That is certainly true of some, but not all, of the Apostles. There are several Biblical figures, whose specific sin we are not told about.
FK: "Remember, during Jesus' ministry the gentile centurion had greater faith than Mary."
It is not shown as greater than Mary's faith. When she is not sure what child Jesus meant by His father's house, all she knows is a child to whom a great promise is attached. The centurion on the other hand sees a man working miracles. To compare the two, you need to look at Cana, where Mary is asking for a miracle even though Jesus had not worked any at that time.
OK, and when we make that comparison we see that the centurion was after Cana. If we presume that Mary was following Jesus around, then she must have seen all the miracles that there were to see already. The centurion couldn't have seen all that Mary saw. Yet, Jesus tells us specifically that the centurion's faith was greater than any He had seen in Israel. That includes Mary.
Mary's unique connection was that the ministry of Christ started with her meek request: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him." (Jn 2:11), and it lead to the disciples believing.
I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense, since I know how many of them blew it afterward. It was still less than the belief you or I have today, i.e. not true faith. Therefore, I cannot give Mary credit for kick-starting Jesus' ministry. Jesus was going to begin when it was correct for Jesus to begin according to God's perfect plan, not at the prodding by one of us.
If you recall that she was also left adopting Christ's beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross, you see how His ministry on earth begins and ends with two themes: Mary and the Church.
Actually, I don't recall that at all. :) Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around. Let's see it:
John 19:26-27 : 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
John was tasked with caring for Mary, which is fine. The honor here goes to John, not Mary. And once again, there is no shame at all on Mary for this fact.
I don't know how you define "core". I do think that the desire to minimize the role of Mary leaves the Protestants with an incomplete picture of Christ.
I define "core" as that knowledge which is necessary, but not sufficient, to believe and have faith in the correct God.
Mary is indispensable in understanding the Incarnation of the Word. The frequency of nestorian error popping up among the Protestant is a direct result of their fear of the implication of the Mother of God title. (emphasis added)
Why is that? You make Christ a dependent of Mary in the spiritual sense. That just isn't right. ...... Protestants have always acknowledged that Jesus is God, and that Mary gave birth to Him. If some have freaked out about that, it is on them, not us. Not the Protestants you deal with every day on this forum. It appears you are openly saying that to get to Christ one must go through Mary. Is there any wonder at all about Protestant criticism concerning your Mariology?
Mary and her spiritual children are against whom the calumnies of the Dragon are directed in Apocalypse 12. The ease with which Protestant groupings splinter and fracture betray an unconcern for unity, while Mary is the basis of such unity.
The "woman" in Revelation 12 is Israel, not Mary. And, it is betraying that you say Mary is the basis for your unity. I think of another name for the source of the agreement in faith I have with my Protestant brethren, and it ain't Luther or Calvin.
Mary gives us a model of discipleship different from the apostles. She is not shown converting anyone and left no scripture. But she is one who has no vanity and never betrays Him. She is, nevertheless, given us not only as a mother but also as a perfect disciple: "Blessed are these who keep and follow the Word of God".
I agree that Mary is a role model and we are not told of her sins, but that does not make her perfect and sinless. There are many Biblical actors whose sins we do not know. That doesn't make them sinless either. Mary was many wonderful and admirable things, but she was not perfect. INSTEAD, she was human.
I agree that Mary is a role model and we are not told of her sins, but that does not make her perfect and sinless. There are many Biblical actors whose sins we do not know. That doesn’t make them sinless either. Mary was many wonderful and admirable things, but she was not perfect. INSTEAD, she was human.
= = =
INDEED.
Doctrines and !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men are no substitute for Biblical truth.
I must agree with you here, FK. Their faith was a gradual revelation, as it is for all of us (except, of course, for +Paul).
Therefore, I cannot give Mary credit for kick-starting Jesus' ministry. Jesus was going to begin when it was correct for Jesus to begin according to God's perfect plan, not at the prodding by one of us
But, then, you can't give credit to anyone. The fact is, Mary was instrumemntal by her presence in carrying out what was needed.
The only way you can take credit away is if you believe, as I think you do, that we have been programmed to obey (or disobey).
But, God does give us choices, FK. We are free, by His permission, and therefore responsible for our actions. It is always a matter of obedience to God, or disobedience. And, as far as we can tell, Mary always obeyed, to her credit.
Even at Incarnation, she was not impregnated by force, but by consent. God does not force Himself on anyone. Love wins you over lovingly, not forcefully.
Actually, I don't recall that at all. :) Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around
Agree. The man was always the head of the woman (cf 1 Cor 11:3), but respectfully, of course. For instance, Orthodox nuns will bless you if asked. This is followed by a kiss of the hand that blessed you, whether it is a priest or a nun, but she will, in turn, after her hand is kissed, kiss a man's hand although they are the one's blessing him.
I define "core" as that knowledge which is necessary, but not sufficient, to believe and have faith in the correct God.
I would say, that is a fairly accurate definition.
I agree that Mary is a role model and we are not told of her sins, but that does not make her perfect and sinless
The Orthodox teaching is that Mary accepted the will of God in perfect obedience and was cleansed of all sin at the moment of Incarnation, not when she was conceived by her parents. At that moment all her previous sins, if any, were erased and from there on, full of grace, she chose not to sin but to obey until she died.
Of course, but there are biblical figures of whose sinlessness were are specifically told. Zacharias and Anna are described "without blame" (Zacharias sins later). Their son John is described "filled with the Holy Spirit", and Mary is described "fill of grace". In the Old Testament Noah is described as "just and perfect". So, the notion that everyone has committed a personal sin of which we are not told is just not scriptural. Jesus tells us specifically that the centurion's faith was greater than any He had seen in Israel. That includes Mary
At Cana, Mary had seen no miracles, yet she asked for one. The Centurion has asked for one after he had seen or at least heard of miracles. As to the literal "no one in Isreal", we have to discount the immediate family, and especially Mary simply because she had a revelation form God the centurion or anyone else did not have. Her journey of faith had happened before anyone else even heard of Jesus.
I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense
And I do. I am aware that the faith of the disciples was tested severely and failed them at times, but this does not discount the fact that the first deposit of faith, however infirm, was seeded after the intercession of Mary.
Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around
John took Mary "to his own" ("home" is a Protestant obfuscation). But John is called her son, as well as Mary is called his mother, so the adoption was two-way. You adopt when you call someone a son, not when you figure out who lives where.
You make Christ a dependent of Mary in the spiritual sense
The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense, plus there are other scriptures, Cana and the mutual adoption foremostly, that outline her role as intercessor. Certainly Mary is not the central point of the gospel, but neither is she a divine incubator without a role. I gave you specifically what you have robbed yourselves of, becasue of mariophobia.
The "woman" in Revelation 12 is Israel, not Mary
This is this flight of mariophobic fancy that is plain comical. That woman is described giving birth to Christ right in that chapter, in graphic and physiological terms. This is like you womb=water from John 3:5. Are we reading the scripture or are we writing our own?
she was not perfect
Adressed in the beginning of the post.