Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3229837]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

Mannyfit75
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.

We probably agree with our understanding of Who Jesus was. What we don’t agree on is what the catholic church has done to Mary.

Quote:justasking4
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.
Mannyfit75
Mary never sinned. You have not proven you Scriptural Evidence that Mary committed personal sin or had any original sin.

Sure i have. Romans 5:12. What you have failed to demonstrate from Scripture that she was without sin. That cannot be done.

Quote:justasking4
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?
Mannyfit75
It is affirmed by both Eastern Rite Catholics, Orthodox Christians that Mary did died, resurrected, and assumed body and soul into heaven.

So what its affirmed. Thats not evidence. Churches can say all they want about things but its the facts and the evidence that tells you its true or not.

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.

There are a number of ways i could answer this but before i do what is your defintion of Sola Scriptura? I want to make sure i understand what you mean by it and see if i concur. Some defintions that people use i would not either.

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.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit75;3229837]

We probably agree with our understanding of Who Jesus was. What we don’t agree on is what the catholic church has done to Mary.

Mary is a created being according the Catholic Church. She is the Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, remain a virgin based on patristic sources, and was assumed into heaven. In the end, those who remain righteous in God will be resurrected, and assumed into heaven just like Mary. We will received the heavenly crown. What happen to Mary will eventually happen to us. This is very Biblical.

Sure i have. Romans 5:12. What you have failed to demonstrate from Scripture that she was without sin. That cannot be done.

All doesn’t necessary means all. I already refuted this before. You might as well include infants and mentally retarted persons. To be sinful, they must know what is sin. So your argument falls apart.

So what its affirmed. Thats not evidence. Churches can say all they want about things but its the facts and the evidence that tells you its true or not.

From Historical Writings of the ECF.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

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

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

 

[Mannyfit75]

There are a number of ways i could answer this but before i do what is your defintion of Sola Scriptura? I want to make sure i understand what you mean by it and see if i concur. Some defintions that people use i would not either.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura because I firmly believe that the Divine Revelation is in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition as the Word of God. Since humans cannot interpret Scripture in their own way, an interpreter must be needed. The Magisterium interprets the Word of God. This is seem throughout Scripture especially in the NT.

This is a different topic, so we won’t go deep there. You know, we can never agree on this. You have not convince me otherwise. I believe what you preach is a wrong. I don’t believe it because you teach new doctrines.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3230007]

Quote:
Sure i have. Romans 5:12. What you have failed to demonstrate from Scripture that she was without sin. That cannot be done.

justasking4
All doesn’t necessary means all. I already refuted this before. You might as well include infants and mentally retarted persons. To be sinful, they must know what is sin. So your argument falls apart.

Where do you get the idea that “To be sinful, they must know what is sin”?
Keep in mind that in the OT there were sacrifices for sins committed in ignorance.
Secondly, Romans 5:12 would also apply to infants and the mentally retarded. No one comes into this world pure.
Thirdly the reason your church baptizes babies is to cleanse them from sin.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Where do you get the idea that “To be sinful, they must know what is sin”?
Keep in mind that in the OT there were sacrifices for sins committed in ignorance.
Secondly, Romans 5:12 would also apply to infants and the mentally retarded. No one comes into this world pure.
Thirdly the reason your church baptizes babies is to cleanse them from sin.

Actually Roman 5:12 implies original sin, not personal sin. Original sin is the sin committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve. Just as one man sin, sin came into the world. We baptized infants so they can be free of original sin.

Second, you were to explicitly followed this, you would have to include all men. Since all men include the Son of Man, then Jesus can also be included right? If you truly think we have to interpret Roman 5:12 literally.

I am saying we cannot take Roman 5:12 literally because all doesn’'t mean all. If all does mean, does it mean that when the Messiah comes all of Israel saved? Well, we know for a fact that not all Jews believe Jesus is the Messiah, and not all of them were saved. Look at Judas.

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Manny.

I do appreciate your willingness to discuss!

Sola Scirptura is not a recent invention for Christ said Himself - that man should not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Actually there are several kinds of “revelations”. “New” revelations that do not conform to the scriptures are not truthful and are simply lies. Someone coming to an understanding by the kindness of God to the effectual Word of God as it applies to the loving understanding of His Salvation has the Word “revealed” unto their heart. Manny - God’s Word cannot contradict itself so therefore any “revelation” that man may have has got to be in agreement with the Word. The Word of God is the final authority. He exalts His Word along with His Holy Name. You even mentioned yourself that you think that revelation is based upon truth and of course the truth is the Word of God. Jesus is the Truth. He is the Word. We though disagree over Mary and her being sinless.

I do love you Manny.

tom

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

Can you show me in scripture where it says that it "is based upon the scriptures " only?

BTW, no one is inferring anything like “righteousness based upon physical sucession” and I don’t know where you got that crazy idea from. It’s certainly not a Catholic teaching…

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.

More crazy allegation…though I see you are trying to veil it somewhat. Nothing of Our Lord’s rebukes to the Pharisees applies to the Catholic Church…If you think so then please, by all means, make your case.

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.

So what!? I see this specious argument all the time and it’s invalid. Just because Paul rebukes Peter doesn’t indict Peter’s position as the rock, (or did you forget what Kepha means and forget that that is precisely what Our Lord Himself named him.)

The question is who is the true rock - the answer is Christ.

Peachy… the bad news for you is that your argument is with the Lord Himself and not with us because He used the singular form in Matthew 16:18 that indicates that He was speaking to Peter and not to or about Himself. No faithful Catholic will say that the Church is not founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, but we will also never deny what the scripture plainly says when Our Lord tells him that he is Kepha and upon this Kepha He will build His church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. If you disagree or don’t like it I have to suggest that you take it up with the Lord because we didn’t do it…

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.

You’d make a good farmer because you are showing a great capacity for cherry picking verses and references. Certainly, we believe all you speak of, but you are the one who has compartmentalized a set of references while seeking to divorce them from other passages that help correctly inform our beliefs. That’s not the path to correct doctrines.

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

You certainly have beat the daylights out of that straw man argument because that is all you did.

You pretend here that we believe something that (you say) is illogical and unscriptural when in fact the scriptures do not support you.

Also… you are half right in that Our Lord did “give the same to others”, he gave it to Peter’s apostolic successors.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny.

I do appreciate your willingness to discuss!

Sola Scirptura is not a recent invention for Christ said Himself - that man should not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Actually there are several kinds of “revelations”.

There is only two types of Revelation, Divine Revelation which is public revelation. That is the redemption of God coming to earth to save us as the Messiah in the Person of Christ.

The second is private revelation, where God sometimes communicate to his people and affirm their faith. We see this in both OT and NT.

There will be no new Revelation. The last one was the coming of the Son of Man.

“New” revelations that do not conform to the scriptures are not truthful and are simply lies. Someone coming to an understanding by the kindness of God to the effectual Word of God as it applies to the loving understanding of His Salvation has the Word “revealed” unto their heart. Manny - God’s Word cannot contradict itself so therefore any “revelation” that man may have has got to be in agreement with the Word. The Word of God is the final authority. He exalts His Word along with His Holy Name. You even mentioned yourself that you think that revelation is based upon truth and of course the truth is the Word of God. Jesus is the Truth. He is the Word. We though disagree over Mary and her being sinless.

Whether you know this or not. The Early Protestant Reformers held a belief that Mary remain sinless. It was only later development in Protestantism that your forefathers departed from the truth.

As early as the 235 AD, the ECF believe that Mary remain sinless. Even the Eastern Orthodox believe that Mary was sinless.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I believe that the Catholic Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (See 1 Tim 3:15). It isn’t not the Bible. The Truth is Jesus Christ because he is the Way, the Truth and the Life. What the Church has declared in the beginning is final. Mary remain a virgin and she is. The Holy Spirit has spoken through His Church and the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself because he is unchanging.

When you guys come along, you come up with new doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. You then come up with varies heretical and erroneous beliefs and slowly departed from the truth. You also departed from Apostolic Successions. The only sacrament you have is baptism. Everything else has been thrown away by your forefathers.

What I love about my Church is that Jesus Christ founded it. It was not founded by man.

I do love you Manny.

tom

If you love me, become Catholic.

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Hello Church Militant!

What is the Church founded on? It is founded upon the Word of God. It is founded upon the truths of the Gospel. Christ is the Word made flesh. I am very sorry that you disannul yourself from this truth. Sorry no picking of Cherries here - just picking straight from the fruit of God’s Word and not Church Councils. Your arguments are not founded upon the Word of God my friend. You do choose and pick with arguments and then apply conditionals of your own. The scriptures are so clear that all have sinned and that if any man says that He has no sin and that all of our righteounesses are filthy rags. Sadly, when such truths are negated those who do so are the ones who cherry pick rotten fruit.

Thanks again Church Militant. By the way - Very interesting name.

Sincerely,

tom

 

[Mannyfit75]

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[Mannyfit75]

John Salza:

First, if all have sinned, that means Jesus sinned, but we know Jesus did not sin. Therefore, if Jesus is an exception, Mary can be as well.

Second, Paul means that all people are subject to original sin. Mary was also subject to original sin, but God redeemed her from the moment of her conception. Mary’s sinlessness is completely based on the anticipated sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God let all of us fall into the mud pudddle, and then washed us in baptism. For Mary, God did not let her fall into the mud puddle. But both scenarios are based on Christ’s redemption.

Third, not “all have sinned,” because babies, the mentally retarded, and the senile cannot sin (that is, they are not culpable for their sin).

Fourth, the word “all” in Rom 3:23 in Greek is pantes. It is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven. This means that when Paul says “all” (pantes), he does not mean every single one. In fact, Paul says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. This means that when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, he really means “many.”

God bless.

scripturecatholic.com/mary_qa.html#allhavesinned

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hello Church Militant!

What is the Church founded on? It is founded upon the Word of God. It is founded upon the truths of the Gospel. Christ is the Word made flesh. I am very sorry that you disannul yourself from this truth. Sorry no picking of Cherries here - just picking straight from the fruit of God’s Word and not Church Councils. Your arguments are not founded upon the Word of God my friend. You do choose and pick with arguments and then apply conditionals of your own. The scriptures are so clear that all have sinned and that if any man says that He has no sin and that all of our righteounesses are filthy rags. Sadly, when such truths are negated those who do so are the ones who cherry pick rotten fruit.

Thanks again Church Militant. By the way - Very interesting name.

The Church is founded upon Jesus Christ. He established the Catholic Church, and no other. If you insist not picking on the Church Council, you might as well do away with the Council of Jerusalem, or the Council of Nicea, which combated the heresy of Arianism.

Sincerely,

tom

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Manny. The scripture in Romans does mention Christ and Him being sinless. Was Christ not and is God? What do men fall short of? They fall short of the glory of God. Manny examine the entire scripture. Your logic is not sound.

I once was Catholic Manny and i still do love you!

Sincerely,

tom

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny. The scripture in Romans does mention Christ and Him being sinless. Was not and is God?

Jesus is both God and Man but you cannot take Roman 5:12 literally true because to do you must included Jesus because he is also True Man. Because remember he is often refer to as “Son of Man.”

What do men fall short of?

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.).

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.

I once was Catholic Manny and i still do love you!

A Catholic who is missing the fullness of truth. So sad. You have no idea that you can no longer eat and drink the Body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,

tom

 

[Mannyfit75]

Tom,

I recommend you read this blog.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html

 

[guanophore]

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.

Well, actually, I think this is true. Since the word was written by Catholics, for Catholics, and about Catholics, does that not stand to reason?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3230472]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.
guanophore
Well, actually, I think this is true. Since the word was written by Catholics, for Catholics, and about Catholics, does that not stand to reason?

No. The reason is that the scriptures use specific words that were common to most greek speaking people of the ancient world. Words have meanings in their original usage that helps to understand what the writer of Scripture or any documents mean.
I don’t think you would tolerate it from anyone (especially me) if i diliberately missdefined what catholic terms mean so that it says something its never intended to.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No. The reason is that the scriptures use specific words that were common to most greek speaking people of the ancient world. Words have meanings in their original usage that helps to understand what the writer of Scripture or any documents mean.
I don’t think you would tolerate it from anyone (especially me) if i diliberately missdefined what catholic terms mean so that it says something its never intended to.

The Catholic Church interprets Scripture in its original context. Protestants don’t. They invite new things.

 

[guanophore]

Where do you get the idea that “To be sinful, they must know what is sin”?

This is part of the definition of mortal sin. I think it is incomplete, though. A person can be dead in sin even if they don’t know they are sinning. But culpability increases with knowledge.

Keep in mind that in the OT there were sacrifices for sins committed in ignorance.

Yes.

Secondly, Romans 5:12 would also apply to infants and the mentally retarded. No one comes into this world pure.
Thirdly the reason your church baptizes babies is to cleanse them from sin.

You are conflating two kinds of sin here. One is origninal, the other personal.

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Manny. Thanks again for your response!

The question on this now should be for another thread - how does man become righteous. I agree fully with your thought about David but the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord. Where does the Lord order them upon? If it wasn’t for the Lord’s ordering, Jerimiah mentioned that they should have been as Sodom.

The righteous ones’ steps are ordered upon Christ who is the Way. However, we must dig deeper into how this should be examined. We must be grafted into the vine. Without being grafted into the proper vine (Christ) we will certainly wither away according to our own righteousness. The husbandman gathers and grafts them into the vine so that they will be the fruit in the likeness of the vine (Christ). Where does life (salvation) come from? It comes from the vine for He that believes upon the Son of Man… No man has righteousness of his own. It is given unto Him by God - the Lord Jesus’ rightesouness but again - another thread. We are declared righteous by the decree of God and that according to what Christ has done. We must be in Christ and Christ in us.

Yes - He is the Son of Man. He had to be in order to be our High Priest in order to experience the feelings of His people’s infirmities but yet in all points He was tested like His people but remained without sin - Fully God and fully man. He the sinless high priest gave entrance unto all His people.

We will have to disagree about Mary being sinless. Perhaps we will talk again on another thread? I will again use the scriptures for His Words are Spirit and His Words are life.

Goodnight Manny.

Goodnight Militant - interesting name for a greeter

tom