P
PRmerger
Guest
Did you know, Leslie, that when the Angel of Death came to slay the “first born” sons during the Passover that even only sons were killed? Only sons.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Also, did you know that in [BIBLEDRB]Exodus 34:20[/BIBLEDRB] it says that the first born sons were to be sanctified to the Lord. Do you think they waited until a second child was born to see if the first child was really going to be “first”?
Of course not! First born simply means the child who opens the womb of the mother–it gives no indication at all whether more children are forthcoming. Just like Jesus–first born, and only child of the Blessed Mother!
F
FCEGM
Guest
You are unaware, then, that “first born” is a technical term which signifies the child that opens the womb (see Exodus 13:2 and Numbers 3:12) and is not an indication that other children were born to the mother. Further, having a son as “first born” required that this child be “redeemed” (see Exodus 34:20 and Luke 2:22-24)), i.e., “bought back” from God -thus Mary and Joseph bring her First Born to the Temple and paying for Him with two turtledoves.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A common argument used by Fundamentalists [against Mary’s lifelong virginity] concerns the term ‘first-born.’ They say Jesus could not be called Mary’s ‘first-born’ unless there were other children that followed him.
But this is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2, Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the ‘first-born’ son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the ‘first-born’? Hardly.
The first male child of a marriage was termed the ‘first-born’ even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her ‘first-born.’"
The inscription under discussion is not Egyptian in language. It is not about an Egyptian woman. It was found near the site of an ancient Jewish colony in Upper Egypt.
It is a Jewish epitaph or gravestone inscription, dated the second day of the month Mechir (January 25), A.D. 5 and discovered at Tell el Jehudijeh (the Mound of the Jews), the ancient city of Leontopolis. Leontopolis was a Jewish settlement near the southern border of Egypt, the site of a Jewish temple built in 130 B.C.
The inscription was published and analyzed by Lietzmann in the Zeitschrift fër die neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 22, 1923, p. 283. The language is Hellenistic Greek. The deceased woman’s name was Arsinoe (a charming Greek name meaning “woman with uplifted mind”). She had a hard life, says the inscription, and died giving birth to her “firstborn” child (prototokou teknou).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In this thread, it has been shown that:
- The crucifix bearing the woman’s body does not represent Mary; it honors a woman who was crucified after refusing to submit to a marriage she did not desire.
- The “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in scripture were the sons of another Mary.
- The term “first-born” was a technical term that applied even to those sons who were the ONLY sons of their mothers.
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God…All…With the exception of Christ …God did not prevent Mary from sinning because that would be a conntradiction for God , interfearing with our free will, and No where in scripture does it say that He did. He gave all of us a free will including Mary…The immaculate conseption was Christ…He was born without sin…He is the Son of God…Mary was born with original sin, and yes she too needed to recognize Christ as her Saviour, and yes she sinned because it does not say she was sinnless…If she lost her temper…sin, if she told a lie of any kind, sin, etc. …THere was no exception for her. She is not on the same level as Christ and no amount of dogmas, tradition, etc will change that fact. Not even close or she would have been talked about much more…You do not even hear a mention of her after Penacost.
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
Because the doctrine is wrong
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
Your wrong…thank you for your suggestion
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
It too bad that all of the colors and font changes don’t work huh…it would have made things much easier for you…Yes she did have other childre, yes she was a sinner as we are and no she was not assumed into heaven or it would have been documented in the Bible,and she is not mentioned after Pentacost…Now I think that is odd for someone you have elevated as almost an equal to God…
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
All have fallen short of the Glory of God is a general statement of Jews and Gentiles, no exceptions are made, Romans 3 does not say “except for Jesus” or “except for Mary”. You have to rewrite that scripture to apply to Mary and not to Jesus. Not to mention in the bible "“all” does not always literally mean all, it often is used to describe all kinds, or many. The bible says “For the love of money is the root of all evils;” does this have to mean money love is linked to “all evils”?, no it means many in this context since sin can happen without money being involved at all
Even in Judaism they do not believe sinlessness is impossible, in fact Jews believe 4 people were sinless.
Mary specifically called “God my savior” as God was ALREADY her savior, she was saved from ever falling, it is by God’s grace that Mary was Predestined to her position and made an immaculate conception, her body being the New Earth from which the New Adam was formed. If Adam and Eve did not sin and remained sinless it would be by God’s grace that they remain sinless, and God could be called their savior. Her sinlessness in no way is contrary to free will, free will does not equate to sinning, though it often does, the will of Mary, as will all Christians was restored to its state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, having no inclination to sin, Christ says roughly “If the son of Man has set you free, you are free indeed.”
“yes she sinned because it does not say she was sinnless” The bible does not say many things, it also does not say she did sin. Jesus had a temper at the money changes and throw over tables, losing your temper does not necessarily mean you sin.
No one EVER said Mary was on the same level as Christ, non Catholics claim this out of ignorance and assumptions, Mary has always been taught to be a creation of Jesus and not divine. You do not see many important people being talked about after Pentecost, some of the Apostles are never mentioned again. Mary was mentioned by Paul. After pentecost we mostly hear about Paul’s community.
St Paul calls “James, the brother of the Lord” one of the Apostles:
and Matthew 10 i believe lists all the apostles and their parents and the James’ are sons of “Zebedee” and “Alphaeus/Cleophas”:
Compare
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and **Joses **and Judas and Simon?–Mark 6:3
with
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome–Mark 15:40
You will see James and Joses are mentioned together both times, and you will also see that the name Joses is spelled two ways in Mark “Joseph” and “Joses.” The only Joses mentioned in Mary is called the “son of Mary” notice Mark 15 is clearly referring to ANOTHER MARY, one of the women at the Cross
IT is Also interesting to notice that Mary had a “sister” whose name was…MARY! (two girls in the same family with the same name?)
James is the son of Clopas (its linguistically the same name as Alphaeus) and James is an Apostle and James is called the “brother of the Lord”, so brother can refer to RELATIVES.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
More on this in a moment, but I have to deal with the following first:
Well, duh. Jesus is God. Mary is creature. No Catholic “dogmas, tradition, etc” attempt to change that fact. Sheesh.
Now to your opening remarks:
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.
For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.
Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.
Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.
Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, your understanding of "all have sinned’ is wrong - as I proved in the post above.
That makes you “oh for four” in this thread.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Prove it.
I have made the family connections which prove that the “brothers of the Lord” are actually sons of other women. I have shown your error based on the scriptural evidence.
You, on the other hand, have simply made assertions based on what you want to believe because of your animosity toward the Catholic Church.
You’ll need to do better than that to make your case.
Like I said, you’re “oh for four” in this thread.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:coffeeread:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why is that important?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thanks for all this. Leslie won’t address any of it in any substantive way, but your work is good.
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
Yes, they were only son’s, that had sisters…but they were the only son. Yes your right.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If an Israelite woman had only one child, a son, that son was called the “first-born” which was a title given to the child that opened the womb even if no other children were born thereafter.
If the father of that one child, that “first-born” had failed to put the blood of the lamb upon the doorposts and lintels, that child would have died during the passover of the Angel of Death.
Your understanding regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the “brothers of the Lord” was incorrrect, but now you know the truth behind this doctrine.
Hope that helps. :tiphat:
L
Leslie_Polley
Guest
In Matthew 12 46-50…While he yet talked to the people behold his mother and his brethren stood without dwsiring to speak with him. 47. Then one said unto him Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without desiring to speak with thee. 48. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my bretheren? 49. And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.
So does this mean that Mary is not his mother either? Probably not, however she was there with his brothers, and he held non of them above anyone else who did the will of his Father. He did not speak with them…Mary or his brothers…So either he had brothers and Mary was his mother, or not. I think Mary was his mother and he had brothers, but he did not place any of them above the people he was talking to. Interesting isn’t it.
And the only person I had to be submisive to was my husband, and since he has passed away, now its God I am submisive to.
- Status