Discussing Mary

[HailMary]

Not the context. The “sin” here stands for purification she had to made according to the law in Lv 12. From your reasoning and context it would follow that a woman comits a sin every time she gives a birth or has a menstruation!

The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph did so out of obedience to the law.

 

[zemi]

zemi;2582452]From a logical standpoint this is a faulty answer.
This is not begging the question. He asked “Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?”
Now what he needs to demonstrate how this could not be. The defintions of this word does not mean a person cannot sin or must be sinless.
He would also need to show from scripture that it was said she was without sin.

Justasking,

the question in dispute (evidentelly seen from the context!) was whether you admit it or not: “Was Mary without sin?”

You were begging the question.

I agree that it is us Catholics that are making the claim and have the burden of proof but that has absolutelly (!) nothing to do that you were indeed begging the question… I hold nothing against you but the laws of logic do.

 

[LilyM]

We know that in your churches history there has been a lot of evil by its leaders but its teachings.

Are you saying that our teachings are evil?? I sincerely hope not. :dts:

As Christ’s Church, which has existed since Pentecost and is founded upon the Apostles, the Catholic Church is necesarily guaranteed the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The HS necessarily will preserve Christ’s Church from officially teaching anything but truth for all time. Otherwise the gates of hell will prevail against it, which He promised (and I believe, do you?) will never happen.

And as I said before, personal sin from our leaders matters not in the slightest. Peter and Paul weren’t sinless, not before nor after they became Apostles. They nonetheless taught without error. Do we agree that the Apostles taught without error at least?

Here is what the word “teach” means-- to impart knowledge or skill to somebody by instruction or example. By Peter’ example he was teaching.

You’re claiming then that Peter taught error? That would mean that Christ’s promises had failed within a few years after His death and that the gates of Hell had already prevailed over His church, and that Peter WASN’T guided by the HS and possessed of the fullness of truth then.

Question is - why believe what Peter told Mark and Mark wrote down as his Gospel then - that too could be riddled with error by your logic. Christ didn’t promise infallibility ONLY for the NT, but for ALL of the Apostles’ teaching, the stuff that wasn’t recorded in writing too. So either all Apostolic teaching is infallible or none of it is, no in betweens. You’ve only left yourself the option of believing that none of it is.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly your church tries to narrowly define its authority not to teach error by limiting it to only offical pronouncements. This won’t do for the mere fact it eliminates much of the fullness of the truth it claims to possess.

Could you repeat that in English please?

 

[LilyM]

zemi;2580432]1. Can a pesron be filled with the Holy Spirit and be a sinner? (no bearing with Mary now)
Yes. Look at Acts 2:4 where those present at Penecost were filled with the Holy Spirit. Now we can ask:
did the apostles sin after this event and filling?

Did they claim they did not?

The Apostles were NOT ‘kecharitomene’ - not on the same level as Mary. You’re comparing apples with oranges.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;2582506:

zemi;2580432]1. Can a pesron be filled with the Holy Spirit and be a sinner? (no bearing with Mary now)
Yes. Look at Acts 2:4 where those present at Penecost were filled with the Holy Spirit. Now we can ask:
did the apostles sin after this event and filling?

Did they claim they did not?

The Apostles were NOT ‘kecharitomene’ - not on the same level as Mary. You’re comparing apples with oranges.

Here is how this word “filled” is used in Acts 2:4 – Persons to be filled with something, i.e., to be wholly imbued( * wholly means -completely and entirely: totally and in every way or to the fullest extent*)
, affected, influenced with or by something, with the gen. of thing as with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9);
As you can see this is at the same level as Mary.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;2582613:

Here is how this word “filled” is used in Acts 2:4 – Persons to be filled with something, i.e., to be wholly imbued

( * wholly means -completely and entirely: totally and in every way or to the fullest extent*)
, affected, influenced with or by something, with the gen. of thing as with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9);
As you can see this is at the same level as Mary.

No - if the word ‘kecharitomene’ isn’t used of them then it ISN’T the same thing as Mary, nor the same level.

 

[zemi]

LilyM;2582613:

Here is how this word “filled” is used in Acts 2:4 – Persons to be filled with something, i.e., to be wholly imbued

( * wholly means -completely and entirely: totally and in every way or to the fullest extent*)
, affected, influenced with or by something, with the gen. of thing as with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9);
As you can see this is at the same level as Mary.

Is that your own text?

Post your source everytime (–> forum rules)!

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2582603]Are you saying that our teachings are evil?? I sincerely hope not. :dts:

Anything that stands in the way of devotion only to Christ is a false teaching. Look at how your church has promoted and exalted Mary far beyond what the scriptures say. This would make these doctrines evil in that sense.

As Christ’s Church, which has existed since Pentecost and is founded upon the Apostles, the Catholic Church is necesarily guaranteed the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The HS necessarily will preserve Christ’s Church from officially teaching anything but truth for all time. Otherwise the gates of hell will prevail against it, which He promised (and I believe, do you?) will never happen.

i reject this whole notion for the mere fact it cannot be support by scripture nor history.

And as I said before, personal sin from our leaders matters not in the slightest. Peter and Paul weren’t sinless, not before nor after they became Apostles. They nonetheless taught without error.

Do we agree that the Apostles taught without error at least?

yes

You’re claiming then that Peter taught error?

Thats what the scripture show.

That would mean that Christ’s promises had failed within a few years after His death and that the gates of Hell had already prevailed over His church, and that Peter WASN’T guided by the HS and possessed of the fullness of truth then.

This does not follow. Just because a church may teach error does not mean that the gates of hell have totally prevailed.

Question is - why believe what Peter told Mark and Mark wrote down as his Gospel then - that too could be riddled with error by your logic.

Look at the gospels. Do they contain error? How could something that is inspired-inerrant contain error?

Christ didn’t promise infallibility ONLY for the NT, but for ALL of the Apostles’ teaching, the stuff that wasn’t recorded in writing too. So either all Apostolic teaching is infallible or none of it is, no in betweens. You’ve only left yourself the option of believing that none of it is.

Not so. The scriptures are inspired-inerrant. What i don’t accept is that your church cannot error. Jesus never promised that. Remember it is made up of fallen men who can and do error in all dimensions of life.

Could you repeat that in English please?

Your church makes up its own defintion and defines it in such a way it cannot fail. Even with this, it has.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;2582656:

No - if the word ‘kecharitomene’ isn’t used of them then it ISN’T the same thing as Mary, nor the same level.

How is it different? I ask again in regards to " ‘kecharitomene’ that in the definition itself it speaks of being without sin always?

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2582584]Justasking,

the question in dispute (evidentelly seen from the context!) was whether you admit it or not: “Was Mary without sin?”

You were begging the question.

Here is what this means–Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. this is from the Nikor project.
Now show me where i am doing this?

I

agree that it is us Catholics that are making the claim and have the burden of proof but that has absolutelly (!) nothing to do that you were indeed begging the question… I hold nothing against you but the laws of logic do.

 

[justasking4]

The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph did so out of obedience to the law.

Which means they saw themselves as sinners.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;2582656:

Is that your own text?

Post your source everytime (–> forum rules)!

Can you show me where this is stated?

 

[LilyM]

Anything that stands in the way of devotion only to Christ is a false teaching. Look at how your church has promoted and exalted Mary far beyond what the scriptures say. This would make these doctrines evil in that sense.

How dare you call my faith evil! Sounds like you’re not here either to genuinely learn or to genuinely teach at all, just to sow confusion and spite.

I reject this whole notion for the mere fact it cannot be support by scripture nor history.

 

[LilyM]

Which means they saw themselves as sinners.

Christ had himself baptised - which symbolises cleansing from sin. You think he saw himself as a sinner too then?? No - John knew He wasn’t too. Both Jesus and Mary had themselves purified without need because, as Jesus said, it was ‘fitting all righteousness’ for them to set an example for us.

 

[jabelltulsa]

If what you say is true, then why was there a counter reformation in the catholic church around the time of the reformation? To have a counter reformation in your church is saying there is something wrong with some of its doctrines and practices that need to be reformed.

There is nothing wrong with the doctrines of the Church, but there were problems locally. The Church addressed those local issues from Her authority as she is required to do. It may have been what Peter was talking about with regard to false teachings at a local level (I am assuming you are talking about the sale of indulgences).

 

[HailMary]

Which means they saw themselves as sinners.

Sorry, your logic makes no sense. Jesus followed the law, does that make Him a sinner? hmmm.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2582824]Christ had himself baptised - which symbolises cleansing from sin. You think he saw himself as a sinner too then??
Christ allowed Himself to be baptises to identify Himself with mankind and not because He was a sinner.

No - John knew He wasn’t too. Both Jesus and Mary had themselves purified without need because, as Jesus said, it was ‘fitting all righteousness’ for them to set an example for us.

Problem with your example is the Mary and Joseph were offering a sin offering while Jesus was being baptized. These are 2 different things

 

[justasking4]

jabelltulsa;2582997]There is nothing wrong with the doctrines of the Church, but there were problems locally. The Church addressed those local issues from Her authority as she is required to do. It may have been what Peter was talking about with regard to false teachings at a local level (I am assuming you are talking about the sale of indulgences).

Whether it was local or over all it still is part of the church and thereby guilty of error. Remember the claim: the church one.

The indulgences was applicable to everyone so that would apply to the entire church.

 

[justasking4]

Sorry, your logic makes no sense. Jesus followed the law, does that make Him a sinner? hmmm.

Can you show me in the OT where baptism was a mandate?

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;2582824]Christ had himself baptised - which symbolises cleansing from sin. You think he saw himself as a sinner too then??
Christ allowed Himself to be baptises to identify Himself with mankind and not because He was a sinner.

So did Mary allow herself to be purified because SHE was identifying herself with mankind!

Problem with your example is the Mary and Joseph were offering a sin offering while Jesus was being baptized. These are 2 different things

Remember what the purpose of baptism was though. It TOO was designed to cleanse or purify one of sin. It in fact had exactly the same purpose as Mary’s offering in the Temple.

That’s why John recognised that Jesus had no need of it, since He was sinless. But Jesus did it anyway. Exactly the same as Mary, she offered in the Temple though she had no need. She too is identifying herself with mankind, as you put it, although personally sinless.