The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[moondweller]

**
Who is the most blessed among women in all of Scripture according to God?**
“Most blessed of women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Most blessed is she of women in the tent.” ** “in the tent” = among the Jews; Mary was a Jew. ** --Judges 5:24

Judges 5:24-31{4 the rest of the story)
And in context; you will understand why she has this title. What should happen now MoonD?

(Edited)

Jenny, did you write this message?

 

[paul_c]

I found this with a simple Yahoo search: seems you are incorrect according to your own church’s teaching.

82. As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’ [DV 9.]–Catechism of the Catholic Church, (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

Jenny, You are absolutely correct on this. This is directly from the catechism. Written and oral tradition are held equally by the church. In fact, it is oral tradition that makes correct interpretation of written scripture possible… This is what non-Catholics lack in understanding scripture properly, they don’t have the oral tradition on the context of what was written to base their interpretations

 

[StTommyMore]

The proof is in the thread; I can’t make what is obvious to me obvious to you. I am very knowledgeable concerning the Word of God and there is great contradiction here concerning all this extrabiblical revelation concerning Mary.

What is your purpose here? If it is to draw Catholics away from the faith, it is in violation of forum rules.

 

[po18guy]

I see that you have a problem with authority. You choose to follow yourself, claiming your own interpretation as supreme, rather than humbly submitting to the hierarchical structure Jesus gave to us, the Catholic Church.

Thank you so much, StTommyMore! You saved me from posting a very similar, but tersely worded and possibly non-charitable response.

 

[moondweller]

So was there merit in her decision to believe?

Merit? I wouldn’t use that term. “Favored” which relates to “grace,” (unmerited favor). But what she did not do, according to the text, is make a decision to conceive, IOW, personally consent to the conception. She rather “believed” that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken TO her by the Lord (Lk. 1:45). The notion (or dogma) of asking for her consent is absent. And yet she knew, along with all generations to follow, that she was “blessed.”

We’re just going to have to disagree on this. To me, She clearly consents. You are blinded to this.

I cannot be “blind” to something that is not there.

Not at all, She clearly consents. Whether Gabriel asked for Consent is irrelevant.

:whacky:

Agreed that my analogy wasn’t perfect, They never are. But look, we’ve explained it to using scripture as well but as long as you put yourself as the arbiter of everything so there will be no resolution. You can deny the truth all you want. But in the end, Mary clealry consented to being the Mother of the Lord. She was not coerced against her will nor was she ambivalent. Do you deny this…

I agree that she was not coerced. Mary was already an orthodox Jewish woman of true faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Her belief in the “fulfillment” of the words spoken TO her by the Lord was a manifestation of her faith “in the Lord.” Like Abraham with Isaac. Faith is rooted in “promise.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is it not blatantly obvious that, to oppose the revealed truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity - which has zero practical effect upon the Gospel message - is simply to oppose the Church which Christ founded and replace it with one formed by man’s ego, which Christ did not found?

To oppose the revealed truth handed down by the Apostles and the men whom they appointed as their successors is to separate oneself from Christ’s Church, His body.

Cyprian of Carthage put it this way around the middle of the third century:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

That last line is particularly devastating for Moondweller’s position, isn’t it? :sad_yes:

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you say so; but that is obviously not true…but have it your way. God won’t see it as you do-I am certain of that. You were not able to refute the fact that Mary called Jesus her Savior while in her womb; which I can’t imagine anyone who calls themselves a Christian could dispute that the Savior mentioned in the Bible is the One who saves the lost sinner. Nor can anyone dispute that Mary called Jesus her Savior. So you have an obvious contradiction and where there is one there are usually several, which I have a feeling that I will soon discover this.

Um…I don’t recall even addressing that point. I will do so now.

How Can Mary Be Sinless When She Rejoices in God, Her Savior?
A Catholic Understanding of Luke 1:47

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is one of the Four Marian Dogmas taught by the Catholic Church. Proclaimed in 1950, this dogma teaches that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception and remained sinless her entire life.

One argument frequently advanced by those who do not agree with the Church’s teaching is based upon Mary’s own words found in the Gospel of Luke: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” (Luke 1:46-47) If Mary declares that she needs a savior, then she must have been a sinner—or so the reasoning goes.

The Catholic Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

**God can “save” a person from a sin by forgiving them after the sin has been committed, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin in the first place. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. **

Mankind is saved in the first manner and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

 

[paul_c]

The proof is in the thread; I can’t make what is obvious to me obvious to you. I am very knowledgeable concerning the Word of God and there is great contradiction here concerning all this extrabiblical revelation concerning Mary.

Jenny, there is no contradiction between scripture and the Mary doctrines.

Scripture describes Jesus having brothers to be sure. But it also shows that those brothers are in fact, cousins, the sons of Joseph’s brother Clopas and his wife Mary:
see post 192 for the Biblical proof of this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7302929&postcount=192 It clearly never says that Mary is the mother of those brothers.

The second point you make is that because Mary stated that she was going to give birth to her savior, that she must therefore have been a sinner. However, it has always been a part of Christian understanding that Jesus’s sacrifice was necessary to open the gates of heaven. So, therefore, whether Mary was sinful or not, she still needed Jesus as her savior. This recognition by Mary that she needed a savior does not in any way imply that she is a sinner.

Besides this point, there have been two other points brought up as contradictions to the Marian Dogmas. They both reflect nebulous understanding of the language used.

The first is that you interpret the word “until” to unilaterally state that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. This is an assumption that you can not prove. In fact, on these pages, there have beenn several examples that show that the word UNTIL in scripture does not mean that something definitively happended afterwards. The fact is, scripture never says that Mary had sexual relations of any kind. The only statement made about her sexual activity is that she is definitely stated to have been a virgin at the birth of Jeses. Why do you assume that the traditional understanding that Mary was ever-virgin is wrong if it is not directly proven as wrong in the text?

The second is to state that Paul’s statement that “all have sinned” is meant to be a literal interpretation that covers all mankind, including Mary. This has been shown to be a false understanding because we all agree that infants can’t sin and neither can the severely retarded. We also know that there are examples of people called righteous in both the old and new testametnt. Therefore, it is far from definitive that Paul meant that literally every human has sinned. And it is very clear that he never said that Mary had sinned. You are in fact, extrapolating his statement to say something that you can not defend: that Mary sinned.

Lets be frank as well. There would be no motivation for the Church to declare Mary as ever-virgin and ever-sinless if it wasn’t true. As you clearly believe, nothing in Christianity sotierology is dependent on these points. In fact, they are stumbling blocks for many, including yourself. The reason the Church teaches these things, is that it believes them to be true based on 2000 year old word of mouth traditions, supported in part but never denied in scripture. When you deny them, you are simply putting your reading of scripture above the authority of the church. Why would you do that?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I still disagree. While we both agree that “all” can admit of exceptions, we still don’t know that it does. It is possible that Paul really did mean “all without exception.” But it is also possible that he meant “all without distinction,” as in “both Jews and Gentiles,” which is to say, “all of humanity in general.” We can argue for plausible exceptions such as infants and those of diminished capacity. But we also have to argue why Mary would be an exception.

Catholic apologists generally seem to be content to argue that, “if infants are excepted, then so is Mary.” But that’s a huge leap in logic. Yes, I suppose the IC gets its foot in the door if we can show why Paul may not of necessarily have included every single human being under the rubric of “all have sinned.” But the IC still can’t get through the door until more evidence is produced. So often Catholics have to argue from the most unlikely possibility to the conclusion, “You see–scripture doesn’t slam the door on that idea–it’s still a possibility.” But such arguments only show how weak the case is for a biblical defense of those doctrines.

That’s why most apologists inevitably base the doctrine on appeals to magisterial authority: “We know she’s a perpetual virgin and immaculately conceived because Rome says so.” But that’s only as convincing as is the case for Roman infallibility–which in my view–is even weaker than the case for the Marian dogmas.

Sorry, counselor. If the witness to a crime can be demonstrated to have POSSIBLY been in error regarding his or her testimony, then the element of reasonable doubt has been introduced.

In the case at hand, it has been demonstrated that “all” cannot be thought to mean literally “all”. Consequently, Romans 1:28 does not provide you with an iron-clad refutation of the Immaculate Conception.

The burden of proof is on you to PROVE that Paul meant to include even Mary in this discussion. But in fact, your own explanation of Paul’s use of “all” in the context of Jews and Gentiles merely buttresses my position. In that specific context, sure - both Jews and Gentiles were sinners. But Paul is painting with a very broad brush and there is obvious reason to believe that had he been queried about the matter more closely, he would have conceded multiple exceptions as previously explained. Once an exception is granted, then your iron-clad interpretation of Romans 1:28 as a proof-text against the Immaculate Conception fails.

Finally, less well-practiced apologists may simply appeal to Rome’s authority, but those of us who have converted from Protestantism and been around the block a few times know that more will be demanded by folks like you. Happily, clear explanations are available. After 2,000 years, you’re not coming up with anything new, my friend.

Conversely, I hope that my responses will provide you with some fresh food for thought.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are right. But one thing; you miss the entire point of the Ark of the Covenant and back to your apples to oranges scenario again. All that study or copying for nothing relevant. What was the purpose for the Ark of the Covenant in the OT? How does that remotely bring the Biblical Mary to mind?

The purpose for the Ark of the Covenant was to symbolize (God’s) Elohim’s visible throne and meeting place for and with God’s people. (Lev. 16:2, Num. 7:89; Ex. 25:22)

“And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of Elohim (God) is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and Elohim (God) himself shall be with them, and be their Elohim." Rev. 21:3

Thanks for the effort; I do recognize & appreciate your efforts unless you just copied it from somewhere, but I assume you put-forth your own effort and that is worthy of some respect in my opinion even if you did not get it right; at least you made an effort.

Heh.

Perhaps you can make some similar effort to demonstrate why each of the verses that I provided (specifically those from Luke) do NOT suggest that Mary was thought to be the New Ark of the Covenant.

And while you contemplate the task, here are a few quotes from the Early Church Fathers suggesting their understanding of Mary as the New Ark:

ECFs on Mary – Ark of the New Covenant

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

**Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-c. 270) **

Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.’" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

**Chrysippus **(399-479):

“The truly royal ark, the most precious ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos; the ark which received the treasure of all sanctification you and the ark of your sanctification; for when you shall have arisen and sealed the ark of your sanctification, then that ark will arise″

---

**Hesychius **(ca. 433):

“The ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin Theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl, then she must be the ark” ( *De S. Maria Deip. *).

John Damascene

“The apostolic band lifting the true ark of the Lord God on their shoulders, as the priests of old the typical ark, and placing thy body in the tomb, made it, as if another Jordan, the way to the true land of the gospel, the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of all the faithful, God being its Lord and architect. Thy soul did not descend to Limbo, neither did thy flesh see corruption. Thy pure and spotless body was not left in the earth, but the abode of the Queen, of God’s true Mother, was fixed in the heavenly kingdom alone” ( *Sermon 1 on the Assumption *).

“Today the sacred and living ark of the living God, who conceived her Creator Himself, takes up her abode in the temple of God, not made by hands. David, her forefather, rejoices” ( *Sermon 2 on the Assumption *).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually I came here for that reason and already on a simple and clear topic of Mary; the contradictions between Catholic teaching and Biblical record is obvious;

You keep asserting this, but you have not offered any examples that cannot be explained.

By all means, give us some examples - one per thread - and let us know when you are ready to discuss them.

We’ll be there with answers to your questions.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
So was there merit in her decision to believe?

You simply evaded the question. if she had a choice to believe or not believe and she beleived, isn’t there merit in that? What if she had not believed? Or have been vehemently opposed to becoming pregnant and potentially facing the punishement of being stoned to death? What then?

Quote:
We’re just going to have to disagree on this. To me, She clearly consents. You are blinded to this.

This is true only from your personal perspective. hence, the blindness comment.

Quote:
Not at all, She clearly consents. Whether Gabriel asked for Consent is irrelevant.

Why does htis make you roll your eyes (virtually)? You don’t have to be asked a direct question to agree or disagree with what is being told to you.

Quote:
Agreed that my analogy wasn’t perfect, They never are. But look, we’ve explained it to using scripture as well but as long as you put yourself as the arbiter of everything so there will be no resolution. You can deny the truth all you want. But in the end, Mary clealry consented to being the Mother of the Lord. She was not coerced against her will nor was she ambivalent. Do you deny this…

So if she wasn’t coerced, then she consented, right?

 

[EricFilmer]

Because you simply refuse to receive the simplicity of the text. All your arguments are constructed on and around extrabiblical sources.

If you make a claim such as that you must first define what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not, then you must prove the claim is false and not on this thread since this thread has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

Nice try; start a different thread.

Moondweller & Jenny4Him,

You both have clearly shown yourselves to be adherents of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As I have mentioned earlier, Miguel Sastre has started a new thread discussion to examine the merits of Sola Scriptura:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=515287

It is still a relatively new thread (he started it yesterday). Nevertheless, so far no one has come to assist him in addressing all the Catholic posts. Therefore, I ask that you consider participating in that thread discussion and give him your support.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because you simply refuse to receive the simplicity of the text. All your arguments are constructed on and around extrabiblical sources.I’ll up that. I’ll give you two: (1) Gabriel never asks Mary, “Will you…?” (2) Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

There you have it, my friend. Straight from the original source. Now dance around it all you want but you can’t change it just because you don’t like it. You might upload ten pages of posts but you won’t change those two simple facts. It’s not “blessed is she who consented…” (while God waited in the wings holding His breath in anticipation), but rather, “blessed {is} she who believed…what had been spoken to her.”

Gabriel is a “messenger” (angel) of God, not a liaison.

When Gabriel says, “You will conceive and bear a son…”, did Mary say, “Oh, no…not me…I want no part of this”???

No.

God did not trample on her free will, and Mary accepted the role that God had chosen her for. Having perfect foreknowledge, God KNEW in advance what her response would be, so Gabriel was able to phrase his greeting and message confidently because the outcome was already known.

 

[EricFilmer]

**
Who is the most blessed among women in all of Scripture according to God?**
“Most blessed of women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Most blessed is she of women in the tent.” ** “in the tent” = among the Jews; Mary was a Jew. ** --Judges 5:24

Judges 5:24-31{4 the rest of the story)

The verse (from the RSV) is “Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kennite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (pretty much how it is stated in your above citation). It seems that God is proclaiming that Jael is receiveing blessings from him, and, yes, a literal interpretation would be that she is receiving the most blessings among the “tent-dwelling women.”

And in context; you will understand why she has this title.

She killed Sisera by lulling him to sleep with milk and a warm blanket, and then nailed his head to the floor with a tent spike. (Judges 4:17-24, and recounted in Judges 5:24-27). But I’m not demeaning this. As far as I’m concerned, “Rock on, Jael!”

The context is a classic “How the mighty have fallen” story. Sisera was a military general in service to Jabin the king of Canaan. As such, he dared to oppose God’s Chosen People and subjected them to “cruel treatment for twenty years.” Yet despite his military might (he had “nine hundred chariots of iron”), he 1) Lost a decisive battle, 2) Ran like a coward, and 3) Died a shameful death. For a warrior to die at the hands of a woman was considered shameful in the ancient world. Consider this along with Judges 9:52-55 when Abimelech had his skull cracked by a woman dropping a stone on his head, and his dying request was for his attendent to stab him and finish him off, so “that they may not say of me, ‘A woman has killed him!’.”

In light of all this, God is saying “most blessed be Jael” because of her participation in getting rid of this threat to Israel in a profound way. But do you really think the killing of a single enemy soldier, even a general, plays a larger part in salvation history than being the mother of the Messiah?

Anyway, as much as I admire the story of Jael, God did not say that she was the most blessed of Jewish women “for all time,” as you seem to imply. For all we know, she was simply the most blessed of woman at that time.

And are you saying that because Jael is described in Scripture as “most blessed” and Mary as simply “blessed”, then that demonstrates that Jael had a greater degree of sanctity than Mary? This is dangerous ground, if your reasoning is based on this alone. After all, Jesus is described with the same “blessed” expression that was used with Mary:

“And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42).

Based on this alone, I think it is safe to say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t want us to read too much into Jael’s designation as “most blessed.”
If “most blessed” is supposed to indicate “more sanctity than someone who is simply called ‘blessed’”, then when the Holy Spirit spoke through Elizabeth he would have said, “…and most blessed is the fruit of your womb!”
But he didn’t.

 

[StTommyMore]

Eric, another thing is that Jael is also a type of Mary in light of Genesis 3:15. Sisera actually means “serpent” and she did crush the head of the serpent, pointing towards the final crushing of the Serpent’s head. As such it is a partial fulfillment of the protoevangelium, as Mary is the complete fulfillment.

 

[EricFilmer]

Eric, another thing is that Jael is also a type of Mary in light of Genesis 3:15. Sisera actually means “serpent” and she did crush the head of the serpent, pointing towards the final crushing of the Serpent’s head. As such it is a partial fulfillment of the protoevangelium, as Mary is the complete fulfillment.

Way cool! That’s what I love about CA forums, I’m always learning something new. Thanks for the additional info!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Non-Catholics,

1. Mary gave consent. “LET it be done to me…” is consent. Yes, she believed what was said to her, but it was fulfilled through her BECAUSE she consented. This is not a debate Moondweller. Gabriel did not ask. This is not contradiction. You believe so you pray. You consent to pray. Belief requires an action and action involves consent. You are wrong. I know you will keep arguing but do not waste your time. It will be okay if you accept this. We all like Truth. Is this (“consent”)even a problem for Protestants? No. It is just common sense. Admitting this Truth does not make you agree with all Marian doctrine. Do not worry.
2. Marian dogma is not contradictory to Scripture. Otherwise, there would be no Mariology.
3. “Until” is up to the specified event. Negation does not presume (post-sume rather) anything after. You at least say “unlikely”. A Virgin Birth is even more unlikely. God Himself suffering immensely is more unlikely. The Greek does not specify anything after. It does not.
4. There are many translations out there and just because mine is not the same as other, does not make mine false. I know you think I am an idiot but that is fine. So do I. It is my job to belittle myself, NOT YOURS. Different translations are not mistranslations. Your “sigh” does not help any. I would love to see your thousand denominations in the context of your idea on translations.
5. Jesus “siblings” are pretty numerous to say the least. He had none through Mary. Unless you can prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters through Mary and considering this is impossible, the Church is right. You have yet to answer my question about Jesus’ brothers and sisters were anyway.
6. Miguel, you stumped me on the “full of grace” part. That does not mean I am wrong because I cannot explain it. It means just that. I cannot explain it. The Church undoubtedly can though. You rightly said it is difficult to believe some of the Church’s stances. A difficulty should not be a doubt. My guess is you have not looked into why we believe these things and if you did, you had the pre-emptive mindset that we were wrong and continued to throw unreasonable bias in your studies.
7. Jesus’ sinlessness is not because of His Divinity. Why would God ask us to not sin if sinlessness was only an attribute of God? We are not God. Jesus’ sinlessness is due HIM resisting the temptations. We cannot separate His divinity from His humanity. That is like separating the different Persons of the Holy Trinity. If you would do that, then that would explain your problem with this, why Mother of God and stuff like that is a problem.
8. Stop saying the Church is not scriptural! There would be no Catholics if that were the case! It is both/and as defined by Tradition.
9. I actually explained the part about Mary saying Jesus is Savior. Jesus came to save His people from sin. We can all agree with that. God applied those merits to Mary at her conception. Mary needed a Savior to keep her from sin. She knew that Jesus was her Savior so she correctly called Him that in her womb. This is exactly what happened. IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE! How God did it, I have no clue but He did. Just because it does not say it explicitly means nothing. It does not say, “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and a Holy Trinity” or anything similar but we all believe it because it is implicitly implied. The Church’s stand on this is that the Immaculate Conception is implicitly implied by foreshadowing and the New Testament.
10. “All have sinned” would still include Jesus in your idea of it Miguel (do not belittle me by the way… That is my job). In another place He does say Jesus is without sin. But in “all have sinned”, he made no exceptions. All includes Jesus because He was man. Now that my refutation of your proof is there, Paul meant it to have exceptions unless you claim Jesus has sin. If that is the claim, then we can get somewhere.
11. Catholic apologists I have read have never said anything remotely similar to “infants are the exception so Mary is.” I have read more Catholic stuff than you. Even if that is the case, it is not entirely false. If infants are exceptions (which you seem to agree with), clearly Paul knew that “all” was with exception. Case closed.
12. “Your scriptural basis of doctrines are weak” is a weak argument. One would think Sola Scriptura advocates would think Scripture is strong and unquestionably right. Apparently not. If Sola Scriptura is true, why are there over thirty thousand views of Scripture? You need proof to back up your idea that our Scriptural basis is weak. Saying it is weak is hardly proof along with saying it is contradictory.
13. Moondweller, despite what you may think, YOU ARE NOT SINLESS NOR ARE YOU PERFECT NOR ARE YOU A SAINT! I looked up those verses and none of them say anything remotely close. You are a sinner. We all are. “Sinners think they are saints. Saints know they are sinners.” Humility is an awesome thing.
14. Mary is Mother of God. Maybe we can change the subject to this doctrine and then we can get somewhere because this one is easy and obvious.

 

[Church_Militant]

That is what the Catholic church teaches; that is fine - you are Catholic right? The Scripture doesn’t teach that.

Where does the Bible say anywhere that everything that we believe has to found within it? It doesn’t…

 

[Church_Militant]

One problem you have and others have to is that you are focusing on a single aspect of the OT Ark of the Covenant and transcending to the womb of a human being. If that human being correlates with every aspect of the OT ark of the Covenant, the you can have an apples to apples comparison, but not on a single aspect. I can go out on my husbands boat and claim I am on Noah’s ark; both ride on water and float, but there is no comparison.

Yours is, however, the worse nonsequitur.

There are many aspects of Marian belief…so what?

For instance, she began her intercessory role in John 2 where she actually asked Our Lord to begin His public ministry early, thus becoming the Gebirah to her Son the Messianic King.

The point of the ark is the required purity of the respective vessels. Her designation as “full of grace”, which is in fact in the New Testament is a scriptural concept that many n-Cs wrongly deny.