• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nowhere in the Bible does it say or infer that mary the Mother of Christ...

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
=/= “I can believe anything I want.”

There are some reeeaallly twisted beliefs in this thread that are not reasoned out At. All.
Like i said with god anything is possible.

Which of course is interpreted to mean anything i imagine can be reality. The real question is, is that the text or is that a something created in context to the text? A kind of narrative about a narrative about a narrative 100 generations long. What is the likelyhood that the modern narrative "with god anything is possible" is going to be reality at all? I would say not even wrong.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
Luke's account of what Mary said is pure fiction.. Its mythmaking and you deserve to know why.

How do you know that it is "mythmaking" ?

Because mythmaking is what you're doing ?

In fact, it's either Truth or Lie - either way, not myth.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
=/= “I can believe anything I want.”

There are some reeeaallly twisted beliefs in this thread that are not reasoned out At. All.

Mrs Grundy is a politically correct liberal nowadays.

Yes, one should tell her to get lost, together with her twisted liberal and atheistic ideas.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
So far as I know, nobody would claim the bible says Mary was born without original sin (the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). There is a good deal of both doctrine and tradition in the older, pre-Reformation, churches that is not found in the bible but was part of a developed theology derived from it but considerably extended. It is a fairly recent, Protestant "back-to-basics" idea that every concept should be mentioned in the bible.

But I must say that I have never seen much point in the Immaculate Conception. If one takes the view that Original Sin is a human disposition towards evil, rather than actual sinfulness, then I can't see why Mary would need a free pass from it. But maybe Metis can comment.

Why ? Because Mary was the mother of Jesus in His divine nature, as well as in His human nature.

Therefore Theotokos ("God-bearer"), Mother of God - therefore preserved from original sin so as to be a worthy vessel for God.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
The Gospels are all true to the letter. God just set all the events up to seem "mythical".

I'm continually amazed how some believers are forced to twist logic and reason into a pretzel in order to justify their ridiculous beliefs.

I'm continually amazed how unbelievers are forced to twist reality and reason into a ridiculous pretzel in order to justify their ridiculous beliefs.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Mrs Grundy is a politically correct liberal nowadays.

Yes, one should tell her to get lost, together with her twisted liberal and atheistic ideas.
Or, she's a fundamentalist conservative. And she does need to get lost with her twisted conservative and faux pietistic ideas.

See how that works? Reason -- not unfounded ideology -- should drive our social intercourse.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
was conceived and born without original sin nor that she was absolutely free of any personal sin. I do believe she was a woman of distinct honor, having been deemed fit by God to bear His only begotten Son, and was saved and that she is forever in heaven. The Roman Catholics can't accept that the "Mother of God" is anything less than perfect and absolutely sinless from her own conception. God made Jesus perfect and sinless in the womb of Mary and free of original sin by the miracle of His divine workings. The holy seed (sperm) of God makes Jesus Christ perfect and absolutely sinless.


Does the Bible say that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without sin?


To me, Mary herself addressed this issue in the words of the Magnificat (the song of praise that she spoke in response to the greeting of her cousin Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist) when Mary went to visit her immediately after Mary had been informed by the angel Gabriel that she was to be the mother of the Messiah). Mary began by saying (Luke 1:46-47), "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." If she had truly been without both original and actual sin, she would have had no need to either have or acknowledge a Savior.

She also said in Luke 1:48-50, "For, behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed, for He (God) has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.” Had Mary been totally without sin, she would have had no need to either receive or accept mercy (that is, undeserved favor or forgiveness) from God.

In addition, the Bible records occasions when Mary was mildly rebuked by Jesus Himself for actions or requests that, had she been totally without sin and shared Jesus' complete knowledge of and devotion to His Father's will, she should not have performed or asked (Luke 2:49-50 and John 2:3-4).


So ? The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is derived from the Bible and is a very reasonable interpretation of it.

And all established Catholic doctrine has the same measure of divine authority AS the Bible.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How do you know that it is "mythmaking" ?

Because mythmaking is what you're doing ?

In fact, it's either Truth or Lie - either way, not myth.
because the genre of the gospels is mythic in nature. That's the literary analysis. Doesn't mean that it's not true, but it is a larger-than-life account. The truth lies, not in its historical veracity, but in its metaphor.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In anthropology, we use the word "myth" as to mean a narrative written with the intent to teach moral lessons. We don't make judgments as to whether the myth is historically or scientifically accurate.

Secondly, was the original concept of Mary being without sin actually considered to be real or was it a subjective myth to indicate that she holds a very important position within the Church itself, and the answer to this is "yes". :D

IOW. we can't really tell with any certainty how this concept came about, and I for one don't lose any sleep over this as a Catholic. But I do feel the importance is that Mary was and is not only the Mother of Jesus but also the Mother of the Church itself.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Why ? Because Mary was the mother of Jesus in His divine nature, as well as in His human nature.

Therefore Theotokos ("God-bearer"), Mother of God - therefore preserved from original sin so as to be a worthy vessel for God.
You seem to have missed my point. If original sin is a predisposition towards sinfulness, rather than actual sin, I can't see why having that predisposition would be incompatible with God-made-man being borne by her.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I'm continually amazed how unbelievers are forced to twist reality and reason into a ridiculous pretzel in order to justify their ridiculous beliefs.

That's kind of funny. Don't you even know what an atheist is? I have a LACK of belief, so there are no beliefs that I am attempting to justify. All I'm doing is waiting for those who claim that a god exists to provide something close to verifiable evidence. It's been 57 years now and no believer has come even close.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
was conceived and born without original sin nor that she was absolutely free of any personal sin. I do believe she was a woman of distinct honor, having been deemed fit by God to bear His only begotten Son, and was saved and that she is forever in heaven. The Roman Catholics can't accept that the "Mother of God" is anything less than perfect and absolutely sinless from her own conception. God made Jesus perfect and sinless in the womb of Mary and free of original sin by the miracle of His divine workings. The holy seed (sperm) of God makes Jesus Christ perfect and absolutely sinless.


Does the Bible say that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without sin?


To me, Mary herself addressed this issue in the words of the Magnificat (the song of praise that she spoke in response to the greeting of her cousin Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist) when Mary went to visit her immediately after Mary had been informed by the angel Gabriel that she was to be the mother of the Messiah). Mary began by saying (Luke 1:46-47), "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." If she had truly been without both original and actual sin, she would have had no need to either have or acknowledge a Savior.

She also said in Luke 1:48-50, "For, behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed, for He (God) has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.” Had Mary been totally without sin, she would have had no need to either receive or accept mercy (that is, undeserved favor or forgiveness) from God.

In addition, the Bible records occasions when Mary was mildly rebuked by Jesus Himself for actions or requests that, had she been totally without sin and shared Jesus' complete knowledge of and devotion to His Father's will, she should not have performed or asked (Luke 2:49-50 and John 2:3-4).

The apostles did not teach the false doctrine of the so-called non-biblical VIRGIN conception and birth, of Jesus by his mother Mary.

In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”

So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will. Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit [teachings] they have come from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by Emperor Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summoned all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established, and the minds of the gullible are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge Hammer to crack them open and let the light of truth shine in..
 

sooda

Veteran Member
In anthropology, we use the word "myth" as to mean a narrative written with the intent to teach moral lessons. We don't make judgments as to whether the myth is historically or scientifically accurate.

Secondly, was the original concept of Mary being without sin actually considered to be real or was it a subjective myth to indicate that she holds a very important position within the Church itself, and the answer to this is "yes". :D

IOW. we can't really tell with any certainty how this concept came about, and I for one don't lose any sleep over this as a Catholic. But I do feel the importance is that Mary was and is not only the Mother of Jesus but also the Mother of the Church itself.

I have never been concerned whether or not Mary was a virgin or not. It seem to be she must have been very good and very pure to give birth to Jesus. Isn't that enough? Why is it necessary to embellish every aspect of the story?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The apostles did not teach the false doctrine of the so-called non-biblical VIRGIN conception and birth, of Jesus by his mother Mary.

In the days of the Apostle Paul, the people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.”

So, what was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will. Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit [teachings] they have come from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

2nd letter of John verses 7-10; “Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

Where would one expect to find the teaching that Jesus was not a true human being, “Born of the seed of Adam” which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by Emperor Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summoned all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established, and the minds of the gullible are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge Hammer to crack them open and let the light of truth shine in..

This is all a cut and paste from that other website that claims the servants song is about Jesus.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4
 

The Ponderer

New Member
was conceived and born without original sin nor that she was absolutely free of any personal sin. I do believe she was a woman of distinct honor, having been deemed fit by God to bear His only begotten Son, and was saved and that she is forever in heaven. The Roman Catholics can't accept that the "Mother of God" is anything less than perfect and absolutely sinless from her own conception. God made Jesus perfect and sinless in the womb of Mary and free of original sin by the miracle of His divine workings. The holy seed (sperm) of God makes Jesus Christ perfect and absolutely sinless.


Does the Bible say that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without sin?


To me, Mary herself addressed this issue in the words of the Magnificat (the song of praise that she spoke in response to the greeting of her cousin Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist) when Mary went to visit her immediately after Mary had been informed by the angel Gabriel that she was to be the mother of the Messiah). Mary began by saying (Luke 1:46-47), "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." If she had truly been without both original and actual sin, she would have had no need to either have or acknowledge a Savior.

She also said in Luke 1:48-50, "For, behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed, for He (God) has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.” Had Mary been totally without sin, she would have had no need to either receive or accept mercy (that is, undeserved favor or forgiveness) from God.

In addition, the Bible records occasions when Mary was mildly rebuked by Jesus Himself for actions or requests that, had she been totally without sin and shared Jesus' complete knowledge of and devotion to His Father's will, she should not have performed or asked (Luke 2:49-50 and John 2:3-4).

Well if Mary was born without sin, why didn't she die for us...........??

The only person who never sinned was Jesus and the only way he could die was to 'take on OUR sin' so that he could die.

Now I raise the question - if Jesus was born of Mary, (man) how is it that he did not inherit sin from man like the rest of us?

My thoughts are that when Jesus was placed into Mary, that God placed the "complete embryo of Jesus' into Mary. Jesus was just like the first Adam, made without sin yet he knew no sin.
Just a thought....
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
This is all a cut and paste from that other website that claims the servants song is about Jesus.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4

Sorry old girl, that is an excerpt from my book which is in process. If you saw it in some other forum, it was put there by myself, under one of my other forum Names. Perhaps 'The S-word,' 'The Tongue," or some other name.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have never been concerned whether or not Mary was a virgin or not. It seem to be she must have been very good and very pure to give birth to Jesus. Isn't that enough? Why is it necessary to embellish every aspect of the story?
Whether it's an embellishment or not, I simply do not know. However, such embellishments are commonplace in the Tanakh, such as with many citations in Psalms and elsewhere.

If we read the scriptures as if they're objective history, we're making quite a mistake, imo, so embellishments seemingly are quite plentiful.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
Or, she's a fundamentalist conservative. And she does need to get lost with her twisted conservative and faux pietistic ideas.

See how that works? Reason -- not unfounded ideology -- should drive our social intercourse.

Reason cannot provide a system of ethics. You have to rely on ideologies - unfounded or otherwise - to do that.
 
Top