The catholics have divinized Mary

[Heidi]

What separates humans from God is sin. What distinguishes humans from God is sin. And that's why Jesus was the only one with a sinless nature and therefore is God. But now the catholics have put Mary in the same sinless category thus elevating her to the level of God because no human being is without sin. The catholics therefore, worship more than one God as their practices show. This is worse than pagan because catholics do this under the masks of sheep! There can be no higher form of blasphemy than this. :evil:

 

[thessalonian]

What distinguishes humans from God is sin

This is patently and utterly and provably false. Adam and Eve were not God's before the fall. God could create a sinless human today and that human would not be a god in any way shape or form.

Yes, sin has separated us from God but it is NOT what distinguishes us from God and when we are in heaven some day we will be sinless for there is no sin in heaven. We will not become gods. Sorry.

 

[thessalonian]

This seems appropriate in this thread so I have brought it over from another.

Um excuse me but man was made in the image and likeness of God if you've read genesis so there should be things in us that are God-like. Mary's just happens to be that she was like God in that she was sinless in this life. That however does not make her anywhere close to God. Adam and Eve were sinless in the garden and they were not anywhere near God so how should sinlessness make a human anywhere close to God? It's just bad logic. By the way when we are resurrected with our bodies we will be sinless. Will we be God-like? of course. Will we be anywhere near God's? No.

Why are you so against God doing what he had already shown he could do. That is create sinless people. The only difference in this case is he gave her the grace to remain sinless and she accepted that grace. That does not make her God. It does not deny her need for God to save her. He did, by his grace. What is so wrong with God creating a sinless mother for his sinless son. Why does that make you so angry?

 

[thessalonian]

But now the catholics have put Mary in the same sinless category thus elevating her to the level of God because no human being is without sin.

Angels are without sin and we are not to worship them. Your whole line of logic is totally distorted. I know it bothers you to think of a sinless human being but that does not make that human being infinite. That does not make that human being close to God in the sense of nature? Man and God have different natures as does God and angels. Man's nature is not infinite. God's is. Sinlessness does not make a man God. :-?

 

[Heidi]

What distinguishes humans from God is sin

This is patently and utterly and provably false. Adam and Eve were not God's before the fall. God could create a sinless human today and that human would not be a god in any way shape or form.

Yes, sin has separated us from God but it is NOT what distinguishes us from God and when we are in heaven some day we will be sinless for there is no sin in heaven. We will not become gods. Sorry.

And who claims to be without sin? Did Mary? No! in Luke 1:47 she thanked God for being her savior which means she needed to be saved. So from what was she saved? Who was Christ's savior? :o He didn't need one because he was sinless. Only an unblemished lamb can be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

And God didn't let Adam be sinless for long. I'll give you 3 guesses why that was. :wink:

So the catholic gospel is not only ludicrous, but completely made-up. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary was a virgin, born sinless, or lived a sinless life, or ascended like Jesus. Nowhere. So the catholics believe what is not said in the bible, not what is said in the bible. By their reasoning then Mary, the woman who kissed Christ's feet was sinless because the bible didn't say she had sin! Believing what is not said in the bible is as ludicrous as believing that Jesus was married and had 7 children of his own because the bible didn't say that he was married! :o

 

[thessalonian]

Did adam have to sin because he was human? God made him and said this is good. This is in my image and likeness. Sin and having to sin is not good. It is not a part of God's image and likeness. Heidi you are skipping over the claims you make. Your statement that sinlessness elevates mary to a God is simply false and you cannot see it. You may not like Catholicism and you may not think it is biblical. That is fine. But that does not give you the right to distort it and say whatever you want about it. Sorry. :roll: That does not give you the right to use bad logic to come up with bad arguements concerning scripture. :-? If you want to convince us don't use bad arguements. They don't work and actually have the opposite effect on us.

Blessings

 

[JM]

Adam sinned as God decreed. This is the historical opinion of the RC, Aminian and Calvinist Churches...

 

[thessalonian]

By God's decree? God told Adam to sin, such that God was responsible for the sin? He let Adam of his own free will choose sin but Adam did not have to sin. Adam was totally responsible fore his sin. God did not remove grace so he would sin, Adam resisted the grace available to him. This is the Catholic position. You are quite wrong.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice". This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 388 (606 bytes ) preview document matches
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ,

532 Jesus' obedience to his mother and legal father fulfills the fourth commandment perfectly and was the temporal image of his filial obedience to his Father in heaven. The everyday obedience of Jesus to Joseph and Mary both announced and anticipated the obedience of Holy Thursday: "Not my will. . ." The obedience of Christ in the daily routine of his hidden life was already inaugurating his work of restoring what the disobedience of Adam had destroyed.



Is Heidi's logic that if a man stayed sinnless he would be a God right or wrong? Why can't you people stick to the question and answer it directy.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Heidi,

Would you mind finding one document of the Church that explicitly states that Mary was not in need of a Savior? We believe that she was immaculately conceived. Which means she was preserved from original sin, she was in need of a savior. We just believe she received her salvation earlier.... How else could she be 'filled with grace' before the death of Christ?

Anyway happy hunting :fadein: :

http://www.vatican.va

 

[thessalonian]

Can someone answer a direct question. Does sinlessness neccessarily make one God? I like how questions like this by Catholics are ignored or sidestepped ALL THE TIME! :roll:

 

[Heidi]

Did adam have to sin because he was human? God made him and said this is good. This is in my image and likeness. Sin and having to sin is not good. It is not a part of God's image and likeness. Heidi you are skipping over the claims you make. Your statement that sinlessness elevates mary to a God is simply false and you cannot see it. You may not like Catholicism and you may not think it is biblical. That is fine. But that does not give you the right to distort it and say whatever you want about it. Sorry. :roll: That does not give you the right to use bad logic to come up with bad arguements concerning scripture. :-? If you want to convince us don't use bad arguements. They don't work and actually have the opposite effect on us.

Blessings

Sorry but "All have fallen short of the glory of God." So it's not my fault that the the catholics don't believe the bible and change it into what they want it to say so that it reads; "All have fallen short of the glory of God but Mary." :o That's as much a made-up gospel as claiming that Matthew 1:25 says; "But he had no union with her forever." Only Satan changes the words in the bible. :evil:

Trying to make Mary as sinless as Christ is trying to elevate her to the divinity of Christ which is nothing more than blasphemy and there's no excuse for it, especially when the bible doesn't say that she was sinless or born immaculately from God, or was a virgin all her life or ascended. :roll: So these are all made up gospels. And blaming me for your changing the bible is as absurd as blaming Jesus for is death. :roll: It's a waste of time because it doesn't change the catholics butchery of the bible one iota. ;-)

Sorry, but I won't endorse false teaching regardless if you want to keep on believing made-up gospels or not. So once again, I'm not responsible for your beliefs, you are. And trying to avoid that responsibility will not exempt you from being held accountable for them. :evil:

 

[jgredline]

Not only was Mary conceived without original sin but, according to Catholic teaching, “from her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence.†And “in consequence of a special privilege of grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.†The Council of Trent declared that “no justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.â€Â

Catholic Defense of the Sinlessness of Mary
According to Catholic dogma, Mary had neither the tendency to sin nor did she ever actually sin during her entire life. Catholics use both Scripture and tradition to support this view.
Argument from Scripture

According to Roman Catholic teaching, “Mary’s sinlessness may be deduced from the text: Luke 1:28: ‘Hail, full of grace!’ since personal moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of grace.†Grace is taken here to be both extensive and preventative.
Argument from Tradition

The house of church fathers was divided on Mary’s sinlessness. Nonetheless, Roman Catholic scholars point with pride to the fact that “the Latin Patristic authors unanimously teach the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary.†Again, this is far short of the “unanimous consent†of all church fathers, which the Council of Trent claimed for dogma.
Protestant Response to the Sinlessness of Mary

The Bible does not support the sinlessness of Mary. To the contrary, it affirms her sinfulness. Speaking as a sinner, Mary said, “my spirit rejoices in God my savior†(Luke 1:46). An examination of the text used to prove Mary’s sinlessness reveals the lack of any real support for such a doctrine. Contrary to Scotus’s solution of her being prevented from needing to be saved from sin, she was confessing her present need (after her conception) of a Savior. Indeed, she even presented an offering to the Jewish priest arising out of her sinful condition (Luke 2:22–24) which was required by law (Lev. 12). This would not have been necessary if she were sinless.
Response to Argument from Scripture

The Catholic argument that Mary was “full of grace†at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life. First, the phrase “full of grace†is an inaccurate rendering based on the Latin Vulgate that is corrected by the modern Catholic Bible (nab), which translates it simply “favored one.†The Vulgate’s misleading rendering became the basis for the idea that grace extended throughout Mary’s life. Second, taken in context the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment, not to her entire life. It does not affirm that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. Third, the grace given here to Mary was not only limited in time but also in function. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah, not to prevent her from any sin. Finally, the stress on fullness of grace is misleading, since even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why, if she was not a sinner? Ott says that Mary “required redemption and was redeemed by Christ.†And, as we have already seen, it is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather than being delivered from it.

Response to Argument from Tradition
Besides the lack of scriptural support for Mary’s sinlessness the argument from the Fathers is weak. Even Ott admits that many “Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexander) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross.†Likewise, almost all major scholastic fathers, including Aquinas, rejected the immaculate conception. This being so, Mary’s consequent sinlessness must also be brought into question, despite scholastic protest to the contrary. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, however, the Council of Trent affirmed Mary’s sinlessness as an infallible truth of the Catholic faith.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (309). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[Rick the holypig]

I was just about to bring up the verse about Mary needing a savior but Norman Geisler put it so much nicer. Why would Mary need a savior if she was sinless?????? the attemps to make Mary into a god is just the old druid trying to dig out of it's grave. the lateist attempt is the new cultic teaching of making Mary co-redemtres with Jesus - making salvation possible through Jesus or Mary. when this damnable lie becomes official doctrine of the Catholic church it will then become just another NEW AGE CULT!

 

[ttg]

Can someone answer a direct question. Does sinlessness neccessarily make one God? I like how questions like this by Catholics are ignored or sidestepped ALL THE TIME! :roll:

Those who don't believe in original sin could rightfully say they were sinless from birth to when they reached the age of being responsible. For those who do belive in original sin, we would be sinless from baptism until the age of responsiblility. Infants being sinless is common theme that runs through Catholicism and Protestantism.


But Heidi takes it a step further. By her defination, she expects us to have bowed down and worshipped her as an infant. All hail the mighty infant Heidi! She claims to have been a god.

What were her words concerning this? Oh yeah, "There can be no higher form of blasphemy than this."

 

[ttg]

1) After reading this thread over again, I have to ask, just who is trying to make the Virgin Mary into a god? Is is the Catholics who teach that she is not, or the others who keep repeating it?

2) Can you say that Mary is not in Heaven with her son? Others have been assumed into Heaven, certainly she is a qualified candidate.

3) Do you deny that Mary can intercede on our behalf? Did she not exhort her Son to create the wine at the wedding feast, even though He said it was not His time?


I know I'm not going to talk anybody out of his/her hatred for all things Catholic. I understand you were brought up that way. BUT, I caution you to direct your anger/hatred/misunderstandings towards me, and NOT towards the mother of our Savior. Do not insult her. Do not belittle her. She watched her only Son die a tortured death for you. Show her the proper respect.

 

[Imagican]

Can someone answer a direct question. Does sinlessness neccessarily make one God? I like how questions like this by Catholics are ignored or sidestepped ALL THE TIME! :roll:

An emphatic NO. But there has ONLY been ONE man that has graced this planet with his presence that WAS sinless. There has NEVER been a woman since the first that WAS sinless. Including Mary. To even think such is contrary to The Word. To teach such is to dwelve into an area that we have STRICTLY been warned against.

MEC

 

[thessalonian]

Thank you for at least having the integrity to admit that such a teaching does not make one a God. Whether it is against scripture is a matter of your very fallible opinion verses the Catholic Church that has stood the test of time through attacks and ridicule such as yours and Heidi's. Sorry, you loose.

Anyone disagree with him that sinlessness does not make a god out of a person?

Common, don't all post at once. You'll bring down the server.

 

[Gary]

Mary sinless.... yeah, right!!!

Mary sinless? ... NO say the fathers

Even Roman Catholic "scholars" admit that many Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexander) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross.

Also, may other "fathers", including Aquinas, rejected the concept of the immaculate conception. (Mary born sinless). BUT, the Roman Catholic "church", in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, at the Council of Trent, said that Mary was born sinless and remained sinlessness! That is the "infallible truth" of the Roman Catholic church.

Very sad. It has no Scriptural support.

 

[thessalonian]

I notice you failed to answer direct questions. Sad. I've explained the scriptural reasoning many times on this board as well as the evidence of the fathers which you misrepresent and ignore where it does not suit you.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thank you for at least having the integrity to admit that such a teaching does not make one a God. Whether it is against scripture is a matter of your very fallible opinion verses the Catholic Church that has stood the test of time through attacks and ridicule such as yours and Heidi's. Sorry, you loose.

Anyone disagree with him that sinlessness does not make a god out of a person?

Common, don't all post at once. You'll bring down the server.

Such teachings do not make anyone or anything a god. If that were the case we would be contending with Egyptian, Greek & Roman gods. Mary was very human and the glory that she had was the CHRIST child within her. The Roman Catholic Church is falible as is the pope. If Peter was the first pope of Christendom, he was the only such pope. While there certainly were bishops of Rome, as there were bishops of most everywhere else, it would be difficult to prove that any later popes were not simply popes of an apostate religious governmental organization and had gleaned it's original power from the fallen pagan empire of Rome itself.... That would place the founding of the papacy centuries after the death of Christ. As for Mary, I feel most Christians believe that is a concern of Christ himself and has nothing to do with any church control.