Co- Redemptrix

  • 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!

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
For me, Mary represents redeemed humanity. Her current state of being is to be looked forward to.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

How would you explain such verses with this?

(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
Reactions: bbyrd009

Richard_oti

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2008
1,170
739
113
Does "none righteous" exclude Zacharias and Elisabeth? When it is claimed that they were both "righteous", is that God talking or this Luke talking?

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

That 'kecharitomene' speaks to Mary being sinless is not a linguistic fact.

Mary was certainly highly favoured, full of grace. Just not sinless.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dcopymope

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

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
 

twinc

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2011
1,593
265
83
93
Faith
Country
United Kingdom
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
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
here we go again and again - claiming an inspiration and revelation and denying it to Isaiah and the Church - twinc

How is anything being denied Isaiah and the Church?

Stranger
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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

Zacharia and Elizabeths righteousness isn't described as "imputed" on account of their faith like Abraham, its imputed on account of their works, for keeping the mosaic laws. This is what Luke claims, and nowhere did Luke quote God as saying anything of the kind. As far as God is concerned, the only one that kept and fulfilled the law was Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I don't know if she was or not.
i do, and stop lol you do too
Nor, does it really matter to me.
hmm, i would say that it is crucial? If Mary can be sinless, who needs Christ?
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.
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 so
 

twinc

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2011
1,593
265
83
93
Faith
Country
United Kingdom
How is anything being denied Isaiah and the Church?

Stranger


whose fault is it if one cannot see or hear properly - for those with proper hearing Isaiah at 48:8 states we are sinners from our mother's womb and the Church confirms this and explains how this does not apply to Jesus - twinc
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Nope - that's NOT what I said.
I said that nobody else in Scripture was "Kecharitomene", which means:
Completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”
This title indicates a completed action with permanent result.

I know it's difficult for you and your anti-Catholic friends here - but TRY to stay honest here . . .
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......................
And you guys complain when I expose you for your lies - yet here is another one.
The Catholic Church condemns the worship and adoration of anybody or anything OTHER than God Himself.

Is it really that difficult to remain honest on this forum??
It's like a disease with you people . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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
Mary gave birth to GOD incarnate.
She didn't simply give birth to a nature.

To believe this is to fall back into the Nestorian Heresy.
You absolutely have difficulties with the Trinity . . .