Mary is the most important figure in Christianity

[paarsurrey]

The idea that Jesus came to pay the penalty for sin is a purely Protestant concept. Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox believe such a thing and neither did the early Christians and Church Fathers.

It is Catholic dogma that Mary was entirely sinless for her entire life. She was full of God's grace and saved from the stain of Original Sin.

The Catholic assertion is also totally wrong.

Please quote from Jesus that G-d's grace saved Mary from the stain of Original Sin to prove your point of view.

Being born of Mary even makes Jesus more sinful than a normal man, if we follow the Christian creed of Original Sin.

Regards

 

[Windwalker]

I really think we're talking about the same thing here, I just want to make sure that particularity isn't lost in your zeal for singularity. Remember that the Trinity -- even though it represents a single God, is still comprised of Persons who retain particularity.

I don't see it as a zeal for singularity. It is a desire to fully awaken and grow from there. But yes, I have been saying I retain my individuality. I see it as the same as Jesus did. It is to awaken to our true Self, which is God awakened fully in our individuality. And that Trinity, is as much in us as it was in Jesus. I think the idea of "persons" in the Trinity is a bit misleading if one imagines objects, such as beings as we imagine people. The Trinity is a tad bit beyond that sort of imagining.

Now you're talking my language, sir!

Excellent. This shows I'm not too unclear then.

I want to be careful here, because you'r making this sound very humanistic -- that is, that our enlightenment, or salvation if you will, is all about our work of "learning to see."

I'm not sure what humanism has to do with this? I see there is a "cooperation", if you will between grace and us. But I have to be careful in terms like this to make it sound like some sort of fully external Source of that Grace. I just sighed, trying to think how to put this into words. We make an effort, but that effort is to make no effort. The work, is to learn ourselves enough to know how to get out of the way with our normal, egoic seeks mind, which looks to gain for the ego self. "I'm insecure, so I seek God to make me not insecure", as an example of seeking for the ego self's needs. What we need to seek is to lay down all that seeking like that, and seek solely for God, for God's sake. We are seeking to open into what we are not yet, which is found in God.

This is perhaps the first thing I learned on my path, and it is always something that is like the width of a hair that we land on either the side of self-seeking, or the side of seeking to be no more, to die as it were, and to allow God into our mind, heart, body, and soul. It is in dwelling in this illumination that who we truly are begins to be revealed. We move beyond the ego, into who we are in God. We awaken to our true Identity. And everything I am saying here is something I'm describing from own experiences with this on a daily basis. Truly it is exactly as Paul said, "And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

So it is our effort, but it nothing we can attain, seize, grasp, or posses as what we doing in our normal seekings. It is leaving behind the small 'I' and finding the true I. We are "learning to see", but it is by learning not to look. It came to me in meditation one day not long ago, "Quit looking. Start being". That's what awakening is.

But that's not what Xy teaches. Xy teaches that salvation is the work of God. I think we need to be very careful that the process of enlightenment is that of God Within (characterized by the avatar of Jesus) and not of our own ego.

Yes, if someone is seeking God or the things of God driven by ego, it is to seek power for a weak ego, not the healing it needs. This is the source of things like those seeking black magic. It is driven by a broken ego seeking power instead of healing.

I find that anytime the ego gets in there, God isn't. What I mean by that is quite simple. If our eyes are on our ego self, they aren't looking to God. It's not that God withdraws, but that we withdraw. The very second we turn our eyes around, God is overwhelmingly present. Every time.

edit: All of this to push the point that it is NOT Mary who brings salvation, because Mary doesn't personify salvation (by bridging humanity/Divinity). That's Jesus' job.

I would say that Mary could serve for someone as an archetype. The salvation is us awakening to our relationship to God. That can come through any thing, or anyone who inspires what is within to awaken. A bird singing, can bring me to God.

 

[ChristineES]

What were Galilean jews doing in the far reaches of the Roman Empire ?

Jesus avoided teaching in Hellenistic cities like Sepphoris and Tiberius, he is stated as staying in small Jewish villages and teaching to the poor and oppressed.

I was speaking of the TERM "Christianity". Sure, it wasn't all Jews after a certain point, but it wasn't called Christianity at that time. Paul or whomever came up with the word. As far as I could tell, the new followers of Jesus were originally converting to being Jews. That is what I have gathered from the book of Acts of the Apostles.

Either the way I word things is wrong or the way everyone takes them is wrong.

 

[ChristineES]

I was speaking of the TERM "Christianity". Sure, it wasn't all Jews after a certain point, but it wasn't called Christianity at that time. Paul or whomever came up with the word. As far as I could tell, the new followers of Jesus were originally converting to being Jews. That is what I have gathered from the book of Acts of the Apostles.

Either the way I word things is wrong or the way everyone takes them is wrong.

I'd like to nip this in the bud right now, it is off-topic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I disagree with that teaching, and I always have. I don't believe that Mary was sinless and I don't recall Jesus ever saying she was sinless. But I guess that is why I am not a Catholic.

It's part of the overall ancient teaching that Jesus is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve and their lives made humanity sacred by succeeding where Adam and Eve both failed, bringing us redemption.

 

[ChristineES]

It's part of the overall ancient teaching that Jesus is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve and their lives made humanity sacred by succeeding where Adam and Eve both failed, bringing us redemption.

I've never believed that. For one thing, Adam and Eve were husband and wife, and Jesus and Mary were mother and son. I can understand the line of reasoning, however. Adam and Eve "fell from grace", and they needed someone to replace them and eradicate "original sin". I don't really believe in original sin, I do believe human nature and the flawed nature of the flesh.

 

[outhouse]

or the way everyone takes them is wrong.

Possible.

But so that you know, gentiles and Proselytes had been semi converting to Judaism for a very long time.

Jesus was the match that lit the wood pile so to speak, for these same people to divorce Judaism.


Paul did not take "the message" to the gentiles, he was correcting the existing message in the Empire.

 

[ChristineES]

Possible.

But so that you know, gentiles and Proselytes had been semi converting to Judaism for a very long time.

Jesus was the match that lit the wood pile so to speak, for these same people to divorce Judaism.


Paul did not take "the message" to the gentiles, he was correcting the existing message in the Empire.

I'm no scholar, everything I gather is from the Bible itself. I chose not to study any other texts. But, I'd like to stop this debate.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure what humanism has to do with this? I see there is a "cooperation", if you will between grace and us. But I have to be careful in terms like this to make it sound like some sort of fully external Source of that Grace. I just sighed, trying to think how to put this into words. We make an effort, but that effort is to make no effort. The work, is to learn ourselves enough to know how to get out of the way with our normal, egoic seeks mind, which looks to gain for the ego self. "I'm insecure, so I seek God to make me not insecure", as an example of seeking for the ego self's needs. What we need to seek is to lay down all that seeking like that, and seek solely for God, for God's sake. We are seeking to open into what we are not yet, which is found in God.

This is perhaps the first thing I learned on my path, and it is always something that is like the width of a hair that we land on either the side of self-seeking, or the side of seeking to be no more, to die as it were, and to allow God into our mind, heart, body, and soul. It is in dwelling in this illumination that who we truly are begins to be revealed. We move beyond the ego, into who we are in God. We awaken to our true Identity. And everything I am saying here is something I'm describing from own experiences with this on a daily basis. Truly it is exactly as Paul said, "And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

So it is our effort, but it nothing we can attain, seize, grasp, or posses as what we doing in our normal seekings. It is leaving behind the small 'I' and finding the true I. We are "learning to see", but it is by learning not to look. It came to me in meditation one day not long ago, "Quit looking. Start being". That's what awakening is.

Thanks. We are on the same page here.

I think one huge mistake that's almost universally made is that we are taught to view The Way (Xy) as something external that is imposed upon us, rather than as something within us that we birth into the physical world. That perspective obfuscates the journey toward wholeness that we are enjoined to make.

I would say that Mary could serve for someone as an archetype. The salvation is us awakening to our relationship to God. That can come through any thing, or anyone who inspires what is within to awaken. A bird singing, can bring me to God.

Hmmm... Not sure how you're seeing Mary as an archetype for reconciliation with God (at least in the traditional view and use of the Marian archetype)?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've never believed that. For one thing, Adam and Eve were husband and wife, and Jesus and Mary were mother and son. I can understand the line of reasoning, however. Adam and Eve "fell from grace", and they needed someone to replace them and eradicate "original sin". I don't really believe in original sin, I do believe human nature and the flawed nature of the flesh.

The particulars of the relationship don't matter. What matters is that Mary freely chose to obey God's will to bring about the Salvation of humanity.

What do you believe Original Sin is?

 

[ChristineES]

The particulars of the relationship don't matter. What matters is that Mary freely chose to obey God's will to bring about the Salvation of humanity.

What do you believe Original Sin is?

I always presumed it was Adam and Eve's first sin of disobedience of "eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge". I am not sure if there is more to it. I've always belonged to protestant faiths and I don't know much about Catholicism.

Since I believe A & E to be symbolic, then I would say it is "human nature" that would be considered the sin: The flesh, so to speak.

 

[outhouse]

. But, I'd like to stop this debate.

Ok. I will respect your wishes.

 

[ChristineES]

The particulars of the relationship don't matter. What matters is that Mary freely chose to obey God's will to bring about the Salvation of humanity.

What do you believe Original Sin is?

Oh, and I do believe that Mary was an upright woman or she never would have been chosen to give birth to Jesus.

 

[ChristineES]

Ok. I will respect your wishes.

Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree with that teaching, and I always have. I don't believe that Mary was sinless and I don't recall Jesus ever saying she was sinless. But I guess that is why I am not a Catholic.

The immaculate conception wasn't dogmatically defined until 1854. It is, however, one of the few infallible (or ex cathedra) statements made by a pope. The belief has been around for a lot longer, however, although it doesn't trace back to the beginning of the movement.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For reference: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

 

[ChristineES]

For reference: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

Thank you, SF. I think I will take a good look at this.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thank you, SF. I think I will take a good look at this.

You're welcome.

 

[Pegg]

Yes it was. Look at the bit from Leviticus 12 that you posted.

6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

Priest offers sin offering, woman is made clean from effects of childbirth.

So again, do you consider childbirth a sin that needs atonement for? Leviticus states that involuntary uncleanness is something to atone for, alongside sin.

the scripture itself says one offering was for 'uncleaness' and the other is for 'sin'

Vs8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

In the law, the blood was unclean because sin is passed on through the blood.
So the blood requires cleansing from its sinful state... and Mary was a human like every other human born of sinful parents who passed their sin onto her through the blood.

 

[Pegg]

The idea that Jesus came to pay the penalty for sin is a purely Protestant concept. Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox believe such a thing and neither did the early Christians and Church Fathers.

It is Catholic dogma that Mary was entirely sinless for her entire life. She was full of God's grace and saved from the stain of Original Sin.

Jesus himself said:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”

Of what is mankind held to ransom?