Could Mary have sinned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sugar_Ray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We all have our biases. I have mine you have yours.

Its yours also.
No mine. It’s yours. Early Christians believe that the woman is Mary even St. John who wrote the Book of Revelation. You say she isn’t Mary. John says she is.
The child would be Jesus. However in such a book as Revelations which by far is the most metaphorical etc book of the NT it requires us to keep this in mind when seeking to understand it. Saying the the woman is Mary has some serious problems with the rest of the texts as Brown points out.
Faulty conclusion. I think.

There is no problem with the interpretations. It’s your problem with the interpretation. That is your problem, and there is no problems.
Unless your Magisterium has infallibly interpreted this passage it won’t help you here. What we are forced to do is to deal with the passage itself and compare it with your understanding that it is Mary and see if it fits. Raymond Brown clearly shows that it does not fit for Mary for the reasons he gives.
My interpretation is in accordance with the with the Magisterium.
I don’t see you engaging Brown but just dismissing him because he is not the Magisterium. That won’t do. You need to fit for example 12:6 to Mary. That verse alone is enough to tell us its not Mary.
I don’t see that way. The male-child is Jesus Christ and the mother of Jesus is Mary. So the woman in Revelation 12:1-6 is Mary.

You can’t prove to me that she isn’t.

I’m done with you justasking4. I already have to say what I have to say concerning the woman in Revelation 12:1-5. You haven’t prove to me that the woman isn’t Mary.

I like to add when it comes to theology Protestants gets it wrong. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is always right.
 
Has your church ever infallibly interpreted the verses used by you and others to say that she was without sin?
Keep in mind what is at stake here. If Mary was without sin then it contradicts what the scriptures clearly teach that all men born from human parents are sinners.
There is absolutely no contradiction at all. If God had done nothing, Mary would have been born with original sin. Mary needed a savoir, to be saved from sin, just as we did. God just chose to save her in a unique manner. Mary was redeemed in a unique manner.

If we taught she did not need to be redeemed, if this was what the immaculate conception was, you would be right. That would contradict scripture. But why did Mary have to be redeemed if she too was not under original sin? Because she was under original sin, but saved from it, as we are saved from sin, but in a unique way.

No contradiction of scripture just a failure of you to understand what the immaculate conception is and isn’t.
This is not about the Holy Spirit revealing something but what do the scriptures teach. We can study all the texts related to this doctrine and never come to the conclusion that she was without sin.
I am truly sorry for you. Because if you never read scripture and have the Holy Spirit reveal the truth of that scripture, how sad that must be for you.

Again, I have studied SCRIPTURE and come to the conclusion, led by the Holy Spirit, that Mary was immaculately conceived.
What i reject is what your church seemingly teaches because the scriptures don’t teach such a thing about her.
Again, this is simply not true.

Scripture does in fact speak to Mary’s immaculate conception, but you have chosen to follow those who have come along with false teachings rather than follow the faithful men whom these things have been entrusted to.

Scripture is most wonderous when it comes to the teachings of the Church about Mary.
The word of Christ does not support the idea she was without sin though.
I disagree and 2000 years of Christianity also reject that johnny come lately belief that Mary was not immaculately conceived. You should actually study what the reformers believed about Mary. It is quite different than what you believe.
I have read quite a bit on this from catholic sources. We both cannot be right. One is telling the truth the other is not. Let the Scriptures decide who is speaking the truth and who is not. I stand on the Scriptures.
What you fail to understand is that scripture must be interpreted and you fail to interpret scripture as all Christianity has done so and choose to use a new interpretation found nowhere in the first 1600 years of Christianity.

You are correct. One of us is right and one is wrong. But where you fail is to believe that you stand on scripture. You stand on a mistaken interpretation of scripture found nowhere in Christianity until the last 500 years. Scripture warns of those who will come along teaching falsely. Who came along? Catholic Church can trace itself back to the apostles. Can you?

I stand on the correct interpretation of scripture. Teachings that were entrusted to faithful men just as scripture told us to.
 
Wow!

I had no idea the cajolery and inveiglement was so bad in the RCC. You guys believe anything that comes your way…

Get rid of your Bibles, you surely don’t need them as you don’t believe them.
This totally bias and totally Anti-Catholic not to mention bad Catholic rhetoric.

Second, the Bible is a Catholic Book. We compelled it before you Protestants showed up in 1517-1530 show up.

I don’t know what cajolery and inveiglement means? Could you explain that?

We believe because its been revealed to us. Second the ECF affirmed that May remain sinless period.

Second, after investigating Christian history, the Early Christian Church is Catholic. All doctrines concerning Mary sounds very Catholic from the begin. The new beliefs done by Modern Protestants remain completely absent in the Early Church.
 
This actually counts agains the catholic interpretation. This would have been a perfect time for Jesus to point to His mother as the catholic church does and yet He does not. He never exalts Mary in the gospels.

Would you happen to have a verse for this claim–“Mary was one who constantly heard the word of God and kept it”?

When you look at the definition for this you don’t see this claim that she was in a perpetual state of sanctifying grace in which she was constantly in God’s favour.

Again, go back to the defintion and see if it says anything about what you claim here. It says nothing about a person being in a “state of sanctifying grace was permanent and ongoing from the moment of her conception”. This is reading catholic doctrine into the definition.

How could a daughter of Adam and Eve through which she inherited original sin be able to say yes to God at all times?
If she did not have human parents then you might have some grounds to make a claim like this but its impossible for the reason i have given.
It all begins with Genesis 3, 15.
Mary’s parents had no say in the matter. It was God’s will. And it is irrelevant how Fundamentalists like yourself choose to interpret Scripture against the light of Apostolic Tradition. You may be a Christian by virtue of your baptism, but you are outside the One Church which was founded by Christ. And your Bible is not the Church. Scripture is one half of the deposit of faith, the other have is Tradition, which the Holy Spirit keeps from erring. The truths contained in Scripture can only be accurately and fully revealed through the medium of Tradition in the Catholic Church. What I wrote above is my own perspective, but it is in keeping with traditional Church teachings and beliefs.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
This actually counts agains the catholic interpretation. This would have been a perfect time for Jesus to point to His mother as the catholic church does and yet He does not. He never exalts Mary in the gospels.
On the contrary, He is exalting her in this very occasion. He is making it clear that it was not her physical motherhood of him that blessed her, although that did also, but even MORE so, it was her willingness to hear the word of God, and do it. It is His affirmation of her that she lived her whole life with the attitude of “be it done to me according to Your will”.
Would you happen to have a verse for this claim–“Mary was one who constantly heard the word of God and kept it”?
This is what Jesus is saying in the verse under discussion!
When you look at the definition for this you don’t see this claim that she was in a perpetual state of sanctifying grace in which she was constantly in God’s favour.
I don’t see any way that a human being can constantly hear the word of God and keep it if they are not in a state of sanctifying grace, do you? Surely you don’t think a human could do this without God’s favor! :eek:
Again, go back to the defintion and see if it says anything about what you claim here. It says nothing about a person being in a “state of sanctifying grace was permanent and ongoing from the moment of her conception”. This is reading catholic doctrine into the definition.
Actually, it is reading the passage according to what the Catholics who wrote it meant to say. Protestants have not done this, because they have separated the Sacred Writings from the Sacred Tradition from which they sprang.
 
Hi! I appreciate the opportunity to be able to go to the sacred scriptures to discuss things that pertain to God’s glory for God’s glory.

I’m new to this discussion and must say that i have not been able to find in the scriptures where Mary was sinless. Rather, the scriptures point to all sinning except the Lord Jesus. There is none good save one that is God in Luke 18:19. (We know that Jesus Himself was God). Since there is only one who can do good - that is God - where does this leave the rest of us including Mary since all have sinned and fallen short of His glory? (goodness). We know that He made Him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf so that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. John said in his letter that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. All of His children’s sins (including Mary’s) needed to be placed upon the Lord Jesus.

I have read someone’s reply that takes Mary’s wonderful response (magnificant) at that time and then applies that to her whole life - I am the handmaiden of the Lord - be it done unto me as you have said. This is not biblical nor a good offer for logic. Mary was indeed blessed and full of grace and the Lord was certainly with her! But this does not equate to being sinless. Rather the scriptures declare that He came unto His own and His own did not receive Him. We must be careful not to interject dogma where the authority does not declare it to be so. Traditions - they are either men’s such as the pharisees or built upon Christ and the Apostles and prophets but these traditions will agree in harmony with what the Bible does have to say for tradition according to truth will not deviate from the truths of the scriptures. I do not remember where Paul, Peter, Jude, Mark, Luke, Mathew or John declare the tradition (teaching) that Mary was sinless. Once traditions are added that are outside the authority - these traditions must be examined for agreement with the truthfulness of scriptures for we will be judged not by traditions of men but rather the Word of the Lord.

I am grateful for the mercy of God in that it does not mark iniquity for those who are His children by faith and desire by faith to live a life that testifies nothing but His glory in the saving of wretched souls such as myself. I am glad that He offers it freely and bestows it upon whomsoever He will.

Again - i do appreciate the opportunity to discuss such important matters as this.

Sincerely and thanks!

tom
 
Hi! I appreciate the opportunity to be able to go to the sacred scriptures to discuss things that pertain to God’s glory for God’s glory.

I’m new to this discussion and must say that i have not been able to find in the scriptures where Mary was sinless. Rather, the scriptures point to all sinning except the Lord Jesus. There is none good save one that is God in Luke 18:19. (We know that Jesus Himself was God). Since there is only one who can do good - that is God - where does this leave the rest of us including Mary since all have sinned and fallen short of His glory?
Because not all have. By grace, many were saved through faith, and lived righteous lives.

Some of these righteous emerged from their tombs when Jesus died on the cross, opening the gates of heaven:
Matt 27:51-53

51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Jesus himself testifies that there are righteous people, whot did not need to be called to repentance.

Matt 9:13
For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

The parents of John the Baptist were righteous:

Luke 1:5-6
there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Protestants take the verse about none being righteous out of context. The passage is taken from Psalm 19, and to understand it correctly one must begin with the very first words in the verse “It is written”. The Psalm is about the “fool who says in his heart, there is no God”. It is about unbelievers. Paul uses this passage to compare unbelieving Jews to unbelieving Gentiles, to make the point that, no matter what race a person is, if they say in their heart there is no God, then they all fall short of the Glory of God.

(goodness). We know that He made Him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf so that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. John said in his letter that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. All of His children’s sins (including Mary’s) needed to be placed upon the Lord Jesus.

I have read someone’s reply that takes Mary’s wonderful response (magnificant) at that time and then applies that to her whole life - I am the handmaiden of the Lord - be it done unto me as you have said. This is not biblical nor a good offer for logic. Mary was indeed blessed and full of grace and the Lord was certainly with her! But this does not equate to being sinless. Rather the scriptures declare that He came unto His own and His own did not receive Him. We must be careful not to interject dogma where the authority does not declare it to be so. Traditions - they are either men’s such as the pharisees or built upon Christ and the Apostles and prophets but these traditions will agree in harmony with what the Bible does have to say for tradition according to truth will not deviate from the truths of the scriptures. I do not remember where Paul, Peter, Jude, Mark, Luke, Mathew or John declare the tradition (teaching) that Mary was sinless. Once traditions are added that are outside the authority - these traditions must be examined for agreement with the truthfulness of scriptures for we will be judged not by traditions of men but rather the Word of the Lord.

I am grateful for the mercy of God in that it does not mark iniquity for those who are His children by faith and desire by faith to live a life that testifies nothing but His glory in the saving of wretched souls such as myself. I am glad that He offers it freely and bestows it upon whomsoever He will.

Again - i do appreciate the opportunity to discuss such important matters as this.

Sincerely and thanks!

tom
 
When you look at the definition for this you don’t see this claim that she was in a perpetual state of sanctifying grace in which she was constantly in God’s favour.
Mary was excepted from original sin, and this truth is clearly revealed to us in Luke 1, 28: “Chaire kecharitomene” (translated in the Latin vulgate “Ave gratia plena” and in the Aramaic Peshitta of the 4th century “Shlom lekh bthoolto Mariam. Maliath taibootho”: In English: “Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with you.”) I would sooner put my faith in the ancient Catholic translators than in modern Protestant Greek scholars who have their prejudices and so get things wrong to meet their agenda. In any event, let us see what some other modern Greek scholars have to say about ‘kecharitomene’.

By taking the definition of the word ‘kecharitomene’ and its grammatical usage into account they tell us: " ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of ‘charitoo’ and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace, as in Ephesians 1, 6: ‘for the praise and the glory of his ‘grace’ that he granted us in his beloved.’ The Vulgate ‘gratiae plena’ [full of grace] is right if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received; wrong, if it means full of grace which thou hast to bestow." (A.T. Robertson, 'Word Pictures in the New Testament, p.14)

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase ‘kecharitomene’ as completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace.”
(Blass and Debrunner, ‘Greek Grammar of the New Testament’)

Luke 1, 28 uses a special conjugated form of ‘charitoo’. This verse employs ‘Kecharitomene’, while Ephesians 1, 6 uses ‘Echaritosen’, which is a different form of the verb ‘charitoo’. ‘Echaritosen’ means “he graced” (bestowed grace). ‘Echaritosen’ signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass, however full and complete (Blass and Debrunner, 'Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, ‘Kecharitomene’, the perfect passive participle, designates a completeness with a permanent result. ‘Kecharitomene’ denotes continuance of a fully completed past action (H.W. Smythe, ‘Greek Grammar’, pp. 108-109; also Blass and Debrunner, p.175). A human being who is in a continual state of grace, as Luke acknowledged, never sins, unless her habitual state of grace was not perpetual. Like her Son, Mary was an exception to the norm. And since Luke is the first known Christian to have drawn a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, he must have had Mary’s incorruptible human nature in mind when he wrote “Chaire kecharitomene”.

Observe what the Greek Church Fathers had to say about Mary’s sinless nature in light of Luke 1, 28. If anybody new his Greek, they certainly did.

“O purest one O purest Virgin Where the Holy Spirit is, there all things readily ordered Where divine grace is present the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man’s common standard Thou hast put on the vesture of purity…”
{Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 205-270)}

“Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace; Hail, unstained Mother of holiness; Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.”
{Theodotus of Ancyra ( early 5th century)}

“Hail, uncontaminate!”
{Romanos the Melodist (d. c. A.D. 560)}

“Hail, O Bride, and Maiden ever-pure!”
{Akathist Hymn ( 5th or 6th century)}

“You are all-beautiful my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.”
{Song of Songs 4, 7}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
(goodness). We know that He made Him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf so that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. John said in his letter that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. All of His children’s sins (including Mary’s) needed to be placed upon the Lord Jesus.
All humans born of Adam and Eve are tainted by original sin. However, God has not changed His method of salvation. Those born under the OT were also saved by grace, through faith. God’s revelation about how that would happen was not yet complete.
I have read someone’s reply that takes Mary’s wonderful response (magnificant) at that time and then applies that to her whole life - I am the handmaiden of the Lord - be it done unto me as you have said. This is not biblical nor a good offer for logic.
Where in the Bible can you see anything to the contrary?🤷
Mary was indeed blessed and full of grace and the Lord was certainly with her!
Then why would she not continue to be the handmaiden of the Lord? 🤷
But this does not equate to being sinless. Rather the scriptures declare that He came unto His own and His own did not receive Him. We must be careful not to interject dogma where the authority does not declare it to be so.
You are right. good think the authority has told us it is so! 👍
Traditions - they are either men’s such as the pharisees or built upon Christ and the Apostles and prophets but these traditions will agree in harmony with what the Bible does have to say for tradition according to truth will not deviate from the truths of the scriptures.
I agree with you. Can you show where in the scriptures it says that mary sinned?
I do not remember where Paul, Peter, Jude, Mark, Luke, Mathew or John declare the tradition (teaching) that Mary was sinless.
That is probably because you were not present at the time. 😉
Once traditions are added that are outside the authority - these traditions must be examined for agreement with the truthfulness of scriptures for we will be judged not by traditions of men but rather the Word of the Lord.
So, what are you saying, the Scripture is your final authority?
I am grateful for the mercy of God in that it does not mark iniquity for those who are His children by faith and desire by faith to live a life that testifies nothing but His glory in the saving of wretched souls such as myself. I am glad that He offers it freely and bestows it upon whomsoever He will.
I am glad too, but He bestowed upon his Mother some gifts that none of the rest of us received.
 
guanophore;3227680]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Elliott
Hi! I appreciate the opportunity to be able to go to the sacred scriptures to discuss things that pertain to God’s glory for God’s glory.
I’m new to this discussion and must say that i have not been able to find in the scriptures where Mary was sinless. Rather, the scriptures point to all sinning except the Lord Jesus. There is none good save one that is God in Luke 18:19. (We know that Jesus Himself was God). Since there is only one who can do good - that is God - where does this leave the rest of us including Mary since all have sinned and fallen short of His glory?
guanophore
Because not all have. By grace, many were saved through faith, and lived righteous lives.
Some of these righteous emerged from their tombs when Jesus died on the cross, opening the gates of heaven:
Matt 27:51-53
What translation are you using that says these people who came out of the tombs were righteous?
In my translation it uses the word “saint” which means-Consecrated, devoted, sacred, holy, meaning set apart from a common to a sacred use; spoken of places, temples, cities, the priesthood, men (Matt. 4:5; 7:6; 24:15; 27:53; Acts 6:13; 7:33;
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary

Were these “righteous” people you refer to born with original sin?

Is it not also true that the wages of sin is death? If the righteous came out of tombs it would be an indication that they did indeed sin.
51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Jesus himself testifies that there are righteous people, whot did not need to be called to repentance.
Matt 9:13
For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
The parents of John the Baptist were righteous:
Luke 1:5-6
there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Protestants take the verse about none being righteous out of context. The passage is taken from Psalm 19, and to understand it correctly one must begin with the very first words in the verse “It is written”. The Psalm is about the “fool who says in his heart, there is no God”. It is about unbelievers. Paul uses this passage to compare unbelieving Jews to unbelieving Gentiles, to make the point that, no matter what race a person is, if they say in their heart there is no God, then they all fall short of the Glory of God.
Are you saying that there have been humans who have never sinned their entire lives?
 
guanophore;3227807]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Elliott
Traditions - they are either men’s such as the pharisees or built upon Christ and the Apostles and prophets but these traditions will agree in harmony with what the Bible does have to say for tradition according to truth will not deviate from the truths of the scriptures.
guanophore
I agree with you. Can you show where in the scriptures it says that mary sinned?
Luke 1:47 where she acknowledges her need of a Savior. If she had not sinned or was kept from sinning she would not have had an awareness of needing a Savior. The mere fact she acknowledges this indicates she was a sinner.

I can also ask you to show where Andrew or Bartholomew sinned? The Scriptures say nothing about this. Should we assume they never did?
 
Mary was excepted from original sin, and this truth is clearly revealed to us in Luke 1, 28: “Chaire kecharitomene” (translated in the Latin vulgate “Ave gratia plena” and in the Aramaic Peshitta of the 4th century “Shlom lekh bthoolto Mariam. Maliath taibootho”: In English: “Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with you.”) I would sooner put my faith in the ancient Catholic translators than in modern Protestant Greek scholars who have their prejudices and so get things wrong to meet their agenda. In any event, let us see what some other modern Greek scholars have to say about ‘kecharitomene’.

By taking the definition of the word ‘kecharitomene’ and its grammatical usage into account they tell us: " ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of ‘charitoo’ and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace, as in Ephesians 1, 6: ‘for the praise and the glory of his ‘grace’ that he granted us in his beloved.’ The Vulgate ‘gratiae plena’ [full of grace] is right if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received; wrong, if it means full of grace which thou hast to bestow." (A.T. Robertson, 'Word Pictures in the New Testament, p.14)

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase ‘kecharitomene’ as completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace.”
(Blass and Debrunner, ‘Greek Grammar of the New Testament’)

Luke 1, 28 uses a special conjugated form of ‘charitoo’. This verse employs ‘Kecharitomene’, while Ephesians 1, 6 uses ‘Echaritosen’, which is a different form of the verb ‘charitoo’. ‘Echaritosen’ means “he graced” (bestowed grace). ‘Echaritosen’ signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass, however full and complete (Blass and Debrunner, 'Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, ‘Kecharitomene’, the perfect passive participle, designates a completeness with a permanent result. ‘Kecharitomene’ denotes continuance of a fully completed past action (H.W. Smythe, ‘Greek Grammar’, pp. 108-109; also Blass and Debrunner, p.175). A human being who is in a continual state of grace, as Luke acknowledged, never sins, unless her habitual state of grace was not perpetual. Like her Son, Mary was an exception to the norm. And since Luke is the first known Christian to have drawn a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, he must have had Mary’s incorruptible human nature in mind when he wrote “Chaire kecharitomene”.

Observe what the Greek Church Fathers had to say about Mary’s sinless nature in light of Luke 1, 28. If anybody new his Greek, they certainly did.

“O purest one O purest Virgin Where the Holy Spirit is, there all things readily ordered Where divine grace is present the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man’s common standard Thou hast put on the vesture of purity…”
{Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 205-270)}

“Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace; Hail, unstained Mother of holiness; Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.”
{Theodotus of Ancyra ( early 5th century)}

“Hail, uncontaminate!”
{Romanos the Melodist (d. c. A.D. 560)}

“Hail, O Bride, and Maiden ever-pure!”
{Akathist Hymn ( 5th or 6th century)}

“You are all-beautiful my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.”
{Song of Songs 4, 7}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
It still looks to me with the definitions you give here that there is no mention in the defintion itself of it being a condition for a person from the time they are born to the time they die. Catholic doctrine is being read into the meaning of this word.
 
i really appreciate everyone’s dialogue! Thanks for your time!

Yes. The scriptures are the final authority. This is why Jesus pronounced so many woes unto the Scribes, Pharasees and lawyers - they held to the traditions of men and neglected the Word of God. Because of this - men’s traditions better line up with God’s Word - actually the tradition will be the teaching, preaching and living of God’s Word by loving faith. If men’s traditions do not line up with God’s Word - then we can expect perhaps woes to come our way as well. Yes - the scriptures are the final authority because man must live by every Word and that by faith. Yes - the scriptures are the final authority because we will be judged by the Word of God and not by the traditions of men. If men add unto the Word of God, then the traditions added are in danger along with those who add them whether it is me or anyone else.

Not all are righteous - I would have to disagree with this statement - again - Jesus said to the rich man, why do you call me good - there is only one who is good and that is God. It says one not God and Mary. The descriptions of the scriptures by far say that all have sinned. Remember the scripture from John where he said if anyone says that he has no sin…? If you exempt Mary from this, i must lovingly say that you go against the Word of God. Remember when Isaiah said that all of our righteousness are as filthy rags? Do you remember that the Lord said about unless the Lord reveals unto us the Kingdom that we will not understand it whatsoever? Here lies the gift of faith. Did Peter stop being a rock upon which the church is built because he tried to rebuke the Lord incorrectly? No - he had to repent of this though. Did David stop being a man after God’s own heart after he failed to be in the battle area, looked upon and committed adultery with another man’s wife, had a man murdered and then concealed it? No - but the Lord chastened him severely for this. You are adding to the context of grace when you proclaim that Mary was sinless. This is not what the context says whatsoever. It wonderfully states that Mary was full of grace and what is this - favor with God. All of God’s true believers have favor with Him - examine the prodigal son for this.

The kingdom is a mystery and what is the kingdom - it is righteousness, peace and joy so unless the Lord opens unto us this mystery in our hearts by giving us a new heart from above, we will never not only walk in righteous faith, we will never understand this. We see this when Peter confessed that Jesus was the Lord’s Christ. Christ’s response was that flesh and blood did not reveal this unto you but my Father in Heaven. To say that there are those righteous of their own is a grave mistake.

I would rather go with what the scriptures say in their context when it speaks of the literal spiritual understanding.

Remember if anyone says that he has no sin…

Thanks be to God it is the Lord who makes vessels of honor. Since He is the one who makes them, they must confess that they are in need of His righteousness because this is what He gives unto us so that we may stand before Him blameless. It is not the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, nor of blood but of God. Righteousness comes from being born into His Kingdom and that by God so everyone is in need of the physicain for we are even kept by His grace not by our own works. Works and that flowing from the Spirit shows forth that we are of faith and faith declares that we are in need of a Saviour. We are all sinners.

Again - thank you so much for the opportunity to share my thougths. I surely do not wish to debate for my own gain for then i would be taking God’s Holy Word and be trying to win an argument for my glory. There were some replys that were given based upon the logic of man. Remember that Jesus many times quoted from His own Words from the Old Testament. We are better to follow in His ways.

Sincerely,

tom
 
i really appreciate everyone’s dialogue! Thanks for your time!

Yes. The scriptures are the final authority. This is why Jesus pronounced so many woes unto the Scribes, Pharasees and lawyers - they held to the traditions of men and neglected the Word of God. Because of this - men’s traditions better line up with God’s Word - actually the tradition will be the teaching, preaching and living of God’s Word by loving faith. If men’s traditions do not line up with God’s Word - then we can expect perhaps woes to come our way as well. Yes - the scriptures are the final authority because man must live by every Word and that by faith. Yes - the scriptures are the final authority because we will be judged by the Word of God and not by the traditions of men. If men add unto the Word of God, then the traditions added are in danger along with those who add them whether it is me or anyone else.

Not all are righteous - I would have to disagree with this statement - again - Jesus said to the rich man, why do you call me good - there is only one who is good and that is God. It says one not God and Mary. The descriptions of the scriptures by far say that all have sinned. Remember the scripture from John where he said if anyone says that he has no sin…? If you exempt Mary from this, i must lovingly say that you go against the Word of God. Remember when Isaiah said that all of our righteousness are as filthy rags? Do you remember that the Lord said about unless the Lord reveals unto us the Kingdom that we will not understand it whatsoever? Here lies the gift of faith. Did Peter stop being a rock upon which the church is built because he tried to rebuke the Lord incorrectly? No - he had to repent of this though. Did David stop being a man after God’s own heart after he failed to be in the battle area, looked upon and committed adultery with another man’s wife, had a man murdered and then concealed it? No - but the Lord chastened him severely for this. You are adding to the context of grace when you proclaim that Mary was sinless. This is not what the context says whatsoever. It wonderfully states that Mary was full of grace and what is this - favor with God. All of God’s true believers have favor with Him - examine the prodigal son for this.

The kingdom is a mystery and what is the kingdom - it is righteousness, peace and joy so unless the Lord opens unto us this mystery in our hearts by giving us a new heart from above, we will never not only walk in righteous faith, we will never understand this. We see this when Peter confessed that Jesus was the Lord’s Christ. Christ’s response was that flesh and blood did not reveal this unto you but my Father in Heaven. To say that there are those righteous of their own is a grave mistake.

I would rather go with what the scriptures say in their context when it speaks of the literal spiritual understanding.

Remember if anyone says that he has no sin…

Thanks be to God it is the Lord who makes vessels of honor. Since He is the one who makes them, they must confess that they are in need of His righteousness because this is what He gives unto us so that we may stand before Him blameless. It is not the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, nor of blood but of God. Righteousness comes from being born into His Kingdom and that by God so everyone is in need of the physicain for we are even kept by His grace not by our own works. Works and that flowing from the Spirit shows forth that we are of faith and faith declares that we are in need of a Saviour. We are all sinners.

Again - thank you so much for the opportunity to share my thougths. I surely do not wish to debate for my own gain for then i would be taking God’s Holy Word and be trying to win an argument for my glory. There were some replys that were given based upon the logic of man. Remember that Jesus many times quoted from His own Words from the Old Testament. We are better to follow in His ways.

Sincerely,

tom
Tom, you have said it very well. Your thoughts are exactly what the early church fathers believed and tried to accomplish. It was many years later that the heretics began to enter the church faster than the church could turn them away and false doctrines, dogmas and beliefs, such as the papacy, purgatory, perpetual virginity of Mary, assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception as well as praying to the dead, purgatory and the many other false beliefs that have crept into the Roman Catholic Church. People forget, it was the Romans who killed all the Christians, including the apostles and the early church fathers who became maytyrs and then in the 4th century, began taking over the church itself.

It is refreshing to me as a Catholic, to see someone who has found the truth.
 
i really appreciate everyone’s dialogue! Thanks for your time!

Yes. The scriptures are the final authority. This is why Jesus pronounced so many woes unto the Scribes, Pharasees and lawyers - they held to the traditions of men and neglected the Word of God. Because of this - men’s traditions better line up with God’s Word - actually the tradition will be the teaching, preaching and living of God’s Word by loving faith. If men’s traditions do not line up with God’s Word - then we can expect perhaps woes to come our way as well. Yes - the scriptures are the final authority because man must live by every Word and that by faith. Yes - the scriptures are the final authority because we will be judged by the Word of God and not by the traditions of men. If men add unto the Word of God, then the traditions added are in danger along with those who add them whether it is me or anyone else.
The Church Council did not always to Scripture. The Church Council relied heavily guidance of the Holy Spirit it is preserved from errors.
Not all are righteous - I would have to disagree with this statement - again - Jesus said to the rich man, why do you call me good - there is only one who is good and that is God. It says one not God and Mary. The descriptions of the scriptures by far say that all have sinned. Remember the scripture from John where he said if anyone says that he has no sin…? If you exempt Mary from this, i must lovingly say that you go against the Word of God.
Well, not actually. God’s grace preserved Mary from sin. By herself, Mary cannot saved herself. It is just like someone preventing someone from stepping into a puddle of muddy water. That person is saved from getting him into the mudd.

Second, Luke 1:28, where Gabriel addressed, Mary as "Hail, full of grace. The Greek word is The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.”

Second John also said in 1 John 2:4-9, "Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen or known him. Little children, let no one deceived you. He who does right is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
 
Tom, you have said it very well. Your thoughts are exactly what the early church fathers believed and tried to accomplish.
Typical Protestant picking and chosing parts of the wrtings of the ECF.
It was many years later that the heretics began to enter the church faster than the church could turn them away and false doctrines, dogmas and beliefs, such as the papacy, purgatory, perpetual virginity of Mary, assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception as well as praying to the dead, purgatory and the many other false beliefs that have crept into the Roman Catholic Church
.

By this premise, the gates of hell prevail against the Church by claiming that heretics began entering into the Church which history itself disproves your rather bias claims.

The Papal Primacy is in Matthew 16:18 and its there through the beginning of Acts of the Apostles, the perpetual virginity of Mary is believed not only in the Catholic Church but in the Eastern Orthodox. The denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary did not arise until the 1500s. Praying for the dead had been practice by the Jews 200 years before Jesus came. It came from the 2 Book of Maccabbees and the Jews today still pray for the dead.
People forget, it was the Romans who killed all the Christians, including the apostles and the early church fathers who became maytyrs and then in the 4th century, began taking over the church itself.
It is refreshing to me as a Catholic, to see someone who has found the truth.
Pagan Rome killed Catholic Christians in the beginning. The Truth is only founded in the Catholic Church. All other churches, christian churches lack any truths. For these churches are man-made.
 
To Old Scholar and Thomas,

To prevent this topic from derailing, I shall quote from Catholic.com website concerning the sinlessness of Mary. Here is an excerpt.

Fundamentalists’ Objections

**Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. **
 
Thanks again for all the feedback! I think i am finding out more and more that the Roman Catholic Church leans upon its understanding of the scriptures as the final authority. I once spoke to a Roman Catholic priest during confession and he mentioned that i needed to have my sins absolved by a priest and i mentioned that i confessed my sins to the High Priest Christ Jesus and i believe that He forgives and casts them away as far as the east is from the west (faith) but he mentioned that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we must confess our sins to another man to have them absolved. This reminds me of the time when the disciples tried to decline little children from coming unto Him but He said basically do not forbid for of such is the kingdom.

When Hannah said that her soul rejoices in God her saviour too - do you then apply the same logic for her since it is based on rejoicing? Age of reason - this is an uncertain doctrine as well. For David - the man who was after God’s heart though he committed great sins (as i do as well) mentioned that he came forth from his mother’s womb speaking lies. When the Lord commanded Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of the promised land, this included women with child. Why would the Lord kill those who did not have any reason for what was right and wrong?

Romans 9:11 has been taken out of context. This scripture has to deal completely with predestination and election not age of reason. You take Paul’s teaching and confuse it. Look at the parallels such as Pharoah. This has nothing to do with the age of reason but God’s glory in choosing whom He will regardless of what they do. The scripture says that He hated Esau before his birth - even before he did good or evil. Again - this is God’s sovereign choosing His own for His glory. Esau was cast aside by God even before he came to such an age of reason.

The analogy of saving someone from falling into a pit is not biblical. Everyone outside of Christ is in the pit. We are all from the same lump of sinful clay. No where do i recall the biblical teaching such as this. In fact, Jude says to snatch them out of the fire. However, you say that Mary never sinned and say - prove to me individually where Mary sinned and i must have to say that i cannot prove where Steven individually sinned. However according to Isaiah, i can say safely that all of our righteousnesses (all people plural along with all righteousness plural) are nothing but filthy rags and what are filthy rags good for? To be burned. Perhaps this is why Jude says to snatch them out of the fire - declare unto them that the only acceptable righteousness is the Lord Jesus’

I cannot understand why you go back to your councils and not back to the Word of God. Here is where we are safe.

Thanks again for your time!
 
Thanks again for all the feedback! I think i am finding out more and more that the Roman Catholic Church leans upon its understanding of the scriptures as the final authority. I once spoke to a Roman Catholic priest during confession and he mentioned that i needed to have my sins absolved by a priest and i mentioned that i confessed my sins to the High Priest Christ Jesus and i believe that He forgives and casts them away as far as the east is from the west (faith) but he mentioned that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we must confess our sins to another man to have them absolved. This reminds me of the time when the disciples tried to decline little children from coming unto Him but He said basically do not forbid for of such is the kingdom.

When Hannah said that her soul rejoices in God her saviour too - do you then apply the same logic for her since it is based on rejoicing? Age of reason - this is an uncertain doctrine as well. For David - the man who was after God’s heart though he committed great sins (as i do as well) mentioned that he came forth from his mother’s womb speaking lies. When the Lord commanded Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of the promised land, this included women with child. Why would the Lord kill those who did not have any reason for what was right and wrong?

Romans 9:11 has been taken out of context. This scripture has to deal completely with predestination and election not age of reason. You take Paul’s teaching and confuse it. Look at the parallels such as Pharoah. This has nothing to do with the age of reason but God’s glory in choosing whom He will regardless of what they do. The scripture says that He hated Esau before his birth - even before he did good or evil. Again - this is God’s sovereign choosing His own for His glory. Esau was cast aside by God even before he came to such an age of reason.

The analogy of saving someone from a pit is not biblical. No where do i recall the biblical teaching such as this. In fact, Jude says to snatch them out of the fire. However, you say that Mary never sinned and say - prove to me individually where Mary sinned and i must have to say that i cannot prove where Steven individually sinned. However according to Isaiah, i can say safely that all of our righteousnesses (all people plural along with all righteousness plural) are nothing but filthy rags and what are filthy rags good for? To be burned. Perhaps this is why Jude says to snatch them out of the fire - declare unto them that the only acceptable righteousness is the Lord Jesus’

I cannot understand why you go back to your councils and not back to the Word of God. Here is where we are safe.

Thanks again for your time!
Where in Scripture does it say Mary had sin? You can’t actually see explicitly in Scripture where Mary is disobedient to God.

I think the Magnificat itself defines the state of Mary’s soul.

And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior**.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.**

In the prayer itself God has lifted up up the lowly, Mary in this case. Mary also said inspired by the Holy Spirit said that all generation will called her blessed.

Other Scriptural concerning Mary comes from Jesus’ own words. Jesus said, “Blessed is she who hears the word of God and keep it.”

Mary heard the of God and keep it. Jesus also said that who ever does the will of the Father is his the Mother and sister and brother. Mary’s disobedience to God is completely absent. If you must literally think that all have sin, you might as well include Jesus Christ because he is True Man.

I don’t think we are taking Roman’s out of context. I think you have taken the passage out of context. You interpret the passage as if it were written in our time. Rather than look at ancient Christianity. The Early Christians refer to Mary as without sin, spotless like her son, so so forth.

There is no Scriptural Proof text that Mary sinned. NONE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top