Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
There is no scripture that would say that. What the scripture says is that Christ was her savior as well. From this it doesn't follow that she was a sinner. It follows that her merits had been made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. We don't teach otherwise.
Moses did what he was asked, Abraham did as he was aked, as did many others in the Bible.
Very true, and for that we venerate them all, just as Christ commended (Luke 11:28). But they were asked different things. What Mary was asked, no one else was asked: to be an intruemnt of the Incarnation, the very act that gave us the Savior.
There never was any doubt that Mary would accept the will of God, just as God knew that I would accept Him
Indeed, God knows everyone's response to His call ahead of the person responding. That doesn't invalidate your response to the Gospel, does it? Why do you seek to invalidate Mary's?
It is not true that St. John never mentions Mary again, — she has a chapter dedicated to her in Apocalypse — chapter 12.
St. Paul’s remark that women are sanctified in their childbearing is hard to understand other than if it is a reference to Mary.
It is also not true that the veneration of Mary makes her “more than the human mother of Christ” — this is precisely why she is venerated.
There is no direct sanction to venerate statues of saints specifically, but there is a passage in St. Paul how contemplation of icons brings us to holiness. Adoration of the Crucifix is mentioned twice that I can think of by St. Paul. There is, of course, a direct scriptural sanction to venerate relics of saints.
I’ll go along with what the Bible states, which is that Mary had other children.
Chapter and verse?
Indeed. As are all of your Protestant doctrines!
“Chapter and verse?”
The Book of Marvin 3/6-7
No offense but I see some chinks in your logic there bud. Joseph in Genesis in the Old Testament never has a sin attributed to him. Does that make him perfect? Why no, because we aren’t told every detail of his life. Was he a godly man? Yes, clearly he was, but that doesn’t equal sinlessness. Actually, the same can be said for dozens of persons named in the bible—whose sins are not explicitly identified... (Several of Jesus’ 12 disciples too have none of their sins identified...Why? Well, the gospel accounts tell us nothing about them other than their names. The same principle goes, absence of evidence doesn’t amount to evidence.)
Absence of evidence doesn’t refute the statement: “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) Last I checked all includes ALL, unless, like Jesus they are specifically excepted. Nowhere in scripture is Mary, or anyone else (but Jesus) identified as uniquely sinless—just like there is not a scintilla of evidence in the bible, or in the earliest traditions, that she was born immaculately, that is uniquely without sin. This was dreamed up by pious churchmen who just could not imagine how Jesus could have been born to a normal woman. (I can’t imagine either, but God in his revealed Word chose not to say...)
Besides, I do believe that thinking Jesus may have been “out of his mind” (Mark 3:31) shows some serious doubt, and can definitely called sin.
And about the word “Savior.” Jesus is our savior from what? The devil? Yes. Death? Yes. Hell? Yes. But why? Due to our sin. If Mary truly were the one woman of all history sinless, than, she needed no savior, and her good deeds would merit her heaven. Mary alone of all humanity would be independent of the merits of the life and death of the Lord Jesus. The bible never comes close to even a hint of such things... Mary, like all of fallen humanity who trust God, was and is utterly dependent on and in union with the grace of God given in Jesus Christ.
Jesus before His passion repeatedly predicted He would rise again. In Saint John’s incredibly moving account of himself and Mary at the foot of the cross—there is no indication whatsoever that either he or Mary believed that in 3 days Jesus would be risen, alive and well...
Jesus resurrection caught everyone BY SURPRISE. Why? Because Jesus hadn’t told them? NO. Because none of them had the faith to believe Jesus about it.... EVEN John, His beloved disciple, and Mary, His mother...failed in faith, on at least that one point.
But God’s grace is bigger than all our sins, because this statement applies to EVERY saint, past, present and future: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)
So I have given you 2 examples, one implicit, the other explicit, where Mary (in understandable, and un-willful) ways sinned, straight from Holy Scripture. Does this make her a “bad person?” NO! Certainly she was, one of, if not THE most godly of women in history....but, like ALL of humanity, Mary too depends on the grace of God in Christ to cleanse her from sin, and make her fit to live with God, her human son, Jesus, in Heaven.
One more point for you to chew on: If God could make a person sinless in their normal conception (like you say He did with Mary), why in the world would He then send His Son to die for our sins? He could just make everyone have an immaculate conception, and the sin problem would be solved, in one generation, saving God the Son an eternal amount of pain and sorrow...
The whole sinless thing makes no sense to me. If Mary, a human, can be made sinless, than why not all people?
Heck why not make Adam and Eve sinless, then none of this would have been necessary.
Yes, Mary made salvation possible through her obedience to God. But I don’t think for a second that God’s plans for salvation rested on the decision of one person. If Mary has refused, God would have brought it about another way. To presume that any person can frustrate the will of God is sheer arrogance.
The phrase “Jesus’ mother and brothers” is used in Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, Acts 1:14, and John 2:12. He is given advice about his disciples by his brothers in John 7:3.
Matthew 13:55 names the brothers as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
Matthew 13:56 refers to Jesus’ sisters, but does not name them.
Another argument against Mary being a perpetual virgin is this verse: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25).
Many bible verses refer to brethern, brothers, etc. It does not by necessity imply blood relation.
Further, the statement about “no union with her until she gave birth to a son” makes a specific statement only about the time before His birth, but is silent as to the time afterward. Drawing an insinuation from that is speculation and extrapolation.
But first a bit of an English lesson and an attempt yet again to help that SAME VS DIFFERENT RC perceptual/logical problem.
1. INTERPRETATION is DIFFERENT from "YOU SAID, TAUGHT, . . . "
2. Such as:
B) "You have stated, written several TIMES the number of lines, posts, paragraphs in praise, focus on the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature than you have in praise of focus on Jesus."
I believed or thought that John's Revelation was/is
"a treatise on space demons in motherships."
You are the one who told us you follow Guy Malone and back him completely.
SHOW ME where and how I said that.
I may well have said I have complete confidence in his character. I don't recall at all saying I completely agreed with every word he said. I don't think I 100% completely agree with 100% of Alamo-Girl's words and she's probably the one person in my extended network that I most agree with on planet earth. I certainly agree with most of what Guy Malone has to say on the topic. But that's not what you said.
IN COMPLEX SPIRITUAL AND/OR RELIGIOUS arenas, topics, areas . . . nuance can mean a lot.
But this isn't even nuance. These are starkly clear DIFFERENCES. They are NOT the SAME things.
It's quite clear that if RC folks will distort words, sentences, concepts this much . . . how easy it must have been for political power mongers to wholesale mangle Scripture, history, definitions, logic toward increasing their powers of control and their coin coffers by constructing a new RELIGION built around Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary's carefullly constructed caricature . . . since added to . . . the latest even in our era . . . whenever the idolatrous 'faithful' need yet another excuse to wrote more hymns, poetry, adoring worshipful nonsense--not to JESUS--NOT EVEN TO the AUTHENTIC Mary--but to Mary's caricature.
We see the same process of text mangling occurring in this thread. No wonder the RC edifice needed to keep Scriptures UNDER CONTROL. They couldn't allow the serfs to be able to compare the AUTHENTIC UNrubberized text with their rubberized version and see the vast DIFFERENCES. Goodness, they'd be able to see that the Magnificent Magical Eart-Mother Mary caricature and the authentic Biblical Mary were NOT the SAME at all.
THANKS ENORMOUSLY for such a VIVID demonstration of the RC EDIFICE's compunctions to mangle text, statements, words, truth all out of any reasonable recognition.
Sounds like the shoe on the other foot is not so comfortable.
Should be interesting. Will RC’s quit distorting what Prottys say because the RC’s can’t stand perceived ditortion by Prottys of what the RC’s purportedly believe?
Naw. Jesus will come back first.
There is a reason why people pay attention to the Catholic Church, -- she is the only church that matters.
Well obviously, people (i.e. individuals) are drawn to the Protestant churches as well, ... else they would have no adherents.
The Catholic Church is truly the ... church of the world, ... having even joined with the rulers of the world at points (i.e. the Roman Empire).
Jesus, however, said that His kingdom ... was not of this world ...John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
The word used for brothers is the common word for actual blood brothers. I’m not going to try to twist the words around.
As far as I am concerned, the phrase “mother and brothers” is self-explanatory.
>>I invite you to read the threads on FR about Mary, as well as other Catholic and Orthodox resources available in great number on the Internet, and if you have specific fears or questions, I will be happy to answer.<<
Not necessary. I follow certain claims by people and make a decision whether further study is warranted within my finite alotment of time on this planet. Christianity was/is, Mary stuff, the Koran, the BOM and Art Bell stuff is not.
I have dug deeply enough (more in some than others) into all of those things to dissmiss them as valid. The stuff based on the bible (bom, mary, koran) were easiest to dismiss, althouh they involved the most study in the long run.
Utter unmitigated nonsense.
Not at all . . . particularly about the authentic Biblical Mary.
Though we do tweak up our discernment when we see the flagrantly omnipresent Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature.
>>Indeed. As are all of your Protestant doctrines!<<
You do not know what “MY” doctrines are other than the ones mentioned here. To which, specifically, do you refer? The “ALL of your” part does not make sense. A reasonable person would not truly believe that.
THAT should be your tagline. It's the best one yet.
Then I suggest we agree in good will to disagree.
Have a good one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.