The Virgin Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ginger2 said:
Joey,

👍

God knows what is in our hearts. He already knows whether we will say yes or no before He asks anything of us.

But saying “no” will not change God’s plan. Do you think God was surprised that Jonah said “no” and tried to hide from Him?

God knew Mary would agree. But if she had not, He would have known that before asking, also.

So, I will take this opportunity to bring the discussion back to the original question. If Mary committed even the slightest sin, it would have no impact on the prophesy that would be fulfilled thru Christ Jesus.

Everything would have gone off just as God had planned.
Click to expand...
Ginger, you haven’t answered the question: "What if Mary had said “no”? Would God then have asked another woman? Like you said, if she had said “no” God would have known before asking Mary. And if that is so, he wouldn’t have asked her in the first place, but would’ve instead asked another woman who would say “yes”. He couldn’t force Mary to say “yes”, could he? That would violate Mary’s free will, which you believe she had. Neither did God compel Eve to succumb to the temptation of the serpent. You better try again. :rolleyes:

Good Fella
Pax vobiscum
 
Good Fella,

Maybe you should explain why you keep asking about free will. I don’t get your point.

I cannot tell you what God would or wouldn’t have done. Jonah said “no” Did God then ask someone else?

By your logic God is dependent on us. Just one human being can foil all His plans. But that is not what we are taught in the Scriptures.

If Mary had said “no” God would have accomplished His will just as He planned. We know this because there were people who did tell God “no”. (ie Jonah) and it made no difference to God’s plans.

Your hypothetical question is irrelevant because we ALL know Mary said “yes”. It’s written in Scripture.

However, we do not know that Mary was really sinless. And what I having been saying all along is that It is not important whether she sinned or not. It would have had zero effect on on Jesus.
 
Ginger2 said:
Joey,👍

God knows what is in our hearts. He already knows whether we will say yes or no before He asks anything of us.

But saying “no” will not change God’s plan. Do you think God was surprised that Jonah said “no” and tried to hide from Him?

God knew Mary would agree. But if she had not, He would have known that before asking, also.

So, I will take this opportunity to bring the discussion back to the original question. If Mary committed even the slightest sin, it would have no impact on the prophesy that would be fulfilled thru Christ Jesus.

Everything would have gone off just as God had planned.
Click to expand...
Yes God knows what is in our hearts, and no catholic would argue against that.

But what is on our hearts is not neccessarily what is own our intellect and our lips.

It was in Joseph’s heart that he loved Mary, but that did not stop his intellect from telling him to put her away, but his heart did intercede and allowed for him to make the decision to put her away SILENTLY. But this was not in God’s plan, so God sent an Angel to appear to him a dream to nudge him toward God’s plan.
 
Joey, What is it you are trying to get across to me. I seem to agree with everything you are saying. I guess you need to spell it out for me.
 
Ginger2 said:
Good Fella,

Maybe you should explain why you keep asking about free will. I don’t get your point.

I cannot tell you what God would or wouldn’t have done. Jonah said “no” Did God then ask someone else?

By your logic God is dependent on us. Just one human being can foil all His plans. But that is not what we are taught in the Scriptures.

If Mary had said “no” God would have accomplished His will just as He planned. We know this because there were people who did tell God “no”. (ie Jonah) and it made no difference to God’s plans.

Your hypothetical question is irrelevant because we ALL know Mary said “yes”. It’s written in Scripture.

However, we do not know that Mary was really sinless. And what I having been saying all along is that It is not important whether she sinned or not. It would have had zero effect on on Jesus.
Click to expand...
Your hypothetical question is irrelevant. You haven’t yet told us what God would do if Mary had said “no”, have you? You should be able to teach us, since you have presumed to be the apostolic teaching authority. Meanwhile, you fail to see the logical contradictions in your arguments which I have pointed out. That’s because you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. :rolleyes:

We know that Mary was sinless through the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Do you expect us to adhere to the theories of an independent religious free thinker who takes Scripture out of context and contradicts herself all the time? 😉

IF MARY HAD SAID NO GOD COULD NOT HAVE “ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN” UNLESS HE FOUND ANOTHER WOMB! IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN INSTEAD OF MARY. DON’T YOU SEE THE CONTRADICTION. GOD COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN WITHOUT HAVING FIRST MADE THE MISTAKE OF ASKING THE WRONG WOMAN!

Thus, the athiest would conclude, “There is no God.” God isn’t supposed to make mistakes.

The Word had to become flesh!

Foreknowledge does not necessarily predetermine as you infer. You cannot believe in free will.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Ginger2 said:
Joey, What is it you are trying to get across to me. I seem to agree with everything you are saying. I guess you need to spell it out for me.
Click to expand...
I can’t spell:o. I may not really sure myself on what I am trying to say. Let me think about it…I have a meeting to go to:mad: …they always interrupt a good theological discussion.
 
Good Fella,

I believe I have answered your questions -thoroughly.

God would have accomplished His task regardless of what Mary said. Scriptures proves that.

Jonah said “no”, yet God accomplished His mission to the Ninevites.

I don’t know how I can be more clear.

Quote Good Fella:'You should be able to teach us, since you have presumed to be the apostolic teaching authority."

You are so snotty sometimes. Ihave listened to Catholics recite a false Gen 3:15 for years. Now the Pope has corrected this falsehood over thirty years ago and still Catholic hold to it as “proof”. Why should I rely on your “apostolic traditions”? The Holy Bible has NEVER failed me.

“We know that Mary was sinless …” I know no such thing. The Bible doesn’t say it.

“IF MARY HAD SAID NO, GOD COULD NOT HAVE “ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN”” It’s blaspheme to say “God could not”. With God ALL things are possible.

“UNLESS HE FOUND ANOTHER WOMB! IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN INSTEAD OF MARY.” Why didn’t God ask someone other than Jonah? Why did Jonah warn the Ninevites after he said he wouldn’t? Because God does what He wants regardless of the human beings He CHOSES to work with.
 
Ginger2 said:
Good Fella,

I believe I have answered your questions -thoroughly.

God would have accomplished His task regardless of what Mary said. Scriptures proves that.

Jonah said “no”, yet God accomplished His mission to the Ninevites.

I don’t know how I can be more clear.

Quote Good Fella:'You should be able to teach us, since you have presumed to be the apostolic teaching authority."

You are so snotty sometimes. Ihave listened to Catholics recite a false Gen 3:15 for years. Now the Pope has corrected this falsehood over thirty years ago and still Catholic hold to it as “proof”. Why should I rely on your “apostolic traditions”? The Holy Bible has NEVER failed me.

“We know that Mary was sinless …” I know no such thing. The Bible doesn’t say it.

“IF MARY HAD SAID NO, GOD COULD NOT HAVE “ACCOMPLISHED HIS PLAN”” It’s blaspheme to say “God could not”. With God ALL things are possible.

“UNLESS HE FOUND ANOTHER WOMB! IF HE KNEW MARY WOULD SAY NO, THEN HE WOULD HAVE ASKED ANOTHER WOMAN INSTEAD OF MARY.” Why didn’t God ask someone other than Jonah? Why did Jonah warn the Ninevites after he said he wouldn’t? Because God does what He wants regardless of the human beings He CHOSES to work with.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t answered my question: What if Mary had said no? Would God have raped her?Does Jonah suggest a type of Mary who would have changed her mind? That’s the difference between Mary and Jonah. Mary didn’t have to change her mind. And please tell us what would have happened if Mary had said “no”. Write your own scriptures. I’m not the snotty one. I don’t presume to haveapostolic teaching authority as you do while you spew out heresies. You fail to see the faults in your logic because you don’t know what you’re actually saying. Admit it, you’re a diehard Calvinist who doesn’t believe in free will. And you’re intellectually dishonest by removing part of an ‘a priori’ syllogism to accomodate your bias when quoting me.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella ::cool:
 
i see the mood is still the same.:rolleyes: i wonder sometimes how mary feels about all this. “Mary pray for us”
 
**Jay,

Are you not satan’s enemy. Yet, you are a sinner.**

Ginger, yes I am Satan’s enemy and I am a (repentant) sinner.
That’s begging the question.
Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about the Redeemer and His mother, and as far as enmity toward the devil goes, it puts them on the same level. She stands out among women.
Mary was saved by grace, but in such a way that the merit of Christ’s sacrifice was applied to her soul at the moment of her conception, so that she was a New Eve.

Adam, the first Adam, was taken from uncursed ground.
Jesus, the Last Adam, was also taken from “uncursed ground,” namely, he took his flesh and blood from immaculate Mary.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
“Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about the Redeemer and His mother”

Than you reject the authority of the Church.
 
Jaypeeto4, said “Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about the Redeemer and His mother, and as far as enmity toward the devil goes, it puts them on the same level.”

You base your understanding about Genesis 3:15 on a faulty translation. Mary is not on the same level as Jesus. That why I object to the Catholic teaching on Mary
 
You may find this interesting, Ginger. It looks as though the translation of ‘she’ is just as correct as ‘he’ if one considers the grammar of the original language used. Please see below where I have bolded.

The second sentence begins with a personal pronoun. The word may refer either to the “woman”, or may refer to the offspring or seed of the woman. Thus the beginning of the second part of Genesis 3:15 is translated primarily in two ways. Both the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims translations convey this passage as “she will crush your head, while you strike at his heel “… whereas the King James version, the Revised Standard Version, and the NIV read “he will crush your head…” Both are correct!

Gary Rendsburg in Biblica concludes that **one of the characteristics of the ancient Hebrew text of the Pentateuch was the same inscription for a third personal singular pronoun, irrespective of gender, known as an epicene HW’.10 An epicene personal pronoun is one which has but one form to indicate either male or female sex. In other words, the same word
הוא
was used for both “he” and “she.”1 This explains why both translations, one referring to a woman, the other to a man, are correct. **

Genesis 3:15 has a prophetic nature to it, for there is a promise in the future of redemption, that someone will crush the head of the serpent. God’s judgement upon the serpent contains a promise of ultimate victory by the woman through her offspring. This concept will be developed in a spiritual sense throughout Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.
 
So, Gary Rendsburg has more authority than The Pope. Interesting.

Gary Rendsburg is incorrect. According to the Hebrew Masoretic text (which is the original language of the OT) the one who will crush the serpents head is in the masculine not feminine. I’ve checked with Jewish scholars who say the word there is singular/masculine. “He will crush”

This is in harmony with the NT:

In Rom.16:20: “The God of peace will crush Satan.”

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;** that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; **
 
Interesting enough here is the modern Hebrew version:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.’

and one KJV uses it

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,

which by the way conflicts the rest of the verse.

and thou shalt bruise his heel.
 
Of course the Douay-Rheims translation is translated the same as the Latin Vulgate. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

She/He it does make a difference. And that is why the Pope felt so strongly about writing a revision to correct the errors.

Unfortunately, it will have to be revised again as the error in Luke remains.

And why does all this matter? It matters because people draw false conclusions from the errors. If you base your beliefs on what the writers of Scripture really wrote, you would not think Mary has any part in destroying satan. Nor would you think of her as "co-redeemer, mediatrix. sinless.
 
Ginger,
I hope you don’t misunderstand me.
My interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is NOT at ALL
based on the old Douay rendering of SHE shall crush the serpent’s head !!
(( Of course, all Christians trample on Satan in our own way,
the bible says that God will crush Satan under your (our)
feet shortly )). I don’t have a concordance and I don’t remember where this verse is (( help, anyone? )).

What I am saying is that Genesis 3:15 is
a prophecy about the Redeemer (Jesus) and the Woman
who is his mother. God says in that prophecy that he will put enmity between the Woman and the Serpent AND BETWEEN
Her Seed and Your (the serpent’s) offspring.

Now, there have been plenty of Godly women down through the ages who have to the best of their ability with the help of grace, been spiritual enemies of the Devil. Look at the good women of the Old Testament: Sarah, Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, Hannah the mother of Samuel, Esther, Jael, etc., etc., etc.

The Woman being prophesied in Genesis 3:15 is no ordinary
good, god-fearing Woman. She is special. Of her, God uniquely prophesies in that verse that HE will PUT ENMITY between her and the serpent and between her Seed and the Serpent’s seed.
The Woman is the Mother of the Redeemer, Mary.
Her seed (conceived without a man) is obviously Jesus Christ,
who crushed the head of the Serpent by his life, DEATH, Resurrection, and ascension into heaven, but especially by his death, though he lives forevermore as our Melchizedekian High Priest to make perpetual intercession for us and perpetual living offering of his glorified body and blood in the heavenly Holy of Holies, which is the reality typified by the OT Temple, but I’m rambling now.

The point is, the Redeemer’s mother is prophesied in Genesis 3:15. The pope has NEVER said that this protoevangelium has no reference to Mary. He said that the one who himself crushes the head of the serpent is the SEED Himself, Jesus, not “she shall crush the head,” as some older translations, specifically the Douay, used to read. Although, in union with Christ, we all have a share in the crushing defeat of Satan, trampling him under our feet.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
apophasis said:
Actually Jesus is “building” (present tense) His church (Matt. 16:18). It is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20). All true believers (the redeemed) are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ which is the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24). And, yes, there is only one church, one body, but from the beginning they who make up this one church/body met in many different, local churches. Paul even addressed letter to them.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the different local Churches (the one I belong to is the Diocese of Calgary, or as St. Paul would have called it, the Church at Calgary) are united in doctrine and discipline with the Apostles and their successors - that is, the Church at Rome. 🙂

They were in St. Paul’s time, too - otherwise, St. Paul would have had neither the authority nor the inclination to write to them with instructions from the Apostles. (Can you imagine Cardinal Arinze, who holds the position that was held by St. Paul in his day, writing to the Baptists to explain to them how to celebrate Holy Communion more reverently? The Baptists would no doubt take one look at the postmark, laugh, and throw the letter away. But he certainly writes to the Church at Calgary, on a very regular basis, and in much the same style as his predecessor, St. Paul. 🙂 )

Those ecclesial organizations that are separated from their local Churches, and consequently are not united in doctrine and discipline with Rome, cannot be considered “churches” in the proper sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top