|
Post by Cohdra on Mar 22, 2004 17:53:35 GMT -5
Nicodemus wrote:
If Mary was immaculately conceived, and never had one sin laid to her charge, you would expect her to be exempt also from bringing a sacrifice for sins. However, the mother of JESUS brought a sacrifice for her sins as recorded in Luke 2:22-24 "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
Cohdra: Again...done in humility and obedience.
God bless
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Mar 22, 2004 17:57:56 GMT -5
Nicodemus wrote:
Your entire argument is impeached by your very first paragraph. No Bible believer will allow you or anyone else to assume that GOD didn't really mean what He wrote - and to somehow suggest that Mary was an anomaly is simply unacceptable.
Cohdra: Adam, Eve, Enoch, and Elijah were anomalies as well....
God bless
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 22, 2004 18:05:14 GMT -5
Adam and Eve were created perfect - and they fell. The sin nature is from them.
Enoch and Elijah were not sinless.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 22, 2004 18:07:17 GMT -5
Nicodemus wrote: Mary's soul rejoiced in "God her Saviour!" Only sinners need a Saviour - if Mary was sinless - then she exclaimed this in error. Pehaps it was out of humility...?????? God bless To proclaim a falsehood is not an act of humility, but deception.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Mar 22, 2004 18:11:59 GMT -5
Then you have no understanding of true humility (a Christian virtue) whatsoever. The foundation of humility is lack of self-promotion and understating one's value.
God bless
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 22, 2004 18:33:41 GMT -5
Then you have no understanding of true humility (a Christian virtue) whatsoever. The foundation of humility is lack of self-promotion and understating one's value. God bless Well, that's a value judgment that you are making upon me. How would Mary be promoting herself by admitting that she is a sinner? Mary is a saved woman - just as I am a saved man, and it is totally on account of the finished work of her son.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 23, 2004 16:37:16 GMT -5
Well, that's a value judgment that you are making upon me. How would Mary be promoting herself by admitting that she is a sinner? Mary is a saved woman - just as I am a saved man, and it is totally on account of the finished work of her son. question to what you just wrote -- yes you (and I) are saved - based upon the FINISHED work of Christ. however - Mary proclaimed God her Saviour (not Christ) before Christ's work was completed. do you think Mary "knew" her sinless state, no that is why she was so utterly clueless when the angle appeared to her and she didn't know how she could bear a child without knowing man. what if, at the moment when she actually realized what was going on and offered herself to God completely wholly, she realized the grace that had been bestowed upon her - she was to be the Mother of the Christ - knowing then what her past was all about (or not about as i do believe she was sinless) at that moment she WOULD proclaim that God was her Saviour -- because He was. He saved her before Christ ever opened His eyes as a human. just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Mar 23, 2004 17:07:23 GMT -5
question to what you just wrote -- yes you (and I) are saved - based upon the FINISHED work of Christ. however - Mary proclaimed God her Saviour (not Christ) before Christ's work was completed. do you think Mary "knew" her sinless state, no that is why she was so utterly clueless when the angle appeared to her and she didn't know how she could bear a child without knowing man. what if, at the moment when she actually realized what was going on and offered herself to God completely wholly, she realized the grace that had been bestowed upon her - she was to be the Mother of the Christ - knowing then what her past was all about (or not about as i do believe she was sinless) at that moment she WOULD proclaim that God was her Saviour -- because He was. He saved her before Christ ever opened His eyes as a human. just a thought... Hi marysia. I don't understand what you are saying. If a person is sinless they don't need a Savior or to be saved. So if you believe Mary to be sinless then why would you believe God saved her?
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Mar 23, 2004 17:15:54 GMT -5
Hi marysia. I don't understand what you are saying. If a person is sinless they don't need a Savior or to be saved. So if you believe Mary to be sinless then why would you believe God saved her? Let's say for arguments sake God made Mary sinless. Mary did not know this. Mary is greeted by the angel sent by God. After a little conversation she realizes what's up and offeres herself wholly to God as His handmaiden. There too realizing that throughout her entire life - God has saved her from sinning, from sin and from all stain. God "saved" her from birth so since He created her, he would be her Saviour. but notice all else are saved by Christ, yet Mary says God. please realize that by reading and maybe understanding where i'm coming from will NOT make me think you believe yourself.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Mar 23, 2004 17:47:41 GMT -5
Let's say for arguments sake God made Mary sinless. Mary did not know this. Mary is greeted by the angel sent by God. After a little conversation she realizes what's up and offeres herself wholly to God as His handmaiden. There too realizing that throughout her entire life - God has saved her from sinning, from sin and from all stain. God "saved" her from birth so since He created her, he would be her Saviour. but notice all else are saved by Christ, yet Mary says God. please realize that by reading and maybe understanding where i'm coming from will NOT make me think you believe yourself. Still doesn't make sense. I understand WHAT you are saying, but it doesn't make sense. If Mary was sinless then she was not saved. A person can't be "saved" with the quotes. One is either saved or not. Also, Christ is God in Human form. He is fully man and fully God. So I could say I am saved by God or I could say I'm saved by Christ. Both would be true and acceptable. God is three in one. To say we are saved by one is to say we are saved by the other. God died on the cross for us. God's name was Jesus and He is the Christ. It's all the same. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 23, 2004 22:38:24 GMT -5
Still doesn't make sense. I understand WHAT you are saying, but it doesn't make sense. If Mary was sinless then she was not saved. A person can't be "saved" with the quotes. One is either saved or not. Also, Christ is God in Human form. He is fully man and fully God. So I could say I am saved by God or I could say I'm saved by Christ. Both would be true and acceptable. God is three in one. To say we are saved by one is to say we are saved by the other. God died on the cross for us. God's name was Jesus and He is the Christ. It's all the same. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me. babysis, God saved Mary from all sin including original sin when he created her. That is how he saved her. See? Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Mar 23, 2004 23:02:18 GMT -5
babysis, God saved Mary from all sin including original sin when he created her. That is how he saved her. See? Blessings, Ann No, not really. I don't see that as saving, but as creating without sin, not needing saved.
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 24, 2004 0:34:11 GMT -5
One could make the very same argument about Noah.
"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
There, Noah was also sinless.
But the question is, am I interpreting this verse correctly?
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 24, 2004 1:23:30 GMT -5
No, not really. I don't see that as saving, but as creating without sin, not needing saved. babysis, As I heard on a "Household of Faith" on EWTN just this morning it is looking at the Bible and the faith with new eyes. This show is hosted by 2 converts to catholocism. One woman is exJewish and the other is exFundamentalist. They said that reading the Bible after learning what the RCC believed was like reading the Bible for the first time and holes that existed in their prior faiths were filled in by the RCC. It is all in how you look at it, or in this case what word you used. It is saving to me, since all other people that God created (after Adam and Eve, of course) were created with original sin. After Adam and Eve, Mary and Jesus were the only other two people created without original sin. That is why they are referred to as the new Adam and Eve. It is only logical to me to know that Mary was sinless as God would not let the Ark of the new Covenant be stained. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 24, 2004 2:03:49 GMT -5
Is the Immaculate Conception of Mary true? The tradition of the Catholic Church states that Mary was conceived "WITHOUT SIN." This is referred to as the Immaculate Conception. The original decree setting forth this required belief on the part of Catholics was issued by Pope Piux IX on 12-8-1854. The decree states that it "must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Those who refused to believe it were "by their own judgment condemned" and were told that they "have made shipwreck concerning the faith." Pope Piux XI on 1-28-1933 said that Mary was conceived "without original sin" (p. 12 MMOC). In "The Glories of Mary" we read that "If the Lamb was always immaculate, the Mother must also have been always immaculate" (p. 273 GOM). One may be led to reason, why not the Mother's mother, etc.? Again we read, "The Blessed Virgin never committed any actual sin" (p. 268 GOM). Thus we have tradition presenting Mary as a person born without the curse of original sin, without a sinful nature, and without one sin ever laid to her charge. She appears to parallel her Divine Son in purity, but what does the Bible say? This is part of the issue that I have with Catholicism. My Bible tells me that Mary was not sinless, but in order for Catholicism to say that she was - they needed to wait for Pope Pius IX to tell them this in 1854. Now, Catholicism existed since 300 A.D. (some say 600 A.D.) - and the church was without this vital doctrine for 1500 years? One would suspect that this is a crucial belief if it "must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
|
|