B
brb3
Guest
Just gave them to ya …both from sacred scripture …words of Mary & that commandment of Christ.
Thistle… ur the best, I love ya brother !!
- Status
Thistle… ur the best, I love ya brother !!
B
brumano
Guest
Sometimes we can understand something from what is not written in the scriptures, Mary’s baptism would very likely have been noted, it would have been important, so the most likely reason that we do not read of it in the gospels is that it did not happen. Another example, that we “learn something from” is the abscence of Mary from the first Eucharist. None of this isolates or removes Mary at all from any of these awesome events but it…articulates her personage, her place, her role. It magnifies her; The Father, Son and Holy Spirit magnify her as she magnifies this One God.
So my source is the New Testament and as we all know we believe in Sacred Doctrine as well as Scripture, and everything that follows from the Sacred Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception tells us that she would not have been baptized.
M
MilesVitae
Guest
I’m not sure this is a good argument. After all, Mary’s assumption is not recorded in the Scriptures. Nor is her perpetual virginity explicitly mentioned.
T
thistle
Guest
Scripture does not say Mary was baptised and you are using your own private interpretation of scripture to support your claim. The Church does not say she was baptised. That would have been an important event that would have been recounted in the Gospels.
P
PJM
Guest
No
She alone had no need to be bapiized.
She was the “Ark and Tabernacle” of “the One God; Faith and Church”
She alone was "perfect[ed] by her Son’s merits before her birth [born W/O any sin] and then through GRACE maintained as was absolutely necessary “for the Mother of a perfect God”; this state of perfict live and unified will with God her entire life. Amen:thumbsup:
Because God is and must remain ALWAYS perfect Mary HAD TO BE both perfected and remain perfect in order to be the Mother of our God.
B
brb3
Guest
Yes, Sacred Scripture does indeed address this matter. Here is your answer, now be believing … that ALL were, even Mary !!
Luke 3:21 Now when ALL THE PEOPLE WERE BAPTIZED, and when Jesus
ALSO had been baptized…
T
thistle
Guest
Your own private interpretation again!
Show us the Church teaching which states Mary was baptised.
B
brb3
Guest
So, u pick or ignore words in scripture …when it suits your prejudices ? ALL means everyone, unless u propose that Mary was not part of the group of believers who followed John the Baptizer ?
To propose such would be VERY PROBLEMATIC for you …and ALL your beliefs would become suspect .
T
thistle
Guest
I believe everything the Church teaches and what the Church teaches trumps any of your private interpretations.
O
Orogeny
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
Forget not, our Church gave us Sacred Scripture…and it will never teach against it !!!
Now, put yourself back in days of Mary. If you had been her …having spoken the words that caused The Baptist to leap in Liz’s womb…and hearing him call ALL to receive Baptism …to prepare the way for Christ …would u of told the others "All doesn’t include me, I’m Already Fully Graced …and don’t / won’t receive it …even knowing that Christ as the God-man sought out John to receive it ???
We both know Mary would of desired it MORE THAN ALL THE REST …to please Her Son and Saviour!! …and to set right example for all the others!!
T
thistle
Guest
Still trying to impose your private interpretations. Show me the Church teaching that states Mary was baptised. I have the CCC which contains the Church teachings so please refer me to the teaching.
D
dshix
Guest
Thistle keeps telling you that you are making private interpretations, and you seem to be either ignoring, or just not understanding Thistle.
You are correct. However, parts of scripture are literal, others are symbolic, and yet others are impossible for an individual to interpret.
This statement has zero foundation in scripture. I do not object, this could have indeed happened, and Mary could have done all these things, but it is neither mentioned in the bible nor stated by the Church, so you may not teach this.
First, Mary getting baptized wouldn’t have any real use, besides setting an example, as she was already free from sin. True, she may have done so, but once again you are speaking as if you were Mary or someone around her, and actually know what she or they were thinking. You MUST not jump to conclusions or make assumptions that are not stated as Church teaching, if you wish to remain credible.
Once again, I’m not saying Mary WAS NOT baptised, but rather that she didn’t need to be.
B
brb3
Guest
Refer us to the CCC# …were we are taught Mary refused the Baptism of John …or from Christ’s disciples …tradition teaching that Mary was w/o need or desire to follow Christ’s example !!
D
dshix
Guest
No, you are the person who needs to prove something here, Thistle is refuting you. Don’t flip things around.
You have proven nothing so far, so no one needs to provide evidence to refute your non-proof.
For the conversation to proceed, you must provide evidence for your claims.
O
Orogeny
Guest
The Church does not teach that Mary refused baptism or wasn’t baptized. No one is arguing that because we simply don’t know if she was or not. But you are claiming that it is definitive Church teaching that she was baptized, so it is up to you to support your claim.
Peace
Tim
B
brb3
Guest
No, I don’t claim what u say.
I’m saying Sacred Scripture, faith & reason tell us she was !!
D
dshix
Guest
Do you really want to have a conversation, or what?
O
Orogeny
Guest
The reason is your own and not the Church’s. That is what people are disagreeing with you about
Peace
Tim
B
brb3
Guest
It would appear the Church has not addressed Mary’s Baptism …in a formal way.
Thus, Catholics can believe as they wish. So, based upon Sacred Scripture, faith & reason …I believe either John, the Apostles, or Christ … submerged her in the Jordan …at her desire / request !!!
- Status