Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Sime]

The realization that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was without sin is very discouraging. I have no doubt that all humans were born into a sinful nature (Christ being the one and only exception). I believe Mary was faithful and pure in the sight of God, but I don’t think I will ever be able to swallow the notion that Mary was sinless. Even if she, as a human, who was not also fully God as Christ is, managed to live her life completely without sin, she was born with the same sin nature as the rest of us. I have been strongly considering entering RCIA in the Fall, but this realization has caused me to think I may need to reconsider, as this isn’t a small, unimportant discrepancy.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

 

[GraceSofia]

The realization that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was without sin is very discouraging. I have no doubt that all humans were born into a sinful nature (Christ being the one and only exception). I believe Mary was faithful and pure in the sight of God, but I don’t think I will ever be able to swallow the notion that Mary was sinless. Even if she, as a human, who was not also fully God as Christ is, managed to live her life completely without sin, she was born with the same sin nature as the rest of us. I have been strongly considering entering RCIA in the Fall, but this realization has caused me to think I may need to reconsider, as this isn’t a small, unimportant discrepancy.

Journey322,

This is an excellent book: Hail, Holy Queen.

It is written by Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at a major Protestant seminary.

Reading it really changed my understanding of Mary.

 

[PoorKnight]

Karl Keeting has quoted a statement, I think it was from Ludwig Ott on this point. The apologetic doesn’t stand up well by itself and isn’t convincing to the non-catholic community in general; setting aside the anti-catholics…

It would be better, as an apologist, to look up John Duns Scotus; it was his argument (and not the above word, alone) which convinced the Pope that Mary was indeed immaculately conceived.

I am down on Cachonga for knowingly using a bad apologetic and detraction ; eg: There is no need to drag Mary through the mud and purposely insult the Catholic Faith and attempt to incite disbelief over “sound bites” which he knows don’t hold up – but which do cause emotional distress to less informed Catholics. Esp. as the Marian doctrine did not affect the salvation of Catholics over all the early centuries…

But, what Cachonga is doing just isn’t something that needs to be on CAF.
If he weren’t attempting to blame sin on her without clear and solid proof; I’d be far more circumspect.

Many of his arguments are partially true – and on the word kecharitomenH, I haven’t seen a Catholic apologist yet explain exactly why it would apply (necessarily) to her conception – rather than at a later time in her life.
It Can – and there may even be a reason that it does apply to her conception – but I haven’t seen a convincing argument on the point. If there is one, I’d like to have it … just for my own reference.



Shalom.
–Andrew.

Very well put. He had merely stated he had never seen a word that would show that Mary was sinless. I gave him a word that shows that she was sinless. Yes there’s debate over when it was applied - although a correct understanding of the word says it was in the past. We then have Sacred Tradition to clarify that for us - her conception.

I’ll have to look up John Duns Scotus. Thanks.

God Bless

 

[Cachonga]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I had to leave town for a few days and see a man about a blood thinner (among other health related questions). It seems my delay has caused some premature back-slapping among some people (sorry to have inconvenienced you, Nicea325). Just to clear up some things, neither Sola Scriptura nor the canon are the topic of this thread, so I really shouldn’t have to respond. However, I will admit that I cannot respond to what you wrote, not because you backed me into a corner with a sound argument, but because you admittedly changed some of my words, and challenged me to defend a position that I do not hold (which should be clear from what I actually did write). This is not honest or fair to your opponent when you do things like this. If our positions were reversed, and I did this to you, you would most certainly (and justifiably) accuse me of being dishonest. I prefer to believe that you just didn’t fully understand what I wrote, hence the recommendation to take a course in reading comprehension and going back over what I wrote.

As I mentioned already, Sola Scriptura and the canon are both off topic, so I will not respond to any more questions on these topics on this thread. If anyone wishes to take this as an indication that I lost the argument and want to give themselves a congratulatory slap on the back, try not to twist your shoulder in the process. Just for future reference (in case the topic ever does come up), you really should find out what Protestants (especially reformed Protestants) really believe about Sola Scriptura (it seems your understanding of the subject is a bit fuzzy).

 

[Cachonga]

In regard to making my “apologetic/argument folly” some kind of study, I certainly invite people to carefully examine what I wrote. For simplicity sake, I will refer to Huiou Theou as HT in the rest of this post. To begin with, let’s look at Luke 2:22-24. As we’ve already seen, this says, “22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: 23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR). HT made a great deal of the use of the word “they” in verse 22 (very interesting Greek lesson for that word). But he seems to have missed that what is taking place here occurs “after the days of HER purification” (emphasis mine). To be sure “they” went to Jerusalem (Mary did not go alone). Verse 22 also informs us that Jesus was taken, and we have an explanation of why in verse 23 (“to present him to the Lord”). Verse 24 continues, beginning with the word “and” (I hope we don’t need to do a basic grammar lesson to understand what this means), and continues “to offer a sacrifice…” and we are told of the 2 turtledoves (or young pigeons).

What sacrifice is being talked about here? HT (in post #25) actually refers us to Lev 15:14, which deals with someone who has been cleansed from a discharge (apparently hoping to connect this with Joseph instead of Mary). However, the verses in Luke do not mention Joseph as having been cleansed from some kind of discharge, so how this would be relevant to Joseph is unknown. As far as the circumcision of Jesus goes, this was done on the 8th day, which was before the completion of Mary’s purification. Now we know that these things occurred after Mary’s purification, that it was required by the Law, and that it involved 2 turtledoves (or young pigeons). I directed us to Lev 12:6-8, which specifically deals with a woman who has given birth, after her purification, and who could not afford a lamb. Rather than show another sacrifice that Luke 2:24 could have referred to, HT accuses me of not showing how Lev 12:6-8 is relevant to Luke 2:24. As far as using the excuse of the sacrifice following a menstrual cycle, I mentioned that to show that Mary could have made several sin offerings in her life. It is not relevant to Luke 24 because Mary had completed her purification and was making the offering required for that (or can HT show where Luke 2:22-24 mentions her menstrual cycle?).

There was also a backhanded hint that I was somehow relying on the English KJV translation. I invite anyone to examine my Scriptural references and see how often I refer to the KJV. I would be very surprised if I have 20 KJV references when everything I’ve ever posted is examined (I would also suggest that anyone who would do such a survey should get a life). What I find very amusing about the charge is that the references I gave came from the Douay-Rheims version (isn’t that a Catholic version?). I also have some NASB references in this thread (which I’m currently reading through). I actually have access to over 20 different versions of the Scriptures in English (plus access to the Greek (including the LXX), Hebrew, and even different versions of the Latin Bible). Thankfully, I’m not one of those people who thinks “If Elizabethan English was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me!”

Next HT claims that “There is no doubt Cachonga realizes that the sin sacrifice is tied to the LOSS OF BLOOD”. Really? I would like to know when HT became able to read my heart and intentions (and why, if he can do this, is he doing it wrong). Just think about what this would mean. If someone accidentally cut themselves while cooking, it would be a sin. If a soldier is wounded and bleeds, he is guilty of sin (and if he died from his wounds before making a sin offering, then I guess he wouldn’t make it to heaven, right?). If a child scrapes their knee or elbow during play, and draws blood, they are guilty of sin. Worst of all, every male child who is circumcised would be guilty of sin (which would include Jesus, and I hope we can all agree that Jesus was without sin). I would hope it is obvious that I DO NOT believe the sin offering is tied to the loss of blood. The claims that follow are so full of logical errors (based, apparently, on someone’s acceptance that loss of blood causes sin), that I won’t waste time responding to them. I do believe HT misspoke when he referred to Luke 2:28 (I’m sure he meant 2:24, or perhaps Luke 2:22-24, which would fit better with his “all or nothing” claim for the sacrifice offered).

In regard to original sin not being clear in the OT, I don’t have a problem conceding that could be very true (doesn’t mean there was no such thing, just that it wasn’t very well understood). That, of course, does not negate the fact that a sin offering was made by Mary (and I challenge HT to show any other sacrifice that could fit with what we know from Luke 2:22-24 – it was after her purification, she went to the Temple with Joseph and Jesus (“they” is the proper word to use in the context, which had nothing to do with the sacrifice, but did inform us that she did not go to the Temple alone), that Jesus was presented to the Lord (was there a sacrifice for that in the Law? I couldn’t find one, but perhaps there is one and HT can show us where it is), that a sacrifice was offered according to the Law of 2 turtledoves or a pair of young pigeons).

I still notice HT doesn’t seem to have grasped what I’ve said about the baptism of Jesus. Rather than try again, I’ll just refer you to my posts - #31 (first paragraph), #71 (first paragraph), #80 (last paragraph), #94 (paragraph 5), and #107 (paragraph 3).

I would like to congratulate HT for showing he can be honest and deal fairly by his comments to PoorKnight about Kecharitomene (which word says nothing about sin in any Greek lexicons/dictionaries I have examined, so I still don’t have a single word about her being sinless at any time in her life, much less from conception). Well done!

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

No I don’t think they were being disobedient but the fact remains; Jesus did not command any of the apostles to write a New Testament; and yet the Church was still flourishing. And even when scripture was being written, they were ‘occasional’ writings that addressed the particular theological or disciplinary needs of a particular community. There was no concerted effort to bring theses writings into a single codex among the writers themselves because the faith had always been transmitted primarily by oral tradition. Nor does the bible itself claim to be the sole authority of Christians or even contain the entire deposit of the faith.

(if the Bible is our sole authority and all Tradition is contained therein) then why does the bible itself tell us to obey our Church leaders and submit to their authority? (Hebrews 13:17). Why does the bible itself call the Church the pillar and foundation of truth? 1 Timothy 3:15

I’m not altogether sure this is still on topic, but since you’re the OP, I’ll see if I can’t answer you (I really don’t want to repeat myself, so I’ll just give the “Reader’s Digest” version. Hope that’s OK). There was an oral tradition, and it took a while for the NT to be compiled. The NT was written by eye-witnesses. These were copied and carried among the churches. The NT, even though it took a while to compile and get settled, was written by God through eye-witnesses. This does not apply to Mary’s immaculate conception. While the Scriptures may not claim to be the sole authority of Christians, it does claim to be “God-breathed”. I don’t find such a claim made for anything else (except, perhaps the Apostles, who got their authority directly from Jesus. They made Disciples, but we all agree (I hope) that no new Scripture has been written since the death of the last Apostle).

I agree that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but what truth does it uphold? I believe it upholds God’s word (and I’m sure many here would agree with that to a point). I know that we differ on exactly what God’s word consists of. For Catholics, it would be Scripture and Tradition (as defined and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church). For me, God’s word is found in the Scriptures and nowhere else. Even Catholics are taught from the Scriptures (I haven’t been to mass since my mother’s 80th birthday (as a special love gift to my mom), and they were still reading Scriptures and teaching on them back then). Yes, I do believe we are to submit to our Church leaders, but only so far as they abide by the Scriptures (if my Pastor began to preach in favor of “alternate lifestyles”, I would certainly question him, and possibly look for another church where the whole council of God is taught).

The NT DOES say that Jesus “knew no sin” (see 2 Cor 5:21) and it also says that a tree is known by its fruit (Luke 6:44 ), and Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42). And since a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Luke 6:43 ) Mary had to be sinless since she bore good fruit (Jesus), because a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, nor a good tree bad fruit. If you always need a literal statement then you are going to run into a lot of trouble. For instance, where does it say in the bible to “ask Jesus to come into your heart as your personal saviour”? Or where is the sinner’s prayer found in the bible? Both are good things but there is no explicit statement of this in scripture. Also, to get really technical here, no where does Jesus ever command his apostles to pray to Him, rather he says to pray to the Father in His name. Now I think it is healthy and wise to pray to Jesus but if you want to get really technical there is no direct statement in scripture where Jesus commands us to pray to Him.

OK, so only a good tree can bear good fruit. Does that mean that Mary’s mother was sinless? What about her mother (and so on back to Eve). Yes, a good tree bears good fruit, and I certainly believe God could make anyone a good tree at any time. Let me be clear, I do not deny that God could have created Mary without sin and kept her free from sin her entire life. By the same token, I do not deny that God could take an ordinary, sinful human being (a “bad tree” if you will) and make them fit for His purpose (a “good tree”) at any point in their life. Even if Mary had to be without sin to be a good tree, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she had to be that way from conception, or even all her life (I feel like a broken record).

The question about the “sinners prayer” is (I believe) a good question. My first thought goes back to Acts 8:26-40 (Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch). By verse 36 they come across some water and the eunuch wants to know if he can be baptized. In verse 37 we read, “And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (DR) At that point, Philip baptized the eunuch. Seems the “sinners prayer” is very similar to what Peter answered when Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am” (I hope I don’t have to tell Catholics where that is located).

As far as praying to Jesus, since He told us to pray to the Father in His name, why would you do anything else? I don’t have a problem with thanking Jesus for all He’s done for me, but I pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. When I pray in complete faith, I have always received a positive answer from God (I avoided a bone graft because of answer to prayer, had a stolen item returned safely, God even preserved my life when my heart apparently stopped, and I could go on with many more examples). Even the Apostles prayer begins “Our Father”.

I didn’t miss it, I never said Jesus sinned or needed to repent. I said he didn’t need to repent yet was still baptized. You simply didn’t get what I was trying to say. To repent means to turn away from sin and towards God. Now Jesus had nothing to repent of yet he was still baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). In the same manner, Mary fulfilled the law with the offering (in order to fulfill the law). It’s not that difficult.

To repent can mean to change one’s mind (which is what it meant in the OT when God repented, unless you think God sinned and needed to repent of that). It’s for this reason that I don’t find any problem with Jesus being baptized by John, and I see no correlation between His baptism and Mary making a sin offering.

Yes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the bible says, “for as in Adam ALL die”. So are you now saying that when God says the word ‘ALL’ it doesn’t necessarily mean every single person? And does the bible say that they are the only two exceptions? Because if you believe they are the only two exceptions then the bible must literally state “Enoch and Elijah are the only to exceptions” in order for you to believe that. If the bible doesn’t give such a literal statement then you are going outside of the bible and merely expressing your opinion.

I have considered this argument and find it flawed. There are currently more than 6 billion people on Earth who have not yet died. We know Enoch and Elijah have not yet died because Scripture tells us they were taken alive into Heaven. I haven’t looked at the Greek on this verse, but I would bet that it’s not describing a past completed action. I’ll also go out on a limb and wager that you cannot point out anyone alive today who will not die at some point in the future. I would say that the verse is true, just not completely fulfilled. God did give us a brain, as well as instructions to study so that we can “rightly divide the word of truth” (see 2 Tim 2:15).

John 20:30; 21:25 says- Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures yet He said to “OBSERVE ALL I have commanded,” .Matt. 28:20 - but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.2 John 1:12 - Having many things to write unto you, I WOULD NOT WRITE WITH PAPER AND INK: but I trust to come unto you, AND SPEAK FACE TO FACE, that our joy may be full .

Look closely at this passage. John says that he would rather speak face to face so that their joy may be complete, instead of writing using ink. - write what? An epistle!

Has the Church infallibly declared a single word, phrase, teaching or act that Jesus (or any of the Apostles) said or did that is NOT recorded for us in Scripture? If not, then it seems to me that God has given us all the info we need within the pages of Scripture to live the Christian life.

Same with Paul: 1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

So what did Paul speak to them about (according to the infallible magisterium). If your Church can’t tell you anything that was said or done outside of what we have recorded in Scripture, then why should I believe Scripture alone is lacking anything?

<continued…>

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

Same response as above.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

Are you serious? Look at the very next verse! Here Paul clearly points Timothy to the Scriptures (the OT, but the NT was still being written). Notice what verse 15 says, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (DR) But wait, there’s more! Verse 16 says, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,” (DR) and verse 17 continues with, “That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (DR) This applies to all Scripture (even that which had not yet been written, unless you think that Genesis is more inspired than Revelation, or Judges is more inspired than Acts). I don’t find this said of oral tradition (or anything else).

Oral Tradition was the primary way that Christ’s teaching were handed down.

No question about it. However, God inspired the NT to be written, and to be written by eye-witnesses or while eye-witnesses were still around to confirm what was written. This period of enscripturation lasted until the death of the last Apostle.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12, - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

This is why Paul teaches Timothy to “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15 DR). Philip certainly handled the word of truth correctly, and the Hebrews were being rebuked or not being as mature as the author thought they should have been (I’m not real sure what the relevance of Heb 5:12 is).

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation.

If I read 2 Peter 1:19-21, it sounds more like Peter is telling us how prophecy (as recorded in Scripture) came about (“not by the will of man at any time” DR), not that we shouldn’t interpret Scripture. Why would God (through Paul) tell us to study Scripture, then tell us (through Peter) not to interpret Scripture? Doesn’t make sense to me.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

First, I would ask if Peter said all of Paul’s writings were Scripture. Apparently not, or we would have them in the NT as well. Second, I would once again point out that God (through Paul) tells us to “study to show ourselves approved”. If we study properly, we will no longer be “unschooled”, but will be able to handle the word of God (the Scriptures) correctly.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

The previous answer would fit here as well. To add a little more data, you seem to be confused as to just exactly what Sola Scriptura is. That is a topic that can take a lot of time to cover, and is not the topic of this thread. I would recommend that you do a Google search for the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and see what Chapter 1 says about the Holy Scriptures.

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

Same response as for 2 Tim 2:2 above.

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone, and no indication whatsoever that ALL Tradition is in the bible.

Same response as above.

The very fact that you think the bible alone is your sole authority (even though the bible never says that) proves that you have unbiblical beleifs.

Even though it’s not the topic, I will respond (since you are the OP). As has already been covered, all Scripture (that covers everything from Genesis to Revelation) is God-breathed, and, therefore, true. 2 Tim 3:16-17 tells me that Scripture is profitable to teach, reprove, correct and instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. Where is this said about tradition? Where does Scripture (or even tradition) say we need to have infallible knowledge of anything?

Just one last quick note – Sola Scriptura is not the topic of this thread, so I won’t be answering any more questions about it. If anyone wants to claim that I have no answer, that doesn’t bother me in the least (I pretty much expect that attitude from some people on this forum). My goal and desire is to honestly represent what I believe about God and what I understand about the Scriptures. I admit that I do not know everything and am not infallible in any way. I believe that I can stand before God and not be ashamed of what I have presented on this thread (or any other, praise be to God!).

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

The way we interpret the declaration “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” is that Jesus was saying following God is most important but that obviously Mary did that so He was implicitly praising her.

Wasn’t the person who cried out a blessing on Mary also praising her? Yet Jesus cancelled that out (to my understanding). Of course, this wasn’t being disrespectful to His mother, but it was, I believe, a lesson against exalting someone beyond what God has intended for them. As far as Mary being without sin, this neither proves nor disproves that was the case.

I am not saying that Jesus was being disrespectful in calling Mary woman, I am pointing out why it was siginifigant in that it would be unusual for Him to have done so unless there was a reason, unlike the circumstance in addressing the other women that way.

I think we can all agree (I hope) that Jesus would never disrespect His mother. I think that can go without saying. Having said that, I would like to know how addressing His mother as “woman” is different from others that He addressed that way (I looked at the Greek and didn’t see any difference in the words used). Also, even if there was a difference (which really wouldn’t surprise me, I’m just not aware of how), what would it have to do with her being sinless?

One of the scriptural indications that Mary is the New Ark is because in Revelation that Ark is seen in heaven and a couple of verses later so is the Woman seen to be Mary.

I do apologize for getting off topic (I know questions about Mary can get very heated, and I think that’s one reason I get pulled off topic so easily). I would like to try and stay on topic, so I won’t be answering this (looking at my previous responses, I’m getting the feeling your entire response may fall into the “off topic” category. Sorry!).

Anyhow I said that the Law is clearly a type of Jesus and Mary carried and brought Jesus
into the world through her womb and the Ark did the same thing for Law. So I see the Ark as more of a type of Mary. If you see it as possible that the Ark is a type of Mary then don’t you think that is a good argument for the Immaculate Conception?

If the Ark had been Holy in all of its parts from the very beginning, and if Scripture had made the connection of Mary as the “new Ark”, I would concede that you might have a case. However, such is not the case. The materials used to build the Ark were ordinary materials (OK, pure gold, but still easily handled by anyone, and able to be used for anything, even a golden calf), and was handled by ordinary people who (for the most part) didn’t even enter the promised land. A great deal is made out of Adam and Eve being made from pure ground (before the curse), but I’ve never heard a similar argument for the Ark/Mary comparison.

God did not use the term Trinity in His written word and some people would unfortunately try to use that as indication that it isn’t true. We both know that that is unjustifed and absurd. I see there being good scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception, one of which being that it is reasonable to connect Mary as the Second Eve just as it is reasonable to identify the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as divine and therefore three persons in one God.

I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t deny that it could have happened. However, I cannot find any solid, Scriptural basis to believe Mary even had to be sinless, much less that she had to be sinless from conception.

Also, do you accept that the woman identified in Genesis is Mary? If so that would give strong scriptural evidence that she is the second Eve.

I do not deny that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and that the woman spoken of in Gen 3:15 could be Mary. I do not see this as the ONLY possibility, but I do see it. I do not see how this would necessarily make Mary a “second Eve”. I will not go into further detail on this topic unless you can show how it is related to the topic of this thread.

I have argued that Adam came from something that was pure and never impure so the Second Adam must have likewise. What is your feeling on that?

God was the Father of Adam and Jesus, so what they were made from is irrelevant to their sinless nature. How does this relate to the topic?

Mary said “let it be with me according to your word” and with that gave God permission. In questioning whether Mary is the Mother of God or not you are going down the path of the heresy Nestorianism which separates Christ’s divinity and humanity. Christ is God, so Mary being His Mother is the Mother of God. In saying that Jesus is the Son of God we recognize that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. I know you don’t deny this, so no Mary is not the grandmother of God.

First of all, I don’t see that God needed Mary’s permission at all to do what He did. I do recognize that she is most blessed of women, and is a model of humility and obedience that we could all learn from. Second, I do not see how calling Jesus the Son of God, or addressing Mary as the mother of the Son of God is in any way leaning toward the Nestorian heresy (especially since this is how the Angel Gabriel told Mary it would be). Third, the part about Mary being the grandmother of Jesus was nothing more than an example of how the title “mother of God” could be a bit confusing to someone who had never heard of this before (not many people like that left in the world (as far as we know), so it’s really little more than a thought experiment).

 

[Cachonga]

PoorKnight:

Wow, there’s so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin…

Job was before the Law was given? As a Sola Scriptura follower I bet then the book of Job gives a date…

You really should find out what reformed Protestants believe about Sola Scriptura before you attempt to critique it.

I could care less if Job was a Levitical Priest (The Scriptures don’t say one way or another) but he was Just in the eyes of God, yet offered sin offerings for his children. You created information not in Scirpture to refute information in Scripture.

Since I asked for something from the Law of Moses (see post #72), it seems any valid response would need to come from one of the 5 books of the Law that Moses wrote (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy). Your lack of concern for whether Job actually qualified doesn’t make me very hopeful for an honest, meaningful discussion. And, just for the record, Job made a burnt offering for his children in case they had sinned, not a sin offering (and even this was done after he sanctified them).

It’s this kind of Create-a-doctorine; declare it true and then find proof in the Bible that origionally got me questioning all of Protestantism…

Sounds like you were not in a good church. Sorry about that, but it’s not on topic.

You didn’t use the exact word “co-incidence” but that was you DIRECT INFERENCE. Kinda like ‘Trinity’ in the Bible.
Can’t find the word in the “plain text” but that’s what many texts Directly point to.

… and following …

Off topic.

Then you question the Trinity, the Table of Contents in your Bible, and many MANY other “Essentials” that are not in the “plain English Text”. Yeah that got me questioning Protestantism too when you tried to argue from the Greek / Hebrew and get the response of “then why didn’t they write it that way”.

You really should find out what reformed Protestants believe about Sola Scriptura (read chapter 1 in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith).

If you actually look at Scripture as much as you can in 1st Century Greek / Jewish context and not in a “sola Americana” context, the “paralells” (I believe you used that word) are overwhelming. If you don’t have the ears to hear and the eyes to see…

Are you an expert in 1st century Judaism and Koine Greek? Wait a minute. This isn’t the topic of this thread!

Oh really? Since you brought up Abraham…

When and how was Abraham “Saved”? I’m sure Scripture is clear on that… I mean c’mon he’s the Father of the Faith! God should surely show clearly, exactly, the moment he was ‘saved’ right?

Are these supposed to be serious questions, or are they just rants? They certainly don’t seem to be on topic (I will accept blame for that, as I have apologized several times already, I strayed off topic a few times).

Or how about Jesus’ geneology. Please use “Sola Scriptura” to show me how to rectify the two geneologies.

Off topic, but just to “rectify” the genealogies, one of these is Josephs, the other is Mary’s (even if it ends with Joseph, this was a common and acceptable way to give the mothers genealogy – remember, the two become one flesh). I suppose an expert on 1st century Judaism would know that, right? This was just a test, right?

Or how about where does the Bible say “Sola Scriptura”?

… and following…

Off topic (and a display of a complete lack of understanding Sola Scriptura). Why not start a thread on Sola Scriptura and MAYBE I’ll join in and explain some of these things.

P.S. Calling “strawman” is a great way of getting out of something you cannot answer…

It’s also a great way to point out someone’s inconsistency for the benefit of those who honestly want to know the truth. And you’re partially correct in that I couldn’t answer it (not because it was a good argument, but was demanding I respond to a position I don’t hold to and never claimed, and who could answer something like that without calling it what it is – a straw man).

Kecharitomene

There’s your “single word about her … being free from all stain of sin from conception”.

Sorry, I’ve looked this up in the Friberg Analytical Greek Lexicon, the Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, and the Gingrich Greek NT Lexicon, and I don’t find any definition that includes sin in any way. Please explain, oh master of the 1st century Greek, how this removes all doubt about Mary “being free from all stain of sin from conception”.

 

[PoorKnight]

You really should find out what reformed Protestants believe about Sola Scriptura before you attempt to critique it.

I was one for 5 years. I Studied the Westminster Confessional. Found it inconsistant and incomplete with Scripture. My teachers were a 35 year pastor of Reformed Theology and his wife who also had her degree in Reformed Theology. Sola Scriptura means something different to different “reformers”. To some it means that they look to Scripture Alone for everything “Essential” and that must be in the plain text (literally taken, no interpretation allowed). To some it means that they look to Scripture Alone for everything Essential and Non-Essential and it must be in the plain text. To some it means they look to Scripture alone for all Essentials but they can be implicit. To some it means they look to Scripture alone for all Essentials and Non-essentials but they can be implicit. And to some they use some mix of the 4 ways of looking at Scripture depending on what they want to prove.

Since I asked for something from the Law of Moses (see post #72), it seems any valid response would need to come from one of the 5 books of the Law that Moses wrote (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy). Your lack of concern for whether Job actually qualified doesn’t make me very hopeful for an honest, meaningful discussion. And, just for the record, Job made a burnt offering for his children in case they had sinned, not a sin offering (and even this was done after he sanctified them).

I did miss that in post #72. However, it doesn’t change my point. The discussion was that the offering of 2 turtle doves could have been for someone else. You denied it. I supplied an example of where it could be true.

Sounds like you were not in a good church. Sorry about that, but it’s not on topic.

I was in a very good church. It lead me back to Catholicism. For that I am eternally grateful to my Reformed brothers and sisters. I only wish they would share in the fullest “personal relationship with Jesus” that I do in the Eucharist every week (or every day when I can). But yes it is off topic.

Off topic.

Semi true. Sola Scriptura is what truely is behind any discussion about The Blessed (Lk 1:49b) Virgin Mary.

You really should find out what reformed Protestants believe about Sola Scriptura (read chapter 1 in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith).

See above. And why that one? Why not the Westminster Confession (one of the many vesions), or the Concord of Luther or the “1690 Baptist Confession of Faith” or any of the 38,000 other versions of explaining Sola Scriptura. Why that version? Is it the Infalible statement on the subject? Will all 38,000 ± Protestant groups agree on that version’s defenition? Where is that definition of Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

Are you an expert in 1st century Judaism and Koine Greek? Wait a minute. This isn’t the topic of this thread

No and neither are you. So is anything that could be used to flesh out the argument “Off Topic” or “Strawman” now?

Are these supposed to be serious questions, or are they just rants? They certainly don’t seem to be on topic (I will accept blame for that, as I have apologized several times already, I strayed off topic a few times). ).

Yes, they go to the real heart of the issue: Sola Scriptura vs Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Those are questions that cannot be answered in the plain text of Scripture - something my Reformed Church demanded.

Off topic, but just to “rectify” the genealogies, one of these is Josephs, the other is Mary’s

Very good, that’s one possible theory. “Where is that in the Bible”? Again this goes to the real heart of every discussion about Mary - Sola Scriptura.

Off topic (and a display of a complete lack of understanding Sola Scriptura). Why not start a thread on Sola Scriptura and MAYBE I’ll join in and explain some of these things.

Maybe a lack of understanding of your understanding of Sola Scriptura. Like I said there are numerous different “understandings” of Sola Scriptura and I still wish to see all those understandings in Scripture alone.

It’s also a great way to point out someone’s inconsistency for the benefit of those who honestly want to know the truth. And you’re partially correct in that I couldn’t answer it (not because it was a good argument, but was demanding I respond to a position I don’t hold to and never claimed, and who could answer something like that without calling it what it is – a straw man).

So it’s whatever you wish it to be…but we digress.

Sorry, I’ve looked this up in the Friberg Analytical Greek Lexicon, the Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, and the Gingrich Greek NT Lexicon, and I don’t find any definition that includes sin in any way. Please explain, oh master of the 1st century Greek, how this removes all doubt about Mary “being free from all stain of sin from conception”.

I never said it removed all doubt. You asked for a word that would show it. I gave you a word. Our interpretations (The Catholic Churches and your personal opinion) differ on what it means.

I don’t know where the hostility is coming from. No I don’t use a lot of smiley faces but I don’t have much time to put in flowing language to assure you I’m not angry. Sorry for the mis-communication on that.

 

[Cachonga]

PoorKnight:

I did miss that in post #72. However, it doesn’t change my point. The discussion was that the offering of 2 turtle doves could have been for someone else. You denied it. I supplied an example of where it could be true.

It most certainly does change your point. It’s like asking a question about the founding fathers of the United States and being directed to Ponce De Leon (who wasn’t an American, and even the USA did not exist when he lived).

Semi true. Sola Scriptura is what truely is behind any discussion about The Blessed (Lk 1:49b) Virgin Mary.

I disagree (especially in light of the ECF’s that have already been mentioned in previous posts). I would agree that God’s Word plays a big part in discussing Marian doctrines (as well as many other dogmas of the Catholic Church). However, we (hopefully) recognize that we have different views of what makes up the Word of God (for me, its Scripture, for Catholics, its Scripture and Tradition). One reason I even started on this thread is because the OP made the Bible a part of the topic (not Sola Scriptura, but what Scriptural evidence is there for the teaching of Mary being without sin “from conception”). At least, that was my understanding.

I do admit (as I have done before) that I have strayed off topic many times. I apologize for that, and will try to stay on topic as much as possible.

See above. And why that one? Why not the Westminster Confession (one of the many vesions), or the Concord of Luther or the “1690 Baptist Confession of Faith” or any of the 38,000 other versions of explaining Sola Scriptura. Why that version? Is it the Infalible statement on the subject? Will all 38,000 ± Protestant groups agree on that version’s defenition? Where is that definition of Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

I did a comparison of the Westminster Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession, and I didn’t notice any difference in what was written. I recommended the confession that I am most familiar with (seemed like a natural thing to do, since I would like to have my position understood).

Not wanting to stray off topic again (especially in light of what I said above), I would be curious about your source for the claim of “38,000+ Protestant groups”. I won’t discuss it on this thread, but I would be happy to discuss this with you via PM’s if you are interested.

Very good, that’s one possible theory. “Where is that in the Bible”? Again this goes to the real heart of every discussion about Mary - Sola Scriptura.

One thing about Sola Scriptura – there is no problem with finding corroborating evidence outside of Scripture. In the case of the genealogies being Mary’s and Josephs, I have found a commentary on Revelation by Victorinus from the late 3rd or early 4th century in which he states that the gospel of Matthew contained Mary’s genealogy). As far as evidence from the Bible, the genealogy in Matthew says, “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” (Matt 1:16 DR) while Luke records it as, “And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,” (Luke 3:23 DR). Note that Matthew lists Joseph as “the husband of Mary” while Luke doesn’t mention Mary at all.

I never said it removed all doubt. You asked for a word that would show it. I gave you a word. Our interpretations (The Catholic Churches and your personal opinion) differ on what it means.

Could you tell me which Greek dictionary or lexicon you have looked at ever associates this word with “sin”? I’ve looked in 5 different lexicons (already mentioned), and I can’t find a single reference to sin.

I don’t know where the hostility is coming from. No I don’t use a lot of smiley faces but I don’t have much time to put in flowing language to assure you I’m not angry. Sorry for the mis-communication on that.

I’ll have to take some of the blame for this as well. This is a bit off topic, but I don’t think it will start a long discussion on its own. I think it was Rocky III when Rocky did the charity event with the wrestler, Thunderlips (played by Hulk Hogan). During the match, the wrestler was “crazy”, but afterward he was very friendly and got some pictures with Rocky and his family. This could have been a case where, during the “match”, we may have been a bit preoccupied with what was going on (making our points), not how it may be coming across. It’s good to come to an understanding (even if it’s not necessarily “on topic”, at least I think we can have a better interaction going forward). Well done!

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

I don’t think that my comments were off topic.

You asked how we can see that Mary is the Second Ark and Second Eve from scripture.

I provided you with evidence by saying that in Genisis God refers to the woman seen to be Mary, right after Eve is punished. Pretty good indication that Mary will be the Second Eve considering that the shift goes from Eve being punished to Mary bearing redemption.

We can see that Mary is the New Ark because in Revelation she is mentioned right after the Ark.

I don’t think that your objection to the Ark being formed out of casual material works because Mary was Immaculate when she came to be but the flesh of her parents were not Immaculate. Likewise the parts that preceded the Ark were not holy, but when they came together to form the Ark they became holy.

That type along with the Second Eve and uncursed ground all provide good Old Testament basis for why in the New Testament Mary has to be Immaculate.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In regard to making my “apologetic/argument folly” some kind of study, I certainly invite people to carefully examine what I wrote. For simplicity sake, I will refer to Huiou Theou as HT in the rest of this post. To begin with, let’s look at Luke 2:22-24. As we’ve already seen, this says, “22 And after the days of **her **purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: 23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR).

The translation is wrong.
The Douay stole parts of the translation from the KJV, and the KJV did likewise from the Douay.

Ronald Knox version – an English translation from the original Greek;
Luke 2:21 When eight days had passed, and the boy must be circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name he was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

So, the first time he said to be CUT (The circumcision…) was the first time his name “God Saves” Yah-Shua (Joshua, also known as Jesus in English…) was USED by mankind.

His name itself signifies our salvation and NOTICE the name is tied directly to the blood of the covenant.

Luke 2:22 And when the time had come for purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him before the Lord there. It is written in God’s law, that whatever male offspring opens the womb is to be reckoned sacred to the Lord; and so they must offer in sacrifice for HIM, as God’s law commanded, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.

Nowhere, does it say “Her” in this Catholic translation.

HT made a great deal of the use of the word “they” in verse 22 (very interesting Greek lesson for that word). But he seems to have missed that what is taking place here occurs “after the days of HER purification” (emphasis mine).

Nope, I didn’t miss it – it’s not there. FIND any reference to a female in the ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts – Greek is a GENDERED language; and she would be VERY easily found. I’ll even help you out with a link to the original sources, and a dictionary/lexicon built in.

24 because Mary had completed her purification and was making the offering required for that (or can HT show where Luke 2:22-24 mentions her menstrual cycle?).

blah blah blah… Women who have just given birth don’t have menstrual cycles. I am married, I know.

Spell the word “HER” (Singular, feminine) in Greek, and point to it in Luke 2:22-24. That’s all you have to do and YOU WIN – but you can’t, can you?

There was also a backhanded hint that I was somehow relying on the English KJV translation. … What I find very amusing about the charge is that the references I gave came from the Douay-Rheims version (isn’t that a Catholic version?).

Yes – Which stole some passages from the KJV; and the KJV stole some from the Douay. The reason is simple, they were in a race to translate the bible into English – and wanted to publish first. By using this passage from the Douay – you are also using the KJV.

I also have some NASB references in this thread (which I’m currently reading through). I actually have access to over 20 different versions of the Scriptures in English (plus access to the Greek (including the LXX), Hebrew, and even different versions of the Latin Bible). Thankfully, I’m not one of those people who thinks “If Elizabethan English was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me!”

So use the original Greek. There are sites that give WORD FOR WORD definitions of every sentence. It’s not like you need to be a scholar to verify what I am telling you.

Next HT claims that “There is no doubt Cachonga realizes that the sin sacrifice is tied to the LOSS OF BLOOD”. Really? I would like to know when HT became able to read my heart and intentions (and why, if he can do this, is he doing it wrong).

The moment you put your heart and mind in writing by citing a Menstrual Cycle levitical law; you showed all the evidence that was necessary.

Just think about what this would mean. If someone accidentally cut themselves while cooking, it would be a sin.

Duh – you’re the one who brought up the sin offering for the menstrual cycle in the FIRST PLACE. Filliblusterer…

I DO NOT believe the sin offering is tied to the loss of blood.

OK, so in a woman’s menstrual cycle – why is the sin offering required in that passage you so helpfully gave to us? What, pray tell, is the sin in your estimation ?

The claims that follow are so full of logical errors (based, apparently, on someone’s acceptance that loss of blood causes sin), that I won’t waste time responding to them. I do believe HT misspoke when he referred to Luke 2:28 (I’m sure he meant 2:24, or perhaps Luke 2:22-24, which would fit better with his “all or nothing” claim for the sacrifice offered).

I’ll have to look, but yes – if I typed 2:28 – I meant 2:24. typo’s do happen…

In regard to original sin not being clear in the OT, I don’t have a problem conceding that could be very true (doesn’t mean there was no such thing, just that it wasn’t very well understood). That, of course, does not negate the fact that a sin offering was made by Mary (and I challenge HT to show any other sacrifice that could fit with what we know from Luke 2:22-24 .

There are dozens of places where a sacrifice of 2 turtledoves or a pair of young pigeons is indicated in the OT. But you keep harping the same falsehood ! The word THEY is EXPLICITLY given for their purification;

You’ve been misled if you think otherwise.

biblos.com/luke/2-22.htm

Luke 2:22 και οτε επλησθησαν αι ημεραι του καθαρισμου αυτων κατα τον νομον μωυσεως ανηγαγον αυτον εις ιεροσολυμα παραστησαι τω κυριω

Literally: After the days of-the cleansing of them …

I still notice HT doesn’t seem to have grasped what I’ve said about the baptism of Jesus. Rather than try again, I’ll just refer you to my posts - #31 (first paragraph), #71 (first paragraph), #80 (last paragraph), #94 (paragraph 5), and #107 (paragraph 3).

I would like to congratulate HT for showing he can be honest and deal fairly by his comments to PoorKnight about Kecharitomene (which word says nothing about sin in any Greek lexicons/dictionaries I have examined, so I still don’t have a single word about her being sinless at any time in her life, much less from conception). Well done!

I am ALWAYS honest; sometimes to a fault.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

You asked how we can see that Mary is the Second Ark and Second Eve from scripture.

I provided you with evidence by saying that in Genisis God refers to the woman seen to be Mary, right after Eve is punished. Pretty good indication that Mary will be the Second Eve considering that the shift goes from Eve being punished to Mary bearing redemption.

How about Biblical precedent? For example, we know about the Adam/Jesus comparison because God thought it was important enough to tell us in His written word. If the Eve/Mary and/or Ark/Mary connection is valid and something we need to know for our Christian walk, following the precedent already established by Adam/Jesus, why wouldn’t God give us the same Biblical assurance of the connection? The fact that He didn’t does not, in and of itself, indicate that such a connection doesn’t exist (the parallels are undeniably there). However, because God didn’t see fit to mention it in His written word, then I don’t see that it is important for our Christian walk.

We can see that Mary is the New Ark because in Revelation she is mentioned right after the Ark.

So she’s the Ark of Rev 11 AND the woman of Rev 12? Was she both of these at the same time? If so, when did God grant her the divine ability of omnipresence? If not, then when did she become a quick-change artist, capable of switching from an Ark to a woman?

I don’t think that your objection to the Ark being formed out of casual material works because Mary was Immaculate when she came to be but the flesh of her parents were not Immaculate. Likewise the parts that preceded the Ark were not holy, but when they came together to form the Ark they became holy.

That type along with the Second Eve and uncursed ground all provide good Old Testament basis for why in the New Testament Mary has to be Immaculate.

Adam was taken out of the ground. Eve was taken out of Adam. Jesus was conceived in a virgin. All three had God as their Father, so the material used is irrelevant.

 

[Cachonga]

HT, now that I know what version you’re using, I have a much better understanding of what you’ve been saying. It appears that the English translation of the Latin text indicates the sacrifice of 2 turtledoves was for Jesus, because he was being dedicated to the Lord. Even the English translation of the Latin of Lev 12:6-8 doesn’t use “sin offering”. Too bad we can’t agree on a version that was translated from the actual Greek/Hebrew texts (I don’t trust translations of translations, like the Knox Bible or the DR). I see no use in continuing, since I would be arguing primarily with a translation of the Bible that appears highly questionable to me (although I understand it is spoken very highly of by Catholics). Thanks for the discussion, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

I am glad that you agree that the conncections are there.

No, Mary is not a quick change artist just as neither is Jesus even though He is the Second Adam and New Law at the same time without contradiction (again these are types not structural properties). The Ark seen in heaven in Revelation is the Ark that carried the commandments but that it is seen near Mary allows for the parrallel to be drawn. Anyhow Revelation is a highly symbolic book and things are combined to form many different images and connections.

So your main objection is that God did not see the need to make more direct mention of Mary being Immaculate, but again I would say that how do you decide to draw the line of how God can reveal something through scripture. Some people don’t think we can believe in the Trinity or Original Sin just because the Bible does not use those words! Where do we draw the line?!

Many interesting parrallels have been made that are not explicitly stated in scripture. The writer’s of the epistles were inspired but they were drawing connections that they saw. It is possible that they did not see the connections to Mary or did not feel that it was pertinent at the time to talk about her. The focus was on Jesus and the Church, which I agree should be the focus for salvation. But that in honoring Christ we should honor His Mother. If she is immacualte as you say she could have been don’t you think that we should recognize her as such. She is Jesus’ Mother after all. The Catholic Church is not interested in sticking to some basic hermenuetic that only ciphers plain reading of the text searching for as mininmal of theological understandings as she can. Instead we know that God’s wisdom is vast.

Just because the Immaculate Conception is not mentioned explicitly in scripture does not mean it is not there implicitly. I see that there is enough support drawn from what I have cited. If we consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God then I believe that we can find depth and connections that maybe we have to contemplate and pray to understand because they may not be totally noticeable but God still intended them.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

I am glad that you agree that the conncections are there.

Actually, I said the parallels were undeniable, not the connections. The connections may or may not be true.

No, Mary is not a quick change artist just as neither is Jesus even though He is the Second Adam and New Law at the same time without contradiction (again these are types not structural properties). The Ark seen in heaven in Revelation is the Ark that carried the commandments but that it is seen near Mary allows for the parrallel to be drawn. Anyhow Revelation is a highly symbolic book and things are combined to form many different images and connections.

Jesus is the New Law? I wasn’t aware of any New Law. I do believe (as Scripture says) that God has written His law on the hearts of His people, but I’m not aware of any such concept as New Law from Scripture.

I agree that Revelation is highly symbolic, and there are many things with more than one meaning (the early Church definitely believed and taught that the woman of Rev 12 was the OT Church (the faithful believers of Israel, not the nation as a whole). That certainly does not exclude Mary as also being the same woman (to a point). I just don’t come to the same conclusion.

So your main objection is that God did not see the need to make more direct mention of Mary being Immaculate, but again I would say that how do you decide to draw the line of how God can reveal something through scripture. Some people don’t think we can believe in the Trinity or Original Sin just because the Bible does not use those words! Where do we draw the line?!

First of all, I believe the Trinity and Original sin is clear enough to see within the pages of Scripture (not the words, but certainly the people who were part of the early Church LIVED the Trinity and were aware that we inherited Adam’s sin (which is why people of all ages die). I don’t have to use the word “Trinity” to live a successful Christian life, as long as I live the understanding. (If what I just said seems a bit confusing let me know and I’ll try it again.) I can’t find anything near the same evidence for the immaculate conception within Scripture that I find for the Trinity or Original Sin. It’s almost like we’re looking at a primitive cave drawing of a man throwing a spear, and I see a hunter, but you see an astronaut (because the “spear” is a primitive spaceship or something). Might be a bad example, but that’s almost what it feels like sometimes.

Many interesting parrallels have been made that are not explicitly stated in scripture. The writer’s of the epistles were inspired but they were drawing connections that they saw. It is possible that they did not see the connections to Mary or did not feel that it was pertinent at the time to talk about her. The focus was on Jesus and the Church, which I agree should be the focus for salvation. But that in honoring Christ we should honor His Mother. If she is immacualte as you say she could have been don’t you think that we should recognize her as such. She is Jesus’ Mother after all. The Catholic Church is not interested in sticking to some basic hermenuetic that only ciphers plain reading of the text searching for as mininmal of theological understandings as she can. Instead we know that God’s wisdom is vast.

I agree 100% - the writers (inspired by God) either did not see the connections, or did not feel they were pertinent. That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying. I also agree 100% that the focus was on Jesus and the Church. So when did the focus change? Are you telling me I should honor Jesus by honoring His mother? If you could show me where this idea is presented in Scripture, I might consider it. Even so, I absolutely refuse to honor anyone beyond measure, and considering the lack of Scriptural evidence, I believe the immaculate conception is going way beyond measure (certainly beyond Scripture). It COULD have happened, but since Scripture is silent on the matter, I find no reason I (or anyone else) should be REQUIRED to believe it.

Just because the Immaculate Conception is not mentioned explicitly in scripture does not mean it is not there implicitly. I see that there is enough support drawn from what I have cited. If we consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God then I believe that we can find depth and connections that maybe we have to contemplate and pray to understand because they may not be totally noticeable but God still intended them.

I don’t even see this implicitly within Scripture. What I see is that it MIGHT have occurred, but it’s also just as likely that it didn’t occur. Even if she had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, there is absolutely no reason I can find within Scripture to make me think that this would have to be from conception, or even last her entire life.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

HT, now that I know what version you’re using, I have a much better understanding of what you’ve been saying. It appears that the English translation of the Latin text indicates the sacrifice of 2 turtledoves was for Jesus, because he was being dedicated to the Lord. Even the English translation of the Latin of Lev 12:6-8 doesn’t use “sin offering”. Too bad we can’t agree on a version that was translated from the actual Greek/Hebrew texts (I don’t trust translations of translations, like the Knox Bible or the DR). I see no use in continuing, since I would be arguing primarily with a translation of the Bible that appears highly questionable to me (although I understand it is spoken very highly of by Catholics). Thanks for the discussion, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

As a note for the future; Even the Latin Vulgate, which the Latin rite Catholic church uses as it’s own translation (Vulgate means “common” not “best”), and which is made a big whoop te do over – is just a translation. It was originally translated around the year/century 400 – about the time that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus came into existence; (Greek copies of Greek originals).

However, the Vulgate disagrees in several places with the Greek and has been corrected several times throughout the centuries to make it agree more (and undoubtedly will be corrected again…); the latest version as of this writing is the “Neo Vulgate”

There is a difference between a precise translation and a serviceable one.

The Vulgate, is clearly serviceable… a useful translation that requires Latin Rite church’s bishop’s explaining is’ interpretation (Which is gymnastics in the case of Luke 2:22…); but with them protecting it against misuse…

St. Jerome, possibly disobeying the pope’s orders regarding techniques of translation (I don’t know the details clearly), engaged even anti-catholic Jewish rabbi’s on the theory that the OT was written by Jews, and their traditions were the most accurate way to tranlate. However, Jerome’s work is ~300 years after Catholicism and Judaism split – and they definitely were not “friends”. The Hebrew OT texts had already bloomed into many disagreeing variations, and St. Jerome wasted quite a bit of his time trying to “Guess” the original text; rather than just stay with the Christian Church’s versions of these texts; both the Aramaic and Greek speakers.

Within this thread, we met the idea of the “piety” of Mary in following a law she didn’t need to follow; This can be traced in in ECF writings – which depend on Jerome’s translation – and hence depend on St. Jerome’s opinion of what Luke 2:22 MEANT but didn’t actually say.

Humorously, (or sadly, depending on one’s viewpoint and in more ways than one) the idea itself has become a cult classic.

I. personally, don’t like what St. Jerome did. I prefer to just use the Greek, and to compare the teaching of the Bishops with their Latin version against what the Greek actually says. The holy Spirit DID get it right the first time…

I can discuss the more modern Hebrew, and the Latin – but I don’t rely on them (Or their translations!) where disagreement exists in the texts; (BTW: There is even one Greek text, the T.R. Stephanus (of KJV history) – which was “corrected” to match the Vulgate in places… so that one I don’t use as a primary witness, either…!!! )

Best wishes; and a fruitful original language study to you…
–Andrew.

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

Jesus is the New Law in the sense that He is the Law of the New Covenant, which is why I believe He is called the Word because He literally is the Word of God. Which is why in Romans Paul talks about how justification does not come from the Law but through Jesus Christ because He is in a sense the New Law.

Would I be honoring you if I honored your mother? Would you be offended if I insulted your mother? I think the same principle applies to the Mother of God only infinitely greater. Mary is your Mother too which is what Jesus meant on the cross when He said “Behold your mother” He meant it for all discples not just St. John.

I understand that you feel my arguments are mostly based on typology so they cannot be certain but I think that are pretty evident.

I feel that you are worrying about honoring God’s Mother just as much as you have to like just worrying about doctrine for your salvation instead of investigating the mysteries of God, but don’t you want to honor her with the respect she deserves? Of course when you honor Mary you honor God. If God did make her Immaculate don’t you want to recognize God’s work?

I understand you may say “well why didn’t God tell me more clearly” but as I have said God is a hidden God and the Gospels are not about proclaiming Mary, but that does not mean that she should not be recognized or honored for the role that she played in our salvation.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

Jesus is the New Law in the sense that He is the Law of the New Covenant, which is why I believe He is called the Word because He literally is the Word of God. Which is why in Romans Paul talks about how justification does not come from the Law but through Jesus Christ because He is in a sense the New Law.

I guess you could look at it that way, just don’t expect me to follow suit.

Would I be honoring you if I honored your mother? Would you be offended if I insulted your mother? I think the same principle applies to the Mother of God only infinitely greater. Mary is your Mother too which is what Jesus meant on the cross when He said “Behold your mother” He meant it for all discples not just St. John.

I would hope that we could agree that God’s ways are higher than our ways. With this in mind, I don’t think we can use human logic to say what God may or may not do. I’ve heard Bathsheba compared to Mary, and even asked someone once if they though Jesus, the very One through whom all things were created, actually got off His throne and bowed to Mary when she came into His presence. I was very shocked and deeply troubled when the answer was “Sure. Why wouldn’t He?” (FYI – I do not remember the exact words, so this is not a direct quote, but it does reflect the gist of the answer). When asked why Bathsheba didn’t get her request, I typically hear things like “These are types, and not perfect”, “Solomon and Bathsheba were sinners” and other such things. I would say that the reason she didn’t get her request (and I believe this can be backed up with Scripture) is that as soon as she asked the question, Solomon realized 2 things. 1 – she was making the request for someone else, not herself. 2 – the request would have endangered his kingdom (and his very life) if he had granted it. At that point, he had to put off “sonship” and put on kingship. As King, he made a righteous judgment against his half-brother.

I understand that you feel my arguments are mostly based on typology so they cannot be certain but I think that are pretty evident.

I also realize that my reluctance to accept some things could be because of some unconscious mental bias (such as the assumption). I do try to keep things in their proper perspective, admitting when I think something could have happened, but I don’t believe anyone has the authority to dogmatically declare something (like the immaculate conception, which is the topic here) to be true when there is no solid Biblical evidence to support the claim.

I feel that you are worrying about honoring God’s Mother just as much as you have to like just worrying about doctrine for your salvation instead of investigating the mysteries of God, but don’t you want to honor her with the respect she deserves? Of course when you honor Mary you honor God. If God did make her Immaculate don’t you want to recognize God’s work?

IF God made her immaculate and wanted her to be honored in that way, I believe He would have mentioned it in His word. Since He didn’t, I am very reluctant to go beyond what Scripture says (you know that’s what got Eve into trouble, right?)

I understand you may say “well why didn’t God tell me more clearly” but as I have said God is a hidden God and the Gospels are not about proclaiming Mary, but that does not mean that she should not be recognized or honored for the role that she played in our salvation.

Again, because He didn’t make it clear, I do not want to go beyond what Scripture says. Whether she was immaculately conceived or not is irrelevant to how I honor and respect Mary, and how I worship God. I do not pray to Mary at all, nor do I have pictures or statues of her (or any other saint, angel, or even Jesus). That’s right – I don’t pray to Jesus! It’s not the topic, but just to explain (lest I be accused of untold heresies), I follow the example I see in the NT. Specifically, I pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. No “intercessory” assistance from saints in heaven or angels. I do not burn candles (my wife, on the other hand, still holds to that, buying “sacred” candles with pictures and prayers to various saints, but that’s off topic, so skip it).