just an example of how established doctrine can be challenged by private interpretation that fits an agenda.

God bless

Again,why can’t brothers mean brothers ? What could be more simple ? Is it not because of preconceived ideas /oral tradition that you object ? That is what others are resting on and that is OK, for them. There is a place for that but I would say a much larger place to stick to scripture as church Father Barnabus warns , " Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, abide by them, as many as are written"

 

[kellerk]

I am sorry you felt misled by stating the greek is what is inspired ,not Aramaic.

I don’t feel misled, I feel some may be misled and maybe you should be careful not to be misleading in your statements.

I conveniently left nothing out.When the words were spoken in Aramaic, people knew exactly what was meant by the context .

**Aren’t you refuting the historical accounts of what those very people believed those text to mean? **

When the words were inspired in the Greek, the accurate meaning is conveyed by the context .

This is exactly what I was referring to that has been covered already. I suppose I’ll have to go back and find the post for you but wasn’t it pretty much proven that the translators did not try to discern which word was meant and just kept it like it was in Aramaic style (the word that could be used for brother or cousin)?

This is true for many scriptures. We can never get away from the need to discern and discern correctly, Greek or Aramaic or English or Latin.

Again, discerned by whom? Should each individual be left to discern for themselves? Seems it leaves much room for confusion.

Sorry though for my tit for tat response ,but that is how the arguments /discussions flow sometimes.

Completely understood. Unfortunately, I think this thread has run it’s course. Now we are just going round and round.

If I were really trying ot be sneeky I would not have acknowledged and voluntarily elaborated and added much more to Nicea’s “tat” (rebuttal) .

I will find that post for you.