All have sinned.. including Mary.

[Cleopas]

I feel the same way I don’t understand how people say they love Jesus but hate his mother, I know that as a unperfect human I would defend my mother, can you imagined how Jesus most feel when there is people trying to put his mother down.

Who hates Mary? Who is trying to attack her? Not I. I dare say not any single protestant Christian posting here. We are not disrespecting Mary. We are discussing doctrinal positions and differences about her. There is a complete difference in that, which is a pursuit of truth and as an object of dialog, from hate and disdain.

 

[lurdes]

I understand and appreciate that.

Interestingly enough, we often feel the same difference towards you all. No matter what Scriptures we give you it seems as if you will ignore them or find some church father, tradition, or council to quote, in order to give a different spin to the statements of Scripture itself so as to prop up your eisigesis./Q

do you really believe that Jesus only left us a the Bible to go by and let us come to our own conclusion and end up with a dozes of different religions and what he said to peter have no value what so ever?

 

[peary]

I understand and appreciate that.

Interestingly enough, we often feel the same difference towards you all. No matter what Scriptures we give you it seems as if you will ignore them or find some church father, tradition, or council to quote, in order to give a different spin to the statements of Scripture itself so as to prop up your eisigesis.

Actually, we are giving you the traditional Catholic understanding of the Scripture - what has been accepted as true and authentic for two-thousand years. You are the ones giving the “different spin” to the Scriptures, but that is because you have been brought up or convinced on reading them divorced from the Church. As I said before, it is impossible to separate the Church from its own Scripture and vice versa. The two are inseperable, but you fail to understand this fact. The only thing we prop up is the Truth.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Because that passage is a classic case of hyperbole in order to make a point.
Do you REALLY believe that ALL have sinned?
What about the severly retarded or people with other severe mental disorders.
What about babies? Toddlers? Have they ALL sinned?
I think not.

By the grace of God, having lived a sinless life was possible for the Blessed Mother because she was spared from Original Sin.

According to the CCC, sin is universal:​

• 402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”
• 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
• 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.** And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.**
• scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#402
  **That is the authentic & authoritative (& possibly infallible) teaching of the Teaching Authority of the CC. To cap it all, it is based on the NT - & not on anything in it that might change. **

 

[Cleopas]

How else could Jesus be born of a woman if she was with sin, not possible, unless you believe in a Jesus who was not born with sin.

That is exactly what I believe in, a Jesus without sin.

I am guessing you misspoke here?

At any rate, as stated earlier in this thread the biological function of the womb is amoral, and thus does not transmit the sinful condition of fallen man. Man born of Adam does not fall in His mother, he fell in Adam. In the biological function of conception to birth the created being is in sin, not because the mother is a sinner, but because in Adam all have sinned.

Thus, to make a doctrine that argues for Mary’s sinlessness in order to somehow promote and secure the sinlessness of Christ is unnecessary. Indeed it diminishes the unique status of Christ, and negates the very purpose for His virgin birth. It confuses and complicates.This to me is evidence of it’s human origin rather than any divine one.

Only Jesus is without sin, that’s why He is called “the Righteous.”

Even Satan tried to taint Mary with sin and could not succeed.

Those who have ears to hear what the Lord Jesus states about his Mother in his revealed word.

See revelations 12:13

Nay. The woman here is Israel, not Mary.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The verse is:

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…

How could Jesus, who IS God, fall short of Himself?

Come on people, the bible states that Jesus was sinless and since He is the same today, yesterday and forever He has ALWAYS been sinless. This argument to the ‘all have sinned’ point is weak.

I don’t think that the writers of the bible nor anyone would lump Christ in when speaking about God’s creation, including humans. It would make sense that when this statement was made it was not geared towards the author’s Lord and Savior, WHO IS PERFECT.

When we say that humans are sinful do we include Christ in this? No. So your argument holds no water…

** As God’s action in Christ is a remedy** for the universal sinfulness of the entire human race, it is an evasion of the point to ask whether He is fallen. As **the rest of that very chapter, Romans 3, shows. Hebrews 4, anyone ? Elsewhere - in 1 Corinthians -St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that Jesus “knew no sin” & “was made sin”. **​

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I understand and appreciate that.

Interestingly enough, we often feel the same difference towards you all. No matter what Scriptures we give you it seems as if you will ignore them or find some church father, tradition, or council to quote, in order to give a different spin to the statements of Scripture itself so as to prop up your eisigesis.

No.1 you have no authority to interpret scripture. No.2 You have what appears no apostolic succession to translate scripture. No. 3 you have no tradition that dates back to the apostles. You should be listening not trying to interpret something you have no Idea of what you are trying to interpret via sacred scripture. As a matter of fact who have no scriptures to give, because the scriptures you take from come from the Catholic church, not you.

 

[Cleopas]

No.1 you have no authority to interpret scripture. No.2 You have what appears no apostolic succession to translate scripture. No. 3 you have no tradition that dates back to the apostles. You should be listening not trying to interpret something you have no Idea of what you are trying to interpret via sacred scripture. As a matter of fact who have no scriptures to give, because the scriptures you take from come from the Catholic church, not you.

How convenient it must be to categorically dismiss the arguments in the content of my reply in the name of religious superiority.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That is exactly what I believe in, a Jesus without sin.

I am guessing you misspoke here?

At any rate, as stated earlier in this thread the biological function of the womb is amoral, and thus does not transmit the sinful condition of fallen man. Man born of Adam does not fall in His mother, he fell in Adam. In the biological function of conception to birth the created being is in sin, not because the mother is a sinner, but because in Adam all have sinned.

Thus, to make a doctrine that argues for Mary’s sinlessness in order to somehow promote and secure the sinlessness of Christ is unnecessary. Indeed it diminishes the unique status of Christ, and negates the very purpose for His virgin birth. It confuses and complicates.This to me is evidence of it’s human origin rather than any divine one.

You are comparing original sin , to the 2000 year old immaculate conception. Your 20th century argument about the Perpetual Virgin Mary and her sinless life, will not stand the test of time, not to mention has no credence to the 2000 year old Christian belief.

Only Jesus is without sin, that’s why He is called “the Righteous.”

Only Jesus perfected the Law and the prophets. And one of the laws state to Honor your father and mother. And you claim Jesus did not so he is with sin. Because you state Mary has sin, and you supply no evidence, deceiver.

Nay. The woman here is Israel, not Mary.

Again, your 20th century interpretation of a 2000 year old Christian Tradition has no credence what so ever. To blow a horn to be given notice, is not stating a fact, but only a noise. The Woman who gives birth to a male child is Mary. Israel denied the savior.

 

[Cleopas]

**Actually, I was responding to **Syele and Believers, whose belief that babies can sin borders on the insane.
THAT’s why the question of infant baptism was asked. I’m not accusing you of being anti-Catholic.

But you quoted me, and addressed your comments to me. See reply #140 in this thread.

If you can honestly believe that a fetus can sin (a ridiculously unbiblical, unreasonable and irrational belief), how can you NOT believe in infant baptism?

THAT question remains to be answered.

---

In reply # 128 I said …

*Scripture teaches that sin is violation of God’s law, and that all unrighteousness (anything not right or opposed to the nature of God) is sin.

I think the difference we are having here is one of the accounting or imputing of sin. Sin is only imputed where there is knowledge of right and wrong. Nevertheless, a thing that is wrong, is still wrong even if the individual is not aware of that. Thus the thing is in and of itself sinful in such a setting.
*

Also see reply # 122 for my initial response regarding this aspect of the discussion.

 

[mozart-250]

**Actually, we are giving you the traditional Catholic understanding of the Scripture - what has been accepted as true and authentic for two-thousand years. **

If that is the case, then why don’t you then find me the first argument from Scripture that Mary
(1) never sinned in her entire lifetime
(2) was delivered from original sin at the time of conception

In fact (and I have read the Catholic apologetics here) you will find that there are no quotes at all (let alone quotes from the Bible) to support the above beliefs until say about 350 years after the death of Christ. And even these quotes are not conclusive.

Thus there is no evidence that this belief is a part of apostolic tradition. The evidence is most convincing that these beliefs were added at a later time from sources that do not originate from the apostles.

 

[peary]

If that is the case, then why don’t you then find me the first argument from Scripture that Mary
(1) never sinned in her entire lifetime
(2) was delivered from original sin at the time of conception

In fact (and I have read the Catholic apologetics here) you will find that there are no quotes at all (let alone quotes from the Bible) to support the above beliefs until say about 350 years after the death of Christ. And even these quotes are not conclusive.

Thus there is no evidence that this belief is a part of apostolic tradition. The evidence is most convincing that these beliefs were added at a later time from sources that do not originate from the apostles.

There is something also called ‘reason’ or are you missing that too?

 

[joze]

If he is talking about personal sin, surely Paul meant to exclude Jesus and innocent children (like infants). Mary is simply another exception. But if Paul is talking about fallen humanity due to original sin (which is true to the context if you read all of Rom 3:23-24) in which we all are in need of Christ’s redemption, we agree that this applies to Mary also (though in her case it is a preventative redemption before she was conceived, rather than redemption after she was born).

 

[ChristianRoots]

If that is the case, then why don’t you then find me the first argument from Scripture that Mary
(1) never sinned in her entire lifetime
(2) was delivered from original sin at the time of conception

See Luke 1:28. Catholics believe that though Mary never sinned, she still needed a Saviour like the rest of us, our Lord Jesus Christ.

By the way, why do you insist on arguing **only **from Scripture? Is this technique biblical? If yes, please tell me the chapter and verse number, so I too may start to do the same thing.

Also, where in the Bible does it say to celebrate Christmas on December 25th? Or do you approve of doing things not found in Scripture?

In fact (and I have read the Catholic apologetics here) you will find that there are no quotes at all (let alone quotes from the Bible) to support the above beliefs until say about 350 years after the death of Christ. And even these quotes are not conclusive.

FYI, No one had the complete 27 books (and no other) of the New Testament either until about 350 years after the death of Christ. Yet, you believed in the canonicty of these 27 books, Why?

Thus there is no evidence that this belief is a part of apostolic tradition. The evidence is most convincing that these beliefs were added at a later time from sources that do not originate from the apostles.

So I guess the **word ** Trinity (not the concept) is not in your vocabulary since it can’t be found anywhere in the Bible. What biblical word/phrase do you use to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Chapter and verse number?

 

[MrS]

If that is the case, then why don’t you then find me the first argument from Scripture that Mary
(1) never sinned in her entire lifetime
(2) was delivered from original sin at the time of conception

In fact (and I have read the Catholic apologetics here) you will find that there are no quotes at all (let alone quotes from the Bible) to support the above beliefs until say about 350 years after the death of Christ. And even these quotes are not conclusive.

Thus there is no evidence that this belief is a part of apostolic tradition. The evidence is most convincing that these beliefs were added at a later time from sources that do not originate from the apostles.

Two things… first you are boxed in and out.
Boxed in because you have only the Catholic Bible to hold up for your belief (Sola S is however, unbiblical)
Boxed out because you have no history, no long-standing study and development, and no teaching authority that has been given its authority from God.

Second, as often happens in the Church… declarations, pronouncements etc are usually not made (nor necessary) when all are in agreement. It is when a heresy arises, or serious questions need to be answered, that the world is given such visible instructions. Same for the sinlessness of Mary. When the need to define this grace started, so did the answers to that need.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **mozart-250 **
If that is the case, then why don’t you then find me the first argument from Scripture that Mary
(1) never sinned in her entire lifetime
(2) was delivered from original sin at the time of conception

In fact (and I have read the Catholic apologetics here) you will find that there are no quotes at all (let alone quotes from the Bible) to support the above beliefs until say about 350 years after the death of Christ. And even these quotes are not conclusive.

Thus there is no evidence that this belief is a part of apostolic tradition. The evidence is most convincing that these beliefs were added at a later time from sources that do not originate from the apostles.

Did you ever hear of the word ‘reason’? Quite a few fundies throw their reasoning ability out the window when it comes to understanding Scripture. God gave us a brain to use. When it comes to Scripture and the Church, you have to learn how to “connect the dots” in order to understand properly.

 

[mozart-250]

There is something also called ‘reason’ or are you missing that too?

When one starts calling names and hurling insults, it is usually indicative of the fact that one really does not have much of a case.

 

[LittleOne1]

Let’s try to keep up a Christian like discussion here please and not resort to tit for tat discussions.
My sense is that the protestants here will not be changing their thoughts anytime soon and neither will Catholics.
That being said, I must ask the protestants a fair question raised by others and that is where do they get the Bible from if it was not till councils in the mid and late 300’s that determined what was sacred scripture? They almost did not include revelation.

Its hard not to say that you rely on Church teaching and authority to base your bible beliefs on.
Also in regards to Revelation 12 about the woman, which woman bore the one who would reign with an iron rod?
No one, but Mary I think can claim that title and why John who at the end of Chapter 11 claimed to see the ark and then goes on to describe a woman- if he really saw the ark of the covenant from moses time he would have certainly talked about it more since this great gift was missing and surely people would want to know how it looked, but instead he talks about the woman meaning the ark is the woman who carries the new covenant of christ! Another reason for Immaculate Conception. (chapter were added by Church later on, not by him so in his mind, the thoughts from 11 continue into 12; they are not seperate thoughts. We could have easily split up the chapters a different way so both end of 11 and 12 are under the same chapter. The chapters are not divinely inspired, the writing is-unless you want to concede the point that the Church Authority was divinely inspired at a later date to come up with these chapters)

 

[mozart-250]

See Luke 1:28. Catholics believe that though Mary never sinned, she still needed a Saviour like the rest of us, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 1:28 does not say that Mary was conceived without original sin or that she did not commit one sin in her entire lifetime.

By the way, why do you insist on arguing **only **from Scripture? Is this technique biblical? If yes, please tell me the chapter and verse number, so I too may start to do the same thing.

Who says I am arguing just using the Bible only. What I am saying is that if I am to believe that Mary is an examption from Romans 3:23, that there is clear and convincing evidence that this is the case. So far you have supplied no evidence.

Also, where in the Bible does it say to celebrate Christmas on December 25th? Or do you approve of doing things not found in Scripture?

And now you are changing the topic. Can I assume that by changing the topic that you have no evidence that Mary is an exemption?

FYI, No one had the complete 27 books (and no other) of the New Testament either until about 350 years after the death of Christ. Yet, you believed in the canonicty of these 27 books, Why?

So I guess the **word ** Trinity (not the concept) is not in your vocabulary since it can’t be found anywhere in the Bible. What biblical word/phrase do you use to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Chapter and verse number?

See comments above concerning changing the topic.

 

[mozart-250]

Two things… first you are boxed in and out.
Boxed in because you have only the Catholic Bible to hold up for your belief (Sola S is however, unbiblical)
Boxed out because you have no history, no long-standing study and development, and no teaching authority that has been given its authority from God.

Second, as often happens in the Church… declarations, pronouncements etc are usually not made (nor necessary) when all are in agreement. It is when a heresy arises, or serious questions need to be answered, that the world is given such visible instructions. Same for the sinlessness of Mary. When the need to define this grace started, so did the answers to that need.

That is nice, but really not relevant.

Where is the evidence that what you say is true that will allow me in good conscience to believe that Mary is an exemption from Romans 3:23.

So far, nobody has supplied clear and convincing evidence. All I have seen so far is name calling and diversions.