Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3158222]

Quote:
People read into the scriptures all kinds of things. Did any writer of the NT make the speciifc connection you are?
justasking4
This is hopeless. You’re saying that Luke accidentally made all of these connections? Are you saying that such a heavy implication can’t be taken as fact because Luke didn’t spoon feed the conclusion to you?

Here is what is happening when you use the Scriptures in the way you do to support this doctrine: just because something may be possible, its probable and therefore it did happen. This is exactly what is going here. As you may know there is not one shred of evidence in Scripture that Mary was without sin.

Hey, no NT author explicitly said that God is a Trinity. I guess holding such a belief is heretical and reading into the text.

The evidence for the Trinity is quite powerful since there are a number of passages that can be used to demonstrate it. That Mary was without sin cannot. Romans 5:12 is enough to refute any idea that she was without sin.

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3158234]

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’,of Pope Pius lX (1854), belongs to what is understood by the Church as a development of doctrine. The first extant writing on this doctrine by an early Church Father is by Hyppolytus (ante A.D. 235). ‘The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down’ (Dei Verbum 8).

How could there be any “tradition which comes from the apostles” if the apostles never taught such a thing to begin with?

“I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.” (Genesis 3, 15)

God is not putting enmity only between the woman’s seed (Jesus) and Satan, but also between the woman and Satan. Both Mary and Jesus are in enmity with Satan and his offspring (original sin). Christ, being sinless (1Jn 3, 5) is obviously in enmity with Satan and his seed. So if Mary is also in enmity with Satan, then she too must have been sinless throughout her entire life and in enmity with his seed: original sin. If Mary had committed a sin, then she could not have fulfilled the prophecy of Genesis 3,15. The reason why we commit sin is because we have inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. We were born with an inclination to sin. As Mary was sinless, according to the prophecy of Genesis 3, 15 , she must have been preserved from original sin. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Lets see what the New American Bible says about Genesis 3:15:
[15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

Notice that even catholic scholars don’t agree with you. They make no mention of any “to the prophecy of Genesis 3, 15 , she must have been preserved from original sin”.

 

[guanophore]

What seems to me to be a profound weakness of Catholic theology is the idea of an oversensitive and easily broken state of grace.

Do you deny that Jesus taught this?

5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

Jesus did not trust himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. John 2:24-25

Matt 7:14
14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

The blood of Christ covers sin (justification) before it is taken away (sanctification), using Protestant terminology for what Catholics use the term justification to cover both justification and sanctification. When initially/forensically justified, one no longer has sin in the eyes of God from a legal viewpoint, although He knows better than you do what you are doing, thinking and wanting.

So, we are in agreement that, in spite of being legally pardoned, our basic nature has not yet changed? We are inclined to sin?

From what I gather, most Catholics most of the time are in a state of mortal sin. I did a poll on CAF a while ago in which most of the CAF Catholics stated they commit mortal sins much more than they can possibly go to Confession.

This would seem to reinforce the point that what Jesus said is true, that narrow and difficult is the way, and few will find it.

God declaring your sins forgiven, once and for all, is much cleaner and He then works all the time, not just when you are in a state of grace that is conditioned on you. Instead it is conditioned on Him.

The problem with this is that Jesus died for all. But not all accept his sacrifice on their behalf. He will not “force” a state of grace upon a person, and in order to enter it, one must acknowledge that one needs it, repent from one’s sins, and seek forgiveness. this is what the sacrament of Reconciliation is all about.

 

[Good_Fella]

Here is what is happening when you use the Scriptures in the way you do to support this doctrine: just because something may be possible, its probable and therefore it did happen. This is exactly what is going here. As you may know there is not one shred of evidence in Scripture that Mary was without sin.

The evidence for the Trinity is quite powerful since there are a number of passages that can be used to demonstrate it. That Mary was without sin cannot. Romans 5:12 is enough to refute any idea that she was without sin.

When you speak of the Trinity being demonstrated in Scripture, you argue from hindsight bias. If you happened to read the Bible without first being informed of this fundamental Christian belief of the Church, I doubt you would be enlightened with the fulness of truth. The Church was compelled to dogmatically define the doctrine of the Trinity because of the heresies that had sprung up in Christendom concerning it. These heresies were the result of private interpretation of Scripture, the same malpractice that has divided and fragmented Protestantism.

And you continue to ignore Genesis 3, 15. As to Paul and his Epistle to the Romans 5, 12, he adds that death has spread to “all” (pantes in the Greek) men. Obviously, the word “all” does not mean everyone without exception, since Scripture reveals that not every man dies: Enoch and Elijah were exceptions. Likewise, Mary was an exception in the case of sin, which brought about death. In Romans 3, 23, Paul says “all have sinned”. But what he means is that all are subject to sin, just as all are subject to death. Yet, again, there are exceptions. Mary was spared from the stain of original sin by God, not by herself, as God spared Enoch and Elijah from death. By the way, in 1Corinthians 15, 22 Paul says in Adam “all” (pantes) have died and in Christ “all” shall live. But we know Enoch and Elijah never died, just as we know not everyone will go to heaven.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Truthstalker]

Do you deny that Jesus taught this?

5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

Jesus did not trust himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. John 2:24-25

Matt 7:14
14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

So, we are in agreement that, in spite of being legally pardoned, our basic nature has not yet changed? We are inclined to sin?

This would seem to reinforce the point that what Jesus said is true, that narrow and difficult is the way, and few will find it.

The problem with this is that Jesus died for all. But not all accept his sacrifice on their behalf. He will not “force” a state of grace upon a person, and in order to enter it, one must acknowledge that one needs it, repent from one’s sins, and seek forgiveness. this is what the sacrament of Reconciliation is all about.

Getting a bit off topic, it seems. Worth pursuing, yes. Start a thread - or two - and let’s see what happens.

 

[Good_Fella]

How could there be any “tradition which comes from the apostles” if the apostles never taught such a thing to begin with?

Lets see what the New American Bible says about Genesis 3:15:
[15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

Notice that even catholic scholars don’t agree with you. They make no mention of any “to the prophecy of Genesis 3, 15 , she must have been preserved from original sin”.

Since the commentators do not exceed their exegetical function and capacity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they do not agree with Catholic dogma. If they didn’t agree, they wouldn’t be Catholic. Pope Pius lX cited Genesis 3,15 in his Apostolic Constitution, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, declaring the Immaculate Conception dogma.

Not everything the apostles explicitly taught, according to their developed understanding, was recorded in Scripture. You should know that by now. (2 Thess 2, 15).

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[EphelDuath]

Here is what is happening when you use the Scriptures in the way you do to support this doctrine: just because something may be possible, its probable and therefore it did happen. This is exactly what is going here.

No. Luke says Mary is the Ark. He doesn’t say it word-for-word, though you’re being intentionally dense if you think the implication wasn’t heavy enough to be taken as fact.

As you may know there is not one shred of evidence in Scripture that Mary was without sin.

Well, not one shred of evidence you will accept because it’s inconvenient to your beliefs.

The evidence for the Trinity is quite powerful since there are a number of passages that can be used to demonstrate it. That Mary was without sin cannot. Romans 5:12 is enough to refute any idea that she was without sin.

You don’t understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was subject to original sin but removed by God. She wasn’t just sinless by nature, it was a miracle of God.

The fact is, Luke is pretty clear when he implies Mary is the New Ark. He’s more clear about that than any passage that says the Holy Spirit is God, though you know that to be true.

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3158860]
Quote:justasking4
Here is what is happening when you use the Scriptures in the way you do to support this doctrine: just because something may be possible, its probable and therefore it did happen. This is exactly what is going here.
EphelDuath
No. Luke says Mary is the Ark. He doesn’t say it word-for-word, though you’re being intentionally dense if you think the implication wasn’t heavy enough to be taken as fact.

If i’m dense then i’m in good company since none of the apostles thought this either.

Quote:justasking4
As you may know there is not one shred of evidence in Scripture that Mary was without sin.
EphelDuath
Well, not one shred of evidence you will accept because it’s inconvenient to your beliefs.

The burden of proof is on you to support this not me. Now, where is the evidence in Scripture she was without sin? She does not claim it for herself nor do others.

Quote:justasking4
The evidence for the Trinity is quite powerful since there are a number of passages that can be used to demonstrate it. That Mary was without sin cannot. Romans 5:12 is enough to refute any idea that she was without sin.
EphelDuath
You don’t understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was subject to original sin but removed by God. She wasn’t just sinless by nature, it was a miracle of God.

You can make this assertion but it cannot be supported by the very source you need i.e. the Scripture.

The fact is, Luke is pretty clear when he implies Mary is the New Ark. He’s more clear about that than any passage that says the Holy Spirit is God, though you know that to be true.

Have you looked at any catholic commentaries on this passage? Let me encourage you to do so. I think you will suprised.

 

[EphelDuath]

If i’m dense then i’m in good company since none of the apostles thought this either.

And why do you say that? Argument from silence? Paul never mentioned the virgin birth, did he not believe that either?

 

[justasking4]

And why do you say that? Argument from silence? Paul never mentioned the virgin birth, did he not believe that either?

Paul was aware that Jesus was born of a woman and he does demonstrate in his letters to be familar with the OT. This coupled with the others he would know he was born of a virgin.
What he never mentions about Mary is that she was some kind of exception to being a sinner. He never makes such a case.

 

[guanophore]

Paul was aware that Jesus was born of a woman and he does demonstrate in his letters to be familar with the OT. This coupled with the others he would know he was born of a virgin.

Talk about speculation! What was “this coupled with the others” mean? What others? Do you think Paul had the gospel accounts?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3159119]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Paul was aware that Jesus was born of a woman and he does demonstrate in his letters to be familar with the OT. This coupled with the others he would know he was born of a virgin.
guanophore
Talk about speculation! What was “this coupled with the others” mean? What others? Do you think Paul had the gospel accounts?

Did not Paul meet with Peter, James and John to determine if the gospel he was given by Christ lined up with theirs?
Of course. Part the gospel accounts would involve his knowing that Christ was born of a virgin. Correct?

i think he was fully aware of what Jesus said and did by being involved in the Christian community and knowing the apostles themselves. Keep in mind that Luke was his companion and Paul himself knew of a saying not found in the gospels.

 

[guanophore]

Did not Paul meet with Peter, James and John to determine if the gospel he was given by Christ lined up with theirs?
Of course. Part the gospel accounts would involve his knowing that Christ was born of a virgin. Correct?

Yes, but none of the gospels were written at the time. This was the oral teaching of the Apostles. Paul came across the oral teaching long before he ever went to visit the “pillars”. Where did he hear it, and how come it conformed to what the other Apostles were teaching?

i think he was fully aware of what Jesus said and did by being involved in the Christian community and knowing the apostles themselves. Keep in mind that Luke was his companion and Paul himself knew of a saying not found in the gospels.

I agree with you on this point. I think he learned the gospel in two ways, one by direct revelation from Jesus, and also by attending synagogue with believers, breaking bread on the Lord’s day (Mass) and meeting with the christians for prayer.

 

[savedsinner]

How could there be any “tradition which comes from the apostles” if the apostles never taught such a thing to begin with?

How do you know that they didn’t teach such a thing?

Were you there?

Is everything they taught only found in scripture?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3159341]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did not Paul meet with Peter, James and John to determine if the gospel he was given by Christ lined up with theirs?
Of course. Part the gospel accounts would involve his knowing that Christ was born of a virgin. Correct?
guanophore
Yes, but none of the gospels were written at the time. This was the oral teaching of the Apostles. Paul came across the oral teaching long before he ever went to visit the “pillars”. Where did he hear it, and how come it conformed to what the other Apostles were teaching?

Paul claims to have received the gospel directly from Christ Himself. See Galatians 1:11-12

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i think he was fully aware of what Jesus said and did by being involved in the Christian community and knowing the apostles themselves. Keep in mind that Luke was his companion and Paul himself knew of a saying not found in the gospels.
guanophore
I agree with you on this point. I think he learned the gospel in two ways, one by direct revelation from Jesus, and also by attending synagogue with believers, breaking bread on the Lord’s day (Mass) and meeting with the christians for prayer.

 

[justasking4]

savedsinner;3159368]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How could there be any “tradition which comes from the apostles” if the apostles never taught such a thing to begin with?

savedsinner

How do you know that they didn’t teach such a thing?

Were you there?

Is everything they taught only found in scripture?

The only things we know what the apostles taught is found only in the Scriptures. They may have taught other things but we have no record of it.

 

[guanophore]

The only things we know what the apostles taught is found only in the Scriptures. They may have taught other things but we have no record of it.

You say things like this because you reject the Living Record of the believers. The church has always been a testimony to the preached word, and Paul talks about this in his letters. He tells them they are his epistle to the world, making the church community equal to the written epistle.

I guess you are afraid that, if you accept this principle, then you will feel in a position to have to accept other doctrines that don’t sit right with you.

 

[savedsinner]

The only things we know what the apostles taught is found only in the Scriptures. They may have taught other things but we have no record of it.

You are incorrect on this assumption.

We know of these teachings because they have been handed down through the Sacred Traditions of the Church.

 

[justasking4]

savedsinner;3159400]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The only things we know what the apostles taught is found only in the Scriptures. They may have taught other things but we have no record of it.

savedsinner

You are incorrect on this.

We know of these teachings because they have been handed down through the Sacred Traditions of the Church.

If what you is true then can you give me a couple of examples from your Sacred Traditions what the apostles taught not found in the Scriptures?

 

[savedsinner]

If what you [say] is true then can you give me a couple of examples from your Sacred Traditions what the apostles taught not found in the Scriptures?

The Trinity.
The canon of scripture.