Catholic doctrine takes the position that Mary is sinless and a perpetual virgin. She is honoured in the Church as "Queen of Heaven" and the perfect disciple of Christ.
This thread is for discussing that topic from a Catholic perspective vs other kinds of Christian perspectives. For the sake of this discussion, the focus is not on prayer to saints and only pertains to the question of whether Mary is 1) sinless, 2) perpetually virginal, 3) "Queen of Heaven" in a sense that differs from "queen of heaven" in Jer 44:19.
For the purpose of discussion, the Bible is considered to be true. The test is to evaluate a) whether the position is consistent with scripture, and b) if consistent, whether it is compellingly the case from scripture.
Some verses that are used against the Catholic position:
- References to brothers and sisters of Jesus
- Joseph not consummating the marriage "until" after Jesus' birth
Nah, I think after that immaculate conception thing, she sought after the real deal over and over. Experiencing many a cock, sometimes two or three at a time. It is said that she was to ‘be damned’ if her hole was to be exit only.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Matthew 12:46: “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.”
Matthew 13:56: “Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
its clear that mary was not a perpetual virgin as is not supported by scripture and she is no queen of heaven either that's another invention of the catholic church
she also was a sinner like the rest of us, because she was conceived like everybody else.
1) The referenced brothers and sisters of Jesus are cousins that He was closely raised with, different from Mary's cousin Elizabeth whom she was not closely raised with.
2) The grammar of the Greek "until" does not imply a fulfilment of consummation after Jesus' birth.
3) "All have sinned" clearly does not include Jesus Himself, therefore because there is a necessary exception, it is hyperbolic. From that, it would be possible for more than one exception.
4) "Queen of Heaven" is not a reference to Jer 44, in the same sense that "Morning Star" does not refer to Jesus and Satan in the same sense as if to say they were the same person.
4) Mary's reference to Christ as her saviour does not imply that she is sinful since the Grace granted to her to be sinless was still granted to her by God upon her creation.
True, but I think it goes even further than that for many of the points listed. We are discussing multiple languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English, etc.) and the nuances of translation. Also we need to mention that the culture and understanding of the world and language and customs is very different today, so interpreting any Bible passage truly needs more than just the English words.
1) The referenced brothers and sisters of Jesus are cousins that He was closely raised with, different from Mary's cousin Elizabeth whom she was not closely raised with.
lies there's no proof of this
2) The grammar of the Greek "until" does not imply a fulfilment of consummation after Jesus' birth.
she was espoused to joseph guess what spouses do? and no sex within marriage is not sinful. only a deranged catholic would come up with that crap
3) "All have sinned" clearly does not include Jesus Himself, therefore because there is a necessary exception, it is hyperbolic. From that, it would be possible for more than one exception.
this only applies to jesus and yet God made him sin for us. dont read the sciptures. he is the sinless lamb of God that is much true but for 3 hours he became sin to God so that his people would be redeemed from sin
4) Mary's reference to Christ as her saviour does not imply that she is sinful since the Grace granted to her to be sinless was still granted to her by God upon her creation
show me scriptural proof that she was sinless woman. without original sin. there's none and its all n invention of the roman catholic church
Not lies. It is a mode of interpretation. Could this interpretation be consistent with scripture? Yes. Therefore it passes the consistency threshold. The other threshold is whether you find it compelling compared to other theories. One step at a time. Do you accept that it is consistent with the texts? If so, we can move on to discussing whether the interpretation is compelling or not.
no sex
Again. Is the interpretation of perpetual virginity consistent with scripture? If yes, we can move on to the question about whether it is compelling or not.
this only applies to jesus and yet God made him sin for us
I get that you are referencing 2 Cor 5:21, but I disagree with your application of it. God has not sinned, He became "sin" in place of our sins. Just as the curse of Christ replaced the curse of the law.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but are you claiming that Jesus became sin for 3 hours, in a sense of no longer being sinless at that point? If that is your approach, then you could make a similar premise for the sinlessness of Mary being sequentially after an instance during conception where she would have been sinful. Created sinful and a split-second after conception sanctified. If one can be sinless after being sanctified, it follows that having sinned would not stop someone from being currently sinless. Therefore "all have sinned" would not disqualify her from being sinless.
show me scriptural proof that she was sinless woman. without original sin. there's none and its all n invention of the roman catholic church
Again, it is a two-part problem. First, do you agree that it is scripturally consistent? If you agree, then we can discuss whether it is compelling.
And maybe you don't understand what I mean by consistent with scripture. If I made the claim that Judas scratched his nose while receiving the silver, there is nothing in scripture to contradict that point therefore it is consistent. Is it compelling true? Not particularly. It also isn't compellingly untrue. It is possible and consistent with scripture (but not necessarily compelling because there is nothing to support it).
you or the catholic church DOES NOT provides scriptural proof of any of this, you can theorize all that you want to your hearts content but without scriptural backing its just hot air.
i dont see anything in the gospels or in the book of acts and the rest of the new testament that mary was a perpetual virgin and that she became queen of heaven.
last time i checked, the apostles prayed to God the father and the lord jesus christ.
whats more in the book of revelation it shows the 12 thrones of the apostles throwing their crowns to christ only!
we dont see a special seat for mary in heaven.
the catholic church is guilty of blasphemy and taking millions of people with her to hell.
you or the catholic church DOES NOT provides scriptural proof of any of this, you can theorize all that you want to your hearts content but without scriptural backing its just hot air.
Logical proof is like a sudoku puzzle. You are looking at a nearly blank puzzle and asking how I am claiming that a particular square is 9. The first step is always going to be an acknowledgement that the solution does not present a contradiction. From there, if you accept that it is consistent, we can bridge the gap in your understanding to let you see why something that seemingly appears abstract and removed from the facts can be necessarily true. Work with me here. I asked you a straightforward question: is the position of sinlessness and perpetual virginity consistent with scripture? Yes or no?
last time i checked, the apostles prayed to God the father and the lord jesus christ.
That's out of the scope of the thread. It's a good question and we can definitely tackle the concept of appealing to saints for their prayers in a different thread, but the hope for this thread is just focusing on attributes of Mary.
the catholic church is guilty of blasphemy and taking millions of people with her to hell.
After you answer the question about consistency, show me how the nominal Catholic position on Mary would be blasphemous. And I don't mean the position of outlier heretical Catholics that may erroneously esteem Mary to be a goddess, but the actual doctrinal Catholic position.
[ + ] iSnark
[ - ] iSnark 1 point 1 monthMar 28, 2024 17:45:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 18:44:12 ago (+0/-0)
show me proof of this blasphemy and by that scriptural proof
[ + ] iSnark
[ - ] iSnark 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 23:54:33 ago (+0/-0)
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
https://catholicismhastheanswer.com/the-second-marian-dogma-mary-perpetually-virgin/
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/mary-is-queen-mother-and-queen-of-heaven
Peace,
iSnark
[ + ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey
[ - ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey -1 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 23:50:43 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] iSnark
[ - ] iSnark 1 point 1 monthMar 28, 2024 23:58:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey
[ - ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey 0 points 1 monthMar 29, 2024 10:44:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 19:13:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 18:42:33 ago (+1/-1)
its clear that mary was not a perpetual virgin as is not supported by scripture and she is no queen of heaven either that's another invention of the catholic church
she also was a sinner like the rest of us, because she was conceived like everybody else.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto [op] 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 17:28:43 ago (+0/-0)
1) The referenced brothers and sisters of Jesus are cousins that He was closely raised with, different from Mary's cousin Elizabeth whom she was not closely raised with.
2) The grammar of the Greek "until" does not imply a fulfilment of consummation after Jesus' birth.
3) "All have sinned" clearly does not include Jesus Himself, therefore because there is a necessary exception, it is hyperbolic. From that, it would be possible for more than one exception.
4) "Queen of Heaven" is not a reference to Jer 44, in the same sense that "Morning Star" does not refer to Jesus and Satan in the same sense as if to say they were the same person.
4) Mary's reference to Christ as her saviour does not imply that she is sinful since the Grace granted to her to be sinless was still granted to her by God upon her creation.
[ + ] AugustineOfHippo2
[ - ] AugustineOfHippo2 1 point 1 monthMar 28, 2024 18:10:47 ago (+1/-0)
True, but I think it goes even further than that for many of the points listed. We are discussing multiple languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English, etc.) and the nuances of translation. Also we need to mention that the culture and understanding of the world and language and customs is very different today, so interpreting any Bible passage truly needs more than just the English words.
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 18:49:37 ago (+0/-0)
lies there's no proof of this
she was espoused to joseph guess what spouses do? and no sex within marriage is not sinful. only a deranged catholic would come up with that crap
this only applies to jesus and yet God made him sin for us. dont read the sciptures. he is the sinless lamb of God that is much true but for 3 hours he became sin to God so that his people would be redeemed from sin
show me scriptural proof that she was sinless woman. without original sin. there's none and its all n invention of the roman catholic church
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto [op] 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 20:11:20 ago (+0/-0)
Not lies. It is a mode of interpretation. Could this interpretation be consistent with scripture? Yes. Therefore it passes the consistency threshold. The other threshold is whether you find it compelling compared to other theories. One step at a time. Do you accept that it is consistent with the texts? If so, we can move on to discussing whether the interpretation is compelling or not.
Again. Is the interpretation of perpetual virginity consistent with scripture? If yes, we can move on to the question about whether it is compelling or not.
I get that you are referencing 2 Cor 5:21, but I disagree with your application of it. God has not sinned, He became "sin" in place of our sins. Just as the curse of Christ replaced the curse of the law.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but are you claiming that Jesus became sin for 3 hours, in a sense of no longer being sinless at that point? If that is your approach, then you could make a similar premise for the sinlessness of Mary being sequentially after an instance during conception where she would have been sinful. Created sinful and a split-second after conception sanctified. If one can be sinless after being sanctified, it follows that having sinned would not stop someone from being currently sinless. Therefore "all have sinned" would not disqualify her from being sinless.
Again, it is a two-part problem. First, do you agree that it is scripturally consistent? If you agree, then we can discuss whether it is compelling.
And maybe you don't understand what I mean by consistent with scripture. If I made the claim that Judas scratched his nose while receiving the silver, there is nothing in scripture to contradict that point therefore it is consistent. Is it compelling true? Not particularly. It also isn't compellingly untrue. It is possible and consistent with scripture (but not necessarily compelling because there is nothing to support it).
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 21:07:29 ago (+0/-0)
i dont see anything in the gospels or in the book of acts and the rest of the new testament that mary was a perpetual virgin and that she became queen of heaven.
last time i checked, the apostles prayed to God the father and the lord jesus christ.
whats more in the book of revelation it shows the 12 thrones of the apostles throwing their crowns to christ only!
we dont see a special seat for mary in heaven.
the catholic church is guilty of blasphemy and taking millions of people with her to hell.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto [op] 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 22:46:04 ago (+0/-0)
Logical proof is like a sudoku puzzle. You are looking at a nearly blank puzzle and asking how I am claiming that a particular square is 9. The first step is always going to be an acknowledgement that the solution does not present a contradiction. From there, if you accept that it is consistent, we can bridge the gap in your understanding to let you see why something that seemingly appears abstract and removed from the facts can be necessarily true. Work with me here. I asked you a straightforward question: is the position of sinlessness and perpetual virginity consistent with scripture? Yes or no?
That's out of the scope of the thread. It's a good question and we can definitely tackle the concept of appealing to saints for their prayers in a different thread, but the hope for this thread is just focusing on attributes of Mary.
After you answer the question about consistency, show me how the nominal Catholic position on Mary would be blasphemous. And I don't mean the position of outlier heretical Catholics that may erroneously esteem Mary to be a goddess, but the actual doctrinal Catholic position.
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz -1 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 22:53:43 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto [op] 1 point 1 monthMar 28, 2024 22:58:53 ago (+1/-0)
I can't show you proof until I know you understand what consistency means.
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1 monthMar 28, 2024 17:27:17 ago (+0/-0)