Bible verses evidence of sinless Mary?

[multitude]

I used to struggle with this teaching, it didn’t matter what Bible verses were thrown at me. But it makes sense. We can agree that Jesus is God, right? And He was perfectly obedient to His Mother? Then why would God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, choose to obey a sinful woman and her whims?

 

[friardchips]

I used to struggle with this teaching, it didn’t matter what Bible verses were thrown at me. But it makes sense. We can agree that Jesus is God, right? And He was perfectly obedient to His Mother? Then why would God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, choose to obey a sinful woman and her whims?

Wonderfully put!

 

[Richca]

The argument that Mary had to be without sin because Jesus was in her womb makes no sense to me. Tell me then how Mary was born sinless when in fact she was born from a woman with sin? If He could make Mary born without sin, even though she came from a woman with sin, how much more could he make is one and only son born without sin from a woman with sin? Jesus, didn’t need someone (Mary) to be sinless in order to be born sinless… He is God. Also, I have the Holy Spirit living within me and I am a sinner.

The bigger problem for me is that I don’t see any real reason that Mary had to be sinless. If you say that the term ‘full of grace’ makes her sinless, then the term ‘highly favored’ also makes her sinless, because that is the new wording in most Bibles. Ok, but for the sake of argument, if God did make Mary without sin, then He could make anyone without sin. We would have no need for Jesus. Because Jesus took our sin and nailed it to the cross. Why would He do such a thing if He could just make us all sinless? By making the one exception with Mary makes Him not a ‘just’ God, but one that made an exception. I can’t buy that. Please don’t get angry, this is just my 2 cents worth.

I think one way to look at the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout the course of her whole earthly life is not that she could not sin but that she did not sin. Mary’s sinlessness is obviously one of her great glories. Our Blessed Lady at all times and without the slightest deviation always freely cooperated with the grace of God and his will. Mary is a human being with a free will and although she was wholly born by God’s grace, she freely cooperated with that grace. For grace does not destroy nature but perfects it. Mary is the new Eve who has crushed the head of the serpent by not giving in to the devil’s temptations to evil unlike Eve who succumbed to the devil’s suggestion. The front side of our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, which medal stems from the apparitions of our Lady to St Catherine Laboure in 1830, shows our Blessed Mother crushing the head of a serpent beneath her foot. Our Blessed Lady was never under the power of the devil and sin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who says?!

If God could protect Mary from the consequences of original sin, then He simply could have done the same for Jesus; Mary would have been a sinner just like the rest of us.

The fact that she was NOT a sinner tells us that there must have been some other reason for the Immaculate Conception. If it was NOT to protect Jesus from sin, then it must have been for the reason that it was fitting for Mary to a spotless tabernacle.

 

[frangiuliano115]

What do you mean by “sin nature”? Do you mean Original Sin?

Hi friardchips,

No. By sin nature I don’t mean Original Sin.
Our sin nature is the RESULT of original sin.

You’ll know it better by the name ‘concupiscence’.

The tendency we have to incline toward evil - until we accept the laws of God and His grace.

When this comes up in bible study, I find that people understand this phrase better than the official one of concupiscence because it’s pretty much self-explanatory.

I think you could find the actual phrase in some bibles. See Romans 8:3.
Some call it the sinful flesh and some call it the sin nature.

Fran

 

[friardchips]

If God could protect Mary from the consequences of original sin, then He simply could have done the same for Jesus; Mary would have been a sinner just like the rest of us.

The fact that she was NOT a sinner tells us that there must have been some other reason for the Immaculate Conception. If it was NOT to protect Jesus from sin, then it must have been for the reason that it was fitting for Mary to a spotless tabernacle.

I am not agreeing with the other poster, as I can see a multiplicity of reasons why Our Lady was to be woven into the Heavenly fabric of this miracle; however, my question to you arises from the fact that you said in your posts: ‘It was not REQUIRED that Mary be sinless in order to carry Jesus in her womb…’.

And I asked: who says?

 

[friardchips]

If God could protect Mary from the consequences of original sin, then He simply could have done the same for Jesus; Mary would have been a sinner just like the rest of us.

The fact that she was NOT a sinner tells us that there must have been some other reason for the Immaculate Conception. If it was NOT to protect Jesus from sin, then it must have been for the reason that it was fitting for Mary to a spotless tabernacle.

…let me put it another way: for our Creator’s design to be carried out in the most perfect way, the surest way, the best way is the same as saying that EVERYTHING the way it happened was the only good way, because any other way, would have obscured the Truth, and put obstacles in the way of our Creator’s means. And so EVERYTHING, the way it happened, was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. In every way and for every reason because our creator is mostly perfect reason. So all reasons were encapsulated in the very best way by the very best means. If there was another most perfect way then His design would have come to be some other way, but it didn’t.

So who are we, in any capacity, to say that things didn’t have to happen a certain way for a certain something to come true, especially when this ‘something’ is more than a something, but the very One Meaning of who we are and of our whole existence.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Now that we know for a fact that mother and child share actual cells (bodily tissue) while the child is in the womb, how does it sit with the notion that Jesus would have been contaminated with original sin?

Again, please watch this short video in regards to what is shared between mother and child.

youtube.com/watch?v=lRHNHe95eMQ

Why, would God have willed it that Jesus be born of a woman? Was Adam? Unless this was a sign unto itself that our Father desired that His people have a mother.

The bottom line is Jesus is LORD. He was totally and completely sinless and not corrupted by original sin in ANYWAY. He was born from a woman. To suggest that He was contained within a vessel that shared cells contaminated with original sin, is diminishing the fullness of Christ.

Mary, is NOT divine. She is NOT the Lord. The Catholic teachings have NEVER taught this. The Catholic Church does behold her as OUR MOTHER. The words in our Lords prayer. Thy Kingdom come, thy WILL BE DONE on EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.

Which Church acknowledges OUR MOTHER as OUR MOTHER. Is there only ONE? Just to reiterate that in Revelation 12:17 it clearly describes that the WOMAN that gave birth to the LORD is the mother of ALL THAT BEAR WITNESS TO CHRIST and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS.

Some believe and teach that this chapter does not refer to Mary but Israel. Well, it was not Israel that Christ said from the cross to behold as OUR MOTHER. The disciple whom he loved was BEARING WITNESS to Christ.

 

[friardchips]

…our Father desired that His people have a mother

Sorry, but I really love this sentence. It stood out.

 

[eddie_too]

from a historic and scholarly perspective, does anyone know when and from where the idea that mary sinned came in to this world?

who was the first doctor of the church to proclaim mary a sinner, and if it was not a doctor of the church, who was it?

was the doctrine of Mary’s sinfulness prominent in the early church? if so, where can it be found in the history of the early church?

I really have no idea of the history and theology behind those who proclaim the doctrine that mary sinned. this is not a facetious question. after all, this entire thread is generated by those who proclaim Mary’s sinfulness and yet, even though I have had a few years of graduate theology, I never learned where, when and from whom the doctrine of Mary’s sinfulness was derived.

 

[Della]

from a historic and scholarly perspective, does anyone know when and from where the idea that mary sinned came in to this world?

This idea developed well after the original reformers time–all of whom believed in Mary’s sinlessness. It’s definitely one of the sad fruits of the reformation.

who was the first doctor of the church to proclaim mary a sinner, and if it was not a doctor of the church, who was it?

No doctor of the Church “proclaimed” Mary’s sinfulness.

was the doctrine of Mary’s sinfulness prominent in the early church? if so, where can it be found in the history of the early church?

No, it wasn’t prominent or taught in the early Church.

I really have no idea of the history and theology behind those who proclaim the doctrine that mary sinned. this is not a facetious question. after all, this entire thread is generated by those who proclaim Mary’s sinfulness and yet, even though I have had a few years of graduate theology, I never learned where, when and from whom the doctrine of Mary’s sinfulness was derived.

As I wrote above, this idea is a product of the reformation–not a direct one, but with the loosening of the meaning of the Eucharist by which the reformers de-evolved theology, other doctrines also fell by the wayside, especially those that are most closely identified with the Catholic Church, such as the nature of the Eucharist and the Marian doctrines.

Those who deny Mary’s Immaculate Conception are most generally “Bible-only” believers who, if they cannot find explicit reference to a doctrine in Scripture dismiss it as untrue.

 

[frangiuliano115]

from a historic and scholarly perspective, does anyone know when and from where the idea that mary sinned came in to this world?

who was the first doctor of the church to proclaim mary a sinner, and if it was not a doctor of the church, who was it?

was the doctrine of Mary’s sinfulness prominent in the early church? if so, where can it be found in the history of the early church?

I really have no idea of the history and theology behind those who proclaim the doctrine that mary sinned. this is not a facetious question. after all, this entire thread is generated by those who proclaim Mary’s sinfulness and yet, even though I have had a few years of graduate theology, I never learned where, when and from whom the doctrine of Mary’s sinfulness was derived.

Just to add to Della’s post:

Mary’s sinfulness idea comes from the book of Romans 3:23
" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Since there is no exception, the reformers believe Mary sinned too since she was human and thus subject to both sin and sins.

It might be that type of revelation that came about some time after her death. I don’t know enough about this and will stop here. Just wanted to mention where the idea comes from.

Fran

 

[friardchips]

Just to add to Della’s post:

Mary’s sinfulness idea comes from the book of Romans 3:23
" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Since there is no exception, the reformers believe Mary sinned too since she was human and thus subject to both sin and sins.

It might be that type of revelation that came about some time after her death. I don’t know enough about this and will stop here. Just wanted to mention where the idea comes from.

Fran

I wonder if there is an original translation of this that might read something different, for example: “…for all men have sinned…”? It just makes me wonder because of the Reformation and Protestant kingdoms, and King James, possibly changing original texts to suit their own preferences. A guess, 'tis all. However, there are plenty of texts that trump this and many explanations (all good ones). Also, St. Luke was St. Paul’s writer, and he most certainly knew Our Lady, so…I wonder if this line from Romans, if not limited by reading within chapter headings - which were added later - might help to provide a deeper or wider explanation to the seeming issue that poses a problem for vigilante anti-Christs…all one needs to do is read through the words of the ‘Litany of Loreto’, for example, to find many references, but those anti-Christs who oppose her dignity, don’t do this because they want to prove themselves right even if this means refraining from doing the most obvious and available tasks to correct their learning. I say ‘anti-Christs’, because anyone who insults the Holy Mother, I would imagine is insulting the Son. :knight1: And because any such notion of a sinful Mary comes from satan initially.

Still mulling over ‘sin nature’.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I wonder if there is an original translation of this that might read something different, for example: “…for all men have sinned…”? It just makes me wonder because of the Reformation and Protestant kingdoms, and King James, possibly changing original texts to suit their own preferences. A guess, 'tis all. However, there are plenty of texts that trump this and many explanations (all good ones). Also, St. Luke was St. Paul’s writer, and he most certainly knew Our Lady, so…I wonder if this line from Romans, if not limited by reading within chapter headings - which were added later - might help to provide a deeper or wider explanation to the seeming issue that poses a problem for vigilante anti-Christs…all one needs to do is read through the words of the ‘Litany of Loreto’, for example, to find many references, but those anti-Christs who oppose her dignity, don’t do this because they want to prove themselves right even if this means refraining from doing the most obvious and available tasks to correct their learning. I say ‘anti-Christs’, because anyone who insults the Holy Mother, I would imagine is insulting the Son. :knight1: And because any such notion of a sinful Mary comes from satan initially.

Still mulling over ‘sin nature’.

Hi Friardchips,

Interesting point re the headings for Romans 3. I checked a few - I have quite a number of bibles. Here are some:
It Is A Fact That You Are A Sinner
God’s Faithfulness
The Jews and The Law

However, this doesn’t have much to do with anything.

Regarding the actual translation for Romans 8:23, every bible I checked says
“for all have sinned and fall short…”
Even two Italian bibles (not that they’re anymore reliable) and the Young’s Literal Translations says:
“For all did sin and are come short of the glory of God”.

You mention the King James, the title is THE REMEDY and it says the same thing, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

There’s no reason to be pondering this too much. I doubt the writers said every little thought they had in mind. The sinlessness of Mary is just one of those concepts that developed into a doctrine. Let’s remember the Full of Grace. If you’re full of grace, where is there room for sin? Other posters have brought this up.

You know, it’s like The Holy Trinity. No where in the bible does is say Holy Trinity - but we believe in it.

Regarding the sin nature. You could stop mulling over it! It’s just another way of saying concupiscence. When you get baptized, original sin is removed. However, you’re left with the sin nature, or concupiscence, or the inclination to sin. (until you decide to follow Jesus and accept the H.S. in your life). When reading the bible it’ll often be referred to by Paul as the sinful flesh. Sin is in our nature. That’s all it means.

Fran
P.S. Even if there were some translation (and I really don’t think so) that said " all MEN have sinned…" it wouldn’t make any difference because MEN always refers to mankind.

 

[friardchips]

Hi Friardchips,

Interesting point re the headings for Romans 3. I checked a few - I have quite a number of bibles. Here are some:
It Is A Fact That You Are A Sinner
God’s Faithfulness
The Jews and The Law

However, this doesn’t have much to do with anything.

Regarding the actual translation for Romans 8:23, every bible I checked says
“for all have sinned and fall short…”
Even two Italian bibles (not that they’re anymore reliable) and the Young’s Literal Translations says:
“For all did sin and are come short of the glory of God”.

You mention the King James, the title is THE REMEDY and it says the same thing, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

There’s no reason to be pondering this too much. I doubt the writers said every little thought they had in mind. The sinlessness of Mary is just one of those concepts that developed into a doctrine. Let’s remember the Full of Grace. If you’re full of grace, where is there room for sin? Other posters have brought this up.

You know, it’s like The Holy Trinity. No where in the bible does is say Holy Trinity - but we believe in it.

G’morning! Yes, it is true, that even if it had been the case of a change of text, ‘men’ would still have meant ‘mankind’.

Nevertheless, as you said, the sinlessness of Our Lady is rooted in Scripture but takes prayerful study to discover it. Also, the Holy Spirit, when discerned, can be reasoned from Scripture. As you also said, the reason people don’t discover these things is because they fail to read Bible texts as a consistent whole along with other texts, and so fail to see the bigger picture. If these truths could not have been found in Scripture or reasoned from Scripture then the Church would not have supported them, as countless holy men and women would not have pronounced them, which they have. And they would not make sense, which they obviously do. Neither faith nor reason would lead us to them, which both faith and reason do. So I think we’re on the same page.

I might write the words to the Litany as there must be references in there.

Regarding the sin nature. You could stop mulling over it! It’s just another way of saying concupiscence. When you get baptized, original sin is removed. However, you’re left with the sin nature, or concupiscence, or the inclination to sin. (until you decide to follow Jesus and accept the H.S. in your life). When reading the bible it’ll often be referred to by Paul as the sinful flesh. Sin is in our nature. That’s all it means.

Fran
P.S. Even if there were some translation (and I really don’t think so) that said " all MEN have sinned…" it wouldn’t make any difference because MEN always refers to mankind.

I know what you meant by ‘sin nature’, it is just that I don’t know whether the term helps. Which is why I’ve been pondering on it. I’m thinking of The Fall and everything. I love the Genesis stories and think they explain many things so was just trying to reason in my head the relationship between one’s soul and the rest of nature as to that specific term - not to worry (for now ).

Thanks.

 

[frangiuliano115]

G’morning! Yes, it is true, that even if it had been the case of a change of text, ‘men’ would still have meant ‘mankind’.

Nevertheless, as you said, the sinlessness of Our Lady is rooted in Scripture but takes prayerful study to discover it. Also, the Holy Spirit, when discerned, can be reasoned from Scripture. As you also said, the reason people don’t discover these things is because they fail to read Bible texts as a consistent whole along with other texts, and so fail to see the bigger picture. If these truths could not have been found in Scripture or reasoned from Scripture then the Church would not have supported them, as countless holy men and women would not have pronounced them, which they have. And they would not make sense, which they obviously do. **Neither faith nor reason would lead us to them, which both faith and reason do. **So I think we’re on the same page.

I might write the words to the Litany as there must be references in there.

I know what you meant by ‘sin nature’, it is just that I don’t know whether the term helps. Which is why I’ve been pondering on it. I’m thinking of The Fall and everything. I love the Genesis stories and think they explain many things so was just trying to reason in my head the relationship between one’s soul and the rest of nature as to that specific term - not to worry (for now ).

Thanks.

Hi,

Yes. We’re on the same page with everything.

I like what you say:

Neither faith nor reason would lead us to them, which both faith and reason do.

Very nice. And true for many doctrines.

Not to kill a dead horse, but re sin nature. Imagine you knew nothing about original sin and the effect it left on man. You bring up the word concup. and people’s eyes glaze over - now you say “sin nature” and everybody is still listening.

It’s only because you know a lot that you’re pondering!

Yes. The Genesis stories do explain a lot!

God bless
Fran

 

[CatholicKnight3]

I thought by virtue of the simple FACT that we know mother and child SHARE bodily tissue while the child is in the womb would clarify why it is so important to understand WHY Mary would have been protected from original sin.

Either Jesus was contaminated by original sin or He was not. If He was, then…well I am not really sure how to deal with that possibility.

If He was not, then the vessel He was incubated in, could not have been contaminated with ORIGINAL SIN. If he was fully HUMAN, then we have to believe he indeed shared bodily tissue with HIS MOTHER since HE came from the FLESH OF HER FLESH.

The argument from the protestants side (which has manifested into insidious claims in many cases) is that Catholics “pray to Mary” and so therefore “replace her with Christ.” In some cases I would say that may very well be true, but that is NOT what the Church teaches. So that is not dogma, so therefore that claim as it being dogmatic is false.

If they choose not to honor or behold her as OUR MOTHER are then going to deny what Christ said from the cross when HE said BEHOLD YOUR MOTHER. He did not say BEHOLD MY MOTHER. He said BEHOLD YOUR mother.

If they are then going to claim that He did not mean for all us to do that, are going to have a hard time explaining Revelation 12:17 where it clearly says the devil went off to wage war with the REST OF HER PFF SPRING. All those who bear witness to Christ and keep His commandments.

Now couple that with the disciple whom He loved at the foot of the cross. Now we see how even THOSE WORDS were eternal. What a stance. To believe that EVERYTHING ELSE CHRIST said and did was for an eternal purpose with the exception of one the last things He uttered from the cross? Wow.

It goes even deeper as to why John was at the foot of the cross btw. He was the only one of the twelve to take the FIRST EUCHARIST worthily when he leaned the Chest of Jesus and asked, Is it I? So much so that Peter later asked about the fate of the ONE THAT LEANED ON THE CHEST. That disciple, ironically was the ONLY ONE of the twelve to be at the foot of the cross BEARING WITNESS. Combine it with Revelation 12:17 and you will see how absurd it is to say that verse refers to Israel.

 

[friardchips]

Not to kill a dead horse, but re sin nature. Imagine you knew nothing about original sin and the effect it left on man. You bring up the word concup. and people’s eyes glaze over - now you say “sin nature” and everybody is still listening.

A way to bring in a large haul?! It is a point actually, that there are many links between the love of nature, and Christianity and the spirituality of our faith, so I can quite see how your term can be used, as you said, as a bridge to inspire dialogue (as it did here) - a cunning teaching method to make communication possible between the Climate Change Gas-Janets and the Church -: nice!

 

[Della]

About the verse in Romans: “All have sinned…” we have to remember a few things about biblical interpretation.

1. The Bible is a witness to Christ and his Church not the other way around.
2. Biblical interpretation depends on the intention of the author and not simply on taking every word literalistically. In other words, the Church interprets Scripture literarily–that is as the author wrote it, in the style written, and the context in which he wrote it–historical and theological.
3. Private interpretation is expressly warned against in Scripture itself:

2Pet.1[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…

As to the meaning of Romans 3:23, St. Paul merely meant to say that both the Greeks and the Jews were equally sinners–that the Jews were no better off than the Greeks for having the Law. If he meant to include every living human being, he would have also have had to have included Our Lord Jesus in that statement, since he is human, which Paul certainly didn’t mean. St. Paul was not discussing Mary or any individual but merely comparing the status of the Gentiles against those of the Jews as to culpability of sin before God. It is a huge stretch to try to make this verse say that Mary must have sinnned, too.

I have to wonder how stupid they must think the Church, whose Apostle Paul was, if she cannot even undestand what he meant. The idea that it refers specifically to Mary is just an excuse to dismiss veneration of Mary, which they do not understand in the first place. Now, let there be an end to this ridiculous argument which is no argument at all but merely blind bias.

 

[friardchips]

About the verse in Romans: “All have sinned…” we have to remember a few things about biblical interpretation.

1. The Bible is a witness to Christ and his Church not the other way around.
2. Biblical interpretation depends on the intention of the author and not simply on taking every word literalistically. In other words, the Church interprets Scripture literarily–that is as the author wrote it, in the style written, and the context in which he wrote it–historical and theological.
3. Private interpretation is expressly warned against in Scripture itself:

2Pet.1[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…

As to the meaning of Romans 3:23, St. Paul merely meant to say that both the Greeks and the Jews were equally sinners–that the Jews were no better off than the Greeks for having the Law. If he meant to include every living human being, he would have also have had to have included Our Lord Jesus in that statement, since he is human, which Paul certainly didn’t mean. St. Paul was not discussing Mary or any individual but merely comparing the status of the Gentiles against those of the Jews as to culpability of sin before God. It is a huge stretch to try to make this verse say that Mary must have sinnned, too.

I have to wonder how stupid they must think the Church, whose Apostle Paul was, if she cannot even undestand what he meant. The idea that it refers specifically to Mary is just an excuse to dismiss veneration of Mary, which they do not understand in the first place. Now, let there be an end to this ridiculous argument which is no argument at all but merely blind bias.

:angel1:

:angel1: :angel1:

:angel1:

:angel1:

Amen.