"mother" Mary

[Mercy me]

[quote name='heshmafluff' post='1326989' date='Jul 13 2007, 12:47 PM']Still makes no sense about the sinlessness, but I thought we were done there?

A note one Joseph, regarding SMM's post... "Apparently Joseph was an older man. "
Is there scripture to back this up?

A note of apology to Prose that I am bringing something up that has been dragged out dozens of times before, and if you want I will change the direction this discussion is taking.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Mary being Co-Redemptix means that she cooperates with Christ in the work of saving sinners. Right?[/quote]

It means that by her fiat, her unconditional yes to the Lord when she was told that she would bear a child, she redeemed us all. You have to go back to Adam and Eve to see how when they ate the apple man separated himself from God and brought original sin in to the world. Adam and Eve were of course free of original sin, so this actually does tie back into Mary being without sin. Sorry to bring that back up. By Mary's yes she Jesus our salvation came into the world.

[Mercy me]

oops posting problem

Edited July 14, 2007 by Mercy me

[heshmafluff]

I thought Jesus was here to redeem us all; not Mary.

[Mercy me]

It was by Mary's unconditional yes to God that Jesus, Our Salvation came. Sorry, went back and changed things and the last sentence came out as nonsense.

It was by Mary's unconditional yes to God that Jesus, Our Salvation came.

The Lord could have just shown up. He did not have to come to us man the way He did. He gave us the chance to say yes Lord, I will do what ever you ask, no questions. By Mary saying yes the way she did, she put her own life in danger. She could have been stoned. But she trusted God totally, the way we are called to.

[heshmafluff]

how could she have been stoned for saying "yes" to an angel?

[Mercy me]

The child was not Joseph's and he knew it. Check out John 8. The punishment for adultery was stoning in the time of Jesus.

The point is the Mary completely trusted the Lord and in so doing became the mother of Jesus.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Mercy me

[uruviel]

I am sure that people here have already given correct and great answers at that! But all I have to say, is if you had thought about this enough you would have needed no answer. If you believe that Jesus Christ is God, if you believe in the Blessed Trinity, then how can you NOT believe that His mother was perfect? To carry God in her womb, raise Him, teach Him, God, His mother.... I mean, I am so dumbfounded I don't know how to explain. His mother be imperfect? That doesn't even seem comprehendable. She had to be pure, without original sin, her soul was so full of grace, so pure, so clean, so.... [i]perfect.[/i] She had to be, to be the mother of GOD. And also she is the role model of all women. She is the perfect woman, the perfect mother, the perfect role model. God did us a wonderful thing when He gave us Mary as our mother

[heshmafluff]

1) still don't believe the original sin thing

2) recap: she didn't need to teach him much along the lines of spiritual stuff...more like potty training and a large assortment of other things that mothers do for their children

3) having God in human form in your womb is like having any other kid in your womb...just a lot less likely to miscarry

4) nowhere in the Bible have I seen a scripture saying that Mary was sinless...though quite a few have been brought up that if interpreted with a single perspective in mind, it would point to such a thing

5) this is a summary of past arguements, I hope I have not offended anyone with the straightforeward tactless bluntlessness of it all. If I have, I apologize, it was not intended.

[Mercy me]

Many of your questions relate to Mary's role in salvation history. Studying salvation history will tie together Gods salvation from Genesis onward. The questions you ask about Mary play a big role but by studying it in terms of salvation history you see that hers is an key role in a very big picture. For a general overview you might see if you can find a book called Catholic for a Reason. If I remember correctly there was a chapter that addressed most of your questions about Mary but also tied in her role in the bigger picture.

[Aloysius]

As regards scripture to back up the idea that Joseph was an older man: there is none. Scripture doesn't say much about Joseph. History tells us it is very likely that he was an older man, traditions dating back to the earliest Christians indicate that he was an older man, so it is possible that he had children from another marriage. Why doesn't the scripture say that? Well, it doesn't say a lot of things. It's just not an all-encompasing view of what went on in first century palestine whilst Jesus walked the earth... there's even a passage in St. John's Gospel which specifically says that there are many other great things Jesus did which are not recorded in the scriptures. But it's possible he wasn't an older man. The oldest written record of him being an older man I believe date to the 3rd century, but they could be wrong. In any event, the Jewish culture of the time made very little distinction between "brother" "sister" and "kinsmen", in fact, they were refered to with one and the same word. It's interesting how different languages seperate words for kinsmen, there are small scale societies with thousands of words for different kinsmen, with a different word for a cousin who is the second child of your mother's older sister than for a cousin who is the first child of your mother's older sister and all that changes if you're talking about your mother's younger sister et cetera et cetera ad infinitum almost. but the word used in the Greek is adelphos and can easily be taken to mean any of many many relationships. In the Septuagint Greek version of Genesis 13:8, for instance, adelphos describes the relationship between Abraham and Lot; Abraham was Lot's uncle.

But on to Luke 1:28... the greek word used in the address by Gabriel is "ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΩΜΕΝΗ" or "kecharitomene", a perfect passive participle of the verb "ΧΑΡΙΤΟΩ" or "charitoo" which basically means "to grace"; that perfect past participle means "one who has been graced" with the connotation in greek that it is related to her nature; like "you who are graced" might come in English as if the subject was by nature something 'graced'; or maybe to help break the linguistic barrier better I shall put the example to "you who are great" would basically be an all encompassing greatness attributed to the person to whom it was addressed. it implies a fullness attached to her nature when used in that tense. But the most important thing here is that it's in the perfect past participle... meaning here 'gracedness' was something that happened prior to the Angel's speaking to her and was a continuing state, a fullness of graced nature continuing from some point in the past until the Angel Gabriel's visit.

St. Jerome was not stupid to translate it as "gratia plena" or "full of grace" for, while that is not directly literal, it most nearly approximates the connotation of the greek; it refers to her as being a graced being by nature prior to the angel's visit and continuing after the angel's visit. Now, St. Stephen is later referred to as "full of grace" in the greek in Acts of the Apostles, but the tense there clearly refers to him only being full of grace at the moment of his death, and that clearly is used to say he has no sin.

If we draw out the connotations of the greek, then what we know for certain is this: that Mary was totally and completely graced at all moments from some moment starting in the past all the way up until the Angel Gabriel's visit. Whilst one is completely 'graced' (which could also be translated 'favored', but then we'd equally have to change the name of the song to "Amazing Favor" because we'd be using favor as synonymous with grace, so we choose the word grace when we talk about God's favor) they cannot be sinning, because that would mean God was favoring that person completely during their sin. And God hates sin, does not favor or bless it or grace it or nothing. So for every moment starting in some past event up until the Angel Gabriel's visit, we know that Mary had no sin in her, nor could she have had any stain of sin, because her nature was a fully graced and fully favored nature during this period of time.

That's what we know from scripture. Is it such a stretch to say that moment that began her sinless period was her very conception? Is it such a stretch that we say such a creature, so completely graced in her nature at that moment, never sinned again whilst bearing and raising Almighty God? And if that's what the traditions of Christian beleif have brought down to us, in the absence of any other way to understand what Gabriel was talking about when he said "hail, you who have been completely graced for quite some time", is it not wise to trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Christian community and her teachings for 20 centuries? Especially when it ties together the scriptures in beautiful typological symmetry;

for Christ was the new Adam... and as a woman who knew no sin said yes to a fallen angel (the serpent) to bring sin to man, a woman who knew no sin would say yes to an angel of God (Gabriel) to bring salvation (Christ) to man. To solidly undo what Adam and Eve had done, man and woman, God had to test man and woman again; they must pass the test; He sent His only Son to undo the actual 'eating of the apple'; but before that He created one more spotless woman to undo the choice of Eve... and out of that woman, complete and total flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone, He formed the Human body of the new Adam.

but the Greek necessitates a period of sinlessness from some time before the Angel Gabriel came until the time he came.

Here's a couple of references for what I said about the greek verbs:
[url="http://www.greekbible.com"]http://www.greekbible.com[/url]
[quote][b]ΧΑΡΙΤΟΩ[/b],v {khar-ee-to'-o}
1) to make graceful 1a) charming, lovely, agreeable 2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour 3) to honour with blessings[/quote]
[quote][b]Luke 1:28[/b]
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΧΑΙΡΕ [b]ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΩΜΕΝΗ[/b] Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΜΕΤΑ ΣΟΥ[/quote]

"The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action" (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187).

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

And while Greek is a hobby of mine, I make no pretense to have uncovered all this on my own. Here is an extensive artical with a detailed description of some of these ideas about the meaning of Luke 1:28:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm[/url]
Totally scroll down to where it lists what the Greek Fathers said about Mary, because they're the ones who would have red the Gospel of St. Luke and fully understood it in its context.

[uruviel]

[quote name='heshmafluff' post='1328920' date='Jul 14 2007, 11:16 PM']1) still don't believe the original sin thing

2) recap: she didn't need to teach him much along the lines of spiritual stuff...more like potty training and a large assortment of other things that mothers do for their children

3) having God in human form in your womb is like having any other kid in your womb...just a lot less likely to miscarry

4) nowhere in the Bible have I seen a scripture saying that Mary was sinless...though quite a few have been brought up that if interpreted with a single perspective in mind, it would point to such a thing

5) this is a summary of past arguements, I hope I have not offended anyone with the straightforeward tactless bluntlessness of it all. If I have, I apologize, it was not intended.[/quote]

No need to worry, I am not in the least offended with your honesty. It is always sad listening to someone speak about Mary this way, but I find no need in argueing you in as much as you do not accept Catholic teaching. And also Aloysius has done a fine job of an explanation God Bless you.

[prose]

Just to note, I see you mentioned

[quote]Mary being Co-Redemptix means that she cooperates with Christ in the work of saving sinners[/quote]

It means she is with Christ.

[Mercy me]

Your questions are in no way offensive. On the contray they are excellent probing questions. The role of Mary is often difficult to explain without backing up to see it in perspective.

This thread is very interesting and thank you for starting it.

[jeffpugh]

I concur. I'm still following this, Heshmafluff.

[Socrates]

[quote name='heshmafluff' post='1328920' date='Jul 14 2007, 10:16 PM']1) still don't believe the original sin thing

2) recap: she didn't need to teach him much along the lines of spiritual stuff...more like potty training and a large assortment of other things that mothers do for their children

3) having God in human form in your womb is like having any other kid in your womb...just a lot less likely to miscarry

4) nowhere in the Bible have I seen a scripture saying that Mary was sinless...though quite a few have been brought up that if interpreted with a single perspective in mind, it would point to such a thing

5) this is a summary of past arguements, I hope I have not offended anyone with the straightforeward tactless bluntlessness of it all. If I have, I apologize, it was not intended.[/quote]
If you don't mind me asking, what religion do you consider yourself? (Just for some clarification on where you are coming from - it seems you are some kind of protestant Christian judging from your posts, as you do seem to accept the Scriptures as authority.)

1) If you don't believe in original sin, then this is the primary issue here. If you don't believe in original sin, then the doctrine of Mary being without original sin will have no meaning.

However, original sin is a concept very central to basic Christian theology. Christ came to save us from the sin we have all inherited from Adam. I'd suggest rereading Genesis 3, and Romans 5, which I cited earlier in this thread. Original sin and the need for salvation through Christ is implied in much of Scripture in fact.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior? If so, what does He save us from? Without original sin, the whole concept of Christ's salvific Passion, Death, and Resurrection becomes purposeless.

2) This statement is rather irrelevant as to whether Mary was free from original sin.

3) To be straightforward, blunt, and tactless, this is a rather stupid statement. It is only your own opinion, and has no basis in Scripture nor theology, and indeed seems to trivialize the Incarnation of Christ. The early Church Fathers certainly did not see it that way - Mary has long been honored as the Theotokos, the Christ-bearer. And Christ was not just located in Mary's womb, but was formed out of her own flesh - Mary was His real mother in every sense. It was for this reason that Mary was free of original sin.

4) As Catholics, we do not believe in "sola scriptura" - that is, "Bible alone." We do not believe that no spiritual truths can be found which are not explicitely stated in the Bible, but that Christ also teaches us by the Tradition of His Church.
Tradition does not contradict Scripture, but upholds and supports it. And as you have admitted, there is much in Scripture that points to this doctrine. And in the article I have linked to with quotes from the Early Church Fathers, I have shown that Mary's immaculate nature was beleived by Christians from the earliest centuries of the Church.

Btw, "Sola Scriptura" is not a Biblical doctrine. Where in the Bible does it say Bible alone?

5) No need to apologize. It's refreshing to see a non-Catholic on here with honest questions.