Nor does Paul mention HarleyD but I can assure you I'm included.
Two, he is referring to is the congregation of the Jews and Gentiles
Wasn't Mary a Jew? Is there anyone left?
Three, it’s possible that by this time, around 55 or so AD that Mary was no longer there.
Paul is talking in the past tense. If anything you may have been able to make this argument had Mary been born in the future.
True, it is the fact that Christ chose her to be his mother that made her blessed.
Yes, and there were many people chosen of God that were blessed. Was Mary more blessed than Abraham?
Is the resurrection a fairy tale?
The resurrection is clearly document in scripture. The perfection of Mary is not. I find no where in scriptures where the apostles even paid her much attention.
Neither is there for the Trinity.
In all due respect, this is a pretty lame argument. The Trinity is documented in bits and pieces throughout the scripture. There is no mention of Mary after Acts. In fact, in Acts 1:14 we find Mary was joining in the prayer session. Now if Mary was to be prayed to, why wouldn't the prayer session be praying to her?
Ahh, and now we get to the crux of the matter....This is your beef with God and with Mary. How can God bless one person over another? He is partial.
Sorry, I have no beef with God. God will do as He well pleases. All I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments. If God kept Mary perfect and sinless, then He could do the same for everyone. Contrary to your belief, God shows NO partiality:
“Nor does Paul mention HarleyD but I can assure you I’m included.”
Well I don’t think HarleyD was around back then. I could see your point, but the problem is that it was never interpreted as referring to Mary by any of the Fathers of the Church. This argument is a very late and new one.
You would think that if the Fathers knew that this passage referred to Mary, that we would see something to that effect, but we don’t, not until the 16th century.
On the contrary, we have plenty of evidence from the Church fathers that they regarded Mary as sinless. So it seems to me that they understood her to be an exception to that passage.
“Paul is talking in the past tense. If anything you may have been able to make this argument had Mary been born in the future.”
What then about Enoch who walked with God? Etc. I really don’t see Paul thinking about this at the time. He’s hammering the point that everyone who is alive today, is in a fallen state and needs to get their heart right, or else they will perish.
“Yes, and there were many people chosen of God that were blessed. Was Mary more blessed than Abraham?”
Good question. They received different blessings. One, that Abraham’s descendants would be as numerous as the sand by the shore, and that they would have a covenant with God that was immutable.
Mary on the other hand received a blessing where sin was removed from her altogether. Personally, I think Mary received the better blessing for herself, but that the more significant one is the blessing given to Abraham.
“The resurrection is clearly document in scripture. The perfection of Mary is not. I find no where in scriptures where the apostles even paid her much attention.”
The Apostles took her into their house and cared for her after Christ was crucified. It’s clear to me that they had a great deal of love and respect for her.
“In all due respect, this is a pretty lame argument. The Trinity is documented in bits and pieces throughout the scripture.”
And so is the sinlessness of Mary. This is my point. Your argument that her blessing could not have happened is the sole argument that God could not have chosen her because that’s somehow, ‘unfair’. That’s all you’ve got.
“In fact, in Acts 1:14 we find Mary was joining in the prayer session. Now if Mary was to be prayed to, why wouldn’t the prayer session be praying to her?”
That’s just the answer. Mary isn’t to be prayed to. She is one of the Saints, along with Abraham, etc.
I’m telling you, go read the Catechism. It’s right there. Mary is blessed among women, and was sinless, but she is not God. We do not pray to her. I don’t know how I can make this anymore clear to you.
You are not arguing with me, or with the Catholic church, you are arguing with yourself.
“Sorry, I have no beef with God. God will do as He well pleases. All I’m doing is pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments.”
Then there is no inconsistancy. If God is truly sovereign, then he can bless those whom he choses to bless for His purposes and not ours.
“If God kept Mary perfect and sinless, then He could do the same for everyone.”
Indeed he could. But he chose her. There is no inconsistancy. God can bless any one of us in the same fashion, but he has chosen not to do so. As for Peter, God does not give the same blessings to everyone. :) What Peter means is that God is no respecter of persons. Our titles our fame our nobility is nothing to him.