Bible verses evidence of sinless Mary?

[frangiuliano115]

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!

HELP!

Friardchips,

I’m not living in the states and don’t know what Climate Change Gas-Janets are!

Please explain. Thanks.

Fran

 

[friardchips]

HELP!

Friardchips,

I’m not living in the states and don’t know what Climate Change Gas-Janets are!

Please explain. Thanks.

Fran

(Just messing around. I use the term to describe some Climate Change pushers, who follow the Climate agenda, without questioning government motives and whose reasoning was not convincing in the slightest (I witnessed this in person at a meeting). The name came from when I was talking about the “gas planet Saturn” and relating the temperature of Saturn with how carbon dioxide affects the temperature of earth and questioning whether Climate Change fads might have come from the idea that Saturn is a planet of Carbon dioxide, but when speaking about the “gas planet Saturn”, my words got mixed up and out came “Gas Janets”. I kept the term. I know people mean well really and just want to care. And since PF wrote his encyclical stating that we do need to take this seriously I’ve since changed my attitude. Although the Climate Change agenda pushers - the ones who sponge and squeeze statistics as if they were oxygen - ignore his main emphasis: the need for more care towards humanity).

Back to the thread…

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Pure. Logic.

As I already pointed out, since God was able to protect Mary from being stained by original sin, then He COULD have prevented Jesus from being stained by original sin in the same way. Therefore, it was not a hard requirement for Jesus’ sake that Mary be conceived immaculately.

Of course, it may have been required for Mary’s sake…but I don’t think it was necessary for His.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

From a Protestant misinterpretation of Romans 3:23 perhaps, but the idea that Mary sinned does NOT come from scripture. If it was scriptural, then Catholics would not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Here’s why Protestants are wrong:

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[friardchips]

Pure. Logic.

As I already pointed out, since God was able to protect Mary from being stained by original sin, then He COULD have prevented Jesus from being stained by original sin in the same way. Therefore, it was not a hard requirement for Jesus’ sake that Mary be conceived immaculately.

Of course, it may have been required for Mary’s sake…but I don’t think it was necessary for His.

Our Creator trumps earthly logic. Unless people think they know the mind of our Creator in fullness. So disagree totally. Our Lord had to be born in the way that He was born - via an Immaculately conceived mother - for His existence to come about in absolute humility (He cannot, because He Wills not, to renege on a promise). How everything came to be was required in every way or else it would not have been, as none of it would have been in His mind from the Beginning, and so would then not have been prophesied before it all came to be. So again: who says? We cannot. We have to trust and have faith. But He Who Is, can breathe into being the perfect gift, and did, in the most perfect way, for all reasons, in every direction, in the foremost “height, breadth, length and depth” - Eternal.

 

[friardchips]

(Just messing around. I use the term to describe some Climate Change pushers, who follow the Climate agenda, without questioning government motives and whose reasoning was not convincing in the slightest (I witnessed this in person at a meeting). The name came from when I was talking about the “gas planet Saturn” and relating the temperature of Saturn with how carbon dioxide affects the temperature of earth and questioning whether Climate Change fads might have come from the idea that Saturn is a planet of Carbon dioxide, but when speaking about the “gas planet Saturn”, my words got mixed up and out came “Gas Janets”. I kept the term. I know people mean well really and just want to care. And since PF wrote his encyclical stating that we do need to take this seriously I’ve since changed my attitude. Although the Climate Change agenda pushers - the ones who sponge and squeeze statistics as if they were oxygen - ignore his main emphasis: the need for more care towards humanity).

Back to the thread…

Or come to think of it, Fran, it might have been Jupiter. Makes more sense! Either way, kind of irrelevant. A bit like this thread was destined to become.

 

[frangiuliano115]

From a Protestant misinterpretation of Romans 3:23 perhaps, but the idea that Mary sinned does NOT come from scripture. If it was scriptural, then Catholics would not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Here’s why Protestants are wrong:

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

Hello Randy,

Well. You’re preaching to the converted, of course.

I said the above, explaining the non exception in Romans, in a previous post.

But, I guess it’s good that you went into detail for some that might need it.

What about “there is none righteous, no not one.” Rom 3:10. However, we will end it here because I’m starting to feel like I’m on the other side! Just to say that protestants do base their beliefs on something - they don’t just make things up. Whether they’re right or wrong is a totally different story.

I do think it’s good to know the above versus for aplogetic reasons.

Fran

 

[friardchips]

From a Protestant misinterpretation of Romans 3:23 perhaps, but the idea that Mary sinned does NOT come from scripture. If it was scriptural, then Catholics would not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Here’s why Protestants are wrong:

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

:harp: Credit where credit is due!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Or come to think of it, Fran, it might have been Jupiter. Makes more sense! Either way, kind of irrelevant. A bit like this thread was destined to become.

Yeah. I agree.

Mary was without original sin, without the sin nature, and without sin.
Is that clear enough!!

Randy Carson did do a nice dissertation. We need to read stuff like that every now and then. Keeps us on our toes. That alone may have been worth this thread!

Fran

 

[Randy_Carson]

What about “there is none righteous, no not one.” Rom 3:10. However, we will end it here because I’m starting to feel like I’m on the other side! Just to say that protestants do base their beliefs on something - they don’t just make things up. Whether they’re right or wrong is a totally different story.

I do think it’s good to know the above versus for aplogetic reasons.

Fran

And Romans 3:10, also.

The passage from Romans 3:10 is also easily explained. IN CONTEXT, Paul is referring to Jews and Greeks saying that:

Romans 3:9-11
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

Really, Paul?

NO ONE seeks God? No one is righteous? This is hyperbole. SOME were seeking God. Scripture refers to several people as righteous including Noah (cf. Gen 6:9) and the parents of John the Baptist (cf. Luke 1:6). So, Paul cannot literally mean “no one”.

He is quoting this passage from the OT to suggest that both Jews and Greeks need salvation, and the phrase “no one” is intended as a generic, all-inclusive term that he is applying to both Jews and Greeks alike.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yeah. I agree.

Mary was without original sin, without the sin nature, and without sin.
Is that clear enough!!

Randy Carson did do a nice dissertation. We need to read stuff like that every now and then. Keeps us on our toes. That alone may have been worth this thread!

Fran

:tiphat:

 

[frangiuliano115]

And Romans 3:10, also.

The passage from Romans 3:10 is also easily explained. IN CONTEXT, Paul is referring to Jews and Greeks saying that:

Romans 3:9-11
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

Really, Paul?

NO ONE seeks God? No one is righteous? This is hyperbole. SOME were seeking God. Scripture refers to several people as righteous including Noah (cf. Gen 6:9) and the parents of John the Baptist (cf. Luke 1:6). So, Paul cannot literally mean “no one”.

He is quoting this passage from the OT to suggest that both Jews and Greeks need salvation, and the phrase “no one” is intended as a generic, all-inclusive term that he is applying to both Jews and Greeks alike.

You’re very good at apologetics Randy Carson. Perfect answer for Romans 3:10!

Glad you posted.
Like your emoticon!

Fran