OneLight Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2009 1). I think the Virgin Mary is indeed an example for all Christians to follow. As is St. Paul and St. Peter. 2). It just seems insane though to go back in this infinite regress of sinful flesh and non-sinful flesh and DNA. 3). Simply put there is no biblical support for the lifetime virginity of Mary, her ascension or her being totally without sin. But she is indeed blessed among all women, how could she not be. I am sure the rest of her family would agree including her husband and her other children, who are all confirmed to have existed in scripture. 3). The greatest Scripture scholar the world has ever seen, Saint Jerome, disagrees with you. His Scriptural proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable. Read his letter "Against Helvidius". 2). It is not insane to say that the human nature of Jesus could have never at any time been under the dominion of the devil. For if it was, then He could not have been the perfect Lamb of God. 1). And yet there are some things about Saints Peter and Paul that we should not emulate. But there is nothing about Mary that we should not emulate. About #1 - There is so little about Mary in scripture that nobody can even take an educated guess about her lifestyle. Compared to Peter adn Paul, what is said about her is nothing. Everything about Mary that people think today is nothing but folklore. About #3, that is nothing but personal opinion concerning Jerome. Why is it that you praise him for his writings of Mary but say nothing about his claim that the Apocrypha not being scripture. How is it that anyone can claim anything about Mary when scripture is almost completely silent on her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Do you think that being under the dominion of the devil actually has anything to do with DNA and physical blood? Christ was not under the dominion of the devil because He was the Son of God and lived a sinless life, not because of his human flesh and the DNA makeup of that flesh. This is the problem with taking a legal human view of scripture in my opinion. I just find the evidence that Mary had a family to be pretty convincing. St. Jerome indeed was a great bible scholar and a man of God, but he was also a pretty snarly old guy who had his own beefs and prejudices in his writings. I am not sure I would confer the greatest bible scholar title upon him, certainly he was one of the first though and a great one, I do not base my points of view on this on my own reasoning which is far inferior to St. Jerome. So what I have been taught and what I believe may be proved wrong on this, I would hope given who Mary is and given my own limited knowledge and what I have been taught and brought up with that if I am honestly wrong, I beg for forgiveness and I certainly love and honor the Virgin Mary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It makes sense in that all of the ova in a woman are brought into existence while she is still in the womb. Therefore, in order for the ovum in Mary's womb which God would use to form His Son to be untouched by sin, it had to be kept free from sin whilst Mary was in the womb. You are still saying that Mary was untouched by the sin of her mother, yet Jesus would have been touched by the sin of Mary if she had been a sinner. That still makes no sense. Wow, it's so nice to know that Jesus is so powerless against sin that He had to be born of a virtual goddess in order to be spotless. Nice. Was not Eve created sinless? Yes. Was Eve a virtual goddess? No. Therefore, your conclusion is without warrant. And Jesus' body couldn't be created sinless? Mary can be created sinless, but Jesus could not? And in another place, Scripture says that Jesus was like us in every way "except sin". All of those Scriptures point to the human nature of Jesus never having been touched by sin. That's because He did not sin. That is why I do not believe Mary was a sinner. When the angel salutes Mary, he calls Her "kecheritomene," that is, "full of grace" or "perfected by grace." First of all, I doubt Gabriel greeted her in Latin. Second, aren't we all "perfected by grace"? "Kecheritomene" is Koine Greek. In Latin the phrase is "Gratia plene". In English it is "Full of grace." I doubt the angel greeted her in Koine Greek, either. All of the Elect will eventually be perfected by grace. (Note: That does not mean they will become virtual gods and goddesses.) But you treat Mary as such. Third - what do you make of Jesus' response here: Luke 11:27-28 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary , blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. Luke 1:38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. Jesus is saying that Mary's fiat; Her unhesitating agreement to carry out the word of God and bear the Word of God, is the example we should all follow. He is not denying that Mary is truly blessed among women. Luke 1:41 ... And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women How did you get that out of "Blessed rather"? That's it. I'm done with you - especially since you can't answer the questions I posted several times over and over again, I pray some day you will see Jesus is the one and only Savior, that He never needed a co-matrix, and that you do not need a mediator between you and Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoxiii Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 512 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/30/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/25/1955 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 1). I think the Virgin Mary is indeed an example for all Christians to follow. As is St. Paul and St. Peter. 2). It just seems insane though to go back in this infinite regress of sinful flesh and non-sinful flesh and DNA. 3). Simply put there is no biblical support for the lifetime virginity of Mary, her ascension or her being totally without sin. But she is indeed blessed among all women, how could she not be. I am sure the rest of her family would agree including her husband and her other children, who are all confirmed to have existed in scripture. 3). The greatest Scripture scholar the world has ever seen, Saint Jerome, disagrees with you. His Scriptural proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary is irrefutable. Read his letter "Against Helvidius". 2). It is not insane to say that the human nature of Jesus could have never at any time been under the dominion of the devil. For if it was, then He could not have been the perfect Lamb of God. 1). And yet there are some things about Saints Peter and Paul that we should not emulate. But there is nothing about Mary that we should not emulate. About #1 - There is so little about Mary in scripture that nobody can even take an educated guess about her lifestyle. Compared to Peter adn Paul, what is said about her is nothing. Everything about Mary that people think today is nothing but folklore. About #3, that is nothing but personal opinion concerning Jerome. Why is it that you praise him for his writings of Mary but say nothing about his claim that the Apocrypha not being scripture. How is it that anyone can claim anything about Mary when scripture is almost completely silent on her? 1). We believe a lot of things as factual that are not contained in the Scriptures. Do you really think that after the Ascension people did not take an interest in Mary? Where do you think Saint Luke got all his narratives about Jesus' childhood? 3). It is not my personal opinion that Saint Jerome disproves the erroneous opinion that Mary had other children using Scripture alone. He does it and he does it in an irrefutable way. Read it and see if you do not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoxiii Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 512 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/30/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/25/1955 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 All of the Elect will eventually be perfected by grace. (Note: That does not mean they will become virtual gods and goddesses.) But you treat Mary as such. My friend, the worship I give to God and the veneration I give to the Blessed Virgin Mary are two completely different things. I worship God as my Creator. I venerate Mary as the crowning glory of God's creation. I worship God as my Saviour. I venerate Mary as the one whom God has loved above all creation. I worship God as my Father. I venerate Mary as the Woman He chose to be His Mother. God freely gave His Son as a ransom for the world, and Mary freely gave Her Son in obedience to God. That is the obedience we need to emulate. You might say She had no choice, but did She not have free will like every other human being? Did God become Incarnate in Her womb by force? Did He take Her Son to the Cross by force? No. I do not believe He did. I believe that to everything God did, Mary gave Her unwavering consent. From Mary's lips we are given the two greatest examples of the relationship a Christian should have with God: "Let it be done to me according to Thy word," and "do whatever He tells you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 1). We believe a lot of things as factual that are not contained in the Scriptures. Do you really think that after the Ascension people did not take an interest in Mary? Where do you think Saint Luke got all his narratives about Jesus' childhood?Taking an interest in Mary would be one thing. Mary would have unique insights and a unique perspective about Jesus, that is for sure. But that is a far cry from exalting her a sinless and venerating her. 3). It is not my personal opinion that Saint Jerome disproves the erroneous opinion that Mary had other children using Scripture alone. He does it and he does it in an irrefutable way. Read it and see if you do not agree. You are still depending on the opinion of a man. Jerome was not and is not infallible. In fact, the plain sense of Scripture indicates that Mary had other children. In fact, Mary was a Jew and it would have been natural for her and Joseph to have other children as they were part of Jewish culture which encourages pro-creation. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a manmade doctrine and has no basis in the Christian faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 It makes sense in that all of the ova in a woman are brought into existence while she is still in the womb. Therefore, in order for the ovum in Mary's womb which God would use to form His Son to be untouched by sin, it had to be kept free from sin whilst Mary was in the womb.You are drawing on unfounded assumptions. Mary had an earthly Father and the curse passes from the father. Mary, like everyone else, was conceived and born in sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoxiii Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 512 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/30/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/25/1955 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 Mary, like everyone else, was conceived and born in sin. Then the ova, which Jesus took to form His human nature, was at one time under the dominion of the devil. I utterly reject that. For if the flesh of Jesus was at any time under the dominion of the devil, then He was not the perfect and spotless Lamb of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2009 Mary, like everyone else, was conceived and born in sin. Then the ova, which Jesus took to form His human nature, was at one time under the dominion of the devil. I utterly reject that. For if the flesh of Jesus was at any time under the dominion of the devil, then He was not the perfect and spotless Lamb of God. You are placing your belief on human knowledge and understanding. God can create how He wants to create. You make it sound like He is bound to human understanding of the reproductive system. Is He God or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoxiii Posted November 16, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 512 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/30/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/25/1955 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 In fact, the plain sense of Scripture indicates that Mary had other children. Let me give you one example. Colossians 1:19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. Matthew 10:3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, In context, Paul is speaking of the 12 Apostles. He says that James, whom he calls the brother of the Lord, is one of the 12 Apostles. There are only 2 Apostles named James, and neither of them have Joseph for their father. Only 3 options are available: 1). "brother" here does not mean "of the same mother and father" 2). Mary was an adulteress 3). a third Apostle named James must be invented. I go with #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts