Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary was a queen, so stop creating myths.
BTW, clearly you don't understand what "incoherent" means? Perhaps you're incapable of understanding what I am saying!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mother mary without sin?
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
BTW, clearly you don't understand what "incoherent" means? Perhaps you're incapable of understanding what I am saying!
In the King James Version of the Bible, Matthew 1:20 reads, "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".
In the King James Version of the Bible, Matthew 2:2 reads, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him".
There are several arguments in the Christian Bible to prove that Mary was queen, these two verses link her majesty to Joseph, son of David and to the reign of Jesus.
If I were in your place, I would learn in silence.
Well, you're not in my place. I know what the Bible says. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT MARY WAS A QUEEN!!!
Joseph is of David's lineage. That has nothing to do with Mary! Duh!!!
And in your second paragraph, it says that one of the Eastern men said that Jesus was born king of the Jews. That means nothing! It doesn't make Mary divine, any more than David's mother was a queen.
Go ahead and accept your unbiblical Catholicism. Much of it is man-made and conflicts with Scripture. Thank God that He inspired Martin Luther and others to put Christianity back in concert with His truths.
BTW, when does Jesus come down from the cross? Why is He still depicted there in your crucifixes? He has returned to heaven.
I understand your anger... An enlightened Catholic gave you a Sola Scriptura "beating" and this is too much for you! Don't worry, there are still few, but soon all Catholics understood that true Sola Scriptura is pro Catholicism.
You are clearly delusional. You can't won't accept the truth. Period.
You didn't answer why Jesus is still on the cross in Carholic crucifixes.crucified.
Mary is the queen of heaven and Jesus is still on the cross! And you think you have the truth???
The literacy rate in Jesus' time was only 5%. Sacred art dates back to this period and is also represented in the catatombs of Rome. There was no internet at that time and no colleges. Sacred art took the place of scriptures for this large mass of evangelized people, but their arrogance does not allow them to understand the socio-cultural aspects of the Gospel of Christ. Protestants, Neocpetencotals and Jews joined in affronting the true gospel, but Mary steps on the serpent's head. I'm not going to waste any more of my time teaching you.You are clearly delusional. You can't won't accept the truth. Period.
You didn't answer why Jesus is still on the cross in Carholic crucifixes.crucified.
Mary is the queen of heaven and Jesus is still on the cross! And you think you have the truth???
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
There are also multiple translations of the Protestant Bible. However, Protestant Christians can't seem to agree which ones are the most accurate.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Jesus was once asked by what authority do you say things. I was asked the same question. My answer is that I speak the words of God so it is His authority. We don't know what source the old traditions come from, whether true or false but the Holy Spirit tells us the truth in addition to what the Bible says. The Sola Scriptura believers would ony see that as an authority.Sure. And you aren't Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is not since no male is involved.
I believe in the context of a man married to a woman it is perfectly normal. The obvious reason for a virgin birth is to establish the uniqueness of Jesus as coming from God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe however that we do not know how human God made that sperm. So to say it isn't is an assumption.
Thank you. Since you are clearly unable to answer my posts, have a nice day -- somewhere else.
P.S. It wasn't Mary who stepped on the serpent's head, it was Eve's male offspring. (Gensis 3:15) sola scriptura!
Last edited:
Thank you for admitting that Martin Luther was right and the Catholic denomination was (and is) wrong.
Clearly you don't understand sola scriptura. Unlike the Catholic denomination, the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict any of the 5 "solas".
a) You are most definitely not in my place, so keep your instructions to yourself.
b) Nowhere in Scripture is Mary referred to as "her majesty", the obvious reason being that she was not a queen. (Joseph was never a king.)
Unlike some people on this forum, I believe what the Bible says. I do not give any credence to what anyone says that contradicts, adds to, or omits from what the Bible says. I believe entirely in the principle of sola scriptura, i.e., what the Bible says is true. If people add to or subtract from Scripture, I consider their opinions to be false.
This is one of the great failings of the Catholic denomination. Thank God that He enlightened Martin Luther and others to put the body of Christ back on His course and away from the inventions of men!
This is one of the great failings of the Catholic denomination. Thank God that He enlightened Martin Luther and others to put the body of Christ back on His course and away from the inventions of men!
Our position as a believer is that we all have flaws and that would include Mary. But a woman of great faith and favored of God
This was never the initial position of the early church and neither does it represent the meaning of the word “KECHARITOMENE” and the Greek grammatical rules in Luke 1:28. The name given to this is religious affront, but all religious feelings are permitted.
The obvious intention of the virgin birth was for the author of Matthew and the author of Luke to give their versions of Jesus a more impressive credential than the Jesus of the thoroughly human origins set out by the author of Mark, and the "justification" for this is the use of the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in the Septuagint, when translating Hebrew 'alma ("young woman of marriageable age") in Isaiah 7:14. Since you've read Isaiah 7 and 8, you already know that the young woman of marriageable age mentioned there, whether a virgin or not, gave birth to a son who was called Immanuel and who has played his part in the narrative and gone before Isaiah 8 ends. In other words, clearly not a "prophecy" of Jesus, whatever the authors of Matthew and Luke found convenient for their narrative.
So we're talking about a tale where a male god impregnates an earthly virgin ─ the Greek myths already had centuries of precedents of such stories. It's unclear just how unhuman the God of the Tanakh is. The Garden story (at least in translation) says that [he]'s male, and has sons at [his] heavenly court. By the time the gospels are being written, [he]'s still male, and Jesus has to get his Y chromosome from somewhere (since his mother doesn't have one). So within the conventions of this particular tale, Matthew and Luke version, I see not only no difficulty, but no alternative, to that Y chromosome being God's.
Lucas 1:26-38 Biblia Sacra Vulgata
26 In mense autem sexto, missus est angelus Gabriel a Deo in civitatem Galilaeae, cui nomen Nazareth, 27 ad virginem desponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Joseph, de domo David: et nomen virginis Maria. 28 Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus.
Luther NT 1530
"Und im sechsten Monat ward der Engel Gabriel gesandt von Gott in eine Stadt in Galiläa, die heißt Nazareth, zu einer Jungfrau, die vertraut war einem Mann mit Namen Joseph, vom Hause David. Und die Jungfrau hieß Maria. Und der Engel kam zu ihr hinein und sprach: 'Gegrüßet seist du, Holdselige, der Herr ist mit dir, du Gebenedeite unter den Weibern.'"
Luther’s Translation and the Greek Word "Kecharitōmenē"
In his 1534 New Testament translation, Martin Luther used the word "Holdselige" to describe Mary during the angel Gabriel’s greeting (Luke 1:28). The original Greek word used is "κεχαριτωμένη" (kecharitōmenē), which means "full of grace".
Luther chose "Holdselige," which in Old German means "gracious," "charming," or "full of favor," highlighting Mary’s loveliness and grace. While this word captures part of the divine grace Mary received, it doesn’t fully convey the complete meaning of "kecharitōmenē," which emphasizes the fullness of divine grace.
At the time, there were other German words that could have been used to better represent the idea of "full of grace":
- "Voll der Gnade" (literally "full of grace") would have been a more direct and faithful translation, aligning closely with the Latin *gratia plena* found in the Vulgate.
- Another option could have been "gnadenreich," meaning "rich in grace" or "abundant in grace." However, this word suggests more of an abundance of grace rather than the complete and perfect state conveyed by the Greek.
The Greek word "κεχαριτωμένη" (*kecharitōmenē*) is a perfect passive participle, which indicates that Mary had received grace in a complete and continuous sense, a divine favor that was conferred in the past and continues into the present. Therefore, the notion of "full of grace" or "completely favored" would be more faithful to the theological meaning of the original text.
Why "Holdselige" Might Not Be Sufficient
Luther’s choice of "Holdselige" reflects his style of translating Scripture into language that was accessible to the common people, capturing the essence of the text in a poetic way. However, "Holdselige" might fall short of conveying the full sense of "κεχαριτωμένη," which implies not only grace but the fullness and ongoing nature of that divine favor.
Thus, while Luther’s choice is understandable for his context, words like "voll der Gnade" (full of grace) would more accurately reflect the original Greek meaning, preserving the idea of Mary being completely filled with divine grace.
Attachments
Mary was a young woman who had great faith. Nothing more. Period.
As I wrote earlier, Jesus, after He had received the Holy Spirit, said that she was not his mother (symbolically of course). Matthew 12:48-50.
I believe what God's word clearly says, not contrived religious doctrine that contradicts it.