Biblical Mary

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Yes I did, you just turned a blind eye. Dispenser of all graces is also fount of all graces. fount is an used word today for the most part except in old hymns.

Fount is not dispenser. Fount is source.
You have to have a source before you can dispense.

Well sorry, but CCC of 1992 says intergral.
I don't know what you have but mine says first published in 1994.
But of course we have to go by yours not by the one on the Vatican web site. :rolleyes:

Intrinisic also concludes it is an essential part! So devotion to Mary is essential to Christian Worship according to the Romansits.
Nope!

And you won't find that even implied in gods Words, just the romanists words.
So you claim.

Well they say it is different but there are enormous prayers to Mary, there are enormous statues of Mary, Masses dedicated to Mary, Kneeling to Mary, Fasting because of Mary etc.etc. Churches dedicated to Mary, Songs enormous to Mary (hail Holy Queen enthroned above), idols of Mary.

Even th echurch teachings give Mary a unique position above all other saints. And her role as mediatrix and advocate is unique and above all saints- this is unbiblical.

In your personal and fallible opinion
I know what the Hierarchy of the church says and writes but sorry the bible says there is only mediator between god and man.
970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."

Yes thsat is true, but teh elevation of Mary as the Romansits have done is unbiblical and idolatrous.
In your personal and fallible opinion
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Obviously, as a Catholic, you're saying that no one is allowed/permitted to say ANYTHING that opposes Catholic doctrine. WOW. You seem to be unabashedly opposed to anything anti-Catholic. Now I clearly understand your point of view.

I didn't say allowed. I said shouldn't. And the context was Catholics.
So drop your faux outrage.
 

Bruce Atkinson

Active Member
Sep 25, 2021
113
66
28
76
Western MA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think it would contradict Scripture. There are many places in Scripture that say grace comes from God.
The Catholic Dictionary defines grace:
In biblical language the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race; it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition. Grace, therefore, is a totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim. Where on occasion the Scriptures speak of grace as pleasing charm or thanks for favors received, this is a derived and not primary use of the term.

WOW! It would appear that the Catholic Dictionary can take something so simple to understand as Grace - The unmerited gifts from God - and make it so very hard to understand. It seems that the Catholic Church is exceptionally proficient in obfuscation and double-speak. Now I know where the lawmakers in Washington DC got their lessons in law writing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
WOW! It would appear that the Catholic Dictionary can take something so simple to understand as Grace - The unmerited gifts from God - and make it so very hard to understand. It seems that the Catholic Church is exceptionally proficient in obfuscation and double-speak. Now I know where the lawmakers in Washington DC got their lessons in law writing.
Difficult to understand?
English is not your first language then!
 

Bruce Atkinson

Active Member
Sep 25, 2021
113
66
28
76
Western MA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No repentance necessary then?

And if we do confess our sins and repent and are forgiven, but then go out an murder do we go to heaven?

If one is not a truly born again believer as Jesus related in John 3:3-7, all the confession in the world won't save someone from the lake of fire.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (KJV) (underlining mine)

According to the Catechism I recently downloaded, #527, #1213, #1257 and #1263 and others discuss being reborn (born again). If I'm interpreting it correctly, #537 indicates that baptism positionally puts one 'in Jesus' and going down in the water makes one both born of the water and the spirit.

CCC #537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. the Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":

I have a couple concerns with #537. Firstly, it clearly states 'go down into the water'. Having personally observed the baptism of several infants in Catholic churches, they are NOT fully immersed in the water as Jesus was by John the Baptist. Also, how can an infant be capable of 'self-abasement and repentance'? Why the disconnect between the RCC and the Bible?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (KJV) (underlining mine)

He certainly wasn't 'sprinkled'. He was fully immersed in the Jordan River!

In Luke 3:16, John the Baptist clearly states that it is Jesus that shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: (KJV)

How does Catholic baptism with just a sprinkling of water 'magically' make one 'born of the Spirit'? This non-Catholic would like to know.

Then Jesus himself talks about being baptized by the Holy Ghost...Not a priest, not a person or church, and not water or any other liquid:

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (KJV)

excerpt from CCC #1213 "Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God"

excerpt from CCC #1257 "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit.""

except from CCC #1263 "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin"


Where in the Bible did Jesus or anyone else state that being freed from sin and reborn as sons of God is accomplished by baptism alone? Also, per the CCC #1263, if all past and personal sins are forgiven, why is it necessary to confess them at all? Per #1263, they were all forgiven at baptism, right? Of course that is in direct contradiction to what John wrote in 1 John 1:9 -

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (KJV)

That clearly states that forgiveness occurs when confessed, not by being baptized!

From just the short discussion here, it's clear that the Catholic Church disagrees in a number of things with what God put in the Bible by His direct inspiration alone -

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (KJV) (underlining mine)

If I were to briefly sum it up, the Catholic Church doesn't accurately interpret Gods' inspired Word He has given to us -

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)
 

Bruce Atkinson

Active Member
Sep 25, 2021
113
66
28
76
Western MA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Scripture does not say that these "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus are either children of Mary or children of Joseph.
The term brother and sister can be used very loosely.

From Catholic Answers
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).


No Word for Cousin
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)


John says “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.” (Jn 19:25). Now this could mean that Jesus’ mother’s sister was there (whatever is meant by “sister”) and Mary the wife of Clopas or they were the same person, but either way there were at least three Mary’s at the cross – Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdalene. Now Mary the mother of James and Joseph could have been a fourth or she could have been Mary wife of Clopas. Either way Mary the mother of Jesus was not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. And since they were listed first, neither was Simon and Judas, since if the were they would hardly have been listed after non-brothers.

The Church historian Eusebius quoting from Hegesippus (110-180 AD) writes
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

So Symeon (Simeon, Simon) was the cousin of Jesus, and Mary Clopas was therefore the sister-in-law of Mary the mother of Jesus. Again note the loose use of relationships. Mary Clopas is referred to as Mary’s “sister” in Jn 19:25 when she is actually her sister-in-law.

In the book of Jude he says “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1) So Jude (or Judas) is probably the brother of James the son of Clopas.

Then also Luke when listing the apostles says James, son of Alpheus. But the Aramaic Alpheus can be rendered in Greek as either Alpheus or Clopas. So again James, the “brother” of the Lord is probably the son of Clopas.

Why is it so hard to simply take the Bible at what it says rather than trying to add to it? Yes, throughout the Bible, it refers to brother(s), etc as physical brothers with the same parents as well as brother(s) referring to aunts, uncles, cousins, and Israelites in general. Look at the next verses:

Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Matthew 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; (KJV)

It's obvious from the context of each verse that actual brothers are being referred to in Matthew 4:18 and Matthew 4:21, but fellow Israelites in the other two verses. In short, context is very important! In particular Mark 6:1-3 -

Mar 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
Mar 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (KJV)

It clear that those in the synagogue that day knew Jesus and his family, and obviously, Mary and Joseph as well. They are specifically talking about Mary and Josephs' genetic children in the verse, not other individuals, generically speaking.

For the Catholics in the audience, proof that Mark 6:3 specifically speaks of specific children of Mary and Joseph, here's Catechism #1511 quoted in full. Note the reference to James:

1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.


QED
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassandra

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.
She committed no sins.
Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin, which is what the Immaculate Conception is about.

<<<She committed no sins>

So in your belief, Mary is sinless and not guilty of any sin. Okay. It’s clear now what Catholics believe regarding Mary in that respect. Thanks.

<<<Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.>>>

How? Where is that in scriptures? Was her conception sort of that like Jesus?

<<<Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin>>>

How did Jesus saved her? Please cite scriptures where this teaching is coming from.

Tong
R4653
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
The cardinals who are bishops elect the successor to saint peter so if no cardinals exist the bishops could

the conclave is held in secret so there is no definition of valid or invalid, so what they teach speaks volumes

only God may judge a pope

<<<The cardinals who are bishops elect the successor to saint peter >>>

Do you believe that they are infallible in their election of one of them as the Pope. That their election of one to be Pope, is whom the Holy Spirit choose to be Pope? So that whoever is elected have the approval of God?

Also, I heard about infallibility. Can you enlighten me, is the Pope infallible when he speaks about faith matters? Or is the RC church which is infallible? Or is it the doctrines of the RC church as laid out in the CCC?

Tong
R4655
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
To all R. Catholics here:

I read that RCC teach and believe that Mary is the new Eve.

Do RCC teach and believe of a new Adam? If so, who is he? Is it Joseph the husband of Mary?

Tong
R4656
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
If one is not a truly born again believer as Jesus related in John 3:3-7, all the confession in the world won't save someone from the lake of fire.
I think you misunderstand me, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough.
However It's not really on the topic so I will not pursue it.
.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (KJV) (underlining mine)

According to the Catechism I recently downloaded, #527, #1213, #1257 and #1263 and others discuss being reborn (born again). If I'm interpreting it correctly, #537 indicates that baptism positionally puts one 'in Jesus' and going down in the water makes one both born of the water and the spirit.

CCC #537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. the Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":

I have a couple concerns with #537. Firstly, it clearly states 'go down into the water'. Having personally observed the baptism of several infants in Catholic churches, they are NOT fully immersed in the water as Jesus was by John the Baptist. Also, how can an infant be capable of 'self-abasement and repentance'? Why the disconnect between the RCC and the Bible?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (KJV) (underlining mine)

He certainly wasn't 'sprinkled'. He was fully immersed in the Jordan River!

In Luke 3:16, John the Baptist clearly states that it is Jesus that shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: (KJV)

How does Catholic baptism with just a sprinkling of water 'magically' make one 'born of the Spirit'? This non-Catholic would like to know.

Then Jesus himself talks about being baptized by the Holy Ghost...Not a priest, not a person or church, and not water or any other liquid:

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (KJV)

excerpt from CCC #1213 "Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God"

excerpt from CCC #1257 "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit.""

except from CCC #1263 "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin"


Where in the Bible did Jesus or anyone else state that being freed from sin and reborn as sons of God is accomplished by baptism alone? Also, per the CCC #1263, if all past and personal sins are forgiven, why is it necessary to confess them at all? Per #1263, they were all forgiven at baptism, right? Of course that is in direct contradiction to what John wrote in 1 John 1:9 -

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (KJV)

That clearly states that forgiveness occurs when confessed, not by being baptized!

From just the short discussion here, it's clear that the Catholic Church disagrees in a number of things with what God put in the Bible by His direct inspiration alone -

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (KJV) (underlining mine)

If I were to briefly sum it up, the Catholic Church doesn't accurately interpret Gods' inspired Word He has given to us -

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)
Now this is totally off topic.
If you want to discuss Baptism then I suggest you atrt a new topic.
Perhaps call it Oh no, not another Baptism thread. :)
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
<<<She committed no sins>

So in your belief, Mary is sinless and not guilty of any sin. Okay. It’s clear now what Catholics believe regarding Mary in that respect. Thanks.

<<<Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.>>>

How? Where is that in scriptures? Was her conception sort of that like Jesus?

<<<Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin>>>

How did Jesus saved her? Please cite scriptures where this teaching is coming from.

Tong
R4653
Firstly, I seem to be getting a bit careless about my phrasing.
When I said "Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her", I was thinking about the power of the Spirit at the conception of Jesus as an example. I didn't mean that was when Mary became immaculate. She was conceived immaculately at her conception. I hope that didn't cause any confusion.

In this answer about Mary let me also take up this post of yours:
To all R. Catholics here:

I read that RCC teach and believe that Mary is the new Eve.

Do RCC teach and believe of a new Adam? If so, who is he? Is it Joseph the husband of Mary?

Tong
R4656

Jesus is the new Adam.

Recapitulation in scripture is about renewing and reversing what went wrong in previous times.
“For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth”. (Eph 1:9-10)
Instead of “unite” other translations say “gather together” (KJV), “bring….together” (NIV), “sum up” (ASV).

In Christ, what went wrong is put right and some biblical themes of the fall are reversed and made new.

Paul makes comparisons between Jesus and Adam, with Jesus reversing the problems for mankind that arose from the sin of Adam.
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Cor 15:22)
“Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1Cor 15:45)

“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” (Rom 5:14-15).

Adam was not alone. It was Eve who was first disobedient and then Adam.
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1Tim 2:13-14)

Adam was the original head of humanity. When Adam fell humanity fell with him. To restore what was originally intended mankind needed a new head with a new body. Jesus becomes the new head and the church the new body. This is known as recapitulation.

The original fall included Eve, indeed it was she that first listened to the serpent and disobeyed God. It would therefore be incomplete not to consider Eve’s role and how that could be reversed. Our recapitulation should include both.

In Genesis we are told God created a man, and from the man he created a woman and placed them in a garden. The man and the woman were is perfect harmony with each other and with God.

Then Satan deceived the woman (Eve) and she took some of the fruit they were forbidden to eat ate it. She also gave some to Adam who also ate it. Through their disobedience to God they lost the harmony they had with God and with each other. They were expelled from the garden.

The major fault was Adam’s. It was to him that God had given the command about the fruit. It was him who, as Paul said, brought death into the world (1Cor 15:21-22). It was Adam’s disobedience and fall that Christ came into the world to correct.
“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Gal 4:4-5).

Back in Gen 3:15 Jesus was promised, and also by implication was Mary, as Jesus was to be born of a woman (Gal 4:4 above). Both were planned and prepared for by God.

Although the primary sin was Adam’s, Eve too was implicated in the fall by her disobedience. It is fitting therefore that in the fullness of time there would be a second Eve (Mary) to undo what the first one did, just as the second Adam (Jesus) undid what the first Adam did.

They are like bookends between the fall and the beginning of our redemption.

First Adam, then Eve, made from Adam’s rib.
New Eve (Mary) then Jesus, formed in Mary’s womb.

“For as woman [Eve] was made from man {Adam], so man [New Adam] is now born of woman [New Eve]. And all things are from God.”(1Cor 11:12)

There are several parallels between Eve and Mary

Eve was a virgin who brought forth sin and death
Mary was a virgin who brought forth grace and salvation (Jesus)

Eve listened to a fallen angel (Satan) and conceived the word of the serpent in her heart.
Mary listened to an angel of God (Gabriel) conceived the Word of God in her womb.

Eve was disobedient to God
Mary was obedient to God.

Eve gave Adam the forbidden fruit which brought about the Fall
Mary gives us the fruit of her womb (Lk 1:42) which brought about Redemption

The Fall came when both Adam and Eve were together under the shadow of tree of Good and Evil.
Redemption came when the New Adam and the New Eve were together under the shadow of another tree – the cross.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Why is it so hard to simply take the Bible at what it says rather than trying to add to it? Yes, throughout the Bible, it refers to brother(s), etc as physical brothers with the same parents as well as brother(s) referring to aunts, uncles, cousins, and Israelites in general. Look at the next verses:

Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Matthew 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; (KJV)

It's obvious from the context of each verse that actual brothers are being referred to in Matthew 4:18 and Matthew 4:21, but fellow Israelites in the other two verses. In short, context is very important! In particular Mark 6:1-3 -

Mar 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
Mar 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (KJV)

It clear that those in the synagogue that day knew Jesus and his family, and obviously, Mary and Joseph as well. They are specifically talking about Mary and Josephs' genetic children in the verse, not other individuals, generically speaking.

For the Catholics in the audience, proof that Mark 6:3 specifically speaks of specific children of Mary and Joseph, here's Catechism #1511 quoted in full. Note the reference to James:

1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.


QED

It is not obvious that they are Mary's children. By claiming that they are when the Bible does not say that Mary had other children you are the one adding to it
You have totally ignored the evidence I gave you.
Therefore there is no point in continuing this conversation.
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
<<<The cardinals who are bishops elect the successor to saint peter >>>

Do you believe that they are infallible in their election of one of them as the Pope. That their election of one to be Pope, is whom the Holy Spirit choose to be Pope? So that whoever is elected have the approval of God?

There is much prayer involved and invoking the HS

Also, I heard about infallibility. Can you enlighten me, is the Pope infallible when he speaks about faith matters? Or is the RC church which is infallible? Or is it the doctrines of the RC church as laid out in the CCC?

Tong
R4655

the CCC is in doubt the old catechisms are trustworthy in my opinion

papal infallibility only applies to the teaching of the pope on matters of faith and morals when invoking apostolic authority to the universal church and is rare
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Firstly, I seem to be getting a bit careless about my phrasing.
When I said "Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her", I was thinking about the power of the Spirit at the conception of Jesus as an example. I didn't mean that was when Mary became immaculate. She was conceived immaculately at her conception. I hope that didn't cause any confusion.
No confusion there. I think I got that what you are saying is that se was conceived immaculately.

Now, please go on and address the following:

<<<She committed no sins>

So in your belief, Mary is sinless and not guilty of any sin. Okay. It’s clear now what Catholics believe regarding Mary in that respect. Thanks.

<<<Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.>>>

How? Where is that in scriptures? Was her conception sort of that like Jesus?

<<<Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin>>>

How did Jesus saved her? Please cite scriptures where this teaching is coming from.

Tong
R4663
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
To all R. Catholics here:

I read that RCC teach and believe that Mary is the new Eve.

Do RCC teach and believe of a new Adam? If so, who is he? Is it Joseph the husband of Mary?

Jesus is the new Adam.

Recapitulation in scripture is about renewing and reversing what went wrong in previous times.
“For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth”. (Eph 1:9-10)
Instead of “unite” other translations say “gather together” (KJV), “bring….together” (NIV), “sum up” (ASV).

In Christ, what went wrong is put right and some biblical themes of the fall are reversed and made new.

Paul makes comparisons between Jesus and Adam, with Jesus reversing the problems for mankind that arose from the sin of Adam.
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Cor 15:22)
“Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1Cor 15:45)

“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” (Rom 5:14-15).

Adam was not alone. It was Eve who was first disobedient and then Adam.
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1Tim 2:13-14)

Adam was the original head of humanity. When Adam fell humanity fell with him. To restore what was originally intended mankind needed a new head with a new body. Jesus becomes the new head and the church the new body. This is known as recapitulation.

The original fall included Eve, indeed it was she that first listened to the serpent and disobeyed God. It would therefore be incomplete not to consider Eve’s role and how that could be reversed. Our recapitulation should include both.

In Genesis we are told God created a man, and from the man he created a woman and placed them in a garden. The man and the woman were is perfect harmony with each other and with God.

Then Satan deceived the woman (Eve) and she took some of the fruit they were forbidden to eat ate it. She also gave some to Adam who also ate it. Through their disobedience to God they lost the harmony they had with God and with each other. They were expelled from the garden.

The major fault was Adam’s. It was to him that God had given the command about the fruit. It was him who, as Paul said, brought death into the world (1Cor 15:21-22). It was Adam’s disobedience and fall that Christ came into the world to correct.
“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Gal 4:4-5).

Back in Gen 3:15 Jesus was promised, and also by implication was Mary, as Jesus was to be born of a woman (Gal 4:4 above). Both were planned and prepared for by God.

Although the primary sin was Adam’s, Eve too was implicated in the fall by her disobedience. It is fitting therefore that in the fullness of time there would be a second Eve (Mary) to undo what the first one did, just as the second Adam (Jesus) undid what the first Adam did.

They are like bookends between the fall and the beginning of our redemption.

First Adam, then Eve, made from Adam’s rib.
New Eve (Mary) then Jesus, formed in Mary’s womb.

“For as woman [Eve] was made from man {Adam], so man [New Adam] is now born of woman [New Eve]. And all things are from God.”(1Cor 11:12)

There are several parallels between Eve and Mary

Eve was a virgin who brought forth sin and death
Mary was a virgin who brought forth grace and salvation (Jesus)

Eve listened to a fallen angel (Satan) and conceived the word of the serpent in her heart.
Mary listened to an angel of God (Gabriel) conceived the Word of God in her womb.

Eve was disobedient to God
Mary was obedient to God.

Eve gave Adam the forbidden fruit which brought about the Fall
Mary gives us the fruit of her womb (Lk 1:42) which brought about Redemption

The Fall came when both Adam and Eve were together under the shadow of tree of Good and Evil.
Redemption came when the New Adam and the New Eve were together under the shadow of another tree – the cross.
A lot of speculations and conjectures there, I will have to say.

Anyway, your answer to my question is that Jesus is the new Adam.

So, Catholics were taught that Mary is the new Eve and Jesus is the new Adam.

That’s strange. I would no find it that strange if Joseph were the new Adam, for Adam and Eve were husband and wife. But then we have Mary and Jesus as mother and son/child.

Well,….that is the RCC teaching. Thanks for letting me know.

Tong
R4664
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No confusion there. I think I got that what you are saying is that se was conceived immaculately.

Now, please go on and address the following:

<<<She committed no sins>

So in your belief, Mary is sinless and not guilty of any sin. Okay. It’s clear now what Catholics believe regarding Mary in that respect. Thanks.

<<<Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.>>>

How? Where is that in scriptures? Was her conception sort of that like Jesus?

<<<Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin>>>

How did Jesus saved her? Please cite scriptures where this teaching is coming from.

Tong
R4663

Jesus saves us in two way to forgive our past sins and he also preserves us from committing future sins

Mary was preserved from all sin

conceived and created immaculate
Gen 3:15 enmity with Satan
Lk 1:28 full of grace
Rev 12:1 clothed with the sun immaculate purity

Heb 4:16 throne of grace
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
<<<The cardinals who are bishops elect the successor to saint peter >>>

Do you believe that they are infallible in their election of one of them as the Pope. That their election of one to be Pope, is whom the Holy Spirit choose to be Pope? So that whoever is elected have the approval of God?

Also, I heard about infallibility. Can you enlighten me, is the Pope infallible when he speaks about faith matters? Or is the RC church which is infallible? Or is it the doctrines of the RC church as laid out in the CCC?
the CCC is in doubt the old catechisms are trustworthy in my opinion

papal infallibility only applies to the teaching of the pope on matters of faith and morals when invoking apostolic authority to the universal church and is rare

I did not get your answer to my question regarding the election of the Pope.

“Do you believe that they are infallible in their election of one of them as the Pope. That their election of one to be Pope, is whom the Holy Spirit choose to be Pope? So that whoever is elected have the approval of God?”

<<<the CCC is in doubt the old catechisms are trustworthy in my opinion >>>

Are you saying, in your opinion, the old CCC have errors, or have some false teachings?

Please clarify. Thanks.

<<<papal infallibility only applies to the teaching of the pope on matters of faith and morals….>>>

I see. So infallibility only applies to the Pope, in his teachings on the matter of faith and morals.

Are the Pope’s teachings on the matter of faith and morals then becomes RCC official doctrines, since the Pope is infallible with respect to that?

By the way, rare as you say that may be, it follows that there is at least an instance, maybe two, three, or more, over thousand of years of Papal history, right? Can you cite some, where the Pope invoked apostolic authority to the universal church and what he taught?

Thanks.

Tong
R4665
 

Tong2020

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
4,854
848
113
*
Faith
Christian
Country
Philippines
Tong2020 said:
No confusion there. I think I got that what you are saying is that se was conceived immaculately.

Now, please go on and address the following:

<<<She committed no sins>

So in your belief, Mary is sinless and not guilty of any sin. Okay. It’s clear now what Catholics believe regarding Mary in that respect. Thanks.

<<<Mary was immaculately conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed her.>>>

How? Where is that in scriptures? Was her conception sort of that like Jesus?

<<<Jesus saved her from the effects of Original Sin>>>

How did Jesus saved her? Please cite scriptures where this teaching is coming from.
Jesus saves us in two way to forgive our past sins and he also preserves us from committing future sins

Mary was preserved from all sin

conceived and created immaculate
Gen 3:15 enmity with Satan
Lk 1:28 full of grace
Rev 12:1 clothed with the sun immaculate purity

Heb 4:16 throne of grace
You already said those things in your other posts.

Can you tell me your answers to the questions in my post that you quoted and responded?

Thanks.

Additionally,

<<<conceived and created immaculate>>>

Scriptures please.

If Mary was conceived immaculate, what can you say of her mother and father?

Tong
R4666