[JoeT777]

Thus, a sinless Mary needed to come from a pure vessel.

Mary isn't Divine, she was made pure. Just like washing a jug.

[Wondergirl]

Mary isn't Divine, she was made pure. Just like washing a jug.

Okay. A pure Mary, therefore, would need to come from a pure mother.

Why did arcura say this? --

Originally Posted by arcura
Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.

Does the RCC say Mary was sinless or not?

[JoeT777]

Okay. A pure Mary, therefore, would need to come from a pure mother.

Does a freshly cleaned jug come from a clean sink full of dirty dishes? No, it's washed

Why did arcura say this? -

So that Christ can be born in a spiritually clean Tabernacle.

Does the RCC say Mary was sinless or not?

Catholics believe that when Mary was conceived she received sanctifying grace at that very instant in time her soul was infused. Thus, she was exempted from the stain of original sin. In essence she received the same sanctifying graces one receives at Baptism, the removal and the effects of original sin except for the temporal punishment of death given Adam. You might say she received her sanctifying graces in advance of her Holy life. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

[arcura]

Wondergirl ,
Perhaps God COULD have done it that way but I think not.
The reasonj is because of the bible verses I [posted.
They indicate they imaculate conception of Mary as I and God's holy Church see it.
I'm hoping that you can understand that is why I bellieve as I do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

JoeT,
Yes, The Church IS the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen here.

You people strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Mary this or Mary that. Does anyone really care? It's minutiae of the worst sort.

So the Catholics believe one thing, and the Protestants believe something else. So what? What else is new? Trying to "prove" one side or the other is absurd.

Slinging Bible verses back and forth is hardly edifying. "Give the Scripture" reference/proof, one side says. The other side responds with a Scripture. But that's not the original Greek/Aramaic, whatever. Good Lord!

It goes on and on, ad infinitum.

The gnat of Mary's conception and the camel of Jesus' resurrection.

Better you all go out and feed the starving, visit the sick, and do what Jesus told you to do. Anything would be better than spending your life on a silly Internet board arguing over inconsequentials.

[Wondergirl]

This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen here.

I'm so sorry you missed seeing the challenge and even the wonder and joy in this thread.

[Athos]

I'm so sorry you missed seeing the challenge and even the wonder and joy in this thread.

Wonder and joy?

You got to be kidding.

[Wondergirl]

Wonder and joy?

You got to be kidding.

I am finally beginning to understand (not agree with, mind you) some of the RCC's teaching about Mary, thanks to JoeT's and arcura's patient postings.

[Athos]

I am finally beginning to understand (not agree with, mind you) some of the RCC's teaching about Mary, thanks to JoeT's and arcura's patient postings.

It would have been a lot easier, and much more accurate, to simply have read about Catholic teaching on one of the many Internet sites that do just that.

I have nothing against Joe or Arcura but they would be the first to tell you that they are not official spokesmen for the Catholic Church.

[kp2171]

Are we really going to ridicule members for engaging in discussion here?

[kp2171]

I agree with this...

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1866819-post37.html

[classyT]

Athos,

I think it does matter if Mary was sinless, it changes everything. In my opinion it means that the Lord didn't need to die for her sins and it brings up a hosts of issues. I do agree that I am not going to change someone's mind if it made up already.

Incidentally, I did feed the hungry, yesterday... I do visit the sick and encourage them. I serve people all the time and I still have a few min. to discuss christianity on AMHD.

JoeT777,

I have decided to start calling someone else grumpy... ha ha and you Uncle Backwards... your thinking is screwed up anyway. :D

[450donn]

Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.
He was full of grace and most blessed of all women from God and therefore without sin via an emaculate conception from her mother.
Luke 1:28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.So here again you are quoting something and not completing the context of the passage. The term you are trying to use here is the same term as used in Ephesians 1:6 where is is translated "bestowed". This portrays Mary as a recipient NOT a dispenser, of devinew grace
Luke 1:42  And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And your point is? All this says is that Elizabeth knew that Mary was carrying her savior.
Luke 1:45  And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. Again so what? There is no dispute that Mary was the mother of Jesus. The discussion has always been whether Mary was also born a from a virgin. Which is impossible
Oeace and kindness,
Fred

Better luck next time. None of these scriptures you have quoted say anything about Mary being anything other than what she was. A young woman betrothed to be married to Joseph Whom God showed favor on by allowing her to be a vessel to carry my Lord into this world.

[450donn]

This is from an improper use of the rating system in post #28
elscarta disagrees : Read Luke 2:21-23. Jesus is preesented as Mary's firstborn. Mary at that time had an only child!

Elscarta, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do I have to post it in it's entirety for you to actually read? Vs 23 Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. There is no argument to that statement.
What is being discussed here is the use of the word "firstborn" In all circles and especially from the hand of Luke, a very learned man for the day, and a Doctor to boot firstborn indicates that Mary also bore other children. This is NOT a slip of the tongue. It is accurate. Mary had other children fathered by Joseph. Why is that so difficult for certain people to comprehend?

[Wondergirl]

This is from an improper use of the rating system in post #28
elscarta disagrees : Read Luke 2:21-23. Jesus is preesented as Mary's firstborn. Mary at that time had an only child!

Elscarta, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do I have to post it in it's entirety for you to actually read? vs 23 Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. There is no argument to that statement.
What is being discussed here is the use of the word "firstborn" In all circles and especially from the hand of Luke, a very learned man for the day, and a Doctor to boot firstborn indicates that Mary also bore other children. This is NOT a slip of the tongue. It is accurate. Mary had other children fathered by Joseph. Why is that so difficult for certain people to comprehend?

Yup! You and I don't deserve the reddie (I got the same thing you did, same words). Luke wrote about the birth years later. He knew Mary had had more children after Jesus. You are exactly right, donn.

[arcura]

There IS NO POOF that Mary had any children after she had Jesus.
The Church that is the pillar an foundation of the truth says that she did not have any.
I think that it knows what it is talking about.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

[450donn]

OK Fred, since you refuse to read the word of God in it's entirety and instead listen to the teachings of the RCC, there is no reason for further discussion on this subject. Your answer says it all!

[classyT]

Fred,

NO PROOF that the Lord Jesus had brothers? The bible records it!. because you want to explain it away because it doesn't FIT your theology is your right I guess but check it out...

NKJV) reads, “When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, 'Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?' So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.' Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”

Then again in Mathew:

“While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, 'Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.' But He answered and said to the one who told Him, 'Who is My mother and who are My brothers?' And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and 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.'”

Plus there are other places the Bible speaks of his siblings. I'm not sure what you do with all those scriptures. You all must have a big black marker to mark it out or maybe some white out. Lol because it is THERE. As far as proof goes... The Bible records it... I have no other authority.

[elscarta]

Actually the question was raised in this post as to whether Mary had any other children. One of the arguments presented to support this is that the term "firstborn" cannot be used for an only child. This argument is presented in the form of a syllogism:

Major Premise: An only child cannot be called "firstborn"
Minor Premise: Jesus was called "firstborn"
Conclusion: Therefore Jesus is not an only child.

While the structure of the argument is valid (logical) the argument is only sound (true) if both of the premises are true.

The Minor Premise is true (Luke 2:23) but the Major Premise is not.

To prove that the Major Premise is not true I will use the method of "Proof by Contradiction", that is I will assume that the Major Premise is true and show how this leads logically to a contradiction, and I will do it based entirely on Scripture to satisfy those who will not accept the authority of anything else.

Firstly let us examine Luke 3:22-23
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord")

Clearly Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" according to the Law of the Lord ;

Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

In Numbers 3:40
Then the LORD said to Moses: “Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and above, and take the number of their names."

From this we see that the consecration of the "

From this we see that the consecration of the " were to be males as young as one month old. Now at one month of age, a baby has no other siblings (unless from a multiple birth e.g. twins) and thus is an only child. But assuming that the Major Premise is true, an only child cannot be " were to be males as young as one month old. Now at one month of age, a baby has no other siblings (unless from a multiple birth eg twins) and thus is an only child. But assuming that the Major Premise is true, an only child cannot be " so only baby males from multiple births (twins etc) need to be concencrated according to the Law of the Lord.

But Jesus was presented in the temple according to the Law of Lord, (Luke 2:22-23) yet he wasn't a twin. This is a contradiction and therefore the Major Premise is false.

An only child can be called " so only baby males from multiple births (twins etc) need to be concencrated according to the Law of the Lord.

But Jesus was presented in the temple according to the Law of Lord, (Luke 2:22-23) yet he wasn't a twin. This is a contradiction and therefore the Major Premise is false.

An only child can be called ".

This does not mean that I have shown that Jesus has no other siblings, just that the argument presented regarding ".

This does not mean that I have shown that Jesus has no other siblings, just that the argument presented regarding "is not a sound argument.