Do you consider this a "proof" text against Mary's sinlessness

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Adam and Eve were born without original sin, don’t they count?

Don’t be silly.

MarcoPolo:

The NT fulfillment of Adam was Jesus

Actually Adam is a “type” of Jesus, and Jesus is not the “fulfillment of Adam,” as you say; rather, Jesus is the antithesis of Adam, in that, through the first Adam death came, while through the last Adam life came.

MarcoPolo:

…who was the fulfillment of Eve??

Perhaps you ought to re-think that question.

MarcoPolo:

That’s why for centuries and centuries no one rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception (you know the idea dates back well before it was defined, right?)

Are you sure that none of the ECF’s reject the IC of Mary?

MarcoPolo:

not even Luther

As with all men, Luther’s fallible.

 

[Ginger2]

A man goes towards a quick sand and falls into it. A man came by and drop a rope and help him out of the pit. A woman was unware of the quicksand but before she got step in, the man warn her not to go any further. She was saved prior to falling into the quick sand.

How does the cross fit into this equation?

The point is, that just like a new born infant cannot commit a sin, that infant is still a sinner in need of Christ Jesus because it is born into a fallen state.

Mary would be included under original sin. And Gal explains why.

Every other person in the Bible who experience some sort of special birth had the circumstances spelled out. Yet, nothing is mentioned of Mary’s conception or Birth. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Not even a mention that her parents were foretold of her birth.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Are you sure that none of the ECF’s reject the IC of Mary?

Certainly not with one voice, which is the hallmark of Tradition. I would hope that centuries and centuries of agreement on IC among Christians would at least give you pause.

p.s. yes, “type” is a correct term for Jesus-Adam. No problems there.

 

[ScottishColleen]

Where does it say there was a second Eve (other than Catholic Tradition…scripturally…if you want to convince a Protestant then you have to reason from Scriptures, their common ground). Adam did not come from Eve and Eve was Adam’s wife. Mary was Jesus’ mother.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Yes, she needed a savior. And no, she never sinned.

Here is the Catholic answer to this question.

Paul

“For all have sinned” includes mary in active sin. So, yes she need a savior. And, Eze 18 refutes the “orignial stain of sin” claim.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

My friend’s infant son who passed away needed Jesus as a savior but he never sinned.

Psalm 32:2
Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

An infant is NOT under law because they can NOT understand the law at their tender age, therefore Sin is NOT imputed to them, thus it is impossible for them to have the stain of original sin period.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

He was my Saviour over 1,960 years before I was born and could commit my first sin. He was Mary’s Saviour before her birth too. Salvation is outside of time. No, that isn’t in the Bible, just showing that verse does not make Mary a sinner.

The greek grammar in Luke 1:47 has the savior starting at that point and being ongoing, thus implying that not only are past sins covered, but so are current and fulture sins. For those current and fulture sins to be covered implies that there are in fact current and fulture sins to cover.

 

[flyersfan1088]

The greek grammar in Luke 1:47 has the savior starting at that point and being ongoing, thus implying that not only are past sins covered, but so are current and fulture sins. For those current and fulture sins to be covered implies that there are in fact current and fulture sins to cover.

Isn’t that kind of what I said?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Where does it say there was a second Eve (other than Catholic Tradition…scripturally…if you want to convince a Protestant then you have to reason from Scriptures, their common ground). Adam did not come from Eve and Eve was Adam’s wife. Mary was Jesus’ mother.

If a Protestant insists on using Scripture only, he/she should start by showing where Sola Scriptura is in Scripture. Nevertheless, the argument of Mary as new Eve has been made apologetically from this website here. Lots of Scripture included.

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Certainly not with one voice, which is the hallmark of Tradition. I would hope that centuries and centuries of agreement on IC among Christians would at least give you pause.

”For centuries and centuries, none rejected…Certainly not with one voice.” That says it all.

MarcoPolo:

If a Protestant insists on using Scripture only, he/she should start by showing where Sola Scriptura is in Scripture.

One knows the Catholic argument has been defeated when the Catholic leaves the topic, and, out of desperation, attacks SS; thanks Marco. :tiphat:

 

[Ginger2]

Eze 18 refutes the “orignial stain of sin” claim.

How?

Original sin is not an act, it is a state of being.

The only time original sin involved the act of doing something was was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

From that point on mankind suffered a separation from God. It is thru Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that we have been reconciled back to God.

As you said Jesus died for past present and future sins. All are concluded under sin so that they might receive this gift.

If not, then of what use is the cross to these people?

Original sin is a curse brought on by Adam and Eve. But, for those of us who love the Lord it is a Blessing.

 

[MarcoPolo]

”For centuries and centuries, none rejected…Certainly not with one voice.” That says it all.

One knows the Catholic argument has been defeated when the Catholic leaves the topic, and, out of desperation, attacks SS; thanks Marco. :tiphat:

Tradition is not broken by an exceptional voice. The Church as a whole passes it. You know that, don’t you? The books of the Bible are no less weakened by other writings of James, for instance, like his Protoevangelium. Nor is Tradition weakened in like manner.

Curiously, which ECFs are you considering to have rejected IC?

And yes. I am desperate. You have totally refuted everything I said about Mary. I sit here in defeat while you do the Dance of Joy. Because certainly I did not provide Scripture for the good young lady. I just “attacked SS”. You are just too good.

 

[Ginger2]

Psalm 32:2
Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Better translation:
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

The next verse says:
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,** even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,** who is the figure of him that was to come.

An infant is NOT under law because they can NOT understand the law at their tender age, therefore Sin is NOT imputed to them, thus it is impossible for them to have the stain of original sin period.

You are talking about two different things.

 

[mgrfin]

Maybe our understanding of Scripture from Romans needs a little updating. Did Paul intend to include the Virgin Mary? Why should he cloud the issue of all men sinning by excluding the Virgin Mary in his text. He wasn’t talking of the Virgin, and as far as we know he never spoke of Mary.

Of course he never wrote about her, but family roots were important, and known. He knew of Jesus, and he knew of his parents. Necessarily, he knew the whole lineage of Christ. He knew it was necessary for the Messiah to come from the root of Jesse, and be of the house of David. Yet, Paul never mentions David and Jesus. Did that prove it didn’t happen that Jesus wasn’t of the house of David?

Protestants have this problem. If it aint in the bible, they won’t believe it. But that aint our problem. You don’t believe in a lot of things that are in the Scriptures; why should you believe in something that is more personal, more familiar to our Saviour?

You say: “Every other person in the Bible who experienced some sort of special birth had the circumstances spelled out.” Well, if they weren’t spelt out you, you wouldn’t know about it. How about Moses, and the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel?
Circumstances of their parents are not there, and for some their own birth is not mentioned. We have Melchisedech, a priest who offered bread and wine, yet we know nothing of his lineage.

It is a defined doctrine of the Catholic faith that Mary was born free from the stain of original sin. The Unwritten revealed Word of God is enough for us.

Gen 3:15: “And I will put enemities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”.

These words don’t refer to Eve. Eve never crushed the head of Satan. Those words refer to the new Eve, Mary Immaculate.

peace

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

Tradition is not broken by an exceptional voice. The Church as a whole passes it. You know that, don’t you? The books of the Bible are no less weakened by other writings of James, for instance, like his Protoevangelium. Nor is Tradition weakened in like manner.

What I find most disconcerting is your initial claim that “no one of the ECFs rejected the IC; then, when queried, you change that to “not all one voice.” IMHO, that’s a deliberate deception.

MarcoPolo:

Curiously, which ECFs are you considering to have rejected IC?

Here’s a quote from one of your fellows on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203886&page=14 , post #205:

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4).

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.

To which I responded that others, in addition to those three, rejected the IC as well.

It seems we understand language differently; to me, no one means no one.

MarcoPolo:

And yes. I am desperate. You have totally refuted everything I said about Mary. I sit here in defeat while you do the Dance of Joy. Because certainly I did not provide Scripture for the good young lady. I just “attacked SS”. You are just too good.

Up to this point, you have taken correction well, Marco.

 

[Ginger2]

Maybe our understanding of Scripture from Romans needs a little updating. Paul … knew it was necessary for the Messiah to come from the root of Jesse, and be of the house of David. Yet, Paul never mentions David and Jesus.

Act 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

Act 13:23 Of this man’s seed hath God according to [his] promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

 

[Metaron]

That’s one of them.

ho, ho, this is funny. How does this say she wasn’t sinless? What is the arguement? Of course she needed a savior. All Catholics know that! She was saved-- before us and in a more perfect way that we were.

 

[Ginger2]

You say: “Every other person in the Bible who experienced some sort of special birth had the circumstances spelled out.” Well, if they weren’t spelt out you, you wouldn’t know about it. How about Moses, …Circumstances of their parents are not there,

You crack me up.

 

[mgrfin]

How?

Original sin is not an act, it is a state of being.

The only time original sin involved the act of doing something was was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

From that point on mankind suffered a separation from God. It is thru Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that we have been reconciled back to God.

As you said Jesus died for past present and future sins. All are concluded under sin so that they might receive this gift.

If not, then of what use is the cross to these people?

Original sin is a curse brought on by Adam and Eve. But, for those of us who love the Lord it is a Blessing.

Except, Mary was free from the stain of that sin. Period

Catholic teaching, de fide definita. Period

 

[Ginger2]

Except, Mary was free from the stain of that sin. Period

Catholic teaching, de fide definita. Period