What do you think scripture says about Mary?

[MaggieOH]

Fidelis:

Let’s look at the actual Scripture verse, Romans 3:23:

**For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. **

Taken in the absolute sense, is this really saying **all ** have sinned, that is, have commited actual sin? What about newborn babes? What about the extremely mentally deficient? For that matter, what about Jesus?

It is clear that this is not meant to be an all inclusive statement, but meant only to speak to the state of men generally. It assumes exceptions, and all that Catholics are saying is that Mary was an exception.

Now *how and why * this was accomplished is another story and has been addressed by other posters, but the point is that the verse from Romans does not apply. Get your interlocuter to admit this and you’ve knocked some of the wind out of his or her argument.

Fidelis,

you make excellent points, especially about the context of the verse in question. My Jerusalem Bible translation puts a different slant on this particular verse:

**Both Jew and pagan sinned and forfeited God’s glory, and both are justified through the free gift of his grace by being redeemed in Christ Jesus…

**Normally, when I am looking at this same verse in order to answer yet another one who does not know how to read Scripture, I prefer to look at the whole of the context, that is what comes before the contested verse and afterwards to try and see precisely what Paul was addressing. When I do this I find that the context does not reflect the universal “all” that is favoured by Calvinist/Fundamentalist/Evangelical/Baptist/Protestant interpretation of this verse.

The context of the verse is such that Paul is reflecting upon the behaviour of both Jews and Greeks in his audience but he is not making this a universal statement.

I will take note of your comments.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

Dj Roy Albert:

Second, it should be common sense to believe that Mary was sinless because God would not allow His Son to come into this world through an unclean vessel. If God loathes sin, then why would He spend 9 months in the womb of a sinful person? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Dj, Does the Holy Spirit live and dwell in you?. Are you not the temple of the living God. Are you a sinner Dj? How can Jesus live in you then? God Bless

Spokenword,

you ask a good question, but I think that you miss the point that there is a difference between our perceived idea that the Holy Spirit dwells within, and the fact that Jesus, that is God, actually physically dwelt in Mary’s womb.

The difference as I see it, is that there is a comparison between what is Spirit, and what is Flesh. In the case of Mary, it was both Spirit and Flesh who dwelt with Her womb.

God Bless,

Maggie

 

[Malachi4U]

Lisa4Catholics:

Thankyou Malichi4U,thankyou for that post.I started this thread in defense of Our Blessed Mother and comments on another post that were negative,I wanted the posters to show the beauty and special gift God was giving us in her.Sadly,again she has been marginalised and insulted,which is an insult to God although I really don’t think the poster realises it.We all need to pray for these posters because surely they don’t know what they say about Mary, and about the nature of God himself.God Bless

Gods peace be with you theophilus Lisa,

Call me what you want, I don’t care. I was called some really neat things in the Marines and I can handle a few adjectives hurled at me. But drag the name of the mother of my God through the mud and I get a bit peeved. She is alive and with God. It is our job to protect her good name here on earth. Some hate the Catholic Church so much they don’t care whom they hurt as long as it insults His Church. How can you honor Blessed Mary and then say such un-Christian-like things about her just to insult Her Sons Church?

What kind of hatred is it that would lead one to hate what they think is the Catholic Church so bad that they could defile one as good as Blessed Mary to express their missguided hatered?

I can think of no human role model in all of history I would rather follow then that of Blessed Mary. How many non-Catholics put posters of their favorite football player or basketball player or pop singer on the wall? How many government offices have a picture of the president hanging up? How many workplaces have pictures of boardmembers or CEO’s or retired people? But ask some here to put up a reminder of a pure and inocent role model for all generations on their wall and they call it idolitry? They call it wrong and Romanish! If they could only have the ‘scales’ lifted from their eyes to ‘see’ what they say? Pray to Blessed Mary to forgive them. I will.

They can hang their Elvis or Shaq or Michael Jackson picture on their wall for their family as a role model and I’ll put a statue of Blessed Mary in my garden as my role model.

Blessed Mary did nothing to deserve the hatred or illtreatment she has gotten here but to say “YES” when ask to be the vessal of our salvation. The only words I can think of now are “SHAME ON THEM!”

A prisoner of the Love Blessed Mary had for her God and mine,

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

God found favor in Mary because He chose her. She was a vessel that said yes to God… God Bless

Spokenword,

do you want to consider what you have written her by looking at the Scripture?

You have not answered the question about Mary finding favour with God. How did she find favour with God?

Also in older translations (where the meaning has not been altered) how do you get around the angel’s address: “Hail full of grace”? This is the most appropriate translation of the angel’s greeting because it expresses the favours that God has bestowed upon the Woman who was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah.

Are you sure that it is just a case of being a vessel? Come home Spokenword.

Maggie

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Malachi4U:

Gods peace be with you theophilus Lisa,

Call me what you want, I don’t care. I was called some really neat things in the Marines and I can handle a few adjectives hurled at me. But drag the name of the mother of my God through the mud and I get a bit peeved. She is alive and with God. It is our job to protect her good name here on earth. Some hate the Catholic Church so much they don’t care whom they hurt as long as it insults His Church. How can you honor Blessed Mary and then say such un-Christianlike things about her just to insult Her Sons Church?

A prisoner of the Love Blessed Mary had for her God and mine,

AMEN! I will always defend her too.And ask the Lord to forgive such hatefulness towards His mom:crying: God Himself exalted her,no human can change that.God Bless

 

[MaggieOH]

Jamie Burns:

Whenever we read about, or hear a homily about the Anunciation, it is always emphasized that Mary had a choice…and she said YES.

“Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.” Lk 1:38a,

The thing is, God kind of “cheated”. He made a woman with no sin, and no sinful nature. How else would such a creature answer?

And those of us in the world, the more we too depart from sin, by discipline and frequent recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, the more we too can conform to God’s will. And His will will be done here on earth, just like in Heaven. And the Kingdom comes even closer.

God did not cheat on this issue. Eve was also made sinless and full of grace, but Eve chose to disobey a command from God. Mary was given the grace to help her to be close to God, and she needed that grace so that she will fulfill the Scripture: “There will be enmity between the Woman and Satan” (paraphrased)
Since we are all inclined towards giving into temptation, the one chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah had to be one who had not given into temptation, otherwise she would be a friend of Satan and Scripture would not be fulfilled. By God’s Grace Mary was able to be obedient to God’s Will and of her own free will she said yes to the bearing of the Messiah.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

If Mary is Gods Mother who is Gods Father? God Bless

Guess

 

[MaggieOH]

YuRa:

No my brother, you apparently do not understand original sin. Original sin is imputed on all men, like Christ righteousness on all believers. Meaning Mary committing original sin meant that she is guilty of breaking the whole law. Meaning she needed a Savior who would impute His righteousness on her.

This poster is so very confused when it comes to understanding sin. I wonder who has been his teacher, because that teacher/preacher should be shot for the propagation of so many errors with regard to Scripture.

What am I getting at? The comment that original sin meant the breaking of the whole law. Of all the comments that had been made up until this post, I had seen most of them from other people, this one takes the cake for ignorance of Christian truth, as well as ignorance of both the Gospels and the epistles, especially those of Paul, and Romans in particular.

The Law did not exist before Moses. Up until that time man only knew the law of God through the heart. Paul did not confuse his explanation of Original Sin with the Law, and he never taught that Original Sin meant breaking the Law. In fact Paul wrote the following:

“For instance pagans who never heard of the Law but are led by reason to do what the Law commands, may not actually possess the Law but they can be said to be the Law. They acn point to the substance of the Law engraved on their hearts - they can call a witness that is their own conscience - they have accusation and defence, that is their own inner mental dialogue.” (Romans 2:14-15)

The only way Christ’s righteousness can be imputed on a human being is through faith. You can not faith as a child (do not bring up the kids that Christ talks about in His ministry it would be totally out of context. ) Your argument fails at the most crucial stop.

So the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mean nothing? Does that mean that Moses also did not have faith?
Righteousness is not imputed on a human being through faith. God gives us the grace to have faith and to learn how to express that faith. Mary had faith too. She believed in the prophets and the promise of the Messiah. Her fiat is the highest expression of that faith, because Mary understood what being the Messiah meant.

YuRa:

Mary was a mere woman used as an instrument to bring the Savior into the world. That’s why the Bible talks so little of her, because she is irrelevant in the process of which a man is saved. Catholics have just been taught this since they were infants so they agree with it even when the Scriptures go against it.

Amazing really. Mary is a “mere woman”, an “instrument”. I wonder why it is that so many quote from people who do not have a clue about the Christian faith when they belittle not only Mary but also Jesus?

What is the purpose of the Gospels? In fact what is the purpose of the Scripture? Is that purpose to give an historical account of everything that happened in the world up until the death of the last Apostle (and the Scripture is not even complete on that score)? Or is the purpose of the Scripture to outline Salvation history?

The first mention of what was to happen is in the Protoevangelium as it has already been pointed out. From the beginning, when Adam and Eve were being cast out of the Garden of Eden, God had already proclaimed that a Messiah would come to overturn the sin of Adam and Eve. Jesus is the Second Adam, and Mary is the Second Eve. It was Eve who disobeyed God first, and it was Mary (the Woman mentioned in Genesis 3:14-15) who overturned that disobedience of Eve, through her own obedience to the will of God. That is hardly something that can be seen as irrelevant!!!

In the Gospels, it is mentioned that Simeon the prophet said to Mary “and a sword will pierce your soul too”.

Mary did not die on the Cross, but she suffered silently with Her Son. She was there at the foot of the Cross.

The Gospel message is the message of the Good News that the Kingdom of God has arrived. It is not meant to be an exact historical account of all that happened. The focus of the four evangelists is quite naturally upon the Messiah. We are given a necessary glimpse of the Nativity so that we can see that Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled.

The last words of Mary in the Gospels is: “Do everything He tells you”. Her words, her actions always point to Her Son.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Church Militant:

Isn’t this off topic?

Michael, I agree it is off topic. This is yet another attempt to hijack our threads.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Solo Christo:

I am glad you needed to get you view out; I would like to do the same thing.

Mary was a mere women; believing anything else is idolatry therefore sin. Christ did it all; He gets all the glory. All she gets in a seat in Heaven like me and you, because she had faith just like me and you.

Scripture says about Mary: “All generations shall call me blessed”

Does that sound like Mary is to be relegated to being a non-person, or does it mean that Mary is to be given the honour due to the Mother of the King of kings?

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Solo Christo:

I believe your idea of God is sad. Why would God need to take Mary to Heaven in a chariot? Does God somehow owe Mary a favor for bearing His Son? God is not obligated to any man. Mary was a mortal like me and you; she died and for all we know was buried. She could have been taken in a chariot, but I do not see why God would do that and not have some apostle write about it. It makes no logical sense, and nothing in Scripture suggests it. So please stop passing it off as fact. The only way such a teaching could have started was because some man idolized Mary and started the rumor which developed to tradition.

Then you expect too much from Scripture. This is one of the many errors of Fundamentalists who do not know Scripture in the whole of its context, but only the bits that seem to fit their particular slanted ideology.

Also, you are wrong to say that no Apostle wrote about this very fact because it is written in the Book of Revelation. However, if you are one who has posted under another name then I suspect you will respond by saying that the Book of Revelation is confusing etc.

 

[MaggieOH]

Solo Christo:

Mary is dead. Just like every other man from long ago. The only role she will play when Christ comes again is the same one every other man will play. She will be lifted into Heaven to meet the Lord. Just like every other person that died in the faith.

Not Chrito i Maria

but its solo Christo = Soli Deo Gloria!

Do you believe in the Resurrection? Do you believe in the Resurrection of the dead? Do you believe in Eternal Life? Do you believe that when you die you will go before God for your first judgement before the final judgement?

Mary, the human creature passed from this world in the flesh by falling asleep. We celebrate this as her dormition. However, God who granted Mary so many favours of grace during her life on earth, also granted Mary the right to her final resurrection - the reuniting of her body and soul. Mary did not get to heaven under her own steam. She was assumed, that is taken up into heaven by the angels. She is there in both body and soul, and this is how I read the Book of Revelation 12:1

 

[BibleReader]

Is Lisa4Catholics my friend Lisa over in Bible Study for Catholics?

In any event…

**1)How can you say Mary was sinless when scripture says all have sinned?
**
Simple: We have to be careful about the details of the implications of translations into our native languages.

Does the original Greek in Romans (Romans 3:8, “For all have sinned…”) mean that all have committed Actual Sins (which would not be true of immaculately-conceived Mary) or does it mean that all are “in sin,” meaning “afflicted with the problem of sinfulness in some way, shape or form, so that they need to benefit from the grace won by Christ’s atoning sacrifice,” which IS true of Mary in the limited sense that the Church teaches that Mary was preserved by the grace won on the cross from that state of alienation from God which we call “Original Sin.”

By the way, we can see Mary’s Immaculate Conception referred to typologically in Ezekiel 17, in the Parable of the Two Eagles. When the first eagle grasps the “uppermost branch of the cedar tree” and plants it in a “seed bed” and it grows up to become a mighty vine, the eagle is the Holy Spirit, the cedar branch-turning-into-a-vine is Jesus, and the fertile “seed bed” is Mary’s immaculately-conceived physiology, because a fertile “seed bed” is the opposite of the Desert/Wasteland/Wilderness Type in the Bible which means “world-in-need-of-salvation.” I.e., as a “seed bed,” it is opposite the Desert Type which means “world-in-need-of-salvation.” The “seed bed” doesn’t need salvation.

 

[BibleReader]

One more comment: Why would Mary NEED to be “immaculately conceived”?

Answer: Because of Exodus 33:20: “20 But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives.” I.e., if just looking directly at God’s face would have killed Moses, then surely the more intimate connection of the Incarnatuion forming within one of Mary’s ova, and then being joined to her physically in the womb, through the umbilical cord and placenta, would have demolished her physiology.

She would never have survived the Annunciation.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

BibleReader:

One more comment: Why would Mary NEED to be “immaculately conceived”?

Answer: Because of Exodus 33:20: “20 But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives.” I.e., if just looking directly at God’s face would have killed Moses, then surely the more intimate connection of the Incarnatuion forming within one of Mary’s ova, and then being joined to her physically in the womb, through the umbilical cord and placenta, would have demolished her physiology.

She would never have survived the Annunciation.

Hello, BibleReader Just for your info the questions were given by another poster,that I had a debate with It was hit&run.So in defense of Our Lady I started this thread so Catholics who were more skilled and knowledgeable could help and give a more well stated position.I just wanted to clarify that I was not the question poser,I wanted the questions answered by others in addition to the answers I gave.God Bless and your answers are great:thumbsup:

 

[mercygate]

Solo Christo:

God took men in a chariot because those men sanctified themselves, and God felt it necessary. The Bible does not tell us if Mary was taken in a chariot; therefore do not come to that conclusion.

a. Come again? Men can sanctify themselves?
b. Where does the Catholic Church say that Mary was taken to heaven in a chariot?

She gave birth to Him and He was God! So who was privileged in the situation? Was Christ privileged to have Mary as a mom, or was Mary privileged to have Christ as a child? Again I stress; Mary is not mentioned much in the Bible because she plays no significant role.
No significant role? Bringing the Son of God into the world, caring for him, teaching him, launching his ministry at Cana, receiving the human race into her care in the person of John at the foot of the Cross is “no significant role?” Being the “God bearer” is no significant role? Get a grip!

The role she played was giving birth to the Messiah; when that was done she slowly dropped out of the picture because she was not the one dieing for the sins of the world.
Ah, Solo. But in Mary’s “yes” she, along with God the Father, also gave her only begotten Son so that we might have everlasting life.

Again I stress; to see Mary as anything more then a mere instrument of God is idolatry therefore sin.

Solo, what are you saying? That the Church idolizes Mary? Worships her as if she were God? Are you saying that sanctity is trivial?

The title “Mother of God” refers to the hypostatic union and protects the doctrine of God. In Christ, God is ONE Person with two natures. Mary gives birth to that PERSON. Ya gotta read up on your early Church heresies.

 

[scylla]

For a while I had problems with Mary and accepting the idea that we should love her, this stems from people saying things like, you should only focus on Christ and anything that distracts you from that is idolatry, or unbiblical.

Here is a just one small point of view that helped me understand it from a more Catholic point of view, which is broad and has many more facets and reasons than I can write here.

I love my wife, my kids, my father and mother in addition to my extended family, etc etc… My love for my wife does not take away from the love of God, my love of my mother doesn’t either, it complements it as she is part of Gods Creation. What did Jesus say love one another as I have loved you. In addition to this look at Corinthians 13:13 which shows that love is pretty important.

Now if I am going to lead a life following Christ and imitating him I should not follow him in every way but try and love like him. If you have any kids or have know anyone with a good relationship between kids and parents you would know that the bond between a mother and child\adult is special. Please don’t insult Christ by saying Mary is not special.

In my imitation of Christ I should take Mary into my heart and love her as God loves her. My love of her does not diminish God in any way but leads me closer to Christ as I try to follow him in every way and honor his creation with love.
Again Corinthians 13:13

I will follow the lead of Christ’s Church here on earth as that is what Jesus created and prayed for.

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, Lisa.

When they say that Mary was not Jesus’ mother, my experience in my own website is that they mean (1) non-eternal Mary is not the mother of the One Who proceeds out of His Father fior all eternity, such that there is something akin to a Father/Son relationship between them; or (2) they believe that Jesus was put in Mary’s womb, “lock, stock and barrel,” and not joined to one of Mary’s ova, so that there is not even a biological relationship.

Re (1), those who say that Mary is not Jesus’ mother for that reason should rtemember that no mother on Earth ever, ever begets their child’s soul; God does, right? I.e., this is not grounds for denying motherhood. Re (2), no clear doctrine that Jesus was conceived in one of Mary’s ova emerged, because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception emerged when no one had yet seen an ova under a microscope – the ideation was not there to generate the language. I believe that when Jesus was conceived when Mary was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, one of her ova were invested and changed.

I believe that Wisdom 7:1-6 outlines the details.

 

[Church_Militant]

BibleReader:

Hi, Lisa.

When they say that Mary was not Jesus’ mother, my experience in my own website is that they mean (1) non-eternal Mary is not the mother of the One Who proceeds out of His Father fior all eternity, such that there is something akin to a Father/Son relationship between them; or (2) they believe that Jesus was put in Mary’s womb, “lock, stock and barrel,” and not joined to one of Mary’s ova, so that there is not even a biological relationship.

Re (1), those who say that Mary is not Jesus’ mother for that reason should rtemember that no mother on Earth ever, ever begets their child’s soul; God does, right? I.e., this is not grounds for denying motherhood. Re (2), no clear doctrine that Jesus was conceived in one of Mary’s ova emerged, because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception emerged when no one had yet seen an ova under a microscope – the ideation was not there to generate the language. I believe that when Jesus was conceived when Mary was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, one of her ova were invested and changed.

I believe that Wisdom 7:1-6 outlines the details.

Hi B.R.,
I think some clarification is needed on your second point. The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus except that it provided a pure human vessel (if you will), for Him to be concieved within. This doctrine specifies that the Blessed Virgin was literally graced with her purification from original sin by the application of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross at the moment of her conception. One could get into the timeless nature of Christ’s sacrifice (“the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.”), but it’s probably not necessary among us Catholics. In this we say that Mary’‘s salvation was “more perfect” because it was pre-emptive (“Hail FULL of grace”) as opposed to ours, which came at Baptism. This is really no surprise since Mary sort of sits on the cusp of the Old and New Testaments and the OT saints were saved by Jesus’ same sacrifice applied by God to their souls. (right?).

A second important point is that we do believe that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% human all in one being and that He did in fact get his humanity from the Blessed Virgin. This is another reason for her Immaculate Conception. It is mysterious, but it also just makes sense. The mechanics of it are beyond us but that is the way it goes with many things about God. Your final statement sounds about right though.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[BibleReader]

Church Militant:

Hi B.R.,
I think some clarification is needed on your second point. The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus except that it provided a pure human vessel (if you will), for Him to be concieved within. This doctrine specifies that the Blessed Virgin was literally graced with her purification from original sin by the application of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross at the moment of her conception. One could get into the timeless nature of Christ’s sacrifice (“the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.”), but it’s probably not necessary among us Catholics. In this we say that Mary’‘s salvation was “more perfect” because it was pre-emptive (“Hail FULL of grace”) as opposed to ours, which came at Baptism. This is really no surprise since Mary sort of sits on the cusp of the Old and New Testaments and the OT saints were saved by Jesus’ same sacrifice applied by God to their souls. (right?).

A second important point is that we do believe that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% human all in one being and that He did in fact get his humanity from the Blessed Virgin. This is another reason for her Immaculate Conception. It is mysterious, but it also just makes sense. The mechanics of it are beyond us but that is the way it goes with many things about God. Your final statement sounds about right though.

Pax vobiscum,

Thank you, Church Militant.

I am aware of the distinction. I assumed wrongly that my language would be clear enough to reflect that.

The concept is this: Had the physiology of human reproduction been known with scientific clarity when the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was announced, the Church’s explanation would not be limited to viewing Mary as "a pure human vessel " merely holding the Christ child in her womb.

In my opinion, Mary had to be immaculately conceived because the Person of God Almighty, the mere seeing of which kills – Exodus 33:20 – would have killed her ova and destroyed Mary, because the intimacy of the connection of Almighty God to flesh in the Incarnation is *much *more intimate than mere seeing.

An intriguing alternative to “Mary FULL of grace” is the first half of Ezekiel’s Parable of the Two Eagles, in Ezekiel 17. There, the Holy Spirit “eagle” carries the Jesus “uppermost branch of the cedar tree” to Mary’s immaculate womb “seedbed,” and plants it there. I say that “seedbed” (or “fertile ground” or however you wish to translate it so that it is synonymous) is Mary’s immaculate womb because in the Bible the Desert/Wasteland/Wilderness Type = “world in need of salvation.” I.e., the “uppermost branch of the cedar tree,” Jesus, was planted where salvation wasn’t needed at the time of planting – immaculate Mary!