M
mozart-250
Guest
Even if this is true statement, it would then only be necessary for Mary to be sinless during the nine months she was carrying God the Son.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
So its OK to defile the tabernacle once the Lord has left?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child she gave birth to a son. Her neighbours and relatives heard that the Lord had shown his great mercy towards her.
{Luke 1, 57-58}
Are you saying that God “pardoned” the child who was to be conceived and borne by the Virgin Mary and be called holy, the Son of God, through the intervention of the Holy Spirit? You are, aren’t you? So you are telling us that Jesus was in need of a saviour. But of the two, only Mary was in need of a saviour; yet she was redeemed at the first moment she was conceived because of her priviliged divine maternity. Whether you realize it or not, you are leaning towards the 5th century heresy of Nestorianism by creating an entirely human person alongside a divine person cohabiting one body - the former person being in need of a savior.
The Son of Man was in no need of being “pardoned” and having his debt of sin covered by a saviour. But he would have inherited the ill effects of original sin from his mother if she were not preserved free from original sin, since the Son of Man took his “flesh” from her. We inherit our weak and sinful nature from both parents, not only from our fathers. Any psycho-geneticist will tell you that our pathological drives are inherited from either parents apart from environmental influences. (Creation as a whole has fallen from God’s grace.) Jesus took his humanity from Mary.When Jesus was miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, his genetic make up came from her. His divine nature directly came with him through the power of the Holy Spirit. So if Mary’s flesh was stained by original sin and suffered from the ill effects of concupiscence, Jesus would have inherited his mother’s sinful nature. For the Son of Man possessed a distinct human nature apart from his divine nature. We are talking about one person with two distinct natures hypostatically united. John the Baptist was not born of natural law, having been conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; since his mother Elizabeth was barren. Yet her son was born in the state of original sin, inheriting the sinful nature of his mother - not father. True, John the Baptist was not the Son of the living God, but he was just as genuinely human as the Son of Man, “being born of woman and born under the law” (Gal 4, 4).:yup:
By the way, to say that God couldn’t or wouldn’t preserve Mary free from original sin is tantamount to putting a constraint on God. Of course, God didn’t have to do “great things” for Mary in order to bring his Only-begotten Son into the world as a man. But neither did he have to send his Only-begotten Son to redeem humankind. He could have saved us without all the apparent trouble of sacrificing his Only-begotten Son, right from the beginning of creation. In his infinite wisdom, God chose to do what has been revealed to the Church.
You say: “God does not sin.” Are you suggesting that Jesus was only God in the “appearance” of a human being? It appears so. You’re vacillating between Nestorianism and Monophysitism: the historical Jesus in the Bible was both God and man - not only God. Please reconsider what you are saying, for it borders on heresy. I’m not being sarcastic.
Are you still sure that the Bible does not tell us that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin?
Perhaps not as explicitly as you prefer.“There is one Physician who is possessed ‘both’ of flesh and spirit; both made (born of the Virgin Mary) and not made (eternally begotten of the Father); God existing in flesh; true life (Son of the living God) and death (Son of Man); both of Mary and of God; first possible (born of a woman) and then impossible (miraculously born under the law), even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Ignatius (A.D. 180)
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle (the Virgin Mary) was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hyppolytus (A.D. 235)
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
L
Lampo
Guest
Gabriel proclaimed that the Holy Spirit would come over her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Lk 1:35). This is the language of marital love (see Ruth 3:9; Zeph 3:17). Mary was united with the third person of the Trinity in order to give flesh to the second person. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she gave her body to the service of God so that she might receive the fullness of God. And so Mary is a sign of how we too must seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit to do the will of God (cf Eph 5:18). It is the Holy Spirit who brings Jesus Christ today just as He brought the divine Christ to the womb of Mary (cf. Jn 14:17,18). When we are filled with the Spirit as Mary was, we are united to Jesus and we become more united with one another. Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit brought us the Son who poured out the Spirit that we might be united with both Son and Spirit. Her union brings about our union.
M
meandean
Guest
why is it so hard to believe? does the holy spirit dwell within you as well? and your with the stain of sin right?
K
KJK80
Guest
Woah, woah, woah! Mary was “FULL OF GRACE” this was stated to her by an “ANGEL OF GOD.” She BORE A CHILD as a VIRGIN after being in union with THE HOLY SPIRIT.
If you can make these claims, then I’ll keep listening to your logic here, unfortunately you cannot, therefore it’s moot for this logic to go further.
M
mozart-250
Guest
After the Lord Jesus Chris has been born, Mary is no longer the arc of the new covenant.
What differentiates the arc of the tabernacle special from just a tent is the presence of the Lord inside. One you remove the presence of the Lord from the arc of the tabernacle, you no longer have an arc. Same with the arc of the new covenant.
K
KJK80
Guest
Since when is the Ark of the Covenant a tent?
M
mozart-250
Guest
Maybe I am confusing it with something else. Nevertheless, what made the Ark of the Covenant special was the presence of the Lord contained within it. Without the presence of the Lord, we would have something else.
K
KJK80
Guest
Maybe you should look into the Ark of the Covenant a little deeper.
E
estesbob
Guest
So after Jesus is born the Spirt just abandons her to sin???
H
HiggDo
Guest
That’s a good one right there…If you’re going to be a literalist, then follow all the rules. Only men can be saved.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The divine nature of Christ proceeds from the Father. The human nature of Christ comes from Mary. Divine nature is unsinful, human nature is sinful. Jesus would have had a sinful nature if not for the Immaculate Conception of his mother, for he would have inherited her sinful nature as the Son of Man. If the Father intervened by the power of the Holy Spirit to directly preserve the Son of Man from the stain of original sin, as he did for Mary, then the Son of Man would have been in need of a saviour just like his mother, who was preserved free from the stain of original sin, according to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Jesus was not immaculately conceived, for He was not and is not a descendant of Adam. :nope: Jesus was and still is a divine Person with a human nature. His human nature is untainted to begin with on account his mother’s human nature was untainted.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
N
NDfan
Guest
Had to be 2 posts sorry
I’m saying Jesus was sinless because he was GOD incarnate, because Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn’t need Mary to be sinless so HE would be sinless. That’s what is proposed by many on this board. That if Mary was sinful, her sinful flesh would make Jesus sinful. I said that’s impossible.
Jesus is our savior. Another reason he couldn’t be tainted with sin. A savior cannot be a sinful person. The perfect sacrifice of an umblemished Lamb would not be possible. Something folks here are not grasping.
Mary needed a savior just like we all do. Saying she was redeemed at conception is completely unscriptural. There’s no such thing as being redeemed at conception. We’re still born sinners and need Jesus to save us.
I know exactly what I’m leaning towards. It seems you don’t:shrug:Whether you realize it or not, you are leaning towards the 5th century heresy of Nestorianism by creating an entirely human person alongside a divine person cohabiting one body - the former person being in need of a savior.
Tell me something I don’t already know.
Now you are contradicting yourself. First you criticize me for saying Jesus was preserved from sin because Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, but then you say he could have been tainted. Answer me this. If GOD can preserve Mary, then why couldn’t HE preserve Jesus? How can Mary’s mother, a sinful woman, carry a sinless person in her womb, but Mary couldn’t possibly carry Jesus if she was sinful?
Scripture tells us differently. I trust GOD’s word more than any psycho-geneticist. And again it doesn’t matter because Jesus was GOD incarnate and GOD cannot be sinful or even tainted by original sin. Also even IF Mary could have passed her sinful nature to Jesus, GOD would have preserved HIM.
I’m well aware of what happened to creation so spare me the lesson. And again I will re-interate that Jesus could not have inherited Mary’s sinful nature because GOD would not allow it. Jesus didn’t need Mary to be sinless so he could be. That’s implying that there was only one method GOD could use to keep Jesus sinless.
Elizabeth did not conceive through the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not even imply that. Zechariah and Elizabeth had John together. You need a scripture lesson here. Zechariah questioned his ability to have a child because of his age. Given his doubt that he could, he lost the ability to speak until after John was born.
Right and John wasn’t born of the Holy Spirit. If that had been so he would have been divine and he wasn’t.
No you are placing a constraint around GOD saying that Jesus would have been sinful if GOD didn’t preserve Mary. Implying again that this method was the only way of doing it.
Again you need a scripture lesson here. The only acceptable price GOD is willing to accept for the payment of sin is sacrifices. The only way we can be cleansed from our sin is by the Blood of Christ. We have to freely choose Christ to demonstrate our desire to be with GOD.
N
NDfan
Guest
Contd. from above:
I said Jesus could not be tainted with original sin because he was GOD incarnate. Your implication is that the human side of Jesus could be tainted and that would override HIS divine nature. This is impossible as we know what happens when sin is mixed with GOD. It cannot survive. Therefore Jesus human side could not be tainted because HIS divine side, which is GOD incarnate, would not allow it. I don’t need to reconsider anything.
Are you suggesting GOD does commit sin??
I said Jesus could not be tainted with original sin because he was GOD incarnate. Your implication is that the human side of Jesus could be tainted and that would override HIS divine nature. This is impossible as we know what happens when sin is mixed with GOD. It cannot survive. Therefore Jesus human side could not be tainted because HIS divine side, which is GOD incarnate, would not allow it. I don’t need to reconsider anything.
Yes the Bible does not tell us this.Are you still sure that the Bible does not tell us that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin?
Not sure what your point is here.
One quote from Hyppolytus and I’m supposed to use that to overrule the word of GOD. That’s the problem with quoting the ECFs sometimes to support a point. They don’t overrule GOD.
Peace to you as wellPax vobiscum
Good Fella
N
NDfan
Guest
Lampo do you believe that Elizabeth was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit as well?
M
meandean
Guest
has not god sent the holy spirit to live in us? and we are filled with sin. yet the spirit strenthens us to rise above this vile, delight yourself in the lord and he will give you the desires of your heart. and like mary, we to carry god in our hearts, that is, our very core. we become the house of bread, his bethlehem, for the poor to find food in time of need, spiritual food. don’t you know that you are gods temple and that the spirit of god lives in you? doesn’t god want to dwell within us? so to make a claim like this, something must of happened to me right? this i know to be true, that i could not defeat sin by or of myself. i couldn’t see how utterly sinful i was until god revealed himself in me. the closer i came to god, the more dirty i felt. but he revealed this sin so i would offer it up to him, we both agree that that blood of christ is the only cleansing that takes away sin, right? so if i remember right, john 14:26 tells us that it is the holy spirit will teach me all things and also will remind me of what he has said to me. so if you too have the holy spirit, tell me why again something so pure and holy, couldn’t dwell inside us. for i am convinced that he lives, and his spirit lives in me.
N
NDfan
Guest
KJ as I stated to you before “full of grace” is the transliteration of the Latin version. The true interpretation is favoured one.
B
brkn1
Guest
As a “new creature” in Christ, I am a member of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. (2Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)
Being such a member makes me capable of understanding the Scripture as the indwelling Holy Spirit reveals it to me. The Bible says this is so, but you say otherwise.
The Bible also says that I now have direct access to the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. The RCC says otherwise here too. They claim to be another required mediator between what the Bible declares as the ONE Mediator Jesus Christ.
My interpretation is not what saves you. The Bible is clear on what is required for salvation and there is no need for any additions to the saving gospel. Paul condemns those who offer such additions to the gospel he preached.
There is no need to know much more about Mary than that she was the means by which Jesus came as the God Man in mortal flesh upon the earth; so that He could die in our place for all of our sins, be buried, and rise again in glory for our justification as proof that the Father accepted His once-for-all sacrifice for our redemption.
The Bible is clear that Jesus was virgin born as further proof of His Deity and the fulfillment of prophecy about Him as Messiah. I don’t need any more interpretations other than what the Bible clearly shows for salvation.
The confusion on other matters about Mary is unnecessary and that is why the Bible did not speak that much about it. The Bible is all about God’s glory and the glory that is His as the result of His gift of salvation to us.
To God be all the glory.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Well, I am simply considering alternatives that keep that Catholic assumptions of Ark of the New Covenant et. al. intact while not making an exception to Romans 3;23. When I can easily come up with alternatives that meet these same assumptions but make no exceptions to this Scripture, I become more skeptical of the proposition that requires an exception to this Scripture.
But if the alternative is that Mary remains sinless from the point at which the angel appears to her until the rest of her life, that also would not mean an exception to Romans 3;23. So I suppose that works too.
- Status