Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

[Heidi]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

And where is that in the bible? :o Jesus only told Peter that upon Peter he would build his church, not anyone else. So again, why do the catholics think all popes are Peter? :o

Catholics do not think that "all popes are Peter".

You've already said that, catholic, but have given no justification for apostolic succession. And that's because there isn't any and you know it.

No, it's because you are apparently having problems disguishing between "office" and "person". They are not synonyms--they don't mean the same thing.

So if many different presidents take the office of the presidency, how does that make the presidents all like George Washington? :o What does George washington have to do with President Bush in the same manner as what did the popes in the Middle Ages have to do with Peter? :o

So it is you are confused, my friend. ;-)

 

[bbas 64]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

Good Day, CatholicXian

Where is this office described in Scripture? The office of the president is clearly set fourth with in the pages of the historical documents of this country. I look forward to the explict functions of this "office" of future popes with in the pages of Scripture, and the clear understanding of such functions in the whole of Christian history. Just like the role of the president has been clearly understood from the founding of this country.

Peace to you,

Bill

 

[CatholicXian]

I'm not Thessalonian, but the point he was getting at (I'm pretty sure) is that future popes receive the OFFICE that Peter held (as described in Sacred Scripture).

i.e., Pres. Bush holds the same OFFICE that George Washington held. They were both president, but being president doesn't make them the same person.

Good Day, CatholicXian

Where is this office described in Scripture? The office of the president is clearly set fourth with in the pages of the historical documents of this country. I look forward to the explict functions of this "office" of future popes with in the pages of Scripture, and the clear understanding of such functions in the whole of Christian history. Just like the role of the president has been clearly understood from the founding of this country.

Peace to you,

Bill

Hi, Bill, I hope you've had a good day.

We shall disagree a bit (but I'm sure you saw this coming). The office of the President has not been clearly defined since the "founding of this country".. there are always amendments. And in times of crisis, duties/definitions become slightly blurred. Nonetheless, the office of the Presidency of the United States has not remained the same since the founding of this country. It has grown and adjusted through the years.

The office of the papacy is located in everyone's favorite verse to argue about interpretation: Matthew 16:18-19. The key words defining the office being "binding and loosing". It is the job of the papacy to "bind and loose" doctrine. To retain what is good and true (the Trinity, Christ is fully human and fully divine, et al.) and reject that which is evil and false (subordinationism, Arianism, abortion, et al.)

Now, Bill, I know well and understand that you and I will differ greatly on the precise interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, but this is a long drawn out debate that has been hashed over many times and is truly not the topic of discussion for this thread. Suffice to say, however, this is a legitimate response. And I have not seen a refutation or rival interpretation that incorporates the significance of "keys" and "binding and loosing" (i.e., authority) in a more complete interpretation than the one offered by the Catholic Church.

May you have a wonderful day, tomorrow, Bill!

 

[gazzamor]

Well belovedwolfofgod I am glad that we agree on the sinlessness of Jesus. Your first post to me had me a bit worried, wondering where you were coming from. But of course that is not the issue here. It is whether a woman born of this world could be considered sinless or not.

The prophet Isaiah predicted that God would give us a sign. 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (which means: God with us). See Matthew 1:23.

There is nothing there about sinlessness, the sign is a virgin. This indicates that when it comes to the appearance of the Messiah, man had nothing to do with making it happen. It was all of God’s doing. Mary happened to be the vessel in which God used to make it happen. There is nothing in the prophecy that would declare the virgin, (Mary) to be also sinless.

All sinners need a Saviour! Would you agree?
If Jesus had sinned, he would have needed a saviour too. But praise God he didn’t.
If Mary was sinless, she would not need a Saviour.
But in her own words in Luke 1:46,47 Mary acknowledges that God is her personal Saviour. By saying that, she is acknowledging that she is a sinner in need of a Saviour.

Another issue which comes out of the story of Mary the mother of God, is the virginity issue, in which the Roman Catholic Church is adamant that she remained a virgin all her life.
This is not scriptural, because in the gospel of Matthew 1:24,25 says that she remained a virgin until after Jesus was born.

Matt. 1: 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
25 But he had no union (sexual relations)with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

To say that there was no sex involved in the marriage of Joseph and Mary, would suggest that it wasn’t a marriage at all.

To be a true marriage it would have to be consummated. Even the Church would frown on such a marriage. It would not be a true marriage in the eyes of God.

God Bless
gazzamor

 

[Heidi]

Good post, gazzamor.

 

[mutzrein]

Yes, good points Gazza - and of course Jesus would not have had any brothers if Mary & Joseph had not had any 'union' at all.

 

[Heidi]

Yes, good points Gazza - and of course Jesus would not have had any brothers if Mary & Joseph had not had any 'union' at all.

Matthew 1:25 blows the catholic pronouncement that Mary was a virgin all her life right out of the water. And I notice that there haven't been any catholics who've posted in this thread since Gazza's post.

 

[CatholicXian]

Because many points have already been addressed previously in this thread.

Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 ("before they came together" & "knew her not until…"). Both simply establish what has not yet taken place regardless of what takes place after. 2 Samuel 6:23 says that Michol had no children until the day of her death…does this imply she had children after she died?! Of course not. "Until" does not always mean "and then it happened". It merely establishes what has not taken place, REGARDLESS of what takes place afterwards.

 

[Heidi]

Because many points have already been addressed previously in this thread.

Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 ("before they came together" & "knew her not until…"). Both simply establish what has not yet taken place regardless of what takes place after. 2 Samuel 6:23 says that Michol had no children until the day of her death…does this imply she had children after she died?! Of course not. "Until" does not always mean "and then it happened". It merely establishes what has not taken place, REGARDLESS of what takes place afterwards.

Sorry, catholic, but your attempt to twist scripture that is very clear in what it means, simply to say that the pope is infallible and can never be wrong won't work. It is scripture that is never wrong, because scripture is the Word of God, not the pope.The future siblings of Jesus also bear out the fact that Maryb did not remain a virgin.

And also, your attempt to say that Mary denied Jospeh sex for the rest of his life when the bible clearly tells wives not to do that, does more to malign Mary than it does to bless her. So either way, you are doing more harm than good.

 

[Theoketos]

Ambrose did change his position, BTW, mostly because of his reaction to Helvidius and Jovinian, who were both heretics...

Any way, from the beginning it has always been a question of whether Mary was conceived with out original sin or whether she was sanctified after insoulment but before birth.

 

[CatholicXian]

Because many points have already been addressed previously in this thread.

Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 ("before they came together" & "knew her not until…"). Both simply establish what has not yet taken place regardless of what takes place after. 2 Samuel 6:23 says that Michol had no children until the day of her death…does this imply she had children after she died?! Of course not. "Until" does not always mean "and then it happened". It merely establishes what has not taken place, REGARDLESS of what takes place afterwards.

Sorry, catholic, but your attempt to twist scripture that is very clear in what it means, simply to say that the pope is infallible and can never be wrong won't work. It is scripture that is never wrong, because scripture is the Word of God, not the pope.The future siblings of Jesus also bear out the fact that Maryb did not remain a virgin.

And also, your attempt to say that Mary denied Jospeh sex for the rest of his life when the bible clearly tells wives not to do that, does more to malign Mary than it does to bless her. So either way, you are doing more harm than good.

I did no twisting of Scripture, nor did I even say anything as regards the Papacy...

You didn't even read what I wrote apparently, since you've no answer for the Scriptural example which I provided.

Also, Paul says that husbands and wives may abstain from sexual relations by mutual consent... furthermore, considering the circumstances of Mary and Joseph in raising Jesus-- the God-man, there were probably extenuating circumstances.

Besides... by the time Jesus was 12 and getting left in the temple, we only read about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. If Jesus really did have biological brothers and sisters-- where were they?

 

[Heidi]

Because many points have already been addressed previously in this thread.

Matthew 1:18 and 1:25 ("before they came together" & "knew her not until…"). Both simply establish what has not yet taken place regardless of what takes place after. 2 Samuel 6:23 says that Michol had no children until the day of her death…does this imply she had children after she died?! Of course not. "Until" does not always mean "and then it happened". It merely establishes what has not taken place, REGARDLESS of what takes place afterwards.

Sorry, catholic, but your attempt to twist scripture that is very clear in what it means, simply to say that the pope is infallible and can never be wrong won't work. It is scripture that is never wrong, because scripture is the Word of God, not the pope.The future siblings of Jesus also bear out the fact that Maryb did not remain a virgin.

And also, your attempt to say that Mary denied Jospeh sex for the rest of his life when the bible clearly tells wives not to do that, does more to malign Mary than it does to bless her. So either way, you are doing more harm than good.

I did no twisting of Scripture, nor did I even say anything as regards the Papacy...

You didn't even read what I wrote apparently, since you've no answer for the Scriptural example which I provided.

Also, Paul says that husbands and wives may abstain from sexual relations by mutual consent... furthermore, considering the circumstances of Mary and Joseph in raising Jesus-- the God-man, there were probably extenuating circumstances.

Besides... by the time Jesus was 12 and getting left in the temple, we only read about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. If Jesus really did have biological brothers and sisters-- where were they?

Of course you were attempting to twist scripture by saying that "until" doesn't necessarily mean it happened. Jesus's siblings showed that it happened!!

But of course, the catholic church has to then make up a second lie to explain Jesus's siblings because of their first lie that Mary was a virgin all her life. So what was their second lie about Jesus's siblings? Or did they simply ignore that part.?

Abstaining from sex by mutual consent for the whole marraige? :o Sorry, catholic but again you're stretching it. The bible says mutual consent "for a while" but not too long so that Satan won't tempt you.

So again, your attempts to believe the lies of the catholic church lead you to try to lie about scripture instead. That is the biggest tragedy in all of this. But that's waht happens when people set human beings up as infallible and precisely why Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth 'father' particularly our Holy Father! They start believing those people over scripture. :wink:

 

[CatholicXian]

Heidi, you've yet to still respond to either post. I offered Scriptural examples of when "until" does not always mean "and then it happened".

Secondly, if Jesus' "brothers" were his literal brothers from Joseph and Mary... where are they when he was twelve and they were going to the Temple (Luke 2:41-51)? Scripture mentions Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... but no mention of siblings there. If Jesus had siblings, surely there would have been at least one or two of them around by the time He was twelve?

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, you've yet to still respond to either post. I offered Scriptural examples of when "until" does not always mean "and then it happened".

Secondly, if Jesus' "brothers" were his literal brothers from Joseph and Mary... where are they when he was twelve and they were going to the Temple (Luke 2:41-51)? Scripture mentions Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... but no mention of siblings there. If Jesus had siblings, surely there would have been at least one or two of them around by the time He was twelve?

Why are you still doing this? You will find anything you want to try to make scripture say what you want to say, catholic.

The bible is very clear that Mary and Jospeh had sex after Jesus was born. The reason it was phrased the way it was was to show their abstention through mary's pregancy. Tht was the point of the verse. So your question ahs absolutely nothing to do with this verse. It's just another attempt to worship the pope over scripture.

Secondly, why didn't the bible say that Jospeh and Mary carted around a bunch of children when they went to Egypt when Christ was a a baby? Surely it would have said; "And Mary and Jospeh took their children out of Bethelem..." instead of the child. Or perhaps they left the other 6 or 7 (the bible says Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters) home alone? Or perhapes they left everyone but Jesus to be raised by a nanny. And notice that when they came back to Israel they moved to Nazareth. So perhaps Mary (who was sinless) abandoned Joseph's children altogether? :o Who knows what the gospel according to catholic says? No one, because it all comes from your imagination and is therefore made-up.

But again, this is what happens when you tell one lie. It leads to a second and a third until Mary is made out to be a mother who abandons her husband's children and denies sex to her husband. So your attampt to make Mary sinless and a virgin actually make her out to be vile.

But you simply cannot admit that you or the pope is wrong because you worship the pope. If you didn't worship the pope then you would be perfectly willing to admit he makes mistakes. But you are not. You go to the extrememe lengths of making up your own bible to agree with the pope and not the bible And that is exactly what cults do. They worship the cult leader over the bible at all costs, no matter how ridiculous their lies look. You are therefore, unteachable as all cult followers are.

 

[CatholicXian]

Heidi, you've yet to still respond to either post. I offered Scriptural examples of when "until" does not always mean "and then it happened".

Secondly, if Jesus' "brothers" were his literal brothers from Joseph and Mary... where are they when he was twelve and they were going to the Temple (Luke 2:41-51)? Scripture mentions Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... but no mention of siblings there. If Jesus had siblings, surely there would have been at least one or two of them around by the time He was twelve?

Why are you still doing this? You will find anything you want to try to make scripture say what you want to say, catholic.

Why do you still refuse to answer and respond to my objections?

I am not twisting Scripture, Heidi. I am looking at ALL of Scripture, rather than merely one part.

The bible is very clear that Mary and Jospeh had sex after Jesus was born. The reason it was phrased the way it was was to show their abstention through mary's pregancy. Tht was the point of the verse. So your question ahs absolutely nothing to do with this verse. It's just another attempt to worship the pope over scripture.

And where, Heidi, does the Bible explicitly state the Joseph and Mary had sex? I have shown you precisely where IN SCRIPTURE "until" does not mean "and then it happened". And given you further examples of why it's perfectly plausible to believe the "brothers" of Jesus are really His cousins or something. If He had siblings, surely there would have been a few by the time He was 12.

Secondly, why didn't the bible say that Jospeh and Mary carted around a bunch of children when they went to Egypt when Christ was a a baby? Surely it would have said; "And Mary and Jospeh took their children out of Bethelem..." instead of the child. Or perhaps they left the other 6 or 7 (the bible says Jesus had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters) home alone? Or perhapes they left everyone but Jesus to be raised by a nanny. And notice that when they came back to Israel they moved to Nazareth. So perhaps Mary (who was sinless) abandoned Joseph's children altogether? :o Who knows what the gospel according to catholic says? No one, because it all comes from your imagination and is therefore made-up.

Heidi, I think this further proves my point-- that Jesus had no siblings, rather than it does prove yours...

 

[JM]

This topic is a great example of how the Catholic Church "T"radition has superseded and nullified the word of God. The Bible makes it plain, all have sinned, Mary was a sinner just like you and I.

Peace.

 

[CatholicXian]

This topic is a great example of how the Catholic Church "T"radition has superseded and nullified the word of God. The Bible makes it plain, all have sinned, Mary was a sinner just like you and I.

Peace.

But again, "all have sinned" is a hyperbole. Jesus did not sin and Jesus is also true man.

I'm also pretty sure that the Gospel writers knew basic grammar enough that they wouldn't accidently put a perfect participle in a sentence if they didn't mean it. (i.e., Luke 1:28).

 

[Heidi]

This topic is a great example of how the Catholic Church "T"radition has superseded and nullified the word of God. The Bible makes it plain, all have sinned, Mary was a sinner just like you and I.

Peace.

But again, "all have sinned" is a hyperbole. Jesus did not sin and Jesus is also true man.

I'm also pretty sure that the Gospel writers knew basic grammar enough that they wouldn't accidently put a perfect participle in a sentence if they didn't mean it. (i.e., Luke 1:28).

Boy are you twisting the bible, catholic. Mary needed a savior because she sinned. And if she denied sex to her husband then she also sinned and was a lousy wife. So there is zero place in scripture that says Mary was sinless. You are simply making it up. Matthew 1:25 also says that Mary and Joseph didn't have sex until after Jesus was born, period. That means they had sex after Jesus was born which the children bore out. Now if you want to continue to make up your own gospel, then as Paul said you are a false teacher. But as I already said, you are unteachable and cannot be deprogrammed from the pope you think is never wrong. That shows you think he is God no matter how many times you deny it. Your actions speak for themselves. Thereofe, I'll let you continue your delusions. I'll stick to the bible.

 

[Heidi]

And by the way, your example in Samuel says; "And Michel daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death." That means she had no children at all.

So again, your attempt to twist scripture borders on the bizarre because Samuel 6:23 did not say "until". So you need to look up basic word definitions before you can understand scripture. One cannot have children after one dies so your interpretation of Samuel is wrong. But Mary and Joseph did have sex after Christ was born as Matthew says and their children bear out. So I will no longer argue with someone who changes words in the bible into bizarre interpretations that contradict scripture.

 

[CatholicXian]

And by the way, your example in Samuel says; "And Michel daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death." That means she had no children at all.

So again, your attempt to twist scripture borders on the bizarre because Samuel 6:23 did not say "until". So you need to look up basic word definitions before you can understand scripture. One cannot have children after one dies so your interpretation of Samuel is wrong. But Mary and Joseph did have sex after Christ was born as Matthew says and their children bear out. So I will no longer argue with someone who changes words in the bible into bizarre interpretations that contradict scripture.

Uh, Heidi, it just depends on translation. The KJV says "unto". And "until" is a valid translation of the Hebrew "ad" (which is the word used in 2 Sam 6:23).

But "to" and "until" generally evoke the same idea.

"to the day she died", "until the day she died"
"to the end of the age", "until the end of the age"
etc.


I know it means she had no children at all. THAT was my point. "to/until/unto the day of her death" does not mean, "and then it happened". The Hebrew "ad" is basically the same as the Greek word "heos" used in Matthew 1:25.



You still have yet to address where Jesus' siblings where when He was 12? Why are only Mary, Joseph, and Jesus listed in the Scriptures as traveling to the Temple?