• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,318
484
Coeur d Alene, Idaho
Visit site
✟94,392.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Then there is the doctrinal mess over limbo: What's the Deal with Limbo?.

It's not official doctrine yet it is still considered a possibility. The Catholic church has changed it from being "common doctrine" to "a possibly theological hypothesis." Hmmm...Christ's church on earth cannot make up its mind on this and has even changed its mind. The whole subject seems very messy. I also don't see a clear understanding of the Bible's teaching of what happens to our souls when we die. The majority Biblical interpretation is that when a person dies on earth, if they are a believer their soul goes straight to heaven; if they are not a believer, their soul goes to a holding place of torment but not yet hell. Hell comes after the resurrection of the dead and judgment. Then those not in Christ will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Satan and the demons for eternity. No one goes straight to hell. There is also no holding place for believers who have no done penance for their sins (i.e. Purgatory). If you are in Christ, your sins have already been forgiven. As Paul wrote, "to be absent from the body, is to be at home with the Lord (i.e. in heaven)" Penance, is not required in Scripture.

So the Catholic church hopes and is encouraged that all unbaptized children will end up in heaven but still entertains the hypothetical possibility that they will be denied the "beatific vision" and linger in a place known as limbo. This quandary exists because the Catholic church believes baptism is necessary for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
11,980
5,688
Minnesota
✟313,883.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This quandary exists because the Catholic church believes baptism is necessary for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

I have highlighted the portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you seem to either be missing or don't understand. If you want to accurately represent Catholic teaching then please quote the Catechism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"
I think we both know that not one NT text calls God the "Holy Trinity."
I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I never ask for that to be proven... (A) member of the Roman Catholic Church accepts this as true based on the subjective declaration of their Church, which asserts and assumes their own authority in teaching it' own dogma for it's members. So it is ok there is no proof or evidence in that members mind.

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.


I have no issue with that ( I think it a error to do) but to each his own...
very good post Bill
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
11,980
5,688
Minnesota
✟313,883.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting
It's not explicitly in the Bible, it's a leap from the text. And I want to be clear, knowledge of the Assumption comes from the deposit of the faith that was complete with the death of the last Apostle.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting
It's not explicitly in the Bible, it's a leap from the text.

Interesting how "satisfying" the explicit bible support for the triune Godhead is for many 100's of millions of Christians as we see it here -
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19


your response amounts to "well even so - no matter those scriptures - I would still reject the doctrine of the trinity if I did not have a council statement affirming those Bible details as one God in Three Persons" - is less than convincing. It is hard to see how you even get that one to fly since you are left to imagine the scenario you suggest.


And I want to be clear, knowledge of the Assumption comes from the deposit of the faith that was complete with the death of the last Apostle.
If you have the Apostle John expressing the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in a reliable first century statement - feel free to post it.

Raymond Brown is an example of a Catholic scholar that writes on the subject of historicity of certain doctrines, that agrees with the observation that there is no reliable historicity in first century sources, for certain marian doctrines , and they are also not derived from the NT text. This one in particular relies on the later century sources, traditions alone.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
11,980
5,688
Minnesota
✟313,883.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting


Interesting how "satisfying" the explicit bible support for the triune Godhead is for many 100's of millions of Christians as we see it here -
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19


your response amounts to "well even so - no matter those scriptures - I would still reject the doctrine of the trinity if I did not have a council statement affirming those Bible details as one God in Three Persons" - is less than convincing. It is hard to see how you even get that one to fly since you are left to imagine the scenario you suggest.



If you have the Apostle John expressing the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in a reliable first century statement - feel free to post it.

Raymond Brown is an example of a Catholic scholar that writes on the subject of historicity of certain doctrines, that agrees with the observation that there is no reliable historicity in first century sources, for certain marian doctrines , and they are also not derived from the NT text. This one in particular relies on the later century sources, traditions alone.
You make it sound like Raymond Brown has come up with some great revelation. What he means by "historicity" is up for debate. But think about it, the fact is that it is no revelation that there is not an eyewitness in the first century that saw Mary enter Heaven.
There is a hierarchy of revealed truths in the Church, and as I've said so many times we come to a deeper understanding of the Word of God as time passes. While our focus is rightly on Jesus, some of the truths about Mary's role in salvation history only eventually became more fully understood. The bishops eventually did come to understand the Assumption, and after feast days like Christmas and Easter were chosen feast days for Mary were chosen, first in the East. Knowledge of the Assumption has been passed down not from eye witness accounts, not from any specific Bible account, but much through the beautiful liturgy.
 
Upvote 0

DragonFox91

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2020
6,150
3,747
33
Grand Rapids MI
✟273,841.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Life is all a parable of the kingdom, so I was thinking lately it makes sense there’s a God the Father, Mary the Mother, & Jesus the Son. A father, a mother, & a son. People have been searching for who that divine feminine is for a long time.

But that's not right. If we’re searching for a divine mother, then is there a divine uncle? Is there a divine aunt? Divine grandfather? Divine cousin?

That there must be an individual divine mother feminine that equates to the mother is nonsense. The feminine is the church, his people, he calls us his bride.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
11,980
5,688
Minnesota
✟313,883.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Life is all a parable of the kingdom, so I was thinking lately it makes sense there’s a God the Father, Mary the Mother, & Jesus the Son. A father, a mother, & a son. People have been searching for who that divine feminine is for a long time.

But that's not right. If we’re searching for a divine mother, then is there a divine uncle? Is there a divine aunt? Divine grandfather? Divine cousin?

That there must be an individual divine mother feminine that equates to the mother is nonsense. The feminine is the church, his people, he calls us his bride.
You don't have to search, Mary is right there in the Bible, from the woman in Genesis to the woman in Revelation. She is an integral part of God's plan. She did God's will.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You don't have to search, Mary is right there in the Bible, from the woman in Genesis to the woman in Revelation.
Mary is not Eve and Mary is not the Rev 17 woman and she is not the Rev 12 woman (who is the church in all ages)

Mary is in the Gospels, fully human, the same sinful nature as Adam -- not born of a virgin, not born by immaculate conception.


She is an integral part of God's plan. She did God's will.
Amen to that. She had a part in God's plan, she did God's will a lot of the time.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Raymond Brown is an example of a Catholic scholar that writes on the subject of historicity of certain doctrines, that agrees with the observation that there is no reliable historicity in first century sources, for certain marian doctrines , and they are also not derived from the NT text. This one in particular relies on the later century sources, traditions alone.

You make it sound like Raymond Brown has come up with some great revelation.
nope. I make it sound like his scholarly work involved reading the sources and noting the details.
What he means by "historicity" is up for debate.
no doubt many who have not looked into the details much at all would debate Brown purely based on preference.
But think about it, the fact is that it is no revelation that there is not an eyewitness in the first century that saw Mary enter Heaven.
Indeed - that is obvious to all of us.
There is a hierarchy of revealed truths in the Church
There is tradition that sprang up centuries later... tradition never mentioned at all by the first century sources.
A key point where all agree and Brown is quick to point that detail out.
While our focus is rightly on Jesus, some of the truths about Mary's role in salvation history only eventually became more fully understood.
1. First imagined in later centuries, then discussed, then better understood

is very DIFFERENT from

2. first reported in the first century, then better understood in some later century.
 
Upvote 0

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2024
3,044
1,600
76
Paignton
✟68,880.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You don't have to search, Mary is right there in the Bible, from the woman in Genesis to the woman in Revelation. She is an integral part of God's plan. She did God's will.
On what biblical basis can you say that Mary is the woman in Genesis and the woman in Revelation?
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,763
3,157
Pennsylvania, USA
✟933,690.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
For those of us who believe Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 is that it speaks of a woman giving birth to the Lord and the flight into Egypt in Revelation 12:1-9.

There is an early 2nd century writing called the proto Gospel of James which is about the life of the Virgin Mary which concludes with the birth of the Lord & the murder of the innocents ( Matthew 2:17). It was originally believed to be scripture from St. James but then discounted or rejected. I remember speaking with our one parish priest re this writing and that in Orthodoxy it is mostly valid as tradition but a secondary account. Since it is not the original writing of an apostle, it is not scripture but worthy of being read with care. It may be that the original account from James was lost in the persecutions.

This writing was not rejected on the same grounds as like the so called “Infancy” gospels or various gnostic writings. Plus when revelation itself ceased was probably not known precisely. The book of Revelation tells us this but that book itself was not commonly accepted for a few generations. There is an account from St. Ignatius of Antioch ( about 105 AD) in which he says that he did not write with the authority of an apostle so he probably knew the message of Revelation 22:18-21).




Quote from St. Ignatius on his writings vs those of Paul & Peter ( apostles in general, I believe):




Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,298
191
Southern U.S.
✟139,074.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Life is all a parable of the kingdom, so I was thinking lately it makes sense there’s a God the Father, Mary the Mother, & Jesus the Son. A father, a mother, & a son. People have been searching for who that divine feminine is for a long time.

But that's not right. If we’re searching for a divine mother, then is there a divine uncle? Is there a divine aunt? Divine grandfather? Divine cousin?

That there must be an individual divine mother feminine that equates to the mother is nonsense. The feminine is the church, his people, he calls us his bride.
Within the the Catholic Church, contrary to what some say, Mary is considered a 'created creature' just as we all are; not a Divine Mother.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
For those of us who believe Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 is that it speaks of a woman giving birth to the Lord
Jesus speaks of that same thing in John 4 to the Samaritan woman "Salvation is of the Jews".

Notice He never once says "Salvation is of Mary".

So in Rev 12 that same idea of the Jews as the One True Nation church started by God at Sinai - is that from which the Messiah comes.
Then in that same chapter after the work of Christ on Earth - He ascends to heaven... and after that comes 1260 years of persecution of the church.

A woman in bible prophecy represents the church - either in its aspect as obedient to Christ (as in Rev 12) or in its role as being in rebellion against Christ and His true church - as we see the woman of Rev 17 doing.

Notice how the chapter ends -

Heb 6.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time, times, and half a time, away from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent hurled water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon had hurled out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Eph 6 reminds the church that Satan is at war with the Church (Eph 6 does not say - Satan is at war with Mary)
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There is an early 2nd century writing called the proto Gospel of James
Many "documents" appear AFTER the first century - falsely claiming the name of some first century saint as their author long after the real person had died.

2 Thess 2 -- Paul warns of the practice of getting fake-documents fake-letters "AS IF from us" teaching strange doctrine.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way!
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,763
3,157
Pennsylvania, USA
✟933,690.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Many "documents" appear AFTER the first century - falsely claiming the name of some first century saint as their author long after the real person had died.

2 Thess 2 -- Paul warns of the practice of getting fake-documents fake-letters "AS IF from us" teaching strange doctrine.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way!
We also know that otherwise scriptural books seem to have been lost over time. There is a book of Jasher mentioned a couple times in the OT.

For ex. see Joshua 10:12-13.

In the New Testament, St. Paul mentions a, now lost, letter previously written before what we know as his 1st letter to the Corinthians ( 1 Corinthians 5:9). In Ephesians 5:14, we no longer know where St. Paul is referencing from.

Then there are books of the Bible disputed to this day like the Maccabees Yet, for ex., 2 Maccabees 10 is where the account of Chanukah is recorded.

Getting back to Revelation 12 and the Virgin Mary, similar imagery was testified to the martyrs Eleazar the priest, a mother & 7 sons from the harrowing account of 2 Maccabees 7.


There is an elaborate preaching of this account in the 4th book of Maccabees with celestial symbolism specifically referring to individuals. Perhaps these same people also figure into the meaning of Revelation 12 in addition to the church & the Virgin Mary.

 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,266
11,862
Georgia
✟1,086,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
We also know that otherwise scriptural books seem to have been lost over time. There is a book of Jasher mentioned a couple times in the OT.

For ex. see Joshua 10:12-13.
Some of Paul's letters were lost according to the NT - but that does not make those letters "scripture".
In the New Testament, St. Paul mentions a, now lost, letter previously written before what we know as his 1st letter to the Corinthians ( 1 Corinthians 5:9).
yep.

A not-scripture document was out there some place.
Then there are books of the Bible disputed to this day like the Maccabees Yet, for ex., 2 Maccabees 10 is where the account of Chanukah is recorded.
The Jews were the ones inspired to write the scriptures prior to the cross - prior to the Christian church. And they seem to be pretty convinced that there were no prophets for about 400 years prior to the time of Christ.

Josephus also confirms the point that the OT had been fixed-unchanged-canonized for 400 years and kept in tact in the Temple.

In Luke 24 Jesus "explains the things concerning Himself in ALL the Scriptures" --

25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke and his readers had the concept of "all the scriptures" for the state of the church at the time of Luke 24. How "instructive"
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,763
3,157
Pennsylvania, USA
✟933,690.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Some of Paul's letters were lost according to the NT - but that does not make those letters "scripture".

yep.

A not-scripture document was out there some place.

The Jews were the ones inspired to write the scriptures prior to the cross - prior to the Christian church. And they seem to be pretty convinced that there were no prophets for about 400 years prior to the time of Christ.

Josephus also confirms the point that the OT had been fixed-unchanged-canonized for 400 years and kept in tact in the Temple.

In Luke 24 Jesus "explains the things concerning Himself in ALL the Scriptures" --

25 And then He said to them, “You foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to come into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke and his readers had the concept of "all the scriptures" for the state of the church at the time of Luke 24. How "instructive"
The Maccabees books belong with history Biblical books like Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther etc. The Lord does not seem to have these much in focus in regards to what He says in Luke 24:44-48. These are inspired books of the Bible all the same. So what is so unusual about the Jews glorifying God with examples of martyrs who kept faithful to the Law? Being that a holy woman and her sons and Eleazar the priest ( from 2 Maccabees 7) kept the Law unto death while under extreme, sadistic torture is it such a stretch that St. John was thinking of them, the Virgin Mary, & the Church of Christ as the woman of Revelation 12? Josephus hardly ever refers to the prophets in his writings and concentrates on the books of the Law & history which include the Maccabees.




 
Last edited:
Upvote 0