Could Mary have sinned?

[guanophore]

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.

This is not true. She was a good Jewess, and knew the scriptures and the law. She understood why everyone needed a saviour. Have you been saved from your sins? Now that you have, do you no longer have any awareness of why we need a saviour???

Anyway, we don’t know what she knew, or thought about and her awareness level. Talk about speculaton!

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

Really? Then Christianity is the biggest load of junk to come down the pike. It cannot be trusted to teach the truth and therefore it is no better than all the other religions of the world.

That is the only logical response to your post Ja4.

Jesus did indeed promise Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. This is critically important, especially when St. Paul outright tells St. Timothy “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1st Timothy 3:15) If the church is in danger of going astray, then St. Paul recorded a falsehood in his epistle because that is what he taught Timothy and through him all the rest of us who read the New Testament.

Every error and heresy essentially comes from within the church and usually because someone sat down and decided to come up with some new wind of doctrine…and if you look into it, you’ll see that they also come into being because of Sola Scriptura and that errant philosophy that says that anyone with a Bible can read it and rightly divide it, and that’s not only not scriptural, but it’s weird when one can pretty easily check one’s beliefs against the Word of God and the ECF… The same ECF who dealt with heretics and errors from the earliest days of the Church.

To be honest, it is my opinion that theologically, modern post reformation n-Cs generally are the best examples of the kinds of errors, heresies and deceptions that have sprouted and been refuted and condemned by the church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

This argument is circular. I know Jesus had no sin and Mary had no sin. Before the fall, Eve and Adam were born immaculate. Do you think it is impossible for God to create Mary, the Mother of his Only Begotten Son free from all sin?

You know for a fact that God abhor sin. Why else did God said to Moses, take the sandals off your shoes for the ground you stand on is Holy. God’s dwelling place is holy.

If Mary sinned it is more of an insult to God because nothing unclean can touch God. Do you realized that? The Ark of the Covenant was the Dwelling place of God and those who touched it died. That is how much the Word of God is honored. Since Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant (Who is Jesus Christ, the Word of God), God would not see fit that a sinful woman would be worthy to carry his only begotten son.

In order to prepare for the Messiah, God created Mary free from sin. For the flesh of Jesus comes from his Mother. Second, when Mary said, be it done unto me according to your word. She has made herself consecrated to God. I hardly think the Mother of God would lapse into sin after having Jesus in her womb for 9 months. I also believe Mary was a consecrated virgin for the Temple.

Consecrated virgins to the temple were virgins who would be consecrated to God and one of them would become the Mother of the Messiah. They are consider Daughters of God. Mary is the Daughter of God, the Father. The Father has chosen Mary to be the Mother of His Son. We know Mary is a consecrated virgin because she ask Gabriel this question, “How can this be since I know no man?” She would have not said that if she wasn’t consecrated. She know where babies came from.

Suppose Mary sinned while Jesus was still in her womb? Wouldn’t that insult God? Sin is dirty and God hate SIN! I don’t think God would permit the Mother of His Son to be with sin.

There aren’t a lot of reference of Mary after Jesus started his ministry but we do see Mary being praised as being called Blessed and obedient servant of the God.

Mary never sinned. The** main point of this is that whatever God touches is Holy. It is consecrated!** A sinful Mary is an insult to God.

I have a question, would you allow someone to throw vommit on your mother? I consider sin a vommit of hell. I’m sure you would be insulted if someone vommit over your mother. God would too.

 

[Tim_in_MI]

Goodnight Militant - interesting name for a greeter

Tom, Welcome to the boards! Since CM isn’t online right now, and you brought this up twice, I thought you might be interested in the term - take a look: Church Militant

We’re all struggling Christians here on planet Earth - It’s just that CM got here earlier than many of the rest of us and scooped up that excellent name. I wouldn’t mind scooping “Church Triumphant” next time around!

 

[guanophore]

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.

Fortunately, this is a false statement. But, out of curiosity, what would happen if there really were a source of Divine Revelation other than Scripture? What would that mean to you faith practice?

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.

Well, we read it differently.

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.

No, the mystery lies in the fact that there are things beyond human understanding. Our minds are just not capable of comprehending some of the facts about God.

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

I suppose that is up to God. The saints who were raised at the Crucifixion were rejoined with their bodies a lot earlier than most everyone else.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It is the teachers who have erred, ja4, not the church.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish"

The Church is in splendor, without spot, wrinkle or any such thing. This is why it is so painful for you to disparage her. In doing so, you disparage Christ, her head, and the sacrifice He made to sanctify her.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You make it sound like we tied her up and threw her under a bridge, or something!

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

Not for a person who takes Rom 5:12 out of context.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You are right. My point is that Catholics understand best what the writers meant, because the scriptures were produced out of Catholic teaching, by Catholic writers, who believed what we do today.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

A curious allegation but I would say that you are talking through your hat on that one. Unless of course you can produce a real faithful Catholic priest to decide the issue.

Basically all this is rhetoric and not really relevant to anything.

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.That’s a perfect description of SS n-C teachings. The fact is that you have no guidelines once you depart from the Biblically stated authority of the church. Face it… you guys have no one in charge to set you straight when you err, and that’s why you spend so much time arguing with other Christians…or just opening new churches to cater to your own particular errant interpretation that the other guys won’t buy into.

There is really very little doubt that Mary sinned.

OK… Prove it from the Word of God. I mean show me a passage that literally indicts the Blessed Virgin as committing some sin because I can’t find it in my Bible.

We are told that “all have sinned”, not that “all but Mary” have sinned.

We’ve been over this a lot. In the end even n-Cs who deny the Immaculate Conception have to admit that when Romans 3:23 says “all” have sinned, it does not in fact mean that all (everybody) have sinned. The fact is that the examples of infants and mentally incompetent persons cannot be said to have sinned. That means that all in that case does not mean “all” in the sense that n-Cs attempt to teach it.

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.

What you are sure of and what you believe about them actually has about zero to do with it. If you cannot indict them from scripture (since that is your only authoritative source) you offer still more rhetoric without any substance. At tis point the evidence that the Catholic Church offers is more substantive than yours.

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.

Here again, you cannot prove this and since Our Lord Himself tells us that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God is righteous, (Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. ") you have no leg to stand on in your assertion. Moreover, there are historical sources that tell us that Joseph was actually a much older man who was part of the council and had been widowed. The point is that creating a new family was not only not something that he wanted (in view of his charge concerning Mary and Jesus) but that he may well have been incapable of and disinterested in.
(Cont’d)

 

[Old_Scholar]

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?

What we “think” is not really important. It is what God has revealed to us in His word. You can “believe” all you want to about what “may” have happened but unless God tells us about it, we have to assume it didn’t happen that way. Of course I am speaking of matters of faith and morals. Mere speculation is not a very good way to learn the truth. We can imagine anything we want.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Refuted above…

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.

‘Brethren of the Lord’ & Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers*)

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…

More rhetoric…as if because you say it it is so. I disagree and have made my case unlike you.

Luke 1:28 (Douay Rheims Bible) “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

(and the Latin Vulgate.) et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus
Does anyone see “full of grace there?”Yeah, as a matter of fact I do.

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

If you say so… but my Bible has Revelation 12:1 in it.

Luke 1:46

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.

So then by your thinking expressed here, then Jesus was a sinner in need of baptism since He insisted that John baptize Him. It’s the very same fallacious logic.

 

[Old_Scholar]

A curious allegation but I would say that you are talking through your hat on that one. Unless of course you can produce a real faithful Catholic priest to decide the issue.

Basically all this is rhetoric and not really relevant to anything.
That’s a perfect description of SS n-C teachings. The fact is that you have no guidelines once you depart from the Biblically stated authority of the church. Face it… you guys have no one in charge to set you straight when you err, and that’s why you spend so much time arguing with other Christians…or just opening new churches to cater to your own particular errant interpretation that the other guys won’t buy intK… Prove it from the Word of God. I mean show me a passage that literally indicts the Blessed Virgin as committing some sin because I can’t find it in my Bible.We’ve been over this a lot. In the end even n-Cs who deny the Immaculate Conception have to admit that when Romans 3:23 says “all” have sinned, it does not in fact mean that all (everybody) have sinned. The fact is that the examples of infants and mentally incompetent persons cannot be said to have sinned. That means that all in that case does not mean “all” in the sense that n-Cs attempt to teach it.What you are sure of and what you believe about them actually has about zero to do with it. If you cannot indict them from scripture (since that is your only authoritative source) you offer still more rhetoric without any substance. At tis point the evidence that the Catholic Church offers is more substantive than yours. Here again, you cannot prove this and since Our Lord Himself tells us that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God is righteous, (Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. ") you have no leg to stand on in your assertion. Moreover, there are historical sources that tell us that Joseph was actually a much older man who was part of the council and had been widowed. The point is that creating a new family was not only not something that he wanted (in view of his charge concerning Mary and Jesus) but that he may well have been incapable of and disinterested in.
(Cont’d)

So you’re going to consider “historical sources” as something a man said, without any proof, some hundreds of years after Christ…Truly a unique way to study theology.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

So then by your thinking expressed here, then Jesus was a sinner in need of baptism since He insisted that John baptize Him. It’s the very same fallacious logic.

So why do you think Jesus asked John to baptize Him?

 

[Church_Militant]

What we “think” is not really important. It is what God has revealed to us in His word. You can "believe

" all you want to about what “may” have happened but unless God tells us about it, we have to assume it didn’t happen that way. Of course I am speaking of matters of faith and morals. Mere speculation is not a very good way to learn the truth. We can imagine anything we want.Yeah… look at Martin Luther’s imagination and the new winds of doctrine like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide… both imaginary Christian teachings that he created and has misled millions in the last 500 years. :crying: shame…

BTW… you made some statements about things you thought about the Blessed Virgin and assert them as valid and then refute that very idea in this post.

Fascinating false dichotomy…

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant
So why do you

think Jesus asked John to baptize Him?I don’t “think” anything about it at all. I know.
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to make a correction concerning Adam and Eve. I wrote they were born. I made an error on this part. They were created immaculate not born.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What we “think” is not really important. It is what God has revealed to us in His word. You can “believe” all you want to about what “may” have happened but unless God tells us about it, we have to assume it didn’t happen that way. Of course I am speaking of matters of faith and morals. Mere speculation is not a very good way to learn the truth. We can imagine anything we want.

Scripture makes it clear God abhor sin. To consider Mary have sinned is an insult to God. It would be like throwing vommit over your mother’s face.

It is God’s grace that saved Mary and it is His Church that she is immaculate and without sin.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yeah… look at Martin Luther’s imagination and the new winds of doctrine like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide… both imaginary Christian teachings that he created and has misled millions in the last 500 years. :crying: shame…

BTW… you made some statements about things you thought about the Blessed Virgin and assert them as valid and then refute that very idea in this post.

Fascinating false dichotomy…

A false dichotomy indeed. He is making a lot of theological error.

 

[Church_Militant]

So you’re going to consider "historical sources

" as something a man said, without any proof, some hundreds of years after Christ…Truly a unique way to study theology.It doesn’t disqualify them as historical sources just because they are later.

And… you obviously do not know what sources I speak of because the ones I am referring to date from the 1st & 2nd century. They can be found in this book.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510HNZQ8HQL.AA240.jpg
The Lost Books of the Bible [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)
by Solomon J. Schepps (Foreword), William Hone (Compiler)

 

[Thomas_Elliott]

Hello Millitant!

In light of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura:

I am not sure about Luther’s full intent with these terms but i do find the Holy Scriptures to say that the just shall live by faith - not much else to live by for without faith, it is impossible to please God. However, faith is not the only means by which true believers live - they live in love for faith even teaches to love our enemies. We are to also live in His lively Hope which is Christ Jesus. However, we are saved by Grace THROUGH faith.

The Word - we shall all be judged by this according to the Lord Jesus Himself. Heaven and Earth will pass away but His Word will not - this also means that those who have His Words alive in them by His grace through faith will never pass away as well but will forever be with God to the praise of the glory of His Grace. Taste and see that the Lord is Good - His Words satisfy my thirsting and hungry soul. Thanks be to God that His gift cannot be bought and He gives it to whomever He will.

A thought about the Lord Jesus coming to the baptism of John. Others came confessing their sins. Did Jesus come confessing any sins of His own? We know - of course not. Prior to Jesus coming, God told John that the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost would be the one that the Spirit would descend upon.

As Jesus went into the river, He confessed no sins of His own. He was declaring that He Himself was/is wholly righteous of His own by not declaring any sins of His own. His righteousness stands as His name - I AM. I imagine there were those around Him (especially John) who did not hear Him confess any sin. However, one cannot be His own witness for out of the mouth of two or three must things be established. Who witnessed the truth of Christ going into the river without any confession of sin? The Father witnessed this sinless one by declaring that His nonconfession was indeed truth - this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. The Spirit also confessed by lighting upon Him. Here is the anouncement made very plain to the one who was called to be the announcer that salvation Has come. Also, i imagine some people (those near Jesus who could have heard Him confess no sin) might have had their eyebrows raised as Jesus immediately came up out of the water. Perhaps they may have thought (i know speculation but nonetheless plausable) who is this who confesses no sin - their answer came from God Himself.

However Millitant to use your analogy with Christ and Mary is not possible here. We know for absolute that Christ was sinless - it says it very plain. However, it does not say that Mary was sinless as well and to use the argument about Jesus being baptized by John is not sound due to the above - He had no sin and in fact, this act was to fulfill righteousness by having the righteous Father declare unto all who saw His beloved Son that this was the righteous offering who would serve as the atonement for His people’s sins (bringing many Sons unto glory).

Mary indeed was blessed among women to bear the Lord! But this does not mean that she was sinless. The text gives no occasion here for us to say that she was sinless. When examining the root words - highly favoured - YES! but no mentioning of sinlessness.

Manny - i appreciate your effort with your analogy with vomit - but again my friend your analogy is not biblical. The temple of the living God can now be found to reside in man - what - do you not know that ye are the temple of the living God? The kingdom of Heaven is within. Christ abides in His people even though they sin. Whereas Christ hates sin, this does not mean that He does not cease to dwell within them when they sin for He says that He will never leave nor forsake His own. Although it is very grievious (grieve not the Spirit), this does not mean that Christ departs from them.

Manny - your logic for Mary being as the ark is a self-imposed one. No where do the beloved apostles or the Lord Jesus Himself teach this. Rather, again, His believers are the temple of the living God which will in a day to come finally be brought together as the bride of Christ adorned for the Lord Himself. His believers are the ones who are to bear and bring forth His Gospel into all the world.

Those who defile the temple, God will destroy. Why was uzza destroyed? He disobeyed the Lord and the Lord slew him. Who are the temples of the living God now? Who has Christ within them, the hope of glory - His believers. Those who are false professors who hold another Gospel - them the Lord will slay at the day of judgement for their faith was not of the faith of the Son of God and that according to His Word - perhaps by Grace alone through faith alone by His Word alone.

Thanks for your time! - i do appreciate it. I do respect that you allow others to speak their minds even if you believe them to be in anathema.

Sincerely,

tom