All have sinned.. including Mary.

[2katzy4u]

How is it possible to think that Mary sinned? How can someone who has sin on their soul be chosed to be the tabernacle of the most high. Even when we receive communion, we say the confiteor beforehand. The priest also gives us absolution of all our venial sins. These are all measures to help us to be “clean” when we receive our Lord.

Way back when, you didn’t have confession to wipe ur soul clean. That is why Mary was chosen to be the mother of God. She was without sin.

The pope has also proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Annunciation which are infallible. The church cannot declare an error as a truth becuase of God’s promise of Infallibility. These dogma’s help to state Mary’s exceptional gift of being without sin.

 

[estesbob]

Jesus says that His sheep will recognize His voice. I know that I am one of His sheep, even if your church or any other church says otherwise. The Holy Spirit will guide all of the Lord’s sheep into all truth through His Word. This is in the Bible.

Yes it is in the Bible. However why has the Holy Spirit led Christians in thousands of different directions? Why has the Mormon sheep been told differernt than episcopalean sheep who was told different than the Adventist or the jehova Witness sheep,? Is God the author of confusion. Is Scripture akin to the Tower of Babel?

I agree that my faith is too important to leave up to the authority of any human or worldly organization. The role of the Lord’s Church and the Christians in that Church is to be servants as they teach others, not lords. Jesus said this in the Bible, as He exampled this form of servanthood, first by washing the apostles feet and then later dying as the Redeemer of all those whom the Father gave Him.

So you leave your faith up to your own personal interpeation of a book that exists only because of the Catholic Church ( I assume that is who you demean as a "wordly organization)

So
The Word of God is my source of authority and the simple Gospel of salvation described in the Bible is so clear when God’s Spirit guides anyone, that there is no need for a personal interpretation on my part.

EVERYTHING you mentioned above is based on your own personal interpretataion of scripture. You say it is clear so why are there thousands of different and often conatradictory interpreations of this “clear” book. Did God really leave our salvation up to each individual to figure out for themsleves?

You do not have to accept any opinion or interpretation from me to find salvation. My personal salvation depends completely on Jesus alone, Who is revealed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit.
Your church says that I must also have faith in your church and your Pope for salvation. You assume the role of lord by that claim. As one of Jesus’ sheep, I do not recognize such a claim in God’s Word, so I will not follow your church. There is only One Lord and Mediator in my Bible and I will trust no other.

Total ignorance of Catholic Doctrine noted. You dont worship Jesus-you worship a book.

 

[guanophore]

You didn’t answer a very serious and interesting question that ND asked… And I am interested to hear the answer myself…

If God did it for Mary, seeing as her parents were sinful but she was saved from it, why would He not do it for Himself? If Mary HAD to be sinless otherwise Jesus would be tainted then why wasn’t it the same for Mary and her parents? He posed the question better than I:

The logic just doesn’t jive…

I am sure that God can do whatever He wants! He chose to be born of a woman. Jesus was not “placed” in her womb. Scripture says that she conceived. That means her egg was used. He is flesh of her flesh, He drew all of his human body from her body.

He did not divinely “pass through” her.

 

[estesbob]

Let’s say I claimed that my mother has never sinned in her life and that she was somehow delivered from original sin at her conception. Would you believe me? Why or why not?

Turn water into wine and we’ll talk about it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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. !!

It’s easier to say that, than to explain how - if at all - he was wrong. Some details:​

• **the identification of the Woman of Revelation 12 as Mary alone is not traditional: the Haydock Bible (so beloved by many) identifies her as the Church, with a possible allusion to Mary as well **
• **the Marian identification ignores a lot of what the text says: to say nothing of the OT allusions in it, which are clues to the meaning **
• **if the Woman of 12 is an historical individual, then it seems the woman in 17 should also be an historical individual; but if so, who ? **
• Was Jesus snatched up to Heaven as a child ? The man-child in 12 is. If Mary = “the Woman” of 12, her son the man-child must be Jesus.
• **if the Woman is Mary - how come the Woman has other children ? **
  **The great virtue of the scholars being criticised is that they look at what the text says. There are other possibilities, which may or may not be more adequate: but no interpretation can be adequate which depends on ignoring what the text in its context contains. Criticising people is no disproof of their ideas. **

 

[Good_Fella]

NDfan;3494468:

Not sure what your point is here. Mary was conceived through a man and woman and would therefore be tainted. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be tainted.

Because sin is carried from the seed of man. Jesus was not conceived from man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This made HIM sinless. Jesus was also GOD incarnate. Is GOD tainted with sin?

Like a good old-fashioned Monophysite, a Protestant will fail to perceive this truth.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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 not a shred of evidence in the Bible to support this idea; theologically attractive as it may be. Men don’t suffer birth-pains - are we all for that reason full of grace ? If only that were so ​

In fact, if the Woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, & as the Woman does suffer the pangs of child-birth, it follows - surely ? - that Mary did suffer them. Or, if the pangs are a metaphor - perhaps the Woman is.

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.

**No Scripture refers to the death of St. Matthias - that doesn’t mean he never died. Just as no Scripture says that: **​

• Enoch did not have a helicopter
• or that Methuselah did not invent lion-taming (that would explain why he died)
• or that the USA was not transported through a warp in time from a far-distant galaxy inhabited by talking triangles
  **- or a million trillion other things like that. That Enoch’s skill in flying helicopters has no Biblical basis does not prove his skill, let alone his acquaintance with the mathematics & physics needed to invent helicopters & fly them. If he could fly them, this would explain why he “was not found”. **

 

[RobbyS]

Jesus says that His sheep will recognize His voice. I know that I am one of His sheep, even if your church or any other church says otherwise. The Holy Spirit will guide all of the Lord’s sheep into all truth through His Word. This is in the Bible.

I agree that my faith is too important to leave up to the authority of any human or worldly organization. The role of the Lord’s Church and the Christians in that Church is to be servants as they teach others, not lords. Jesus said this in the Bible, as He exampled this form of servanthood, first by washing the apostles feet and then later dying as the Redeemer of all those whom the Father gave Him.

The Word of God is my source of authority and the simple Gospel of salvation described in the Bible is so clear when God’s Spirit guides anyone, that there is no need for a personal interpretation on my part.

You do not have to accept any opinion or interpretation from me to find salvation. My personal salvation depends completely on Jesus alone, Who is revealed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit.
Your church says that I must also have faith in your church and your Pope for salvation. You assume the role of lord by that claim. As one of Jesus’ sheep, I do not recognize such a claim in God’s Word, so I will not follow your church. There is only One Lord and Mediator in my Bible and I will trust no other.

The Church does not say that one must be a Catholic to be saved. She does say. however, that without the Church you would not have as much knowledge of the Christ as you do. You would not have the Bible. Indeed, possession of the Bible was denied to the great mass of Christians from the beginning, excerpt when they gathered together in church to hear it read. The bulk of Christians were illiterate. The only ones who actually read Scripture were scholars. It is sometimes said that the Reformation gave the Bible to the people. No, it was the printing press that gave it to the people. The Reformers presented Christianity as a religion of a book. One has to have books to have such a religion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible to support this idea; theologically attractive as it may be. Men don’t suffer birth-pains - are we all for that reason full of grace ? If only that were so ​

**Micaheal, I have no Idea where you get the idea that Men don’t suffer birth-pains. I confess you got me beat here, I dare not contest your reasoning. I would rather run from such mentality and get professional help for you, than to engage in a sensible conversation with you.
**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Whereas we have all been stained with original sin, an infant cannot commit a transgression.

Agreed​

A fetus cannot commit a transgression.
This is what the Church teaches.

**Agreed. Nonetheless, all - according to both the Apostle & the Church - are born in sin. If alienation from God is not universal, then neither is the need of salvation from that alienation: limit the evil, & you limit the purpose that overcomes it. If infants & foetuses are not involved in the ruin common to the rest of the human race, then they need no redemption. **​

**It may be difficult to understand how they are involved in this ruin, but that does not make it untrue or unfair. To be descended from the first sinners, is to be affected by their fall: no personal sin is implied on our part. Original sin is a sin committed at the origin of mankind; the act of sin is not ours, but the alienation from God that it led to is ours as well the original sinners’. The effect is in us - the act of sin that originally caused it, is not ours. Babies don’t need to take drugs to be born with addictions - nor do we need to be the first man in order to be wounded by his sin. We were wounded by his action, because we were “in” him as the oak is “in” the acorn it grows from. So his sin, ruined himself - & us; all of us. **

 

[RobbyS]

There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible to support this idea; theologically attractive as it may be. Men don’t suffer birth-pains - are we all for that reason full of grace ? If only that were so ​

In fact, if the Woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, & as the Woman does suffer the pangs of child-birth, it follows - surely ? - that Mary did suffer them. Or, if the pangs are a metaphor - perhaps the Woman is. ## **No Scripture refers to the death of St. Matthias - that doesn’t mean he never died. Just as no Scripture says that: **

• Enoch did not have a helicopter
• or that Methuselah did not invent lion-taming (that would explain why he died)
• or that the USA was not transported through a warp in time from a far-distant galaxy inhabited by talking triangles
  **- or a million trillion other things like that. That Enoch’s skill in flying helicopters has no Biblical basis does not prove his skill, let alone his acquaintance with the mathematics & physics needed to invent helicopters & fly them. If he could fly them, this would explain why he “was not found”. **

Let’s not get silly. The New Testament does not tell us much about Mary. Indeed, it does not tell us much about Jesus. But it seems to me that your minimalist view of Mary seems to depreciate the Virgin Birth. As Catholics have always contended, Mary was honored throughtout the early history of the Church as the Virgin mother of Our Lord, but it was not until the Arian controversy that she acquired the title of Mother of God, or at least it became widely accepted, to counter the claim that Jesus was himself but a creature. She had always been the guarantor of his humanity; now she become the guarantor of his divinity. Jesus, true God and true man, was born of the Virgin Mary. Protestants have been scandalized during the past two centuries by the growth of the cult of the Virgin, but it so happens that its has grown as the faith of many Christians in rthe divinity of Christ has diminished. As in the 4th Century, the exaultation of Mary goes hand in hand with the exaultation of Our Lord. The pope himself has warned, of course, that one must not forget that, ultimately, Mary is one of us. On the other hand, so is Our Lord, and she is the human connection to him, Mother of Mercy.

 

[peary]

There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible to support this idea; theologically attractive as it may be. Men don’t suffer birth-pains - are we all for that reason full of grace ? If only that were so ​

It can be deduced from studying Scripture (if you do not ‘study’ scripture, then why do you go to “bible study”?)

In fact, if the Woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, & as the Woman does suffer the pangs of child-birth, it follows - surely ? - that Mary did suffer them. Or, if the pangs are a metaphor - perhaps the Woman is. ## **

**I have no problem in the opinion that Mary suffered the pains of childbirth. That is natural to the physical world. Sinlessness would have nothing to do with it. The fact is, early Christians (mostly Jews) who were quite familiar with the Old Testament setup of the Davidic Kingdom made the connection with the mother of Jesus early on, even in Revelation as the “queen mother.” Devotion to Mary goes back to the early days of the Church. It’s not something ‘new’. ****

 

[Good_Fella]

If God did it for Mary, seeing as her parents were sinful but she was saved from it, why would He not do it for Himself? If Mary HAD to be sinless otherwise Jesus would be tainted then why wasn’t it the same for Mary and her parents? He posed the question better than I:

It’s elementary my dear Watson. Mary and her parents were not God incarnate. They are not eternally begotten of the Father, proceeding from him. They were merely creatures like ourselves created by God. In Jesus, the Son of Man, we find two natures hypostatically united: a divine nature and a human nature. Christ’s human nature is as distinct as ours, so if Mary had inherited original sin, the original stain would have passed on to our Lord’s human nature, which would have been profane in light of Christ’s divnity. As the Son of the living God, Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. As the Son of Man, Jesus was “born” of the virgin Mary. This is a fundamental Christian belief within the Nicene Creed of the Church and the Apostles Creed. The ancient Jews cleansed and purified all their religious vessels. Think of Mary as a vessel who contained God, unless you don’t really believe that the son she conceived and bore was both God and man.

“And how does this happen to me that the mother of my ‘Lord’ (‘adonis’ = Lord God, YHWH) should come to me?”
{Luke 1, 43}

The scriptures do not record how Mary was conceived. But according to the Church approved visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mary’s conception was miraculously brought about by the Holy Spirit in like manner of Sarah’s conception of Isaac; although Mary’s mother, Ann, was not barren. I invite you to look at Emmerich’s book, ‘The Life of Mary’. Bear in mind that private revelations are not part of the deposit of faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. But approved PRs are deemed “worthy of belief” yet no binding requirement of assent is imposed on the faithful. The Book of Acts does tell us that from the event of Pentecost Church members shall “prophesy” and “have visions”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How is it possible to think that Mary sinned? How can someone who has sin on their soul be chosed to be the tabernacle of the most high. Even when we receive communion, we say the confiteor beforehand. The priest also gives us absolution of all our venial sins. These are all measures to help us to be “clean” when we receive our Lord.

Way back when, you didn’t have confession to wipe ur soul clean. That is why Mary was chosen to be the mother of God. She was without sin.

**That’s a good argument for the belief that she sanctified at some time before the Incarnation. It is compatible with the Immaculate Conception - & also with a position that makes no difference between the conception of Mary & our own (which you reject, as your post makes clear). **​

The pope has also proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Annunciation which are infallible. The church cannot declare an error as a truth becuase of God’s promise of Infallibility. These dogma’s help to state Mary’s exceptional gift of being without sin.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In fact, if

**the Woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, & as the Woman does suffer the pangs of child-birth, it follows - surely ? - that Mary did suffer them. Or, if the pangs are a metaphor - perhaps the Woman is

Gottle of Geer, to grasp the meaning of any text of Revelations, you must know where you are in Johns vision. No.1 you are in heaven, where is heaven in eternity, where there is no time.

Revelations 12 does describe the Virgin Mary and the Male child is Jesus. Now in eternity, this also alludes to the new Israel, the new covenant bride, the Catholic church Jesus built on Peter. When reading these texts from an eternity perspective, where there is no time, symbols are used to reveal this heavenly events. She as John writes, according to St. Jerome who believed in Mary’s sinless, and who gave the world the Latin translation from greek and hebrew texts. States that John calls the new Christians the new Israel, she is attributed to the new covenant bride, and the wailing aloud birth pains, St. Jerome does not attribute them to the blessed Mother, but to the (She not woman) the New Jews of the new Israel of the new covenant. The birth pains is old Israel ( espoused bride of God) are the pains and sufferings John records in order to recieve their new Messiah, it also alludes in eternity, that the new Israel after the child was caught up, and the Woman gave birth to the new Israel by giving birth with loud birth pains, that record the suffering, persecution, and martyrdom of the Saints blood, that we still hear the birth pains aloud into our 21st century that is how loud the birth pains can be heard.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Woman is both, in eternity, The Virgin Mary and the Old Israel woman who gave birth to her Messiah. You cant leave one out without the other, or else Revelations eternity falls apart on you.

I am glad to hear you believe the Woman is the virgin Mary. but you are only half right. The Catholic church has the full deposit of faith.

So before you jump into conclusions of your interpretation know that you are basing it on a limited revelation, not the fullness of Apostolic teaching from Oral Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture that produces the fullness of truth.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is something to read Gottle Geer:
Genesis 3:15
3 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.”

Isaiah 62:5
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 66:7
2 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child.
8
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? Yet Zion is scarcely in labor when she gives birth to her children.
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!

 

[2katzy4u]

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:

Goth catholic replied to this best./SIZE]See this answer.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Goth catholic replied to this best./SIZE]See this answer.

Sorry 2katsy4u, this post is for believers:

The father of lies makes it easy to be complacent to his lies. The road is narrow and harder to follow Truth.

I chose 2000 years of Christian belief in Mary, not some new invention of distorted Scripture interpretations from the 20th century. Your founders believed in her sinless life, why have protestant changed from this revealed Truth. What then, in another 500 years, your gonna change your mind again and preach Mary never lived because we have no DNA from her?

Why dont you convert to the 2000 year old Catholic christian church instituted by Jesus himself?

 

[brkn1]

Yes it is in the Bible. However why has the Holy Spirit led Christians in thousands of different directions? Why has the Mormon sheep been told differernt than episcopalean sheep who was told different than the Adventist or the jehova Witness sheep,? Is God the author of confusion. Is Scripture akin to the Tower of Babel?

So you leave your faith up to your own personal interpeation of a book that exists only because of the Catholic Church. Did God really leave our salvation up to each individual to figure out for themsleves?

Total ignorance of Catholic Doctrine noted. You dont worship Jesus-you worship a book.

I do not worship the book of God’s Word.
I worship the God revealed as my Creator and Redeemer in that book under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord Jesus sent for just such a purpose.

There are no other sheep that belong to Jesus’ flock (the Church), except those who have been sealed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The RCC would also be as much to blame as any other group for the confusion you describe if that argument had any legitimacy. It is an absurd argument to say the least.

This thread’s discussion of the Immaculate Conception is a perfect example of why the RCC can not be depended upon to be the last word in interpretation.
It took over 500 years of back and forth arguments starting at around the 14th century until 1854 before the RCC declared it dogma where it must be believed for salvation.
That leaves some RCC saints such as Thomas Aquinas with a problem, since I have heard that he did not believe it as the RCC finally declared it must be believed.

You claim that the RCC is the only reason for the existence of God’s Word, which defames God Himself as being incapable of maintaining the Bible without RCC help. Since the RCC did a fair job of keeping the Bible out of the hands of the laity before Luther came along and translated it for the sheep, I would say that God managed in spite of all the opposition.

 

[Cleopas]

ahhhh! but if Mary was tainted than Jesus will be in his human form even if he is God incarnate, and that is why he created his mother with out any sins she was to be clean and preserved for him she was created for this purpose only.

Christ received physical humanity, mortal as it was, via Mary. And therein is a strong proof of Mary’s sharing (even in her motherhood) in the fallen state of man. It seems to me that If she had not received original sin then she would have been born immortal. Yet, precisely because she was born of Adam, born of an earthly father, she was mortal and sinful

However, Christ, though mortal, did not receive a corrupt spiritual nature from her. Not because she had no sin, but because she had known no man. The passing of the stain of sin comes from the father. And this is a strong proof thereof. Christ was born of a virgin so that he could partake in the fallen nature of the body without receiving the stain of sin on the soul.

Thus I conclude Mary had to be born in sin, and continue in that state even in her motherhood, in order for Christ to receive from her mortality.

Unless, one is arguing she also had no earthly father, I fail to see how it can be otherwise, given the universal condition of all men born of Adam.