All have sinned.. including Mary.

[donmaximuso27]

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.

The Greek word that is used to state “full of grace” is in perfect past tense. A simple lesson in Greek grammar: verb tense is extremely important, obviously. Perfect is only used when it is describing something permanent and everlasting, it is very clear. I’m not sure where you found your definition, many new NT translations use their own vocabular to fit Protestant theology. But the Greek word used, Kecharitomene, does indeed mean to fill or endow with grace. Again, if this was not to be for her entire life, the imperfect tense of the verb would have been used. Tenses are very specific in Greek and Latin.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mary Perpetual Virgin prophecised

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." 16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Mary remains a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Mary is full of God’s Grace, that God had placed enmity between Mary and the serpent, that birth pains never affected Mary from Adams and Eve’s original sin, Thus she was saved immaculately in the womb of St. Anna, according to the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8a. Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her, all you who were mourning over her! 14 When you see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bodies flourish like the grass; The LORD’S power shall be known to his servants, but to his enemies, his wrath.

God sent his son born of a woman:

Galatians 4: 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption. 6 As proof that you are children, 4 God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

Psalms 45: 10 Daughters of kings are your lovely wives; a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand. 14 All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold; 15 In embroidered apparel she is led to the king. .
18 I will make your name renowned through all generations; thus nations shall praise you forever

This prophecy is fulfilled in Luke 1: 46 And Mary said: 16 "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.

Isaiah 62: 3 You shall be a glorious crown in the hand of the LORD, a royal diadem held by your God. 4 No more shall men call you “Forsaken,” or your land “Desolate,” But you shall be called “My Delight,” and your land “Espoused.” For the LORD delights in you,
and makes your land his spouse. 5 As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

Isaiah prophecy of Jesus being called from the Virgin Mary’s womb.
Isaiah 49: 1 Hear me, O coastlands, listen, O distant peoples. The LORD called me from birth, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name.

Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Yes, Mary’s perpetual virginity is biblically accurate. It is clear from scripture in terms of the words used, the meaning of the Greek in the case of eos in Mathew 1:25 (until) does NOT mean that after that Mary & Joseph had sexual relations. It is equally clear from the sciptural context that Jesus brothers and sisters were kinsfolk. When Mary and Joseph were seeking Jesus as a 12 year old there is absolutely nothing in scripture to cause us to assume there were other siblings anywhere (why??? because there were none).

On top of all that, it would be very strange for Jesus to have given Mary to John to look after if he (Jesus) had brothers. It would have been insulting and against Jewish custom.

The testimony of scripture is clear that the Catholic understanding of Mary’s virginity and the issue of whether Jesus had brothers and sisters is correct. This is the testimony of scripture, cultural context and of the undivided Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, Mary’s perpetual virginity is biblically accurate. It is clear from scripture in terms of the words used, the meaning of the Greek in the case of eos in Mathew 1:25 (until) does NOT mean that after that Mary & Joseph had sexual relations. It is equally clear from the sciptural context that Jesus brothers and sisters were kinsfolk. When Mary and Joseph were seeking Jesus as a 12 year old there is absolutely nothing in scripture to cause us to assume there were other siblings anywhere (why??? because there were none).

On top of all that, it would be very strange for Jesus to have given Mary to John to look after if he (Jesus) had brothers. It would have been insulting and against Jewish custom.

The testimony of scripture is clear that the Catholic understanding of Mary’s virginity and the issue of whether Jesus had brothers and sisters is correct. This is the testimony of scripture, cultural context and of the undivided Church.

I am impressed a protestant believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Now that you have the understanding of her Virginity, now her sinless conception and life can be foretold from the prophets, listed above. Because only those woman with sin suffered the birth pains, Mary did not, thus no sin, she is full of God’s Grace. There is no scripture that indicates Mary was with sin, or committed sin, not to mention all sacred Tradition and the ECF held The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and was without sin, from her immaculate conception.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I have come to understand Mary as somethig very close to Enoch, who was born after the Fall, but yet was in such Communion with God that God took him up and he did not die a mortal death on earth. I think the years of separation God required of the Jews from the rest of humanity when He chose them as His people was to purify them, as gold is purified to prepare His coming into the world as Christ in the purity of Mary. I do not beleive Mary sinned in her life on earth or if she did it is no significance to me.

 

[justasking4]

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. !!

.

Is he off in this particular case and if so where?

 

[Refugium]

The Vatican wants you to believe that sin is just a stain and that this stain can be washed away with water. That’s not what we read in the Bible. The sin we received from Adam is judgment of condemnation. That means we all go to hell by default unless we are born-again spiritually.

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Therefore… ALL have sinned including Mary.

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

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

How is it that you have well over a thousand posts and still have not been banned yet?

 

[peary]

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)

Read the quotesI entered again. Origen is quoted there; so is Augustine. I can’t speak for Innocent III.

And actually, it doesn’t matter because the dogma was clarified and officially defined by the Church in 1854, and the matter is settled.

 

[justasking4]

RevDrNorth;3492184]Yes, Mary’s perpetual virginity is biblically accurate. It is clear from scripture in terms of the words used, the meaning of the Greek in the case of eos in Mathew 1:25 (until) does NOT mean that after that Mary & Joseph had sexual relations.

huh? It would have been unbilical for them not to have engaged in sexual relations after Jesus had been born. Having sexual relations among husband and wives is a gift from God.

It is equally clear from the sciptural context that Jesus brothers and sisters were kinsfolk.

Not so. the plain reading of the texts is that these were His real brothers and sisters by Mary and Joseph. The scriptures uses the word suggenoús, masc.–fem., neut. suggenés, adj. from sún with, denoting fellowship, kinsman or kinswoman, a relative, one of the same family (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26. For brother it uses the adelphós; denoting unity, and delphús (n.f.), a womb. A brother. Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family. This is the word that is used of His brothers in passage where the brothers of Jesus are John 7:3, 5, 10. The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that children of the same mother are meant.

When Mary and Joseph were seeking Jesus as a 12 year old there is absolutely nothing in scripture to cause us to assume there were other siblings anywhere (why??? because there were none).

Could be John saw no reason to mention them.

On top of all that, it would be very strange for Jesus to have given Mary to John to look after if he (Jesus) had brothers. It would have been insulting and against Jewish custom.

Another possiblity is that they were not in the city at the time of His death on Friday.

The testimony of scripture is clear that the Catholic understanding of Mary’s virginity and the issue of whether Jesus had brothers and sisters is correct. This is the testimony of scripture, cultural context and of the undivided Church.

Not so. There are a number of references to His brothers and sisters that rrail against this interpretation coupled with the idea of woman taking of vow of permanent virginity while being married was unheard of in this culture. You would also have to assume that Joseph had no sex drive as a man.

 

[justasking4]

peary;3492424]Read the quotesI entered again. Origen is quoted there; so is Augustine. I can’t speak for Innocent III.

Huh? Both of them claim Mary was a sinner.

And actually, it doesn’t matter because the dogma was clarified and officially defined by the Church in 1854, and the matter is settled.

Then your church offically defined an error…

 

[peary]

Huh? Both of them claim Mary was a sinner.

Then your church offically defined an error…

According to you, but we all know by now that you can be readily dismissed as serious forum (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[justasking4]

According to you, but we all know by now that you can be readily dismissed as serious forum (name removed by moderator)ut.

According to the facts. I know this maybe hard for you to accept that your church is not what you may think it is…

 

[elvisman]

1. I do not go about alling your beliefs bordering on insanity, nor do I call you irrational.
2. I stated our definitions of sin are different. If you cant deal with that then so be it.
3. Babies are NOT held accountable for their sin so why is it such a big deal?

Babies are NOT held actountable for their sins because they CAN’T sin.
To believe so IS irrational AND does boeder on insanity. They can have no malice and therefor CANNOT sin - PERIOD.

 

[RevDrNorth]

huh? It would have been unbilical for them not to have engaged in sexual relations after Jesus had been born. Having sexual relations among husband and wives is a gift from God.

Not so. the plain reading of the texts is that these were His real brothers and sisters by Mary and Joseph. The scriptures uses the word suggenoús, masc.–fem., neut. suggenés, adj. from sún with, denoting fellowship, kinsman or kinswoman, a relative, one of the same family (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26. For brother it uses the adelphós; denoting unity, and delphús (n.f.), a womb. A brother. Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family. This is the word that is used of His brothers in passage where the brothers of Jesus are John 7:3, 5, 10. The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that children of the same mother are meant.

Could be John saw no reason to mention them.

Another possiblity is that they were not in the city at the time of His death on Friday.

Not so. There are a number of references to His brothers and sisters that rrail against this interpretation coupled with the idea of woman taking of vow of permanent virginity while being married was unheard of in this culture. You would also have to assume that Joseph had no sex drive as a man.

You know well that your arguments are easily refuted. In terms of adelphos see catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208fea.asp:
(volumes more refutation where that comes from)

*The point at issue in the “brothers/sisters of Jesus” texts is the translation of the Greek words adelphos (brother) and adelphe (sister). CRI admits that the Greek Septuagint(The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, produced in the third century B.C. in Egypt.) uses these words not only for brother/sister, but also for remoter relatives.(Part 1, 12.) Keating rightly notes that New Testament writers follow this Septuagint usage. CRI tries to dismiss Keating’s argument with two counter-assertions:

1. “He never gives an example of a New Testament writer using adelphos for a cousin… There are no such examples.”(Ibid.) This is a red herring. Keating does not claim adelphos means cousin. He claims, rightly that it often is used for “relative.” And there are New Testament texts which must be so translated. I invite the reader to examine Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John l9:25. In these James and Joses (Joseph), who are mentioned in Matthew l3:55 with Simon and Judas (Jude) as Jesus’ adelphoi, are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas, a different Mary from our Blessed Mother. This “other” Mary (Matt. 27:61, 28:1) is called our Lady’s adelphe in John 19:25. It is wholly unlikely that two daughters of the same parents were given the same name, “Mary.” Our Lady and the “other Mary” were related only in the wider sense of adelphe. They were relatives, but not sisters. Since Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Judas, and the sisters of Jesus along with James and Joses, calling them all adelphoi (masculine) and adelphai (feminine), these words in the texts at issue must be translated “relatives.”*

Clearly, the Catholic position is defensible from scripture, language, culture and logic (as I note in my other post). On top of that your position goes against the general testimony of the church from early times until Protestant theologians began to have new interpretations. The majority of the Church Fathers (Eastern & Western) testify to the scriptural interpretation of the Catholic Church. In disputing this not only do some Protestants violate the clear meaning of scripture but the guidelines of St. Vincent of Lerins that we use Universality, Antiquity, and Consent in making determinations. That is on the side of the Catholic Church again.

After you study this a little you will want to become a member of the Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary (FYI a scriptural prayer).

 

[elvisman]

**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. **

Whereas we have all been stained with original sin, an infant cannot commit a transgression.
A fetus cannot commit a transgression.
This is what the Church teaches.

 

[donmaximuso27]

According to the facts. I know this maybe hard for you to accept that your church is not what you may think it is…

The Greek word that is used to state “full of grace” is in perfect past tense. A simple lesson in Greek grammar: verb tense is extremely important, obviously. Perfect is only used when it is describing something permanent and everlasting, it is very clear. I’m not sure where you found your definition, many new NT translations use their own vocabular to fit Protestant theology. But the Greek word used, Kecharitomene, does indeed mean to fill or endow with grace. Again, if this was not to be for her entire life, the imperfect tense of the verb would have been used. Tenses are very specific in Greek and Latin.

Also, refer to the last post by Gabriel of 12, since you claim our Church has no authority in Scipture, a typical Protestant viewpoint. It was in fact the Protestants who were contradicting themselves; first they claim we do not have evidence in Scripture for Catholic doctrine, then they (Luther), takes out by his own authority books from the Bible, attempting to defy the canonizations of those books at the Councils of Cathage. Coincidentally, these books happen to put Luther in a corner regarding his theology. Strange isn’t it?

 

[Faith5]

Genesis Chap. 3 vs. 15.
" I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at
his heel." God will put opposition between the woman and evil.
If Mary would sin there would be cooperation with the serpent.
The Catechism states in paragraph 490—To become the mother
of the savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate
to such a role.” We believe Mary was saved from sin. She
needed a savior.and God by a singular grace preserved Mary
from all sin.
Faith and reason go together like ham and eggs. Lets seek
knowledge and guidance and try to avoid being stuck on…
semantics.

 

[justasking4]

donmaximuso27;3492595]The Greek word that is used to state “full of grace” is in perfect past tense. A simple lesson in Greek grammar: verb tense is extremely important, obviously. Perfect is only used when it is describing something permanent and everlasting, it is very clear. I’m not sure where you found your definition, many new NT translations use their own vocabular to fit Protestant theology. But the Greek word used, Kecharitomene, does indeed mean to fill or endow with grace. Again, if this was not to be for her entire life, the imperfect tense of the verb would have been used. Tenses are very specific in Greek and Latin.

Do you have the lexicon source for this?

Also, refer to the last post by Gabriel of 12, since you claim our Church has no authority in Scipture, a typical Protestant viewpoint.

Can you show me specifically where i have said this?

It was in fact the Protestants who were contradicting themselves; first they claim we do not have evidence in Scripture for Catholic doctrine,

I would not say this. In many cases the catholic church twists the scriptures to support their doctrines.

then they (Luther), takes out by his own authority books from the Bible, attempting to defy the canonizations of those books at the Councils of Cathage. Coincidentally, these books happen to put Luther in a corner regarding his theology. Strange isn’t it?

If you are referring to the deutrocanonical books of the OT there are good reasons to reject them as inspired scripture.

 

[Holly3278]

I agree with the OP. All have sinned, including Mary.

 

[KJK80]

I agree with the OP. All have sinned, including Mary.

We have the final word at last!

So how does knowing this make your walk with God closer?