God tells us in His written word that Jesus was born of a virgin, He didn't tell us a sinless virgin

[VociMike]

RNRobert, thanks for posting that great stuff. It certainly amplifies on my comments, and gives me more to contemplate as well. To understand Mary’s true role in God’s plan of salvation is to gain a greater understanding of God himself. I don’t know why most Protestants reject that greater understanding in favor of a simplistic, even trivial platitude about sin (and a false one to boot!).

 

[sodak]

THE VIRGIN MARY AS THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then** indwelled the Ark**. The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God
** [Exodus 40:34-35] **

God the Holy Spirit** overshadowed **and the indwelled Mary. At that time Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God
**[Luke 1:35]. **

The Ark contained the **10 Commandments **[the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and **Aaron’s rod **that came back to life (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood)
Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4].

The womb of the Virgin contained Jesus: the **living Word of God **enfleshed, the living bread from heaven, “the Branch” (high priest of the New Covenant) who would die but come back to life
Luke 1:35].

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom
2 Samuel 6:1-11]

Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah (Judea) to the home of Elizabeth
Luke 1:39]

Dressed in a priestly ephod, King David approached the Ark and danced and leapt for joy
2 Samuel 6:14]

John the Baptist, son of a priest who would himself a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the approach of Mary
Luke 1:43]

David shouted for joy in the presence of God and the holy Ark
[2 Samuel 6:15]

Elizabeth exclaimed with a loud cry of joy in the presence God within Mary
Luke 1:42**]

David asked, “How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?”
2 Samuel 6:9]

Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Luke 1:43]

The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for 3 months
2 Samuel 6:11]

Mary remained in the house of her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months
[Luke 1:56]. **

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark
[2 Samuel 6:11]

The word “blessed” is used 3 times in** Luke 1:39-45 ****concerning Mary at Elizabeth’s house.

The Ark returned to its sanctuary and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is revealed in the newly built Temple
2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11]

Mary returned home from visiting Elizabeth and eventually comes to Jerusalem, where she presents God the Son in the Temple
Luke 1:56; 2:21-22]

God made Aaron’s rod (which would be kept in the Ark) return to life and budded to prove he was the legitimate High Priest
Numbers 17:8].

God would resurrect His Son, who had become enfleshed in Mary’s womb and born to bring salvation to all mankind, to prove He is the eternal High Priest
Hebrews 4:14].

When the Ark was outside the Holy of Holies [when it was being transported] it was to be covered with a blue veil
Numbers 4:4-6]

In Mary’s appearances outside of heaven visionaries testify that she wears a blue veil.

In** Revelation 11:19** John sees the Ark of the Covenant in heaven [this is the last verse of chapter 11] In Revelation 12:1 John sees Mary in heaven.

Read it all together

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the **ark of His covenant **appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
A great sign appeared in heaven: **a woman **clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.
And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.
And **she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. **Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

and the very last verse 17
So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with **the rest of her **children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

What a coincidence!!!

 

[sseason]

May I jump in?

We all believe that Jesus is God ----Correct? **John 8:58 **

And that Jesus being God was here from the begining----- John 1:1-2

Isn’t it possible that a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, preserved her from the stain of original sin and its consequences? Therefore redeeming her by the grace of Christ,
but in a special way—by anticipation?

Because if you think about it, this was His plan from the very begining…

Genesis 3:15
15And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Here is our promise of our Savior and His mother. So God had already decided that through a woman He would be born. Way back in Gensis. God is our Creator who created Man,the Sun and the earth out of nothing and He was born of a virgin, why is it so hard to believe that He could do this? He created Adam and Eve without sin,why not Mary?

Catholic Answers gives us this…

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.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (in the year of our Lord 388).

:clapping: BRAVO!! :tiphat:

Both this thread and your 2nd one are EXCELLENT!!! Thank you so much for sharing! I don’t think anything else really needs to be said after that!

And I LOVE finding new corelations between the old and the new testament. I don’t think I knew that Mary walked the same places as the Ark was carried and all of that. …GREAT STUFF!!!

 

[po18guy]

God clearly tells us in His written word that Jesus would be born of a virgin, He didn’t tell us that Jesus would be born of a sinless virgin.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7: 14

.

Praise God for the teaching authority of the Church! It is the same authority which tested the scriptures and found them inspired. Father Serpa just answered this question. When the Archangel Gabriel, Who stands in God’s presence, addressed Mary as “full of grace”, it eliminated all possibility of sin within her. Full of grace means also “empty of sin”.

Believing only that which is in the bible is a result of America’s Protestant foundation. We have a truer Christian faith now than the nation did in 1776, since the error of sola scriptura is being overcome.

Christ’s peace.

 

[sseason]

Praise God for the teaching authority of the Church! It is the same authority which tested the scriptures and found them inspired. Father Serpa just answered this question. When the Archangel Gabriel, Who stands in God’s presence, addressed Mary as “full of grace”, it eliminated all possibility of sin within her. Full of grace means also “empty of sin”.

Believing only that which is in the bible is a result of America’s Protestant foundation. We have a truer Christian faith now than the nation did in 1776, since the error of sola scriptura is being overcome.

Christ’s peace.

 

[ConallCernach]

All in Gods timing. Remember Scott Haun and his conversion. It didn’t happen in one single online thread.

Although I don’t know Scott Hahn’s conversion, I know of some interesting cases, such as Augustine and one of Dawkins’ inspirations. Here, it’s not a matter of conversion, but a matter of simply doing what he expects of us. I know that this is still a bit much. Oh well.

Pax

 

[RNRobert]

RNRobert, thanks for posting that great stuff. It certainly amplifies on my comments, and gives me more to contemplate as well.

You’re welcome!

 

[justasking4]

Quite right. They don’t seem to grasp the parallels (anti-parallels, you could say) between one man, Adam, uncorrupted and perfect as God intended for the human race, acting for the entire human race in separating us from God, and one woman, Mary, uncorrupted and perfect as God intended for the human race, acting for the entire human race in reuniting us with God in that perfect unification of humanity and divinity, Jesus Christ.

Nor do they grasp the parallel between Jesus Christ, the perfect unification of humanity and divinity, receiving his perfect divinity from his perfect Father, and receiving his perfect humanity from his perfect Mother. Even a child understands the concept that you don’t bake a perfect cake without perfect ingredients.

To recognize and understand these parallels is to have the foundation to make sense of the Incarnation. To ignore or reject these parallels is to forever be without the foundation to understand the Incarnation.

This is a good example of the problems with Catholic theology. Assumptions are treated as facts. The idea that Mary was " uncorrupted and perfect as God intended for the human race" is a case in point. There is no evidence for this claim anywhere in Scripture. The incarnation did not demand a perfect sinless woman for Him to take on human flesh.

 

[ConallCernach]

This is a good example of the problems with Catholic theology. Assumptions are treated as facts. The idea that Mary was " uncorrupted and perfect as God intended for the human race" is a case in point. There is no evidence for this claim anywhere in Scripture. The incarnation did not demand a perfect sinless woman for Him to take on human flesh.

There is more than Scripture, there are teachings handed down through Apostolic succession, I suggest reading about the Church Fathers.

 

[TobyLue]

God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word
God tells us in His written word

ad infinitum

Question 1. Where does God Tell us in His written word
“This is My written word”? Book, chapter and verse,
Question 2. How do we know that the bible is Gods written word?
Question 3, How do we know from the gobs of Gospels floating around and letters in the early years of Christianity which were the actual words of God?
Question 4, When did God Actually write down anything? Did anybody see Him write?
Question 5. Book, chapter, and verse where God commands sombody to write down anything (other than Revelations but then how do we actually know tho wrote Revelations and that the word “Tle revelations of Jesus Christ which God gave him, to make know to his servants… etc” are actually true?)
Question 6 and last one. How does anybody know that their self-interpretation is corrrect especially “all have sinned”?

 

[justasking4]

There is more than Scripture, there are teachings handed down through Apostolic succession, I suggest reading about the Church Fathers.

Are these writings of church fathers considered inspired-inerrant? Do their writings carry the same authority as the Scriptures?

 

[davidv]

Are these writings of church fathers considered inspired-inerrant? Do their writings carry the same authority as the Scriptures?

The answers to these are immaterial to the topic.The ECF give evidence to the fact the Church is the Church of the Word, not the church of the book.

 

[ConallCernach]

Are these writings of church fathers considered inspired-inerrant? Do their writings carry the same authority as the Scriptures?

Sacred Tradition, which comes through apostolic succession is inerrant, and I suppose you should hope that it is as well, since Scripture was formed through apostolic succession.

 

[TobyLue]

emeraldisle

Its not fanciful speculation that God has told us in His written word that all of humanity is sinful and its not fanciful speculation that Mary is part of sinful humanity.

If you tell us that because scripture says “all have sinned” so Mary sinned, but then on the next breath you tell us that only Jesus is sinless, then “all” does not mean literally “all”. If all means all, and cannot mean anything else then you are claiming that scripture contradicts itself. If “all” means everybody, as in all of humanity, then there can be no exception and you you place an exception on Jesus, then “all” does not mean “all” as you want it to say.

 

[TobyLue]

just4asking

Are these writings of church fathers considered inspired-inerrant? Do their writings carry the same authority as the Scriptures?

Is you understand of scripture inspired and inerrant? Is you interpretations inspired and inerrant? Many of the early fathers were taught by the Apostles themselves who were taught by Jesus. Were you taught by Jesus or the apostles? What scripture authority was used in the year 100, or 200, or 300? Was it the KJV and people could get it at their corner Christian bookstore? Who game **you **authority to interpret scripture? Oh… thats right - it was the HS, or was it the holey spirits???

 

[larry_m]

…full of grace means empty of sin]

That sure is an arbitrary statement. Not even close in the Greek.

[Rev.12:1 John sees Mary in heaven.]

Another arbitrary & uninformed statement. In prophecy a woman is a church, not a real woman, 2 Cor.11: Rev.18:3; Jer. 6:2. There are many more besides these. Besides that, the woman in Rev.12:1 is in travail at birth, pain, which goes against the teaching of one of your own popes, Pope Alexander 111 that stated,“Mary gave birth to her Son without pain”. Which is another arbitrary statement. According to Pope Pius X11, on the bodily assumption of Mary, he comments,“Often there are theologians & preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy fathers, have been RATHER FREE in their use of events & expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption”. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the 6th to 8th centuries from the following, St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem & others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart.,1,iv) mentions it first. He lived in the 6th century.
Some may ask what this has to do with the sinlesness of Mary. Everything, since it comes from mans mind & not from Scripture. Please don’t start with tradition. I am well aware of your stance on tradition above Scripture. That means nothing to me. That is your system of belief, not mine. I respect that. Just disagree.

[Jesus not in sinful flesh]

Wrong theology. I could give a vey long & thorough Bible study on this, but not to irritate my brothers & sisters too much, please read the following, the word for flesh in the Greek is ,'sarx"-human nature with its frailties, physically, morally, carnal flesh, human being." Rom. 8:3; Heb.4:15; Phill.2:5-8; Heb. 2:11,14-18; Gal.4:4,5. Please understand, even in this flesh, He condemned sin in it, Rom.8:3. He was the ONLY sinless one. When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush,‘Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground’ Ex.3;5. There is a huge difference between hereditary tendencies & cultivated tendencies. He did not have the propensities OF sin, because He never sinned. Enough of this subject.

 

[love4mary]

If this has been mentioned, my apologies as this is a very long thread. But has anyone considered John the Baptist here? What I mean is,

Matthew 3:5 say, and I quote, “At that time Jerusalem, ALL Judea, and the WHOLE region around the Jordan were going out to him”

In this passage, can anyone actually believe that the ENTIRE population of Judea was being baptized by St. John?

Tim Staples had a cool way of phrasing it,“He couldn’t KEERPLUNK then fast enough”

Emerald, WAS the ENTIRE population of Judea baptized by St. John? remember that Pharisees were also a part of the population, or could the use of the term ALL bit a bit of hyperbole to illustrate an important point?

 

[VociMike]

This is a good example of the problems with Catholic theology. Assumptions are treated as facts. The idea that Mary was " uncorrupted and perfect as God intended for the human race" is a case in point. There is no evidence for this claim anywhere in Scripture. The incarnation did not demand a perfect sinless woman for Him to take on human flesh.

Actually your comment is a good example of the problems with Protestant theology. As soon as you say there is no evidence for this claim anywhere in Scripture (which we don’t concede, BTW) you demonstrate that your standard is flawed. Scripture is not God’s entire revelation, no matter how many times you claim the contrary. So the perfectly reasonable reply to that charge (even if it were true, which we don’t concede) is “so what?”

I’m also curious, since your wording was vague, are you suggesting that God did not intend for the human race to be uncorrupted and perfect (while knowing the Fall would occur)?

 

[emeraldisle]

emeraldisleIf you tell us that because scripture says “all have sinned” so Mary sinned, but then on the next breath you tell us that only Jesus is sinless, then “all” does not mean literally “all”. If all means all, and cannot mean anything else then you are claiming that scripture contradicts itself. If “all” means everybody, as in all of humanity, then there can be no exception and you you place an exception on Jesus, then “all” does not mean “all” as you want it to say.

Are you trying to suggest that I wrote the following??

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

Your argument is with God not me, I’m simply presenting what God has told us in His written word concerning Christ’s sinlessness and the fact that Mary was part of sinful humanity.

Also can I say that this God revealed Truth about Mary does not mean she isn’t truly blessed among women. What a blessing Mary received to be given the wonderful privilege of giving birth to the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Blessed Lord Jesus.

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Emerald, WAS the ENTIRE population of Judea baptized by St. John? remember that Pharisees were also a part of the population, or could the use of the term ALL bit a bit of hyperbole to illustrate an important point?

In the following verse you will be able to see that sin is mentioned with death.

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

It is not hyperbole to say death passed upon all men, nor is the all have sinned hyperbole. Paul was inspired by God to write the Truth that all have sinned.

Now before someone says what about Enoch and Elijah, well we know that God tells us in His written word that He brought them straight up to heaven. They would have died like all the rest of humanity if God had not brought them straight up to heaven.

.