Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

Part 2

If you read this these passages without chapter or verses and read it as a flow, the words are continous.

Let me quote it for you only this time, I will quote it without Chapter or verses.

This passage in Revelation clearly invokes the words of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah 7:14 states:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The woman in Revelation 12:1-5, and she is Mary. I know you probably heard about this argument before. We see when we combine both Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1-5, we see Ark appearing before the appearance of the woman who is clothed with the sun.

Consider these parallel passages between the Ark of the Old Covenant and those of the New Testament:

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” (Luke 1:39–45).
Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.

When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Elizabeth uses almost the same words: “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.

When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.

When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22).

This is no mere coincidence, juskasking4. The ECF believe Mary as the type of Ark of New Covenant. The New Covenant being Jesus Christ.

Just as the Ark is pure. So to Mary is pure. Therefore, Mary never sinned. She is spotless and without any sin.

Your right i have seen this kind of thing before. Have you looked up these passages in Catholic commentaries and do they agree with your assessment and use of the passages?

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Mannyfit75;3121249]If you want Scriptural Proof Text, I think Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1-5.

In regards to Mary being the woman of Revelations 5 is not supported by some (name removed by moderator)ortant scholars of the catholic church. Let me quote what they write:
**Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary **(2:482):

a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

As you can see they reject the idea that Mary is the woman of Revelations 5 for good reasons.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3121365]

Originally Posted by justasking4
My response at this point would apply to why the catholic church baptizes babies. There are sinners (even though they have not sinned in deed) because of the sin of Adam which they inherit. This would also apply to Mary since she to is a child of Adam.
NotWorthy
You already know our answer to that. But again, Protestants do not look to the doctrine of Original Sin to defend Romans 5:12. They declare that everyone sins. You state that definitively yourself when you say:

It is true that eveyone will evenually sin. The question is why? Where does it come from?

Quote:justasking4
True because that is what the Scriptures clearly teach.
NotWorthy
So don’t look to Original Sin to defend this. You state that Scriptures declare this, and then overlook that infants, the mentally handicapped, and Jesus are exceptions.

Where did i say infants and the mentally handicapped are exceptions? How could they be if they inherit Adams sin nature?

Quote:justasking4
Where are getting this from 5:12?
NotWorthy
I’M not getting it from 5:12. Protestants that declare that everyone has sinned use 5:12 to support this. You yourself support this. And then when presented with exceptions you turn to our doctrine of Original Sin to defend it.

I don’t see much difference in your defintion with my understanding that all men are sinners from birth. Your definition below seems to bear this out also. Correct?

Quote-justasking4
What is the doctrine of Original sin?
NotWorthy
We are born in a fallen state, without Sanctifying Grace) Even in Baptism, which wipes away this state, we are still stained with concupiscence which is a tendency to sin.

i can agree with this.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

NotWorthy;3121365]

Quote:justasking4
Not so. Its your doctrines that are inconsistent as we are seeing with this doctrine that Mary was sinless.

NotWorthy
Not so. Nothing fits together any better than Mary being

• Sinless
• Perpetual Virgin
• The Ark of the New Covenant
• Assumed into Heaven.

You know full well that the scriptures never teach such a thing about her but you must rely on other means to try and make this work.
Do any catholic commentaries that you may have support the idea that Mary is “The Ark of the New Covenant”?

Quote:justasking4
You can make this claim but there is absolutely no evidence for it.
NotWorthy
Ah, there you are wrong. The evidence is written throughout Scripture, and the Early Church Fathers clearly saw this.

Would you happen to have the earliest date of some father that taught Mary was a type of ark?

Quote:justasking4
True because that is what the Scriptures clearly teach.
NotWorthy
This proves my point I made earlier about you and other Protestants. You don’t look at Original Sin to defend your position.

What makes you think protestants don’t believe in some kind of original sin?

NotWorthy
You rely on “Sola Verse-ura”. That’s a very dangerous pit for it can lead to much faulty decision. Look how completely the various Protestant Religions dropped the teachings of Mary, even after the first off-shoots still believed in them.

I would hate to be in your shoes in having to defend all these various doctrines your church teaches. Your load is far heavier than mine in that you are forced to believe things that cannot be defended by Scripture.

Quote:justasking4
Not exceptions but qualifications. All men born of 2 human parents are sinners. Jesus, Adam and Eve were not created-born in this manner and so did not inherit the sin nature from Adam. Surely you are aware of these distinctions.
NotWorthy
Yes, surely I am. But if you are going to cling to Romans 5:12 like a life raft, then you are stuck with 5:12. You state it clearly teaches this, but then you say “Hey, but there are qualifications”.

Was Adam, Eve and Jesus created-concieved-born the same way everyone else was?
If they were then Romans 5:12 is false in it statement. What do you say?

---

 

[Holly3278]

I believe that Mary, like her Son, could have sinned but didn’t.

 

[guanophore]

My response at this point would apply to why the catholic church baptizes babies. There are sinners (even though they have not sinned in deed) because of the sin of Adam which they inherit.

I don’t think this is quite right. Babies are not considered “sinners”, since this term is applied to those who choose to sin. They are considered to suffer the effects of original sin. It is not the “sin of Adam” that they inherit, but the consequence of that sin, which is the sin nature (concupiscense).

This would also apply to Mary since she to is a child of Adam.

I believe the thinkng is that, if Jesus took his flesh from Mary (which is an essential doctrine) that it would have to be pure flesh, untainted by sin.

Where are getting this from 5:12?

You have to read this verse in context. It is a quote from the OT, and it is speaking about persons who say in their heart “there is no God”.

What is the doctrine of Original sin?

The library here covers this succintly.

Not so. Its your doctrines that are inconsistent as we are seeing with this doctrine that Mary was sinless.

Certainly it is incompatible with your personal interpretation. But since the NT was written by the Catholic Church, nothing in it contradicts the Teachings of the Church. It appears that way because the reader is taking the verses out of context.

True because that is what the Scriptures clearly teach.

It seems to you that this is taught because you take the verse out of context.

Not exceptions but qualifications. All men born of 2 human parents are sinners. Jesus, Adam and Eve were not created-born in this manner and so did not inherit the sin nature from Adam. Surely you are aware of these distinctions.

I think original sin is not just limited to natural procreation, either. I think test tube babies and clones would also inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin.

 

[justasking4]

I believe that Mary, like her Son, could have sinned but didn’t.

On what evidential grounds do you believe she did not sin? What evidence from Scripture leads you to believe this?

 

[guanophore]

Part 2

Your right i have seen this kind of thing before. Have you looked up these passages in Catholic commentaries and do they agree with your assessment and use of the passages?

Individual Catholics and Commentators may differ, but it is irrelevant, because this is the Teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Your right i have seen this kind of thing before. Have you looked up these passages in Catholic commentaries and do they agree with your assessment and use of the passages?

Individual Catholics and Commentators may differ, but it is irrelevant, because this is the Teaching of the Church.

You know full well that the scriptures never teach such a thing about her but you must rely on other means to try and make this work.

Fortunately we have the Teaching of the Apostles to shed light!

Do any catholic commentaries that you may have support the idea that Mary is “The Ark of the New Covenant”?

Sure, but they are not an authoritative source on par with the Magesterium. The Church

(Teaching Authority) appointed by Christ discerns between the commentary/opinions of individuals in accord with the Apostolic Faith.

Would you happen to have the earliest date of some father that taught Mary was a type of ark?

The Faith has been preached from the OT since John the Baptist. Paul was able to explain the entire gospel using only the OT. Augustine said it best:

“The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed”

Rom 15:3-4
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction,"

I would hate to be in your shoes in having to defend all these various doctrines your church teaches. Your load is far heavier than mine in that you are forced to believe things that cannot be defended by Scripture.

This is a slanderous accusation against Catholicsim, ja4. Catholics are not “forced” to believe anything. In fact, no one can “force” someone into faith. The Church teaches what was handed down to us from the Apostles. Everyone is free to reject apostolic teaching, just as you have.

Since we have the Divine Deposit of Faith in such a manner that is not limited to the written part, it is not burdensome to defend our faith.

 

[EphelDuath]

Would you happen to have the earliest date of some father that taught Mary was a type of ark?

I believe it is this…

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

 

[EphelDuath]

On what evidential grounds do you believe she did not sin? What evidence from Scripture leads you to believe this?

Again you ignore me. I guess you aren’t interested in truth, only propaganda.

Ark made of incorruptible wood in Exodus.
“Full of grace” only elsewhere referring to God in Luke 1.
Foreshadowing by Judith.

 

[whatevergirl]

This link is very good in explaining why Mary couldn’t have had sin on her soul (ever)…and how even Martin Luther believed in Mary’s sinlessness. It talks about the Immaculate Conception, and continues from there.

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2005/10/immaculate-conception.html

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I would hate to be in your shoes in having to defend all these various doctrines your church teaches.

?!?

 

[Good_Fella]

You are incorrect when you say the early church fathers taught that Scripture must be interpreted in light of church tradition, and then you list Irenæus as saying so. I challenge you to show the writings of Irenæus that say that. Don’t just list the references because I read your references fully and there is nothing there to indicate Irenæus said any such thing. Nor did Tertullian or Origen.

You listed Cyril of Alexandria and his “Festical Lectures” but I have already quoted him as saying that without Scripture, tradition is nothing. You are saying how you wish it was, not how it really was, and is.

To begin, ‘sola scriptura’ affirms that all doctrines of the Christian faith are contained within the body of Holy Scripture. Thus Scripture is materially sufficient. And according to this unbiblical concept, Scripture requires no other coordinate (equal in rank) authority such as Tradition and Magisterium in order to determine its meaning. Sola Scriptura affirms the formal sufficiency of Scripture. However, the Church Fathers never affirmed the formal sufficiency of Scripture. On the contrary, they affirmed both the ‘material’ sufficiency and formal insufficiency of Scripture. In the writings of the Church Fathers we clearly find an appeal to Tradition that is oral in nature for the defense of what they call the Apostolic Tradition. The APOSTOLIC TRADITION for Irenaeus and Tertullian, for instance, WAS NOT SIMPLY SCRIPTURE. :nope: Both of these Fathers acknowledged Tradition as a substantive and coordinate authority alongside Scripture. They firmly believed that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are found in both Scripture and Tradition. Yet they did not reach the false conclusion that Tradition is equated to Scripture, since TRADITION CONTAINS THE SAME DOCTRINES THAT SCRIPTURE CONTAINS. :yup: The main difference between Scripture and Tradition is that they convey the same teachings but through different mediums. One transmits Church doctrines by the written word, while the other transmits these doctrines through the life, faith, and practice of the Church. If Scripture were equated with Tradition, then it would be difficult to make sense out of the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Certainly Tradition did not mean Scripture according to the Fathers’ understanding. They did not embrace the false concept of ‘sola scriptura’.

Irenaeus writes: “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them [material insufficiency: i.e. the Perpetual Virginity of Mary] by those who are ignorant of Tradition…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or Tradition.”
{Against Heresies 3, 2:1}

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves DID NOT LEAVE US THEIR WRITINGS? Would it not be necessary, in that case, to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?” {Against Heresies 3, 4:1}

In like manner, Tertullian writes:

" Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be ONE AND THE SAME (unlike in Protestantism which embraces ‘sola scriptura’ and private interpretation of Scripture), it is not the result of error but of TRADITION. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?"
{Prescription Against the Heretics, 28}

By rejecting one medium, we reject the other. NO INFALLIBLE TRADITION MEANS NO INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE. Without the Apostolic Tradition there would be no Scripture in the first place, so obviously the emergence of Scripture could not possibly negate Tradition. And Scripture can only be correctly interpreted in light of the Tradition from which it had sprung. When it comes to the interpretation of Scripture, therefore, the authority lies strictly with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, not with those who have broken from the historic Christian faith of our Fathers. (The Fathers neither espoused the false Protestant doctrines of ‘sola fide’, ‘sola Christo’ nor Predestination. But they did preach what have become the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church.) At any rate, Irenaeus and Tertullian make it clear that Tradition is substantive in content, authoritative, and continues to live in the Apostolic Catholic Church. To continue…

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

=Old Scholar:
If we want to know what the “early church fathers” had to say, then we must go to the first and second century; not to some far later beliefs…

You listed Cyril of Alexandria and his “Festical Lectures” but I have already quoted him as saying that without Scripture, tradition is nothing. You are saying how you wish it was, not how it really was.

You challenged me to present writings of Irenaeus to show he did not embrace the false principle of ‘sola scriptura’. And I have done so with Tertullian to boot. Let me know if you want me to discuss Origen and Cyril of Alexandria, who were no different. :tiphat: Anyway, Irenaeus and Tertullian had no problem with the concept of an authoritative Tradition coupled with Scripture: the deposit of the Catholic Faith. Their criticism of the Gnostics was with a tradition that was private and available to only the Gnostic elect (smacks of Calvinism and the Jehova’s Witness ) in contrast to the Tradition that was public and taught and preserved by the Catholic Church. This was the point that was raised by Irenaeus and Tertullian:

“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by the means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser…”
{ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 2:2}

“His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and steadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private (unlike the Protestant reformers who had absolutely no apostolic authority - for it doesn’t lie in Scripture alone according to the Church Fathers :nope:; it lies also with Tradition and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church), and another in public.”
{Against Heresies 3, 15:1}

“…Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the ONE primitive Church (Protestantism cannot claim to be “One” thanks to ‘sola scriptura’ and the break from Apostolic Tradition), founded by the apostles, from which they all spring (in a unity of catholic -universal- faith). In this way all are primitive (The Protestant churches are not primitive for there is no unity.), and all are APOSTOLIC (So they can’t be this either. :dts: ), whilst they are all proved to be ONE, in unbroken unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, privileges which NO OTHER RULE DIRECTS THAN THE ONE TRADITION of the selfsame mystery (Sola Scriptura scatters Christ’s sheep!).”
{Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics, 20}

Obviously, to understand that these Church Fathers, not unlike the rest, appealed to Sola Scriptura is to indulge in fanciful thinking. They were aware that Scripture had to be interpreted in light of Tradition or else there would be no unity of faith.

Now you say the first and second century. I thought you said the corruption and heresies of the Catholic Church crept in in the fifth century in Rome? So where was the Catholic Church from that time on until the sixteenth century? Was she in suspension? Now that would be unbiblical in light of our Lord’s promise to be with her until the end of time. At any rate, this is what the early Church Fathers had to say about Mary’s sinlessness:

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” {Hyppolytus, (ante A.D. 235)

“This Virgin Mother, of the Only-begotten of God (Mother of God), is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, (The Immaculate Conception) one of the one.”
{Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244)

Perhaps you should start reading the Church Fathers and listen to them as well. And it doesn’t matter what century it is either. Apostolic Tradition and Succession will continue to last until Christ returns.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NotWorthy]

It is true that eveyone will evenually sin. The question is why? Where does it come from?

This is contested. Everyone will not eventually sin. Jesus and Mary are two exceptions.

Where did i say infants and the mentally handicapped are exceptions? How could they be if they inherit Adams sin nature?

To sin is to knowingly disobey God’s commands.

Infants and the mentally handicapped do not know of this, so they can’t sin.

I don’t see much difference in your defintion with my understanding that all men are sinners from birth. Your definition below seems to bear this out also. Correct?

No, I am not a sinner until I sin, even if I am steeped in Original sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

You know full well that the scriptures never teach such a thing about her but you must rely on other means to try and make this work.
Do any catholic commentaries that you may have support the idea that Mary is “The Ark of the New Covenant”?

I know full well that these doctrines were drawn from Scriptures. They would have fallen on their face millenia ago if they were not Scripturally based.

I will certainly look into this for you.

What makes you think protestants don’t believe in some kind of original sin?

Trying to place what Protestants believe is like trying to herd cats. There is no consistent doctrine throughout their faiths, so I can only generalize. Most Protestant faiths I come across do not believe in Original Sin.

I would hate to be in your shoes in having to defend all these various doctrines your church teaches. Your load is far heavier than mine in that you are forced to believe things that cannot be defended by Scripture.

JA4, I’m so sorry you feel that way. For I’d hate to be in a faith that is no more than an invention of man. The Catholic Church has been around since the Pentecost, which is a tad bit longer than any man-made religion you may follow.

Was Adam, Eve and Jesus created-concieved-born the same way everyone else was?
If they were then Romans 5:12 is false in it statement. What do you say?

Why are you pursuing that?!? Everyone knows that Adam and Eve were created by God. What’s that got to do with this?

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3121937]Again you ignore me. I guess you aren’t interested in truth, only propaganda.

Ark made of incorruptible wood in Exodus.
“Full of grace” only elsewhere referring to God in Luke 1.
Foreshadowing by Judith.

Not so. I wrote this to you awhile back:
“There is not one shred of support from the scriptures to support your claim about Mary. Not one writer of the NT ever comes close to making this claim. Secondly, there no one for centuries who ever claimed this either.”

If you are interested in the truth how can you claim to have it on this when no writer of the entire never makes these connections that you do?

 

[EphelDuath]

Because the majority of the writings were lost. Why don’t we have the original Gospels? The oldest manuscripts we have are from the 4th century. Early Fathers wrote about her perpetual virginity and her being the Ark, which is further than most Protestants go.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There’s a flaw in your argument: when the Church Fathers support Catholic doctrine, you say that they are unreliable, or their arguments unbiblical. Yet when the Fathers are silent about Catholic doctrine, you take that as evidence that our beliefs were invented. So which comes first in the chain?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3123584]

Quote:justasking4
What makes you think protestants don’t believe in some kind of original sin?
NotWorthy
Trying to place what Protestants believe is like trying to herd cats. There is no consistent doctrine throughout their faiths, so I can only generalize. Most Protestant faiths I come across do not believe in Original Sin.

I’m suprised. All orthodox protestants and material i have read all believe in the fall of man that resulted in making all of us sinners in need of Christ.

Quote:justasking4
I would hate to be in your shoes in having to defend all these various doctrines your church teaches. Your load is far heavier than mine in that you are forced to believe things that cannot be defended by Scripture.
NotWorthy
JA4, I’m so sorry you feel that way. For I’d hate to be in a faith that is no more than an invention of man. The Catholic Church has been around since the Pentecost, which is a tad bit longer than any man-made religion you may follow.

Even though the Roman Catholic church has been around longer doesn’t mean it has always taught the truth. If anything it shows how much it does promote beyond the Scriptures that i suspect catholics like yourself who are passionate about their belief in the church are backed into a corner to defend stuff like this topic an impossible task when confronted with evidence for it.

Quote:justasking4
Was Adam, Eve and Jesus created-concieved-born the same way everyone else was?
If they were then Romans 5:12 is false in it statement. What do you say?
NotWorthy
Why are you pursuing that?!? Everyone knows that Adam and Eve were created by God. What’s that got to do with this?

I am pursuing this in regards to show not only the exceptions to being born "into sin " as Jesus, Adam and Eve were not because of their unique creation etc but to demonstrate that Mary herself was also a sinner because she to had 2 normal parents as you and all mankind have had. It will not do to make some kind of analogy to say she was “saved from sinning” and claim that this is indeed what happened when the Scriptures themselves never claim that. To do that would falsify Romans 5:12 and other scriptures that state all born of Adam are sinners.

---