Zone1 Mary

[Meriweather]

Again, why did she need a savior? She was sinless, remember?

She testified God was her savior.

 

[theHawk]

Second, as I have repeatedly said, if Mary had no original sin, AND she did not sin her entire life, tell me why she could not walk directly into God's presence without a redeemer and not be instantly destroyed.

You’re the one claiming she would be destroyed in the literal presence of God, even though she carried Him in her womb.

 

[Road Runner]

Why not just a through a normal man via the Holy Spirit?

Don't you mean a normal woman?

 

[Road Runner]

Also, doesn't the Bible say that all have fallen short to the glory of God? It doesn't say everyone except for Mary.


Romans 3:23.

 

[Cougarbear]

I am presenting the original meanings. Notice the small 'g'. Consider God himself saying, "I am God, there is no other." (Capital G.) Besides 'judges' use of the small 'g' in the Bible can also mean 'mighty ones' (those in power). Notice, that who God is speaking to (the council of humans) He tells these gods/mighty ones, "like any other human, you will die; like any other prince, you shall fail."

The psalmist then concludes with this prayer/plea: "Arise O God, judge the earth, for yours are all the nations."

The psalm you reference clearly presents all of this, which is why the people of that time and culture did not begin teaching humans will all become God in the afterlife. Also, while Mormons stop at verse 6 and claim they are "in training", the rest of us read on where it promises, "Like any other, you will die; like any other, you shall fail."

Go to Isaiah, and read once more: I am God, there is no other. Read it again. Then move on to Hosea: I am God; I am not human.

Also, keep in mind you are the one with "talking points", weaving your own view of who you are by picking and chewing bits in the Bible, creating your own definition of Biblical words to suit yourself, and steadfastly ignoring what God said about Himself: "I am one. There is no other. I am one. There is no other. I am God; I am not human."

The scriptures are not for private interpretations. In other words, you should be open to interpretations as to not be caviar in your fear of God missing out on all our Father in Heaven has said we will inherit. And, that he has many mansions in heaven as well. Paul saw the highest of these mansions, the Celestial glory as stated in 1Corinthians about the different levels of glory or mansions in heaven. Do you know what the benefits are of each level of mansions are? No, you do not. Which means, the scholars you refer your understanding and interpretations to does not mean your understanding is 100% correct. In fact, it could be 50% or 0% as well. As with the rest of scripture. And, since Jesus himself told the apostles more than once not to write down everything he taught them as well. And, he said all the things he had to teach them could not be contained in all the books of the world. So, for you to be so finite in your belief and understanding is much like the person who fears too much and is unyielding to the spirit and the Lord to teach you more. Not so with members of the Church whose testimonies are valiant and steadfast like mine.

With that in mind, I'd look at your interpretation as very incomplete. Your statement you quote that humans will fail and die isn't anything more than what happened to Jesus Christ. The church did go into apostasy and the church, not the Gospel, fell into apostasy. John did not die and has been roaming the earth since his disappearance keeping the Gospel above water and not sinking completely. Jesus Christ also was human and did die. If he wasn't human and didn't die, he could not be resurrected. But, we know he was resurrected and he is no longer "human" with the ability to die. He is a glorified resurrected human being who still is of flesh and bones, but not blood to be shed and die. So, those of us who are gods in embryo, learning more and more, still children of Father in Heaven, and some called as judges in Israel, will die and be resurrected hopefully to celestial glory as Jesus is. But, so will all of Father in Heaven's children and will be leaders and judges if they past the tests of mortality and eternal life as well. Gods in embreo. Not God now. So, there is still but ONE Father in Heaven, ONE Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is a member of the Godhead, and ONE Holy Ghost. All one in purpose.

 

[theHawk]

Don't you mean a normal woman?

No, I’m talking about Jesus. Why not just take a normal man with the Holy Spirit then?

 

[theHawk]

Also, doesn't the Bible say that all have fallen short to the glory of God? It doesn't say everyone except for Mary.


Romans 3:23.

Does that include Jesus?

 

[Road Runner]

No, I’m talking about Jesus. Why not just take a normal man with the Holy Spirit then?

Because Jesus is the only person who ever lived who was and is sinless.

Does that include Jesus?

Jesus is God. So no it doesn't.

 

[BreezeWood]

By your reasoning a murdered fetus is sinless thus doesn’t need a savior. Except they do.

there is not a savior for who might need one - there are no sinners in the heavens.

the difference for being murdered is no just being sinless as who have not had the option or have not sinned as mary, who has triumphed over evil as jesus is the difference than sinless alone - both being sinless and the triumph's of ones life is what is judged.

 

[BreezeWood]

Adam and Eve walked with God without fear until what? Sin. After they sinned, they did what? They hid from God because they were afraid of him.

not true, moses is a liar -

a&e chose self determination than the serpent moses and their false commandments of servitude and denial and were granted their wish by the heavens the same as taught by jesus as their goal in life to earn their way into the everlasting as equals to those already there.

 

[Meriweather]

With that in mind, I'd look at your interpretation as very incomplete.

The scriptures are not for private interpretations.

I wasn't interpreting. I wrote down the actual verses. Second, it was not a private interpretation but actuality overriding LDS private interpretation. If your church would admit their private interpretation by one of your prophets, it would make more sense than trying to bluster a silly pipe dream that the Bible does not support.

 

[Meriweather]

Also, doesn't the Bible say that all have fallen short to the glory of God? It doesn't say everyone except for Mary.

How so? God is God, He is One and He said He is not human. Mary is human, just like millions of others. The glory of all humans--let alone a single human--falls short of the glory of God.

You are arguing with early Christians. They held the belief that Jesus was the new Adam, and Mary was the new Eve. Eve was called 'Woman'). In his Gospel, John makes a point of writing down Jesus' address of Mary as 'Woman". This is especially noticeable in the final minutes of his life. Eve was to become the mother of all. Jesus said, "Woman, behold your son." And to the disciple, he said, "Behold your mother..."

About fifteen hundred years later, Protestants threw out this belief, claiming it was just Apostolic tradition--and despite John's Gospel, claimed it wasn't in scripture. They declared Mary a sinner, despite scripture noting that Mary was filled with God's grace, and Mary's testimony that God was her savior.

If you have come to your own conclusions based on Paul's verse, "All have sinned", dismissing as unimportant that "All" would mean Jesus (fully human) as well. Except...Paul was pointing out those in the past were living under the law, and that was impossible to keep. All this, he said, was now changed as people were living under God's grace. Recall, how did the angel greet/describe Mary? Answer: As filled with God's grace.

Protestants dismissed all of this, and absolutely insist Mary sinned. They who claim "scripture alone" have no scripture of Mary's sins. Paul's statement that followed that under the law, all sinned, but now we are under grace carries no weight--especially not when it comes to Mary. Personally, I think the early Christians have the better argument--which is supported by scripture. To me it is puzzling why it is so important to Protestants that Mary sinned, and why they will have nothing to do with early Christian beliefs on this matter.

 

[Road Runner]

How so? God is God, He is One and He said He is not human.

Jesus was fully human and fully God.

Mary is human, just like millions of others.

So then you admit that she wasn't sinless? After all if her blood could save us from our sins why would she allow her firstborn son to go through all of that torture? What kind of mother would do that?

 

[Meriweather]

So then you admit that she wasn't sinless? After all if her blood could save us from our sins why would she allow her firstborn son to go through all of that torture? What kind of mother would do that?

Who saved Mary? God. Who saved us? Jesus, One with God.

So why do you believe Mary, a human, could save mankind from their sins? Are you forgetting only God can forgive sins? No matter how filled with grace, Mary is still human. So why are you considering she could have been Savior? Do you believe she was One with God?

 

[theHawk]

Jesus is God. So no it doesn't.

He is also man.

 

[hadit]

By that line of thinking why would he need to come about into our world through a virgin woman? Why not just a through a normal man via the Holy Spirit?

He needed to become one of us, flesh and blood.

 

[hadit]

She testified God was her savior.

Right, but if she was sinless, as you maintain, she would not NEED a savior. So, again, why would she testify that God is her savior when she didn't need to be saved? I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

[hadit]

How so? God is God, He is One and He said He is not human. Mary is human, just like millions of others. The glory of all humans--let alone a single human--falls short of the glory of God.

That is the literal definition of sin. It is not a particular thought or action but falling short of God's perfection. Jesus is the only person in human history to pull that off.

You are arguing with early Christians. They held the belief that Jesus was the new Adam, and Mary was the new Eve. Eve was called 'Woman'). In his Gospel, John makes a point of writing down Jesus' address of Mary as 'Woman". This is especially noticeable in the final minutes of his life. Eve was to become the mother of all. Jesus said, "Woman, behold your son." And to the disciple, he said, "Behold your mother..."

About fifteen hundred years later, Protestants threw out this belief, claiming it was just Apostolic tradition--and despite John's Gospel, claimed it wasn't in scripture. They declared Mary a sinner, despite scripture noting that Mary was filled with God's grace, and Mary's testimony that God was her savior.

Again, if she didn't sin, why does she need a savior.

If you have come to your own conclusions based on Paul's verse, "All have sinned", dismissing as unimportant that "All" would mean Jesus (fully human) as well. Except...Paul was pointing out those in the past were living under the law, and that was impossible to keep. All this, he said, was now changed as people were living under God's grace. Recall, how did the angel greet/describe Mary? Answer: As filled with God's grace.

Yes, I can easily conceive of someone who has sinned before in their life being filled with God's grace. I do not believe sinless perfection is necessary for God to fill someone with His grace.

Protestants dismissed all of this, and absolutely insist Mary sinned. They who claim "scripture alone" have no scripture of Mary's sins. Paul's statement that followed that under the law, all sinned, but now we are under grace carries no weight--especially not when it comes to Mary. Personally, I think the early Christians have the better argument--which is supported by scripture. To me it is puzzling why it is so important to Protestants that Mary sinned, and why they will have nothing to do with early Christian beliefs on this matter.

It is important because some take it much further than a theological discussion point and literally worship Mary, giving her divine status in everything but name, then teach others to do the same. It makes no difference to me if you believe she didn't sin, that's on you, but when someone takes it further and makes a believer think they have to include Mary in their salvation or literally depend on her for things that can only come from God, there's a problem.

Ultimately, if you cannot conceive of Protestants who do not believe Mary was sinless standing before God's throne in worship, you believe a false idea.

 

[Meriweather]

Right, but if she was sinless, as you maintain, she would not NEED a savior. So, again, why would she testify that God is her savior when she didn't need to be saved? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Do you believe she not only filled herself with God's grace on her own, but created God's grace? Mary never considered herself anything other than human. You seem to be asserting God would NEVER FILL anyone with His grace, especially not the mother of Jesus.

Why not insist that Mary did not know God's grace, she was hallucinating when the angel said she was full of grace, and it was actually Satan who had control of Mary? Poor, idiot girl...right? She thought God was her savior when she was tricked by Satan. Right?

 

[hadit]

Who saved Mary? God. Who saved us? Jesus, One with God.

Why would she need to be saved if she was sinless?

So why do you believe Mary, a human, could save mankind from their sins? Are you forgetting only God can forgive sins? No matter how filled with grace, Mary is still human. So why are you considering she could have been Savior? Do you believe she was One with God?

You are familiar with the terms "co-redemptrix", "mediatrix", and "advocate", right? If you believe she is somehow more instrumental in salvation than you and I are, there's a problem. If you believe that she is in any way ESSENTIAL for salvation, there's a problem. If you believe she is our advocate before God when Scripture clearly names Jesus and the Holy Spirit as our advocate, there's a problem.

As with many things Catholic, the leadership makes a proclamation and leaves everyone to argue over what it means. Some take it and run with it and all of a sudden there's a new dogma that MUST be adhered to that is not based in Scripture.