Christian: Mary, Mother of God

[Genna]

He doesn't bestow sinlessness, He bestows Grace that enables the person to become sinless. In the case of Mary, we believe she responded and accepted God's Grace in a very special way.

I did not say that he bestows sinlessness, I said that he bestows "Grace," and that this Grace helps us to be sinless as you said. You said "Grace can be received at any point of someone's existance." So you are telling me that I can become sinless? Why does the bible say:

1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Do you notice how the writer includes himself as admitting to have sin? He uses the word "we," so how is it possible for a person to be sinless? Forgive me if I am missing something here, I am new to most religions and have a basic understanding of them. Please explain!

 

[athanasius]

Writer said
However, she's not the source of divinity

My answer

NO one ever said she was the source of divinity. He divine son created her. Our point, and the historical Christian Point(as brought out in the council of Ephesus 431 AD) is simply the fact that Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

There fore Mary is the mother of God. She is not he mother of the Father or the Spirit. That is simply all we are saying. Stop trying to read into everything.


writer said


Too the contrary: she was an experiential and condemned sinner just like the rest of us (Rom 3:23)

My response

Actually reading the context of Romans 3 shows that this is a generalized statement and is not referring to every single person. It is equilivant to saying: “I went to a party and everyone in the world was there”.

We know that not everyone is included in this because part of that “All” that says that all have sinned and fallen short would then have to include Jesus. He is Human. But we know he never sinned. Babies are human, and we know that they cannot sin.

So there are exceptions, And Mary since she is scripturally and historically believed to be the Ark of the New covenant and the New Eve is definitely a exception. Paul is just trying to show that the Jews and Gentiles are equal and both sin and one is not better than the other.


writer said

Jesus' conception was "immaculate"

My answer

To the contrary. The title immaculate conception suggest that a person is “made” free of sin “at” there conception.
Jesus was always sinless even “before” his conception because he is God.

Writer said

This's a needless, and counterproductive, fairytale

Wow the sinlessness of mary isn’t a fairy tale. The Fathers of the church explicitly taught her sinlessness. Sacred Scripture implies it. MIracles, even today, such as Lourdes confirm it.

Of course you wouldn’t believe that because you have limited the word of God to mere scripture alone so you cannot look to the tradition of the fathers or the miracles. Sad really. But then again maybe sola scriptura is the real counterproductive fairy tale.


writer Said

Too the contrary: the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, full of grace and reality; and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father. Wrote the apostle John

My answer

Nothing wrong here. Your right. JOhns Gospel is right. Catholics would agree. But you limit yourself to only that interpretation. Mary is seen in scripture as the Ark of the new covenant as the Gospel writer Luke Shows. Why? She is a typological fulfillment of the ark.

The old Ark carried the word of God, The rod of Aaron, and the Manna from heaven. Jesus is the word of God(JN 1:1), The manna from heaven(Jn 6:48), and he carries a priestly rod of authority(Rev 12:5). If jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant(Which you seem to agree) then Mary who carried this new covenant in her womb would be seen as the new Ark. Simple.

Luke brings this out more in his gospel. John brings this out in Revelation 11:19-12:1. John clearly shows us in 11:19 that the ark of God’s covenant would be seen in heaven...and who is this covenant?

Immedialty after saying this we see its the Women who gives birth to Jesus, hence it is Mary. There is alot more to said on this by the early Christians and it showed in there songs and worship services.

writer said


To the contrary: she hasn't. She, like all believers, awaits His parousia, His return; their resurrection and their assumption to Him

My answer

Again Mr writer since you don’t have the complete word of God in tradition and since you refuse to study the early christian Church and the fathers of the first 6 hundred years. Of Coarse you wouldn’t understand this one.


writer said

When said that she was queen of heaven writer said

To the contrary: she hasn't, never will be individually, and would probably puke at the thought of her being labelled so blasphemously. If she knew about it

my answer

Mary is the queen of heaven. Jesus is the King of heaven. Jesus typologically fulfills the Royal Davidic throne as a son of David(Matt 1:1). All Davidic Kings had Queen Mothers. Mary is his mother.

Therefore she is the queen of heaven. (Revelation 12:1) brings this out nicely when Mary is shown in heaven, the moon under her feet and her head is crowned with 12 stars, representing the 12 apostles and the twelve tribes of isreal. She truly is the queen of the apostles and the new Isreal(The Church). She truly is the Queen of heaven. YOu will find out when you get to heaven mr Writer.

 

[writer]

34 Romans 3.23 applies to all human beings without exception? Does it apply to Jesus?
After Romans 1:18-3:20 on mankind's condemnation: 3:21-25 the beginning of Paul's section on justification speaks of righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus...the redemption which's in Christ Jesus. Since He's the solution, do u think 3:23 excepts Him?
Given that my post 33, para 3 pointed out Jesus' sinlessness per the NT; do u think i and the NT didn't except Him?

Does it apply to infants?
Not the infant Jesus

36 before they are born.
38 at any point of someone's existance.
By 'born' duz the gentleman mean 'conceived'? Or is the kind gentleman's idea that Mary was sinless in the womb, but then not when she came out?


36 before they are born.
40 we believe she responded and accepted God's Grace in a very special way.
Before she was born? Before she existed?


42 Stop trying to read into everything.
To the contrary: i dint read into Anythin. I simply wrote that Mary's not the source of divinity. Pleze don't read into that.
Thanks

Romans 3 shows that this is a generalized statement and is not referring to every single person. It is equilivant to saying: “I went to a party and everyone in the world was there”.
To the contrary: Everyone but Christ sinned and haz sin

Babies are human, and we know that they cannot sin.
Whether we can't sin or not as babies: we Hav sin. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, wrote David in Psalm 51

So there are exceptions,
To the contrary: the only exception's the sinless man who is God also

And Mary since she is scripturally and historically believed to be the Ark of the New covenant
As member of God's house, Mary's part of God's house, His building

and the New Eve is definitely a exception.
To the contrary: Eve sinned and had sin. Mary too (Rm 3:23)

The title immaculate conception suggest that a person is “made” free of sin “at” there conception.
If that's its meaning: then there's no such thing. Nor would there be. Adam and Eve were created, not conceived, sinless. The Son of God wasn't made sinless. He never was sin, intrinsically

Jesus was always sinless even “before” his conception because he is God.
Amen

the sinlessness of mary isn’t a fairy tale.
To the contrary: it's false

The Fathers of the church explicitly taught her sinlessness.
so-called 'Fathers' r, and were, xplicitly wrong in that regard. Except Augustine, w/ others, who explicitly acknowledged her sin

Sacred Scripture implies it.
To the contrary: Romans 3:23 denies it

MIracles, even today, such as Lourdes confirm it.
Laying aside debating what u call 'miracles,' Elijah, Elisha, and Peter performed miracles and they were born sinners

you have limited the word of God to mere scripture alone so you cannot look to the tradition of the fathers or the miracles.
Where there's conflict or contradiction between tradition and miracles; and God's Scripture: you're correct if you're accusing me of siding w/ Scripture. If you're putting other things or writings on the same plane as Scripture as a teaching authority: then you're doing the same thing as Mormons with their 'other testament of Jesus Christ'

Mary is seen in scripture as the Ark of the new covenant as the Gospel writer Luke Shows. Why? She is a typological fulfillment of the ark.
The tabernacle typifies Christ (Jn 1:14). The ark within the tabernacle typifies God, who's within Christ (Eph 4:32). And who, in Christ, comes to dwell in His believers' regenerated spirit (Heb 10:22; 2 Tim 4:22; 1 Cor 6:17)

If jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant then Mary who carried this new covenant in her womb would be seen as the new Ark. Simple.
Simply temporary. Mary's no longer physically pregnant with Jesus her firstborn. Mary's regenerated human spirit, containing God and Christ's Spirit, carries Jesus, as do the spirits of all His regenerated believers.....eternally

Revelation 11:19-12:1. John clearly shows us in 11:19 that the ark of God’s covenant would be seen in heaven...and who is this covenant?
The same One who is the temple (21:22). God

Immedialty after saying this we see its the Women who gives birth to Jesus, hence it is Mary.
To the contrary: Rv 12:1-17's woman is God's people. Just as in 19:7-8; 21:2. Which is the point of the entire Bible (cf Isa 54:5; Ephesians 5:32; 2 Cor 11:2). Mary didn't flee into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3 1/2 years) after her firstborn ascended (Rv 12:6). Christ Jesus didn't ascend as a baby after He was born (12:5). The man-child in 12:5 is not Christ Jesus directly. Hence that woman isn't Mary individually. That woman isn't Mary, singly. Hence her child is not Jesus, individually. Instead, the man-child, like the woman, is a corporate entity. Here: the stronger part of Christ's mystical Body. Hence: 'man-child.' Taken while the woman, the weaker part (no offence here), is left on the earth. This is seen in 2:25-27 of the same book

you don’t have the complete word of God in tradition
To the contrary: what contradicts Scripture's not word o' God (cf John 10:35)

you refuse to study the early christian Church and the fathers of the first 6 hundred years.
To the contrary: i've studied, and study, them much. That's how i know when they're right; and when they're in error, and who's more accurate when they disagree. In addition, the 1st 600 years of church history, just like the 1,400 since then, is visible not only in history itself, but also prophetically in the Bible including John's Revelation

Mary is the queen of heaven.
Mary, like all deceased believers except evidently Moses, is in the pleasant part of Hades under the earth, awaiting her Lord's return, and resurrection

All Davidic Kings had Queen Mothers. Mary is his mother.
Mary's not in heaven. Nor will she and all other believers be long in heaven; except temporarily: 3 1/2 years or less; after their assumption (rapture) at the end of this age. Christ and His believers come to earth (Rv 17:14; 19:11-14). Take care

 

[James the Persian]

Writer said
However, she's not the source of divinity

My answer

NO one ever said she was the source of divinity. He divine son created her. Our point, and the historical Christian Point(as brought out in the council of Ephesus 431 AD) is simply the fact that Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

There fore Mary is the mother of God. She is not he mother of the Father or the Spirit. That is simply all we are saying. Stop trying to read into everything.

Actually, I just have to chirp in here. The councils did not give Mary the title Mother of God at all. The title is Theotokos, which means Birthgiver of God. That's why most English speaking Orthodox do not translate the title. Birthgiver sounds odd and Mother of God is a poor translation precisely because it leads to sort of misunderstanding that writer clearly had.

Clearly this title - Theotokos - has nothing to with Mary at all, but rather it is a Christological statement as it says that the child she bore was truly God. If you have a problem with the title (and this is aimed at writer, not you Athanasius) then you either do not understand it or you are not a Christian.

James

 

[writer]

44 The councils did not give Mary the title Mother of God at all.
'Liz'beth did. And it wasn't so much a title as a fact. How has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Lk 1:43

The title is Theotokos, which means Birthgiver of God.
"Theotokos" can also be applied to any and all believers in, and receivers of (Jn 1:12-13), Christ, who is God. Spiritually (cf Galatians 4:6, 19). Not in the sense of physical pregnancy

Mother of God is a poor translation precisely because it leads to sort of misunderstanding that writer clearly had.
To the contrary of dear James' statement above: it should have been clear to u that writer has no such misunderstanding. In post 33, para 1 i was merely clarifying for anyone interested what 'mother of God' when applied to Mary duzn't mean

Clearly this title - Theotokos - has nothing to with Mary at all, but rather it is a Christological statement
Hence my comment that "Theotokos" can also be applied to any bona fide Christian, spiritually

If you have a problem with the title (and this is aimed at writer, not you Athanasius) then you either do not understand it or you are not a Christian.
If you think i had, or have, a problem with this title, on this thread (and this is aimed at James and Athanasius or whoever else cares): then thas your misunderstanding.
Thanx

 

[James the Persian]

<44 The councils did not give Mary the title Mother of God at all.>
Elizabeth did. And it wasn't so much a title as a fact. How has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Lk 1:43

<The title is Theotokos, which means Birthgiver of God.>
"Theotokos" can also be applied to any and all believers in, and receivers of (Jn 1:12-13), Christ, who is God. Spiritually (cf Galatians 4:6, 19). Not in the sense of physical pregnancy

<Mother of God is a poor translation precisely because it leads to sort of misunderstanding that writer clearly had.>
To the contrary of dear James' statement above: it should have been clear to u that writer has no such misunderstanding. In post 33, para 1 i was merely clarifying for anyone interested what 'mother of God' when applied to Mary duzn't mean

<Clearly this title - Theotokos - has nothing to with Mary at all, but rather it is a Christological statement>
Hence my comment that "Theotokos" can also be applied to any bona fide Christian, spiritually

<If you have a problem with the title (and this is aimed at writer, not you Athanasius) then you either do not understand it or you are not a Christian.>
If you think i had, or have, a problem with this title, on this thread (and this is aimed at James and Athanasius or whoever else cares): then that's your misunderstanding.
Thanx sir

The only reply you'll get from me to your rather rude and offended sounding post is that you clearly need to brush up on your Greek. Theotokos can only be applied to someone who has given birth to God. This is not metaphorical and hence the only person that can be called that is Christ's mother. If you mean bearer of God (which is quite different) then that is a completely different word, which could be applied (and indeed is) to people other than the Theotokos. Let me see how long it takes you to come up with it.

James

 

[writer]

Not so at all. I apologize if you found me rude. How exactly so?
For daring to disagree w/ u; or daring to deny your false accusation(s) toward me?
I'm not sorry i can't 'pologize for that.
Hav u read your own posts dearest James?

Mebbe in, or 'ccording 2, your own particular religion, "theotokos" can only be applied to physical birth. Apparently, in history, it only has. But in the apostles' uses of the Greek "tokos" in the New Testament (although they never used the compound "theotokos"), "tokos" has no such limitation. Nor does "Theos;" since Theos Himself, incarnate in His Son, became a life-giving Spirit in resurrection to indwell His elect.
To repeat: maybe according to your tradition or religion "theotokos" has some limited form of 'copyright' in your mind. But, thank the Lord, I'm not bound by your tradition

Take care

 

[athanasius]

James, I feel your pain and understand your point. YOu James had alot of good points. But Trying to talk to Writer about the true doctrines of Our Lady is like trying to explain something to a wall, as I have found out.

He simply will not be able to understand fully these doctrines becuase he cannot even understand the sources of divine revelation for a Christian(Scripture and Tradition). He limits himself to a box.

That box is scripture alone and even then he limits himself to his own interpretation alone, ignoring the tradition of the fathers and the development of Christian Doctirne that the Holy Spirit has worked over the centuries in the Church. So it really becomes sola Writer.

He is always right, even if the entire early church dissagree with his interpretation of the blessed Virgin. He's always right about how to interpret scripture even if other protestants who go by the bible alone dissagree with him. So Sola Writer is his doctrine.

There is no greek argument you can make, no matter how many Greek Scholars you bring up, he will just deny them and quote a passage from the bible. Sola Writer! I have disproved him using Protestant Greek lexical sources before.

He simply denies he is wrong and says they(the Greek lexical sources) are wrong. He also wouldn't listen to any of the Greek Fathers(Who actually knew Greek first hand) on how they interpet Theotokus. Why becuase well it just isn't in Sola Writer! Well Anyway, James I appreciate your points. Bless you.

 

[logician]

"There really isn't anything special about Mary other then she was from the line of Adam and David and the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled in her lifetime."

This is utter poppycock as the gospels themselves disagree considerably on their so-called lineages of the supposed Jesus.

 

[James the Persian]

*** Moderator Post ***​

First time putting the mod hat on, but this is just a reminder that this is a same faith debate for Christians only. Non-Christians should not be debating in this thread.

James

 

[sojourner]

I did not say that he bestows sinlessness, I said that he bestows "Grace," and that this Grace helps us to be sinless as you said.

I feel this is incorrect theology. Grace does not "help to make us sinless." Grace makes us acceptable to God, in spite of our sinfulness. When the father embraced the prodigal son upon his return home, it didn't negate the fact that the son had been prodigal, and that his state had led him away from the father. But the father only cared that the son had returned -- prodigal or not -- and the father accepted the son, prodigal or not. That's grace.

 

[writer]

To the contrary: they don't. For instance Matthew, the start of Matthew, focusing on Joseph, records Joseph, the husband of Mary,'s antecedents. Luke's beginning, emphasizing Mary's personal experiences, provides her lineage in Lk 3.
Thnx

 

[writer]

dear Lord Jesus

 

[Quiddity]

I feel this is incorrect theology. Grace does not "help to make us sinless." Grace makes us acceptable to God, in spite of our sinfulness. When the father embraced the prodigal son upon his return home, it didn't negate the fact that the son had been prodigal, and that his state had led him away from the father. But the father only cared that the son had returned -- prodigal or not -- and the father accepted the son, prodigal or not. That's grace.

Yes it does make you acceptable before God. But I think God wants more then just someone being IN Grace. He is literally trying to transform people. How is this done in your estimation?

 

[athanasius]

The wording of the Phrase "Hail Full of Grace" in Luke 1:28 according to Greek biblical scholars, like Fr Mateo, shows that the Blessed Virgin Mary has been "Perfected in Grace". If someone is perfected in grace then there is no room for sin. Of coarse her sinlessness is implied not only in this verse but also in the content of the whole of sacred scripture.

For example:
In the old testament in the book of Wisdom it says "Wisdom will NOT dwell in a body under the debt of SIN"(Wis 1:4)

Jesus Christ is "wisdom personified" as Paul teaches in (1 Cor 1:24)

If regular wisom will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin, then how much more sinless would you have to be to have Jesus(Wisom Personified) literally dwelling in your body for 9 months? Hence Scripture alludes in a implicit way to the Imaculate Conception of our Lady.

Of coarse there are many other implicit hints to Mary's sinlessness in the written word of God, Scripture, and direct explicit statements from the oral word of God by the Fathers in Sacred Apostolic Tradition. (Such as St Epiphanius of Salamis).

God bless

 

[writer]

an accurate translation's simply "graced," or "favored."
In addition, Christ lives in His believers, and we (for sure i) yet have sin in my flesh.

Christ's whole purpose is to be a friend of sinners. And even come to dwell within man as the very antidote and eventual destroyer of sin. To worship Mary in the kind poster's apparent kind of way is to subtly, or insidiously, seek to distance God from sinners.

Thanks

 

[athanasius]

Mr Writer, You said

In addition, Christ lives in His believers, and we (for sure i) yet have sin in my flesh.

My answer

You are correct, Jesus Lives in all who believe. And yes we all do still commit sin. Thanks God For Purgatory!!!!LOL! But your incorrect to think that &#8220;we&#8221; have been graced in the same way as Mary. This why you are NOT a New Testament Biblical Greek Scholar, and Father Mateo is.

Father Mateo explains that the phrase used to describe the Virgin Mary in Luke 1:28 is not the same phrase used to describe other Grace filled Christians in the New Testament. When the bible speaks about others having Gods Grace it is different in wording and in meaning in the Greek.

There is something special about Mary according to this passage in Luke. That is, Mary is full of Grace or a more literally &#8220;Perfected in Grace&#8221;(Not the same as other Christians). Hence if you are perfected in Grace then there is no room for sin. Period.



You also said

To worship Mary in the kind poster's apparent kind of way is to subtly, or insidiously, seek to distance God from sinners.

My response:

Catholics do not worship Mary. Period! We never have. Period. Our church has NEVER taught us to. Period! Our Catechism explains that we are to follow the commandments and have no other Gods. Period!

Also, to believe that Mary is sinless does not even come anywhere close to saying that we worship her. We do not. We gladly give glory and honor and praise to her but we never ever worship her. The concept of giving glory and honor and praise to other human beings penetrate the sacred scriptures . We worship God alone.

Of coarse I am not sure why your dialoguing with me? We have already established Mr Writer, that you may not understand these things(Mary&#8217;s Sinlessness) because you lack the fullness of divine revelation(Scripture and Tradition). And you also lack any ecclesiastical Authority passed down to you from the apostles to give you proper guidance on the meaning of scripture(Act 8:30-32).

You sir as we have already established in another forum, go by Sola Scriptura...or really you go by Sola Writer since you have proven in the past forums that the bible alone cannot give you doctrinal clarity on baptism, and you disagree with other sola scripturist .

So Sorry, But like I said earlier, there is really no discussion between us. My post was meant to read by other Catholics and Orthodox Christians who hold to Mary&#8217;s Sinlessness.

I would recommend a good book for you to read on the interpretation of the Greek meaning of Luke 1:28. I would recommend the book called &#8220;REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY&#8221; by Father Mateo.


On pages 20-26 he explains the Greek meaning. And he WAS a New Testament Biblical Greek Scholar. He was also a priest, who read and preached the scriptures every day, as all priest do.

God bless you in Jesus the King through Mary the Queen Mother

 

[writer]

57 But your incorrect to think that “we” have been graced in the same way as Mary.
To the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He graced us in the beloved, wrote Paul. If you're saying that only Mary, Jesus' mother, was was pregnant with Him physically; you're right

When the bible speaks about others having Gods Grace it is different in wording and in meaning in the Greek.
To the contrary: it's the same root

There is something special about Mary according to this passage in Luke.
She's Jesus' mother

That is, Mary is full of Grace or a more literally “Perfected in Grace”(Not the same as other Christians).
"Perfected in grace" is literally untrue. To the contrary, the best translation's the simple "graced. Favored" As she wuz

Hence if you are perfected in Grace then there is no room for sin. Period.
To the contrary: all except the sin-offering have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Including Jesus' dear mom, and my sister: Mary

Catholics do not worship Mary. Period! We never have. Period. Our church has NEVER taught us to. Period! Our Catechism explains that we are to follow the commandments and have no other Gods. Period
Glad 2 hear it

to believe that Mary is sinless does not even come anywhere close to saying that we worship her.
Glad 2 hear it. But i never wrote that. I wrote that to say Mary could bear Christ only if she's sinless is to, unconciously or not, distance the Savior from His saved

Of coarse I am not sure why your dialoguing with me?
Cuz it's a debate board?

We have already established Mr Writer, that you may not understand these things(Mary’s Sinlessness) because you lack the fullness of divine revelation(Scripture and Tradition).
Thas correct that i try not to put other writings on a par with Scripture

And you also lack any ecclesiastical Authority passed down to you from the apostles to give you proper guidance on the meaning of scripture(Act 8:30-32).
To contrary: the apostles writings are as good now, for me, as they were then

You sir as we have already established in another forum, go by Sola Scriptura.
What's "Sola Scriptura" since you seem to enjoy using that phrase? That the NT, and OT, Scriptures are God's preeminent written authority? That i might try and seek to "go by" the Bible? U r correct sir

or really you go by Sola Writer since you have proven in the past forums that the bible alone cannot give you doctrinal clarity on baptism,
To the contrary: i agree with the apostles' teaching on baptism in the Bible

and you disagree with other sola scripturist .
Sorry 2 hear that

there is really no discussion between us. My post was meant to read by other Catholics and Orthodox Christians who hold to Mary’s Sinlessness.
I apologize for reading your post here. And the last one directed to me

I would recommend a good book for you to read on the interpretation of the Greek meaning of Luke 1:28. I would recommend the book called “REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY” by Father Mateo.
Thank u kindly. In turn, i recommend you, and he, read the New Testament. If you want, feel free to pass on my recommendation to him

he WAS a New Testament Biblical Greek Scholar. He was also a priest, who read and preached the scriptures every day, as all priest do.
According to the New Testament teaching: all believers are, should be, and will be, sooner or later, priests to God and to His Christ. "And made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen" Rv 1:6

<God bless you in Jesus the King>
Thank u. U likewise

 

[athanasius]

Writer you said

To the contrary: it's the same root.....Perfected in grace" is literally untrue. To the contrary, the best translation's the simple "graced. Favored" As she was

my answer

Again Mr writer, this is why YOU are NOT a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar, and Father Mateo is. You really could not debate him. This was his expertise. He taught at universities. You are a amateur. Again I point you to his book on pages 20-26 for a in depth explanation of the greek.

Thats 6 pages of Greek explanation on why this passage does refer to Mary as Completed or Perfected in Grace, unlike other Christians. He goes though the other passages in scripture that say people are &#8220;graced&#8221; and shows from the Greek that they do not mean the same thing. Again, your anti-intellectual fundamentalism of sola Writer is clearly showing your folly. Repent.

Writer you said

Glad to hear it. But i never wrote that. I wrote that to say Mary could bear Christ only if she's sinless is to, unconciously or not, distance the Savior from His saved

My answer

Really? you didn&#8217;t say we worshipped Mary? Now I have caught you in a down right lie. Here is what you said..........&#8221;To worship Mary in the kind poster's apparent kind of way is to subtly, or insidiously, seek to distance God from sinners&#8221;

Wow. Sure sounded like you said we worship Mary to me? Caught YOU in LIE. I hope all who read this will see your dishonesty. Oh and by the way, Catholics do NOT teach that Mary &#8220;HAD&#8221; to be sinless for her to bear Jesus in her womb.

God could have done what he wanted to do. We teach that he filled her and perfected her completely with Grace making her sinless because it would have been the &#8220;FITTING&#8221; thing for him to do and so he did as alluded in Luke 1:28. Think about it. Jesus was the only man that created his own Mother. Now if you could create your own mother, would you create her defiled in sin? Of coarse not.

This passage in Luke give us implicit evidence that Jesus created her in a sinless fashion and filled her and completed her with special grace. Of coarse God also shows that this dogma of faith (of her sinlessness) reflects her fulfilling Old testament typologies of Eve and the Ark of the covenant . All of these typologies the early Christian fathers and the oral Word of God(Apostolic tradition) talked about.

There are even implicit hints to this in the Book of Wisdom(Wisdom 1:4) which I discussed earlier. But all of this evidence, from Greek Scholars, the Fathers of the Church, and Scriptuire itself will not do you any good becuase you believe in Sola Writer.

ONly writer is right on all things...Only writer can interpret the scriptures right...and only writer knows what the Greek means even though writer isn&#8217;t a Greek scholar.

Writer said

To the contrary: the apostles writings are as good now, for me, as they were then

My answer

My point wasn&#8217;t that you didn&#8217;t have the scriptures. My point was that you didn&#8217;t have the God given authority passed down from you to the apostles to be able to interpret the written word correctly....YOu know like The Eunuch needed(Acts 8:30-32). You also lack the hindsight of 2000 years of Christian tradition to guide you. Again its sola Writer.


Writer said

To the contrary: i agree with the apostles' teaching on baptism in the Bible

My answer

My point was that you have no idea if what you believe is the correct interpretation of Baptism in the bible. You say you go by sola Scriptura. So does Baerly. And yet you both disagree with each-other on what Titus 3:5-7 means and what baptism is. You say you are teaching the truth of the bible. Well so does Baerly.

You see how you cannot really ever know doctrine based on sola scriptura. If you say he&#8217;s wrong then by what authority can you? By Scriptural Authority? By the Holy Spirit Guiding you? That won&#8217;t work cause he will just say the same thing to you? You&#8217;ll quote scripture. He will quote scripture. Both of you think your interpreting it correctly.

But you can only guess. You can only give it the old college try. Sola scriptura is not practically workable. Really it becomes Sola Writer. Only writer knows how to interpret the bible and everyone else is wrong. At least I have 2000 years of hindsight through tradition and a Church which historically can be traced back to the apostles and gets its apostolic authority from them who Got it from Christ himself.

writer said

Thank you kindly. In turn, i recommend you, and he, read the New Testament. If you want, feel free to pass on my recommendation to him

My answer

Wow, What a arrogant statement. Shame on you Mr writer. Father Mateo was a New Testament Greek Scholar. He read and studied and preached on the New testament constantly for years until his death. I am a theology student and also have read and prayed and studied the New Testament too. Your remark is just plain arrogant. Shame on you again. Repent!


writer said

According to the New Testament teaching: all believers are, should be, and will be, sooner or later, priests to God and to His Christ. "And made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the might forever and ever. Amen" Rv 1:6


My answer


Yes indeed we are all priest. All Baptized believing members of the body of Christ are Priest, as St Peter(1 Peter 2:9) and the &#8220;Catechism of the Catholic Church&#8221; confirms(Paragraphs 1141-11430). But just like there was 3 different types of priesthood in the old testament, there are 3 different types in the new. We hold the universal priesthood of all believers. But we do not Hold the hight Priesthood. Jesus Holds the hight Priesthood alone as the book of Hebrews tells us.

And we also do not hold the middle ministerial ordained priesthood. The priest of the church hold that one. So it isn&#8217;t that we do not hold a priesthood. We do. But its the &#8220;kind&#8221; of priesthood we hold to. I really think your the one who needs to read his bible more often. And of coarse you would help yourself if you read the apostolic sacred tradition of the fathers too. But since you only do Sola Writer that won&#8217;t happen.


God bless you in Jesus through Mary

Athanasius

 

[writer]

59 a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar, and Father Mateo is.
Based on your summary, i don't think i could fairly call him that

You really could not debate him.
i debate that

He goes though the other passages in scripture that say people are “graced” and shows from the Greek that they do not mean the same thing.
If u respect it, feel free to share any of it. If u want

anti-intellectual fundamentalism of sola Writer is clearly showing your folly. Repent.
What i'd call 'anti-intellectualism,' if i were to take-up your words, would be arguing that somebody 'taught in universities;' as opposed to honestly and humbly simply trying to present What they taught. But i like your word 'repent.' Amen to that

you didn’t say we worshipped Mary? Now I have caught you in a down right lie. Here is what you said..........”To worship Mary in the kind poster's apparent kind of way is to subtly, or insidiously, seek to distance God from sinners”
Thanks Mr A. But i think you're downright mistaken. I said "kind poster's"---that is, You. Singular. I didn't accuse all Catholics, nor Catholics in general. You used the plural pronoun ("we"). I didn't. So it might be fair to say that your accusation of dishonesty against me is actually what your accusation is

Wow. Sure sounded like you said we worship Mary to me?
I said "kind poster's." Eg: Athanasius's. There's a difference between plural and singular. One's plural. The other's singular. They're different. They don't even sound the same in this case. Much less look the same

Catholics do NOT teach that Mary “HAD” to be sinless for her to bear Jesus in her womb.
55 how much more sinless would you have to be to have Jesus literally dwelling in your body for 9 months? Hence Scripture alludes in a implicit way to the Imaculate Conception of our Lady.
"Catholics do not teach that Mary HAD TO BE to bear Jesus...how much more sinless would you HAVE TO BE to have Jesus..."
So, if i understand u correctly, dear Athanasius, you're teaching what Catholics do not teach?

59 making her sinless because it would have been the “FITTING” thing for him to do...
55 how much more sinless would you HAVE TO BE to have Jesus...
"Fitting" is different than "Have" to be. Therefore your 59's different in that respect from your 55

59 Jesus was the only man that created his own Mother.
Jesus' human nature didn't create His mother. Rather: His mother's human nature, by reproduction, and the Holy Spirit's divine fertilization, created Jesus' humanity.
As God, of course, the Son of God created Mary along with all things

if you could create your own mother, would you create her defiled in sin? Of coarse not.
God didn't create sin, nor sinful humanity. God created man "very good." Sinless. Sin is Satan's own (John 8:44). As you kindly, and accurately, point out: Jesus' mother did not need to be sinless to conceive and deliver Him