Could Mary have sinned?

[Mannyfit75]

The Immaculate Conception is the Virgin Mary’s glorious privilege of being preserved by a special grace of God from Original Sin through the future merits of Jesus Christ.

Protestants assert that the Virgin Mary could not have been immaculately conceived for then She would not have needed redemption. This is evidenced by Her own words in the Magnificat: “my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour” (St. Luke 1, 47). Further, St. John clearly states that “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us?” (1 St. John 1, 8). How can Catholics therefore claim that the Virgin Mary was sinless?"

The Catholic Church does not deny that the Virgin Mary needed redemption, for She was a child of Adam together with the rest of humanity. Yet, Her redemption was effected in another, “more sublime manner”, namely, “redemption by pre-emption.” One can be cured of a disease after having contracted it, or one can be spared of that same disease by being inoculated against it in advance. The Virgin Mary’s redemption was effected in this latter manner, thus sparing Her from ever being under Satan’s domination.

The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was solemnly defined and proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on the 8th December, 1854:

"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."17

The Immaculate Conception has always been the belief of the Church, being implicitly contained in the Church’s teaching of the Virgin Mary’s absolute purity and sinlessness. Just as Our Lord “grew in grace and wisdom,” that is, manifested increasing signs of wisdom as He increased in age, so the Church, which possesses the wisdom of God from Her origin, manifests it only according to the order of Providence and Her children’s needs. In the centuries before 1854, the Popes and Councils made continuous and explicit references to the Immaculate Conception in their pronouncements:

 

[Mannyfit75]

(i) Pope St. Martin I, Lateran Council (649), Canon 3 on the Trinity;

(ii) Pope Sixtus IV, Constitutions Cum Praeexcelsa (1476); Grave Nimis (1483);

(iii) Pope Paul III, Council of Trent (1546), Decree on Original Sin;

(iv) Pope St. Pius V, Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, (1567);

(v) Pope Alexander VII, Bull Sollicitudo Omnium Eccl. (1661).18

The Church finds support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the words of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women” (St. Luke 1, 28 [Douai]). She, who was to conceive the Son of God, the Holy of holies, must Herself be supremely holy, and therefore be preserved, not only from actual sin, but also from all stain of Original Sin. The Angel’s words would not have been entirely truthful had the Virgin Mary, for even one instant, been deprived of grace.

St. Luke 1, 28 continues to be a source of much controversy. Most Protestants would prefer to render the original Greek kecharitomene as “highly favoured” rather than “full of grace.” In fact, a strict translation of kecharitomene is “thou who hast been graced.” Of the two options, “full of grace” is a more clear and definite rendering of the angel’s words than “favour.” For this conclusion there exists the authority of the Latin Fathers; the Codices of Alexandrinus and Ephrem; the Syriac and Arabic versions of the Bible; and even the writings of Protestants such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Beza.19

The Church, furthermore, asserts that God, immediately after Adam’s fall, cursed Satan and said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head” (Gen. 3, 15). It was by the Virgin Mary’s seed, that is, Jesus Christ, that the kingdom of Satan was demolished. It was not fitting that She, who was to co-operate in the defeat of Satan, should ever be infected by his breath or a slave to his kingdom of sin. The enmity between the Virgin Mary and the serpent placed by God was Her triumph over sin, Her Immaculate Conception.

To the contrary, however, it is asserted that the Virgin Mary again admitted that She was a sinner when She presented herself in the Temple for purification in accordance with the Law of Moses: “she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf, and she shall be clean’” (Lev. 12, 8). The Virgin Mary observed this Law not because She believed Herself to be defiled by giving birth to Christ, but to give an example of humility and obedience by fulfilling all outward observances. For the Virgin Mary was not subject to this particular law by virtue of what God Himself had laid down in prefacing it: “If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days…” (v. 2 [Douai]). The conception and birth of Christ was not due to the reception of male seed but rather to the power of the Holy Spirit. In no way can it be claimed that in conceiving, bearing and delivering Christ the Virgin Mary was made “unclean.” In fact, the opposite would have occurred, that is, She would have received an augmentation of grace.20

That God should have created the Virgin Mary in a state of holiness as He had formed Eve and the angels is also befitting the honour of God: of the Father, whose daughter She is; of the Son, whose mother She is; and of the Holy Spirit, who, in the incarnation, took the Virgin Mary to be His spouse. Further, as the “new Eve” and mother of the new Adam, the Virgin Mary cannot appropriately be anything less than the original Eve; on the contrary, as Christ excelled Adam, so the Virgin Mary (though to a lesser degree) should excel Eve. Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church has consistently and universally proclaimed the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary:

 

[Mannyfit75]

"Our most holy, immaculate, and most glorious Lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary."21

"It was meet that the God of all purity should spring from the greatest purity, from the most pure bosom."22

"Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity…my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate."23

"With the exception therefore of the Holy Virgin Mary, with regard to whom, when sin is in question, I cannot, out of respect of Our Lord, permit of any discussion."24

"By virtue of the richness of the grace of the beloved Son, by reason of the redemptive merits of him who willed to become her Son, Mary was preserved from the inheritance of original sin. In this way, from the first moment of her conception - which is to say of her existence - she belonged to Christ, sharing in salvific and sanctifying grace and in the love which has its beginning in the ‘Beloved’, the Son of the Eternal Father…"25

"The ‘splendor of an entirely unique holiness’ by which Mary is ‘enriched from the first instant of her conception’ comes wholly from Christ: she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.’ The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places’ and chose her 'in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love."26

Finally, for Catholics, the infallible pronouncement of Pius IX was given heavenly ratification by the Virgin Mary Herself when She appeared at Lourdes in southern France in 1858 and announced to St. Bernadette Soubirous that She was “the Immaculate Conception.” The subsequent flow of thousands of miracles stemming from the waters of the Lourdes grotto attest to the authenticity of the Virgin Mary’s apparitions and are a matter of public record for all to examine.

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

My dear friend Mannyfit75. Please examine the verse that you quoted on Romans about Jacob and Esau. It has everything to do for whom God chooses and not age of reasoning. No where did i say that i am brining this into our time. Please re-read these verses and i think that you will see that Paul states nothing about age of reason but predestination.

I greatly rejoice that Mary is in Heaven along with the other Saints! However, we disagree to what level and by account. Again - you take the scriptures about being highly favoured and full of grace as meaning sinless. This is an additional thought to the scriptures. Though there are no scriptures that plainly say that Mary did or did not sin in the actual literal, we see that all humanity outside of Christ have sinned. (To even possibly say that Christ may have sinned is sadly the case for blasphemy and shows forth ignorance of the lowest kind for scripture after scripture prove Jesus to be sinless of His own account.) However, the same cannot be made of Mary. Mary is indeed a saint but not a sinless one.

Regarding Romans 3 - exaimine it in its full context.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise:for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

This not only applies to the time that the referentail psalm was written, it applies during the ages throughout.

Also, blessed are the doers of the Word - Mary and all that do His will for these are His mother and brethren.

The scriptures are quite clear - more clear than the traditions of men.

Thank you again for your time and replies. We will have to disagree with this very important matter. Either i am a liar or the Roman Catholic Church teaches falsely. I am glad that God saves wretches and worms such as myself. It is all of grace and that by the gift of salvation in the demonstrating of the faith of the Son of God in the lives of His believers.

Sincerely and thanks again!

tom

 

[Mannyfit75]

My dear friend Mannyfit75. Please examine the verse that you quoted on Romans about Jacob and Esau. It has everything to do for whom God chooses and not age of reasoning. No where did i say that i am brining this into our time. Please re-read these verses and i think that you will see that Paul states nothing about age of reason but predestination.

I greatly rejoice that Mary is in Heaven along with the other Saints! However, we disagree to what level and by account. Again - you take the scriptures about being highly favoured and full of grace as meaning sinless. This is an additional thought to the scriptures. Though there are no scriptures that plainly say that Mary did or did not sin in the actual literal, we see that all humanity outside of Christ have sinned. (To even possibly say that Christ may have sinned is sadly the case for blasphemy and shows forth ignorance of the lowest kind for scripture after scripture prove Jesus to be sinless of His own account.) However, the same cannot be made of Mary. Mary is indeed a saint but not a sinless one.

Regarding Romans 3 - exaimine it in its full context.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise:for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

This not only applies to the time that the referentail psalm was written, it applies during the ages throughout.

Also, blessed are the doers of the Word - Mary and all that do His will for these are His mother and brethren.

The scriptures are quite clear - more clear than the traditions of men.

Thank you again for your time and replies. We will have to disagree with this very important matter. Either i am a liar or the Roman Catholic Church teaches falsely. I am glad that God saves wretches and worms such as myself. It is all of grace and that by the gift of salvation in the demonstrating of the faith of the Son of God in the lives of His believers.

Sincerely and thanks again!

tom

Tom,

I already answered that remarks. To be honest, I do believe you are a liar because you teach something contrary to the Catholic Church because I believe Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.

If the Church is wrong then Jesus lied “that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Let me give some exposition on this passage:

If the word “all” (pas in Greek) can indeed have different meanings (as it does in English), then it can have different meanings! It matters not if it means literally “every single one” in some places, if it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos (“brother”) meaning “sibling” in one place rules out a meaning of “cousin” or other non-sibling somewhere else.

 

[Mannyfit75]

We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV reads, “being filled with all unrighteousness…,” whereas NRSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, “…every kind of wickedness…” As another example in the same book, Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved,” (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “…filled with all knowledge…” (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong’s Concordance.

And Mary was freed from original sin! Again, I don’t see how this is compelling at all. All you’ve shown is that there are exceptions indeed. Granted, Jesus is of course unique, but if He proves an exception to the rule here, is it utterly inconceivable that Mary could as well? Sure, Adam and Eve sinned, but they are used as examples of immaculate human beings however short-lived it was in their case! I agree that this verse could be regarded as a “difficulty,” but I don’t think it is insurmountable. What would be irrefutable would be a verse that read something like: “absolutely every human being who ever lived no exceptions - has sinned…” This would include Jesus since He is a human as we are - just that He is also God (a Divine Person), and Mary. But Romans 3:23 doesn’t entail that logical conundrum.
One could also say that Mary was included in the “all” in the sense that she certainly would have been subject to original sin like all the rest of us but for God’s special preventive act of grace - a “preemptive strike,” so to speak. This is why she can rightly say that God was her Savior too (Lk 1:47). I don’t think that is stretching it, considering that Hebrew idiom was not at all “scientific,” “philosophical” nor excessively particularistic as to literal meanings, as English in our culture seems to be today. I myself - in my admittedly relative ignorance of technical exegesis - think that this “exception / original sin / Hebrew idiom” explanation is the most plausible. It allows one to take “all” here in its most straightforward, common sense meaning, but with the proviso that Mary was spared from inevitable sin by means of a direct, extraordinary intervention of God, and it is also in line with the thought of Luke 1:47, as interpreted by Catholic theology, in light of its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Mannyfit75]

That said, I go now to linguistic reference works. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:

Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., “all Jerusalem” in Mt 2:3 and “all the sick” in 4:24. {pp.796-7}

See also Mt 3:5, 21:10, 27:25, Mk 2:13, 9:15, etc., etc., esp. in KJV.

Likewise, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives “of every kind” as a possible meaning in some contexts {p.491, word #3956}. And Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean “every kind or variety.” {v.1, p.46, under “All”}.

Nevertheless, I am inclined to go with the “exception” interpretation I described above. My point here is simply to illustrate that pas doesn’t necessarily have to mean "no exceptions, so that Mary’s sinlessness is not a logical impossibility based on the meaning of pas alone.

 

[Mannyfit75]

We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says:

No one is good but God alone. {Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17}

Yet He also said:

The good person brings good things out of a good treasure… {Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45, 7:17-20, 22:10}

Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English “good” the Greek word is the same: agatho.

Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God’s, but He doesn’t deny that we can be “good” in a lesser sense.

We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:

The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good [Hebrew, tob] no not one. {Ps 14:2-3; cf. 53:1-3 / Paul cites these in Rom 3:10-12}

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims I trusted in your steadfast love… {13:5}, which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right… {15:2}. Even two verses later he writes that …God is with the company of the righteous. (!!!) So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance. Such remarks are common to Jewish poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5 refers to a good man (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (11:23, 12:2, 13:22, 14:14,19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Ps 14:2-3. And references to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9, 22:19, Ps 5:12, 32:11, 34:15, 37:16,32, Mt 9:13, 13:17, 25:37,46, Rom 5:19, Heb 11:4, Jas 5;16, 1 pet 3:12, 4:18, etc., etc.).

 

[Mannyfit75]

But us Catholics agree with Protestants on the universality of sin, with just the one lone exception of Mary among created human beings. That’s not too incredible or implausible or unthinkable to imagine God doing, is it? To make sure that one solitary created person was kept from sin? And that because she was the Theotokos, the God-bearer? Newman said that it is far less difficult to hold that Mary was freed from original and actual sin than it is to accept the proposition that all men are subject to original sin. The real mystery is why God would allow the latter to happen, not that He willed to restore His Son’s earthly mother to a state which - but for original sin - would have characterized every one of us.

One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” {NIV}. As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5, Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3229693]Tom,

I already answered that remarks. To be honest, I do believe you are a liar because you teach something contrary to the Catholic Church because I believe Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.

If the Church is wrong then Jesus lied “that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus never promised that His church would be incapable of teaching error. In fact the scriptures warn that false teachers would come from within the church itself (2 Peter 2:1) that would decieve many.

 

[Old_Scholar]

It seems too many people are simply believing what they want to. I don’t think a Roman Catholic Priest would go along with most of the posts by RCCs here.

Anytime you can simply believe what you want to, then you don’t need any guidelines. That’s what is happening here. No one wants to really take any responsibility for Scripture and what Christ says.

There is really very little doubt that Mary sinned. We are told that “all have sinned”, not that “all but Mary” have sinned. Mary was a good Jewish young lady and I am sure Joseph was a fine Jewish man. It would be very difficult to believe they would not have kept all the Jewish law.

For a woman to remain a virgin while being married to her husband would be considered a sin in itself by God’s standards. God created marriage. The two become one flesh and the bed is undefiled in marriage. Mary and Joseph were married and Joseph took Mary to be his wife, not his roommate.

Had she remained a virgin her entire married life, this would have been very dysfunctional and would have displeased her husband and God.

In addition, the Bible explicitely says Jesus was Mary’s firstborn and also says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. It also says “Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and called His name Jesus.

Romans 3:23 teaches us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It doesn’t exclude Mary.

Romans 5:12 says “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the word, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Now there is nothing there to take sin away from Mary. That’s just a dream of RCCs to try and make Scripture fit their teaching—nothing more…

Luke 1:28 “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Does anyone see “full of grace there?”

No where is a throne given to Mary. Only to Christ.

Luke 1:46 “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) and my spirit rejoiced in God My Saviour.

Here she magnifies the Lord and says she needs a saviour just like everybody else. She was a humble Jewish servant of the Lord. She knew from Scripture that only God can receive honor and glory.

The really big questions is why some Roman Catholics thought up this entire thing about honoring Mary anyhow. It certainly isn’t scriptural as the Scriptures play down Mary’s role.

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Manny - i understand that you call me a liar and I gladly accept this on account of the truth of God’s inerrant Word. Actually i would like if it would be possible that you and i could have a cup of coffee together and have the Bible out in front of us. It certainly harder to do this via email. We’ll have to disagree with Mary.

Regarding Israel. The question becomes do we apply this as a literal or do we examine the scritpures to understand this in light of another passages harmony? For example not all Israel are of Israel Romans 9:6. We also know that Christ is able to raise stones for children unto Abraham. We also know that the flesh profiteth nothing but it is the Spirit that gives life. We also know that there is neither Jew nor Greek but one body built upon the Lord Jesus, the apostles and the prophets. The Pharisees were of the lineage of Israel but their father was the devil. However, with the announcemnet of the Gospel, the name of the Lord was no longer limited to Israel but to the nations and making disciples of Christ. Those who are children of Abraham are children by faith and not by physical seed. Israel, blessed because they had the Word, were not all blessed because they did not believe rightly by faith in it. Abraham was justified by faith not by his person. The children of God are children by faith and that from being born from above not from the earth.

Thanks for your time Manny. It does appear that we are at difficult odds with each other - even to the point of Heaven and hell but i do love you Manny.

Thanks again for your time.

tom

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus never promised that His church would be incapable of teaching error. In fact the scriptures warn that false teachers would come from within the church itself (2 Peter 2:1) that would decieve many.

Yes he did.

Blessed, are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not been revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven. Matthew 16:17-20

Jesus in Matthew 18:18 said to his apostle, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This passage is very unique because Jesus gave his authority to his apostles but he didn’t give them the keys. The keys are given to Peter alone. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and St. Peter.

There will be false teachers, but the Jesus’ promise is stronger than deceivers. That is why the Church has never been taught error.

Many of the Protestant beliefs are brand new. They are alien and did not exist since the beginning of Christianity. In the beginning of Christianity, it is Catholic. There were no such things as Protestants. They didn’t exist. The Early Christians are Catholics.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3229715]But us Catholics agree with Protestants on the universality of sin, with just the one lone exception of Mary among created human beings. That’s not too incredible or implausible or unthinkable to imagine God doing, is it? To make sure that one solitary created person was kept from sin? And that because she was the Theotokos, the God-bearer?

What you are doing here is taking what may be possible and claiming that it did in fact happen. Speculations are not facts or proofs. For your speculations to become facts you need evidence that God did indeed do this. The only place we can expect to see this evidence that God did such a thing would be in the Scriptures and the Scriptures never mention such a thing. Jesus never teaches it nor do His apostles.

Newman said that it is far less difficult to hold that Mary was freed from original and actual sin than it is to accept the proposition that all men are subject to original sin.

I don’t know how Newman could say this in light of what the Scriptures claim so clearly that all men are sinners because of the sin of Adam in which all men inherit. Scripture does not even hint of any exception for Mary.

The real mystery is why God would allow the latter to happen, not that He willed to restore His Son’s earthly mother to a state which - but for original sin - would have characterized every one of us.

Again this is an assumption without any facts to say that this is a mystery. There is no mystery for the mere fact the Scriptures never claim this for Mary.

One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” {NIV}. As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5, Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.

If Enoch or Elijah would not have been taken up do you think they would have died evenually?

 

[Mannyfit75]

It seems too many people are simply believing what they want to. I don’t think a Roman Catholic Priest would go along with most of the posts by RCCs here.

Anytime you can simply believe what you want to, then you don’t need any guidelines. That’s what is happening here. No one wants to really take any responsibility for Scripture and what Christ says.

There is really very little doubt that Mary sinned. We are told that “all have sinned”, not that “all but Mary” have sinned. Mary was a good Jewish young lady and I am sure Joseph was a fine Jewish man. It would be very difficult to believe they would not have kept all the Jewish law.

For a woman to remain a virgin while being married to her husband would be considered a sin in itself by God’s standards. God created marriage. The two become one flesh and the bed is undefiled in marriage. Mary and Joseph were married and Joseph took Mary to be his wife, not his roommate.

Had she remained a virgin her entire married life, this would have been very dysfunctional and would have displeased her husband and God.

In addition, the Bible explicitely says Jesus was Mary’s firstborn and also says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. It also says “Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and called His name Jesus.

Romans 3:23 teaches us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It doesn’t exclude Mary.

Romans 5:12 says “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the word, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Now there is nothing there to take sin away from Mary. That’s just a dream of RCCs to try and make Scripture fit their teaching—nothing more…

Luke 1:28 “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Does anyone see “full of grace there?”

No where is a throne given to Mary. Only to Christ.

Luke 1:46 “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) and my spirit rejoiced in God My Saviour.

Here she magnifies the Lord and says she needs a saviour just like everybody else. She was a humble Jewish servant of the Lord. She knew from Scripture that only God can receive honor and glory.

The really big questions is why some Roman Catholics thought up this entire thing about honoring Mary anyhow. It certainly isn’t scriptural as the Scriptures play down Mary’s role.

Let me just make this remark, why would Mary sin after accepting God’s will by becoming the Mother of the Son of God? She is the only woman who have a more intimate relationship than Jesus than anyone else. For for nine months, Jesus remain in her womb.

Jesus’ own flesh comes from Mary. To say she sinned before Jesus was conceived would be an insult to God because God is insulted by sin. If you were God, would you not create your mother more beautiful and perfect, or would you make your mother ugly and stained of sin?

I think you need to go deep. Don’t you think sin insults God? Why else did he demand us to be obedient to his precepts?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny - i understand that you call me a liar and I gladly accept this on account of the truth of God’s inerrant Word. Actually i would like if it would be possible that you and i could have a cup of coffee together and have the Bible out in front of us. It certainly harder to do this via email. We’ll have to disagree with Mary.

Regarding Israel. The question becomes do we apply this as a literal or do we examine the scritpures to understand this in light of another passages harmony? For example not all Israel are of Israel Romans 9:6. We also know that Christ is able to raise stones for children unto Abraham. We also know that the flesh profiteth nothing but it is the Spirit that gives life. We also know that there is neither Jew nor Greek but one body built upon the Lord Jesus, the apostles and the prophets. The Pharisees were of the lineage of Israel but their father was the devil. However, with the announcemnet of the Gospel, the name of the Lord was no longer limited to Israel but to the nations and making disciples of Christ. Those who are children of Abraham are children by faith and not by physical seed. Israel, blessed because they had the Word, were not all blessed because they did not believe rightly by faith in it. Abraham was justified by faith not by his person. The children of God are children by faith and that from being born from above not from the earth.

Thanks for your time Manny. It does appear that we are at difficult odds with each other - even to the point of Heaven and hell but i do love you Manny.

Thanks again for your time.

tom

If you love me, you would become Catholic because in the Catholic Church we have the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. You Protestants don’t.

 

[guanophore]

What translation are you using that says these people who came out of the tombs were righteous?

The verse does not say they 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;

Ok. They were not righteous, then. they were consecrated, devoted, sacred, holy and set apart from common use.

Does it sound to you like they were sinners who had fallen short?

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

I am sure, but how is that relevant to the point?

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.

It is appointed unto man once to die, and after that, the judgement. Where do you think they went after they came out of the tombs? Eternal life is for the righteous.

Are you saying that there have been humans who have never sinned their entire lives?

I am saying that the verse “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” is usually taken out of context by Protestants, and is a quote from a Psalm that is talking about believers. Curious you picked this passage, and skipped over the other examples! People are made righteous by grace, through faith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What you are doing here is taking what may be possible and claiming that it did in fact happen. Speculations are not facts or proofs. For your speculations to become facts you need evidence that God did indeed do this. The only place we can expect to see this evidence that God did such a thing would be in the Scriptures and the Scriptures never mention such a thing. Jesus never teaches it nor do His apostles.

Most of your belief in God is speculation, Protestant. What I believe is based on Divine Revelation, who is revealed by Jesus Christ. This was taught from the beginning.

I don’t know how Newman could say this in light of what the Scriptures claim so clearly that all men are sinners because of the sin of Adam in which all men inherit. Scripture does not even hint of any exception for Mary.

Mary never sinned. You have not proven you Scriptural Evidence that Mary committed personal sin or had any original sin.

Again this is an assumption without any facts to say that this is a mystery. There is no mystery for the mere fact the Scriptures never claim this for Mary.

If Enoch or Elijah would not have been taken up do you think they would have died evenually?

It is affirmed by both Eastern Rite Catholics, Orthodox Christians that Mary did died, resurrected, and assumed body and soul into heaven.

Unlike you, I do not adhere to the 1500 man-made invention of Sola Scriptura. So I am not bound by your man-made traditions.

I do like add that Enoch and Elijah went to Abode of the dead not hell because heaven was closed until the coming of the Messiah. They were awaiting for the Messiah. They were in Hades…in the hell of the damn of demons and satan.

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Manny.

I do have to say that the logic that you use to base righteousness based upon physical sucession is not a valid argument. If you examine the Kings of Israel, you will come to find this out. Right teaching is based upon the scriptures. The Pharisees used the same argument that you stated and Christ called them children of the devil even though they were direct descendents of Abraham. I imagine you probably know that arriving at a conclusion based upon this is not a valid argument.

Peter himself had to be rebuked by Paul and that face to face because he was falling into the teaching that Paul mentioned that the Galatians were falling into. He called such living bewitchment due to the teaching of Jewish fables or traditions.

The question is who is the true rock - the answer is Christ. David ascribed this correctly in the Psalm - the Lord is my Rock. Christ himself stated that the He is the cornerstone - the head. Don’t leave out that the church is built upon the Apostles and Prohpets. Here again you use neglectful logic in saying that Peter was the head of the Church. Because Christ says that he gives something to someone does not mean that he does not or will not give the same to others. This is faulty logic and unscriptural. Again - the church is built upon the Lord Jesus and the Apostles (as a group).

Thanks Again Manny!

tom

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny.

I do have to say that the logic that you use to base righteousness based upon physical sucession is not a valid argument. If you examine the Kings of Israel, you will come to find this out. Right teaching is based upon the scriptures. The Pharisees used the same argument that you stated and Christ called them children of the devil even though they were direct descendents of Abraham. I imagine you probably know that arriving at a conclusion based upon this is not a valid argument.

Not really. The Pharisees replace God with their man-made traditions. We don’t. We have remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Peter himself had to be rebuked by Paul and that face to face because he was falling into the teaching that Paul mentioned that the Galatians were falling into. He called such living bewitchment due to the teaching of Jewish fables or traditions.

While Peter was rebuke by Paul, he did not taught in his office “Ex-Cathedra.” He made a mistake. Papal infallibility is Holy Spirit preserving the Church from teaching erroneous doctrines when teaching moral and faith issues. Papal infallibility is not to be confused with impeccable.

The question is who is the true rock - the answer is Christ. David ascribed this correctly in the Psalm - the Lord is my Rock. Christ himself stated that the He is the cornerstone - the head. Don’t leave out that the church is built upon the Apostles and Prohpets. Here again you use neglectful logic in saying that Peter was the head of the Church. Because Christ says that he gives something to someone does not mean that he does not or will not give the same to others. This is faulty logic and unscriptural. Again - the church is built upon the Lord Jesus and the Apostles (as a group).

While as I can discuss this further, Matthew 16:18 would be discussed in a new thread not this.

The topic here should focus on Mary. I will make a quick answer.

The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha. Peter is often address as Kepha or Cephas by his peers. In the passage of Matthew 16:18, it would be written in Aramaic,

“You are Kepha and upon this Kepha, I will build my Church.” Simon Peter has been grafted into the Rock of Jesus Christ. Because the Church’s foundation is built upon the Apostles and Jesus as the cornerstone.

If you want to discuss the primacy of Peter. Feel free to make a thread.

Thanks Again Manny!

tom