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

[guanophore]

I think I understood you correctly.
The bible is silent about Mary’s sinlessness. You keep insisting that since its not mentioned in the bible that she is, then she must have been one who was not sinless.
I have already read protestant apologetics on this topic, and the disservice to scripture they commit in this case.

I don’t think this is true. When the angel greets Mary with the title “Full of Grace”, he does so because she is in that state. Since the fullness of grace is the opposite of sin, Mary was sinless at the time of the Greeting. This cannot happen unless God preserves a person from sin.

 

[ConallCernach]

Fair warning Conall, I don’t think he’s actually considering your responses before replying to them. Notice how the OP’s last reply didn’t even address the point you brought up? This is fairly common practice to those who spout the fundamentalist talking points. If they were actually trying to reason with you (rather than carry on with a monologue), they’d quickly realize just how flawed their initial premise was in the first place.

Thanks for the heads up, but he certainly isn’t the first troll I’ve encountered discussing things like this. Usually once outnumbered enough, they give up. However I figured this wasn’t the case. But I figure that I’m not arguing for him, but for those who simply read the topics. Then hopefully his posts won’t affect their faith since they can see that they are answered.

Pax

Conall Cernach

 

[emeraldisle]

I don’t think this is true. When the angel greets Mary with the title “Full of Grace”, he does so because she is in that state. Since the fullness of grace is the opposite of sin, Mary was sinless at the time of the Greeting. This cannot happen unless God preserves a person from sin.

Are you sure about the “full of grace” translation??

"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation ‘full of grace,’ opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises ‘endowed with grace; dearly loved.’ The MNT task force translates it as ‘graciously favored by God,’ while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, ‘full of grace,’ is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’) [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2490

.

 

[exoflare]

Thanks for the heads up, but he certainly isn’t the first troll I’ve encountered discussing things like this. Usually once outnumbered enough, they give up. However I figured this wasn’t the case. But I figure that I’m not arguing for him, but for those who simply read the topics. Then hopefully his posts won’t affect their faith since they can see that they are answered.

Pax

Conall Cernach

Fair enough. I’m more just frustrated with the number of people who post this topic repeatedly like it’s something new and shocking LOL

 

[Nickkname]

Emeraldisle:

Let me break the news down to you in as simple a way as I can…

You are not going to convince us Catholics that we’re wrong
You are not going to prove that the doctrines and dogmas of the Church are false (the Immaculate Conception is a dogma, btw)
You are not going to hurt this site, slow it down, or offend us in any way by making ridiculous claims against the Catholic Faith
You are not going to waste our time because we’ll gladly share with you the splendor of truth
You are not going to win any victory against Catholicism
You are not going to sow doubts into the mind of any Catholic

So whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish, it’s pathetic and it won’t work. Unless you’re trying to waste your own time, in which case, you’re going to succeed 100%.

 

[ConallCernach]

Fair warning Conall, I don’t think he’s actually considering your responses before replying to them. Notice how the OP’s last reply didn’t even address the point you brought up? This is fairly common practice to those who spout the fundamentalist talking points. If they were actually trying to reason with you (rather than carry on with a monologue), they’d quickly realize just how flawed their initial premise was in the first place.

Was Mary a perpetual child??

Was Mary suffering from a hard mental illness??

The fact is that Mary was part of sinful humanity and God clearly tells us in His written word that all of humanity is sinful.

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

and God clearly tells us in His written word that Jesus was sinless although He was part of sinful humanity.

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

Hahaha
Mary of course was neither. But she was another exception. What I’m doing here is trying to prove is that they phrase:
“All have sinned” is actually “All have sinned*”
Mary was the purified tabernacle preserved from sin for the sake of baring her child Christ Jesus. In the Old Testament we are told that the Holy of Holy is kept pure, even when God is not present in it. =D

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And St. Paul is referencing Psalm 14 (among others) in which the use of ‘all have sinned’ clearly does not indicate ‘all’ as you use the term.

In Luke 2, the perfect passive participle of the Greek which is translated correctly as ‘full of grace’ indicates that Mary was indeed sinless. “Full of” means that whatever substance completely fills, and thus there is no room for any other substance. Grace, as Scripture also tells us, cannot exist with sin.

Therefore Scripture tells us that Mary was sinless.

To make it even clearer, Scripture also tells us (so that we do not get confused by modern cherry pickers taking verses out of context) that “all” does not necessarily mean ALL in a given context, and further, that “all are sinful” does not necessarily mean ALL, as Psalm 14 specifically shows that there is a ‘just’ as opposed to the ‘all have sinned’, so obviously if there are some just, then not ‘all’ can sin in the way that YOU have erroneously posited.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[ConallCernach]

Fair enough. I’m more just frustrated with the number of people who post this topic repeatedly like it’s something new and shocking LOL

Hahaha, oh I hear that.
I’m still a newbie here trying to earn some wings. =p

I’d like to make it clear that his points are answerable, I was a lurker on here for a bit, so I’d like to do it for people like I was. =D

 

[guanophore]

Are you sure about the “full of grace” translation??
.

The nature of Mary was not determined by “Romans” as you seem to imply. In fact, the Church’s understanding of Mary was developed from defining the nature of Christ. The term “Theotokos” (God-Bearer) came out of the East, and not the Latin West. Therefore, if you wish to level an accusation, you will have to level it at the Eastern Churches as well as the Latin.

Ive read all the RCC arguments against Gods Truth that all of humanity is sinful. Ive yet to see any evidence from Gods written word that proves that Mary was sinless. However there is plenty of evidence that proves Mary was a human and so she was part of sinful humanity.

Again, the arguments are not “Roman”, but Catholic. The argument is about your flawed understanding about human nature and original sin.

Since Catholics are not limited to the portion of revelation that is contained in scripture, it does not concern us that “proof” cannot be found there. For us, it is an article of faith.

What is your goal here? If you wish to believe that Mary was sinful, are you not free to do so? why did you start this thread?

 

[ConallCernach]

The nature of Mary was not determined by “Romans” as you seem to imply. In fact, the Church’s understanding of Mary was developed from defining the nature of Christ. The term “Theotokos” (God-Bearer) came out of the East, and not the Latin West. Therefore, if you wish to level an accusation, you will have to level it at the Eastern Churches as well as the Latin.

That was Ignatius of Antioch who coined the term wasn’t it?

 

[emeraldisle]

Hahaha
Mary of course was neither. But she was another exception. What I’m doing here is trying to prove is that they phrase:
“All have sinned” is actually “All have sinned*”
Mary was the purified tabernacle preserved from sin for the sake of baring her child Christ Jesus. In the Old Testament we are told that the Holy of Holy is kept pure, even when God is not present in it. =D

Mary was the purified tabernacle preserved from sin for the sake of baring her child Christ Jesus. In the Old Testament we are told that the Holy of Holy is kept pure, even when God is not present in it.
ConallCernach Chapter 12 verse 6 ???

 

[ConallCernach]

Mary was the purified tabernacle preserved from sin for the sake of baring her child Christ Jesus. In the Old Testament we are told that the Holy of Holy is kept pure, even when God is not present in it.
ConallCernach Chapter 12 verse 6 ???

Haha, how ungracious

 

[emeraldisle]

Haha, how ungracious

Please present biblical evidence not fanciful speculation.

.

 

[ConallCernach]

Please present biblical evidence not fanciful speculation.

.

Again it comes to whether things need to be scripturally based, but back to the point.

God was present in the Holy of Holies during the Jewish times and they were to be kept from contact with sin. Aaron was to enter into the Holy of Holies as opposed to ordinary people. Remember that?

 

[guanophore]

That was Ignatius of Antioch who coined the term wasn’t it?

I think Ignatius used ,mater theos (mother of God)’

Many Fathers of the early Christian Church used the title Theotokos for Mary since at least the third century AD.

Origen (d. 254) is often cited as the earliest author to use Theotokos for Mary (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.32 citing Origen’s Commentary on Romans) but the text upon which this assertion is based may not be genuine.

Dionysios of Alexandria used Theotokos in about 250, in an epistle to Paul of Samosata.

Athanasius of Alexandria in 330, Gregory the Theologian in 370, John Chrysostom in 400, and Augustine all used Theotokos.

Theodoret wrote in 436 that calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos is an apostolic tradition.

I wonder if the OP objects to the term?

 

[ConallCernach]

I think Ignatius used ,mater theos (mother of God)’

Many Fathers of the early Christian Church used the title Theotokos for Mary since at least the third century AD.

Origen (d. 254) is often cited as the earliest author to use Theotokos for Mary (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.32 citing Origen’s Commentary on Romans) but the text upon which this assertion is based may not be genuine.

Dionysios of Alexandria used Theotokos in about 250, in an epistle to Paul of Samosata.

Athanasius of Alexandria in 330, Gregory the Theologian in 370, John Chrysostom in 400, and Augustine all used Theotokos.

Theodoret wrote in 436 that calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos is an apostolic tradition.

I wonder if the OP objects to the term?

Likely, because all of the early Christians are really Catholics except for the true followers of the apostles who lived secretly in the fairy glens until Luther found them and learned the truth.

 

[emeraldisle]

Again it comes to whether things need to be scripturally based, but back to the point.

God was present in the Holy of Holies during the Jewish times and they were to be kept from contact with sin. Aaron was to enter into the Holy of Holies as opposed to ordinary people. Remember that?

Now how did you know about God being present in the Holy of Holies and Aaron entering into the Holy of Holies? Of course you know this because God has clearly told us these things in His written word just like He has told us Jesus would be born of a virgin and that all of humanity is sinful.

.

 

[ConallCernach]

Now how did you know about God being present in the Holy of Holies and Aaron entering into the Holy of Holies? Of course you know this because God has clearly told us these things in His written word just like He has told us Jesus would be born of a virgin and that all of humanity is sinful.

.

Haha, you mean “all have sinned*”

So, back to the question, how many neighbours do you kill for skipping Church on Saturday? =D

 

[guanophore]

Now how did you know about God being present in the Holy of Holies and Aaron entering into the Holy of Holies? Of course you know this because God has clearly told us these things in His written word just like He has told us Jesus would be born of a virgin and that all of humanity is sinful.

.

We read it differently.

Tell me what was “sinful” about the parents of St. John the Baptist?

Luke 1:5-7

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years."

Can you explain how a person is “righteous before God” if they are sinful?

 

[ConallCernach]

I’m headed out, it’s midnight here and my battery’s getting low.

See ya viatores tomorrow.

Also, I hope you can explain why you likely reject that the Blessed Sacrament is the body of Christ when He states it soooo many times. =D

Who was it that doesn’t adhere to Scripture? XD

-Conall Cernach