[quote]dmaddox wrote:
LOL!!! Capable, but chose not to, even though the Holy Scripture said that she did.[/quote]
Where does it say this???
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
we all have our shortcomings and no church is perfect. [/quote]
I will agree that not any church is perfect why because it is run by humans. Humans are not perfect so we do make mistakes. The question is do we recognize those mistakes, confess those sins, and then try to move forward with more humility. I will say some are leaps and bounds better than others. I have attended many churches in my days and that would include Catholic churches. I am drawn to the Southern Baptist style of church. Great Bible specific Preaching. Their past is filled with wrong doings, but they are really trying to get back to the basics. The SBC was becoming the Pharasees and legalistic, with the no dancing, no drinking, and no interracial marriages, and many other things. They have seen that is a sin, and they are trying to make amends and move forward for the Glory of the Lord. Many Baptists of all forms get together annually to discuss the Bible. They are starting to work together instead of separated. The SBC actually elected an African American President for the first time. He was elected because he was the best candidate for the position.
I always think back to the Tower of Babel in Genesis. What if man worked together not to make themselves equal to God, but worked together for the Glory of the Lord? Just imagine what we could accomplish with God.[/quote]
I agree. I think the Baptists have done a great job refocusing on the heart of the scriptures and have come a long way from their legalistic past.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]
No where in the scriptures does it say she was a sinner, nor does it make any mention of her ‘sins’. The scriptures do say ‘Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!’, and ‘…you have found favor with God.’ ← These aren’t the marks of a sinner.
For the Holy Spirit to come into her to deliver the Savior of man, she had to be pretty special in God’s eyes.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I would say this even if it were a protestant, but I’d be a bit more impressed if it weren’t on TV. [quote]5-"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. [/quote] Jesus speaking in Matthew 6:5 The most God honoring acts of righteousness are ones few know about until the judgement. [/quote]He doesn’t really have control over that being as he is the Bishop of Rome.[/quote] Not buyin it Chris. I’m not saying he’s going out of his way to get attention, but I KNOW he could avoid it if he wanted to. And if he really can’t then that’s just another evidence against anything like a papacy being ordained of God.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I would say this even if it were a protestant, but I’d be a bit more impressed if it weren’t on TV. [quote]5-"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. [/quote] Jesus speaking in Matthew 6:5 The most God honoring acts of righteousness are ones few know about until the judgement. [/quote]He doesn’t really have control over that being as he is the Bishop of Rome.[/quote] Not buyin it Chris. I’m not saying he’s going out of his way to get attention, but I KNOW he could avoid it if he wanted to. And if he really can’t then that’s just another evidence against anything like a papacy being ordained of God.
[/quote]
As a Pope, you don’t avoid getting attention. You draw attention to good acts, lead by example a Christian love.
So Pat lemme get this straight, Catholics believe Mary herself was completely 100% sinless all her life?
Where does that come from? There was only one completely sinless one, Yeshua.
You are correct, No Bible verse explicitly declares that Mary committed any sin, however there are no Bible verses which declare that Seth, Enoch, Stephen, Philemon, committed any sin either, does that mean they were all sinless as well? many Bible verses explicitly state that everyone sins. Therefore, Mary sinned. We should not belittle the impressive biblical record of Mary. But she, like any other human being, needed a Savior to take away her sins…she said so herself in Luke.
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior (Luke 1:47)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is my opinion but I would think Mary would dislike all the attention she gets from the RCC. She would say, “Why are you asking me to talk to my son. You don’t need me. You can do it yourself. He is right over there. Go talk to him.”[/quote]
Your opinion is wrong (not a big surprise, most of my opinions I have found to be wrong), because plainly from the example of the Wedding of Cana, this is not how she operates. She instigated his first public miracle. She’s also the source of the tradition of the Wedding of Cana. [/quote]
So, lets ask Mary because she can co-orse Jesus into giving us what we want? That is your argument?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
LOL!!! Capable, but chose not to, even though the Holy Scripture said that she did.[/quote]
Where does it say this???[/quote]
Are you blind, I already posted it, but I will repost so you can look it up yourself. Mathew 1:24-25 read it.
You are now just playing the fool.
Pat is at least willing to discuss. You on the other hand just put your hands in your ears and blah, blah, blah and then stick your head in the sand.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No Lutherans don’t have the same claim as Christianity. They are heretics, and at one time schismatics. Same for Protestants in general (being heretics). And, same for Evangelicals. [/quote]
Thank you for finally answering my question. My knowledge of the RCC is pretty spot on. I was wondering if they had changed this way of thinking, but as I suspected they haven’t.
I sure am glad the Lord Jesus is in my heart, and only Jesus is my Savior. I am saved by God’s Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ. I do not have to go through any church to be saved. Brother Chris, you are sounding more and more like a Pharisee every day.
Are you mad that Jesus has saved people outside of the RCC? Amazing how God can not be contained into a little box by humans.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No Lutherans don’t have the same claim as Christianity. They are heretics, and at one time schismatics. Same for Protestants in general (being heretics). And, same for Evangelicals. [/quote]
Thank you for finally answering my question. My knowledge of the RCC is pretty spot on. I was wondering if they had changed this way of thinking, but as I suspected they haven’t.
I sure am glad the Lord Jesus is in my heart, and only Jesus is my Savior. I am saved by God’s Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ. I do not have to go through any church to be saved. Brother Chris, you are sounding more and more like a Pharisee every day.
Are you mad that Jesus has saved people outside of the RCC? Amazing how God can not be contained into a little box by humans.
[/quote]
Dmad, how does standing by the claims of your religion make one a Pharisee? This is typical Protestant rhetoric, and it does not apply. Jesus didn’t attack the Pharisees for “trying to live by the law,” but rather for their hypocrisy.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]
No where in the scriptures does it say she was a sinner, nor does it make any mention of her ‘sins’. The scriptures do say ‘Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!’, and ‘…you have found favor with God.’ ← These aren’t the marks of a sinner.
For the Holy Spirit to come into her to deliver the Savior of man, she had to be pretty special in God’s eyes.[/quote]
There’s a problem with your point, though, Pat - the exact same construction (euriskw [“to find”] + xaris [“grace, favor”] + “with God”] is applied both in the OT and NT to figures besides Mary. Noah “found favor” with Yahweh God in Genesis 6:8; David “found favor” with God according to Acts 7:46. Moreover, this phrase implies nothing about the spiritual status of the person - euriskw + xaris occurs literally DOZENS of times in the Septuagint, with the object of the preposition sometimes being God and other times being humans. To say that I “find favor with X” is essentially to say, “X likes me.” That’s really all it means; God’s favor rests on all KINDS of sinful people, so obviously it isn’t dependent on one’s sinlessness.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I understand. I have one more thing to add to the discussion of Mary. I was reading Matthew 1:24-25. 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
How can Mary still be a virgin if Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after Jesus was born? The act of consummation as we all know is having sex. I am not trying to denounce what Mary did by carrying and giving birth to Jesus. All I am saying is why does it matter to the Gospel that Mary be eternally virgin? I would say that it doesn’t.[/quote]
Where does Scripture say that he consummated the marriage? This is a false assumption, and there is no reason to believe that the marriage was consummated. It is considered blaspheme to say that Joseph took Mary, as her spouse is the Holy Ghost. But, I’m nevertheless interested why people think this since it is completely unprecedented even with Martin Luther, Calvin, &c.[/quote]
Dmad is absolutely right about Matthew 1:25 - GRAMMATICALLY, there is no way of getting around the fact that the preposition heos, when followed by an aorist indicative verb, necessarily denotes “until” and implies a change in situation. The passage literally reads, “he was not knowing her (intimate with her) until she gave birth to a son.” I’ve yet to come across a single Catholic rejoinder to this specific grammatical construction (heos + aorist indicative verb); heos necessarily implies a change in condition when followed by an aorist indicative verb. No, heos doesn’t always indicate a change of condition by itself, but it CERTAINLY does when it is followed by an aorist indicative verb, as in the case of Matthew 1:25. So please don’t start parading examples where heos is followed by present or future tense verbs (1 Tim. 4:13) or when no finite verb follows heos at all (the famous 2 Sam. 6:23). Such examples are not sufficiently similar grammatically to Matthew 1:25 and do not function the same way in their respective contexts.
Though I am generally loathe to make such arguments, the following point is defensible in this case - if (as Catholic apologists argue) Matthew, believing that Mary and Joseph didn’t consummate their marriage, wanted to communicate that they did not have intercourse before or while she was pregnant, there were several other much clearer ways of saying that, like heos en gastri exousa (while she was pregnant) (cf. Matthew 1:18). But the addition of the active indicative form of the verb tikto (“to give birth to”) after heos indicates a definite point in time at which this “lack of intercourse” ended. This is a consistent phenomenon across the NT - when heos is followed by an aorist indicative verb, a change of condition is implied.
And for the record, if my reading is correct, Matthew 1:25 STILL makes the same point as the Catholic reading - Joseph didn’t touch Mary sexually before she became pregnant or while she was pregnant with Jesus, so no one could argue that Joseph is really Jesus’ father rather than God. THAT is Matthew’s point.
NOTE: The above is a grammatical argument; my points are rooted in the actual Greek grammar. Claims like, “I don’t see it that way” are absolutely insignificant if you don’t know Greek, so please, everyone - don’t derail the discussion with uninformed opinions. If my grammatical account is wrong, so be it, but the conversation is not furthered by appeals to “common sense” or “tradition” or anything other than the Greek language itself.
My knowledge of Koine Greek is practically non existent compared to yours, but I do know what an aorist indicative is.
In short, Mary’s continued virginity or not formed no part of Matthew’s conscious intent when he chose these words, but in the course of making his actual point, which was to preclude the possibility of Joseph being Jesus father, he also incidentally, but conclusively, ended her virginity with Jesus birth. IF we let the text speak for itself.
Which has for me been the fatal flaw in Catholicism since these discussions began. The scriptures contradict Rome on a dozen of her major defining distinctives. IF the text is allowed to speak for itself. See the 5th post down on this page. A few years back I read a bunch of this guy’s posts. Catholic Answers
It’s only fair to note that some protestant Presbyterians, who REALLY should know better, like RC Sproul, also teach the perpetual virginity of Mary. I guess they gotta have at least one toe still left in Rome.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]
No where in the scriptures does it say she was a sinner, nor does it make any mention of her ‘sins’. The scriptures do say ‘Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!’, and ‘…you have found favor with God.’ ← These aren’t the marks of a sinner.
For the Holy Spirit to come into her to deliver the Savior of man, she had to be pretty special in God’s eyes.[/quote]
There’s a problem with your point, though, Pat - the exact same construction (euriskw [“to find”] + xaris [“grace, favor”] + “with God”] is applied both in the OT and NT to figures besides Mary. Noah “found favor” with Yahweh God in Genesis 6:8; David “found favor” with God according to Acts 7:46. Moreover, this phrase implies nothing about the spiritual status of the person - euriskw + xaris occurs literally DOZENS of times in the Septuagint, with the object of the preposition sometimes being God and other times being humans. To say that I “find favor with X” is essentially to say, “X likes me.” That’s really all it means; God’s favor rests on all KINDS of sinful people, so obviously it isn’t dependent on one’s sinlessness.
[/quote]
There is a difference. None of them were told they were ‘Full of Grace’ by the angel Gabriel and none of them save for Mary was asked to carry the Christ.
The point was that to say Mary was sinful is pure speculation, the scriptures make no mention of it, but in contrary express her as having a closeness with God few can attain.
If God honors you, who can dishonor you?
[quote]Karado wrote:
So Pat lemme get this straight, Catholics believe Mary herself was completely 100% sinless all her life?
Where does that come from? There was only one completely sinless one, Yeshua.
[/quote]
I already explained where it came from on the previous pages. Go back a few and look at the discussion between dmaddox and I. I don’t feel like retyping it all.
[quote]
You are correct, No Bible verse explicitly declares that Mary committed any sin, however there are no Bible verses which declare that Seth, Enoch, Stephen, Philemon, committed any sin either, does that mean they were all sinless as well? many Bible verses explicitly state that everyone sins. Therefore, Mary sinned. We should not belittle the impressive biblical record of Mary. But she, like any other human being, needed a Savior to take away her sins…she said so herself in Luke.
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior (Luke 1:47)[/quote]
And of those you mentioned, who was asked to bare and raise Christ himself? Who of whom you mentioned did Christ honor and obey?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
My knowledge of Koine Grek is practically non existent compared to yours, but I do know what an aorist indicative is.
In short Mary’s continued virginity or not formed no part of Matthew’s conscious intent when he chose these words, but in the course of making his actual point, which was to preclude the possibility of Joseph being Jesus father, he also incidentally, but conclusively, ended her virginity with Jesus birth. IF we let the text speak for itself.
[/quote]
The scriptures never speak to her having sex of any kind with anyone.
[quote]
Which has for me been the fatal flaw in Catholicism since these discussions began. The scriptures contradict Rome on a dozen of her major defining distinctives. [IF[/b] the text is allowed to speak for itself. See the 5th post down on this page. A few years back I read a bunch of this guy’s posts. Catholic Answers
It’s only fair to note that some protestant Presbyterians, who REALLY should know better, like RC Sproul, also teach the perpetual virginity of Mary. I guess they gotta have at least one toe still left in Rome. [/quote]
You don’t have any evidence against it. Keep in mind you are talking about Jesus’s mother. Tread carefully in what you say about her in that Jesus honored her. If Jesus himself honored her do not dishonor her. People don’t take kindly to people disrespecting their mothers. Make sure what you say about her is truth, especially if your goal is to take her down a notch. God saw her fit to bring Him into the world, think about that for a while. It’s no small thing.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Whether it was “consummated” or not, Mary as honorable as she was, was also sinner in need of a Saviour.[/quote]
No where in the scriptures does it say she was a sinner, nor does it make any mention of her ‘sins’. The scriptures do say ‘Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!’, and ‘…you have found favor with God.’ ← These aren’t the marks of a sinner.
For the Holy Spirit to come into her to deliver the Savior of man, she had to be pretty special in God’s eyes.[/quote]
There’s a problem with your point, though, Pat - the exact same construction (euriskw [“to find”] + xaris [“grace, favor”] + “with God”] is applied both in the OT and NT to figures besides Mary. Noah “found favor” with Yahweh God in Genesis 6:8; David “found favor” with God according to Acts 7:46. Moreover, this phrase implies nothing about the spiritual status of the person - euriskw + xaris occurs literally DOZENS of times in the Septuagint, with the object of the preposition sometimes being God and other times being humans. To say that I “find favor with X” is essentially to say, “X likes me.” That’s really all it means; God’s favor rests on all KINDS of sinful people, so obviously it isn’t dependent on one’s sinlessness.
[/quote]
There is a difference. None of them were told they were ‘Full of Grace’ by the angel Gabriel and none of them save for Mary was asked to carry the Christ.
The point was that to say Mary was sinful is pure speculation, the scriptures make no mention of it, but in contrary express her as having a closeness with God few can attain.
If God honors you, who can dishonor you?[/quote]
Once again, this is one of those areas where, if you lack facility with Greek, you can’t really see what’s going on. The word translated as “full of grace” simply means “to be favored,” which brings us once again back to the syntactical construction we discussed previously - others besides Mary are said to find favor with God. The text does NOT say that Mary has a closeness with God “few can attain;” that’s your Catholic bias talking, not the text.
And here, once again, we have more rhetoric - no one is dishonoring Mary by saying that she had sex with a man. That’s absolutely ridiculous, a product of post-apostolic theological attitudes among the church fathers that denigrated sexuality. To say that Mary engaged in sexual activity in NO way diminishes the fact that God used her.
Moreover, I’m not sure how David or Noah (i.e., MEN) could have been asked to carry the Christ, so that’s kind of a mute point…
Pat my friend there are precious few instances, relatively speaking, of scripture specifically reporting ANYBODY having sex, but there sure are a whole lotta people in there. They musta come from somewhere. This passage says that her virginity ceased after Jesus birth. I’m not gonna go off on one of my vitriolic tirades, but it just does. The scriptures also speak of Jesus siblings in ways that only somebody who really wants to believe otherwise can escape.
Mary is my sister in the Lord and additionally a chosen vessel and is declared indisputably a women favored of God. I love her and am inspired and thankful for her beautiful godly spirit of submission and obedience to the will of the Father. I have NEVER and would NEVER denigrate or attack her. She is however a fellow sinner saved by grace who had other children after her firstborn of the Holy Spirit. As always, all the glory goes to God alone as she herself so resoundingly proclaims in the glorious Maginifact of the 46th through 55th verses of the 1st chapter of Luke’s gospel.
[quote]46 And Mary said,
47 “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”[/quote]HALLELUJAH!!! AND AMEN!!!
EDIT: [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< no one is dishonoring Mary by saying that she had sex with a man. That’s absolutely ridiculous, a product of post-apostolic theological attitudes among the church fathers that denigrated sexuality. To say that Mary engaged in sexual activity in NO way diminishes the fact that God used her. >>>[/quote]His majesty has pried his way in between here again. =] This is exactly right though. A married sexually active state is NOT somehow less or dirtier than a celibate one. Everyone should abide wherein they are called is Paul’s point in 1st Corinthians 7. Singles can engage in some areas of ministry easier in some cases WHEN they are called that way, but this mindset of sex being carnal and almost a sort of necessary evil for procreation is frankly more gnostic than Christian. I got your email btw KK.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
So Pat lemme get this straight, Catholics believe Mary herself was completely 100% sinless all her life?
Where does that come from? There was only one completely sinless one, Yeshua.
[/quote]
I already explained where it came from on the previous pages. Go back a few and look at the discussion between dmaddox and I. I don’t feel like retyping it all.
Again, this is highly circular reasoning - you presuppose the sinlessness and spiritual authority of Mary and then read the text through that lens. Once again, SOMEONE had to be asked to bare Christ if he was truly to be a human being descended along the Messianic lines. And secondly, Jesus also dishonored (in the truest, i.e., most contextually sensitive, use of the word) his mother (as well as his brothers) with his claim that his real family consisted of those who obeyed the will of God (Mark 3:31-35). And in any case, she WAS his mother; why is it that surprising that he would occasionally do something she asked him to do? Once again, that is only fitting; it doesn’t imply anything special about their relationship or about Mary’s authority than the fact that she was Jesus’ mother.
None of this proves that Mary was inherently special; it only attests to her position as Jesus’ mother.