Is Mary the second Eve?

[Bible-belted]

"Well actually this thread was on Mary--something Catholics do know about not on Baptist belief on original sin which I don't know nor care about."

Which indicates how far afield you have gone in your bid to support your Mariolatry. It is indeed indicative that you should haver to go so far to prove something that should be evident from Scripture.

Nice to see you finally being honest. You have no intention of actually understanding the position you criticise.

"When someone says that the bible says something explicitly then I hold them to their statement. Had DHK said he can prove Mary sinned from different bible passages I would not have bothered to comment. (I realize DHK would not accept my argument anymore than I would his.) But he made a statement that is not supported by Scripture."

To say that somethig is explcitly stted is not to sya it is "stated in these words". That is your own self-serving spin on DHK's words. The fact is that he has made the case he said he would. You are simply choosing to reinterpret his intention FOR HIM in a way that is consistent with YOUR goals and not his. That is highjacking pure and simple. You my friend are guilty of the logical fallacy of slothful induction. Nothing more.

"His statement back on page 3 was this--
"The Scriptures specifically indicate that Mary was a sinner.""

Yes it was. But specifically indicate does not mean "in these words: Marry sinned/ was a sinner". DHK demonstrated how Mary, speciffically, demonstrated her sin by making a sin offering, soething utterly pointless if she were indeed without sin.

"All of the talk about sin offering, Romans, etc just show me that the above statement from DHK is false. If DHK doesn't want to amend or retract his statement so be it."

Bluster and blow all you like Dan. The fact is DHK HAS proen exactly what he said he would. It says something that you should go so far to avoid to say that you were wrong.

You aere showing yourself to actually deal with the facts, so you are grasping at whatever you can so that you don't HAVE to deal with them. So much is obvious, unlike your arguments for the Immaculate Conception the idea tha Mary being conceived sinless being a historic Catholic doctrine (you still haven't addressed that!)...

When you have an actual arguemtn, some actual facts, let us know.

 

[DanPC]

Neal--"Correct me if I am wrong, but he said that they specifically indicate, not explicitly say."

Look up specifically in the dictionary...
spe·cif·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp-sfk)
adj.
Explicitly set forth; definite.

Seems like the first word is explicit. Something DHK has failed to provide. Did he not say SPECIFICALLY? It seems as if there are two arguments here. Some are arguing that Mary sinned. I don't expect you will convince me or I you on this matter. But DHK said the bible SPECIFICALLY says Mary sinned. He has argued, with assistance, to no avail. Inference does not equal SPECIFICALLY stating something. I am sorry that besides differing on biblical interpretation that we differ on what a short sentence written in English says. No one likes to admit they are wrong but DHK made a misstatement and has failed to retract it. I don't see what is so hard about that. I have retracted statements on this board.

"You have no intention of actually understanding the position you criticise." Well it seems this thread did not have to do with the Baptist idea of original sin.
Coming from someone who says I support terrorism and should be an outlaw I really don't care what your position is.

"When you have an actual argument, some actual facts, let us know."
I am not interested in exchanging slander with you Latreia.

 

[neal4christ]

Neal--"Correct me if I am wrong, but he said that they specifically indicate, not explicitly say."

Look up specifically in the dictionary...
spe·cif·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp-sfk)
adj.
Explicitly set forth; definite.

Seems like the first word is explicit. Something DHK has failed to provide. Did he not say SPECIFICALLY?

Okay, my dictionary:

Specific: 1. Clearly defined; definite
2. relating to a particular subject

So yes, my dictionary is different than yours. And since when do you have to take the first definition given as the only definition, as you have done? The dictionary I used was the Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder, if you care to check.

Definite means clear and distinct, not vague. Yes, I agree with you that neither of us will budge on this, but I see that it is clear and distinct, not vague that Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior, as she herself exclaimed.

Alright, let's see what indicate means.

Indicate: 1. point out; make known; show
2. be a sign or symptom of; express the presence of.

Okay, I feel that DHK has definitely shown that Mary was a sinner. He does not have to have the words "Mary sinned" to show this. Like it or not, he has definitely shown that Scriptures express the presence of Mary's sin problem, just as it does all of ours, if not more, as she explicitly exclaimed "And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47).

You can play word games all you like, but bottom line there is enough evidence to show Mary was a sinner. There is more evidence to show she was a sinner in Scripture than there is to show that you or I are sinners. And I for one would definitely not play a word game to try to say I am not a sinner.

Neal

 

[DanPC]

Neal, I am glad someone finally agreed with me that DHK misspoke when he said "specifically." He made an argument but he couldn't prove it "specifically." And incidently, usually the first word listed in a dictionary is the most common meaning.
Sayonara

[ January 01, 2003, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: DanPC ]

 

[neal4christ]

Neal, I am glad someone finally agreed with me that DHK misspoke when he said "specifically."

I in no way agree with you. Rather I see that he has definitely (specifically) showed (indicated) that Mary had a sin problem. To put it plain, you lie when you say that I agree with you.

Neal

[ January 01, 2003, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[neal4christ]

usually the first word listed in a dictionary is the most common meaning.

Does most common = only?

[ January 01, 2003, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Netcurtains3]

Hi,
I'll be the judge in this argument (well my brother is a lawyer). DHK used a word that will make people think the bible specifically uses the words "Mary sinned" but in fact the bible says "all sin". So technically DHK is in the wrong.

Sin, in a sense, means seperated from God (eg in the Adam and Eve story, the kids were tempted when God was not present). Had Adam and Eve had the Holy Spirit living inside of them perhaps the sin would not have occured?

John The Baptist had the Holy Spirit in him FROM BIRTH or even in the WOMB (Lukes Gospel). Theologically this would appear to be at odds with Baptist theology - How can John The Baptist "jump in the womb" when Mary appears using Baptist "Adult Baptism" theology?

Interestingly Lukes Gospel appears to have information in it directly from Mary as it says ("eye witnesses from the first").

Net.

[ January 01, 2003, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Net,

You don't get to judge what DHK meant. Only DHK can do that.

If Dan misunderstood (more likely deliberatley miscionstrued) DHK, that is Dan's problem. There is nothing unclear about DHK's staement or his corroborating evidence.

It is a sad commentary when an RCs defense is not about what Scripture says but what he insists someone DHK said, seeking to impose his own meaning on DHKs words for apologetic convenience.

See how he wishes to derail the discussion. He seems to think that if he can convince someone that DHK meant to say that the Bible says, in so many words, "Mary sinned", and that he has failed to do this, then he has somehow proven something vital.

This is but a distraction from the question of what DHK has actually presented. DHK has made a thorough and logical presentation which proves that Mary made a sin offering, an offering for her sin. Nothing Dan has said even comes close to refuting it.

 

[Netcurtains3]

Do you think Mary was a good song writer?

She managed to get a song published in the bible - I guess that means she could be one of the biggest selling song writers of all time. I suspect more people have read the lyrics to Mary's song then have read the lyrics to any Beatles or Elvis song.

[ January 01, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[DHK]

Quote #1 posted December 30, 2002 07:01 PM
"How do you explain Luke 2:21-24 in the light of Leviticus 12. Mary, after bringing Jesus to be circumcised, waited for the days of her purification to be finished, according to the law, and then offered two sacrifices: one a burnt offering, and the other a sin offering. Why would she offer a sin offering if she was not a sinner. If she was not a sinner why would she exclaim that God was her Saviour? Only sinners need a Saviour. Mary sinned. Mary had a sin-nature that she was born with. She sinned willfully, and naturally out of her own sin-nature. She was born in sin, as David was (Psalm 51:5)."
--Here I gave Scriptural evidence, and then drew a conclusion. I did not say, "The Bible says, "Mary sinned." If you say that I did you make a false accusation.

Quote #2 posted December 30, 2002 08:45 PM
Originally posted by DojoGrant:
"DHK, Jesus upheld the law perfectly. As God, was He not above the law? He was, but he abided by it anyway. Same thing."

DHK posted:
"The Scriptures specifically say that Jesus was sinless.
The Scriptures specifically indicate that Mary was a sinner. No, it is not the same thing; it is very different.
DHK"
--The Scriptures do specifically say that Christ was sinless: Take a look at 1Pet.2:22,
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
The Scriptures do indicate, and quite specifically, that Mary was a sinner. All you have to do is examine the Scriptures that I have given you.
Again I did not say that, that the Bible says: "Mary sinned." Do not make false accusations.
DHK

[ January 01, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Netcurtains3]

Hi,
It has been explained to me that Catholics are not "Bible-Alone-Ians" and that Sinless Mary is in fact one of the key things that seperate Baptists from Catholics. However, I personally feel this is slightly damaging for Baptists. There are many many aspects to Marian Devotion that are in the Bible that Baptists seem not to aknowledge them because they are so consumed by this "sinless" aspect to Catholic versions of Christianity.
It is worth pointing out that Catholic traditions on Mary go way way back but Bible-Alone-Ism is probably more of a recent school of Christianity.

[ January 01, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
Hi,
It has been explained to me that Catholics are not "Bible-Alone-Ians" and that Sinless Mary is in fact one of the key things that seperate Baptists from Catholics. However, I personally feel this is slightly damaging for Baptists. There are many many aspects to Marian Devotion that are in the Bible that Baptists seem not to aknowledge them because they are so consumed by this "sinless" aspect to Catholic versions of Christianity.

If Catholics, or especially people like yourself would actually believe the Bible many of your problems would be solved. Your problem Net is with the Bible, or even worse, it is with God. When you believe not what God has revealed to man in His Word you have rejected God Himself. Look what you wrote in the thread "God and Israel:"

"In many ways the old testament is just a load of boring stories - how many people can seriously read them without feeling sleepy? The only thing that makes us read them is that we think we can see God in them somehow. It is worth remembering that the CULTURE behind them was not particularly cool - to say the least."

You say that the Old Testament is just a load of boring stories. Many people can't really take them seriously you imply. In other words you don't really believe the Bible do you? Why do you even bother to post if you don't believe the Bible and are just pretending to believe? There is nothing worth believing unless it is grounded on God's Word. Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can come unto the Father but by me." All truth emanates from Him, for He is the truth. Every opinion you utter is nonsense if it is not grounded in the Words of Christ. He alone is truth. If Marian doctrian is not grounded in the Word of God it is just frivilous opinion made up of some man's imagination, and not really worth the time or discussion. It needs to be discussed on the basis of what God says, not man's imagination. Tell me what God says about the matter, not man's worthless opinion.
DHK

 

[Netcurtains3]

Hi DHK,
I feel I speak the truth as I see it. The reason I read the old testament is because I feel I will see God there. However, I am being HONEST, and saying the stories themselves are boring to me. Yes boring! Long lists of wars, laws, foreign places, wacky customs and strange histories.

You see DHK but somehow you miss my points. They have done some psychological tests on people. They dressed some students up as prisoners and others as warders. Pretty soon one lot started acting like prisoners and the other lot like warders. That might be the trouble - you can't see what I'm saying because I am a Catholic and I don't understand you because you're a Baptist. Perhaps this site ought to have a ROLE-PLAYING group where we virtually swap denominations and
try to come up with the other sides arguments.

Net.

[ January 01, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:

I feel I speak the truth as I see it.
Don't run your life by your "feelings." Feelings and emotions don't count. Truth is objective, according to the Word of God, not according to what one "feels," or as one "sees" it. That is relativity. It is the humanistic lie. Everything is relative. Truth is "as I see it." There is no situation ethics with God, and no subjectivity. With God there are absolutes; just take a look at the Ten Commandments.

The reason I read the old testament is because I feel I will see God there. However, I am being HONEST, and saying the stories themselves are boring to me. Yes boring! Long lists of wars, laws, foreign places, wacky customs and strange histories.
Stop running your life by your feelings, and start looking into the Word of God. The Word is objective, honest, historical, and true. History is not always nice, fairy-tale-like with happy endings. The Bible tells it like it is.

You see DHK but somehow you miss my points. They have done some psychological tests on people. They dressed some students up as prisoners and others as warders. Pretty soon one lot started acting like prisoners and the other lot like warders. That might be the trouble - you can't see what I'm saying because I am a Catholic and I don't understand you because you're a Baptist. Perhaps this site ought to have a ROLE-PLAYING group where we virtually swap denominations and
try to come up with the other sides arguments.
Your tests sound like they were done by Madeline O'hare. They don't sound objective at all. I have never met anyone who, by reading the Bible, have had any harm done to them. That just sounds ludicrous. Yet I have the testimony of hundreds, if not more, whose lives have been completely transformed by the Word of God.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

This thread has fallen into the "I'm right, you're wrong" category that is not fruitful for discussion. Any examples given by Catholics, are by virtue of their very posting, inadequate for some of you to even read or take seriously. I do not believe, within the confines of this thread at minimum, that those who are not Catholic or who do not believe in the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary, have any interest other than rejecting said doctrines, and have no desire to understand the Catholic teachings, or claim to already have full understanding of them. Therefore, proper discussion cannot occur, and I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly when I don't think I'm really being heard.

I love discussing Marian doctrine, but not when I feel like I'm not being heard, because I'm wrong from the get-go. Of course, I feel that you all are wrong from the get-go, but I don't have a problem at all with hearing out your views, and I will never attack you for having those views, as happens to me. That's not an attitude of charity.

I really want to strive for that attitude for myself, in this forum and elsewhere in my life, so I have to start now. If anyone wants to discuss this with me one-to-one, I would love to do that, because I work better on this level, without constant outside distractions and having to answer questions from four people at once.

Hope you understand. God bless,

Grant

 

[neal4christ]

Any examples given by Catholics, are by virtue of their very posting, inadequate for some of you to even read or take seriously.

I believe it has been clear that I have read arguments, as I have point by point addressed them.

that those who are not Catholic or who do not believe in the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary, have any interest other than rejecting said doctrines, and have no desire to understand the Catholic teachings, or claim to already have full understanding of them.

I would like to understand them, but they are so contrary to Scripture that it is hard to understand. Yes, I would claim to understand that Mary was a sinner. And this whole idea of Mary being the second Eve has not been substantiated in the least.

I will never attack you for having those views, as happens to me.

When has this happened. Does refuting your position mean an attack on you?

I really want to strive for that attitude for myself, in this forum and elsewhere in my life, so I have to start now.

I believe you and respect your choice. However I do believe it is fruitful for other input is well. I don't like it coming to having to define terms, but I believe DanPC pulled it out first. It would not be proper for him to paint DHK as a liar, so I choose to defend DHK. However I see the whole discussion as one in which when true evidence is given from Scripture the Catholic position does not stand. Thus there is an appeal to men and people in the church for justification. There are many people who use to pulpit to justify positions contrary to Scripture. Thus the need for a standard of measurement, God's Word.

I respect you for how you conduct yourself. I respect you for your approach to discussion. I am sorry that you will leave it.

God bless,
Neal

 

[GraceSaves]

Neal,

Please read what was done to me in another thread (the long titled one that is in all caps). You'll see an attack on me, that was pulled totally out of thin other.

Further, for the sake of charity on this particular thread, I'm not going to point fingers, and I'm certainly not pointing one at you; I enjoy our dialouge. I'm speaking of the age-old arguments like "If you would read the Bible," or "There is no Scriptural support" even after we offer Scriptural support (even if you don't follow that interpretation, or other derogatory remarks about our belief system in the Catholic Church. These arguments, just like the Catholic argument of "That's your interpretation" aren't fruitful. But people let these dialogues get FAR too emotionally charged that true scholarship cannot take place, because we end up getting in our battle stations and lobbing grenades at each other.

I honestly believe some people cannot talk about specific issues in open discussion like this because the atmosphere is too emotionally charged. I won't hesitate to admit that I often times buckle, myself, in these situations, which is why I don't feel like I can defend my position when I feel that many people in the thread are glaring down at me for simply posting. It's not that I can't defend my postition; it's that I can't defend it comfortably. And since that should not be an issue on a Christian board with other Christian posters, that worries me.

God bless you greatly,

Grant

 

[neal4christ]

Grant,

I agree with you that we should not have to fear others on a Christian board. I am truly sorry if you have been attacked.

I realize that we both see we are right and we come from totally different angles. However, I am big enough to agree to disagree. I again say that though I respectfully disagree with you I respect you and admire your self control.

God bless you in this new year,
Neal

 

[g_1933]

Okay, I feel that DHK has definitely shown that Mary was a sinner. He does not have to have the words "Mary sinned" to show this. Like it or not, he has definitely shown that Scriptures express the presence of Mary's sin problem, just as it does all of ours, if not more, as she explicitly exclaimed "And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47).

You can play word games all you like, but bottom line there is enough evidence to show Mary was a sinner. There is more evidence to show she was a sinner in Scripture than there is to show that you or I are sinners. And I for one would definitely not play a word game to try to say I am not a sinner.

Neal

This is what I was trying to say when I asked to be shown where the Bible stated that I was a sinner. I hope that I was not misunderstood. I KNOW that I am a sinner and believe that the Bible states that all who have ever lived are also.

Does this mean you accept the concept of original sin and that baptism is needed to wash one of that sin? Babies are unable to commit an actual sin. I would agree that they are under the stain of original sin but not that they have actually sinned. I didn't know baptists believed in original sin.

I for one do not believe that batism is important for anything other than showing obedience to God. The blood of Jesus washes away sin.

G

 

[neal4christ]

I hope that I was not misunderstood. I KNOW that I am a sinner and believe that the Bible states that all who have ever lived are also.

No, you were not misunderstood! Sorry if it came across that way. I was trying to make the same point to DanPC.

Yes, I would include you in the all of Rom. 3:23, as well as me too!

Neal