Mary Matters (Dr. Walter Martin on disbelief in the Mother of God)

Catholic Exchange ^ | JULY 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Iscool; don-o

“”First Adam did not become something other than a man. We are not given a very much description about what First Adam was like; but, dare we to say that Second Adam discarded His Manhood? Would that not mean that God has despised the work of His own hands?

You’re right...We do not know much about the 1st Adam...We do know he had no sin, no pain, no death and perfect weather, before the fall...God was not too happy with the work of his own hands after the fall of Adam and Eve...

Gen_6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. “”

Jesus is exactly like Adam. That is why He can be called the second Adam and God can compare Him with Adam as He does in Romans 5.

God could not punish Adam, and or us, for not living a sinless life if He could not prove His creation, man, could live a sinless life. Jesus is that proof.

May God our Father lead us to His truth, BVB

[Heart-Rest]

"Did Jesus drink vinegar with the disciples on the Cross??? Of course not...This priest doesn't have a clue but yet you guys put him out there like he's some sort of authority... And sadly you guys believe him because you obviously don't bother to check the scriptures to see if he is telling the truth...And he isn't..."

=============================================================

The confusion exhibited in your post seems to emanate from the fact that you try to take every single word in the Bible in a literal way.

When you see that "Luke 23:46" says

Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

while "John 19:30" says

When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

using the kind of flimsy logic displayed in your post about the literal words contained in those two Bible texts, you would have to say that either Luke or John were lying about the last earthly words of Jesus Christ on the cross.   However, the truth is way beyond that kind of simplistic, faulty reasoning.    You have to go beyond that erroneous "literal" obsession, in order to get to the truth.

Now if you want to get farther and more deeply into the truth which Fr. Mitch briefly explained in his answer to that caller, I urge you (and all interested lurkers) to listen to the complete fuller explanation given by Scott Hahn in the audio at the following link:

   "The Fourth Cup"

(By the way, did you notice how John says there in his Gospel that Jesus had received the "vinegar" (a type of wine back then)?

[Heart-Rest]

"The apostles weren't with Christ on the cross."

=============================================================

There you go again, CynicalBear, trying to insert something into the Bible that really is not there.

Tell me the exact Bible text that says that the apostles were not with Christ on the cross, as you claim in your post.

(Please don't appeal to "tradition" - just give me the Bible text which clearly states that the apostles were not there.)

(And you have the audacity to talk about "pathetic distortion of scripture"!)

If you really want to understand more fully what Fr. Mitch Pacwa was referring to in that short video clip, instead of spewing baseless and bitterly vitriolic verbal assaults on true and honorable men of God, then go to the link shown in "post #902", and listen to the whole audio there.

[omegatoo]

Actually, there is, right there in the same scripture:

Matthew 1:25
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It is not normal marital relations for newlyweds to not have sex during an entire pregnancy. Why would Joseph abstain all that time? It must have been unusual, or it wouldn't have been mentioned.

Love
O2

[Heart-Rest]

"I know Catholics have been taught to split scripture into chapters and verses which allows them to separate the intent of the passage. I would suggest you not stop at those arbitrary verse endings and see the whole passage and meaning. 2 Peter 1:20 this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private explanation for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake."

=============================================================

No, CynicalBear, it was you who put the text numbers (2 Peter 1:20-21) into your post #298 - linked here, including them right there in your post, and it was you who added the phrase "the prophet's" into 2 Peter 1:20, radically changing the meaning of that text, and, while you claimed you were using the Greek version of that text in your post in order to provide a more precise and accurate translation, what you actually used there was the very losely translated "New International Version - UK (NIVUK)" of 2 Peter 1:20-21, as shown here, not the Greek version which you explicitly said you were going to use.

There are a number of different ways to interpret those Bible texts (as the many differing English translations strongly attest), and I think it is obvious that you've chosen the wrong interpretation, and that is the reason why you did not really want to use the Greek like you said you were going to use, but wanted instead to use the NIVUK version that added some words to the Greek that were obviously not there already, changing the meaning of the text so that it more closely matched your own preconceived misconceptions.

(Like I said in post #587, it is always a good idea to stick to the truth.)

[redleghunter]

Wonder what Moses would think of this?:

[omegatoo]

Is there a disconnect here on the concept of Trinity? I was under the impression that Trinity was not one of the contested doctrines for non-Catholics, but I could be mistaken. For any that don’t believe in ‘Three Persons in One God’, this is never going to be worked out.

For those who do believe in the concept of Trinity, I don’t think there is as much disagreement here as it appears. Catholics do not believe that Mary gave birth to the entire Trinity, but that she gave birth to God Incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ.

The Trinity as a concept is a mystery and beyond logical explanation. That is why it requires faith to believe it. One God who is 3 individual Persons but still only one Being is not logical or comprehensible to the human brain. Jesus is one part of the Trinity yet joined completely with the Father and the Spirit into one Being. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

I have never in any encounter with Catholic education/educators/literature/etc., heard anyone say that Mary existed before God the Trinity. I have no idea why anyone would think we believe that. But she was the mother of Jesus, who is God Incarnate, and was fully human and fully God at the same time, so she was the mother of God. So when we say ‘Mother of God’, we of course mean ‘Mother of Jesus’. And it is because of this role that we adore her, just as we adore our own mothers, because she is our mother. Jesus gave her to us and us to her.

Jesus was God before He was conceived, before He was born, when He was born, and He was God when He died, otherwise, why did God send his Son to die for us, if a purely human death would suffice?

Of course we don’t believe that God the Trinity was born or died, but we know those things happened to Jesus, who was fully God. God in the form of Jesus died on the cross, but He is not dead because He overcame death and rose again. That was the whole point. I don’t understand it, but I believe it.

Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Those are active verbs. His body was not brought back to life, He rose. He ascended of His own power into heaven. He never lost His divinity, it wouldn’t have been possible, as He was God Incarnate, and God can’t stop being God.

We cannot fully comprehend this. We just have to take it on faith, and I think is one of the things we will finally understand once we get to Heaven.

Love,
O2

p.s.
Catholic belief is that Mary was assumed, she was brought up to heaven by God because she is not God and couldn’t do it herself.

p.p.s.
Mary could have said ‘no’. Just because God knew she wouldn’t doesn’t mean she didn’t have the free will to refuse.

[Heart-Rest]

("losely" should be "loosely" in post #905)

Also, CynicalBear, just to make it plainer and clearer, here is "2 Peter 1:20" from your post #298 - linked here (which you said was your own Greek translation, declaring "Now let's look at it from the Greek."):

------------------------------------------------------------

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.    For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20-21 - "CynicalBear's personal Greek translation provided in post #298"

------------------------------------------------------------

and here is the New International Version - UK (NIVUK) of 2 Peter 1:20-21 - linked here:

------------------------------------------------------------

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.    For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20-21 - "New International Version - UK (NIVUK)"

------------------------------------------------------------

[CA Conservative]

The Church has never defined that Mary is "co-Redemptrix," and most theologians are opposed to such a definition.

This is a quote from the article at the beginning of this post:

"I spend most of its pages in classic apologetic defense of Mary as Mother of God, defending her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, her Queenship, and her role in God’s plan of salvation as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. "

Perhaps the Catholic Church does not define Mary in this way, but the author, who is identified as the "Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers" certainly defines her in that manner.

How is it contrary to Scripture to say that Mary was conceived without sin, and committed no personal sin?

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

In Luke Chapter 1, Mary refers to "God my savior". Someone without sin has no need of a savior.

There are many more scriptures we can throw out on the subject, but it is late and I'm tired. And the ones listed here are sufficient to make the point.

With regard to her being conceived without sin, there is no scripture to even suggest such a thing. That is a concept created out of whole cloth. The ONLY time the Bible mentions a virgin giving birth is in reference to Christ himself. Since Mary had a human mother and human father, she also was heir to the same sin nature we all have.

[Arthur McGowan]

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Do you have any evidence that this sentence was written in order to resolve the question of whether Mary was sinless? Is Paul discussing Mary's alleged sinlessness at this point in Romans?

Is Jesus a sinner? The verse says ALL have sinned.

Are infants sinners? Are the retarded sinners? What sins have they committed? The verse says ALL have sinned.

In Luke Chapter 1, Mary refers to "God my savior". Someone without sin has no need of a savior.

The statement, "Someone without sin has no need of a savior" is a gratuitous assumption.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was preserved from Original Sin by the grace of Christ's death and resurrection. I.e., Mary was saved by Jesus Christ. Thus, there is no contradiction between Mary's sinlessness and her having "a savior."

[Arthur McGowan]

No matter how many times you explain that “God” in “Mother of God” refers to Jesus, who is God, metmom will always insist that “God” in “Mother of God” refers to the eternal Triune Godhead.

That’s right. The Fathers of the Church, all Popes, all councils, all theologians, all Catholics, are low-grade morons who believe that a human woman existed before the Creator of the universe.

metmom KNOWS that all Catholics are this stupid. metmom KNOWS that when they say a human woman could not have pre-existed the eternal, infinite, Triune God, they are just lying about what they really believe.

metmom is smarter than Augustine, Albert, Aquinas, etc. And besides, they were all liars, because metmom knows what they REALLY believed.

[Mark17]

HERETIC!!!

How DARE you claim that that nasty Joseph had his way with her!

LOL, I know I am. It's a tough job, but someone has to be the one. 😄 I go round and round with my brother in law about it. He is beginning to think maybe I have some idea what I am talking about, which I do, of course. Joseph and Mary had nice kids, among them James and Jude. Where have we heard those names before? Like maybe they wrote New Testament books, just maybe ? I thnk it was this James who was the leader of the Jerusalem church, not Peter. Am I on a roll? 😄😃😀

[omegatoo]

Catholics do not hold that Mary was born of a virgin. We hold that she was conceived by the usual method, but without original sin because God gave her the gift of salvation out of time so that she could be the perfect vessel for Him. She did need a savior. She just got one before anyone else did. Because God can do that. The time thing.

I don’t know exactly where it comes from, you are right that there is no scripture explaining it, but it is beautiful. This one I choose to accept without analysis. Sola scriptura people won’t, and I find that sad.

Love,
O2

[omegatoo]

I know, and I only post in these threads when I am in a very good mood, because I know that many here will never really listen and I don’t want to fight.

Question? always. Argue? sometimes. Fight? no (well I try).

I post as much for the lurkers (which I am usually) so they can see a reasonable, logical response to how Catholics are described and perhaps be inspired to look at things differently.

Love,
O2

[metmom]

I'll bite.

Mary is not sinless because Scripture tells us that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that grace is for sinners. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. Therefore is Mary were sinless, she would not need God's grace.

Additionally, she acknowledged her need of a savior with her own words, calling God her Savior.

She was not perpetually virgin as she had other children, who are referred to with the Greek word adelphos, meaning *Brother* (not cousin) and are named by name in Scripture.

Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 “While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother “and brothers” were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ‘His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and ‘brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not ‘His sisters’ here with us?”

John 2:12 “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and ‘His brothers’, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

Acts 1:14 “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, ‘and with His brothers’.”

1 Corinthians 9:4-5 “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, ‘and’ the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, ‘the Lord’s brother’..

Strong's Concordance

adelphos: a brother

Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: adelphos

Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')

Short Definition: a brother

Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

Strong's Concordance

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

adelphos: a brother

Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: adelphos

Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')

Short Definition: a brother

Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.

http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm

The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.

It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.

It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.

They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.

The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.

And it would not be *cousin*.

The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm

Strong's Concordance

suggenes: akin, a relative

Original Word: συγγενής, ές

Part of Speech: Adjective

Transliteration: suggenes

Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')

Short Definition: akin, a relative

Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.

Now, it's your turn.

Tell us WHY it's necessary for Mary to be sinless and perpetually virgin, and how that was decided when there's no Scriptural support for it.

[metmom]

And what difference does that make?

Sinless is sinless.

[metmom]

You leave Christ's church and come up with some very strange ideas of your own...You have no idea whatsoever of what resurrected bodies will look like....none

Sure we do.

See, that's where Catholic's ignorance of Scripture is so prominently displayed.

There are accounts in the Bible of glorified people.

Moses and Elijah on the Mt of Transfiguration, and the descriptions of Jesus in Revelation.

My *crazy* ideas are based on the Bible that you claim the world should thank Catholicism for.

Try reading it for yourself some time.

[metmom]

Jesus was all man and all God and you cannot separate the two....You didn't pay real close attention in Religion class, did you???

Then that puts Mary above God having given birth to Him.

[Elsie]

Catholics WROTE the words of scripture...helped you with that!!

And included the DAMNING words about it's seven churches in Asia.

Silly gooses!

[Elsie]

We believe the part that says "take and eat of this...THIS IS MY BODY".....do you???

Yet you do NOT believe the words from Jesus own lips when He said, "You vipers!" that those guys turned into SNAKES!

Catholics are really low when it comes to consistency.