N
NotWorthy
Guest
Justasking4, what are your thoughts on this question?
- Status
E
EphelDuath
Guest
It can, actually. “Whatever is loosed on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven” and “the Gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it” are pretty clear in Matthew 16:18-19.
But that would be unwise, to infallibly declare a statement with no evidence. Which isn’t a problem because all of the qualities of Mary – her Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Coronation as Queen of Heaven and Earth – all of these can be supported by scripture.
Luke 1:52. “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” The phrase “kecharitomene,” which translates to “full of grace,” was only used to refer to God in other passages of the Bible. So if it means it’s possible to sin in this state, that means God might have also sinned, which is impossible.
Exodus 25:10. “Frame an ark of incorruptible wood.” Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and even greater than the old. She is incorruptible, which in human terms, means sinless; perfect.
And the Judith passage, as I mentioned above.
J
justasking4
Guest
I would agree. He expierenced the full limitations of being human yet without sin. He did not “inherit” original sin or the “sin nature” from Adam. However this does need to be qualified in the sense He had a birth that was supernatural i.e. no human father and He was also fully God although He emptied Himself as in Philippians 2:6-7
How would you answer this question?
B
Bible_Believer
Guest
I am responding to the whole post by Jerry Jet and Old Scholar…for some reason, it did not all come up as a quote for me… In reference to Jesus Christ being sinless…He indeed is…He is God after all…and Jerry did say he believed Christ to be sinless but that the passage that says All fall short would include Jesus?? I would share then Hebrews 4:15-16 that plainly states that He is without sin, and also Hebrews 7:26-28 which also shows Christ’s sinlessness
I do agree wholeheartedly with Old Scholar.
M
MariaG
Guest
I am aware of what the Catholic Church teaches.
And if you’ll notice, it is completely consistent since the sin that we believe is being referred to in Romans “all have sinned” is original sin. Mary was saved in anticipation of her contracting original sin, and was born without it. Thus “all have sinned” in this verse actually includes Mary, because we do in fact believe she needed to be saved from original sin by a miracle of God. We call this miracle the Immaculate conception.
You however believe those verses refer to personal sin. You claim Mary must have sinned because “all have sinned”.
So again, what personal sin does an infant have?
God Bless,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
Mary did need a savior and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. You make a straw man argument by claiming otherwise.Paul said that “All have sinned” and that included Mary. That’s why Christ came to earth, to save the sinners.
In addition, Mary said: Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Mary had to have sinned to need a saviour.
No Christian would believe that Mary wasn’t blessed. Even though Christ never treated her special. He called her “woman” most of the time and did not show any special respect for her. She was simply the vessel that brought Him to earth in human form but she was a strong supporter and gained more prominence after He was crucified. When she died, however, she just died. There is nothing to indicate she was assumed into heaven. No one has gone to heaven as of yet, except Christ who came down from heaven. That is what Christ taught.
To think that Mary did not sin is merely speculation and assumption. Scripture tells us that all have sinned and it doesn’t exclude Mary or anyone else. Those who believe Mary was sinless are simply believing what they want to. It is not Scriptural and they won’t find it in the writings of the early church fathers of the first couple of centuries either. That is a much later fabrication of the church. Personally I believe Mary was blessed and deserves special recognition, but not the pedestal Catholics want to put her on.
As in a previous post, I already explained that Catholics believe that “all have sinned” refers to original sin, and refers to Mary as well. But Mary was saved in anticipation of original sin. Infants are included in “all have sinned” for they have original sin.
Since you however, appear to also believe that this verse refers to personal sin, what sin do infants have?
M
MariaG
Guest
Exactly.
Since as Catholics we believe “all have sinned” refers to orginal sin from even which Mary needed to be saved from, we are at least consistent.
However, if you believe that verse refers to personal sin, one needs to explain what personal sin an infant has, or realize that you believe all have sinned has exceptions, but you are just not willing to believe Mary was one of them.
M
MariaG
Guest
Okay, so you believe infants have personal sin. Or do you believe in original sin as well?
Nor is it one the Catholic Church tries to “get around”.
AGAIN, Mary was in need of a savior, but was saved in anticipation of sin, so she could be a blameless vessel. To say otherwise is to be arguing against something the Catholic Church does not teach.
We believe all men need salvation, we believe all are sinners under original sin. Mary is included in this, but was saved before she received this fallen nature of original sin.
Again, what personal sin does an infant have? Or do you believe in orginal sin?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I know that the “all doesn’t always mean all” defence fails to convince Protestants, for there could be references in Scripture where “all” (pas) does mean all: each and every one. Yet if “all” can have different meanings, then the Catholic exception for Mary is not exegetically impossible. We find ourselves in the same conundrum over the perpetual virginity of Mary by racking our brains out arguing over the conjunction “until” (heos) in Matthew 1,25. Church doctrines and dogmas are not based on grammatical exponents found in the written word, and so grammatical exponents can never ultimately serve to determine whether a Church teaching is true or false. Sacred Tradition did historically exist before Sacred Scripture. We do not write something merely to prove to ourselves or to others what we intended to write. However, it would be wise of us to examine, in the face of Protestant opposition against the Church’s Marian doctrines, in what context St.Paul uses the word “all” (pas). We do in fact find a non-literal usage of the word “all” elsewhere in Romans: In v.1,29 the KJV reads “being filled with all unrighteousness…”, whereas the NRSV is more specific and to the point: “…every kind of wickedness”. In Romans 11:26, the Apostle writes: “All Israel will be saved.” But we can safely assume not every single individual will be saved. And in 15,14 St.Paul describes the Roman community as “filled with all knowledge.” (cf. 1 Cor 1,5 KJV), which, of course, cannot be taken literally since only God is all-knowing. I’m afraid there is no solid ground for a Protestant to stand on by citing St.Paul’s Epistle to the Romans as a means to refute Church doctrine on the sinlessness of Mary. It appears, by the Apostle’s use of the word “all” (cf. Rom 3,23) Mary could very likely be an exception to the norm. After all, she was conceived without Original Sin, just as Jesus was, on account of the One she would conceive and bear. Let us not judge authoritative Church proclamations (cf Mt 16, 18-19) on what we as individuals perceive grammatical particles to signify. At any rate, we know that there are human exceptions: Adam and Eve; although our ancestral parents, having been created in a state of sanctifying grace, fell short, unlike the new Adam (Jesus) and the new Eve (Mary) who contradicted our human legacy. That said, ‘pas’ can have different meanings according to its different functions in the New Testament: it can denote a great number: “all Jerusalem” or “all the sick” (Mt 2,3; 4,24). Likewise, Thayer’s ‘Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament’ gives “of every kind” as a possible meaning of “all” in some contexts. Hence, the Greek word ‘pas’ does not necessarily mean “no exceptions” and so it is untenable to cite Romans 5,12 or 3, 23 in an attempt to refute Church teaching on the sinlessness of Mary and her Immaculate Conception.
“The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good.” {Ps 14, 2-3; cf. 53, 1-3}
Yet Jesus says: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure…” {Mt 12,35; cf. 5,45, 7,17-20, 22:10}
There can be no contradiction between the above verses, so obviously there are people who are exceptions to the norm.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
B
Bible_Believer
Guest
Please go back and read the post which you have responded to. I would post, but Old Scholar has put it perfectly and I cant add anything any better than what he stated about Mary. I will also say, I do not mean any disrespect to Mary as the mother of the earthly Jesus. God did chose a human vessel to bare God’s son because Jesus Christ is God in the flesh… He is the Son of God, yet…the Son of man
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I already responded to Old Scholar’s post and refuted it. I do not believe that God himself would allow Mary to be in the state of sin in order to bring forth the Son of God. Jesus is true God, and true Man. “All have sinned.” doesn’t often necessary means all because you have to include infants who are incapable of comitting personal sin.
Dave Armstrong made strong case concerning this. He writes:
on the commentary "Romans 3:23: “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” {NRSV}
I don’t follow. If the word “all” (pas in Greek) can indeed have different meanings (as it does in English), then it can have different meanings! It matters not if it means literally “every single one” in some places, if it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos (“brother”) meaning “sibling” in one place rules out a meaning of “cousin” or other non-sibling somewhere else.
And Mary was freed from original sin! Again, I don’t see how this is compelling at all. All you’ve shown is that there are exceptions indeed. Granted, Jesus is of course unique, but if He proves an exception to the rule here, is it utterly inconceivable that Mary could as well? Sure, Adam and Eve sinned, but they are used as examples of immaculate human beings however short-lived it was in their case! I agree that this verse could be regarded as a “difficulty,” but I don’t think it is insurmountable. What would be irrefutable would be a verse that read something like: “absolutely every human being who ever lived no exceptions - has sinned…” This would include Jesus since He is a human as we are - just that He is also God (a Divine Person), and Mary. But Romans 3:23 doesn’t entail that logical conundrum.
F
flewen
Guest
you simply misunderstood the verses you stated…Paul said that “All have sinned” and that included Mary. That’s why Christ came to earth, to save the sinners.
In addition, Mary said: Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Mary had to have sinned to need a saviour.
No Christian would believe that Mary wasn’t blessed. Even though Christ never treated her special. He called her “woman” most of the time and did not show any special respect for her. She was simply the vessel that brought Him to earth in human form but she was a strong supporter and gained more prominence after He was crucified. When she died, however, she just died. There is nothing to indicate she was assumed into heaven. No one has gone to heaven as of yet, except Christ who came down from heaven. That is what Christ taught.
To think that Mary did not sin is merely speculation and assumption. Scripture tells us that all have sinned and it doesn’t exclude Mary or anyone else. Those who believe Mary was sinless are simply believing what they want to. It is not Scriptural and they won’t find it in the writings of the early church fathers of the first couple of centuries either. That is a much later fabrication of the church. Personally I believe Mary was blessed and deserves special recognition, but not the pedestal Catholics want to put her on.
try to reflect this one…
The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false–and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods, the serpent’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. (One must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately.)
The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since. The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27).
Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)
After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp:thumbsup:
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Yes, but He did not sin, which of course, I agree with. But since Jesus is fully Man, then apparently “All” does not mean “All”, as in “then came down to him all of Judea and Jerusalem to be baptized”. I’m pretty sure every person in Judea did not get baptized by John.
Also, one needs to study Psalms 14 and 51 to see that Paul is quoting from those Psalms. What’s the context of those sins. The Psalmist is chastising those that persecute Israel saying All have done wrong. This would bear further study.
But in regards to Paul saying, “All have sinned”, I could not quantify it as everyone in the world has sinned (Original Sin, btw, is a state of being, not an action on your part or mine). To sin, one must be cognizant of the fact that they are sinning, and this is impossible in babies and the mentally handicapped.
J
justasking4
Guest
You can claim this all you want. The Roman Catholic church did not even exist then.
If you look at the passage in which this occurs it was given to Peter and not the church. There is no reference here for this being given to the church.
Mary’s assumption would certainly qualify as would the claim she was kept from sin. Both of these as you know are not taught in Scripture nor is there any real historical evidence for them.
Then its not apostolic either.
The Bible does not claim to have all Truths but that it alone is inspired-inerrant. There is nothing like or comes close to its authority or power.
I actually feel for catholics who are told to believe things that are not only taught in scripture but things that either have no historical support or the ideas of men that contradict the scriptures.
Reading the Bible as a whole in support of the marian doctrines fails on the details. In may look right and good when viewing the claims made about Mary but when you go to look for the support in Scripture for them they fail in the details. The 2 examples i mention above are but 2 of many examples.
J
justasking4
Guest
There is absolutely no evidence that “Mary was saved in anticipation of her contracting original sin, and was born without it”. There is just is not one shred of Scripture that could be used to come even close to support this assertion.
Its not a “personal sin” that is the problem but that they are children of Adam they “inherit” his sin. They share in Adam’s nature. We also know this is true that if a baby is allowed to grow to adulthood she-he will have sin many times.
Merry Christmas
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Pray tell, then; when did it exist? We know the early church had bishops (Acts 20:17 & 28, Titus 1:7, 1 Timothy 3:1, 1 Peter 2:25, Philippians 1:1), priests (John 20:22-23, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14) and deacons (1 Timothy 3:8, Philippians 1:1); at what point did they cease to exist, but our “fakers” did?
Peter was a member of the Church.
It is known from Apostolic Tradition that she was assumed. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 told us to hold onto beliefs like that. It is referenced in Song of Songs 2, Psalm 45 and Psalm 131:8, though.
THAT can be proven directly from scripture, though. You didn’t address my citations of Exodus 25:10, Luke 1:52 or the entire book of Judith.
We have Church Fathers as early as the 2nd century talking about both of them. What do you constitute as historical evidence?
Wrong. The Church overpowers the Bible in terms of authority. Paul says that the Church, NOT the Bible, is the pillar of truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.
No Catholic belief contradicts scripture, as the Catholic Church wrote the Bible to document its beliefs. If it’s the Church versus the Bible, the Bible is wrong; we don’t have the original manuscripts, so they could potentially have been altered, but we still have the infallible Church.
But thankfully, that issue never arises, as God kept our scriptures safe from harm.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
I can show you Exodus 25:10 until my face turns red, but that won’t mean a thing if you refuse to actually read the Bible.
J
justasking4
Guest
Probably not until the later centuries.
There were no “priests” as such in the NT. That was never an office in the church. Secondly the leaders in NT could be and were married. In the Roman church today a man is disqualified from real leadership by the mere fact he is married.
Thirdly many of the doctrines that Rome has today were totally unknown to the NT church.
That may be but the keys were given only to him.
The only apostolic writings we have are the scriptures. There were no aposltes after the last one died.
Not so. Is not Paul referring to his “traditions”?
Also the idea that any of the apostles were aware of Mary’s assumption is totally without foundation.
I checked and i don’t see it. There is no Psalm 131:8. Do you mean something else?
I don’t have the book of Judith so i can’t respond to that. Are you saying that the Exodus and Luke passages have something to do with Mary and the ark?
If so, are there any writers of the NT that make such a connection?
Lets take the her assumption. Do you have eyewitness accounts of it like Paul lays out for the resurrection of Christ in I Corinthians 15?
Do you consider you church inspired-inerrant?
I gave you a few examples above where your church does indeed circumvent the Scriptures.
J
justasking4
Guest
Here is the verse:
“They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high.
What are you trying to say with this verse?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You can claim this all you want. The Catholic Church existed there as She exists today!!
In regards to this passage, binding and loosing, try Matthew 18 (the Church) in addition to Matthew 16 (Peter).
They are taught in Tradition and supported in Scripture.
Now you’ve got me confused. When in the Bible does it say only what is said in a single verse can be taught.
You’re falling into the pit of “Sola Versura” again.
And yet it says “Take it to the Church” and it refers to the Church as the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”: This is what I mean when I say it is taught in Tradition and supported in Scripture.
As I feel for people who are straining to justify that theirs is the Church of Acts when there is only one.
You’ve been down that read many a time, and yet it still rings as true as our Glorious Church has taught it.
- Status