aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
For me, Mary represents redeemed humanity. Her current state of being is to be looked forward to.
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!
For me, Mary represents redeemed humanity. Her current state of being is to be looked forward to.
I don't know if she was or not. Nor, does it really matter to me. She was definitely not your run of the mill "sinner". Zacharias and Elisabeth are accounted as righteous and blameless [cf Luke 1:6], I don't see Mary as also being so a stretch of the imagination. However, I don't see arguing over such as bearing any fruit, as witnessed.
Of course, I don't subscribe to OS, nor do I subscribe to single witness in the NT regarding the "young woman" from Isaiah.
(Romans 3:9-11) "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; {10} As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
Does "none righteous" exclude Zacharias and Elisabeth? When it is claimed that they were both "righteous", is that God talking or this Luke talking?
Like I said before - simple denial of a linguistic fact is not a sufficient response.
Mary is Kecharitomene - the ONLY person in ALL of Scripture to receive this title. She is an exception.
God has made MANY exceptions in Scripture - and she was one of them.
Your problem lies in the fact that you can't accept the Triune God.
God is a Trinity: ONE God in THREE Persons
God the Father.
God the Son.
God the Holy Spirit.
Mary didn't give birth to a "nature".
She gave birth to a Person - just like YOUR mom did.
Which IOW is to say that Luke is not "inspired". A mere unreliable account.
Did Caleb follow "God" wholly or not. Or were those merely the words of Moses and Joshua.
Since it was also written there are none that seek after "God", does that include you and I even now?
That doesn't mean its not inspired or unreliable. If one account is unreliable, then so are all other accounts, a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump. It just means that our assumptions about who said what are wrong within the narrative. I have an understanding that the Bible is a collection of words formatted as stories similar to any other book. They are true stories for sure, but stories nonetheless. If we treat the Bible in similar fashion, then understanding it become easier. You can't have it both ways, there are either some righteous or none at all. Scripture doesn't contradict itself, and God is not the author of confusion, so there certainly must be an explanation for such verses. We assume that this is God saying they were righteous, but we don't see God being referred to as the one saying it. We don't see terms such as "and God said" or "the Lord said" for instance at all which is what is always seen when it is actually God speaking. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that God wasn't the one that claimed them to be righteous, but is coming entirely from the narrative or perspective of Luke.
No my problem was that you said God did not exist before Mary but the Son did. Which is really a problem for you, not me.
I have no problem with the Trinity.
That Mary gave birth, yes. But the One she gave birth to had a nature like no other. None of which called for Mary to be sinless.
Stranger
here we go again and again - claiming an inspiration and revelation and denying it to Isaiah and the Church - twinc
Both (Luke 1:6) and (Rom.3:9-11) are the Word of God. In Romans Paul is showing that in all men there is no Godly righteousness to be found. It is found only in those that have been redeemed by God and God's righteousness imputed to them. This was the case of Zacharias and Elisabeth. They were righteous before God and walking in that righteousness.
Stranger
i do, and stop lol you do tooI don't know if she was or not.
hmm, i would say that it is crucial? If Mary can be sinless, who needs Christ?Nor, does it really matter to me.
def not, i agree; she was "chosen." And if i can sway one opinion away from perceiving her as holy or sinless, or in any other way on par with Christ, then i am convicted to do soShe was definitely not your run of the mill "sinner". Zacharias and Elisabeth are accounted as righteous and blameless [cf Luke 1:6], I don't see Mary as also being so a stretch of the imagination. However, I don't see arguing over such as bearing any fruit, as witnessed.
How is anything being denied Isaiah and the Church?
Stranger
could you rephrase this? Do you think Mary was not her, or? tynor do I subscribe to single witness in the NT regarding the "young woman" from Isaiah.
imo that isn't really fair? Scripture makes...intentional prevarications (also), seems to meWhich IOW is to say that Luke is not "inspired". A mere unreliable account.
definitely imo, get comfortable with it lol; then God might be soughtSince it was also written there are none that seek after "God", does that include you and I even now?
i read that that way too, but i guess he is rephrasing what he feels that he heard from...whomever, mjrThat doesn't mean its not inspired or unreliable.
that they were generally considered righteous, and Luke was just recording that perspective, seems to fit fine?so there certainly must be an explanation for such verses
Nope - that's NOT what I said.No one else in the Bible was favored with grace, or had unmerited favor in the eyes of God you say?
well I guess others like Noah having "grace", or being "highly favored" as one may say also by default makes them exempt from the following verses.
Or not, for by claiming Mary to be without sin, and inherently righteous, means that the truth of the real gospel is not within me.
And you guys complain when I expose you for your lies - yet here is another one.One would think that Jesus would have used this opportunity to exalt Mary as something more than a woman, her being the "queen of heaven", and the "mother of all things", but instead he thought obedience to God was more important than being a woman who gave birth to the savior. But no, by all means folks, let the Catholics give adoration and praise to their "queen", I'm sure God will have a word or two with them about it when the time comes, but no one is stopping you......................
Mary gave birth to GOD incarnate.No my problem was that you said God did not exist before Mary but the Son did. Which is really a problem for you, not me.
I have no problem with the Trinity.
That Mary gave birth, yes. But the One she gave birth to had a nature like no other. None of which called for Mary to be sinless.
Stranger