Mary was a sinful human, just like us. She was sinful while she carried Jesus. She was sinful after His birth. Mary was never without sin. Only Jesus was.
|
Mary was a sinful human, just like us. She was sinful while she carried Jesus. She was sinful after His birth. Mary was never without sin. Only Jesus was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Really now! Let's see the Lamb worthy of sacrifice was defiled at birth? Would you give up Christ for spite because you find the Catholic Church so objectionable?
To give you a bit more to think about, lets carry this theme to the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate. If we consider the womb of Mary as a Tabernacle then we have to consider that Mary and the Tabernacle were ritually cleaned. The essence of original sin was removed from her. She was given a special grace (my words) removing every emotion, passion, and debilities inherent in original sin. She was made pure to receive the purest of lambs; just as the Tabernacle was ritually cleaned before it was consecrated. (Also see Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28)
JoeT
Good grief! Nothing against Mary. She didn't have to be sinless for God to create a sinless Jesus. Mary wasn't immaculate. She was just like you and me. God did a miracle. I don't accept your Tabernacle thing. She was not given a special grace (why do we care about YOUR words in this?) and was not made pure. Miracle. Think miracle. Jesus had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice, but Mary had nothing to do with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
How was Mary ritually cleaned? How was the essence of original sin removed from her?
When and how did she get cleansed?
Why would emotion, passion and debilities be removed from her when the Bible says that even Jesus came to experience what we experience in our human form (without sinning of course). It says he was tempted in every way known to man so you are claiming that Mary not only had no sin, but she also had no emotion or passion?
All she did was come from a special blood line AND submit her will to honoring and pleasing God.
Yes she had to be sinless for Christ be compassed in her womb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The Immaculate Conception-link refers to the birth of Mary. Tradition (small t) holds that it was at her birth that she became, as it were, protected from sin and cleansed of original sin.
JoeT
No, she didn't have to be sinless. That was the miracle, that God chosen a mortal woman as the mother of His Son. There is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that says Mary was sinless.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Mary was born sinful, and stayed that way all her life.
Find me a non-Catholic proof that I am wrong. You won't be able to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
The difference here is that she was “protected”. She didn’t resist temptation like you and I because of this protection. See my post
JoeT
Really now, a non-Catholic proof? The point is that regardless of the source, the proof would still be “Catholic”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Nice try
JoeT
And do you have any scripture to validate this claim, or will you have no answer to this question also?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
That seems a bit arrogant - to suggest that everything belongs to your denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
That's not Biblical.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Actually, Mary said that she had sinned, and was in need of a Saviour:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Luke 1:46-49
46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.
49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me,
And holy is His name.
NKJV
A person who has not sinned needs no Savior.
She refers to the lowly state that she is in.
She speaks of what He has done for her.
You do remember Scripture and Tradition. Do you want me to trot out St. Agustine again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT.
Personally, I'd like to see you deal with some scripture rather than the opinions of men.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
They can't do that our their traditions/doctrines would crumble!
You are absolutely right. They cannot defend a bit of this from scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
So only Catholics believe Mary was sinless. And they believe that because of "tradition," not because the Bible says so.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Look, try reading the Old Testament. But this time remember that words mean things.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
JoeT
... and?.
It will show you what wondergirl, tom and Peter are all saying
So, depending on how one interpret Bible words, they get a certain meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Specifically what verses in the O. T. refer to Mary as the tabernacle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
As I recall you had stated that you were raised Lutheran. It seems strange that you would reject the Virgin Mary being that of all the Catholic doctrine Martin Luther rejected, he didn't reject this one.
JoeT
Lutherans are never taught this about Mary, nor is it mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Luther was raised in the Catholic Church and was an Augustinian monk, and was steeped for many years in Catholic thinking. As time went by, he considered Mary worthy of honor, but not a sinless person.
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Rejecting the virgin Mary? Who is rejecting the virgin Mary and I went to a Lutheran Church to and they never taught that Mary was always a virgin or any of that.
Lutherans believe she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. They DO NOT teach she still was AFTER Jesus was born. They say AND THEN Joseph KNEW her,
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Rather than trying to point the spotlight on someone else, let us not forget that the onus remains on you to prove that scripture says that Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin. So far you have provided nothing.
It is a common tactic of Roman Catholics to accuse non-Catholics of rejecting or demeaning Mary if we do not buy into their doctrine. I personally believe Mary was a very godly woman, but one in need of a Saviour nonetheless, and a normal woman who had a number of children after the virgin birth of Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Yes she was blessed above ALL woman but she was humble enough to KNOW she was NOT divine in any sense of the word.
Luther was raised in the Catholic Church and was an Augustinian monk, and was steeped for many years in Catholic thinking. As time went by, he considered Mary worthy of honor, but not a sinless person.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Luther and I share a birthday. I'll channel him tonight and let you know what he says.
It absolutely does! I was just reading that today.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
1 Corinthians 7
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
Says it all!
Along with some other things that have been stated here.
Luther also though polygamy was acceptable...
Luther is a mixed bag, as are almost all human beings. He got some things right and some wrong.
I didn't know that. Do you have anything that cites this, or is this based on your own knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Googling will suffice. You don't need me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Here's one for you --Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
From Wikipedia ("Polygamy") --
During the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ),[25] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"[26] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[27] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")[28]
(from the same article)
"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years' War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."
Here is what I found.
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid. pp. 329-330.)
I never heard that either but I would guess that since the Old Testament was full of people with more than one wife it was a culture thing and he was looking at it as okayed by God.
Yes, I do remember now. Very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If nothing else, Luther was very German, very pragmatic, very practical. Thanks to Luther, Kitty's spice rack was probably in alphabetical order.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I think this "small part" is sufficient enough for me to tell; I am sorry about this but I do not know why Jerome is such an authority as to the definition of till when he, himself, do not fully understand what he is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
He said "Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign?"
Then, he concluded "Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet." without even citing a supporting biblical verse.
In fact, the Christ will cease to reign when he finally put His enemies under His feet. The bible clearly indicates why it is till he hath put all enemies under his feet; the reason--because Christ will put down ALL rule and ALL authority and power to the Father.
1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Just FYI:
From the Lutheran Church MS website:
Q. I've heard that Martin Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception, in her perpetual virginity and in praying to her. Is this how Lutherans still view Mary today?
A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation. Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child. This accounts for Luther's comments about Mary being "entirely without sin" (as far as the conception was concerned). Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views regarding how this was accomplished; in any event, it is clear from Luther's other and later writings on Mary that he did not hold to the view that Mary was personally devoid of all sin (which would mean that she would have had no need of forgiveness or salvation). Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.
In his early years Luther was still greatly influenced by his rigorous Roman Catholic and monastic training. In his later writings he clearly rejects invocation to Mary and/or the saints as having no Scriptural mandate or promise. None of this undermines the opening sentence of this e-mail, which should be underscored as the final word on this issue.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:56 PM. |