All have sinned.. including Mary.

[KJK80]

You are so awesome, thank you.

I will let you know what I find out…

Not a problem… definitely do… if you do need to buy any materials, let me know what it is you actually do need and I’ll work something out for you. We manufacture a lot of this stuff…

OK, back to Mary.

By the way, do you believe Mary is mentioned in the book of Revelation or not?

 

[Singinbeauty]

OK, back to Mary.

By the way, do you believe Mary is mentioned in the book of Revelation or not?

I can see both sides but it seems to make more sense that the woman is Israel though it doesn’t have to be one or the other but both.

The crown with twelve stars: Israel’s twelve tribes, I can’t quite see the correlation of Mary except for the twelve diciples although scripture doesn’t indicate that she led these men so I am unsure…

The chasing of the woman by Satan: Israel has ran through the desert and hid from Satan and is constantly attacked by him. It also states that the woman went and hid for 1260 days while the child was snatched up by God for protection while she went to be taken care of. I don’t see how this pertains to Mary but then again I don’t see how it pertains to Israel either so I guess it is moot… LOL

The pains of childbirth: Israel gave birth to Christ because that is the bloodline He comes from and we can all agree that Israel has gone through great pains in the coming of Christ. Scripture doesn’t indicate whether Mary experienced pain. Though it would seem to me that if she was sinless then she would not experience said pain because the enormous pain came from the original sin.

I am still trying to figure this all out so be nice to me… LOL… Like I said, I see it to be more Israel but I haven’t ruled Mary out either…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

A Roman Catholic would say Amen to Romans 3:23. Why do you, believers not believe God when he Names his creation Mary, full of Grace. Ask, God what part of FULL OF GRACE you dont understand? And then inform the Roman Catholic church of what God told you.

**Mary was saved before her conception, this has been stated, and scripture given. But many here are not seeking truth with their hearts, rather seeking to devour anything Catholic.

I hope this answers your post. But in reality, I know, all though you proclaim to be a bible believer, yet, When God says Mary is Full of Grace, Highly favored one of God. You amazingly find a way to dispute God’s word, and blame it on the Catholic church for believing God at his word.

Can you limit God to what he can do to his Creation. If God willed to prepare a body for himself, To be born of a Woman, without sin. And announces in eternity that this Woman is full of God’s Grace. Where is your love for God, Who created you?

If you are looking for your Mother the Virgin Mary, she is through and through in sacred Scripture. You say she is not there, because you look, but you cant see. Here is a tip, Pray, and seek her in scripture with your heart and she will reveal herself to you.

Seek her not with your heart, and you will look, but not see her, and it is a wonderful mystery that Non Catholics miss out on in the deep mysteries of God, through his living Word. To the Roman Catholic, the bible is not just words on a page. The Word of God is alive, and the Word of God is lived through the Roman Catholic life and worship.

As far as Mary being espoused by the Holy Spirit, This is found in Sacred Scripture. Yet many non believers state scripture does not state this. I know where they are, why dont bible believers know where to find these scriptures on Mary, from Gen. through Revelations.

This is a mystery for non Catholics John 5:39… “you search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them, even they testify on my behalf, But you do not want to come to me to have life, I do not accept human praise, Moreover, I know that you do not have the Love of God in you”

Where is faith when God calls you to it, so that your eyes can be healed and see, all it takes is faith, This is how Jesus healed many, by their faith.

For me, the Holy Spirit has done a wonderful work in preserving the Blessed Mother from sin, and to keep her hidden beneath the veil of the Sacred Scriptures from Satan touch of sin.

Good news for non-Catholics, you do not have to have a devotion to the blessed Virgin Mary to be Roman Catholic. These are the four Marian doctrines you must come to believe to be Catholic. Mary is Mother of God (incarnate), Mary is the immaculate conception, Mary is a perpetual virgin, even after giving birth to Jesus ( this is in the sacred scriptures also), Mary is assumed body and soul into heaven.

This thread on her sinless life, is a matter of faith and is worthy of belief.**

 

[Cleopas]

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

If this be so, and she was preserved free from all stain of original sin, then Mary would have also been born immortal, since death passed upon all through the fall of Adam (aka Original sin).

 

[Goth_Catholic]

If this be so, and she was preserved free from all stain of original sin, then Mary would have also been born immortal, since death passed upon all through the fall of Adam (aka Original sin).

Souls that have been saved are immortal

 

[Cleopas]

Souls that have been saved are immortal

Even so, to sat Mary was completely preserved from the taint of the fall is tantamount to saying she was not physically mortal.

If Mary received mortality from her father, then she likewise received the stain on the soul that makes one a sinner by nature.

 

[Alexius]

Even so, to sat Mary was completely preserved from the taint of the fall is tantamount to saying she was not physically mortal.

If Mary received mortality from her father, then she likewise received the stain on the soul that makes one a sinner by nature.

But that is where Catholic theology differentiates between those consequences attached to human nature (concupiscence, death, illness, suffering, etc.) and that of Original Sin (the deprivation of sanctifying grace). The state of original holiness and justice given to Adam and Eve was a separate gift from GOD. When they sinned, they lost that gift for mankind (creating a “separation” between GOD and man). In that way, each person is born in a state of Original Sin. This is removed by baptism, but those consequences attached to our nature remain–concupiscence, death, pain, etc. The Blessed Theotokos was preserved from Original Sin, but because she was a human being and member of the race of Adam, she shared in the other consequences. In other words, (I believe) she in fact died.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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,

**What with the blasphemous excesses of Kolbe & others, I don’t blame them. They are right to be scandalised at a good many things in this cultus; it’s a very healthy reaction. **​

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.

**That is a very dubious idea. **​

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.

**Discussions like this tend to become unduly solemn, so a bit of frivolity was called for **​

**I was making a serious point - and sometimes exaggerations are a good way of doing so. The point is, that there is no basis in the Bible for the idea that the BVM was preserved from labour-pains. Even less, perhaps, than for my silly idea about Enoch & his helicopter. **

**At least there is a basis in the Bible - not much, but some - for his vanishing from among men; a Jewish embroidery of that reference was the idea in 1 Enoch 70 that he was taken by a wind. Which in turn is compatible with ideas about his using a helicopter. There are Christians who attribute advanced technology to the earliest Patriatrchs; they could, if they wished, point to the example of 1 Enoch in this respect. **

**The relevance of this to the birth-pangs of Mary, is that there is as much if not more Biblical basis for the embroidery of Gen. 5.24, with its “Enoch…was not; for God took him”, as for the non-existent birth-pangs of the BVM. The logic which allows my silly embroidering of older embroidery of the Enoch-traditions is more solid - not less - than the assertion Mary was spared birth-pangs. Which is why Enoch’s helicopter & the BVM’s freedom from birth-pangs are identical in logical status: neither is more or less real than the other. **

There can be no obligation to believe she was spared birth-pangs, because there is no basis for the idea apart from human wisdom. If something is not based on anything other than a tradition with no foundation, people cannot be faulted for rejecting it - they are right to do so. Devotion to Mary is deceiving, when it requires us to ignore & reject the teaching of the Apostles in favour of myths & exaggerations that exalt the BVM at the price of perverting & twisting & emptying the Divine Scriptures.

**The very idea of her exemption is of apocryphal origin, & senseless. ****If her Son was not spared pain, what is she, that she should be ? She is not greater than He, but is far less than nothing in comparison to Him. What the Fathers imagine about her as the New Eve is nothing compared to the words of the Apostle. A single page of St. Paul is worth all the works of all the Fathers in creation. ****Yet apparently St. Paul is to be contradicted - while the works of uninspired & fallible & erring men are to become a sort of “Newer Testament”, & their claims are to be believed because they are made. This is superstition; not faith. **

**We need no “connection” to Christ - He is the Connection; not to some goddess-woman hybrid monster, but to His Father. There is no more reason to bother with her, than with any other woman disciple. Without faith in Christ her child-bearing would have been valueless, as Augustine notes; apart from being given that vocation as mother of the Messiah she is no different from any other Christian woman: Elizabeth, Joanna, Priscilla or any other. But no one makes a fuss over them. ****She is as useless for anything, & worth less than nothing, unless He make her otherwise: as are we. She is nothing of herself, nothing, any more than any other creature could be. **The difference between Him & her is unimaginable - she is not God by nature, whereas He is. To name them in the same breath - as though they were even comparable (!) - is meaningless.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

## 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.

**I don’t deny she suffered them - my post was to somebody who did. ****As for your remark about not studying Scripture, sorry, but I don’t what you are referring to. **You may be confusing me with an OP​

** That is natural to the physical world. Sinlessness would have nothing to do with it. **

You think that, & so do I - but some people do make that connection: that her sinlessness was a ground for her not suffering birth-pangs.​

**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’. **

If **the BVM is in Revelation - it is not clear she is. **​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer;3497926:

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.## It does not teach this. It has not pronounced on the meaning of any part of Rev. 12. There has been application of the figure of the woman of 12, as in “Signum Magnum” by Paul VI in 1967; but the Pope was not engaging in scientific exegesis **of the meaning of the “great sign”. So exegetes & preachers are free to make of “the woman” what they will. If people wish to have ideas about the meaning of the book, the Church has set very few limits to their freedom in so doing. **

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.

**How I could I have made any clearer that I believe nothing of the kind, I don’t know. That interpretation leaves out far too much - as well as ignoring the type of literature in which that woman is an element. I don’t think for a second the BVM is intended - IMO, the woman is much more likely to be the Church; perhaps the Jerusalem Church in particular. The identification of the woman as the BVM completely overlooks the structure of the book, & the author’s theology. **​

I’ll say that again, so that you don’t miss it: I do not; repeat: not, think the BVM = the woman in chapter 12.

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.

**There is only one revelation - not one for each Catholic. I’m as Catholic as you are. **​

 

[brkn1]

**It carried the WORD **of God (the 10 Commandments).
John 1:1 CLEARLY states:
"In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word WAS God (Jesus)"
This prefigured Mary, who carried the WORD within her (Jesus).

**Look at the following comparison from 2 Sam. 6:9-14 **where David says:
"How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obededom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem"

Compare this now with the text from **Luke **1:39-45
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord"
Verse 56 goes on to say:
"Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home."

That is an interesting take on the Ark of the Covenant.
Inside the Ark were the three objects symbolizing God’s Covenant with the people of Israel.
God’s presence was not considered to dwell inside the Ark, but rather over the Ark’s cover (seat) between the two Cherubim.
The Ark of the Covenant was considered an earthly version of God’s heavenly throne, not His container.
It was housed in the Holy of Holies and a high priest sprinkled the blood of a goat on it once a year to appease God’s anger for the sins of the priest and the people of Israel on the Day of Atonement.
Some point out that the materials used to make the Ark do a very good job of pointing to Jesus; the gold overlay symbolizing Jesus’ perfect divinity and the durable acacia wood representing Jesus’ perfect humanity.
If the gold and acacia wood do represent Jesus in that manner, then it would not be a good symbol of Mary, since she is not divine.

The Ark of the Lord does not necessarily mean the Ark “containing” the Lord.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m saying Jesus was sinless because he was GOD incarnate, because Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is our savior. Another reason he couldn’t be tainted with sin. A savior cannot be a sinful person. The perfect sacrifice of an umblemished Lamb would not be possible.

Mary needed a savior just like we all do. Saying she was redeemed at conception is completely unscriptural.

If GOD can preserve Mary, then why couldn’t HE preserve Jesus? How can Mary’s mother, a sinful woman, carry a sinless person in her womb, but Mary couldn’t possibly carry Jesus if she was sinful?

And again it doesn’t matter because Jesus was GOD incarnate and GOD cannot be sinful or even tainted by original sin. Also even IF Mary could have passed her sinful nature to Jesus, GOD would have preserved HIM.

And again I will re-interate that Jesus could not have inherited Mary’s sinful nature because GOD would not allow it. Jesus didn’t need Mary to be sinless so he could be. That’s implying that there was only one method GOD could use to keep Jesus sinless.

Elizabeth did not conceive through the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not even imply that. Zechariah and Elizabeth had John together. Zechariah questioned his ability to have a child because of his age.

Whether you realize it or not, you said that Jesus was “pardoned” by having been conceived by the Holy Spirit. To be pardoned is to be saved. Jesus was not in any need to be saved. But he would have been if he inherited Mary’s sinful nature. If Mary had not been preserved free from original sin before conceiving her Son, the Son of Man would then have been in need of a saviour by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. This is the implication of the use of your expression “pardoned by being conceived of the Holy Spirit.” If not for the Immaculate Conception, and the sinlessness of Mary, Jesus would have been conceived and born sinful - unless the Holy Spirit intervened and preserved him from sin, as he did for Mary, who was in need of a saviour.

I agree. Jesus is our saviour. He cannot be tainted, being the unblemished sacrificial Lamb of God. Hence, the Immaculate Conception. Jesus should not have inherited our sinful nature by being born of a sinful woman. We are biologically and genetically connected to both our parents just as the world is round.

I’m glad you agree with us Catholics that Mary was in need of being redeemed by our Lord and Saviour. That Mary was redeemed at the first instance of her conception, when God fashioned her soul, is entirely scriptural. Give more reflection to Genesis 3, 15 together with Luke 1, 28, 42, 46-49; 11, 28. Why can’t Mary be redeemed at the moment of her conception? Human life begins at conception, not birth. God became incarnate at the moment of our Lord’s conception.

You ask why God could have preserved Mary, but not Jesus. God the Father preserved both of them, but in a different way. Mary was preserved by the intervention of God, Jesus (the Son of Man) was preserved by Mary’s Immaculate Conception. God intervened with her, for she was the one in need of redemption, not Christ. Hers was the nature originally spoiled by Adam and Eve. But since Mary was not divine, but only human, a mother with a sinful nature could conceive and carry her. Jesus was and is divine together with his humanity, so a sinful woman could not conceive and bear him.

The other method of keeping the Son of Man sinless would have been by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, which you have already suggested above. As I said, the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit presupposes that the Son of Man was in need of a saviour and of redemption like his mother. But you don’t believe this, do you? You say “God is sinless”. I think you’re leaning more towards Monophysitism: "God cannot be sinful or tainted by original sin, " you say. The historical Jesus was not only God; He was also a man. As the Son of Man, Jesus submitted himself to the human condition. He chose to be baptized, although it wasn’t necessary. God did not have to become man in order to save us, but it was fitting that he did in accordance with his wisdom: “to fulfill all righteousness”. This is the reason why Jesus was baptized; yet he was in no need of baptism.

So preserving Mary free from original sin was not a practical necessity imposed upon God. St. Paul tells us that Jesus was like us in “all things but sin”. This means that he was like us in so far he could have inherited sin. The inheritance of sin is a human condition. If Mary had not been preserved free from original sin, Jesus, just like us in our human condition, would have inherited it. After all, he was prone to suffer all of the ill effects of fallen creation except a sinful nature. He was and is just as human as we are in his divine Person.

The conception of John the Baptist was a miraculous event brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit. Normally Elizabeth would not have conceived and borne the child, since she was barren and far advanced in years. Let’s not presume this was a biological fluke, for the event occurred after the angel Gabriel’s announcement to Zechariah. I’m aware John’s birth was not a virgin birth, but the Holy Spirit intervened to allow the couple to defy the natural circumstances of their conjugal state. He directly stimulated the dormant biological processes naturally involved. Elizabeth was able to bear her husband a son not merely by his seed, but by the grace of God which effected it. Notwithstanding God’s gracious intervention in his birth, John the Baptist was conceived in a state of original sin having inherited the sin of both his parents - as the human race contracted original sin through the disobedience of both its original parents, Adam and Eve. Their personal guilt gave rise to our fallen nature with no personal fault on their part in us.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

No you are placing a constraint around GOD saying that Jesus would have been sinful if GOD didn’t preserve Mary. Implying again that this method was the only way of doing it.

Again you need a scripture lesson here. The only acceptable price GOD is willing to accept for the payment of sin is sacrifices. The only way we can be cleansed from our sin is by the Blood of Christ. We have to freely choose Christ to demonstrate our desire to be with GOD.

I’m not the one who is placing a constraint on God. It is Luke who has written what God has wisely ordained: “The Almighty has done great things for me and holy is his name.”

But what if God hadn’t sent Christ into the world? How could we then demonstrate our desire to be with God? Now look who’s putting a constraint on God, if we both aren’t according to your perspective. If the only way we can be cleansed from our sins is by the blood of Christ, then the only way that the Son of Man can be kept from inheriting a sinful human nature, by being born of a woman and born under the law, is by Mary’s Immaculate Conception. God freely ordained these paths in his wise plan of salvation. He has revealed his scheme to us through His Church: “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. God has his reasons. So don’t try to constrain God by dictating to us he chooses only to do how you privately interpret “everything” in Scripture.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pat_53]

All this goes to show that everything the Catholic Church says about the Mother of God, Mary, conferms a truth about Jesus.:harp:

Pat

 

[elvisman]

That is an interesting take on the Ark of the Covenant.
Inside the Ark were the three objects symbolizing God’s Covenant with the people of Israel.
God’s presence was not considered to dwell inside the Ark, but rather over the Ark’s cover (seat) between the two Cherubim.
The Ark of the Covenant was considered an earthly version of God’s heavenly throne, not His container.
It was housed in the Holy of Holies and a high priest sprinkled the blood of a goat on it once a year to appease God’s anger for the sins of the priest and the people of Israel on the Day of Atonement.
Some point out that the materials used to make the Ark do a very good job of pointing to Jesus; the gold overlay symbolizing Jesus’ perfect divinity and the durable acacia wood representing Jesus’ perfect humanity.
If the gold and acacia wood do represent Jesus in that manner, then it would not be a good symbol of Mary, since she is not divine.

The Ark of the Lord does not necessarily mean the Ark “containing” the Lord.

I didn’t say that the Ark contained or housed God.
I said it housed the WORD of God, then I pointed out that Jesus is called the Word in John’s Gospel. It also contained manna (a prefigurment of the Eucharist - John 6:31-36) and Moses’ staff.

It’s not the pure gold and acacia that represent Jesus. It’s the Word of God - the tablets. It’s the manna.
**The pure gold and acacia point to the purity of the Ark itself - Mary. **
The Ark was absolutey a prefigurement of Mary. There is no coincidence in Scripture. Everything is said and done for a reason.

**In a sermon, attributed to St. Anthanasius, Mary is addressed as: **
"O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head."

How do you see the comparison between the 2 scripture verses I included in my last post about the Ark and Mary?

 

[NDfan]

NDfan -
The Catholic Church has NEVER said that Mary wasn’t saved by Jesus. The Church says that Mary was saved BEFORE she was born - at conception.

This analogy has already been used on this thread but I’ll use it again to illustrate the point to you:
You and I can liken our salvation as having fallen into a puddle of mud. Jesus pulls us out of the mud of sin.
Mary was saved FROM falling into the puddle in the first place.

Here’s something for you to think about: If you believe that the Ark of the covenant had to be pure and lined with gold to hold SYMBOLS of God - how much more pure would the Ark of the NEW Covenant have to be to ACTUALLY carry God - PHYSICALLY within her?

Elvis I know my analogy has been used before and the argument you make is always used to refute it. With regard to the Ark of the Covenant being lined in Gold I don’t think Mary being sinless is the equivalent comparison. Her being a virgin undefiled by any man is the better equivalent.

What you need to consider is that Mary being sinless because she was saved at the time of conception is a major event. We don’t see any of the Gospels providing this message to us. It’s drawn out by the scriptural interpretation of the word Kecharitomene. It’s always argued that this means perfectly graced because that’s how the Latin Vulgate to English gets interpreted. But the original Greek to English just means highly favoured.

The only other place in the Bible that the word Kecharitomene is seen is in Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

GOD has bestowed this form of Grace (Kecharitomene) to us in the Beloved which is Jesus. This verse is saying that we (all of us) are blessed with Kecharitomene which is why GOD sent Jesus to us. Now since we all are blessed with Kecharitomene, does that make us all sinners??

PEACE

 

[honeysuckle]

There is DIFFERENCE between saying we are “all sinners” and saying we have “all been saved by grace”.

It is entirely possible to be saved from sin before one becomes a sinner. A special instance was necessary to carry Christ in the Immaculate Conception, but this is not the only place where we see God’s grace and redemption applied to those who are without sin.

Christ himself said that if the Pharisees did not see, then they would be without sin, but because they admit their understanding, their sin remains. Therefore, those who cannot understand fully their actions are without sin (children, mentally handicapped). Do they then enter the kingdom of God on the basis of their own righteousness, or by the atonement of Christ? By the atonement of Christ, as we know that no one is righteouss. Christ died for their condition of being born into a fallen human race, but they are not guilty of personal sin.

So, here we see a case that can be understood as a loose analogy to the redemption of Mary at conception, where Christ clearly saves those BEFORE they commit sin. They are essentially “sinless”, and yet are still redeemed from their condition of being born into a fallen race.

The difference between these and Mary is that if these had been mentally capable, they would have sinned. Mary was preserved and saved from the fallen state itself.

Why is this so difficult for you to accept scripturally, when you know for yourself that Eve herself was born without sin? Do you not recognize that? That though Eve was born without sin, and into a perfect human condition, her nature was corrupted by disbelief?

Mary was conceived by fallen parents, yes, but redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice before it took place so that she could do what Eve could not do- believe God and become the mother of God made flesh.

ALL of those born before Christ were redeemed retroactively, as I am sure you agree.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This ones for you Gottle Geer: Here are just a few scriptures that support the belief of Mary not suffering birth pains, from the original curse from the first Eve. Your disagreement is not with the Roman Catholic Church, it is with God from Genesis 3:15, and his prophet Isaiah. But who can interpret this scripture for you, with out apostolic authority?

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.

 

[NDfan]

You need to shorten your posts so my responses are not 2 pages

Whether you realize it or not, you said that Jesus was “pardoned” by having been conceived by the Holy Spirit. To be pardoned is to be saved. Jesus was not in any need to be saved. But he would have been if he inherited Mary’s sinful nature.

I used the word pardon for lack of a better word to make the point that just as Mary could be preserved so could Jesus. But then I said that Jesus could not be stained because HE was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. HE was GOD incarnate and therefore it’s impossible for GOD to be tainted with sin.

If Mary had not been preserved free from original sin before conceiving her Son, the Son of Man would then have been in need of a saviour by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. This is the implication of the use of your expression “pardoned by being conceived of the Holy Spirit.”

If Jesus was stained then yes you are correct it would make sense then that he would need a savior. But again just as you say GOD preserved Mary, HE easily could have done the same thing for Jesus. But I’m saying that this was not needed anyway because again Jesus was conceived through the Power of the Holy Spirit. He was GOD incarnate. You’re trying to separate the human side of Jesus from the divine implying it’s possible for that one side to become corrupt. I’m saying that’s impossible.

If not for the Immaculate Conception, and the sinlessness of Mary, Jesus would have been conceived and born sinful - unless the Holy Spirit intervened and preserved him from sin, as he did for Mary, who was in need of a saviour.

Again I will reiterate that it’s impossible for Jesus to inherit a sinful nature from Mary since HE was GOD incarnate. That implies that GOD can be stained and that’s impossible.

I agree. Jesus is our saviour. He cannot be tainted, being the unblemished sacrificial Lamb of God. Hence, the Immaculate Conception. Jesus should not have inherited our sinful nature by being born of a sinful woman. We are biologically and genetically connected to both our parents just as the world is round.

Jesus is not the perfect sacrifical lamb because of the immaculate conception. He was perfect because he existed with GOD in the first place before Mary even existed. To have Jesus be divine the Holy Spirit was used by GOD to conceive HIM. But since GOD wanted Jesus to be a man as well he used Mary to give HIM a human nature. But that doesn’t mean that Mary’s sinful nature would have been transmitted to HIM. The sinful nature is carried by the seed of the father. That is in scripture in multiple places and is also why we are told by Paul that sin entered the world through Adam.

I’m glad you agree with us Catholics that Mary was in need of being redeemed by our Lord and Saviour. That Mary was redeemed at the first instance of her conception, when God fashioned her soul, is entirely scriptural. Give more reflection to Genesis 3, 15 together with Luke 1, 28, 42, 46-49; 11, 28. Why can’t Mary be redeemed at the moment of her conception? Human life begins at conception, not birth. God became incarnate at the moment of our Lord’s conception.

Mary could be redeemed however GOD wanted her to be. From conception, birth etc. But being redeemed doesn’t make you sinless. We are sinful yet we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Stating that Mary is the woman in Genesis 3 is such a gross misinterpretation of scripture. We are not descendants of Mary. Eve is the mother of all mankind and is who we descend from. Also the word Kecharitomene as I stated in another post also appears in Ephesians and is directed to all of us. We’re not sinless.

You ask why God could have preserved Mary, but not Jesus. God the Father preserved both of them, but in a different way. Mary was preserved by the intervention of God, Jesus (the Son of Man) was preserved by Mary’s Immaculate Conception. God intervened with her, for she was the one in need of redemption, not Christ. Hers was the nature originally spoiled by Adam and Eve. But since Mary was not divine, but only human, a mother with a sinful nature could conceive and carry her. Jesus was and is divine together with his humanity, so a sinful woman could not conceive and bear him.

We’ll just agree to disagree on this. Your making an assumption that Mary couldn’t be stained with sin in order to conceive Jesus. I think you need to stop underestimating GOD as HE has used all types of sinful people for HIS purpose.

Continued below…

 

[NDfan]

The other method of keeping the Son of Man sinless would have been by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, which you have already suggested above. As I said, the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit presupposes that the Son of Man was in need of a saviour and of redemption like his mother.

No it doesn’t. It just protects HIM from receiving that sinful stain. Saying that Mary needed to be sinless implies that Jesus would have needed a savior. This is impossible since HE is the savior.

But you don’t believe this, do you? You say “God is sinless”. I think you’re leaning more towards Monophysitism: "God cannot be sinful or tainted by original sin, " you say. The historical Jesus was not only God; He was also a man. As the Son of Man, Jesus submitted himself to the human condition. He chose to be baptized, although it wasn’t necessary. God did not have to become man in order to save us, but it was fitting that he did in accordance with his wisdom: “to fulfill all righteousness”. This is the reason why Jesus was baptized; yet he was in no need of baptism.

GOD did not have to become man to save us but HE did. HE chose to redeem us by the blood of HIS son Jesus. It’s only by HIS grace that we have Jesus available to us to be saved.

So preserving Mary free from original sin was not a practical necessity imposed upon God. St. Paul tells us that Jesus was like us in “all things but sin”. This means that he was like us in so far he could have inherited sin.

No it means Jesus was like us except for sin. Meaning Jesus did not sin. Perhaps Paul was implying that Jesus had the inclination to sin but chose not to. Ever think of that.

The inheritance of sin is a human condition. If Mary had not been preserved free from original sin, Jesus, just like us in our human condition, would have inherited it. After all, he was prone to suffer all of the ill effects of fallen creation except a sinful nature. He was and is just as human as we are in his divine Person.

You are repeating yourself over and over again.

The conception of John the Baptist was a miraculous event brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit. Normally Elizabeth would not have conceived and borne the child, since she was barren and far advanced in years. Let’s not presume this was a biological fluke, for the event occurred after the angel Gabriel’s announcement to Zechariah. I’m aware John’s birth was not a virgin birth, but the Holy Spirit intervened to allow the couple to defy the natural circumstances of their conjugal state. He directly stimulated the dormant biological processes naturally involved. Elizabeth was able to bear her husband a son not merely by his seed, but by the grace of God which effected it. Notwithstanding God’s gracious intervention in his birth, John the Baptist was conceived in a state of original sin having inherited the sin of both his parents - as the human race contracted original sin through the disobedience of both its original parents, Adam and Eve. Their personal guilt gave rise to our fallen nature with no personal fault on their part in us.

So you admit John was coneived by Zechariah and Elizabeth having intercourse. Good glad we got that straightened out.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

PEACE to you my brother