Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

Part 2
Good Fella;3125396]

This same Church has as much authority in the public interpretation of Scripture to form its Marian doctrines as she does her Christological doctrines. That Mary was immaculately conceived and thus sinless is evident in Scripture, but this evidence is implicit and requires a “spiritual sense” to disclose as opposed to the “literal sense” of understanding the sacred texts. Christians who embrace the false principle of ‘sola scriptura’ and adopt a literal approach to understanding the Scriptures, and fail to look at particular texts as part of a unified whole from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 12, obviously arrive at the wrong conclusion that there is no biblical evidence that confirms the Church’s traditional Marian doctrines and devotions. By starting from the wrong premise, these Christians naturally reach false conclusions.

Actually much of what you say here is to be applied to your church. If its starting premise is as you say–" “spiritual sense” to disclose as opposed to the “literal sense” of understanding the sacred texts." no wonder it arrives at such an unbiblical conclusion. With such a starting almost anything could be said.

Finally, appealing to the commentaries found in our bibles to argue against Church Marian doctrines constitutes a faulty line of reasoning, since these commentaries virtually function within the scope of the literal sense of understanding Scripture. The Sacred texts contain material that lies deeply underneath the historical surface and is woven like a thread throughout the entire Bible linking the Old Testament with the New.

As far as i know the ones who write these commentaries are far more knowledgeable about the scriptures than those not trained in this area. What these commentaries certainly show at times is that they don’t support what many are saying here.

The Old Testament texts stand on their own: the virgin and child in Isaiah 7,14 form a near-term sign referring to the reign of King Ahaz in the 8th century B.C. and is not an oracle about Christ. But this prophecy does point towards Christ and finds fuller meaning and fulfillment in the Messiah along a unified, interwoven path. Likewise, the Ark of the Covenant is just that, but it does in a spiritual sense prefigure the Mother of our Lord. The evangelist Luke discerned the parallel between Mary and the Ark, or more likely expressed in literary form what the primitive Church had already traditionally understood about Mary by the mid-sixties. :yup:

You can claim all this you want to. What i want to know is if catholic scholars support these conclusions. From what i have read so far they do not. I would think there are some who do.

At any rate, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, opposed the spread of Arianism in the East and insisted on the doctrine of ‘homoousianism’ with his fellow pro-Nicenes which led to the promulgation of a Christological dogma which is embraced even by mainstream Protestants. This is what the good Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church has to say about the sinlessness of Mary pointing towards the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception of 1854:

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”
{Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante A.D. 373)}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

All this shows me is how he viewed Mary. What it does not show on what basis in Scripture does he make some of the claims. For example where does it say in Scripture of Mary that “You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold!”? What NT writer describes her that way?

 

[Deana]

When Mother Mary told Him, “There is no wine left”, He says, “What does this have to do with you Woman?” She says, “Do as He tells you!”

 

[justasking4]

When Mother Mary told Him, “There is no wine left”, He says, “What does this have to do with you Woman?” She says, “Do as He tells you!”

So what follows from this?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Guanaphore.

Oh, I did not mean to say that Jesus was not circumcised on the 8th day, just that they might not yet have gotten the gold from the magi at that time. If it is traditional, I do not know. I was educated on these points at a Protestant Seminary, so whose tradition is that?

And my point is you have no proof whatsoever when the gold was given to them – while in the stable or not. In the manger or not. You were trying to discredit my observation without real evidence – I don’t have to prove they DID just that they COULD have.

I have never seen a comet which lasted visibly and continuously two years such that it might be followed – but even so, the point remains that the Magi followed it miraculously to a specific “house” which isn’t normal for comets either without some special technique of observation.

Obviously it is the tradition of your seminary and it is a mix of several different ones from the past. If by chance you thought the argument up yourself or misheard a subtle truth at seminary (reinvented the wheel) it is still a traditional argument.

Catholics may choose to agree with the tradition, so long as they also agree that the offering is not for Mary’s sin – either original or actual – but at most an offering which wasn’t required. Just like Jesus being baptized in the Jordan. ( He didn’t need it either ).

But my point again is → παιδιον ← refers to an 8 day year old child very clearly (and doubtless younger as Greek language isn’t special about circumcision)

As an aside I misspelled it last time as παιδον. Dropped an ι from the law, but Moses was 3 months old and not a toddler when floated in the rushes so it was still right. (I am being like Augustine here…)

I never said he wasnt! Maybe, by the end of the week, when the city cleared out, they were able to rent a place?

Why by the end of the week? It doesn’t mater to me – the gospel writer could have used “house” whether or NOT they were still in the manger area, (I’m being nice) – I mean if Joseph were ‘poor’ as you say – then how could he have rented a whole house as opposed to a floor mat at an Inn?

Remember, I am not trying to prove a certain sin offering was made – I am only exploring your argument by scripture alone; so far you CAN NOT prove Joseph was massively poor, that he COULD NOT have had the money for a lamb, and that he COULD NOT have had to offer two turtle doves for himself.

By the way, I doubt the inns cleared out anytime soon – it could be like the supermarket parking lots of today during Christmas – everyone has to be there, and there isn’t enough room at THE INSTANT you get there. Generally people who can wait cruise around looking for a parking spot until just one slot opens up ( they don’t wait for everything to clear out just one slot. ) – if they aren’t having a baby immediately that is… In the middle of the night…

Now the FABULOUSLY rich might park in the handicapped zone and pay a big fine with impunity, but if they are honest and just they will not. Same thing, If Joseph were rich – he also has a justice which defies the cultural norm. (Besides why flaunt it – the Romans would just try and take it.)

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

So, lets pursue this further:

if Joseph REALLY had NO money (how much is a lamb anyway – is it more or less money than the donkey Mary PROBABLY rode on from tradition – a donkey is redeemed by what animal again ??? )

During the deportation to Babylon, the Babylonians didn’t bother deporting the destitute (as recorded in scripture) – Which meant Joseph’s ancestors must have had enough money to be deported or else they wouldn’t have gone. (They did, check the book of generations )

Now, why are you arguing another superpower – The Romans – had interest in Joseph if he were destitute based on SCRIPTURE alone?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3125072]

JA4? Why do all of your quotes of our postings ahve that weird mis-link in front of them? Just curious…

When i respond to people’ comments i don’t see my comments either so i copy and paste. Is there a way to have my comments appear with other comments on the “response” mode?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
We agree that Jesus did not sin becasue of Who He is and His nature. Mary, howerever was a sinner being a daughter of Adam in which she inherited sin through her birth through her human parents. Do you agree that everyone of age today has sinned?
NotWorthy
No, I don’t agree. I don’t agree that a man at my Church that is severely mentally handicapped could sin. He simply doesn’t understand.

Are you saying then he is perfect?

Quote:justasking4.
Then what of Romans 5:12 that says otherwise? Why then does your church baptize babies and the mentally handicapped if they are not guilty of sin?
NotWorthy
Because you cannot get to heaven but through Jesus. Baptism washes away Original Sin, which even the mentally handicapped are born with, thanks to that whole Eden thing - AppleGate, maybe?

So we do agree that all men are fallen i.e. sinners even though they may not have actually commited a sin in word, deed or thought?

Quote:justasking4.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?
NotWorthy
Original Sin does not come to us through any sin of ours. Our sins themselves make us sinners, not Original Sin.

Why then does a person sin to begin with? Why is there such a powerful tendency to sin at all?

---

 

[MariaG]

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.

Not true at all.

While you certainly are free to disagree with the interpretation, there is Scripture that supports this assertion. (Going to work as soon as I post, but IF you actually wanted to study it again, I will post links including the excellent one always posted by Church Militant that is a FREE bible study on Mary, including her immaculate conception. LOTS of scripture)

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.

So you believe “all have sinned” refers to original sin, an inherited nature from Adam?

And please forgive me, I post before “catching up” with all the posts, but just responded to yours in the order it came up. If you already were asked to clarify this point, hopefully I will see it later. I will try to catch up soon. Lots of family time. Not as much computer time.

Merry Christmas

Thank you

I pray you had a blessed Christmas?

 

[MariaG]

When i respond to people’ comments i don’t see my comments either so i copy and paste. Is there a way to have my comments appear with other comments on the “response” mode?

Saw this at the end, still not caught up, but can answer this.

When you want to quote multiple posts, instead of hitting the quote button, hit the button right next to it. You can quote multiple quotes. You will still have to cut and paste, but it can make responding in context less confusing.

If you COPY and paste the beginning that has your name and stuff

You can then cut up the post and still have a link to the original post.

Did I make that clear enough or was that too confusing:hypno:

 

[NotWorthy]

justasking4:

Are you saying then he is perfect? (referring to the mentally handicapped man)No, I’m not saying he is perfect. But he’s not a sinner either. He’ll still have a fallen state until he’s baptized and what-not. Think of the parable of the talents. This person has been given maybe one or two talents, and doesn’t have to return much to God, whereas you and I are blessed with 10 or more talents and have more to do to please Him.

So we do agree that all men are fallen i.e. sinners even though they may not have actually commited a sin in word, deed or thought?

I don’t believe that. A sinner is one who sins, in word deed or thought. A person can be fallen, and still need Jesus as a savior, even if he is incapable of sinning. (No one can come to the Father except through me…).

Why then does a person sin to begin with? Why is there such a powerful tendency to sin at all?

---

Concupiscence. Mary, of course, was conceived without this little tendency.

 

[justasking4]

JA4? Why do all of your quotes of our postings ahve that weird mis-link in front of them? Just curious…
No, I don’t agree. I don’t agree that a man at my Church that is severely mentally handicapped could sin. He simply doesn’t understand.
Because you cannot get to heaven but through Jesus. Baptism washes away Original Sin, which even the mentally handicapped are born with, thanks to that whole Eden thing - AppleGate, maybe?
Original Sin does not come to us through any sin of ours. Our sins themselves make us sinners, not Original Sin.

Saw this at the end, still not caught up, but can answer this.

When you want to quote multiple posts, instead of hitting the quote button, hit the button right next to it. You can quote multiple quotes. You will still have to cut and paste, but it can make responding in context less confusing.

If you COPY and paste the beginning that has your name and stuff You can then cut up the post and still have a link to the original post.

Did I make that clear enough or was that too confusing:hypno:

Thanks. I will try working with it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks. I will try working with it.

Wow!!! You pick it up quick! I still haven’t figured out how to multiple-quote. Maybe I’ll make it a New Year’s Resolution.

 

[guanophore]

As far as i know the ones who write these commentaries are far more knowledgeable about the scriptures than those not trained in this area. What these commentaries certainly show at times is that they don’t support what many are saying here.

I agree with you, I think scholars who write commentaries are generally more knowledgeable than those who have not been trained. However, scholarship and training are not what defines the Teaching of Jesus, but God Himself. If the scholars disagree with what Jesus taught, then the Church does not use what they have to say.

Some of the Fathers, as well as modern writers have contradicted the church teaching. It does not change what the Church teaches.

What i want to know is if catholic scholars support these conclusions. From what i have read so far they do not. I would think there are some who do.

I am confused about why this is relevant? Are you using the disagreement of other writers as “proof” that what the Church is teaching is therefore in error?

All this shows me is how he viewed Mary. What it does not show on what basis in Scripture does he make some of the claims. For example where does it say in Scripture of Mary that “You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold!”? What NT writer describes her that way?

I doubt that he bases all of his comments on Scripture. He sees the Divine Deposit of Faith present in both Scripture and Tradition, therefore, would not limit himself to only part of it.

 

[Deana]

So what follows from this?

Mother Mary got the ball rolling. Jesus said, “It is not my time”< and she said “Do what he tell you.” She is the New Eve. Just pray on it. You will get the answer, believe me. Good luck Bud!

 

[justasking4]

Mother Mary got the ball rolling. Jesus said, “It is not my time”< and she said “Do what he tell you.” She is the New Eve. Just pray on it. You will get the answer, believe me. Good luck Bud!

Instead of praying about it or relying on luck study what the Scriptures teach about this. One thing you will not find in them is any reference to Mary being the New Eve. No writer of the NT ever says such a thing about her like that.

 

[NonDenom]

Mary did need a savior and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. You make a straw man argument by claiming otherwise.

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?

Lets see here, I’ll name a few.

1. Anger, Baby’s tend to get very mad if they don’t get what they want.
2. Covet, You ever seen a baby look at someones ice cream cone, you know they wish they had it.
3. Stealing, Baby’s will steal anything they want.
4. Ever slap a baby lightly on the hand? They hit back instead of turning the other cheek.

I know that this is a reach, but it’s true. Babies are guilty off these things and many more, but we don’t hold them accountable because they obviously don’t know any better.

 

[EphelDuath]

One thing you will not find in them is any reference to Mary being the New Eve.

On the contrary.

John 19:25-27

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3131374]
Quote:
One thing you will not find in them is any reference to Mary being the New Eve.

On the contrary.

Quote:
John 19:25-27

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

What does this passage in John have to do with Mary being the New Eve?

 

[EphelDuath]

What does this passage in John have to do with Mary being the New Eve?

Eve was the mother of all mankind. Mary is the spiritual mother. Hence why Jesus calls her John’s mother despite no family relationship whatsoever.

 

[justasking4]

Eve was the mother of all mankind. Mary is the spiritual mother. Hence why Jesus calls her John’s mother despite no family relationship whatsoever.

This is one of many examples of the catholic church going beyond what is written. Mary is not the “spritual mother” of the church. Again this goes far beyond what the scriptures teach about her. There is no one who comes even close to making this claim.

 

[EphelDuath]

Mary is the mother of God.
The Church was founded to worship Christ.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Church.

Do you also deny that Jesus is the New Adam?

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3131478]
Mary is the mother of God.
The Church was founded to worship Christ.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Church.

Your 3 points don’t necessarily follow especially from a scriptual view. Mary is never referred to as the mother of the church by any writer of Scripture. Its not even implied.

Do you also deny that Jesus is the New Adam?

No