-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Mary the second Eve?
- Thread starter neal4christ
- Start date
I have posted it before. I'll repeat it again:Originally posted by DanPC:
"The Scriptures specifically indicate that Mary was a sinner."
Specifically? Where is that?
Mary obeyed the Lord in spite of her sinful condition, or sin nature. She knew of her sinful nature, when she cried out:
Luke 1:46 My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
She admitted she needed a Saviour because she knew she was a sinner.
Luke 2:21-24:
21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Leviticus 12:1-3,8
12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Mary, on the eighth day, brought Jesus to be circumcised. After the days of her purification were finished, according to the law in Lev.12, she brought forth her sacrifice, a pair of turtledoves. One was for a burnt offering; the other was for a sin offering. If Mary had no sin, why did she have to bring a sin offering according to the law. She was a sinner, and therefore had to sacrifice a sin offering. Like anyone else Mary was a sinner. Mary needed a sin offering. Mary needed a Saviour.
DHK
You said it specifically says Mary sinned. I don't see that in any of your quotes. One might say it is implied but it is not explicit or you would have quoted it. There is the same implicit evidence that she did not sin and it has been previously quoted. It could be a stalemate but you say she sinned and I go with an authoritative source that says she did not.
Dan
Dan
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
My source is the Bible. You have given no source, other than the imagination of the Catholic Church.
DHK
neal4christ
New Member
Amen, DHK. I see exactly what you are saying. It couldn't be much clearer, I think. And Romans 3:23 would apply to Mary too, I would think, unless someone comes up with a good reason that she does not fit into the category of 'all'.
Neal
Neal
"8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean."
DHK said "The Scriptures specifically indicate that Mary was a sinner."
My bible doesn't say Mary in this above passage. And Romans doesn't apply to Jesus so the "all" there is not really "all." I am still waiting for a verse that says Mary sinned. I believe you may be doing what you accuse Catholics of doing, assuming a stance that is not explicitly spelled out in Scripture.
You might try Gen 3:15 enmity between the woman and the devil and Luke 1:37 full of grace.
I won't make the same type of claim that you did that the bible explicitly says she did not sin. There is an argument for and against and that is why the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, searched the Scriptures and oral tradition for the truth.
DHK said "The Scriptures specifically indicate that Mary was a sinner."
My bible doesn't say Mary in this above passage. And Romans doesn't apply to Jesus so the "all" there is not really "all." I am still waiting for a verse that says Mary sinned. I believe you may be doing what you accuse Catholics of doing, assuming a stance that is not explicitly spelled out in Scripture.
You might try Gen 3:15 enmity between the woman and the devil and Luke 1:37 full of grace.
I won't make the same type of claim that you did that the bible explicitly says she did not sin. There is an argument for and against and that is why the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, searched the Scriptures and oral tradition for the truth.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi,
Yeshua got Baptised - but what sin did he need washing away?
Yeshua died on the cross. God "so loved his only son".
Let me think now. Who else would love their only son? MMmmmmmm, well I guess it might just be a mum. Are mums capable of loving their sons? I guess so. When Yeshua was on the cross who was standing watching? Well his mum was there. Nails getting banged in, spears, mocking jokes, soldiers gambling over clothes, wipping - his mum was there. His mum was there.
Did Mary love the most wonderful child in the world and watch him die in agony on the cross.
She came out singing and dancing and talking in foreign languages on Pentacost. What a strange mum indeed.
Having Yeshua in your womb, your blood and His blood joining. Yeshua jumping inside you when you hear a loud noise. Babies only seem to move inside you when you are still.
Many mothers when they lose their babies lose their minds - I'm a dad, I think I'd go mad if I lost my very normal children.
There is a sort of well documented historic sexism in ancient societies (compared to modern societies) and thus, I guess, male scholars probably didn't write great tombs on Mary but ordinary female christains (illiterate) probably put great faith and store in Mary.
If we "ditch" Mary because her early followers had no books because they were only second class people, women, then that would be a shame. We owe it to these illiterate women of the ancient world to look really really really hard at the New Testament writings and the writings of the early Male Chruch fathers for any hint, clues to Marian devotion that we can all agree on - both Catholic and Protestant.
Mary had the pain of birth and the pain of death.
The "blood of Christ" is kind of literally (more or less) the "blood of Mary" for the first few months of His life. The whole thing
is just so so so weird.
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/dch/health/hrnewborn/images/fetalcirf2.jpg
St Paul said Women are saved by child birth - what a strange strange thing for him to say.
Yeshua dying on the cross said "Dear Woman..." (john ch17 v26) - The picture of this in my mind makes me cry. Just read Johns Gospel from beginning to end. Mary had her pentacost early John Ch2
[ December 31, 2002, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
Yeshua got Baptised - but what sin did he need washing away?
Yeshua died on the cross. God "so loved his only son".
Let me think now. Who else would love their only son? MMmmmmmm, well I guess it might just be a mum. Are mums capable of loving their sons? I guess so. When Yeshua was on the cross who was standing watching? Well his mum was there. Nails getting banged in, spears, mocking jokes, soldiers gambling over clothes, wipping - his mum was there. His mum was there.
Did Mary love the most wonderful child in the world and watch him die in agony on the cross.
She came out singing and dancing and talking in foreign languages on Pentacost. What a strange mum indeed.
Having Yeshua in your womb, your blood and His blood joining. Yeshua jumping inside you when you hear a loud noise. Babies only seem to move inside you when you are still.
Many mothers when they lose their babies lose their minds - I'm a dad, I think I'd go mad if I lost my very normal children.
There is a sort of well documented historic sexism in ancient societies (compared to modern societies) and thus, I guess, male scholars probably didn't write great tombs on Mary but ordinary female christains (illiterate) probably put great faith and store in Mary.
If we "ditch" Mary because her early followers had no books because they were only second class people, women, then that would be a shame. We owe it to these illiterate women of the ancient world to look really really really hard at the New Testament writings and the writings of the early Male Chruch fathers for any hint, clues to Marian devotion that we can all agree on - both Catholic and Protestant.
Mary had the pain of birth and the pain of death.
The "blood of Christ" is kind of literally (more or less) the "blood of Mary" for the first few months of His life. The whole thing
is just so so so weird.
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/dch/health/hrnewborn/images/fetalcirf2.jpg
St Paul said Women are saved by child birth - what a strange strange thing for him to say.
Yeshua dying on the cross said "Dear Woman..." (john ch17 v26) - The picture of this in my mind makes me cry. Just read Johns Gospel from beginning to end. Mary had her pentacost early John Ch2
[ December 31, 2002, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
Bible-belted
New Member
Dan,
"My bible doesn't say Mary in this above passage. And Romans doesn't apply to Jesus so the "all" there is not really "all.""
Mary need not be named any more than you do to be included in tose verses. And Roamsn 3:23 does mean all. That Jesus is not included does not change that since he IS included int he discussion but given his own category. Reading things in context (virtually impossible to do if you're RC and have a dogma to defend) you find that Jesus is the ione through whom grace and rdemption comes while "all" are those who need such grtace and redemption through Christ, since they haveall have fallen short etc.
But let's take Dan's "reasoning" actually try to interpret the text with it. We find that:
NOT all `re jsutified freely by grace
NOT all have sinned
NOT all who believe receive righteousness from God trhough faith
There IS a difference; Paul was wrong!
That means that in fact SOME WILL be declared righteous for reasons other than faith (meaning works)
That means that Paul was wrong and there IS room for SOME to go boasting
That means that God is in fac the God of ONLY the JEWS since only they have the Law.
In short, take Dan's reasonning and actually apply it consistently to the context it copletely turns the passage against itself.
When you actually make a positive exegesis you find that the idea doen't stand up at all. The result is various blasphemies and heresies.
Whta's funny though is that while these ideas that result ar inconsistent withthe Bible they dovetail with RC theology nicely. Coincidence? I think not.
"My bible doesn't say Mary in this above passage. And Romans doesn't apply to Jesus so the "all" there is not really "all.""
Mary need not be named any more than you do to be included in tose verses. And Roamsn 3:23 does mean all. That Jesus is not included does not change that since he IS included int he discussion but given his own category. Reading things in context (virtually impossible to do if you're RC and have a dogma to defend) you find that Jesus is the ione through whom grace and rdemption comes while "all" are those who need such grtace and redemption through Christ, since they haveall have fallen short etc.
But let's take Dan's "reasoning" actually try to interpret the text with it. We find that:
NOT all `re jsutified freely by grace
NOT all have sinned
NOT all who believe receive righteousness from God trhough faith
There IS a difference; Paul was wrong!
That means that in fact SOME WILL be declared righteous for reasons other than faith (meaning works)
That means that Paul was wrong and there IS room for SOME to go boasting
That means that God is in fac the God of ONLY the JEWS since only they have the Law.
In short, take Dan's reasonning and actually apply it consistently to the context it copletely turns the passage against itself.
When you actually make a positive exegesis you find that the idea doen't stand up at all. The result is various blasphemies and heresies.
Whta's funny though is that while these ideas that result ar inconsistent withthe Bible they dovetail with RC theology nicely. Coincidence? I think not.
Bible-belted
New Member
Netcurtains,
Spare us please your speculations which have no basis in sccripture or reality.
You ask about Jesus baptism as if we have no answer given and that we can supply one. That is false. We ARE told why Jesus was baptised. Thus we are told exactly what Jesus' baptism meant. No such exception is amde for Mary. None is even hinted. Not there. Not anywhere in Scripture. You have to assume it. Such reasoning is of no value.
Spare us please your speculations which have no basis in sccripture or reality.
You ask about Jesus baptism as if we have no answer given and that we can supply one. That is false. We ARE told why Jesus was baptised. Thus we are told exactly what Jesus' baptism meant. No such exception is amde for Mary. None is even hinted. Not there. Not anywhere in Scripture. You have to assume it. Such reasoning is of no value.
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Mary did Latreia (Divine Service).
To my mind the Wedding Feast of Cana is a "sign" (John's Gospel is famous for signs) for of Pentecost.
All the disciples were there and Mary.
The clue to this is the start of the story "On the THIRD day a wedding took place...".
Mary played an important role in this pre-pentecost event. Mary and the Holy Spirit seem to be interelated in this story.
In the REAL pentecost Mary was with the disciples.
Latreia why do you say my posts on this subject are not worth reading?
[ December 31, 2002, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
To my mind the Wedding Feast of Cana is a "sign" (John's Gospel is famous for signs) for of Pentecost.
All the disciples were there and Mary.
The clue to this is the start of the story "On the THIRD day a wedding took place...".
Mary played an important role in this pre-pentecost event. Mary and the Holy Spirit seem to be interelated in this story.
In the REAL pentecost Mary was with the disciples.
Latreia why do you say my posts on this subject are not worth reading?
[ December 31, 2002, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
I think one of the topics here is about Mary having a sinless nature. From what I have gathered from reading these posts the reason for this belief is that she would have to be without a sin nature to carry God the Son in her womb. Now if this is true, would not Mary's parents also need to have been without a sin nature? And if not, why could God almighty not take on a sinless human form without using a sinless human mother? After all some are saying He did this for Mary.
G
G
Bible-belted
New Member
Becuase this isn't something you get fro actually interpreting what the Scriptures say. It is thinking up ideas and seeing what happens whenyou read them in. It is fantasising, not exegeting. And such is not proper ground for doctrine.
In short I object to your interpretive methdology. it is bad. Nothing good can come from it. Much may come that sounds pious, but that is notthe same thing.
G,
"I think one of the topics here is about Mary having a sinless nature. From what I have gathered from reading these posts the reason for this belief is that she would have to be without a sin nature to carry God the Son in her womb."
That is one of the arguments, yes.
"Now if this is true, would not Mary's parents also need to have been without a sin nature? And if not, why could God almighty not take on a sinless human form without using a sinless human mother? After all some are saying He did this for Mary."
In fact something like this belief was once very popular. It was pnce held that a person could not go to God except through Christ, since God the Father was unapproachable being a wrathful God. But the Son being entrhoned in majesty etc, was likewise unavailable. So you needed Mary. But Mary was also unapproachable, so people actually prayed to Mary's mother Anna.
It's a fluke of history that we are not talking about Anna as the "Queen Mother of Heaven".
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
g_1933,
In the old testament Enoch and Elijah both seemed to assend. What about their mums and dads?
[ December 31, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
In the old testament Enoch and Elijah both seemed to assend. What about their mums and dads?
[ December 31, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
Bible-belted
New Member
Why must there BE such a Trinity?? Is there something in Scriture that leads us to expect it? No. In short, yo have to assume it. This is vain imagination at work again.
Netcurtains3, Good question, what I fail to see is the connection between this and Mary having a sinless nature. Enoch and Elijah are not said to be sinless or is that what this is implying? Also what does assending have to do with Mary's parents? I am saying that if God had to have a sinless vessel to bear His human form, then would not that sinless vessel have to come from an equally sinless vessel? And if not then God did not need a sinless vessel in the first place.
Latreia, Good point, instead it is Mary, the "queen of heaven"
G
"And Romans 3:23 does mean all."
Does it mean children to young to sin? Does it mean mentally retarded? Jesus took on human form. Why doesn't it apply to him?
DHK has still not come up with the verses that he said showed Mary explicitly sinned. DHK should retract his statement and say that there is some evidence (not explicit) for his argument.
Does it mean children to young to sin? Does it mean mentally retarded? Jesus took on human form. Why doesn't it apply to him?
DHK has still not come up with the verses that he said showed Mary explicitly sinned. DHK should retract his statement and say that there is some evidence (not explicit) for his argument.
Bible-belted
New Member
"Does it mean children to young to sin?"
Yes it does refer to children. All means all.
"Does it mean mentally retarded?"
All means all.
"Jesus took on human form. Why doesn't it apply to him?"
I told you. I also pointed you to the context of Scriture. Don't act like the answer has not been given.
All have sinned. You might ask how. Let me say this first. Even if I had no answer to this question it would not matter. The very fact that Scripture asserts it is, for the Christian, sufficient. As was said one upon a time we believ that we may understand. Your questions seem to imply that you must understand before you will believe.
But ther is an answer: the feral headship of Adam. All sinned in him.
It is amazing that a denomination that claims to hold Scripture highly can reconcile so little of its distinctive theology to those scriptures.
"DHK has still not come up with the verses that he said showed Mary explicitly sinned. DHK should retract his statement and say that there is some evidence (not explicit) for his argument."
This specious argfument has been refuted. Mary need no more be named than DanPC does. One can make arguments for the sinlessness of other biblical characters as well based on your interpretive methodology.
And you have seemingly given up defending your thesis that Mary being conceived sinless is a historic position. That's good for the evidenc is plainly against you.
Too bad you have not admitted as much on the biblcial front.
Yes it does refer to children. All means all.
"Does it mean mentally retarded?"
All means all.
"Jesus took on human form. Why doesn't it apply to him?"
I told you. I also pointed you to the context of Scriture. Don't act like the answer has not been given.
All have sinned. You might ask how. Let me say this first. Even if I had no answer to this question it would not matter. The very fact that Scripture asserts it is, for the Christian, sufficient. As was said one upon a time we believ that we may understand. Your questions seem to imply that you must understand before you will believe.
But ther is an answer: the feral headship of Adam. All sinned in him.
It is amazing that a denomination that claims to hold Scripture highly can reconcile so little of its distinctive theology to those scriptures.
"DHK has still not come up with the verses that he said showed Mary explicitly sinned. DHK should retract his statement and say that there is some evidence (not explicit) for his argument."
This specious argfument has been refuted. Mary need no more be named than DanPC does. One can make arguments for the sinlessness of other biblical characters as well based on your interpretive methodology.
And you have seemingly given up defending your thesis that Mary being conceived sinless is a historic position. That's good for the evidenc is plainly against you.
Too bad you have not admitted as much on the biblcial front.
Please show me the verse that says that I explicitly sinned. Or am I too without a sin nature? Of course not, ALL have sinned, that includes Mary and myself and everyone else that is not GOD that has ever lived. It appears that in an effort to make scripture fit certain man-given criteria a lot of truth is being missed.
G
[ December 31, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: g_1933 ]