All have sinned.. including Mary.

[mozart-250]

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.

So I am a fundie and stupid???.

See my above comment concerning name calling.

Still no clear and convincing evidence.

 

[mozart-250]

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.

I assume you are not responding to me. The issue of how we got the Bible is separate from the issue of whether Mary (1) was conceived without original sin (2) did not sin her entire lifetime.

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)

Even if the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, the chapter still is not saying that (1) she never sinned in her entire lifetime (2) that she was conceived without original sin.

 

[estesbob]

I assume you are not responding to me. The issue of how we got the Bible is separate from the issue of whether Mary (1) was conceived without original sin (2) did not sin her entire lifetime.

\quote]

You claim it is significant that no one mentions Mary’s immaculate conception until around the thrid century. Yet you tell us that your personal interpretation of Scripture trumps at least 1,200 years of Christian years of agreement on Marys Immacualte conception, Well the Scipture you hold dear was also not in place until starting in the third century and was codified by the very Church you claim is wrong about Mary… A little consistency is needed.

 

[planten]

**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.”

**It is surprising to call every one a sinner. A child is born in a house. Why is he a sinner?. He has done nothing yet? Is it because his birth is due to intercourse? What is the reason of the child being sinner?

If the intercourse between married couple is a sin then it is un-natural teaching. O.K. every man, every child is a sinner. The result of sin is death. The church teaches that Jesus took away the sins of the world or the sins of some people. But we see that every one dies. It means that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection did not save any one. He could not take away any one’s sins.

It is all a complicated theory of the church about the original sins, just like all other un-natural theories of son of God and Trinity and begotten son and only begotten son. Some say that Mary was a sinner. And Jesus was born of a sinner lady. Why??**

 

[planten]

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.

** I believe that Mary, the mother was sinless. Not all agree to it. But every (christian) agrees that Jesus was sinless. It is a difficult thing to believe that all the prophets of God are sinners except Jesus. But let it be.

I believe that paul was a definite sinner and what ever he wrote, the Romans etc should not be believed. Leave everything upto Jesus. Do not learn from the sinners please. Do not follow their teaching. The topic says all have sinned including Mary. Thank God she did not say anything (much) in favor of Jesus.**

 

[Good_Fella]

Roman Catholics… Why don’t you believe ALL (including Mary) have sinned? God said it… shouldn’t that be final?

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Did death pass upon “all” men?
What about Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven?
I’m afraid there are exceptions to the rule by God’s intervention. Mary was sinless, since she was conceived preserved free from original sin and fully cooperated with God’s grace.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[revelations]

First in response to Planten, my friend you are terribly mixed up about christian theology. “All have sinned” is in reference to the original sin that entered the world through the disobedience and deception of Adam and Eve. At this point in salvation history, God cursed man with the stain of original sin. What this means is that each of us inherently has a sinful nature, rather than a divine nature.

Second, the prophets of God were sinners. Paul, Muhammad, John, Mathew, Mark, etc all sinned. We all sin, you and I sin. Jesus however, is not a prophet. He is God. Please don’t mix up the two. This is the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, and this is why apologetics between the two faiths can never work. It is such a fundamental difference. My friend truly i say it is the teaching of our church, the original Christian church. Not even during the formation of the reformation churches were the dogma’s on Mary put up on the chopping block.

For Mozart-250, Catholic’s don’t believe in the man made doctrine of sola scriptura. I have presented the confirmation of the sinless doctrine a few posts earlier. The proclamation of the immaculate conception dogma was confirmed by the apparition of the most holy virgin to St. Bernadette. Our Lady appeared referring to herself as “the immaculate conception”. There is no burden on the RCC to defend any of its dogmas based on scripture alone.

The bible is a spiritual book, not a book of dogmatic canon law. Read it to enrich yourself, rather than judge others by it.

-revelations

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Someone quoted Mary as saying My Soul Rejoices in God my SAVIOR. We don’t know in what sense Mary was using that word, because the Christian concept orf Original Sin was clearly enunciated until the time of Saint Augustine.

Mary was conceived without sin and always the enemy of the devil and of sin, because God PUT ENMITIES BETWEEN THE WOMAN AND THE SERPENT. GOD did it, just as Genesis 3:15 prophesies when it prophesies the immaculate Woman and her Immaculate Seed (virgin birth of Jesus).

It IS in the Bible, too.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Cleopas]

Did death pass upon “all” men?
What about Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven?

Though I tend to agree, there is no definitive proof that these were caught up bodily into heaven. Interestingly, Christ says in John’s gospel that no man has ascended into heaven except He who had come down from heaven.

However, assuming these were excepted, their being born in sin is sufficient death passed on to them.

Mary was sinless, since she was conceived preserved free from original sin and fully cooperated with God’s grace.

If she was conceived of human seed (read, had an earthly Father) then she was born spiritually dead in sin. There is no exception to man born of Adam and the universal condition of sinfulness inherited from him. Again, that is precisely why the virgin borth was necessary in the incarnation.

Or are you saying that Mary is the only begotten daughter of God?

 

[peary]

So I am a fundie and stupid???.

See my above comment concerning name calling.

Still no clear and convincing evidence.

To reason is to use the ability you have to make connections. As I said, fundamentalists seemingly have an issue in applying their reasoning ability when it comes to understanding Scripture. One does not have to quote Scripture verbatim in order to understand the deeper meanings inherent within Scripture. And, again, you cannot divorce the Church from her Scriptures or vice versa. To do that is unreasonable. And what exactly are you looking for for ‘evidence’?

 

[Good_Fella]

Therefore… ALL have sinned including Mary.

Luke 1:46
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

Luke 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

A soul which magnifies the Lord cannot be stained by sin.

True, Mary was in need of a saviour like the rest of humankind, but she was redeemed at the moment of her conception. Christ’s death embraces all time - before and after the crucifixion. So don’t presume that you, with your Bible on your lap, can authoritatively make a dogmatic declaration.

Here’s where St. Luke draws his insight:

I rejoice heartily in the Lord,
in my God is the joy of my soul;
For he has clothed me with a garment of salvation,
and wrapped me in a robe of righteousness.
{Isaiah 61, 10}

Concerning true blessedness, the evangelist adds in the words of our Lord:

“Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
{Luke 11, 28}

And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, ‘and’ blessed is the fruit of your womb.” {Luke 1, 43}

Both Mary ‘and’ Jesus were equally blessed. How? Both heard the word of God and kept it. Both Jesus and Mary were sinless: our Lord by the substantial and uncreated grace of union in his divine Person, our Blessed Mother by the sanctifying grace which infused her soul the moment it was created by God.

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
St. Ephraem ( A.D. 370)

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE EARLY CHURCH! :tiphat:

The early Church Father pronounced these words before the canon of Scripture years after. Holy Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition or else it isn’t worth a dime as a medium of divine revelation. Your Bible is doing you more harm than good if you think it tells you “All have sinned including Mary.” :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[mozart-250]

You claim it is significant that no one mentions Mary’s immaculate conception until around the thrid century.

Somebody said that the immaculate conception was based on a true and authentic reading of Scripture for 2000 years. I asked for evidence to substantiate that claim. Is it unreasonable to ask someone to provide evidence when they make assertions?

Yet you tell us that your personal interpretation of Scripture trumps at least 1,200 years of Christian years of agreement on Marys Immacualte conception,

Please supply the quote where I said that.

Otherwise making unfounded accusations generally occurs when one lacks logical evidence.

But at least 1,200 is not equal to 2,000.

Well the Scipture you hold dear was also not in place until starting in the third century and was codified by the very Church you claim is wrong about Mary… A little consistency is needed.

First of all reading comprehension time. Where have I asserted that your denomination is definitively wrong about Mary and her Immaculate Conception? You are the ones claiming you are definitvely correct. I am just asking for clear and convincing evidence so that I can agree that we have a valid exemption to Romans 3:23.

So far the only evidence that I have been provided is Luke 1:28 where I am supposed to make a leap from “full of grace” (your translation) to “conceived without original sin” and “never having committed a sin during her entire lifetime”.

Other than that I have been provided an abundance of name calling, putting words in my mouth, and changing the subject.

 

[peary]

Somebody said that the immaculate conception was based on a true and authentic reading of Scripture for 2000 years. I asked for evidence to substantiate that claim.

It’s directly IMPLIED in Luke 1:26-35.

 

[mozart-250]

For Mozart-250, Catholic’s don’t believe in the man made doctrine of sola scriptura.

I know that. I am not sure exactly what “sola scriptura” is, but whatever it is, I feel quite confident it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

The issue is that you assert something called the “immaculate conception” is definitively true. I am asking for evidence.

I have presented the confirmation of the sinless doctrine a few posts earlier. The proclamation of the immaculate conception dogma was confirmed by the apparition of the most holy virgin to St. Bernadette. Our Lady appeared referring to herself as “the immaculate conception”.

Oh this is interesting. The immaculate conception is true because Mary says so.

First I understand that most Marian apparations are not public revelations (I might have the terminology wrong here bear with me) meaning Catholics do not have to believe in them.

So if Catholics do not have to believe in this, what evidence is there to convince me a non-Catholic that yes verily Mary did appear to St. Bernadette and yes verily Mary did say what you are claiming she said.

There is no burden on the RCC to defend any of its dogmas based on scripture alone.

I understand that.

But you are the ones claiming to me that the immaculate conception is definitively true. If you want me to believe your claims, you must provide some clear and convincing evidence that will allow me in good conscience to override the word “all” in Romans 3:23.

The bible is a spiritual book, not a book of dogmatic canon law. Read it to enrich yourself, rather than judge others by it.

Who says I am judging you. Actually I find the practice using the Bible to prooftext other Christians to be quite distasteful, and I try very hard to avoid that approach when using God’s holy written Word. I hope that I have avoided that approach in this thread.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I assume you are not responding to me. The issue of how we got the Bible is separate from the issue of whether Mary (1) was conceived without original sin (2) did not sin her entire lifetime.

Even if the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, the chapter still is not saying that (1) she never sinned in her entire lifetime (2) that she was conceived without original sin.

And it is exactly for reasons such as these, that Christ left us a church that speaks with His voice, infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

thank God!

 

[mozart-250]

It’s directly IMPLIED in Luke 1:26-35.

I must be extremely reading comprehension challenged then…

…because I find absolutely nothing when reading this text that would lead me to conclude that;
(1) Mary was conceived without original sin
(2) Mary never sinned in her entire lifetime.

Maybe you are reading this text in a very creative manner that I am just not getting.

 

[mozart-250]

And it is exactly for reasons such as these, that Christ left us a church that speaks with His voice, infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

thank God!

So in essence I am supposed to believe that Mary was conceived without original sin and didn’t sin at all during her entire lifetime because Catholicism says so?

The problem with this proposition is that “I’m not Catholic”.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I must be extremely reading comprehension challenged then…

…because I find absolutely nothing when reading this text that would lead me to conclude that;
(1) Mary was conceived without original sin
(2) Mary never sinned in her entire lifetime.

Maybe you are reading this text in a very creative manner that I am just not getting.

No, the text is read in the same manner as when Jesus is said to be “full of grace”, in other words, she is FULL of the grace of God, not lacking in any way whatever.

Also, she is the Ot fulfillment of the ark of the covenant which was made of the purest materials and could not be touched by man. This ark held three types of Christ, and Mary, being pure herself, in every way, could not know man in that way, held the fulfillment of those “types” of Christ, only she held God within her womb.

God always preprepares someone when He is utilizing them for His will. he preprepared her from conception to hold god within this pure vessel named Mary.

 

[mozart-250]

No, the text is read in the same manner as when Jesus is said to be “full of grace”, in other words, she is FULL of the grace of God, not lacking in any way whatever.

OK…I still can’t get from “full of the grace of God” to “never sinned in her entire lifetime” and “conceived without original sin”.

Also, she is the Ot fulfillment of the ark of the covenant which was made of the purest materials and could not be touched by man. This ark held three types of Christ, and Mary, being pure herself, in every way, could not know man in that way, held the fulfillment of those “types” of Christ, only she held God within her womb.

I have read the “ark of the new covenant analogy”.

This seems to be a “type of” method of interpreting Scripture of which I am well familiar. Whenever I encounter a “type of” argument, the first question I ask would be "Is this a valid ‘type’ or is the proponent of this ‘type of’’ argument reading something into Scripture that just is not there.

In this case I am not sure. However, substantiating a proposition as definitively true based on a ‘type of’ argument is something I am leery of (in other words if I were to allow it this time…I am not sure what conundrums I would permit if I were to allow this type of reasoning for myself consistently). Not to say that you are definitively wrong…but I am hesitant to go there myself.

But let’s say for now this is a valid *type of’ *argument.

I still can’t make the connection between Mary being a type of the arc of the new covenant and conceived without original sin and never having sinned in her entire lifetime.

God always preprepares someone when He is utilizing them for His will. he preprepared her from conception to hold god within this pure vessel named Mary.

I agree with the assumption in this statement (that is why the angel appeared to Mary and Elizabeth), I just don’t see whereas the necessary conclusion is the “immaculate conception”.

 

[ChristianRoots]

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.

Luke 1:28-35 is not explicit but implicit about the Immaculate Conception. “Hail, full of grace” was an extraordinary greeting, so much so that Mary herself was deeply troubled over it (Lk 1:29). Why would Mary be concerned over the way the angel greeted her if Lk 1:28 carried no special significance?

If Lk 1:28 has special significance in your opinion, then what is it?

Regarding Romans 3:23 “all have sinned” : What sins have been committed by newborn infants who die shortly afterwards? What about any child who dies below the age of reason? By defintion, they can’t sin since sinning requires the ability to reason and the intention to sin. This is a biblical concept, see Rom 9:11: “though they [Jacob and Esau] were not born yet and had done nothing either good or bad…”

Who says I am arguing just using the Bible only.

Do you accept extrabiblical sources as being on par with Scripture? Yes or no?

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?

No, you can’t.

I was not changing the topic but simply pointing out the similarities between the Immaculate Conception (though it is implied in Scripture), the word Trinity, Dec. 25th as Christmas day, etc., etc., etc…

If you reject the Immaculate Conception because you can’t find scriptural evidence for it, then you must be consistent with your apolgetics style and also reject using the word “Trinity” and the celebration of Christmas on December 25th because neither can be found in Scripture also.

Do you reject using the word “Trinity” and celebrating Christmas on December 25th?

If you don’t, then why can’t you use the same rationalization to support the Immaculate Conception?