Could Mary have sinned?

[guanophore]

I’m not willing to make suppositions in order to satisfy a doctrine as some do. The early church fathers all believed that every doctrine must be supported by Scripture in order to be true. Transubstantiation is not in Scripture.

Sorry but I don’t see anything there about transubstantiation. Just the same things all Christians believe, that we are drinking the blook of Christ and eating His flesh symbolically.

Most Christians do not believe this way.

 

[anthony022071]

So you don’t have the quotes about Mary’s perpetual virginity from the fathers?

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’ John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“The Son of God…was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit…” Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).

 

[davidv]

If it is enough to make a person wise to salvation, perfect, and perfectly furnished unto good works, why is it insufficient?

Because without a guide it is misused, abused and twisted to justify any manner of “I want it my way” thinking.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry, I must have missed the word “symbolically” in the Didache. Maybe it’s a translation error, eh?

BTW, in John Chapter 6, when Jesus talks of “symbolically eating of His flesh”, the Jewish meaning behind this is to revile and loathe. How does one revile and loathe Jesus in order to get Eternal Life?

The same way Jesus gave His “symbolic” flesh on the cross, I suppose.

Are you saying that all the Sacred Traditions (whatever they may be) and the Teaching of the magisterium of the church are all some kind of revelations?

YES! By golly, I do think you are GETTING it! :extrahappy: :extrahappy:

This really doesn’t answer the question though. Do you believe that you have knowledge of what the apostles taught that is not recorded in Scripture? For example Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus for over 2 years and we don’t know exactly what this was since there are no written records of it.

True. And Jesus hung around for 40 days after his resurrection. I would give my eye teeth to know what He said!

Secondly the idea that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all the truth is not entirely correct.

Perhaps your perception is lacking? Although, I agree with you that every believer individually is not guided into all truth.

If you are referring to John 16:12-15 this is a specific promise to the disciples who were there and not made to the church that would here after the apostles died. We know this promise was fulfilled because it is contained in the NT writings itself.

The promise was made to those that were present, and all those who joined them after they fulfilled the great commission. Jesus will be with us till the end of the age. At that time, the Church will no longer be needed.

If anything, the church is to be on guard against false teachers who in part will claim to be led by the HS.

Don’t worry, ja4, there are a number of us here on guard, just waiting for you to post!

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3321127]Mary could have sinned…but she didn’t, and no one can show anyplace in the Bible that says otherwise.
What would it take for you to see if she sinned?
It is true that no specific sins are mentioned about her but the same could be said for the vast amount people in the NT. It doesn’t mention any personal sins on their part so should we assume they never sinned either ?

The Blessed Virgin had a better “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” than anyone else.

That may be. However this and of itself would not prevent her necessarily from sinning either.

As I said before, (A “scholar” should pay attention.), that doesn’t have to come from tradition because it’s right there in Luke 1.

Not if you take the entire context of the Scriptures into consideration. I even scanned the footnotes on the New American Bible and i didn’t see any mention of Mary being sinless or incapable of doing so. Is it the greeting of the angel i.e. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” that makes you think she was incapable sinning?

 

[Church_Militant]

But the Holy Spirit will not guide you to anything that can’t be found in Scripture. Irenæus said:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith

. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

Irenæus is saying that the apostles preached orally at first but then everything (perfect knowledge) was written down to be the ground and pillar of our faith.Too bad that he wasn’t infallible because he’s wrong as to what is the pillar and ground of the truth. It’s not the scriptures as you and he assert. (Though in fact I actually believe that he held the same view as the church today which is the materially sufficiency of the scriptures, and not the errant modern doctrine of Scripture Alone…in fact in reading that quote in context, I see that he is actually saying just that.)

That the Gospel was orally transmitted by the apostles before it was ever set down on paper. (Notice also that he says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic! Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

He doesn’t say the church was, but the Scripture.

So all of a sudden you want to take Ireneus over the New Testament? Nah, I doubt that…but your case falls apart.

Then he says:

"Since therefore we have such proofs

, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.Problem here is that he plainly tells us that he’s looking at the tradition of the truth.

Moreover he tells us that the CHURCH is the entrance to life, not the Bible.

You can keep trying to make this case, but you are plainly twisting what he said, just as I’ve seen you do the same thing to the Word of God.

Irenæus says that the Scriptures are the first line of defense against false teachers who were refuted by the written tradition of the apostles. They have to be able to prove their beliefs by Scripture in order to be true.

You wish! The fact is that that is what you want to try to convince people, but it’s just not there. Just like so many other n-C doctrines…

So how can we justify what someone tells us without being able to prove it with Scripture? That seems indefensible.

I don’t know… you tell me how you do that with an unscriptural doctrine like Sola Scriptura and the formal sufficiency of the scriptures when it really isn’t there.

Are we to simply “believe” something we are told without being able to substantiate it?

Why not? You obviously do…

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying that all the Sacred Traditions (whatever they may be) and the Teaching of the magisterium of the church are all some kind of revelations?

guanophore
YES! By golly, I do think you are GETTING it!

YES! By golly, I do think you are GETTING it! :extrahappy: :extrahappy:

Great. i feel a lot better—
Can you define what is meant by “revelations” in this context?

Is God revealing something specifically to someone?

 

[anthony022071]

“Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.” Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396).

“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

“The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born’ means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till’ signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection.” John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743).

 

[guanophore]

Enough of this Holy Word is contained to make a person “wise unto salvation”, be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, and that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works." (2 Timothy 3)

If it is enough to make a person wise to salvation, perfect, and perfectly furnished unto good works, why is it insufficient?

The sufficiency of scripture was never meant to be separated from the Pillar and Ground of the Truth that produced it.

Paul never says that the Scripture itself can do all these things, and would never have taught anything of the sort. In fact, Paul talks more about the preservation of tradition and the manner of living that he demonstrated than any other writer. The goal is that the man of God may be perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto good works. Scripture helps with this, but it is not the only source of training in righteousness.

Furthermore, Paul here is speaking of the OT, since the NT had not yet been written. There isn’t a Christian on earth today that would think anyone could live a good Christian life with only the knowledge gained in the OT.

 

[Church_Militant]

Can we agree that the idea of Mary having an immaculate conception is highly debateable and not taught explicitedly in Scripture?

Doesn’t bother me any more than the fact that the Trinity is the same way.

Can we also agree that her assumption is not debateable from a biblical perspective since it never hints of such a thing for her?

I disagree because the fact that God seems to have made a habit of taking the best of His people by assumption long before the time of Christ, and the historically unique person and function of the Blessed Virgin would indeed “qualify” her for it.

Would you agree that the definition for the word “favored one” or “full of grace” does not contain in the defitnition itself anything about a person being without sin throughout their lives?

Again, I disagree because of the very nature of the Greek used to refer to Mary in that passage. In that respect I have to assert that the scripture actually does teach it and that those who argue against it have no scriptural basis upon which to indict the Blessed Virgin. It’s just not there and there is more scriptural precedent for the Catholic position than for any argument against it.

 

[guanophore]

Can we agree that the idea of Mary having an immaculate conception is highly debateable and not taught explicitedly in Scripture? Can we also agree that her assumption is not debateable from a biblical perspective since it never hints of such a thing for her?

Sure

Would you agree that the definition for the word “favored one” or “full of grace” does not contain in the defitnition itself anything about a person being without sin throughout their lives?

Nope.

What would it take for you to see if she sinned?

Honestly, ja4, it is not really up to me to determine the sinfulness or lack therof in the members God’s kingdom. Unlike yourself, I do not feel I am called to the weeding out of the tares ministry. You have even said that it is irrelevant to your own salvation, so i don’t understand why you are so pre-occupied with it either.

Perhaps you have a mother figure in your life that never took responsibilities for her wrongs, and you are looking for a place to hang the blame. I don’t know why this is such a quest for you.

It is true that no specific sins are mentioned about her but the same could be said for the vast amount people in the NT. It doesn’t mention any personal sins on their part so should we assume they never sinned either ?

Only if it is part of Sacred Tradition. What would happen if you allowed other Christians to believe this? Since you say it has no bearing on salvation (and I agree with you) could you not just tolerate the differences of others?

That may be. However this and of itself would not prevent her necessarily from sinning either.

I am glad, at least, that grinding your axe has not prevented you from getting the point of the thread. Mary was not prevented from sinning, she CHOSE not to sin.

Not if you take the entire context of the Scriptures into consideration. I even scanned the footnotes on the New American Bible and i didn’t see any mention of Mary being sinless or incapable of doing so. Is it the greeting of the angel i.e. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” that makes you think she was incapable sinning?

You did not find that in the footnotes of a Catholic Bible because Catholics all believe that Mary was capable of sinning.

It would help if you differentiated between original sin, and personal sin. The angel’s greeting indicates that she was free of original sin.

 

[Church_Militant]

What would it take for you to see if she sinned?
It is true that no specific sins are mentioned about her but the same could be said for the vast amount people in the NT. It doesn’t mention any personal sins on their part so should we assume they never sinned either ?

We could, except that there is not the Greek textual evidence to support them and there is ion her case.

That may be. However this and of itself would not prevent her necessarily from sinning either.

How often would you be likely to fall into sin if your son was the Son of the Living God? :ehh:

Not if you take the entire context of the Scriptures into consideration. I even scanned the footnotes on the New American Bible and i didn’t see any mention of Mary being sinless or incapable of doing so. Is it the greeting of the angel i.e. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” that makes you think she was incapable sinning?

I never said Mary was incapable of sinning…you n-Cs keep saying that stuff. I simply say that I think it’s possible. The Immaculate Conception simply says that the sacrifice of Christ was applied to her at her conception so that she was born without original sin. She was certainly saved by that sacrifice and it is evident from the Angel’s greeting that that is what He meant. Look at this.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3321232]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Can we agree that the idea of Mary having an immaculate conception is highly debateable and not taught explicitedly in Scripture?

Church Militant
Doesn’t bother me any more than the fact that the Trinity is the same way.
To compare these 2 marian doctrines with the Trinity doctrine makes me think that your grasp of scripture on this point is lacking. There is far more support for the Trinity than any of the marian doctrines. With the trinitarian doctrines the explicit support for it is quite good. With the marian doctrines you must have to take so many scriptures out of context to make it say what the scriptures never say.

Quote:justasking4
Can we also agree that her assumption is not debateable from a biblical perspective since it never hints of such a thing for her?

Church Militant
I disagree because the fact that God seems to have made a habit of taking the best of His people by assumption long before the time of Christ, and the historically unique person and function of the Blessed Virgin would indeed “qualify” her for it.

Were the apostles the “best of His people” also? Were they not closest to her and yet they never mention it?
Or Jesus Himself when He has opportunity to extol Mary He does not.

Quote::justasking4
Would you agree that the definition for the word “favored one” or “full of grace” does not contain in the defitnition itself anything about a person being without sin throughout their lives?

Church Militant
Again, I disagree because of the very nature of the Greek used to refer to Mary in that passage.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

In that respect I have to assert that the scripture actually does teach it and that those who argue against it have no scriptural basis upon which to indict the Blessed Virgin.

Are you familar with Luke 1:47 where she acknowledges a Savior? This alone tells you she was a sinner otherwise she would never have said this.
Or take Romans 5:12 in which all of mankind suffers from the sin of Adam.

It’s just not there and there is more scriptural precedent for the Catholic position than for any argument against it.

Surely you realize that there is not one epxlicit verse in the entire scriptures that says she was sinless? You bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that she was sinless and that burden has never been borne nor can it for the mere fact the scriptures never teach such a doctrine.

 

[NotWorthy]

This really doesn’t answer the question though. Do you believe that you have knowledge of what the apostles taught that is not recorded in Scripture? For example Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus for over 2 years and we don’t know exactly what this was since there are no written records of it.

So… what Paul taught is lost?!? That’s not a promise.

Secondly the idea that the Holy Spirit will guide the church into all the truth is not entirely correct. If you are referring to John 16:12-15 this is a specific promise to the disciples who were there and not made to the church that would here after the apostles died. We know this promise was fulfilled because it is contained in the NT writings itself.

And where does it say that. The promises to the Disciples ARE the promises to the Church. Whoever said the Truth would be held by the Apostles until they compiled the Scriptures.?

If anything, the church is to be on guard against false teachers who in part will claim to be led by the HS.

Scriptures teach that there will be those that teach falsely. it never says that the Church itself will teach falsehood.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3321291]We could, except that there is not the Greek textual evidence to support them and there is ion her case.
Do a greek word study on the term favored one. See if there is anything in the defintion that says such a person is free from sin or something like that.

How often would you be likely to fall into sin if your son was the Son of the Living God? :ehh:I

This is not an argument and its not that powerful. Look at the apostles who spent time with Jesus and look what happened during the trial etc. The mere presence of Jesus during His earthly ministry did not stop people from sinning including those close to Him.

I never said Mary was incapable of sinning…you n-Cs keep saying that stuff. I simply say that I think it’s possible

.
You scripturally even say this. The power of sin in us is to powerful to resist.

The Immaculate Conception simply says that the sacrifice of Christ was applied to her at her conception so that she was born without original sin. She was certainly saved by that sacrifice and it is evident from the Angel’s greeting that that is what He meant.

This is an assertion without any support.

Look at this.

]

I did and it doesn’t really help. Perhaps we should discuss it in detail.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Because without a guide it is misused, abused and twisted to justify any manner of “I want it my way” thinking.

If that is necessarily the case, then why would Jesus tell us to “search the Scriptures”? (John 5:39) He did not tell us to have someone else teach it to us, but to search for ourselves.

Isaiah 34:16** Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read**: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Let me make this clear. Any Christian believer does not need the teaching of any man, for they are taught by God Himself who writes His laws in their hearts:

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

This is according to the new Covenant that was promised:

Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

After all, what is the mark of a Christian? Is not the Spirit of God dwelling in them?

1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

It is by this Spirit that “we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Therefore of Christians it is written:

1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The only Guide needed is the Holy Spirit who dwells in the hearts of every believer.

 

[anthony022071]

Do a greek word study on the term favored one. See if there is anything in the defintion that says such a person is free from sin or something like that.

From an article by Mark Bonocore,a Catholic apologist:

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/ic.html

< “First of all, in Luke 1:28 (10 verses BEFORE she gives her “yes” in Luke 1:38) Mary is called “Kecharitomenae” --“Full of grace” or, more properly, “She who is perfectly graced.” This could not be possible unless Mary was already sinless prior to the angel’s arrival --that is, before her “yes” to God. Likewise, if the humanities of both Mary and Jesus Himself were “deified” (“sanctified”) at the time of Christ’s conception, then this means a) That Jesus drew His humanity from a fallen source and, even more problematically, b) that mankind, in the prototypes of Mary and Jesus, WAS NOT redeemed by the INCARNATE Son (the God-man), but by the Son INDEPENDENTLY of His Incarnation!!! And, if this is the case, then the Incarnation would not be necessary at all. Rather, the eternal Son could have remained in Heaven and “zapped” everyone on earth with sinlessness from there. However, that’s obviously not what we believe. We do not believe that Mary became sinless via the eternal Son’s (spiritual) Presence entering her womb, nor do we believe that Jesus’ own humanity became sinless because of the eternal Son’s “taking on” of it. Rather, we believe that the God-man (the Incarnate Christ --the New Adam) redeems humanity and we believe that this happened because 1) the saving merits of the God-man were applied to His intended mother outside of time / in advance (rendering her sinless), and that Jesus took His own sinless humanity from her - that is, Jesus also “redeemed” His own humanity in advance (in redeeming His mother’s) by applying the merits of own His Incarnation to His mother, and then taking that sinless humanity from her.” >

 

[Mannyfit75]

To compare these 2 marian doctrines with the Trinity doctrine makes me think that your grasp of scripture on this point is lacking. There is far more support for the Trinity than any of the marian doctrines. With the trinitarian doctrines the explicit support for it is quite good. With the marian doctrines you must have to take so many scriptures out of context to make it say what the scriptures never say.

I beg to differ my friend. The problem with your premise is that there those Christians who used Scripture to deny the Trinity. You know there Christians who considered themselves non-Trinitarians. They based their belief on Scripture Alone.

As we can see, the concept of interpreting Scripture on your own falls apart. Scripture needs to be interpreted by someone who can. The Church’s teaching office is the only who can interpret Scripture.

Second, I trust the Jesus Christ’s promise that he will guide his Church to all truths. He did in fact send us the Holy Spirit.

Were the apostles the “best of His people” also? Were they not closest to her and yet they never mention it?
Or Jesus Himself when He has opportunity to extol Mary He does not.

Compared to the Apostles. They know Jesus for 3 yrs. Mary know Jesus for 33 yrs.

Are you familar with Luke 1:47 where she acknowledges a Savior? This alone tells you she was a sinner otherwise she would never have said this.

We are familar with Luke 1:47 and Mary acknowledge she need a savior. This is not a contradiction of her being sinless. There are two ways to be saved. You can save someone by preventing them from falling into a dark pit, or by tossing a rope into the pit and pull a man out.

If you bother to read the Pope Pius IX on the dogma, you would understand this;

That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 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, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Mary herself could not save herself. It wass through the virtue of merits of Jesus Christ, whom preserved Mary from all stain of original sin.

Or take Romans 5:12 in which all of mankind suffers from the sin of Adam.

Surely you realize that there is not one epxlicit verse in the entire scriptures that says she was sinless? You bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that she was sinless and that burden has never been borne nor can it for the mere fact the scriptures never teach such a doctrine.

There is no explicit Scripture verse in the Bible where she committed personal sin. All doesn’t necessary means all. I’m sure you have been told that infants and the mentally retarded cannot commit sin because they cannot determine right from wrong.

So this is a question, I need to ask you. Where in Scripture does it say that Mary actually committed personal sin? Show me? All I see in Scripture concerning Mary is that she was obedient to God’s will.

She said, My soul proclaim the greatness of the Lord. She also said, “Be it done unto me according to your world.” Of course, Mary also said to servant at Cana, “Do whatever, he tells you.”

Second while the other disciples fled and abandon their Lord, except John, Mary remained with her son at the foot of the Cross. Mary’s obedience to God is clearly explicit in Scripture. We don’t see her disobedient.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3321237]
Originally Posted by justasking4
That may be. However this and of itself would not prevent her necessarily from sinning either.

guanophore
I am glad, at least, that grinding your axe has not prevented you from getting the point of the thread. Mary was not prevented from sinning, she CHOSE not to sin.

There is absolutely no evidence for your assertion that “she CHOSE not to sin”. If we take your method of argumentation that she chose not to sin, i can also make all kinds of claims for others who chose not to sin either and you would not be able to refute them.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

When you take verses out of context like that it seems to prove your point. However you must read more of John in order to understand it.

I am always amused when you want to read verses literally when you think they support your position but when they don’t, you want to twist them and make them say things they don’t; such as Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Why don’t you look a little harder at John 6. It begins with the feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish and then Jesus declares himself to be the bread of life. Then He says:

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent.” (John 6:29)

He is not saying anything about eating, but only about believing.

Here it is obvious that Jesus is not speaking of physical bread because if we eat bread we will hunger again. He is declaring Himself to be spiritual bread. He has clearly defined Himself to be spiritual bread. Those who “eat” of the spiritual bread by believing in Him will not hunger again. It is the “coming to Him” that is the “eating of the bread.” There are also other examples of Jesus referring to “eating” and “drinking” from other sermons of His.

*“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” *(Matt 5:6)

*“For My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” *(John 6:40)

*“Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.” (John 6:49) * Manna was the physical bread provided by God.

If you eat the Eucharist, you will still die. It is only by belief that one will live forever. If you “eat” the bread of life, you will live forever.

*“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” *(John 6:51)

The spiritual bread is Christ’s body and He gives it for the life of the world. This does not refer to the Eucharist, but is a sacrifice of His body and blood, which He gave at the cross. The eucharist is not given for the world but is given to the “believer.” Jesus’ body was given as a sacrifice for the sins of the entire world. (John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Cor 5:19, l John 2:2, l John 4:14)

If we want to believe the Eucharist as you do, then you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. In the chapter of John we see Jesus saying over and over that to have eternal life, you must “believe” in Him. We “eat” Jesus only in a spiritual sense. Eating is a physical thing but believing is spiritual. Remember the thief on the cross and Jesus promising to see him in paradise… Did he have to “eat” Jesus’ body and drink His blood? Of course not. We know Jesus does not lie.

If we wanted to believe we actually eat the body and drink Jesus’ blood in the Eucharist, Jesus would have to be talking nonsense in the rest of this chapter in John and throughout the entire Bible. It is the “believing” we are drinking the “spiritual” blood of Jesus that is what the Eucharist is all about. Christ was simply using earthly terms to give us spiritual truths.

Since the Bible tells us it is a sin to drink blood, if we really were, during the Eucharist, then we would be sinning. In addition we would be sacrificing Jesus again every time we partake of the Eucharist and Christ died one time for all our sins. There is no use for Him to die again.

Christ also makes sure we know He was speaking of spiritual things in John:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Jesus promises “spiritual” nourishment for us, not physical benefit.

(continued)