Could Mary have sinned?

[Truthstalker]

Look again. I wrote Jesus “could very well have” referred to his mother. I’m aware that he’s referring to Martha’s sister. Perhaps you should brush up on your English grammar.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Thanks for taking my snarl so well. You deserve your name.

 

[Truthstalker]

Some did but the majority believe Mary is pure and sinless.

“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).

…

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

So you backed off of your previous position, that there were no ECFs who thought she sinned? Maybe if I push hard enough, you will arrive at the position that they all did (no, I don’t believe that - Augustine, for example, laid the intellectual groundwork for the IC)?

Please supply links to all of these quotes so I can check on them. I’ve seen lists like this go up in smoke when investigated, from bad translation, poor quoting, wrested out of context, or otherwise withering away. Or at least the site you cut and pasted these from. If you rattled this off from memory, I am impressed. Or scared.

If I remember correctly, Hippolytus was an anti-pope, Origen’s views on a number of things have been condemned, 733 and 749 are too late to be Early Christian Fathers in my book (more like early medieval). I don’t know enough to comment on the others, and I haven’t gotten to Augustine’s “Nature and Grace.” He had a high view of Mary, however.

One can, by the way, have a high view of Mary and still not believe she is utterly sinless. The reaction, though, seems to be that unless you believe her utterly sinless you think she was trash. I think it is wrong to force people to take one or other position (and Manny, I don’t think you are doing that; I am just commenting on the polarizing nature of the discussion.)

 

[NotWorthy]

Any metaphor or type can be used incorrectly. The ark in the temple was the center of worship, not Mary. The religious life of the Jews centered around the temple, not Mary. Or there were two arks, the one in the temple, the second Mary. She did not replace the ark. One could as easily say Mary is a type of the ark as that the ark is a type of Mary.

TS, Can you explain all the coincidences between the text given in Samuel and Luke? Is it coincidence or “God-incidence”?

 

[guanophore]

These questions can be answered from scripture. Uzzah in his haste did something that God considered an act of sin. That much can be gleaned from this incident without going into all the details.
The making of the ark was a very specific and precise thing. Its construction is also described in the OT.

This is a very accurate observation, and one upon which the Immaculate Conception Doctrine is based. Catholics believed that God would spend no less effort to build the physical tabernacle from which His own flesh would be drawn.

Was the ark itself to venerated in the OT?

Absolutely. Perhaps you need to explore what that word means

Were the people themselves to focus on ark as a object worship or on the One Who stood behind it?

I don’t know if this confusion of veneration and worship is deliberate or ignorant. The two are not the same thing. Personally, I think you know that, and this is just one of your subtle tactics to impugn Catholic belief. But, for the record, no, the ark was not the focus of worship, but an aid, just as statues are today.

 

[Tim_in_MI]

This article by Steve Ray has a comprehensive discussion on typology wrt Mary as the Ark. Amazing “coincidences” and pretty compelling…

 

[justasking4]

HailMary;3151193

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What matters most is not what the church uses to describe the doctrine but what is the evidence from Scripture that she was immaculate.

HailMary
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible

The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”

Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

The problem with your response is that it does not in any refute what i have written. Even Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture it would still not change the fact that the Scriptures say nothing of Mary being immaculate conceived.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4: do you think thart you should call Mary blessed?

Yes.

 

[chrisb]

Could Mary have sinned?

The question I have is Could John the Baptist chose not to be a Prophet after the Angel told his Father he would be?

Everyone spends so much time debating Mary’s choice but then remain silent with regard to John’s predestination. Why?

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;3140006]

Now, to answer your questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does anyone in the OT ever imply or state explicitedly that the mother of Messiah would be like this?
MariaG
It appears as you seem to believe that people will always understand scripture immediately at the many levels God inspired it to be written?

No.

Why would those who God inspired to write the OT write these things explicitly about the Mother of the Messiah when they really didn’t even understand who and why the Messiah was coming for?

They can write things that people may not understand. Did they write anything about the mother of the Messiah except that she would be a virgin?

As for “even imply”, yes they did and I have shown the scripture that was inspired to be written about Mary that corresponds to the OT, showing us that even if the writers did not understand, or those who read the words did not fully comprehend, that Mary was the Ark (the vessel the carried) the New Covenant, the Word incarnate.

You do realize that there is not one reference in the Scriptures that even come close to making a connection with the mother of the Messiah being a type of ark?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Anyone in the NT make this connection?

MariaG
Again, those whom God inspired to write the NT were not ready to hear all that Christ had to tell them. Scripture EXPLICITLY tells us this. Yet you seem to wish to beleive that people understood all?

So even in the NT where those who knew Jesus and Mary best make no such assertion about her i.e. being an ark. Correct?

However, I do believe in fact the disciples understood. I don’t think that those who heard, the average person in the pew understood, but it is quite clear that those who were taught by the apostles, who then taught others, understood that Mary was the New Eve. These teachings were entrusted to faithful men just as scripture tells us.

Where in the NT is Mary said to be the new Eve if the disciples understood this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If what you say is true then why did not people die when they touched Mary?
MariaG
You misunderstand scripture. These verses show that Mary “knew” no man. No one touched Mary intimately, or else God would have slain them as surely as He slew the man who accidently touched the Ark that carried the word.

If you want to use Mary as a type of ark then you must also account for what happens to those who mishandle it. People died just by touching it. This is an “intimate” touch either. If Mary is a type of ark then we should expect to see people dying just by touching her if you are right about her being a type of ark.

Frankly, this one here, I find it odd when people continue to insist that Mary had other children or even marital relations with Joseph, when scripture can not be clearer.

Actually the Scriptures teach opposite what you claim here.

The men who touched the ark that carried the word of God were slain.

Any man who touched the ark(Mary) who carried the Word, would have been slain.

Unless one wishes to deny that Mary carried God incarnate, the Word, I don’t see how they can come to any other conclusion

Do you believe Mary had other children? If yes, do you continue to believe so now? Or are these questions going to be unaswered also?

Of course she had other children from her own body. The evidence from Scripture is extremely strong.

 

[Good_Fella]

The problem with your response is that it does not in any refute what i have written. Even Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture it would still not change the fact that the Scriptures say nothing of Mary being immaculate conceived.

But the Church - “the pillar and ground of the truth” - infallibly declares that Mary was conceived preserved from original sin, just as the Church infallibly declares that Christ is ‘homousios’ in nature: of the same substance and essence with the Father. Yet Scripture alone does not tell us this explicitly. Neither is Scripture explicit on the doctrine of original sin. You won’t find the term anywhere in the Bible, just as you won’t find the term Immaculate Conception. This has been pointed out many times to you by many forum members, but you keep chirping, “It is not taught in Scripture.” It is taught, but implicitly, beginning with Genesis 3,15.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;3144796]I

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What are you referring to?
MariaG
I first posted a few questions in post 247, and then again in post 280.

Here they are again

Quote:
Originally Posted by MariaG
I would be glad to answer these questions, with the scripture. And could you please answer the questions I have asked in previous posts?

1. You believe in original sin? edit: I see you have answered this one to the best of your ability in post 238. Probably need a thread devoted to original sin to explore whether or not your understanding matchest he Catholic Church But for the moment, I think we can say yes, you believe in the concept of original sin.

Agreed

1. You believe Romans is referring to original sin and not personal sin?

Both. All men are fallen because they inherited the sin nature by birth through Adam and proceed to manifest the fruits of it in life.

1. You believe baptism is an actual miracle which removes original sin, and one is born again through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

What a person must do first is repent, believe in the gospel and be baptized. Only then is their sin dewelt with.

If an actual miracle, do you baptize infants? Why or why not?

No for the mere fact the infant cannot understand first.

1. You believe baptism is only symbolic?

Both. It is a ritual but also a spiritual reality done by the HS in the spirit of men who believe in Christ.

As these relate very much to the topic at hand, that is why I have repeatedly asked these questions, because of the responses you have had in this thread.

 

[justasking4]

But the Church - “the pillar and ground of the truth” - infallibly declares that Mary was conceived preserved from original sin, just as the Church infallibly declares that Christ is ‘homousios’ in nature: of the same substance and essence with the Father. Yet Scripture alone does not tell us this explicitly. Neither is Scripture explicit on the doctrine of original sin. You won’t find the term anywhere in the Bible, just as you won’t find the term Immaculate Conception. This has been pointed out many times to you by many forum members, but you keep chirping, “It is not taught in Scripture.” It is taught, but implicitly, beginning with Genesis 3,15.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Just because your church declares something to be “infallibly” true does not mean it so. Your church wants desparately to claim its doctrines are grounded in the Scriptures and apostolic. When we look at the scriptures for Mary being immaculately concieved and did not sin we find that the Scriptures never teach such a thing. If they never teach such a thing, then its not grounded in the Scriptures nor is it apostlolic.

I’m not demanding even the terms “immaculate” be found in scripture from you just the evidence of it.
Are you saying that Genesis 3:15 implies the immaculate conception of Mary?

 

[chrisb]

We have to consider the question whether, from the first moment of her existence, the Mother of God obtained a preparation of grace and purity commensurate with her most sublime office and her maternal dignity… we then must therefore first consider the laws and principles which may be supposed to the subject. And the first which presents itself is this very principle of preparation.

The Old Testament, in all that it embraces, is but one great example of this principle. Its history and genealogies, its rites and sacrifices, its miracles and providences, its prophets and other great personages, all are shaped out and directed by God towards the one great mystery of the Incarnation of His divine son.*

And as is the whole, so is each particular part.*

Preparation is one of the grand laws of the divine economy, and one which is everywhere apparent. And as we approach nearer to the end contemplated, so do we find the preparations more perfect, and higher grades of holiness in the instruments which God designs to employ in their accomplishment. The general law is that of a gradual advance of preparation, yet evil may still remain, and may be allowed to encompass and assault what is holy, or even to afflict and crucify it, and thus to be a means of purification or probation; but notwithstanding the presence of evil, it is not suffered to be the source from which aught that which is holy springs.

Great personages are raised up by God to, prepare the way for His Son. Some begin a new epoch, and advance the order of things towards the Incarnation. Some are of our Lord’s ancestry, and are specially chosen, specially sanctified, and the descent to Him limited within their line. Some are prophets, organs of the eternal Word, who partake beforehand in the knowledge of the Word made flesh. All are remarkable figures of Christ. And what we have now to observe, is the striking way in which God prepares them for their sacred offices. For in many cases this preparation is minutely recorded, though in others it is but insinuated in the divine history. We have sufficient examples given to show us that preparation is a principle of the divine economy and, as it were, a law with God. We can also see that such a preparation bears relation to the office for which each person is designed and that the nearer that office stands in relation to the Incarnation, the higher and more supernatural is the preparation which precedes it.

 

[guanophore]

The problem with your response is that it does not in any refute what i have written. Even Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture it would still not change the fact that the Scriptures say nothing of Mary being immaculate conceived.

We understand scripture differently. The point that is being made is that you are using an invalid standard to measure Divine Revelation. You insist that the scripture is “all we have” when in fact, this is not true. It is true for you because you have rejected the rest of Divine Revelation. It is your privilege to do so, but it does not make that Revelation void any more than the Pharisees who rejected John’s Baptism made that revelation invalid.

They can write things that people may not understand. Did they write anything about the mother of the Messiah except that she would be a virgin?

Yes! They wrote that her offspring would crush the head of Satan.

You do realize that there is not one reference in the Scriptures that even come close to making a connection with the mother of the Messiah being a type of ark?

We see it differently. Not only about what the scriptures say, but that it is the Sole Source of Revelation

So even in the NT where those who knew Jesus and Mary best make no such assertion about her i.e. being an ark. Correct?

Since we have only a small distillation in the NT of what the Apostles knew and taught, it is not possible to conclude this based on the writings we have.

Where in the NT is Mary said to be the new Eve if the disciples understood this?

Paul writes about Christ being the New Adam, but this occurs some time after Jesus teaching to His Aposltes. Where did Paul get this notion? Did he learn it from those who heard Jesus teach and preach for 3 years, or did God reveal it to him when he went away to Arabia?

If you want to use Mary as a type of ark then you must also account for what happens to those who mishandle it.

Frankly, ja4, I think it would be wiser to leave your judgment to her Son Jesus. The reason that He told them to leave the wheat and the tares till the end is because He already has a winnowing plan. It is not up to us to judge you and others who reject the Teaching.

People died just by touching it. This is an “intimate” touch either.

There were those appointed to care for it. NOt everyone died.

If Mary is a type of ark then we should expect to see people dying just by touching her if you are right about her being a type of ark.

Can you prove this has not happened?

Actually the Scriptures teach opposite what you claim here.

Your interpretation of the scriptures has been taught to you by an anti-Catholic tradition, so you will not be able to see or appreciate what Catholics believe.

Of course she had other children from her own body. The evidence from Scripture is extremely strong.

ja4, CAF is not a venue for you to spew your anticatholic agenda.

 

[guanophore]

Just because your church declares something to be “infallibly” true does not mean it so.

You are right, ja4. The infallible declaration is an observation of something that is so, and has been revealed. What is bound on earth has already been bound in heaven.

Your church wants desparately to claim its doctrines are grounded in the Scriptures and apostolic.

Where do you see any “desperation”, ja4? On the contrary, I see a desperation on your part to try to convince Catholics here that the Bible is the sole source of divine revleation, and that we should not trust the teaching authority that Jesus appointed over the Church, and that we have all been misled by the “speculations of men”.

When we look at the scriptures for Mary being immaculately concieved and did not sin we find that the Scriptures never teach such a thing. If they never teach such a thing, then its not grounded in the Scriptures nor is it apostlolic.

It is understandible that you would have difficulty discerning Apostolic Teaching, since you have rejected the Source of it.

I’m not demanding even the terms “immaculate” be found in scripture from you just the evidence of it.

Have you considered how arrogant it sounds for you to come onto a Catholic forum, and 'demand" anything?

 

[Axion]

Are you saying that Genesis 3:15 implies the immaculate conception of Mary?

Genesis 3.15 states that the Woman who gives birth to the Saviour will be “at enmity” with Satan.

Is a sinner at enmity with Satan?

 

[justasking4]

Axion;3154215]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying that Genesis 3:15 implies the immaculate conception of Mary?
Axion
Genesis 3.15 states that the Woman who gives birth to the Saviour will be “at enmity” with Satan.

This still does not answer the question.

Is a sinner at enmity with Satan?

They can be. The apostles were sinners and yet they were at enmity with satan.

 

[NotWorthy]

This still does not answer the question.

They can be. The apostles were sinners and yet they were at enmity with satan.

One cannot be an enemy to it’s master. If one is a slave, they have already been overcome.

You can hate your master, but yet you still serve him, hence you are not his enemy.

When were the Apostles able to show their enmity with Satan, without the help (and graces) of Jesus Christ?

 

[justasking4]

One cannot be an enemy to it’s master. If one is a slave, they have already been overcome.

You can hate your master, but yet you still serve him, hence you are not his enemy.

When were the Apostles able to show their enmity with Satan, without the help (and graces) of Jesus Christ?

The aposltes (still sinners) were able to resist and be at enimity with the grace of Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

The aposltes (still sinners) were able to resist and be at enimity with the grace of Christ.

Exactly. They were Graced with Christ, which is the only way to be an enemy of Satan, and not his slave.

The Catholic Church teaches that if one is to receive these Graces, one must be without sin. Either their sins have been forgiven or they are immaculate…

Mary was graced since conception.