All have sinned.. including Mary.

[peary]

Originally Posted by believers
I want to know… Does ANY Roman Catholic agree with what Goth has just posted about Mary undoing Eve’s sin?

**It’s been part of the Church’s theology since the time of Irenaus.

If you think you can handle it, please read the article titled The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary, and their Relationship to One Another, Anglican Theological Review, Summer 2002, by Maja Weyermann.

You will find it at
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200207/ai_n9103645/pg_1

Although it’s written by an Anglican, it still reflects the Catholic thrust in this theological approach, and it also gives a valid historical development of the idea./B]**

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by believers
I want to know… Does ANY Roman Catholic agree with what Goth has just posted about Mary undoing Eve’s sin?

**It’s been part of the Church’s theology since the time of Irenaus.

If you think you can handle it, please read the article titled The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary, and their Relationship to One Another**, Anglican Theological Review, Summer 2002, by Maja Weyermann.

You will find it at
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200207/ai_n9103645/pg_1

Although it’s written by an Anglican, it still reflects the Catholic thrust in this theological approach, and it also gives a valid historical development of the idea./B]

Also, just to set the record straight, the Church doesn’t actually teach that Mary ‘undid’ the sin of Eve in the sense that Mary herself did this. It was Christ who did this. You have to read the article to understand.

 

[TobyLue]

Just my :twocents: worth

It has always boggled my mind regarding how some take a part of scripture and claim that is what God said because that’s what is written, case closed. To me it** seems** (and please don’t read into this more than what I’m saying) that many Protestants, and many Catholics for that matter, seem to think that God is a dolt; that He didn’t plan ahead. Let me explain why I say this.

First of all we know that the Apostles knew how to speak Aramaic and probably Greek and many also spoke Latin. But guess what? None of them spoke a word of English. Not the King James English or the Queens English nor Elizibethanian English. We must understand that English in itself is a very deficient language. I speak both English and Spanish and I can tell you that there are many words in Spanish that do not have an equivalent English translation. So there are many words from one language to another that regardless of what language cannot be translated nor even transliterated. Many Protestants seems to get hung up on a certain word because they say that’s what it says and that’s it.

Let’s look at something. What did people do in the early days of the Church? There was no KJV back then. When did the KJV come about? I think it was about 1600 years or so after the establishment of the Church. So please tell me what Bible was used by the early Christians in say the year 100, or 200, or 300. There were tons of letters floating around and about 30 Gospels. So who did the people listen to in order to get the Word preached to them? Besides, how many people could actually read? They listened TO THE CHURCH? Don’t you think that God knew that people couldn’t read? Of course He did. God wasn’t ignorant. But that’s what many people seem to indicate because they insist that it’s the Bible alone and nothing else is correct? The bible wasn’t compiled and affirmed until the fourth century? I think Hippolytus and Origin spoke of Mary being pure and immaculate. So the Early Church was already teaching Mary being sinless by the time the Bible was compiled. Let’s also understand that the Bible CAME out of the Tradition of the Church; that is the teachings that were held firm. And those teachings came from the Apostles themselves. Let us also remember that Jesus said he would send a new paraclete who will lead you to the truth. If something was not firmly held it was not accepted. So are you who attack the Church, because we believe that Mary was sinless, think that the Church Fathers who canonized the Bible overlook this “all” word and other scripture that YOU quote? Do you think they were a bunch of dolts and it took some 1200 years or so for the KJV to come about, IN ENGLISH MIND YOU, and set the Church straight? If there were problems in the early church with something that was being taught, they did rush over to search for their KJV or did they take it to the Church? One guess… How was the heresy of Arianism put down. Did they run to get their KJV to settle it or was it the CHURCH? Why do you supposed God inspired to be written in 1 Tim 3 that** the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth,** rather than the Bible or the KJV for that matter? Because God knew how people would misinterpret scripture on their own. A Teacher, who was protected by the Holy Spirit, would be needed to correctly interpret difficult passages.
How about Pelagianism, or Nestorianism; did they use the KJV to settle these heresies or was it the Church.
As Catholics we look to the Church to see if the teachings have always been held and have not changed. So we can see that regarding Mary’s sinless it has been taught from the early days of the Church till the present. But here we have these people who claim “I have the Holy Spirit to guide me as I read the Bible so my interpretation is correct.” That my friend is arrogance to the max. Why do you think that YOU and only YOUR interpretation of “all have sinned” is correct? Didn’t the early Church fathers read that or did it escape them and it only came to light under the deficient English language of the KJV? You all read the bible according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit. Don’t you think that God knew ahead of time the problems that would arise with the translation of scripture into different languages? Did God forget to make arrangements for that. That’s what I mean by “it seems that some think (inadvertently) that God is a dolt because He didn’t think ahead of time. That’s why God left THE CHURCH to settle matters. Not any Joe Blow individual. Wake up and LISTEN TO THE CHURCH…

 

[justinthemartyr]

According to the Word of God, Adam knowingly disobeyed God and that is how sin entered the world. Eve, on the other hand, was deceived because she did fully understand the rules. Eve said they weren’t supposed to touch the fruit. That’s not what God said to them. God said Don’t EAT the fruit.

You mean “according to your interpretation of the Word of God”

 

[Zooey]

[SIGN1]

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.

[/SIGN1]

As I stated… it’s not in the Bible.

You have interpreted “Full of Grace” (which my Bible says “highly favoured”) to mean free from sin. That definitely not in the Bible.

My Bible also says in Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Grace came by Jesus NOT Mary.

Can you be full of one thing and, at the same time, also be full of another? No; that would be impossible. (In fact, it would mean that you were the one imputing to Mary more than she is capable of being, because only an infinite Being can be capable of being more than that!)
Mary was called “full of grace” because she was (& is!) as full of the Grace of God as it is possible for one person to be. There was, therefore, no place, no room within her for anything else, except–grace.
No one is saying that grace came from Mary; we are saying that she alone, of all those humans living since the fall, contained as much of God’s Grace as was intended for humans to contain, when created by God in the 1st place.

 

[peary]

.

What did people do in the early days of the Church? There was no KJV back then. .

The best ‘line’ that was ever told to me by a Baptist was: “If the KJV was good enough for Saint Paul, it’s good enought for me.”

 

[Zooey]

I always find it entertaining when nonCatholics come into these forums and insist on telling us what the Church teaches and what we believe LOL

:yup:

What’s even better is that the Church is “wrong” just because they say so

:yup:

It is one thing to say that I don’t understand how this doctrine could be true, given my limited understanding of koine Greek, etc.

It is quite another thing to say that you know that another person sinned when there is no evidence for it.

Here is the Good News: As a faithful mother, the Virgin Mary would much rather hear her good name sullied than that of her Son.

Here is the Bad News: As a good Son, the Lord feels the same way.

http://www.policeexplorers.us/forums/images/smilies/1smilies2/sad.gif

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.

:crying:

Nay. The woman here is Israel, not Mary.

Since you insist on Biblical evidence–How about I wait right over here, while you open your KJV & show me the verse that says that Revelation is speaking of Israel, not Mary.
http://bestsmileys.com/clocks/5.gif:whistle:

I want to know… Does ANY Roman Catholic agree with what Goth has just posted about Mary undoing Eve’s sin?

I’ll see you the Catholics and raise you a crankyhttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gif ol’ Methodist lady!!

 

[rockyankeeswon]

Let’s look at the entire verse… There are 2 parts. The first part we fall into and the second part Jesus falls into.

Rom 3:23
For all (the created) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (the Triune God that includes The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit);

Doesn’t this verse refer to all men being under the power of sin (original sin) more so than personal sin? How does a small child or someone who has some mental condition and dies without any personal sins be included into the “ALL” category?

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

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?

How Enoch and Elijah were caught up remains a mystery to both Jews and Christians. But certainly they did not ascend into heaven by their own power after having been resurrected from the dead. So, they did not die, but exist in a state of the original paradise beyond our world. Their bodies do not lie corrupted in the grave. Yet they await the resurrection and the glorification of their bodies on the last day. (Enoch and Elijah did contract original sin.) Only Mary exists body and soul in heaven together with her divine Son, having been assumed into heaven and resurrected by his power. Mary was guaranteed her redemption the moment she was immaculately conceived, for she was chosen to be the mother of our “Lord” (‘adonis’ = Lord God). Luke confirms the privileged divine maternity granted Mary in the words of Elizabeth. The Magnificat in Luke’s gospel expresses the certainty and finalty of Mary’s redemption won by Christ. Honestly, if the Church could not know with certainty that Mary was immaculately conceived and thus assumed into heaven, being preserved free from original sin, and could have erred, there would be no point in Jesus promising to send His Church the Paraclete - the Spirit of truth who will guide the Church in all truth and preserve the Apostolic teaching authority from error. The Church did not expire with the death of the last New Testament apostle. And in his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul does write that the Church ( not the Bible ) is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Blessd Virgin Mary was not preserved free from original sin in like manner of her divine Son. As the Son of Man ( Jesus was just as human as he was divine, unless you think otherwise because of a Monophysite inclination: the Word did ‘become’ flesh according to John 1, 14) our Lord was preserved free from original sin because his mother did not have original sin to pass on to him. Because of her divine maternity ( Jesus as a single person was and is equally one with God as well, unless you think otherwise because of a Nestorian bent) Mary was preserved free from original sin by God the Father’s intervention. “Wisdom ( the Word of God) will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin” [Wisdom 1, 4]. I know, Protestants have rejected this Book, although it was Paul’s favourite OT text.

Joachim, Mary’s father, is the efficient,material and formal cause of his daughter’s body - not her soul. God is the efficient, material, formal, and final cause of Mary’s body and ‘soul’. Mary’s ‘soul’ was preserved free from the stain of original sin the moment God breathed it into her at her biological conception. Our biological parents do not give us our souls. Do you think they do? Mary received her soul, just like the rest of us, from our heavenly Father, and He alone chose to preserve Mary’s soul free from the stain of original sin the moment He - the Almighty -fashioned it. I am glad you are not my pastor. There’s no wonder that Protestantism keeps fragmenting. :nope: According to Luke, “the Almighty has done great things” for Mary. :yup:

So I am not saying that Mary is the only-begotten daughter of God. There is no implication at the least. Mary was ‘created’ by God in a unique and privileged way according to His wisdom.

“The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had ever disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her instead of Mary.”
Jacob of Sarug ( ante A.D. 521)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[peary]

The Early Church Fathers on
The Immaculate Conception

The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Justin Martyr:

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus:

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen:

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus:

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian:

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan:

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen:

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine:

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya:

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople:

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug:

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

 

[ChristianRoots]

There seems to be no limit to the number of ways in which God’s Holy written word can be read creatively.

I agree. That’s why everyone needs an interpretative grid (Sacred Tradition) to discern the true meaning of the Scriptures. We need to also look to the early Church Fathers. After all, they were closest to the Apostles in time, and some even knew the Apostles.

Unfortunatley, I find people today approaching God’s Holy Book with preconceived notions about such and such. The result? Tens of thousands of different denominations claiming that it has solely and successfully interpreted the Scriptures. It is not possible.

Anyway, I don’t like arguing over the meaning of Scripture, but I would think that anybody would be troubled and pondering having just been greeted by an angel with such a greeting. Fortunately the angel explains himself in verse 30-33, which would be my explanation of verse 28. But again, I find arguing over Scripture.to be quite distasteful and something I prefer not to engage in.

Yes, I agree. Verses 30-33 does explain Lk 1:28, but it doesn’t explain Mary’s troubled reaction to the angel’s salutation in verse 29. Why was Mary so troubled by the greeting in Lk 1:29? Her reaction occurs before the angel explains the reason for his visitation, not after it. She obviously was shocked by the way she was addressed.

And notice the angel didn’t address her Hail, Mary the Lord is with you!" but Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" Where else in the Bible can you find such a reaction to such a greeting by God’s angels?

No. Otherwise you could get me to believe in the Book of Mormon QUOTE]

But anyway, all that I am saying is that I want very good and substantial reasons to believe that something is true, particularly when I can easily locate verses in the Bible that seem to indicate the contrary. Otherwise, you can get me to believe just about anything.

If Scripture never claims to be the final authority on all religious matters, then why do you defer only to the Bible for such issues?

 

[justasking4]

The Early Church Fathers on
The Immaculate Conception

The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Justin Martyr:

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus:

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen:

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus:

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian:

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan:

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen:

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine:

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya:

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople:

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug:

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

There were also fathers and popes who thought she did indeed sin. Here are a couple:
.N.D. Kelly comments:

“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)

Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

 

[justasking4]

As it was explained to me, Mary was cleansed of all sin at the moment of conception.

She needed God, too, she just got an extra early dose of grace to be fit to bear God.

There is no evidence for this. Its speculation.

 

[justasking4]

Zooey;3488840
Since you insist on Biblical evidence–How about I wait right over here, while you open your KJV & show me the verse that says that Revelation is speaking of Israel, not Mary.
http://bestsmileys.com/clocks/5.gif:whistle:

Here is what a prominent catholic scholar says about Revelation 12 being Mary. i think you will find it quite insightful:

Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

 

[justasking4]

Indeed it does.

“Hail Full of Grace, the LORD is with thee.” Luke 1:28

Full of Grace

God’s grace cleansed Mary of oringal sin at the moment of her conception so that the womb that bore Christ would be void of the stain of sin, and so that the prophesy of Genesis would be forfilled. Eve bore sin into the world. Mary, as the new Eve, bore redemption from sin. Eve was created free of sin. So was Mary. So that at the moment Mary declared “Be it onto me according to your word” she became Eve in the garden, except where Eve rejected God, Mary embraced God. If Mary had been a sinner, this would not have been possible, because she had to be completely free to make the choice, as Eve was.

If you look up this phrase in a NT Greek lexicon you won’t find it defining “full of grace” as being cleansed of oringal sin. In fact therre is no mention of sin at all in the defintion. Catholics are reading catholic theology into this word.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

There is no evidence for this. Its speculation.

It’s faith

 

[justasking4]

It’s faith

Faith in what? How can you have faith if there is no evidence for the claim?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

If you look up this phrase in a NT Greek lexicon you won’t find it defining “full of grace” as being cleansed of oringal sin. In fact therre is no mention of sin at all in the defintion. Catholics are reading catholic theology into this word.

It means having been and continuing to be bestowed (filled) with grace. And to be filled with grace is have the absence of sin.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Faith in what? How can you have faith if there is no evidence for the claim?

In God. There is evidence, your just looking at it wrong.

 

[MrS]

Here is what a prominent catholic scholar says about Revelation 12 being Mary. i think you will find it quite insightful:

Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have

With the understanding that much of Scripture has numerous levels of theology, you should also know that the Jesuit, Raymond Brown was off base on more than a few things in the commentary.

He should be taken with a large grain of salt. !!

.