did Mary have fallen human nature?

[adam_in_ohio]

If one believes in the infallibility of the Church, then “all” means “most” as has already been discussed,

If one does not believe in the infallibility of the Church, the best one can say is he doesn’t know because the Bible doesn’t clearly state it one way or the other.

I think this sums up the arguments. I don’t think this will come to any resolution because proof of this belief relies first on the belief of infallibility. That is the real argument here.

The Greek is more clear. One must remember we are reading a translation.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Emeraldisle KNOWS the arguments, has heard them dozens of times and refuses to address them.

ALL in Greek (pas) is NOT an absolute. It is used rhetorically in the NT and admits of exceptions. Therefore ALL HAVE SINNED is no more absolute than ALL JERUSALEM went to see John the Baptist, or ALL THE WORLD was counted by Augustus.

Emeraldisle has no answer for this and is simply spamming.

Yepper indeed, EmeraldIsle is in facto spamming.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, but this passage is central to the argument. I did not mean to say the meaning of that particular passage was infallible. It is the principal. In order for the infallible doctrin to be true, that passage must mean most everyone. Boy guys, I’m not attacking infallibility here. I’m just stating that these two arguments can’t be resolved until the issue of infallibility is resolved. One who believes the Church is infallible will see it one way while one who doesn’t believe the Church is infallible will see it another way. That’s all I’m saying.

I really do understand that you are not attacking infallibility. But it is not “necessary” that “pas” mean “almost everybody” for the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness to be true in that “pas” DOES mean “almost everybody.” One need not invoke ‘infallibility’ to MAKE ‘pas’ mean “almost everybody.” The translations into English simply used the single word “all” because it can be properly translated that way – as in the example frequently given here before: "All Jerusalem came out . . . "

 

[planter654]

The fact that Catholics must believe infallable teachings put forth by the Church is a very basic Catholic teaching. If one refuses to believe an infallible teaching of the Church, that person cannot be saved, regardless of the topic. That’s my understanding anyway. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Your wrong!

 

[JoeyWarren]

We have “glorifed buildings”, “billions” of books with foolish this and that, but how many souls are we bring to Christ?? How much have you Loved me?
God Bless

Maybe this thread will interest you. I started it because of a lack of our “Active Evangelism” It seems a lot of Catholics are content with “Passive Evangelism”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3684253#post3684253

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

God gave us a Church, the only true Holy Catholic Church.
This Church put Bible together.
Protestents come along 1500 years later and say Bible is correct and Catholics are not. How can a book written by Catholics contridict Catholics?

Protestents have to take books out of the Bible in order to make their gospel work. Protestents aren’t even good “Cafeteria Catholics”.

Mary’s sinless life is clearly taught by the Church. If you disagree with the Church but cutting and pasting a Catholic Bible thats just ridiculous.

As a matter of fact, Muslims have a higher regard for Mary in their writing than Protestents. The Blessed Virgin Mary is heaped more abuse than any human of all time. The only reason I can think of why that is is because the ones that are doing it are children of Satan. Why else would you go around slandering the great Mother of God?

 

[Good_Fella]

As a matter of fact, Muslims have a higher regard for Mary in their writing than Protestants. The Blessed Virgin Mary is heaped more abuse than any human of all time. The only reason I can think of why that is is because the ones that are doing it are children of Satan. Why else would you go around slandering the great Mother of God?

I think I can answer for Protestants, although they are unwilling or consciously unaware to admit it: ‘We have to prove you wrong to justify the legitimacy of our existence.’ Protestants believe that the Reformation occurred for a reason: ‘The Catholic Church erred in her teachings and so Christ abandoned this segment of his invisible Church and formed a new Christian movement within his Church that truly adheres to the Gospel.’ Meanwhile Christ made it clear that his Church would be visible, founded on the Apostles and their valid successors, and she would be guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit with respect to her teachings, which do include her Marian doctrines. What it boils down to is this: ‘The invisible Church is not infallible in her teachings, and so there is room for reform. Nothing is final but the Word of God ; our interpretation of Scripture is fallible and can be revised by way of individual argumentation to get to the divine truth contained in the Bible.’ So if one segment feels it has discerned the Gospel truth, then by all means it can separate itself from the others within the invisible Church and form its own denomination among many who have strayed from the Gospel truth. It’s even okay to pick up a Bible, interpret it for ourselves, and establish our own church or denomination within the invisible Church, since one can be sure that he is in possession of the final Word of God purveyed in the Bible. But Protestants fail to see or ignore the contradiction that arises: How can any denomination be sure that its fallible interpretation is the correct one, that it has comprehended the final Word of God written down in the Bible - unless it believes that the Paraclete has guided it in all truth? But if that’s the case, then how can there not be a Church which is infallible in her teachings? It makes no sense! I’m sorry, but the doctrine of Mary’s sinless nature is no mere theory, and neither is this doctrine initially derived from the written Word. :nope: It springs from “the pillar and groundwork of the truth” which is the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[onaquest]

The way I understand it, Mary suffered like all humans from the effects of original sin but she was preserved by the blood of Christ from that sin before her conception. She was human and in need of his saving grace just like us, but was protected by the blood of Christ.

It’s been explained to me this way on Catholic Radio. THere is a big hole that all of mankind can fall in. We are all prone to falling in this hole. Mary was protected from falling into that hole, guided away from it. We fall in the whole and have to get help out.

 

[emeraldisle]

It would be more accurate to say that Scripture only explicitly reveals that Jesus was sinless in his human nature - not that he was the only sinless person to have walked the earth.

God reveals to us in His written word that the Lord Jesus was sinless(1Peter 2:21-22) and He reveals to us that Adam & Eve were created sinless and then they sinned (Gen 1-3). Also God reveals the Truth in His written word that sin has been passed down from Adam to all humanity(Rom 5:12). Now before someone says what about Jesus, well He is the God/Man and God very clearly says in His written word that He is sinless. So now according to what God says in His written word the Lord Jesus is the only completely & always sinless one.

But the Word of God does implicitly reveal that his blessed mother was sinless as well.

The Catholic Church tradition says Mary was sinless but God doesn’t say anywhere in His written word that Mary was sinless.

Not everything that was taught by word of mouth was written down in textual form. Paul never wrote about the Virgin Birth, but I’m sure he must have mentioned it during his ministry.

God says in His written word that Mary was a virgin, see Luke 1:34 & Isa 7:14

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Nowhere in the book is Job accused of sin. The whole thing starts off because he is “blameless and upright and turned away from evil.” He is “blameless.” The “in all this” part is in emphasis that even in great distress, he does not sin.

Nowhere in the Bible is Daniel accused of sinning, was he sinless??

.

 

[emeraldisle]

You didn’t address my other point, nor about Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. That, and logic and God’s Truth never contradict each other.

Why don’t you talk about the Ark of the New Covenant, and show how Mary didn’t need to be absolutely pure to carry Jesus?

Imo the ark of the new covenant teaching is mans logic and not Gods Truth.

The Lord Jesus humble Himself to come into a sinful world to die for sinners. The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a virgin and not a sinless virgin, see Isa 7:14.

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Whether “pas” means “almost everybody” or not is NOT a matter of infallible proclamation. It’s just Greek.

“all” is set in the context of sin and death. Now all humans die, unless as in the case of Enoch and Elijah God takes them without dying and we know this because it’s revealed in Gods written word.

Now just as all humans die so they all have sin, which is why they die. Now I know people say what about Jesus didn’t He die and He was sinless, well again the answer is in Gods written word. Jesus laid down His life, remember He is God.

17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” John 10:17-18

The only exception to the “all have sinned” is the Lord Jesus.

.

 

[mercygate]

Nowhere in the Bible is Daniel accused of sinning, was he sinless??

.

Not to make more of Job than is warranted on this thread, especially since I have never seen Job’s sinlessness mentioned in any discussion of Our Lady, but the POINT of the Book is Job’s righteousness, blamelessness, innocence and that even in affliction, Job did not sin.

So to answer your question, the Bible DOES say that Job is sinless.

 

[mercygate]

Imo the ark of the new covenant teaching is mans logic and not Gods Truth.

The Lord Jesus humble Himself to come into a sinful world to die for sinners. The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a virgin and not a sinless virgin, see Isa 7:14.

.

Why is the analogy of the Ark man’s logic and not God’s Truth? The analogy is made in Revelation by proximity.

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars . . .”

 

[Thing]

The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a virgin and not a sinless virgin, see Isa 7:14.

.

The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin.

Can you show me that exact quote in ‘The Bible’, please?

 

[sandusky]

The Bible clearly states that the Lord Jesus would be born of a sinful virgin.

Can you show me that exact quote in ‘The Bible’, please?

That’s not what’s being stated, Thing.

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

Not to make more of Job than is warranted on this thread, especially since I have never seen Job’s sinlessness mentioned in any discussion of Our Lady, but the POINT of the Book is Job’s righteousness, blamelessness, innocence and that even in affliction, Job did not sin.

So to answer your question, the Bible DOES say that Job is sinless.You leave out the most important phrase, ”Through/In all this Job did not sin.”

“All this” is very specific time reference, limited to Job’s trials at that time.

In the central scene (1:13ff), four messengers come to Job, announcing four disasters. The disasters (two natural, two inflicted by humans) strike from all directions: the Sabeans (15) come from the south (Sheba); the Chaldeans (17) from the north; the lightning (fire from God, 16) is from the storms that sweep in from the Mediterranean in the west; and the mighty wind (19) comes from the desert in the east. We see Job so overwhelmed by the calamities that he has no time to recover from one shock before the next messenger arrives.

Job’s reaction is not to blame natural events or human enemies (the LORD has taken away), not to forget God’s blessing (the LORD gave), not to close his eyes to reality (has taken), but to praise the Lord for both good and evil (21).

Yahweh’s confidence in Job has proved justified.

In saying that Job did not sin in what he said (2:10), the narrator means that Job has disproved the claim of Satan that he would sin with his lips by cursing God if he was physically struck down. Again, time specific.

Paul states of himself that he isPhilippians 3:5-6

…a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.He continues by saying that all of his righteousness, and blamelessness, was skubalon—dung—when compared to the value of knowing Christ, and he further states that he abandoned his worthless righteousness for the righteousness of Christ gained through faith.

The scripture speaks of two kinds of righteousness—the righteousness of men, and the righteousness of God. The only one of any value is the latter.

Furthermore, in spite of his righteousness, and blamelessness before the law, Paul considered himself to be the “foremost of all sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

Men being called righteous, and blameless does not mean that they are sinless; for as Paul tells us, ”All have sinned, and are (continuously) falling short of the Glory of God.” Amen.

 

[Thing]

That’s not what’s being stated, Thing.

So you believe she was a sinless virgin?

 

[mercygate]

You leave out the most important phrase, ”Through/In all this Job did not sin.”

“All this” is very specific time reference, limited to Job’s trials at that time.

In the central scene (1:13ff), four messengers come to Job, announcing four disasters. The disasters (two natural, two inflicted by humans) strike from all directions: the Sabeans (15) come from the south (Sheba); the Chaldeans (17) from the north; the lightning (fire from God, 16) is from the storms that sweep in from the Mediterranean in the west; and the mighty wind (19) comes from the desert in the east. We see Job so overwhelmed by the calamities that he has no time to recover from one shock before the next messenger arrives.

Job’s reaction is not to blame natural events or human enemies (the LORD has taken away), not to forget God’s blessing (the LORD gave), not to close his eyes to reality (has taken), but to praise the Lord for both good and evil (21).

Yahweh’s confidence in Job has proved justified.

In saying that Job did not sin in what he said (2:10), the narrator means that Job has disproved the claim of Satan that he would sin with his lips by cursing God if he was physically struck down. Again, time specific.

Paul states of himself that he isPhilippians 3:5-6

**…a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.**He continues by saying that all of his righteousness, and blamelessness, was skubalon—dung—when compared to the value of knowing Christ, and he further states that he abandoned his worthless righteousness for the righteousness of Christ gained through faith.

The scripture speaks of two kinds of righteousness—the righteousness of men, and the righteousness of God. The only one of any value is the latter.

Furthermore, in spite of his righteousness, and blamelessness before the law, Paul considered himself to be the “foremost of all sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

Men being called righteous, and blameless does not mean that they are sinless; for as Paul tells us, ”All have sinned, and are (continuously) falling short of the Glory of God.” Amen.

Although the sentence on Job’s sin is time-limited, the whole book is about his righteousness. Sandusky, you know me well enough by now to know that I am not doing any flim-flam here. and please do not join EmeraldIsle’s fruitless drone on the word “all.” You are WAY beyond that.

 

[sandusky]

So you believe she was a sinless virgin?

Are you feeling alright?