This question is for Protestants only. What do you have against Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brony4life
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That Mary was unique doesn’t make her any less a woman, and a married woman at that. Cat Herder argued that for Joseph to have coupled with his lawfully wedded wife would have been a “defilement” akin to touching the Ark of the Covenant. I’m just asking if the act of sex is in and of itself a defiling act, even in the context of marriage, because that’s how it is apparentely being presented here, though Paul says in 1 Cor 7 that those who marry do not sin in marrying. Unless “defilement” is something other than sin, like feeding the dog off the good china – it’s not wrong, but it just feels wrong somehow, like you’re using something special for a mundane purpose. If that’s all that’s being said, never mind.
 
That Mary was unique doesn’t make her any less a woman, and a married woman at that. Cat Herder argued that for Joseph to have coupled with his lawfully wedded wife would have been a “defilement” akin to touching the Ark of the Covenant. I’m just asking if the act of sex is in and of itself a defiling act, even in the context of marriage, because that’s how it is apparentely being presented here, though Paul says in 1 Cor 7 that those who marry do not sin in marrying. Unless “defilement” is something other than sin, like feeding the dog off the good china – it’s not wrong, but it just feels wrong somehow, like you’re using something special for a mundane purpose. If that’s all that’s being said, never mind.
You’re twisting the context of Cat’s statement. No other wife out there has ever been the Mother of God.
 
You’re twisting the context of Cat’s statement. No other wife out there has ever been the Mother of God.
Apparently there’s some unspoken rule that says it’s okay for a man to have sex with his wife unless she’s the Mother of God?
 
Apparently there’s some unspoken rule that says it’s okay for a man to have sex with his wife unless she’s the Mother of God?
This issue has been explained to you repeatedly. If you don’t like the answer, I can’t do anything about it, but 2+2 will always equal 4, no matter how much you may not want it to.
 
If I may, the Bible says in Romans chapter 3 verse 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only person to ever live without sin according to Scripture is Jesus Christ. So as you can see, to the Protestant, the idea that Mary was sinless is simply unscriptural.
“For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

All humans from all times? Our protestants brothers don’t believe saints in heaven hear our prayers, but they believe a man (St. Paul) knew the heart of every person that had lived until the moment he wrote that passage, as well as the hearts of all the human beings who were to be born after that moment until the end of the world.

Let’s analyze the word ALL used by Paul in this passage. Is he literally referring to ALL human beings of all times? Paul is not God, so he doesn’t know each man & woman’s heart, does he? Could Paul really know every person’s heart of all times? Do you believe he did? If so, can you prove it?

When the word ALL appears in the Bible in reference to people, does it mean every human being? We can answer this question when we look at Romans 1:7 where we find the word ALL used there too:

“To ALL that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

It is believed that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the year 58 AD. Is his letter addressed to ALL the human beings living in Rome at the time? No, of course not. He addressed it to ALL Romans who were Christians. This cannot be denied, Paul is very specific for he sends his letter to those “beloved of God, called to be saints”. Christians were a minority in Rome, the majority were pagans. In the year 58 Nero was the Emperor and it cannot be denied that Paul’s letter was not addressed to him, so Nero is not part of “ALL that be in Rome” even though he was there, he is clearly AN EXCEPTION. So there are exceptions when using ALL in the Bible, “ALL that be in Rome” does not include Nero. With this I’m trying to establish that ALL cannot be taken literally every instance you see it.

Now let’s look at Romans 3:23. It can be argued that Paul is saying that “ALL those living in Rome have sinned.” He is talking to them, he addresses his letter to them, ALL of them are the new Christians in Rome, they used to be pagans, “ALL [of them] have sinned” makes sense. Is the sentence all inclusive? No, it cannot be all inclusive. Children who died before reaching the age of reason never sinned. Those born retarded, same thing, they never sin. So you see, there are millions of exceptions, millions of human beings who never committed a sin in their lifetimes.

ALL Judea and ALL the people from the city of Jerusalem went out to John to confess their sins and be baptized by him in the river Jordan.” (Mark 1:5)

ALL the people? ALL of them? Did the Sanhedrin (Annas, Caiaphas & the rest) go out to John, confessed their sins and were baptized by him? Did the Roman soldiers stationed in Judea and Jerusalem, including Pontius Pilate, go out to John and confessed their sins and were baptized too? Do you think they did? Of course not. So you see, ALL does not mean “all” each and every time it’s used in the Bible. Paul didn’t write his letter to Nero, Caiaphas didn’t go to John to be baptized, yet Paul said “to ALL that be in Rome” and Mark said “ALL the people from the city of Jerusalem went out to John”. Clearly there are exceptions. Romans 3:23 also has exceptions: the Blessed Virgin Mary is one.

You know Mary is sinless by the Grace of God. He decided to protect Her from the devil. You also know, as Luke tells us, that “With God nothing is impossible.” (Luke 1:37)
 
Now let’s look at Romans 3:23. It can be argued that Paul is saying that “ALL those living in Rome have sinned.” He is talking to them, he addresses his letter to them, ALL of them are the new Christians in Rome, they used to be pagans, “ALL [of them] have sinned” makes sense.
You’re joking, of course.

Rom 3:19 – Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

At best you could say that “all the world” means “all the Jews”, since Paul is talking about “them who are under the law.” But Mary’s a Jew, so she wouldn’t naturally escape from the clause – although neither would Jesus, so certainly exceptions can exist.
Is the sentence all inclusive? No, it cannot be all inclusive. Children who died before reaching the age of reason never sinned. Those born retarded, same thing, they never sin. So you see, there are millions of exceptions, millions of human beings who never committed a sin in their lifetimes.
According to the doctrine of Original Sin, though, all human beings conceived in the natural way carry within them the disorder of their persons – they essentially sin against God in that they are not what they ought to be. Moreover, the Original Sin of Adam and Eve is a demonstration of imputed guilt in that a perfect, sinless man and woman sinned against God in a perfect world with only one temptation, thus putting all of humanity under condemnation in that they demonstrated what you, I, or any other naturally perfect human would do in such a situation – i.e., in Adam and Eve it is demonstrated that any man or woman who is naturally perfect would rebel against God given the chance, so even those who have not yet had the chance are guilty on that account. (This, too, is one reason I do not believe in the Virgin Mary’s sinlessness – Jesus’ sinlessness I can believe because his humanity was hypostatically united to the Godhead, but Mary’s humanity, even if naturally perfect in every way, could not have withstood the assault of temptation any more than Eve’s did. And if Mary could succeed where Eve failed, why didn’t God make Mary Adam’s bride in Eden and save us the trouble of falling and needing redemption? Mary’s succeeding where Eve failed would imply that God in fact wanted Eve – and in her, all of us – to fall.)
 
Well, batman could contact the moderator.

Instead, batman has chosen to participate numerous times since alerting everyone that this thread was “a set up.”
 
This sort of goes back to one of my original questions. If the following three things are true:
  1. God hates sin.
  2. Original Sin provokes people to actual sin.
  3. God can prevent a sexually-conceived person from inheriting Original Sin.
Isn’t it fitting that God would prevent all of mankind, not just Mary, from inheriting Original Sin?
God acts according to His purpose and His plan. God hates evil, and yet He allows it. God hates division in the Church, and yet He allows it.
 
If I may, the Bible says in Romans chapter 3 verse 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only person to ever live without sin according to Scripture is Jesus Christ. So as you can see, to the Protestant, the idea that Mary was sinless is simply unscriptural.
batman, which is it: ALL have sinned means a literal ALL…

OR

ALL have sinned means there are exceptions. (Like…Jesus.)

One answer means that you can’t argue with a Muslim that Jesus was without sin–because he will (rightly) point out Romans 3:23 and tell you, “See, even your Scriptures tell you that Jesus was a sinner!”

OR

The other answer allows for exceptions, which means that Mary is also not necessarily included in that figurative “ALL”. Which makes sense, of course.

Unless you are going to proclaim that sweet little 3 year old girls have sinned. (3 year old little boys? Well…I’m quite sure they are quite capable of dastardly sins. 😃 )

And that those with Down syndrome have sinned.

And those with cognitive disabilities have sinned…
 
On a final note, this thread should really be closed. All we have are people wresting the scriptures and just trying to pick fights that don’t need to be. The question has been answered. Protestants don’t have a problem with Mary. The OP Hasn’t even responded lately so I’m guessing that in his or her mind, the question has been answered.
batman, picture all of us sitting on someone’s patio, enjoying a cocktail and eating something deliciously unhealthy for you, discussing religion. (That’s why I have the icon of a patio on my Profile Pic–it serves as a reminder of how we’re interacting).

The original question in discussions like these, with friends, always segues into more interesting tributaries. Sometimes the host/OP leaves,( in order to tend to our steaks :)) and never returns to the discussion.

No matter. We’re all still sitting around the patio, discussing religion and faith.

And it’s all good! It’s all fascinating! 👍

There’s nothing wrong, at all, with a good discourse between folks who disagree.
 
This sort of goes back to one of my original questions. If the following three things are true:
  1. God hates sin.
  2. Original Sin provokes people to actual sin.
  3. God can prevent a sexually-conceived person from inheriting Original Sin.
Isn’t it fitting that God would prevent all of mankind, not just Mary, from inheriting Original Sin?
What stewstew said. ^^

🙂
 
God acts according to His purpose and His plan. God hates evil, and yet He allows it. God hates division in the Church, and yet He allows it.
Not really answering the question. Since God created a world in which humans have free will, allowing human beings to exercise their free will and sin makes is fitting – otherwise, why have free will at all? But Original Sin isn’t chosen but inherited – here we’re talking about God preserving human beings from inheriting a condition that prompts them from within to sin. If God could and did do this for Mary, He could do it for all of humankind. Yet He hasn’t done so, and that doesn’t seem very fitting for a God who claims to hate sin. If God is no respector of persons – i.e., please don’t give me that “Wouldn’t you do that for your mother?” nonsense – why did He preserve Mary from Original Sin and not all of humankind? Why doesn’t all of humankind start with the blank slate that Mary received?
 
I first came into Christianity as a Southern Baptist and am most familiar with their doctrines, so how about taking that for example? In what ways has disbelief in Catholic doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary diminished the Southern Baptists’ understanding of Christ?
Wow.

I visited the Southern Baptist Convention website. This is what they say about Jesus:

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.

Now, compare that to what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Jesus: (sorry–I will have to post the link, as posting the voluminous teachings would crash this site!)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2.htm

So I’d say the Southern Baptist teaching on Jesus is greatly diminshed.

Now, to be fair, is it diminished only because they have divorced themselves from the CC’s teachings on Mary? No.

But there is indeed a correlation.

Which reinforces my point: an impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.
 
I visited the Southern Baptist Convention website. This is what they say about Jesus:

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.

Now, compare that to what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Jesus: (sorry–I will have to post the link, as posting the voluminous teachings would crash this site!)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2.htm

So I’d say the Southern Baptist teaching on Jesus is greatly diminshed.
A “Basic Beliefs” page isn’t supposed to be a catechism.
 
Not really answering the question. Since God created a world in which humans have free will, allowing human beings to exercise their free will and sin makes is fitting – otherwise, why have free will at all? But Original Sin isn’t chosen but inherited – here we’re talking about God preserving human beings from inheriting a condition that prompts them from within to sin. If God could and did do this for Mary, He could do it for all of humankind. Yet He hasn’t done so, and that doesn’t seem very fitting for a God who claims to hate sin. If God is no respector of persons – i.e., please don’t give me that “Wouldn’t you do that for your mother?” nonsense – why did He preserve Mary from Original Sin and not all of humankind? Why doesn’t all of humankind start with the blank slate that Mary received?
So God could provide for us so great a Redeemer.
 
Not really answering the question. Since God created a world in which humans have free will, allowing human beings to exercise their free will and sin makes is fitting – otherwise, why have free will at all? But Original Sin isn’t chosen but inherited – here we’re talking about God preserving human beings from inheriting a condition that prompts them from within to sin. If God could and did do this for Mary, He could do it for all of humankind. Yet He hasn’t done so, and that doesn’t seem very fitting for a God who claims to hate sin. If God is no respector of persons – i.e., please don’t give me that “Wouldn’t you do that for your mother?” nonsense – why did He preserve Mary from Original Sin and not all of humankind? Why doesn’t all of humankind start with the blank slate that Mary received?
Why do cucumbers taste better as pickles?
The Lord works in mysterious ways…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top