C
Church_Militant
Guest
That’s all you could find to respond to?
- Status
Z
Zooey
Guest
First of all, I am frustrated(whine
,whine) by the wording of the choices. Because I wanted to vote #1, but I ended up voting #4. Which is not what I wanted to say.
So anyhow? Could she? Gosh, yes, of course she could.
Good
(??) follower of John Wesley that I am, I believe that Christians can indeed live a life free from sin. (I don’t think that it* actually *happens a whole lot, but we can). And if anybody ever did it, it was certainly Jesus" beloved mother.
So , “Was the Virgin Mother Mary set apart from the rest of the human race from the time of her conception?” Yes, she was.
“Did she ever commit an actual sin?” I don’t
know. ( I wasn’t there). I strongly doubt that she did sin, though.
“Could she have sinned?” Yes, she could.
“Could Jesus have been sinless if Mary had had a sin nature?” Yes. He was God, ergo, He was sinless.
“Does this mean I believe in the Immaculate Conception?” I am not sure. I still don’t understand it well enough to tell. (And, yes, one of my problems is indeed the passage from:bible1: Romans).
I am deeply :ehh: conflicted, to tell the truth. But I think that she probably was sinless.And I think that this was the way God made her.
Do I pass, teacher? …Probably not, huh???
,whine) by the wording of the choices. Because I wanted to vote #1, but I ended up voting #4. Which is not what I wanted to say.So anyhow? Could she? Gosh, yes, of course she could.
Good (??) follower of John Wesley that I am, I believe that Christians can indeed live a life free from sin. (I don’t think that it* actually *happens a whole lot, but we can). And if anybody ever did it, it was certainly Jesus" beloved mother.So , “Was the Virgin Mother Mary set apart from the rest of the human race from the time of her conception?” Yes, she was.
“Did she ever commit an actual sin?” I don’t
know. ( I wasn’t there). I strongly doubt that she did sin, though.“Could she have sinned?” Yes, she could.
“Could Jesus have been sinless if Mary had had a sin nature?” Yes. He was God, ergo, He was sinless.
“Does this mean I believe in the Immaculate Conception?” I am not sure. I still don’t understand it well enough to tell. (And, yes, one of my problems is indeed the
passage from:bible1: Romans).I am deeply :ehh: conflicted, to tell the truth. But I think that she probably was sinless.And I think that this was the way God made her.
Do I pass, teacher? …Probably not, huh???
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Hi Zooey!
Thanks for being so honest! I’m sorry if my poll didn’t give you quite the option that you really needed, but I think you offer a very good position and one that shows great faith and confidence in God.
I would also point out that the route you have taken is also the one that I myself basically followed to come to the conclusion that I have offered here. However…I have no such conflicts. It all just fits together lihe the parts of a puzzle.
Pax tecum,
Thanks for being so honest! I’m sorry if my poll didn’t give you quite the option that you really needed, but I think you offer a very good position and one that shows great faith and confidence in God.
I would also point out that the route you have taken is also the one that I myself basically followed to come to the conclusion that I have offered here. However…I have no such conflicts. It all just fits together lihe the parts of a puzzle.
Pax tecum,
T
TESSfromCALVARY
Guest
(Sorry, how do I use more than one quote in a single reply? Copying text and adding my comments gets me over the limit. And, it takes forever to edit it down to 5,000 characters.)
Church Militant:
Church Militant:
T
TESSfromCALVARY
Guest
SORRY, PART TWO!
Church Militant:
Church Militant:
A
Axion
Guest
A
Axion
Guest
T
TESSfromCALVARY
Guest
M
MariaG
Guest
It is not blessed that refers to Mary’s sinlessness, rather full of grace.
You can view the whole thing here catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
Y
yqbd
Guest
Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
wow :bigyikes: 130 votes for yes. are those yes’s to she did live sinless or she could?
Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
wow :bigyikes: 130 votes for yes. are those yes’s to she did live sinless or she could?
M
Mom_of_one
Guest
OK, there’s something I don’t get. I’m not as eloquent as many of you, so forgive me if I .don’t phrase things well. I have a slighty quirky brain
, so forgive me if I don’t remember where this is in the OT. In the OT, where the Ark of the Covenant is being transported, it started to slip. A man reached out to steady it, and BOOM, God struck him dead, just for touching it. A sinful man touches something that held the Ten Commandments(and a few other things?), which were objects that God had declared holy, and died. Yet Mary carried the holiest one, God made flesh, in her womb for nine months
This is what I don’t get:
How is it that some can think that GOD could be carried 9 months in the womb of a sinful woman and yet nothing happens to her, while knowing that a man touched (only an instant, I’m sure) an object(the Ark of the Covenant) containing holy OBJECTS and he dies? Jesus was much holier than objects He made holy, right?
Also, and this is a wee bit off subject, but why do people jump in with their posts without reading everything that has been posted before? Man, reading the “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” verse over and over from different posters drove me nuts. Of course, some of us are guilty of doing the same thing. We read a post and respond, not realizing that several other people have responded and said the same thing. There was one poster who said that his attitude had changed due to what was being posted on this board, yet much farther down, people were still respond to some of his earlier posts to try and convince him of the truth.
And if I have repeated what others have said about the Ark/Mary, forgive me. I thought I read everything.
, so forgive me if I don’t remember where this is in the OT. In the OT, where the Ark of the Covenant is being transported, it started to slip. A man reached out to steady it, and BOOM, God struck him dead, just for touching it. A sinful man touches something that held the Ten Commandments(and a few other things?), which were objects that God had declared holy, and died. Yet Mary carried the holiest one, God made flesh, in her womb for nine monthsThis is what I don’t get:
How is it that some can think that GOD could be carried 9 months in the womb of a sinful woman and yet nothing happens to her, while knowing that a man touched (only an instant, I’m sure) an object(the Ark of the Covenant) containing holy OBJECTS and he dies? Jesus was much holier than objects He made holy, right?
Also, and this is a wee bit off subject, but why do people jump in with their posts without reading everything that has been posted before? Man, reading the “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” verse over and over from different posters drove me nuts. Of course, some of us are guilty of doing the same thing. We read a post and respond, not realizing that several other people have responded and said the same thing. There was one poster who said that his attitude had changed due to what was being posted on this board, yet much farther down, people were still respond to some of his earlier posts to try and convince him of the truth.
And if I have repeated what others have said about the Ark/Mary, forgive me. I thought I read everything.
M
Mom_of_one
Guest
BY THE WAY, HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE THIS WORD: kecharitomene ?
Y
yqbd
Guest
Momofone:
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.
you know the whole no darkness in light thing?
think of all the sinners he’s healed and forgiven. if Mary had to be sinless to be in contact with the Christ, how would He have been sacraficed without any sinners touching Him?
i guess that’s the protection objects get.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.
you know the whole no darkness in light thing?
think of all the sinners he’s healed and forgiven. if Mary had to be sinless to be in contact with the Christ, how would He have been sacraficed without any sinners touching Him?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is an interesting statement. Consider that all those people received their respective healigs and forgiveness just by showing up and reaching out to Him.
The point is that if Jesus is the New Covenant (as the 10 Commandments are the old Covenant) and the Ark of the Covenant held them and was so holy, then lets consider (in the context of Rev 11:19 and 12:1) that the Blessed Virgin carried the New Covenant within her and that that New Covenant is God incarnate Himself and is infinitely more holy than the contents of that first ark…then how much more holy would the vessel have to be? Nothing else really makes any kind of rational sense at all…all it takes (IMO) is the use of one’s simple God-given common sense as directed by the Holy Spirit and the reading of the Word of God.
As I said before…it seems to me that Mary was meant to be a very intense example of the results of saying a heart and soul “yes” to God.
Pax vobiscum,
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is an interesting statement. Consider that all those people received their respective healings and forgiveness just by showing up and reaching out to Him.
The point is that if Jesus is the New Covenant (as the 10 Commandments are the old Covenant) and the Ark of the Covenant held them and was so holy, then lets consider (in the context of Rev 11:19 and 12:1) that the Blessed Virgin carried the New Covenant within her and that that New Covenant is God incarnate Himself and is infinitely more holy than the contents of that first ark…then how much more holy would the vessel have to be? Nothing else really makes any kind of rational sense at all…all it takes (IMO) is the use of one’s simple God-given common sense as directed by the Holy Spirit and the reading of the Word of God.
As I said before…it seems to me that Mary was meant to be a very intense example of the results of saying a heart and soul “yes” to God.
Pax vobiscum,
R
RobbyS
Guest
If the first two chapters of Luke are accepted as true, then how could she have fallen? She made her choice when she said yes to the angel.
M
mercygate
Guest
Momofone:
We English speakers are notorious for butchering Hellenistic Greek (ESPECIALLY the British) but if you go with kay-KAR-ih-toe-may-nay, you’ll be OK. The “K” in KAR really should be soft, “ch” – not as in church – as in “challah.”
S
sonseeker
Guest
Church Militant,
In answer to your question, no, Mary could not have lived a sinless life.
Church Militant:
Church Militant:
20 …for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
How does the knowledge of sin come through the law? You can’t keep it. God does command us to, as you say “to do the impossible,” (keep his law) in order to show us that we can’t keep it, and so, we learn that we are sinners.
Why is it necessary for the law to teach us that we are sinners?
Galatians 3:22-24
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
That is why works of the law, and works by the law cannot save us.
Church Militant:
Church Militant:
Your rejection of what Paul says is “the result of a serious lack of faith.”
You are free to reject what I have said.
In answer to your question, no, Mary could not have lived a sinless life.
Church Militant:
Church Militant, if you can show me, from God’s word, where we are called to have faith in Mary’s sinlessness, I’ll agree.
Church Militant:
Romans 3:20
20 …for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
How does the knowledge of sin come through the law? You can’t keep it. God does command us to, as you say “to do the impossible,” (keep his law) in order to show us that we can’t keep it, and so, we learn that we are sinners.
Why is it necessary for the law to teach us that we are sinners?
Galatians 3:22-24
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
That is why works of the law, and works by the law cannot save us.
Church Militant:
No. You are born fallen. You sin because you are a sinner; you are not a sinner because you sin.
Church Militant:
It is literal. The truth of de facto (and everything else) is found within DEO—a fact.
Your rejection of what Paul says is “the result of a serious lack of faith.”
You are free to reject what I have said.
L
LoneRanger
Guest
duh… yeah, of course…
just because we can’t fathom it doesn’t make it impossible…imho
just because we can’t fathom it doesn’t make it impossible…imho
D
DavidB
Guest
Scripture is clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short, the only noted exception is Jesus - there’s a number of folks posting on this thread who are ignorant of this fact. Scripture also states that if anyone thinks they are without sin, they deceive themselves. Mary is never mentioned or inferred in scripture as being sinless.
Dozens of early church writings clearly state that Jesus alone was without sin, not ONE indicates that Mary was sinless. Some go so far as to indicate which specific sins Mary was known to have committed (re: Augustine).
Even the great doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas agreed with the ancient doctor Augustine and did not accept the idea that Mary was sinless.
The Orthodox Church (the first Church established by the apostles) also does not teach that Mary was sinless.
Here’s something to think about. If Mary was Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix, as some here believe, why is there no mention of anything like that in ANY early Church writings? None, nada, ziltch, zippo . . .in fact, of the volumes and volumes of writings covering the first thousand years of the Church, she is mentioned very little. How so for someone who is today reverved as being “Queen of Heaven” and the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” and “Mediatrix of ALL Grace”? It’s inconceivable.
David
Dozens of early church writings clearly state that Jesus alone was without sin, not ONE indicates that Mary was sinless. Some go so far as to indicate which specific sins Mary was known to have committed (re: Augustine).
Even the great doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas agreed with the ancient doctor Augustine and did not accept the idea that Mary was sinless.
The Orthodox Church (the first Church established by the apostles) also does not teach that Mary was sinless.
Here’s something to think about. If Mary was Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix, as some here believe, why is there no mention of anything like that in ANY early Church writings? None, nada, ziltch, zippo . . .in fact, of the volumes and volumes of writings covering the first thousand years of the Church, she is mentioned very little. How so for someone who is today reverved as being “Queen of Heaven” and the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” and “Mediatrix of ALL Grace”? It’s inconceivable.
David
- Status