Oldbear83 said:

---

Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

Absolutely not, and frankly that phrase is deeply offensive and very, very dangerous, as some have already been led to believe Mary is some superbeing with merit relative to God Himself. Catastrophic damage has been done in that sort of blasphemy.

---

Was Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes.
Is Jesus God? Yes.
Wouldn't that make Mary the Mother of God?

To deny this would the same as the Nestorian heresy resolved in the Council of Ephesus, held in 431 AD.

This doesn't elevate her to a deity. She didn't create the world, God did. No Catholic believes that she is a God or a person of the Trinity.

Mary didn't give birth to a Nature, she gave birth to a person. Jesus is one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Luke 1:43 - "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?"

Luke is echoing the same passage in II Samuel 6:9 - "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Oldbear83 said:

---

This is why I depend on Scripture, whenever an extraordinary claim is made. It's right to accord respect and honor to God's servants, and there is no question Scripture says Mary was both 'favored' and 'blessed'. But those words in no way imply, much less state, a condition of sinlessness, which belongs to God alone since Adam and Eve brought Humanity into the fallen condition we know so painfully.

---

As BTD17 pointed out, Kecharitomene, is a perfect passive participle it suggests that Mary is in a completed state of grace at the moment Gabriel approaches her. It is a completed and ongoing state in the present that is the result of a past action.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And as I observed, if it were possible for God to arrange things so that one person could be sinless and Adam/Eve's action irrelevant to their personal condition, then God becomes a tyrant who chooses to allow exemption for His chosen people while denying countless people the same gift.

It would make a mockery of Christ's suffering in poverty and His torment from the arrest to the trials to the scourging and His death on the cross.

---

You are not looking at the typology of salvation history. I had posted a long post a few weeks ago as to why Mary is also the new Eve.

Summarizing it here ... as the woman (eve) came from man (Adam), the New Adam (Jesus) came from a woman (Eve). Adam and Eve were both born without original sin. Just like Jesus, as God, could never sin, Mary was preserved from original sin by singular privilege and grace by God.

In typology, the new is always superior to the old. Jesus is new Melchizedek, Issac, Moses, and David.

God didn't NEED to or HAVE to choose this. He did it because it was only fitting. With Mary and Jesus, God reversed the original sin that man (and the devil) caused.

Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve.

She is prefigured in Gen 3:15 in the protoevangelium - "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel".

I don't understand your point that it makes 'a mockery of Christ's suffering in poverty". How so? We are a fallen species. We needed redemption. God could have chosen ANY way to say mankind, but he chose for is only son to come down to fix what man broke.

When Adam sinned against God, an infinite being, man couldn't make up for that failure. Only God could. He chose His Son to pay the price for the debt that he didn't owe because we owned a debt that we couldn't pay. He sinlessness has nothing to do with justice, it about reversing what the evil that man caused.

Both Martin Luther and Calvin believed this. The belief that she was a sinner didn't arise until the 16th century.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

This is why I depend on Scripture, whenever an extraordinary claim is made. It's right to accord respect and honor to God's servants, and there is no question Scripture says Mary was both 'favored' and 'blessed'. But those words in no way imply, much less state, a condition of sinlessness, which belongs to God alone since Adam and Eve brought Humanity into the fallen condition we know so painfully.

---

As BTD17 pointed out, Kecharitomene, is a perfect passive participle it suggests that Mary is in a completed state of grace at the moment Gabriel approaches her. It is a completed and ongoing state in the present that is the result of a past action.

---

And as I also pointed out, Mary's completed state could have started a minute, hour, day, week, month, year, or decade earlier. The perfect passive participle does not necessitate it going all the way back to her conception. That is a completely made up, ad hoc belief and a non sequitur. Catholicism is starting with the conclusion that they want (Mary is sinless), and then forcing the evidence to support it.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

Absolutely not, and frankly that phrase is deeply offensive and very, very dangerous, as some have already been led to believe Mary is some superbeing with merit relative to God Himself. Catastrophic damage has been done in that sort of blasphemy.

---

Was Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes.
Is Jesus God? Yes.
Wouldn't that make Mary the Mother of God?

To deny this would the same as the Nestorian heresy resolved in the Council of Ephesus, held in 431 AD.

This doesn't elevate her to a deity. She didn't create the world, God did. No Catholic believes that she is a God or a person of the Trinity.

Mary didn't give birth to a Nature, she gave birth to a person. Jesus is one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Luke 1:43 - "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?"

Luke is echoing the same passage in II Samuel 6:9 - "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

---

Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. If God exists in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), then saying "Mary is the mother of God" is saying that she is the mother of all three persons. Which we know is not true, and is in fact heretical. Mary is the earthly mother of the human form of the Son, the Son who in his non-human form has always existed, along with the Father (John 1:1-2).

Also, do you realize that when David said "How can the ark of the LORD come to me", he was saying it was a BAD thing that the ark came to him?? He didn't want the ark to come to him. He was terrified of it.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And as I observed, if it were possible for God to arrange things so that one person could be sinless and Adam/Eve's action irrelevant to their personal condition, then God becomes a tyrant who chooses to allow exemption for His chosen people while denying countless people the same gift.

It would make a mockery of Christ's suffering in poverty and His torment from the arrest to the trials to the scourging and His death on the cross.

---

You are not looking at the typology of salvation history. I had posted a long post a few weeks ago as to why Mary is also the new Eve.

Summarizing it here ... as the woman (eve) came from man (Adam), the New Adam (Jesus) came from a woman (Eve). Adam and Eve were both born without original sin. Just like Jesus, as God, could never sin, Mary was preserved from original sin by singular privilege and grace by God.

In typology, the new is always superior to the old. Jesus is new Melchizedek, Issac, Moses, and David.

God didn't NEED to or HAVE to choose this. He did it because it was only fitting. With Mary and Jesus, God reversed the original sin that man (and the devil) caused.

Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve.

She is prefigured in Gen 3:15 in the protoevangelium - "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel".

I don't understand your point that it makes 'a mockery of Christ's suffering in poverty". How so? We are a fallen species. We needed redemption. God could have chosen ANY way to say mankind, but he chose for is only son to come down to fix what man broke.

When Adam sinned against God, an infinite being, man couldn't make up for that failure. Only God could. He chose His Son to pay the price for the debt that he didn't owe because we owned a debt that we couldn't pay. He sinlessness has nothing to do with justice, it about reversing what the evil that man caused.

Both Martin Luther and Calvin believed this. The belief that she was a sinner didn't arise until the 16th century.

---

"Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve" - even if one accepts the typology, and the rule that the new is superior to the old, still, it isn't necessary that Mary be sinless in order to be greater than Eve. That is yet another completely made up, ad hoc assertion and another non sequitur that Catholics have to insist on in order to force the evidence to match their preconceived conclusion. Mary could have just been much, much less a sinner than Eve. Or, as you Catholics like to see it, Mary obeyed God (or, at least was resigned to God's will) while Eve disobeyed God. That would make Mary superior to Eve. But it does not necessitate her being sinless.

Quote:

---

Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve.

She is prefigured in Gen 3:15 in the protoevangelium - "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel".

---

Even if we accept that Gen 3:15 is prefiguring Mary, still, and I repeat yet again, it does not necessitate that Mary was sinless. It doesn't even necessitate that Mary be any greater than any other godly woman. It doesn't even necessitate that Mary be a good person!

Can you finally see that you are starting with a preconceived conclusion that Mary was sinless, and reading INTO Bible passages in order to support it?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

Absolutely not, and frankly that phrase is deeply offensive and very, very dangerous, as some have already been led to believe Mary is some superbeing with merit relative to God Himself. Catastrophic damage has been done in that sort of blasphemy.

---

Both Martin Luther and Calvin believed this. The belief that she was a sinner didn't arise until the 16th century.

---

Completely wrong. Her being a sinner was a common view held by early church fathers:

Origen (185 AD - 253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time."

Basil (330 AD - 379 AD): writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. He writes, "Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword." Catholic theologican John Henry Newman, concerning Basil's statement, wrote "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt".

John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD): writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "(she) claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's request of her Son at the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory".

Historian J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD) - "He did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she (Mary) was born exempt from all taint from original sin".

Coke Bear:

"Was Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes.

Is Jesus God? Yes.
Wouldn't that make Mary the Mother of God?"

Ah, you like rhetoric. OK, let's have a look at that play. First. some Scripture for context and a foundation:

Matthew 12:48-50 "He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

So that verse establishes that whoever does the Father's will, is Christ's "brother and sister and mother".

I presume as a Christian you have done the Father's will out of love for Christ. Ergo, that makes you the same as Mary.

Do you claim to be God's parent?


Be very careful when playing with God's role and words. Lest you find yourself making convenient statements like the one in Genesis 3:4-5?


OK, moving on ...

Coke Bear: "To deny this would the same as the Nestorian heresy resolved in the Council of Ephesus, held in 431 AD."


No, that is not true. The heresy of Nestor was based in the notion that Christ had separate and distinct human and divine persons, which is very different from challenging the people who pray to Mary and ask for her intervention in place of Christ.





Coke Bear: "This doesn't elevate her to a deity. She didn't create the world, God did. No Catholic believes that she is a God or a person of the Trinity."

The problem is that you are promoting her to something claimed nowhere in Scripture. All I see is interpretations that Mary has some rank just because you want that to be the case.



Coke Bear: "Mary didn't give birth to a Nature, she gave birth to a person. Jesus is one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Luke 1:43 - "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?"

Luke is echoing the same passage in II Samuel 6:9 - "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant."


There's no way around it, Coke Bear. That statement is perilously close to blasphemous.



God allows us to see something of Him several places in Scripture. In none of them is there any reference to His 'mom' being there.

If Christians were perfect, they wouldn't need a Savior. Jesus came to save sinners.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And as I also pointed out, Mary's completed state could have started a minute, hour, day, week, month, year, or decade earlier. The perfect passive participle does not necessitate it going all the way back to her conception. That is a completely made up, ad hoc belief and a non sequitur. Catholicism is starting with the conclusion that they want (Mary is sinless), and then forcing the evidence to support it.

---

Actually, no. It has been believed since the earliest times of the Church. It wasn't until 1500 years latter did Protestants make up that she wasn't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. If God exists in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), then saying "Mary is the mother of God" is saying that she is the mother of all three persons. Which we know is not true, and is in fact heretical. Mary is the earthly mother of the human form of the Son, the Son who in his non-human form has always existed, along with the Father (John 1:1-2).

---

Wow! This sounds very close to the Nestorianism heresy which was refuted at the Council of Ephesus. We know that Mary is not the mother of all three of the Trinity.

It's interesting as protestantism drifts further away from the Church, the closer it comes to the heresies that were refuted more than a 1000 years before it began.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also, do you realize that when David said "How can the ark of the LORD come to me", he was saying it was a BAD thing that the ark came to him?? He didn't want the ark to come to him. He was terrified of it.

---

Luke was establishing a link between Mary and the Ark in scripture, not the emotions of each speaker.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve" - even if one accepts the typology, and the rule that the new is superior to the old, still, it isn't necessary that Mary be sinless in order to be greater than Eve. That is yet another completely made up, ad hoc assertion and another non sequitur that Catholics have to insist on in order to force the evidence to match their preconceived conclusion. Mary could have just been much, much less a sinner than Eve. Or, as you Catholics like to see it, Mary obeyed God (or, at least was resigned to God's will) while Eve disobeyed God. That would make Mary superior to Eve. But it does not necessitate her being sinless.

---

We all obey God at sometimes. It doesn't make us "better" than Eve. The whole point of her Immaculate Conception is that was sinless, just like Eve. She is the new Eve, but better, because of her fiat, her yes.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And as I also pointed out, Mary's completed state could have started a minute, hour, day, week, month, year, or decade earlier. The perfect passive participle does not necessitate it going all the way back to her conception. That is a completely made up, ad hoc belief and a non sequitur. Catholicism is starting with the conclusion that they want (Mary is sinless), and then forcing the evidence to support it.

---

Actually, no. It has been believed since the earliest times of the Church. It wasn't until 1500 years latter did Protestants make up that she wasn't.

---

I JUST showed you that isn't true.

You're only believing what Roman Catholicism tells you to believe. You're not believing what is actually true.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Origen (185 AD - 253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time." .

---

Actually he also stated that Mary was " her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings."("Hom. i in diversa")

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Basil (330 AD - 379 AD): writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. He writes, "Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword." Catholic theologican John Henry Newman, concerning Basil's statement, wrote "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt".

John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD): writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "(she) claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's request of her Son at the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory"..

---

No one has every argued that the Church fathers got everything right.

Here are other fathers that did believe in her sinlessness:

St. Justin Martyr - 130 AD
St. Irenaeus - 177 AD
Tertullian - 197 AD
St. Hippolytus of Rome - early 200's AD
St. Cyril of Jerusalem - 350 AD
St. Ephrem the Syrian - Forth Century
St. Peter Chrysologus - mid 400's AD

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Historian J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD) - "He did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she (Mary) was born exempt from all taint from original sin".

---

You are actually twisting J.N.D. Kelly here. His quote before this was that,

"St. Augustine agreed that Mary was the unique exception. She had been kept sinless."

Quoting from a talk by Catholic apologist and author Trent Horn, "Kelly affirms that Augustine believed that Mary had been kept sinless, however, not by the effort of her own will, but as a result of grace given to her in view of the incarnation."

"In the fourth and fifth centuries, the Pelagian heretics, Pelagius is their founder, they believed you did not need grace. You could work your way to heaven. One of their arguments for how you could do that was that Mary lived a life without sin. So even the heretics acknowledged Mary was sinless."

"Augustine said you're right she was sinless, but you're wrong that she did it on her own. She did that with the grace given to her in view of the incarnation"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. If God exists in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), then saying "Mary is the mother of God" is saying that she is the mother of all three persons. Which we know is not true, and is in fact heretical. Mary is the earthly mother of the human form of the Son, the Son who in his non-human form has always existed, along with the Father (John 1:1-2).

---

Wow! This sounds very close to the Nestorianism heresy which was refuted at the Council of Ephesus. We know that Mary is not the mother of all three of the Trinity.

It's interesting as protestantism drifts further away from the Church, the closer it comes to the heresies that were refuted more than a 1000 years before it began.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Also, do you realize that when David said "How can the ark of the LORD come to me", he was saying it was a BAD thing that the ark came to him?? He didn't want the ark to come to him. He was terrified of it.

---

Luke was establishing a link between Mary and the Ark in scripture, not the emotions of each speaker.

---

It's nothing like the Nestorianism heresy. It's exactly what Scripture says. Like OldBear already pointed out, you obviously don't know what Nestorianism is. Jesus existed in eternity with the Father, and he "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), i.e. he took on a human form. This is hardly saying anything close to the heresy that Jesus had two distinct natures, one divine and one human. It does, however, show how you don't even know Scripture.

I would, however, like to hear your explanation how this is close to Nestorianism. I challenge you.

"Luke was establishing a link between Mary and the Ark in scripture, not the emotions of each speaker" - or, maybe was recording what was actually said between Elizabeth and Mary, instead of changing what they said in order to make some kind of artificial link. Have you considered that "how can you come to me" might have been a common Hebrew expression? And you're still not even addressing the major flaw in your argument - even if we accept that Luke is tying Mary to the ark, how does this mean that she is sinless? Once again, this is a complete non sequitur.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. If God exists in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), then saying "Mary is the mother of God" is saying that she is the mother of all three persons. Which we know is not true, and is in fact heretical. Mary is the earthly mother of the human form of the Son, the Son who in his non-human form has always existed, along with the Father (John 1:1-2).

---

Wow! This sounds very close to the Nestorianism heresy which was refuted at the Council of Ephesus. We know that Mary is not the mother of all three of the Trinity.

It's interesting as protestantism drifts further away from the Church, the closer it comes to the heresies that were refuted more than a 1000 years before it began.

---

Let me try what you did earlier:

Does God have three persons - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yes.

Is Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? NO.

Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve" - even if one accepts the typology, and the rule that the new is superior to the old, still, it isn't necessary that Mary be sinless in order to be greater than Eve. That is yet another completely made up, ad hoc assertion and another non sequitur that Catholics have to insist on in order to force the evidence to match their preconceived conclusion. Mary could have just been much, much less a sinner than Eve. Or, as you Catholics like to see it, Mary obeyed God (or, at least was resigned to God's will) while Eve disobeyed God. That would make Mary superior to Eve. But it does not necessitate her being sinless.

---

We all obey God at sometimes. It doesn't make us "better" than Eve. The whole point of her Immaculate Conception is that was sinless, just like Eve. She is the new Eve, but better, because of her fiat, her yes.

---

Her fiat does not necessitate that she was sinless. Evidently, the Roman Catholic religion is completely based on non sequiturs.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear:
Ah, you like rhetoric. OK, let's have a look at that play. First. some Scripture for context and a foundation:

Matthew 12:48-50 "He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

So that verse establishes that whoever does the Father's will, is Christ's "brother and sister and mother".

I presume as a Christian you have done the Father's will out of love for Christ. Ergo, that makes you the same as Mary.

Do you claim to be God's parent?

---

First, NO, I never gave birth to Jesus. That's what Mary did.

Second, is that (parenthood) what Jesus is discussing in those verses? No. He is using a Hebrew idiom to elevate those that does his father's will as his family.

Third, did anyone then (or now) believe that they are Christ's parents by "doing his will?" This almost sounds like an argument that BDT would try.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "To deny this would the same as the Nestorian heresy resolved in the Council of Ephesus, held in 431 AD."

No, that is not true. The heresy of Nestor was based in the notion that Christ had separate and distinct human and divine persons, which is very different from challenging the people who pray to Mary and ask for her intervention in place of Christ.

---

You realize that asking for her intercession is not in place of Christ. It is in CONJUNCTION with him. When I ask Mary for intercession, she is presenting my requests along side MY requests to Him. It's not in lieu of.

Besides that, you are conflating intercessory pray and the topic of her being the Mother of God.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "This doesn't elevate her to a deity. She didn't create the world, God did. No Catholic believes that she is a God or a person of the Trinity."

The problem is that you are promoting her to something claimed nowhere in Scripture. All I see is interpretations that Mary has some rank just because you want that to be the case.

---

What I am "promoting her to something claimed nowhere in Scripture"? Elizabeth calls her the Mother of my Lord.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "Mary didn't give birth to a Nature, she gave birth to a person. Jesus is one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Luke 1:43 - "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?"

Luke is echoing the same passage in II Samuel 6:9 - "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant."


There's no way around it, Coke Bear. That statement is perilously close to blasphemous.

---

How is it blasphemous to quote scripture and point out the links that Luke was presenting from the OT?

Oldbear83 said:

---

God allows us to see something of Him several places in Scripture. In none of them is there any reference to His 'mom' being there.

---

Doesn't John 19:26-27 state:

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Isn't he aluding to her being his mother here?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Origen (185 AD - 253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time." .

---

Actually he also stated that Mary was " her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings."("Hom. i in diversa")

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Basil (330 AD - 379 AD): writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. He writes, "Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword." Catholic theologican John Henry Newman, concerning Basil's statement, wrote "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt".

John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD): writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "(she) claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's request of her Son at the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory"..

---

No one has every argued that the Church fathers got everything right.

Here are other fathers that did believe in her sinlessness:

St. Justin Martyr - 130 AD
St. Irenaeus - 177 AD
Tertullian - 197 AD
St. Hippolytus of Rome - early 200's AD
St. Cyril of Jerusalem - 350 AD
St. Ephrem the Syrian - Forth Century
St. Peter Chrysologus - mid 400's AD

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Historian J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD) - "He did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she (Mary) was born exempt from all taint from original sin".

---

You are actually twisting J.N.D. Kelly here. His quote before this was that,

"St. Augustine agreed that Mary was the unique exception. She had been kept sinless."

Quoting from a talk by Catholic apologist and author Trent Horn, "Kelly affirms that Augustine believed that Mary had been kept sinless, however, not by the effort of her own will, but as a result of grace given to her in view of the incarnation."

"In the fourth and fifth centuries, the Pelagian heretics, Pelagius is their founder, they believed you did not need grace. You could work your way to heaven. One of their arguments for how you could do that was that Mary lived a life without sin. So even the heretics acknowledged Mary was sinless."

"Augustine said you're right she was sinless, but you're wrong that she did it on her own. She did that with the grace given to her in view of the incarnation"

---

Origen said she was "scandalized". Sorry, nothing else he says takes that away. And he is CLEARLY saying that Jesus died for her sins.

It's so ironic how you said the early church fathers "didn't get everything right", and then listed the fathers who believed Mary was sinless. You just showed that they might not have gotten that right too.

But did J.N.D Kelly specifically state that Augustine did not hold the view that Mary was kept from original sin? Saying Mary was "kept sinless" could be referring to her absence of sin in her life, not original sin.

The overall point is, your assertion that Mary being a sinner was a 16th century invention is completely false. All it takes is for a few fathers to have said it, and it defeats your claim.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve" - even if one accepts the typology, and the rule that the new is superior to the old, still, it isn't necessary that Mary be sinless in order to be greater than Eve. That is yet another completely made up, ad hoc assertion and another non sequitur that Catholics have to insist on in order to force the evidence to match their preconceived conclusion. Mary could have just been much, much less a sinner than Eve. Or, as you Catholics like to see it, Mary obeyed God (or, at least was resigned to God's will) while Eve disobeyed God. That would make Mary superior to Eve. But it does not necessitate her being sinless.

---

We all obey God at sometimes. It doesn't make us "better" than Eve. The whole point of her Immaculate Conception is that was sinless, just like Eve. She is the new Eve, but better, because of her fiat, her yes.

---

Her fiat does not necessitate that she was sinless. Evidently, the Roman Catholic religion is completely based on non sequiturs.

---

I didn't state that she was sinless due to her fiat. I said that she was sinless, "by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." She was sinless because she is the new Eve. Eve was sinless until the fall.

You are letting your anti-Catholic biases (and love for the phrase "non sequitur") cloud your rational understanding of this.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve" - even if one accepts the typology, and the rule that the new is superior to the old, still, it isn't necessary that Mary be sinless in order to be greater than Eve. That is yet another completely made up, ad hoc assertion and another non sequitur that Catholics have to insist on in order to force the evidence to match their preconceived conclusion. Mary could have just been much, much less a sinner than Eve. Or, as you Catholics like to see it, Mary obeyed God (or, at least was resigned to God's will) while Eve disobeyed God. That would make Mary superior to Eve. But it does not necessitate her being sinless.

---

We all obey God at sometimes. It doesn't make us "better" than Eve. The whole point of her Immaculate Conception is that was sinless, just like Eve. She is the new Eve, but better, because of her fiat, her yes.

---

Her fiat does not necessitate that she was sinless. Evidently, the Roman Catholic religion is completely based on non sequiturs.

---

I didn't state that she was sinless due to her fiat. I said that she was sinless, "by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." She was sinless because she is the new Eve. Eve was sinless until the fall.

You are letting your anti-Catholic biases (and love for the phrase "non sequitur") cloud your rational understanding of this.

---

You're only asserting that she was sinless, you haven't shown a lick of reasonable scriptural evidence. You've only shown it was the belief of some early church fathers, who by your very own admission were fallible.

My anti-Catholicism isn't a bias, it's based on Scripture, history, facts, and reason. I'm against Roman Catholicism because I'm pro truth.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Mary couldn't have had original sin, because that would have made her less than Eve" - even if one accepts the typology, and the rule that the new is superior to the old, still, it isn't necessary that Mary be sinless in order to be greater than Eve. That is yet another completely made up, ad hoc assertion and another non sequitur that Catholics have to insist on in order to force the evidence to match their preconceived conclusion. Mary could have just been much, much less a sinner than Eve. Or, as you Catholics like to see it, Mary obeyed God (or, at least was resigned to God's will) while Eve disobeyed God. That would make Mary superior to Eve. But it does not necessitate her being sinless.

---

We all obey God at sometimes. It doesn't make us "better" than Eve. The whole point of her Immaculate Conception is that was sinless, just like Eve. She is the new Eve, but better, because of her fiat, her yes.

---

Her fiat does not necessitate that she was sinless. Evidently, the Roman Catholic religion is completely based on non sequiturs.

---

You are letting your anti-Catholic biases (and love for the phrase "non sequitur") cloud your rational understanding of this.

---

If you don't want to hear "non sequitur" anymore, then just stop making them all the time. And I mean ALL the time. And if there's anyone who doesn't see that everything I'm saying here is rational, then that person isn't rational themself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Origen (185 AD - 253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time." .

---

Actually he also stated that Mary was " her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings."("Hom. i in diversa")

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Basil (330 AD - 379 AD): writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. He writes, "Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword." Catholic theologican John Henry Newman, concerning Basil's statement, wrote "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt".

John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD): writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "(she) claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's request of her Son at the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory"..

---

No one has every argued that the Church fathers got everything right.

Here are other fathers that did believe in her sinlessness:

St. Justin Martyr - 130 AD
St. Irenaeus - 177 AD
Tertullian - 197 AD
St. Hippolytus of Rome - early 200's AD
St. Cyril of Jerusalem - 350 AD
St. Ephrem the Syrian - Forth Century
St. Peter Chrysologus - mid 400's AD

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Historian J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD) - "He did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she (Mary) was born exempt from all taint from original sin".

---

You are actually twisting J.N.D. Kelly here. His quote before this was that,

"St. Augustine agreed that Mary was the unique exception. She had been kept sinless."

Quoting from a talk by Catholic apologist and author Trent Horn, "Kelly affirms that Augustine believed that Mary had been kept sinless, however, not by the effort of her own will, but as a result of grace given to her in view of the incarnation."

"In the fourth and fifth centuries, the Pelagian heretics, Pelagius is their founder, they believed you did not need grace. You could work your way to heaven. One of their arguments for how you could do that was that Mary lived a life without sin. So even the heretics acknowledged Mary was sinless."

"Augustine said you're right she was sinless, but you're wrong that she did it on her own. She did that with the grace given to her in view of the incarnation"

---

Origen said she was "scandalized". Sorry, nothing else he says takes that away.

It's so ironic how you said the early church fathers "didn't get everything right", and then listed the fathers who believed Mary was sinless. You just showed that they might not have gotten that right too.

But did J.N.D Kelly specifically state that Augustine did not hold the view that Mary was kept from original sin? Saying Mary was "kept sinless" could be referring to her absence of sin in her life, not original sin.

The overall point is, your assertion that Mary being a sinner was a 16th century invention is completely false. All it takes is for a few fathers to have said it, and it defeats your claim.

---

You're misunderstanding Kelly. Augustine was wrestling with concept of "original sin". That term, like the terms "Trinity", "homoousios", "Hypostatic union", and even the word "bible" weren't in the bible. These were terms and concepts that developed later.

OK, a few Church fathers were wrong. By the forth century, it was a common belief. Martin Luther believed it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Origen (185 AD - 253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time." .

---

Actually he also stated that Mary was " her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings."("Hom. i in diversa")

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Basil (330 AD - 379 AD): writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. He writes, "Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword." Catholic theologican John Henry Newman, concerning Basil's statement, wrote "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt".

John Chrysostom (347 AD - 407 AD): writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "(she) claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's request of her Son at the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory"..

---

No one has every argued that the Church fathers got everything right.

Here are other fathers that did believe in her sinlessness:

St. Justin Martyr - 130 AD
St. Irenaeus - 177 AD
Tertullian - 197 AD
St. Hippolytus of Rome - early 200's AD
St. Cyril of Jerusalem - 350 AD
St. Ephrem the Syrian - Forth Century
St. Peter Chrysologus - mid 400's AD

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Historian J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD) - "He did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she (Mary) was born exempt from all taint from original sin".

---

You are actually twisting J.N.D. Kelly here. His quote before this was that,

"St. Augustine agreed that Mary was the unique exception. She had been kept sinless."

Quoting from a talk by Catholic apologist and author Trent Horn, "Kelly affirms that Augustine believed that Mary had been kept sinless, however, not by the effort of her own will, but as a result of grace given to her in view of the incarnation."

"In the fourth and fifth centuries, the Pelagian heretics, Pelagius is their founder, they believed you did not need grace. You could work your way to heaven. One of their arguments for how you could do that was that Mary lived a life without sin. So even the heretics acknowledged Mary was sinless."

"Augustine said you're right she was sinless, but you're wrong that she did it on her own. She did that with the grace given to her in view of the incarnation"

---

Origen said she was "scandalized". Sorry, nothing else he says takes that away.

It's so ironic how you said the early church fathers "didn't get everything right", and then listed the fathers who believed Mary was sinless. You just showed that they might not have gotten that right too.

But did J.N.D Kelly specifically state that Augustine did not hold the view that Mary was kept from original sin? Saying Mary was "kept sinless" could be referring to her absence of sin in her life, not original sin.

The overall point is, your assertion that Mary being a sinner was a 16th century invention is completely false. All it takes is for a few fathers to have said it, and it defeats your claim.

---

You're misunderstanding Kelly. Augustine was wrestling with concept of "original sin". That term, like the terms "Trinity", "homoousios", "Hypostatic union", and even the word "bible" weren't in the bible. These were terms and concepts that developed later.

OK, a few Church fathers were wrong. By the forth century, it was a common belief. Martin Luther believed it.

---

"Martin Luther believed it" - So?? Protestantism isn't Lutherism. And contrary to what you may believe, I'm not trying to defend Protestantism. I don't care for labels. Don't consider me a "protestant". I'm just a bible believing Christian who is defending biblical truth, accurate history, and good logic and reason. A person stuck on an island who finds a bible floating in the ocean, who reads it and believes in Jesus and puts his faith in him for his salvation is a Christian, is part of the body of Christ, and is saved. No "protestant" or "catholic" label to his name. No water baptism. No communion. I can say that he's a brother in Christ and is saved. You as a Roman Catholic can't. That's the problem right there. Roman Catholicism doesn't have the true Gospel.

If the early church fathers agree with you, they're "right", but when they don't, they're "wrong". You see the major flaw in that, don't you? You've established that the early fathers were not infallible. Hence, the importance of sola scriptura. Is it wise to base an entire system of belief and practice on the fallible traditions of men rather than on infallible scripture?

"By the fourth century" - exactly. The Immaculate Conception is an invention that happened by slow accretion. It is not a belief that is linked to the original apostles or the first century church. And yet the Roman Catholic Church anathematizes to hell anyone who doesn't believe it. Read that last sentence again. The Roman Catholic Church claims divine authority for themselves. With this, they can stray from original apostolic tradition any way they want, and you can't question them. I hope you are starting to get why this is a huge problem, before it's too late.

Oh good, more rhetoric!

Quote:

---

Oldbear83 said:
Coke Bear:
Ah, you like rhetoric. OK, let's have a look at that play. First. some Scripture for context and a foundation:

Matthew 12:48-50 "He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

So that verse establishes that whoever does the Father's will, is Christ's "brother and sister and mother".

I presume as a Christian you have done the Father's will out of love for Christ. Ergo, that makes you the same as Mary.

Do you claim to be God's parent?

---

Coke Bear: "First, NO, I never gave birth to Jesus. That's what Mary did.

Second, is that (parenthood) what Jesus is discussing in those verses? No. He is using a Hebrew idiom to elevate those that does his father's will as his family.

Third, did anyone then (or now) believe that they are Christ's parents by "doing his will?" This almost sounds like an argument that BDT would try."

Jesus made clear that the status of His "mother and brothers" lay in doing the will of God.

From this, pretending Mary was somehow better than other humans is clearly against what Christ taught.

Too bad for the Marianites.

Quote:

---

Oldbear83 said:
Coke Bear: "To deny this would the same as the Nestorian heresy resolved in the Council of Ephesus, held in 431 AD."

No, that is not true. The heresy of Nestor was based in the notion that Christ had separate and distinct human and divine persons, which is very different from challenging the people who pray to Mary and ask for her intervention in place of Christ.

---

Coke Bear: "You realize that asking for her intercession is not in place of Christ. It is in CONJUNCTION with him. When I ask Mary for intercession, she is presenting my requests along side MY requests to Him. It's not in lieu of.

Besides that, you are conflating intercessory pray and the topic of her being the Mother of God."

When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, and by extension all believers, He very clearly wanted us to call directly on the Father, because Christ is our complete and sufficient intercessor.

This nonsense that we need Mary or anyone else to pray "in conjunction" with us is garbage. After all, it implies that our prayer would not be heard without Mary putting in a word for us ... and seriously, if God is not willing to hear someone's prayer, just how arrogant is it to presume that Mary would change God's mind?

We have a perfect intercessor, who is Christ. Mary has no place in that role.

Quote:

---

Oldbear83 said:
Coke Bear: "This doesn't elevate her to a deity. She didn't create the world, God did. No Catholic believes that she is a God or a person of the Trinity."

The problem is that you are promoting her to something claimed nowhere in Scripture. All I see is interpretations that Mary has some rank just because you want that to be the case.

---

Coke Bear: "What I am "promoting her to something claimed nowhere in Scripture"? Elizabeth calls her the Mother of my Lord."

No one is disputing that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But that in no way means Mary became anything more than a human woman who pleased God, equal in stature to Ruth, Sarah, or for that matter Elizabeth. The Gospel verses where Christ made plain that anyone who serves God was the same as His family proves that well beyond any dispute.

Quote:

---

Oldbear83 said:
Coke Bear: "Mary didn't give birth to a Nature, she gave birth to a person. Jesus is one of the three persons of the Trinity.

Luke 1:43 - "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?"

Luke is echoing the same passage in II Samuel 6:9 - "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant."


There's no way around it, Coke Bear. That statement is perilously close to blasphemous.

---

Coke Bear: "How is it blasphemous to quote scripture and point out the links that Luke was presenting from the OT?"

First, BTD was right to point out the false logic in your attempt to glue unrelated verses together. And as for blasphemous, do I really need to reference Matthew 4:6 to remind you that quoting Scripture is done by evil men as well as good? If you are seeking to learn, well and good, but twisting God's words to suite your personal opinion is a very, very bad idea.

Also, consider that the Ark of the Covenant was something ordinary people never saw and could not even talk to. Only the High Priest, under very specific and restricted conditions could even speak with God via the Ark, which was used in battle and would kill anyone who even touched it.

Is that really how you want folks to think of Mary?

The plain truth is that Mary is not the Ark, nor is she a Matriarch of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is completely Christ and Christ alone. It very much IS blasphemy to take from Christ what belongs only to Him, and pretend it belongs to anyone else, even his mum.

Quote:

---

Oldbear83 said:
God allows us to see something of Him several places in Scripture. In none of them is there any reference to His 'mom' being there.

---

Coke Bear: "Doesn't John 19:26-27 state:

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Isn't he aluding to her being his mother here?"

Jesus was giving a moment of comfort to both Mary and Johnn when they were suffering. Beyond that you are diving headfirst into a false assumption again.

After all, if we are going to play along and say Mary is not just Jesus' mum but 'Mary the Majestic Mother Of The Godhead", then by definition telling John that Mary is his mother and Mary that John is her son would elevate John to Godhood.

Same. False. Foolish. Lack of Logic.

Just stop.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet. Thank you

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're only asserting that she was sinless, you haven't shown a lick of reasonable scriptural evidence. You've only shown it was the belief of some early church fathers, who by your very own admission were fallible.

---

I and Fre3dom Bear have many times pointed out Luke 1:28. You reject that.

I have detailed a few times how Mary is the new Eve and the new Ark of the Covenant. The typology is very clear for those who can get past their biases.

It is much more clear than some "cookie recipe" for the circular argument for sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My anti-Catholicism isn't a bias, it's based on Scripture, history, facts, and reason. I'm against Roman Catholicism because I'm pro truth.

---

No, you are pro-YOUR truth with no historical backing and NO authority other than your own.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Martin Luther believed it" - So?? Protestantism isn't Lutherism. And contrary to what you may believe, I'm not trying to defend Protestantism. I don't care for labels. Don't consider me a "protestant". I'm just a bible believing Christian who is defending biblical truth, accurate history, and good logic and reason. A person stuck on an island who finds a bible floating in the ocean, who reads it and believes in Jesus and puts his faith in him for his salvation is a Christian, is part of the body of Christ, and is saved. No "protestant" or "catholic" label to his name. No water baptism. No communion. I can say that he's a brother in Christ and is saved. You as a Roman Catholic can't. That's the problem right there. Roman Catholicism doesn't have the true Gospel.

---

Once again, you are myopically speaking about the exception and not the rule. I have many times spoke about the ORDINARY means for salvation. God know whats on the hearts of men. He can even redeem those who hearts are aligned with Him even though they never heard of Jesus. This is VERY clear in the Catechism. It is all done through the saving work of Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the early church fathers agree with you, they're "right", but when they don't, they're "wrong". You see the major flaw in that, don't you? You've established that the early fathers were not infallible. Hence, the importance of sola scriptura. Is it wise to base an entire system of belief and practice on the fallible traditions of men rather than on infallible scripture?

---

You are making another straw man assertion again. The Church never states that Tradition is superior to Scripture. They are two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith.

Dei Verbum, from the Second Vatican Council states "it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"By the fourth century" - exactly. The Immaculate Conception is an invention that happened by slow accretion. It is not a belief that is linked to the original apostles or the first century church. And yet the Roman Catholic Church anathematizes to hell anyone who doesn't believe it. Read that last sentence again. The Roman Catholic Church claims divine authority for themselves. With this, they can stray from original apostolic tradition any way they want, and you can't question them. I hope you are starting to get why this is a huge problem, before it's too late.

---

You are twisting (again) the concept of accretion and belief.

The Church didn't use the word "Trinity" until the second century.
The Church didn't define that Jesus and God were of the same substance until the Council of Nicea in 325 to fight against Arianism.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD determined the distinction between the two natures of Christ to fight against monophysitism.

The lack of documentation until this time doesn't negate ANY of these concepts. They weren't discussed until they were challenged.

Doctrinal development takes time. Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. The Church helped define the beliefs of Christianity today.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oh good, more rhetoric!
Jesus made clear that the status of His "mother and brothers" lay in doing the will of God.
From this, pretending Mary was somehow better than other humans is clearly against what Christ taught.
Too bad for the Marianites.

---

First, I don't understand the snark here in your last sentence on its contest nor why you felt the need to make that comment.

Second, the following bible passages seem to argue otherwise.
Luke 1:42 - "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"

Luke 1:48 - Mary says, "...for behold, henceforth all generations 'shall' call me Blessed"

Luke 1:30 - "You have found favor with GOD.

Luke argues that she was most special among women.

Oldbear83 said:

---

When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, and by extension all believers, He very clearly wanted us to call directly on the Father, because Christ is our complete and sufficient intercessor.

---

Can we pray to the risen Jesus or the Holy Spirit? The bible never says that we can or should. Do we? Yes, of course.

Does the bible say that others should pray for others? Yes, it's clear in James 5:16. Why would James say to pray for one another if "Christ is our complete and sufficient intercessor"?

Because we are members of the body of Christ. Jesus wants us to have others pray for us. It is a commandment to Love one another. Praying for someone is a small act of love.

Oldbear83 said:

---

This nonsense that we need Mary or anyone else to pray "in conjunction" with us is garbage. After all, it implies that our prayer would not be heard without Mary putting in a word for us ... and seriously, if God is not willing to hear someone's prayer, just how arrogant is it to presume that Mary would change God's mind?

We have a perfect intercessor, who is Christ. Mary has no place in that role.

---

Did I ever say that we "need Mary or anyone else to pray"? You're reading into my posts again. As stated early, the bible is clear that we should pray for one another.

Secondarily, I'm not sure where you get your theology, but God doesn't change his mind. He's immutable. He can't change. God ALWAYS hears AND answers our prayers. The answer may be NOT NOW or NO, I'VE GOT SOMETHING BETTER FOR YOU.

Our petitions are brought to God in accordance to his will.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one is disputing that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But that in no way means Mary became anything more than a human woman who pleased God, equal in stature to Ruth, Sarah, or for that matter Elizabeth. The Gospel verses where Christ made plain that anyone who serves God was the same as His family proves that well beyond any dispute.

---

Other than many years of protestant bias, I can't understand why someone would believe that is just an ordinary woman. Yes, she is just a woman, but she is quite extraordinary. Out of all the 50+ billion women to walk the earth, God choose her to be the mother of his only son. She risked her life to bring him into the world. She traveled several days to Egypt to protect him from death.

St Agustine said it best, "Him whom the heavens cannot contain the womb of one woman bore. She ruled our Ruler. She carried him in whom we all are. She gave milk to our Bread."

She taught him to walk, talk, and pray. She was with him at the scrouging, the Via Dolorosa, the foot of the cross, and went to his tomb on Easter morning.

How anyone can thing that she was just an ordinary woman is beyond me.

It this is "rhetoric" then so be it. It is the truth.

Oldbear83 said:

---

There's no way around it, Coke Bear. That statement is perilously close to blasphemous. Coke Bear: "How is it blasphemous to quote scripture and point out the links that Luke was presenting from the OT?"

First, BTD was right to point out the false logic in your attempt to glue unrelated verses together. And as for blasphemous, do I really need to reference Matthew 4:6 to remind you that quoting Scripture is done by evil men as well as good? If you are seeking to learn, well and good, but twisting God's words to suite your personal opinion is a very, very bad idea.

Also, consider that the Ark of the Covenant was something ordinary people never saw and could not even talk to. Only the High Priest, under very specific and restricted conditions could even speak with God via the Ark, which was used in battle and would kill anyone who even touched it.

Is that really how you want folks to think of Mary?

The plain truth is that Mary is not the Ark, nor is she a Matriarch of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is completely Christ and Christ alone. It very much IS blasphemy to take from Christ what belongs only to Him, and pretend it belongs to anyone else, even his mum.

---

First, please explain what I am taking "from Christ what belongs only to Him."

I'm not sure if you understand the Ark of the Covenant was. What did the Ark contain?

• Manna from the desert. - The Bread from Heaven
• Staff of Aaron - The High Priest
• Ten Commandments - The Word of God

What was in Mary's womb?

• Jesus - The Bread from Heaven
• Jesus - The High Priest
• Jesus - The Word of God

Luke goes out of his way to draw parallels to this:
1 Kings 8:7,10 - The cherubim spread their wings over the place of the ark and overshadowed the ark and its carrying poles. … the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. (Shekhinah is a Hebrew word that translates to "dwelling" or "settling" and is used in Judaism to describe the presence of God in the world. In other words, the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:35 - The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

2 Sam 6:2 He and all his men went to Baalah in Judah to bring up from there the ark. (The hill country)
Luke 1:39 - At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea

2 Sam 6:16 (Michal) And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart.
Luke 1:41 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

2 Sam 6:9 - David was afraid of the Lord that day and said, "How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?"
Luke 1:43 - But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 Sam 6:11 - The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months, and the Lord blessed him and his entire household.
Luke 1:56 - Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home.

Luke is drawing clear parallels to Mary and the Ark. Many of the Church fathers confirm this same thing-
Chrysippus, St. Hippolytus, & St. Dionysius 3rd century
St. Ambrose, St Cyril, St. Athanasius 4th century

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus was giving a moment of comfort to both Mary and Johnn when they were suffering. Beyond that you are diving headfirst into a false assumption again.

After all, if we are going to play along and say Mary is not just Jesus' mum but 'Mary the Majestic Mother Of The Godhead", then by definition telling John that Mary is his mother and Mary that John is her son would elevate John to Godhood.

Same. False. Foolish. Lack of Logic.

Just stop.

---

Bless your heart. This is not what Jesus meant and you know it. You are twisting the reference similarly to others. Jesus is entrusting Mary into John's care. And in return when he said, "Behold your mother", he is also giving Mary to all of us as our Mother.

It's OK to love Mary. She Loves you. It doesn't take away our Love for Jesus. It enhances it. If one has ever been married, they might believe that they could never love anyone more. Then they have a child. They love that child and the spouse even more. They may feel like they couldn't love any more, but they have a second child. They love even more. Love is exponential. It is not finite.

Go ahead and Love Mary. It makes Jesus happy. He doesn't get jealous. He's is happy when you love his mother. No one can love Mary more than Jesus does.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're only asserting that she was sinless, you haven't shown a lick of reasonable scriptural evidence. You've only shown it was the belief of some early church fathers, who by your very own admission were fallible.

---

I and Fre3dom Bear have many times pointed out Luke 1:28. You reject that.

I have detailed a few times how Mary is the new Eve and the new Ark of the Covenant. The typology is very clear for those who can get past their biases.

It is much more clear than some "cookie recipe" for the circular argument for sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My anti-Catholicism isn't a bias, it's based on Scripture, history, facts, and reason. I'm against Roman Catholicism because I'm pro truth.

---

No, you are pro-YOUR truth with no historical backing and NO authority other than your own.

---

Luke 1:28 has been debunked. You and FreedomBear can only repeatedly and mindlessly assert that it shows that Mary was sinless, because all you have is this mind-bogglingly ridiculous reach and you have nothing else. Your entire "scriptural" support for the sinlessness of Mary rests on the perfect passive participle form of the verb "to be graced". As I have already pointed out, and to which you or FreedomBear could not answer, the perfect passive participle only means that the action was completed in the past. Therefore, it only had to be started and completed one minute ago, one day ago, one week ago, one month ago, etc. There is NOTHING about perfect passive participles that mean that they MUST have been started and completed AT CONCEPTION. This is an entirely made up belief, made ad hoc in order to get to the belief that you want - Mary's sinlessness. And it is the non sequitur of non sequiturs. By this ridiculous reasoning then, other perfect passive participles in the Bible, like the ones I mentioned in an earlier post, also must show that we believers are ALL born via immaculate conception, and we all too are sinless. You and FreedomBear had no answer for that either. Instead, you're just gonna hang on to your belief, even when it's clearly (very) poor in logic and reason.

And regarding your typology argument, as I have repeatedly pointed out, and which you did not have an answer, nothing about the typology necessitates Mary being sinless. This is another ad hoc reach, and yep you guessed it, a non sequitur.

"No, you are pro-YOUR truth with no historical backing and NO authority other than your own" - My authority is Scripture. If my truth is wrong, then I invite anyone to come prove me wrong. No one has. And if you don't think I haven't been giving hisorical backing, then you are either a flat out liar, or you have the short term memory of a toad. Seriously, how do you type such a blatant lie, when every reader of this thread knows it, and they can even go back a few posts to see my historical backing?? I had JUST defeated your claim that "Mary being a sinner is a 16th century invention" with history. Incredible.

Look, I hate to be rude, but it needs to be said. If you can't get what I'm saying, and see that it's correct, then you are either too intellectually dishonest or not intelligent enough to have this conversation.

Coke Bear, I want to start by emphasizing I write in goodwill, as to a brother who is taking a terrible risk and yet he denies the danger.

The plain fact of Mary's status is that she pleased the Lord, and so was blessed.

This is a wonderful condition for a person, and one many of us would hope for ourselves.

Yet Scripture is plain that Mary was not sinless, was not holy as God is holy, and was never referenced as an intercessor for us.

THAT role belongs exclusively to Christ.

Now, regarding Luke 1, I am sorry to be blunt but Luke absolutely does NOT promote Mary to superhuman status.

"Blessed" means that, but ONLY that. If Luke had meant for us to consider Mary as "most special among women", he would plainly have said so, but in fact he says nothing of the kind.

Coke Bear: "Can we pray to the risen Jesus or the Holy Spirit? The bible never says that we can or should. Do we? Yes, of course."

Mister, I genuinely hope you were just being intellectually lazy, and not deliberately claiming Mary is the same as Christ or the The Holy Spirit. That would indeed be blasphemous!

Coke Bear: "Does the bible say that others should pray for others? Yes, it's clear in James 5:16. Why would James say to pray for one another if "Christ is our complete and sufficient intercessor"?"

There is a huge difference between asking the Lord to help someone, and praying to Mary to speak to God on your behalf, treating her as an intermediary to God, which definitely would be stealing Christ's role from Him.


Coke Bear: "Other than many years of protestant bias, I can't understand why someone would believe that is just an ordinary woman. Yes, she is just a woman, but she is quite extraordinary. Out of all the 50+ billion women to walk the earth, God choose her to be the mother of his only son. She risked her life to bring him into the world. She traveled several days to Egypt to protect him from death."

First, check yourself. I never said Mary was ordinary, but have always shown her respect and appreciation for what she did. But with that said, Scripture makes plain that Mary was mentioned very few times, and at least twice she was shown to be in error in her beliefs.

That's not to insult Mary, just adding perspective. Mary sinned in her life just as she loved and cared for Jesus. This is similar to David, Abraham, Sarah, and many other servants of the Lord.

Mary was a good servant and worthy in her work. But she was not more than others, and this is plain.

When the Book of Revelation speaks of the 24 Elders seated in thrones around God, Mary is not among them.

When Jesus spoke with Moses and Elihjah at the Transfiguration, Mary was not there.

When Jesus helped Peter to walk on water, Mary was not there.

When Jesus rose from the dead, the first person to see Him risen was Mary ... but not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

And so on.

None of this is to disrespect Mary, but exaggerating her as you do is very wrong.



Coke Bear: "It's OK to love Mary"

Oh, I do love Mary. I just don't lie about her or pretend she is the female version of Christ.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Martin Luther believed it" - So?? Protestantism isn't Lutherism. And contrary to what you may believe, I'm not trying to defend Protestantism. I don't care for labels. Don't consider me a "protestant". I'm just a bible believing Christian who is defending biblical truth, accurate history, and good logic and reason. A person stuck on an island who finds a bible floating in the ocean, who reads it and believes in Jesus and puts his faith in him for his salvation is a Christian, is part of the body of Christ, and is saved. No "protestant" or "catholic" label to his name. No water baptism. No communion. I can say that he's a brother in Christ and is saved. You as a Roman Catholic can't. That's the problem right there. Roman Catholicism doesn't have the true Gospel.

---

Once again, you are myopically speaking about the exception and not the rule. I have many times spoke about the ORDINARY means for salvation. God know whats on the hearts of men. He can even redeem those who hearts are aligned with Him even though they never heard of Jesus. This is VERY clear in the Catechism. It is all done through the saving work of Jesus.

---

This is the perfect example of Roman Catholic "double talk" - Roman Catholicism says it is necessary to be water baptized and take part in the sacraments in order to be saved.... but also says it is not necessary.

Having both an "ordinary" means of salvation, but also have exceptions, does not fit a God of justice. If one person is saved even though they did not get water baptized, but another is condemned to Hell because they did not get water baptized, then God is inconsistent and unjust.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the early church fathers agree with you, they're "right", but when they don't, they're "wrong". You see the major flaw in that, don't you? You've established that the early fathers were not infallible. Hence, the importance of sola scriptura. Is it wise to base an entire system of belief and practice on the fallible traditions of men rather than on infallible scripture?

---

You are making another straw man assertion again. The Church never states that Tradition is superior to Scripture. They are two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith.

Dei Verbum, from the Second Vatican Council states "it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence"

---

This is not a straw man assertion. And there isn't "another" straw man by me. I'm not saying that Catholics believe "tradition is superior to Scripture" (you're actually making the straw man here!) I'm saying that since the tradition of men is fallilble, but Scripture is not, then it is unwise to base an entire system of belief and practice on tradition rather than on infallible Scripture. At the least, Scripture should be the final say.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"By the fourth century" - exactly. The Immaculate Conception is an invention that happened by slow accretion. It is not a belief that is linked to the original apostles or the first century church. And yet the Roman Catholic Church anathematizes to hell anyone who doesn't believe it. Read that last sentence again. The Roman Catholic Church claims divine authority for themselves. With this, they can stray from original apostolic tradition any way they want, and you can't question them. I hope you are starting to get why this is a huge problem, before it's too late.

---

You are twisting (again) the concept of accretion and belief.

The Church didn't use the word "Trinity" until the second century.
The Church didn't define that Jesus and God were of the same substance until the Council of Nicea in 325 to fight against Arianism.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD determined the distinction between the two natures of Christ to fight against monophysitism.

The lack of documentation until this time doesn't negate ANY of these concepts. They weren't discussed until they were challenged.

Doctrinal development takes time. Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. The Church helped define the beliefs of Christianity today.

---

"Trinity" is just a word that describes a concept that is in the Bible. It isn't a new invented concept. Same with Jesus and his being both man and God.

The Church didn't have to define later that Jesus and God were the same substance - Jesus already did that himself: "I and the Father are one." John 1:1 also did that - "the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God". Again, these are already in Scripture.

These are NOT developed doctrines. You are comparing these doctrines that are clearly in Scripture, with the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, which is NOT. The doctrine of Mary's sinlessness is a development that happened by accretion, and it was solidified after Christianity in Rome compromised with Rome's pagan god and godess worship. It only got worse from there. We're now at a point where Catholics can't even recognize the blatant idolatry and heresy when it's right in front of their faces. The frog in hot water......

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"By the fourth century" - exactly. The Immaculate Conception is an invention that happened by slow accretion. It is not a belief that is linked to the original apostles or the first century church. And yet the Roman Catholic Church anathematizes to hell anyone who doesn't believe it. Read that last sentence again. The Roman Catholic Church claims divine authority for themselves. With this, they can stray from original apostolic tradition any way they want, and you can't question them. I hope you are starting to get why this is a huge problem, before it's too late.

---

You are twisting (again) the concept of accretion and belief.

The Church didn't use the word "Trinity" until the second century.
The Church didn't define that Jesus and God were of the same substance until the Council of Nicea in 325 to fight against Arianism.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD determined the distinction between the two natures of Christ to fight against monophysitism.

The lack of documentation until this time doesn't negate ANY of these concepts. They weren't discussed until they were challenged.

Doctrinal development takes time. Jesus didn't come to write a book. He came to establish a Church. The Church helped define the beliefs of Christianity today.

---

"Trinity" is just a word that describes a concept that is in the Bible. It isn't a new invented concept. Same with Jesus and his being both man and God.

The Church didn't have to define later that Jesus and God were the same substance - Jesus already did that himself: "I and the Father are one." John 1:1 also did that - "the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God". Again, these are already in Scripture.

These are NOT developed doctrines. You are comparing these doctrines that are clearly in Scripture, with the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, which is NOT. The doctrine of Mary's sinlessness is a development that happened by accretion, and it was solidified after Christianity in Rome compromised with Rome's pagan god and godess worship. It only got worse from there. We're now at a point where Catholics can't even recognize the blatant idolatry and heresy when it's right in front of their faces. The frog in hot water......

---

I have to agree. The trinity is a Doctrine found throughout the entire bible. It doesn't matter what any denomination says, it is found in the writings of scripture. That proves that the concept is not man-made. Certain groups can assert that early Believers didn't believe certain doctrines but when you read about it in Scripture you know that that's not true. Even according to the early writers of scripture in the early days of the church they were false teachers even then. So you can't go by what some early church believed. You have to go by scripture. Scripture alone is inspired. The church is not the inspired word of God.

I'm also in agreement. In reading/studying the Bible, the separate mentions of God, Christ and the Spirit/Counselor mathematically adds us to three. As for the specifics of the Trinity, I am open for discussion; however, as humans, our ability to reason and understand such celestial phenomena is limited.