Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Richard_Kastner]

You admit that Jesus was born without sin but appearing to be man in all ways, the likeness of sinful flesh. He was created without sin. How did that happen? What was the cause of that creation with the resultant sinless nature?

That same cause can create a mother in the likeness of sinful flesh except not be God/woman just woman, born of sinful parents because in God all things are possible.

You are handcuffed by your reason. I am not. I believe that God could, did and provided Mary with the gift that you deny.

If Jesus was born of a woman without sin and was born in the likeness of sinful flesh then his appearance does not contradict scripture based on Mary’s sinless nature. It only causes you mental consternation, not me.

Wow, Cop, You are basically saying here that you are not fettered on this point with reason, and because of that you are free to entertain your unreasonable premise. That being that despite all the scriptural evidence to the contrary Mary was sinless. Well, I guess you got me there. If you are willing to throw reason (and scripture) to the wind your position can make perfect sense, if only to you.

 

[Hesychios]

To be fair to Richard’s line of thinking, and of course God’s omnipotence, if God wanted to be born of a sinful mother, God could have, for nothing is impossible for God, but it makes way more sense that God wouldn’t…

It is true that for God all things are possible. Jesus could have sprung out of a stone, so too could Saint Mary, God can do that.

Orthodox generally believe the Holy Theotokos was sinless throughout her life, from birth until death. (We don’t need a dogma to understand this, we pray it.)

That means she committed no overt sins, it does not require her to be different from anyone else, all are born in the same state free of the guilt or responsibility for Adam’s transgression.

Therefore, no special exemption is necessary.

Protestants and Roman Catholics alike are of a different opinion about First Sin, which makes it an argument Orthodox do not participate in, it is irrelevant. As for what makes sense, well … that is a matter of opinion, quite literally.

 

[Frankk]

So, then, according to your reasoning, in order for Mary to be born sinless, she must have been born of sinless parents, and of course her parents must have been born of sinless parents and so

Richard, Each of your responses indicates your complete lack of understanding. It also highlights the problems with Sola Scriptura. You have interpreted MY reasoning to conform to your interpretation of how YOU see things. Are you beginning to recognize the pattern?

Mary was conceived immaculately. This does not mean her parents were sinless. Presumably you believe Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus. If you believe this ‘ridiculous’ idea, the idea of an immaculate conception certainly poses no problems for you.

wait that inevitably brings us back to Adam and Eve. We know that they weren’t sinless.

Oh but they were! They lived in ‘Paradise’ and sin only came into the picture when they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

[CopticChristian]

Wow, Cop, You are basically saying here that you are not fettered on this point with reason, and because of that you are free to entertain your unreasonable premise. That being that despite all the scriptural evidence to the contrary Mary was sinless. Well, I guess you got me there. If you are willing to throw reason (and scripture) to the wind your position can make perfect sense, if only to you.

Is it reasonable to believe that God became man?

Is it reasonable to believe that God/man died on a cross?

Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus God/man came back from the dead?

Is it reasonable to believe much of what you profess?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, Each of your responses indicates your complete lack of understanding. It also highlights the problems with Sola Scriptura. You have interpreted MY reasoning to conform to your interpretation of how YOU see things. Are you beginning to recognize the pattern?

Ok, time for a review. This from a previous post.

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
So, are you saying that Jesus did not come in the likeness of His mother’s flesh?

Quite the opposite. And, of course, Jesus is God. He was/is sinless which rather proves that Mary must also have been conceived sinless. He could not possibly have been born of a sinful mother.

You say here “He (Jesus) was/is sinless which rather proves that Mary must also have been conceived sinless.” The only criteria that you use for Mary to be sinless is the fact that Jesus was sinless and you say that this fact “proves” that Mary was sinless, yet you refuse to allow that same criteria when I apply it to Mary’s ancestors. Your right, I am beginning to see a pattern here, one of unreasonableness. Get in line with Coptic Christian.

Mary was conceived immaculately. This does not mean her parents were sinless.

According to you it does. " Jesus is God. He was/is sinless which rather proves that Mary must also have been conceived sinless."

Presumably you believe Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus. If you believe this ‘ridiculous’ idea, the idea of an immaculate conception certainly poses no problems for you.

I believe in the virgin birth because the bible says Jesus was born of a virgin. I don’t believe in the sinlessness of Mary because the bible says contrary.

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Oh but they were! They lived in ‘Paradise’ and sin only came into the picture when they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree.

So you are saying that they were sinless till they sinned. Quite true, but according to your reasoning they had to be sinless their whole lives, and we know that that is not true, because they died.

Rom.6
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Is it reasonable to believe that God became man?

It is because the bible says so.

Is it reasonable to believe that God/man died on a cross?

It is because the bible says so.

Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus God/man came back from the dead?

It is because the bible says so.

Is it reasonable to believe much of what you profess?

It is because I believe in what the bible says.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is because the bible says so.

It is because the bible says so.

It is because the bible says so.

It is because I believe in what the bible says.

What is your surety that the Bible is truly the word of God and you can trust what you can believe from this book?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

What is your surety that the Bible is truly the word of God and you can trust what you can believe from this book?

The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things. Why do you ask?

 

[joe370]

That means she committed no overt sins, it does not require her to be different from anyone else, all are born in the same state free of the guilt or responsibility for Adam’s transgression.

Therefore, no special exemption is necessary.

No original sin - correct? I understand that that is what the church to which you belong, teaches, and why you must believe it. I am the same way vis-a-vis the CC.

 

[CopticChristian]

The 100% accuracy of it’s prophecy’s. If the prophecy’s of past events came true, I can trust it’s veracity for future events. If it proves true in prophecy, I believe that it is the word of truth in all things. Why do you ask?

Tell me about these prophecies that are 100% accurate.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Tell me about these prophecies that are 100% accurate.

That’s for another thread.

 

[Frankk]

It is because the bible says so.
It is because I believe in what the bible says.

Seredipitously, your reply highlights your problem. Let us assume you and I are 1st Century Christians who are discussing the idea of Mary’s sinlessness. What scripture would we rely on? All we have as sacred scripture, the TANAKH or OT. There was no New Testament.

But let’s fast forward and assume we are 2nd/3rd Century Christians. In discussion you might quite legitimately support your case with verses from, say,the Gospel of Peter or of Thomas. I might counter with verses from the Gospels of Philip or of Mary Magdalene. These gospels existed and were in use by early Christians. Where is Sola Scriptura in all this???

Of course the NT we have today and which virtually all Protestant denominations accept as sacred scripture wasn’t defined as Canon until the 5th Century following a number of Councils - of the Catholic Church!! And even then the idea of Sola Scriptura wasn’t even on the radar - if you’ll excuse the anachronism.

If you accept things ‘because the Bible says so’, then you have a major problem:
Scripture tells us Christ left a Church with ‘divine authority to govern in his name’
(Mt 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk 10:16)
And, of course, he promised his Church would last until the end of time (Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16-18)

In addition you have to explain away 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6 where the Bible tells us (and you!) that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture "…hold fast the tradtion which you have bee taught whether by word or our epistle.
So what is this tradition, passed on by word? Clearly it isn’t written in the Bible.

And, of course, you can quote nothing from the Bible which talks of the doctrine of sola scriptura!!! By your own logic if the Bible doesn’t tell us then it can’t be true. In fact, the Bible tells us we need more than just the Bible alone! The Bible confirms that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in scripture (Jn 21:25) and that we must hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25)

In 2 Pet 3:15-16 we are warned that Sacred Scripture can be very difficult to interpret, which strongly suggests the need for an authoritative interpreter (not just Richard Kastner who interprets on his own authority!?)

Finally, 1 Tim 3:15 reassures us that the Church is the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth’.

Now bearing in mind all this is in the Bible how do sola scriptura afficionados explain it all away? I guess one or two passages could be given bizarre interpretations but, taken as a whole, it is manifestly clear that sola scriptura is an unsupportable doctrine - not least because sola scriptura itself is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Hesychios]

No original sin - correct? I understand that that is what the church to which you belong, teaches, and why you must believe it. I am the same way vis-a-vis the CC.

Not exactly. We tend to call it 'First Sin".

Adam sinned, we suffer disabilities for it. But Adam the perpetrator has already been forgiven, he is in heaven.

Still, we have our weaknesses and Saint Mary of Nazareth is the same. To the extant that one of us is guilty, we all are … to the extant that one of us suffers for it, we all do. Life is a struggle, salvation is a process, some make better progress than others.

Saint Mary of Nazareth did not sin through her life, according to tradition, but this is not attributed to a unique condition of her soul before birth. She was born the same as every other woman, like her own mother.

Thus (to quote Father Thomas Hopko) “The Theotokos is not the great exception of mankind but the great example to mankind.”

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s for another thread.

I started a new thread per your request and invite you to outline these prophecies and why you with reason believe these things.

 

[Marybeloved]

Saint Mary of Nazareth did not sin through her life, according to tradition, but this is not attributed to a unique condition of her soul before birth. She was born the same as every other woman, like her own mother.

Thus (to quote Father Thomas Hopko) “The Theotokos is not the great exception of mankind but the great example to mankind.”

In the CC, Mary’s not sinning is not attributed to a “unique condition of her soul before birth”, either. Her Immaculate Conception means that she was like Adam and Eve at the garden before the taste of the forbidden fruit- It does not account for her own choices of obedience to God throughout her life, choices that were contrary to those of Adam and Eve who were in the exact same state of grace as she was. These choices of hers (never sinning) were made as freely by her as the choice to eat the forbidden fruit was made by Adam and Eve.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not exactly. We tend to call it 'First Sin".

Adam sinned, we suffer disabilities for it. But Adam the perpetrator has already been forgiven, he is in heaven.

Still, we have our weaknesses and Saint Mary of Nazareth is the same. To the extant that one of us is guilty, we all are … to the extant that one of us suffers for it, we all do. Life is a struggle, salvation is a process, some make better progress than others.

Saint Mary of Nazareth did not sin through her life, according to tradition, but this is not attributed to a unique condition of her soul before birth. She was born the same as every other woman, like her own mother.

Thus (to quote Father Thomas Hopko) “The Theotokos is not the great exception of mankind but the great example to mankind.”

This is concise, to the point, and makes sense. If by one man sin entered the world and by one man’s obedience we were made righteous, I would ask, not really wanting an answer, when did that obedience begin and when did the making righteousness commence in time for creation?

 

[Marybeloved]

JohnVIII, your focus on Mary, the mother of God, as being part of the Trinity, is quite disturbing. Please admit right now that Mary is not God!!! If you believe that Mary, the mother of God, is part of the Trinity, then please say so right now!!!

Yes or no?

I get the feeling that you are either being an agitator or a man of supreme principle. If the latter, and you really believe that Mary should be worshiped, like the holy spirit, (as a God) - then I apologize. You are entitled to believe what you believe my friend.

If you see Mary as being God, go for it, but respect the catholic position that rejects that belief!

I would say that any one who believes that Our Blessed Lady is 1) Divine! 2) God! or 3) a part of the Blessed Trinity! … is a believer in an entirely different religion! No form of Legitimate Christianity could accept this in the least!!!

 

[Frankk]

I would say that any one who believes that Our Blessed Lady is 1) Divine! 2) God! or 3) a part of the Blessed Trinity! … is a believer in an entirely different religion! No form of Legitimate Christianity could accept this in the least!!!

I think your view is wholeheartedly supported by Blessed John Henry Newman who said, “There are not more than a few hundred people who disagree with the Catholic Faith, but there are millions who disagree what they THINK the Catholic Church is”.

 

[joe370]

Seredipitously, your reply highlights your problem. Let us assume you and I are 1st Century Christians who are discussing the idea of Mary’s sinlessness. What scripture would we rely on? All we have as sacred scripture, the TANAKH or OT. There was no New Testament.

But let’s fast forward and assume we are 2nd/3rd Century Christians. In discussion you might quite legitimately support your case with verses from, say,the Gospel of Peter or of Thomas. I might counter with verses from the Gospels of Philip or of Mary Magdalene. These gospels existed and were in use by early Christians. Where is Sola Scriptura in all this???

Of course the NT we have today and which virtually all Protestant denominations accept as sacred scripture wasn’t defined as Canon until the 5th Century following a number of Councils - of the Catholic Church!! And even then the idea of Sola Scriptura wasn’t even on the radar - if you’ll excuse the anachronism.

If you accept things ‘because the Bible says so’, then you have a major problem:
Scripture tells us Christ left a Church with ‘divine authority to govern in his name’
(Mt 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk 10:16)
And, of course, he promised his Church would last until the end of time (Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16-18)

In addition you have to explain away 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6 where the Bible tells us (and you!) that Sacred Tradition is to be followed alongside Sacred Scripture "…hold fast the tradtion which you have bee taught whether by word or our epistle.
So what is this tradition, passed on by word? Clearly it isn’t written in the Bible.

And, of course, you can quote nothing from the Bible which talks of the doctrine of sola scriptura!!! By your own logic if the Bible doesn’t tell us then it can’t be true. In fact, the Bible tells us we need more than just the Bible alone! The Bible confirms that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in scripture (Jn 21:25) and that we must hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25)

In 2 Pet 3:15-16 we are warned that Sacred Scripture can be very difficult to interpret, which strongly suggests the need for an authoritative interpreter (not just Richard Kastner who interprets on his own authority!?)

Finally, 1 Tim 3:15 reassures us that the Church is the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth’.

Now bearing in mind all this is in the Bible how do sola scriptura afficionados explain it all away? I guess one or two passages could be given bizarre interpretations but, taken as a whole, it is manifestly clear that sola scriptura is an unsupportable doctrine - not least because sola scriptura itself is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

Awesome post brother, in my opinion. All reasons why I now belong to the CC.

 

[Hesychios]

In the CC, Mary’s not sinning is not attributed to a “unique condition of her soul before birth”, either. Her Immaculate Conception means that she was like Adam and Eve at the garden before the taste of the forbidden fruit- .

In the Orthodox understanding, all of us are in that same condition, or none of us. Not Saint Mary one way, and everyone else another.