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

  • Thread starter Thread starter emeraldisle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To Tantumergo. So I wrote the Scriptures now instead of the CC? Interesting. Oh, by the way, neither did the CC.
 
Well, let’s just post #414 here then, larry.
quote]
quote]quote=PO18guy;4249172]…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.

SSeason;4247047 said:
[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.

If you had quoted Scripture only, and not your ‘interpretation’ of the Scripture, then snarky little accusations ho ho might be an expected–but not very Christian–comeback.

But you didn’t. And I think we can all see that you intersperse your interpretation of the ‘chapter or verses’ you reference.
 
They can do this one of two ways, by becoming Catholics by abandoning their schism, or they can abandon the Church to the point of atheism. I can’t see much of a middle ground.
Apparently, we must also trust the Lord in these matters. Come, Holy Spirit!
Consequently, we too receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church, if we are joined together by charity, if we rejoice in the Catholic name and faith. Let us believe, brethren; as much as every man loves the Church of Christ, so much has he the Holy Spirit.
–Saint Augustine (Tractatus in Io 32, 8 )​
 
[Angel Gabriel implies…greeting Hail full of grace

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t th CC use this phrase from Gabriel in the Catholic doctrine, the Assumption of Mary? Even if this phrase is used for argument in the sinlessness of Mary, shouldn’t it be used for all believers as stated in Ephesians 1:6 since the exact same Greek term (charitoo) is used in both instances? Can’t have one without the other.
The Catholic doctrine if the nature of Mary comes to us from the Apostles, and cannot be definitively proved from scripture.

Yes, when we are washed in baptism, we are full of grace, just as Mary was. What is different in the way she was created, as were Adam and Eve, is that they had no concupiscense (tendency to sin) that Paul writes is the nature of fallen man in Rom. 7.
[/quote]
 
It appears that this issue has been under discussion for quite some time. I have prayed about this issue and have also searched myself for a definitely answer. The Scriptures do not provide any direct authority for the belief that Mary was born in a sinless state; however, I believe there is indirect Scriptural evidence.
I have always viewed Mary to be a representation of the Ark of the Covenant. When the Father directed the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, it was to be overlaid with gold that had been purified seven times. So to, Mary was to carry the Christ-Child within herself for nine months and should likewise be a spotless and refined vessel.
One additional thought on this issue is that if Mary did have sin within herself, it would mean that she could potentially come under the influence of Satan. If Satan had any influence over Mary, I believe that he would have killed the Christ-Child before He was born. Remember, that after the birth of Jesus, Satan did attempt to kill the Christ-Child be influencing Herrod to kill all male children under the age of two years.

Blessings to all,
John
 
Yes you’re right Scripture,on its own, does not provide direct authority because it does not have it.

But Saint Paul, in Scripture ,does tell us what does have direct authority…

1 **Timothy 3:15 **

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is **the church **of the living God,
**the pillar and support of the truth. **

No where in Scripture does the Bible say that the Bible is the “pillar and support of the truth.” The Bible actually points to the Church.

Why do you think Jesus left us a Church?

** Matthew 16:18-19**
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

So that maybe we would have a place to go when we needed answers to the Bible.

** 2 Peter 1:20 **
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of
one’s own interpretation,

because…

2 Peter 3:15

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are
some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as **they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. **

thats why we need His Church.

**Acts 8:30-31 **

30Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said,
**“Do you understand what you are reading?” **

31And he said,
“**Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” **
And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Scripture points to the Church many times.

Matthew 18:15

15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Galatians 4:19 **
19My dear children, for whom
I am again ****in the pains of childbirth **until
Christ is formed in you,

Do you believe that Saint Paul was in “pains of childbirth”? And without someone in authority would you know that this was a Marian prophecy?

**Isaiah 66:7 **
7 "Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.

Birth pangs describe formation in Christ

**Romans 8:22 **

22For we know that the **whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. **

We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

**Revelation 12:2 **

2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and** multiple **meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel).

The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.
 
Dear Justasking - You state:" Originally Posted by justasking4
Why does the Catholic church baptize its babies?" Short answer - because God said so, so we do so.

Did you make sure the children raised in your house received this gift from God? Or have you witheld it like a self-justified sandhedrin member all this years of your protestant revolt?

Peace,

Gail
 
Dear Justasking - You state:" Originally Posted by justasking4
Why does the Catholic church baptize its babies?" Short answer - because God said so, so we do so.

Did you make sure the children raised in your house received this gift from God? Or have you witheld it like a self-justified sandhedrin member all this years of your protestant revolt?

Peace,

Gail
Quote=OneNow1. YUP ! It’s either what Gail says or, you don’t believe Jesus, and twist His words with some of St.Pauls Epistles, as St.Peter said in: 2 Peter 16.

This is what Jesus has to say in; Matt. 28: 19 -20 " Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
  1. Baptize
    then
  2. Teach
Seems to me baptism was pretty important to Jesus, since he did so Himself.

And in John’s gospel He had the Apostles baptising.

I wonder if there were any infants back then :confused:
Peace, OneNow1
 
guanophore;4254376]The Catholic doctrine if the nature of Mary comes to us from the Apostles, and cannot be definitively proved from scripture.
Again you sow the seeds of confusion. The apostles never taught such a thing about Mary.
Yes, when we are washed in baptism, we are full of grace, just as Mary was. What is different in the way she was created, as were Adam and Eve, is that they had no concupiscense (tendency to sin) that Paul writes is the nature of fallen man in Rom. 7.
Would it not be better to say this is an opinion with any facts to back it up with? 👍
 
Again you sow the seeds of confusion. The apostles never taught such a thing about Mary.
And how in the world would you claim to know this? Were you there? The Church was there, and she knows what the apostles taught, what they received from God.

And is there anything on earth more bitterly ironic than a Protestant making accusations about sowing seeds of confusion? Protestantism is confusion - growing, spreading, unending confusion.
 
God tells us in His written word that Jesus was born of a virgin, He didn’t tell us a sinless virgin.
.
I simply cannot understand why you so terribly wanted Jesus born of a sinful virgin. You’re promoting an idea of a hopelessly “sinful humanity” - and God can do nothing about that!
 
VociMike;4255076]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Again you sow the seeds of confusion. The apostles never taught such a thing about Mary.
VociMike
And how in the world would you claim to know this? Were you there? The Church was there, and she knows what the apostles taught, what they received from God.
The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.
And is there anything on earth more bitterly ironic than a Protestant making accusations about sowing seeds of confusion? Protestantism is confusion - growing, spreading, unending confusion.
Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
 
The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.

Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
Actually we have fragments of writings from the Gospel of Peter, this isn’t canonical because of how little we have I believe. There are also manuscripts which we simply do not have. I suggest reading up on Q. This is would an excellent example of one such manuscript that would have be a good candidate for the canon.

Other things were suggested for the canon because of their teaching importance, like I Clement and the Letters to Antioch.

Pax
 
I simply cannot understand why you so terribly wanted Jesus born of a sinful virgin. You’re promoting an idea of a hopelessly “sinful humanity” - and God can do nothing about that!
What is important is the truth and the truth is that Mary was not sinless for the mere fact the Scriptures never make such a claim for her. Certaintly she was “highly favored” in her role as the mother of Jesus but such a role does not require her to be without sin or that Mary did not have her own children by Joseph. This is certainly the potrait the Scriptures present to us.
 
ConallCernach;4255329]Actually we have fragments of writings from the Gospel of Peter, this isn’t canonical because of how little we have I believe. There are also manuscripts which we simply do not have. I suggest reading up on Q. This is would an excellent example of one such manuscript that would have be a good candidate for the canon.
The “Q” document does not really exist but is used by scholars as a hypothetical theory to explain certain features of the Gospel accounts.
Other things were suggested for the canon because of their teaching importance, like I Clement and the Letters to Antioch.
 
The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.
You clearly still don’t get it. You toss out these statements as if you actually had anything to back them up. How in the wide word do you claim to know what the Church does and does not have from the apostles? Like I asked before, were you there? Because the Church was there.
Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
Any individual can sow confusion. But the Catholic Church cannot sow confusion because she is the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestantism is not the Church founded by Christ, and is in fundamental opposition to that Church, and thus as a movement sows confusion and has been doing so for 500 years, and the confusion grows ever and ever greater as Protestantism rejects ever more of the truth that she inherited from the Church.
 
What is important is the truth and the truth is that Mary was not sinless for the mere fact the Scriptures never make such a claim for her. Certaintly she was “highly favored” in her role as the mother of Jesus but such a role does not require her to be without sin or that Mary did not have her own children by Joseph. This is certainly the potrait the Scriptures present to us.
Do you believe God was born of a sinful virgin?

Just wondering.
 
VociMike;4255368]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The only thing the church has from the apostles is the written NT. To claim there is more is to go beyond what is written and would not be of the apostles.
VociMike
You clearly still don’t get it. You toss out these statements as if you actually had anything to back them up. How in the wide word do you claim to know what the Church does and does not have from the apostles? Like I asked before, were you there? Because the Church was there.
If you are going to claim something is of the apostles that is not recorded in the NT then it is up to you to show exactly what this is. Do you know of something that the apostles specifically taught that is not recorded in the NT?
Quote: justasking4
Are you saying a catholic cannot sow seeds of confusion?
VociMike
Any individual can sow confusion. But the Catholic Church cannot sow confusion because she is the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic church of today is not identical to the church of the NT. The Catholic church of today has doctrines and practices that the NT did not have.
Protestantism is not the Church founded by Christ, and is in fundamental opposition to that Church, and thus as a movement sows confusion and has been doing so for 500 years, and the confusion grows ever and ever greater as Protestantism rejects ever more of the truth that she inherited from the Church.
One of the problems with your statement is that it cannot be supported by its doctrines and practices.Take this topic of Mary being sinless. The NT did not teach such a doctrine about Mary for the mere fact it states all men are born in sin. See Romans 5:12 for example. The NT never makes an exception for Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top