All have sinned.. including Mary.

[Cleopas]

maybe not clone but artificial insemination, now a day if they wanted they could do artificial insemination on a virgin, would that mean that that baby would be with out sins since it would not have a man as a father.

The seed that gave life to that child comes from a man. The seed donor then is the father.

 

[meandean]

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?

mary was tainted, you were right that sin came through man, and this man adam. it was the fathers traits passed on…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Tell me do people really for fall that when you say “I conclude” as if you were teaching something infallible?

I take you to mean that you are offering an educated opinion about Mary’'s nature, and no factual evidence. Thus I respectfully disagree with your opinion. And that Mary was conceived immaculately, and lived her entire life without Sin. This says God and his prophets. Not to mention 2000 years of her sinless life believed in since the time of Jesus Christ. How is that for an opinion supported by a doctrine of 2000 years of Catholic Christian Tradition.

 

[mozart-250]

No, because I have no reason to believe that you are true God and true Man, and thus God would more than likely not be compelled to save your mother from sin at the moment of conception. If I were to believe that you were true God and true Man, as Jesus was and is, then yes, I would be inclined to believe you. Nothing is certain, of course, but it is a possibility.

I think you missed the point.

The post that I was responding to said that it was entire speculation that Mary sinned.

My point is that the default assumption (amongst Christians anyway) is that members (non deity) of the genus homo species sapiens sin (per Romans 3:23).

I start with the default asumption on any human being and would only make an exception to this verse given clear and convincing evidence.

After almost 30 pages, still waiting.

 

[Zooey]

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):

I asked for **Biblical **evidence, laddie. I am still http://bestsmileys.com/clocks/8.gif awaiting it, as I have searched the table of contents in all my 3-4 dozen Bibles, and :dts: “The Gospel according to Raymond Brown & J A Fitzmeyer” is:coffeeread: conspicuous by its absence from all of them.
You keep demanding Biblical evidence from those of us who believe in Sacred Tradition. The least you can do, is to stick to Biblical evidence to argue your own case…
It is, you see, a little hard to take someone seriously, when he claims that we are all wrong because we are quoting extrabiblical sources, and then :tsktsk:quotes extrabiblical sources of his own to try to prove it.
I can quote from Tradition, because I accept Tradition; you, au contraire, do not accept Tradition, and, ergo, you are going to have to argue your case, based on Scripture alone.
You all changed the wee playing field, and now you all will have to live with the rule changes.

As you can see the truth matters in what you believe and practice.

Yes, I know; the problem is on **your **side, yean. That’s how come I have thrown my hat into this particular ring…

A person can compare what the catholic church teaches in its doctrines and compare that with what the scriptures say. For example take praying Mary. Where do we see in Scripture any prayers to Mary? Is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to do so? The answers are no. This is not an apostolic teaching but a doctrine and tradition of men.

Luke 1:26-28. (There is more in there, if you just read on a ways…)

It is not true to say no pope caused the church to error. We have Pope Homarius who was condemned by councils as a heretic and what of the pope who with Tetzel supposedly abused the sale of indulgences. Was this pope in error for doing this?

Yet another person who has **no **idea what the difference is, between “infallibility” & “impeccability”. I recommend some reading over here: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
A pope can make errors. A pope can sin. Popes can (and have, and do) make errors & commit sins. They are not impeccable…But, you go & read the wee article. It will clear things up, no end.

 

[AussieAnn]

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.

Quite right here.

Can any Protestant truly believe that a person would sin would be or could be chosen to hold to bear to givebirth and raise the Saviour Jesus Christ? Is it not more reaosnable to assume that the most Holiest of Vessels would be chosen to bear the Messiah? Moses could not even walk near the burning bush because of the absolute holiness of God. So how could Mary have held our Saviour without being absolutely free from all sin, completely pure, and full of grace? It just absolutely does not make sense. As for not believing that she could be assumed into Heaven body and soul, then how about Elijah? That was definately in the Bible. Mary had a bigger, more important role than Elijah and he was assumed into Heaven. Why is it so hard to believe and so repugnant to so many Protestants that our Blessed Mother was taken up bodily and soul?

 

[Zooey]

**

**if the Woman is Mary - how come the Woman has other children ? **

Well, there’s me, for one of those children…And then there’s you…and all the rest of us in this discussion. (And out of it, for that matter…)
“Woman, behold, your son”…Behold, all your sons and all your daughters…All Christians from here on until the end of time…even the ones who think you werehttp://bestsmileys.com/crying/6.gif just another Jewish girl, ofhttp://bestsmileys.com/crying/6.gif no particular virtue…http://bestsmileys.com/crying/6.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/crying/6.gif**

 

[mozart-250]

Here is my point after having read this thread. If I were to assume and believe all Catholic assumptions given in this thread concerning Luke 1:28, Mary being the New Eve, and Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant, I still would not conclude
(1) that Mary never sinned in her entire lifetime
(2) that Mary was conceived without original sin.

Why should I believe an explanation that seems to violate Scripture when I can come up with an alternative that does no violence to existing Scripture.

Instead (given these assumptions) I would conclude only that Mary was without sin starting at the point that the angel visited her and most likely ending at the point Jesus was born. But I could even believe that she continued sinless to the point of her death and still not do any harm to any other Scriptures in the Bible.

If this were the teaching, the Immaculate Conception would not be something that I am skeptical about, but instead would be in the class of Catholic teachings (like the assumption for example) that I am ambivalent about.

It seems from this post that you agree tradition from the Apostles is just as binding as Scripture (I think, right?) Why do you then assume that God was unable to protect Sacred Tradition if He was able to protect His written Word?

This is off topic…but…

The simplest assumption would be that God did protect Sacred Tradition by insuring that it was eventually written down and later canonized. The issues here are:
(1) Is there any parts of sacred tradition that were not written down and
(2) How would I know that is the case.

…and with everything the issue is not “could it be”, but “did it happen”.

But this is off topic.

Also, I could just as easliy argue that the Holy Spirit did inspire the New Testament authors to write down God’s Word, but it was only that one original each author penned that was inspired. The Holy Spirit never promised to protect the inspired Word when it was first being transcribed by fallible hands. In other words, when Paul’s Letter to the Romans was first copied by a fallible scribe, how do you know error did not creep in if you can’t compare that copied manuscript with the inspired original?

This argument sounds like one the King James Only folks would make.

If the inspired original books of the New Testament are lost to history, how do you know with 100% certainity that the books you have were exactly the same as the originals, and thus, inspired?

Off topic…but…

Nobody holds their faith with 100% logical certainty.

Instead it is a matter of having faith given evidence that one perceives to be credible.

The issue with the Immaculate Conception is necessary and sufficient evidence to provide an exception to Scripture verses that seem to indicate the opposite.

Particularly since opposite explanations (given the Catholic assumptions see above) in these verses can be provided.

The ECF disagreed on a lot of issues and were just fallible men.
The way to approach their writings is that you must look at it collectivley. What did the majority of the ECF believe in? If an inordinate number of them spoke in favor rather than against a particular issue, then it is more likely that the vast majority’s opinion should hold sway. To support the weaker side with one, two,or three dissenting voices would be foolish.

My point in the ECF is looking for evidence that a given non-Biblical tradition stems from the apostles. In my humble the earlier the ECF the better. For example if I can see something in say Ignatious and/or Clement, I would think about it. My problem is that I don’t see the Immaculate Conception in ECF of this time period.

But this is a little off-topic too.

Reread the passage again, Mary was not troubled per se by an angel greeting her, she was troubled by HOW the angel greeted her.

What is your explanation for Mary’s troubled reaction to the angel’s greeting?

Actually I reread the passage again and I think you have a point. I would say that both troubled her.

But in my mind the simplest explanation would be that Mary didn’t know yet what the angel was talking about. The angel only explains himself in subsequent verses.

If I were a thirteen year old and an angel all of a sudden walked into my life with a greeting that I was full of grace and that the Lord was with me, I would be troubled and wondering what this was all about too.

But even if she were troubled by implications of sinlessness, see my statement in the opening paragraph.

It does that, see 2 Thess.2:15.

Off topic but…

See comments above on this verse and apostolic tradition

Where does it say in Scripture that Scripture is the final authority on all religious matters?

Off topic…but my argument in this regard has always been
(1) I do know that Scripture is an inspired and inerrant authority on all religious matters.
(2) I would not accept any other authorities as equal to Scripture without good and sufficient reasons that I have not found for any other alternative claims to equality.

Otherwise you can get me to believe in the Book of Mormon.

But this is off topic.

 

[mozart-250]

One more thing…

Concerning the woman of Revelations 12 being Mary, I have read too many books of the genre “Late Great Planet Earth” (that later had to be rewritten because their 40 year generation prediction thing umm was false) to believe that anybody’s interpretation of this book is umm authoritative. So I can be skeptical both ways.

Anyway, Protestants ripping Catholics on this one is a classic case of “pot meet kettle”. So if you want to believe this is Mary…go right ahead.

 

[Good_Fella]

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?

We wouldn’t believe you even if you claimed that your mother conceived and bore you by the power of the Holy Spirit. :nope:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[elvisman]

Agreed​

**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.

**We have the exact same understanding. **
I was arguing the point with some of the others that, whereas infants are born into sin, they CANNOT commit sins.

 

[justasking4]

peary;3498017]

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.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Many here I see are coming from different perspectives from the same scriptures. Everyone is claiming their interpretation of scripture is saying what they claim it to say, thus many different conclusions.

This is not a bible study, on the virgin Mary.

Mary is silent on the surface of sacred scripture. Sacred Scripture proclaims the Virgin Mary very loudly, through the Holy Spirit interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Protestants and non catholics are not going to see the mystical part of Sacred Scripture describing these wonderful Mysteries of God, and his salvatin plan.

The salvation mystery of how God took on flesh, cannot be explained, it can only be believed. So it is with the mystery of how God chose Mary, to be born from her flesh, without sin. It isnt a matter of explaining, it is a matter of belief. Thank God, our Early church Fathers had the wisdom to believe in God and his powerful works, in order to created the only human being in all creation FULL OF GRACE. This title should be enough for anyone to believe in her Saintly life, because God said she is FULL OF GRACE, I dont think anyone can dispute it.

Recommendation: dont denounce what the Holy Spirit has enspoused the Virgin Mary, He is someone I would not want to sin against, for a sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Find a good bible study and debate with God why he claimed Mary full of Grace. But dont attack our Blessed Mother by claiming she sinned. I am getting sick and tired of this talk, it is beginning to insult my faith.

You dont have to take the present Roman Catholic church’s belief on her sinless life, go visit the early church fathers from 2000 years ago , they believed the same way the Catholic church believes today.

Jesus says “Dont cast your pearls among swine” I will obey my Lord here. Again, your not gonna find Mary’s doctrine on the Surface of Scripture, Her Spouse the Holy Spirit protects her from defilement, and reveals her Majesty in the Spirit through scripture, and believe me, the Holy Spirit cannot stop bragging about Mary from Genesis, Old testament, Prophets, Gospels, and Revelations where she is Crowned Queen of heaven and earth.

Peace be with you. Holy Mary Mother of God, Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Based on your personal interpretation, correct? Why should we accept your interpretation over that of the Jehova Witnesses?

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.

Do you believe in predestination? You seem to believe that the Holy Spriti picks and chooses who he will reval the truth to and lies to and/or ignores everyone else.

The Catholic Church’s (you are aware that Roman Catholic descibes a rite-not a Church?) teachings have been consisntent for 2,000 years. They are the ONLY Church that has not given into confusion

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.

More ignorance of Catholic doctrine noted. The Church steps in and declares somethingh dogamtically ONLY when there is confusion or dispute. There was no need to declare the Docrtine of the immacualte conception until 1854 because for the frist 1600 years or so there really was no dispute . The Church has never issued an infallible declaration that Christ rose from the dead. Does that mean that that is still in dispute?

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

Christ and his Church are one in the same. Man is not capable of maintaining or interperting Scripture-thats why he gave us his Church.

.

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.

More nonsnense . The only reason scripture survived was the laborious hand copying and recopying under the direction of Church. Prior to the invention of the printing press it was impossble for for anyone but the very rich and very educated to have acess to the Bible-that is unless one attended Mass where they were read and taught Scriptue.

 

[mozart-250]

But dont attack our Blessed Mother by claiming she sinned.

Just to comment on this sentence. I don’t get this at all.

Why is it an “attack” on a person to believe that a person has sinned in his lifetime.?

If I said that Moses has sinned in his lifetime, would I be “attacking” Moses?

If I said St. Peter or St. Paul sinned in their lifetimes, would I be “attacking” St. Peter or St Paul?

If I said Pope JP II sinned in his lifetime, would I be “attacking” Pope JP II?

 

[graceandglory]

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:

Because she didn’t come short of the glory of God. The glory of God resided in her womb.

That would mean that for her Romans 3:23 didn’t apply. But it is meant for all the rest of us.

 

[graceandglory]

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.

If you’re going to be a literalist, then follow all the rules. Only men can be saved.

 

[justasking4]

Gabriel of 12;3499419]Many here I see are coming from different perspectives from the same scriptures. Everyone is claiming their interpretation of scripture is saying what they claim it to say, thus many different conclusions.

This is not a bible study, on the virgin Mary.

Mary is silent on the surface of sacred scripture. Sacred Scripture proclaims the Virgin Mary very loudly, through the Holy Spirit interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Protestants and non catholics are not going to see the mystical part of Sacred Scripture describing these wonderful Mysteries of God, and his salvatin plan.

What you claim protestants don’t see can easily be said by protestants “you see what is not there”.

The salvation mystery of how God took on flesh, cannot be explained, it can only be believed. So it is with the mystery of how God chose Mary, to be born from her flesh, without sin. It isnt a matter of explaining, it is a matter of belief. Thank God, our Early church Fathers had the wisdom to believe in God and his powerful works, in order to created the only human being in all creation FULL OF GRACE. This title should be enough for anyone to believe in her Saintly life, because God said she is FULL OF GRACE, I dont think anyone can dispute it.

The idea that Mary was born without sin is totally unbiblical. In fact Irenaeus, Tertullian and Basil the Great are just a few who thought she sinned.

Recommendation: dont denounce what the Holy Spirit has enspoused the Virgin Mary, He is someone I would not want to sin against, for a sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

If by “ensoused” you mean she was married to the HS is something that should never be said. Mary is never spoken of in the Scriptures this way and no one should ever claim that she was.

Find a good bible study and debate with God why he claimed Mary full of Grace. But dont attack our Blessed Mother by claiming she sinned. I am getting sick and tired of this talk, it is beginning to insult my faith.

You need to get used to this. The Scriptures are clear that she, a daughter of Adam, inherited his sin when she was born. This makes her as all men and women sinners.

You dont have to take the present Roman Catholic church’s belief on her sinless life, go visit the early church fathers from 2000 years ago , they believed the same way the Catholic church believes today.

You are inocorrect on this. There were many fathers and leaders in the early church who believed she sinned. I mentioned a few above. We can add Hilary of Poiters, Ambroasiaster and Chrysostom to the list also.

Jesus says “Dont cast your pearls among swine” I will obey my Lord here. Again, your not gonna find Mary’s doctrine on the Surface of Scripture, Her Spouse the Holy Spirit protects her from defilement, and reveals her Majesty in the Spirit through scripture, and believe me, the Holy Spirit cannot stop bragging about Mary from Genesis, Old testament, Prophets, Gospels, and Revelations where she is Crowned Queen of heaven and earth.

It is false to say that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. No one in the NT nor the early church believed such a thing.

Peace be with you. Holy Mary Mother of God, Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen.

 

[Lampo]

This makes her as all men and women sinners.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God?” Do you suppose that the word “all” includes severely retarded adults or babies who die at birth? Of course not. Paul is not speaking in the absolute terms that some assume he is. The meaning of this verse lies in its context. Who is Paul talking to? What is the issue being discussed? In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul is telling the Jewish Christians that they have no advantage over the Gentile Christians. In effect he is saying it doesn’t make a difference, you are all in the same boat. Jews and Gentiles have all sinned and fallen short. Mary’s sin offering in Luke 2:22 does not present a problem either, as it refers to ritual uncleanness and was purely external.

Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation and the chief proponent of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), said the following in a sermon: “But as the Virgin Mary was herself born of a father and mother in the natural way, many have been disposed to assert that she was also born in original sin, though all with one mouth affirm that she was sanctified in the maternal womb, and conceived without concupiscence.” (On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God).

 

[jediliz]

because only a pure vessel would be worthy of carrying the Son of God for nine months. That was why Mary was preserved from being born with the stain of Original Sin. She was chosen to give the world The SAVIOR.