did Mary have fallen human nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No.

Scripture has very little to say explicitly about Mary so it makes for a very poor book “about Mary” since it is not at all a book “about Mary.”

I would think that would be obvious.

Chuck
The best Book to read to find out Gods Truth about Mary is His written word, the Scriptures.

.
 
The Lord Jesus came into this world to save sinners like you, me and Mary.

Salvation is of the Lord

Salvation is not of the Lord + Mary

No where in Gods written word does it say that Mary had to be sinless to enable God to save sinners.

.
And so what can you conclude from sciptures silence on the subject?

Oh yeah. Nothing.

No where does it say that Mary had to be a “purple people eater” to enable God to save sinners either.

If I apply your logic than Mary must be a “purple people eater” too.

Chuck
 
God clearly states in His written word that the Lord Jesus is sinless and that Mary along with all the rest of humanity that came from Adam are sinners.
How log are you going to continue telling this lie.

Please provide the verse that explicitly says “Mary the mother of God sinned.”

Or please stop telling this lie.

Chuck
 
There’s no need to take a “leap of faith” re Mary, just take the time to read Gods written word and know His Truth about Mary

God clearly states in His written word that the Lord Jesus is sinless and that Mary along with all the rest of humanity that came from Adam are sinners.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Heb 4:15

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12

.
Those verses of the bible you were using were quite fine. But let us also accept the truth that the bible never state explicitly that the BVM is a sinner, nor it explicitly states that the BVM has never sinned at all.
The parable of Jesus Christ about a tree where it says that " A tree is known by the kind of fruit it bears." ( Mat. 12: 33 ) is where I should put my idea about the sinlessness of the BVM.
Everybody knows, for sure, that Jesus Christ was born of a woman, which is Mary. Wisdom will never be with anyone who is a sinner (Wisdom 1: 4). Jesus Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God (1 Cor. 1: 24). We all know that Jesus Christ have not sinned ( 1 Peter 2: 22), (Heb. 4: 15), ( 2 Cor. 5: 21), ( 1 Peter 1: 19). If we use the analogy of the parable of Jesus Christ about the tree in Mt. 12: 33 then we can conclude for sure that the BVM was/is sinless. What can you say?
 
There’s no need to take a “leap of faith” re Mary, just take the time to read Gods written word and know His Truth about Mary

God clearly states in His written word that the Lord Jesus is sinless and that Mary along with all the rest of humanity that came from Adam are sinners.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Heb 4:15

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12

.
Now can you show me in the bible where it says that MARY along with the rest of us came from sinners. I have never seen that in the bible. All i have seen is Mary full of Grace. I didnt know that if you were call Blessed among women, and Full of Grace meant that you were a sinner like everyone else. Could you tell me what full of grace means then. And also what having favor with God means. Now again, you are saying that means she is a sinner, thats what full of grace,and blessed and having favor with God means. You are right then, we must be misled with the bible. Now there is our proof, now please let us know what those scriptures mean. Another thing, why would God pick a women who lived in Prayer since the day she was born, never been with a man was a virgin, and then turn around and choose her to be the Mother of Christ. and this women you consider a sinner, a women or had total faith in God, never once questioned him or his word. Now this women you call a sinner. What in your eyes would it take to be a good women then.
I am sorry i must believe the bible and not you. the bible says she is full of Grace. Grace is what we should pray for every day to understand what Gods wants from us. To lead us closser to God. But Mary was full of it. and in turn you say this makes her a sinner like the rest of the world, please show me how this can be.
 
I like this article from Catholic Answers.

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be…

**Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15). **

Emphasis in bold mine.

You can find the rest of the article here.
 
Given a consideration, without admitting, that the BVM was tainted of the “original sin” as stated in Psalms 51: 5, due from the fall of our first parents, Adam & Eve, the consequence is that Christ incarnation from the womb of BVM would have been tainted also by this original sin, and since the Catholic dogma says that “Fallen man cannot redeem himself” the redemptive act of Christ on the cross, atoning for our sins, would have been futile for he himself needs to be redeemed. And all of us, christians, would be the most unfortunate people on earth.

Theologians say that the redemption of the BVM, by the will of God, for His love of mankind, is called “Redemptio Praeservativa” - meaning that the BVM was preserved from the contagion of the original sin. 👍
 
Good Fella;3707433]God says in his written word: “Hail, full of grace” (Lk 1, 28). What the Catholic Church teaches about Mary’s sinless nature reflects the written word.
Our Lord promised to send his One Apostolic Church the Paraclete to guide her in all truth. See the Gospel of John 14-16.
On the contrary, from Genesis to Revelation, Scripture implies that Mary was an exception to the rule.
What scripture passages imply she was the exception to the rule i.e. being sinless? Does the context of the passages you have in mind support this assertion?
It’s been pointed out to you above in this thread, but you keep repeating yourself. You remind me of the same billboard that appears everywhere I drive my car. Do you hold up a sign that quotes Romans 5:12 when you sit behind home plate at a baseball game? You churchless Bible Christians are absolutely amazing.
The sinlessness of Jesus does not presuppose or necessitate that Mary was actually sinful. Your reasoning is fallacious. Again, she was merely implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve, and so God redeemed her at the moment he fashioned her soul and preserved her free from the stain of original sin.
You do realize that the scriptures never assert this i.e." God redeemed her at the moment he fashioned her soul and preserved her free from the stain of original sin"?
Finally, I’m still waiting for the scriptural evidence that shows us Paul taught Jesus was born of a Virgin. 😉
See Galatians 4:4—But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Mary ann R;3735272]I like this article from Catholic Answers.
Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
There is no basis in Scripture that Mary was “preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences”. This is an assertion without any support.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
This is a clever analogy but it is not proof. Even if this was believed for a thousand years would not make it true.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
Again, this is an assertion without evidence. The Scriptures is the only thing we know about her and they never make such a claim about her.
But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
Its not about actual sinning but inheriting the sin nature from Adam. This is spelled out clearly in Romans 5:12.
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Jesus is the exception in that He was perfect in His humanity and deity. He is the only One Who was born without a human father and so did not inherit Adam’s nature. Mary on the other hand was born of fallen human parents and so had Adam’ sin passed onto her.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
The Scriptures are clear that Jesus alone was sinless because He was the God-man.
The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be…
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory.
These 2 doctrines were totally unknown to Jesus and His apostles. Even the assumption does not have historical support for it. Its not mentioned for centuries.
There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.
It can also be said that if the Catholic church is wrong about these doctrines then its teaching falsely.
There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
It does contradict Scripture. If Mary was not a sinner then the Scripture is lying since it claims all men are sinners.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

This is not true. The Catholic church has erred many times.
Emphasis in bold mine.
You can find the rest of the article here.
 
There is no basis in Scripture that Mary was “preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences”. This is an assertion without any support.

This is a clever analogy but it is not proof. Even if this was believed for a thousand years would not make it true.

Again, this is an assertion without evidence. The Scriptures is the only thing we know about her and they never make such a claim about her.

Its not about actual sinning but inheriting the sin nature from Adam. This is spelled out clearly in Romans 5:12.

Jesus is the exception in that He was perfect in His humanity and deity. He is the only One Who was born without a human father and so did not inherit Adam’s nature. Mary on the other hand was born of fallen human parents and so had Adam’ sin passed onto her.

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus alone was sinless because He was the God-man.

These 2 doctrines were totally unknown to Jesus and His apostles. Even the assumption does not have historical support for it. Its not mentioned for centuries.

It can also be said that if the Catholic church is wrong about these doctrines then its teaching falsely.

It does contradict Scripture. If Mary was not a sinner then the Scripture is lying since it claims all men are sinners.

This is not true. The Catholic church has erred many times.
This thread is still going??? How can you possibly believe that God would allow his only begotten Son to be conceived in a womb that belonged to a sinful woman? Do you think for a moment that God, in His wisdom, was unable to form a pure dwelling place for His Son? If God could grant Eve the grace to come into the world immaculate, do you not think he could grant the same grace to Mary?

Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, and as such, Our Lord preserved her soul, together with her body, in that her purity which became the dwelling place of God was holy, as He only dwells in holy places.

Do you see what you are saying? You are saying that God allowed His Son to dwell and be formed in a sinful place. The flesh of Mary and that of Christ are one, and if the Blessed Virgin had of been conceived in sin, like you allow, the flesh of Jesus would have been touched by sin.
 
Our Blessed Mother was predestined to be the mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ - chosen by God. She was born without sin, full of grace and Blessed among women.

It is shocking that there are those constantly on these boards arguing that Mary was a sinner…and feel not the slightest bit of concern how offensive they are. . Would you argue this way against your own mothers? Are noncatholics so desperate over wording (translations) in the Bible that they “interpret” verses to mean Jesus was born from a sinner?? To leave the Catholic Church to go into a religion that teaches that?

“Blessed Virgin, Immaculate and pure, you are the sinless Mother of your Son, the mighty Lord of the Universe.” St. Ephrem of Edessa 373 AD

Yes, look at the date this was written.
Blessings to all.
 
paramedicgirl;3739426]This thread is still going??? How can you possibly believe that God would allow his only begotten Son to be conceived in a womb that belonged to a sinful woman? Do you think for a moment that God, in His wisdom, was unable to form a pure dwelling place for His Son?
There is no problem for an all powerful God to be born of a sinful woman. His power is greater than sin and He would not be “contaminated” by it. We know this is true by the mere fact that Jesus Himself Who lived among sinfull people was not contaminated by them.
If God could grant Eve the grace to come into the world immaculate, do you not think he could grant the same grace to Mary?
If God did do such a thing we have no proof that He did. The Scriptures present Mary as all other humans with their fallness and limitations.
Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, and as such, Our Lord preserved her soul, together with her body, in that her purity which became the dwelling place of God was holy, as He only dwells in holy places.
Does the catholic church offically say that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant?
Do you see what you are saying? You are saying that God allowed His Son to dwell and be formed in a sinful place.
True. He also allowed Him to live among sinful men and fallen angels. Paul in Philippians 2:6-7 deals with this issue by saying that Christ “emptied” Himself which implies He did not possess all the attributes of deity in their fullness while in the flesh.
The flesh of Mary and that of Christ are one, and if the Blessed Virgin had of been conceived in sin, like you allow, the flesh of Jesus would have been touched by sin.
Not so. Even though Jesus was concieved through Mary He still was sinless. It does not require Mary to be without sin but that God’s power is greater than sin.
 
Does the catholic church offically say that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant?
Don’t ALL Christians see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant?

What is in the Ark?
  1. The tablets of the Law (Jesus = the Word of God in the New Covenant Christ)
  2. The last of the manna (Jesus = the New Covenant Bread of Life)
  3. Aaron’s rod that budded (Jesus = the Great High Priest of the New Covenant)
 
mercygate;3740476]Don’t ALL Christians see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant?
I’m not aware of any protestant that does.
What is in the Ark?
  1. The tablets of the Law (Jesus = the Word of God in the New Covenant Christ)
  2. The last of the manna (Jesus = the New Covenant Bread of Life)
  3. Aaron’s rod that budded (Jesus = the Great High Priest of the New Covenant)
If this is the case why don’t we see this spelled out in the NT by those who knew her best?

Secondly, is it not true that the presence of the Lord did not dwell inside the ark itself but above it in between the two Cherubim?

Third, was the ark considered sacred i.e. untouchable after the presence of the Lord was gone?

These are just some of the issues a person is going to have to deal with if they are going to claim Mary is some kind of ark type.
 
I’m not aware of any protestant that does.
As for the ark of the covenant…

…“It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.”

“Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).”

From Catholic Answers article I posted earlier found here.
 
I’m not aware of any protestant that does.

If this is the case why don’t we see this spelled out in the NT by those who knew her best?

Secondly, is it not true that the presence of the Lord did not dwell inside the ark itself but above it in between the two Cherubim?

Third, was the ark considered sacred i.e. untouchable after the presence of the Lord was gone?

These are just some of the issues a person is going to have to deal with if they are going to claim Mary is some kind of ark type.
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. 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; she was with child”

Who is the child, who is the woman, the childs mother.
 
If God could grant Eve the grace to come into the world immaculate, do you not think he could grant the same grace to Mary?
How do we know that Adam & Eve were created by God and how do we know that they were created sinless? God tells us so in His written word, see Gen 1-3.

Now where does God say in His written word that Mary was IC, that she was kept sinless all her life and didn’t die.

Also the special grace theory re Mary makes the whole plan of redemption unnecessary. I mean if God made Mary sinless and kept her sinless, then why doesn’t He do this to all mankind? The fact is that God did make Adam and Eve sinless and they clearly demonstrated humanity’s inability to remain sinless. This is why the plan of redemption was in place before the foundation of the world.

It is a biblical fact that on this earth only the Lord Jesus could be both a sinless man and always remain sinless.

.
 
Are the people living in heaven sinless?

Have the people living in heaven a fallen nature?
 
Are the people living in heaven sinless?

Have the people living in heaven a fallen nature?
I thought this thread was about whether Mary had a fallen human nature in her life on this earth.
It is a biblical fact that on this earth only the Lord Jesus could be both a sinless man and always remain sinless.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top