P
PJM
Guest
Excellent point! 
THANKS,
pat /PJM
- Status
Excellent point! THANKS,
pat /PJM
L
Luvtosew
Guest
and you have no proff that she was sinless. No Jesus would not be included because he was God, so he is the only exception. All others in the bible we have to assume were quilty or original sin, and that includes Mary , as they were all born of humans.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Ah no! Because to your interpretation,Jesus would be included because âallâ meansâŚALL! Jesus was not 100% human? Exactly! You assume all others. Your interpretation would render that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, mentally ill children,etc,etc. I do have scriptural support and it is a lot more than the opponents can present. So God CANNOT & WOULD NOT make an exception for Mary?
The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israelâs high priesthood).** Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood**, and Psalm 132:8 said, âArise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.â If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new arkâwho carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell âin a body under debt of sinâ (Wis. 1:4 NAB).
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is all about Jesus. It was because he was to take on his human nature in her womb that God deigned her to be free of all sin and therefore âfull of graceâ (Lk 1:28). It would be unthinkable, given the revelation that we have in Scripture and Tradition, for him to be conceived in anything but a holy place. David, Abraham, and Moses werenât called to give birth to Jesus.
P
Pheonix
Guest
Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 make it pretty clear that Mary was without sin.
Further, the idea of the Immaculate Conception was believed by the Early Church Fathers and a few of the Reformers, such as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. If the âall have sinnedâ text-proof was a problem for Maryâs Immaculate Conception, then why did these astounding biblical scholars teach that she was, indeed, sinless?
You canât escape the logic of the argument at hand. "Allâ indicates an absolute statement. In other words, the use of the word âallâ means there are no exceptions. Logically, if âallâ in Romans literally means âall,â then you HAVE to include Jesus because He was perfectly human. No exceptions means there are no exceptions. Period.
However, the âallâ in Romans doesnât literally mean âall.â It means âmany.â As some have pointed out, there are exceptions to this âall have sinnedâ verse: Jesus, children below the age of reason/accountability, and those who are afflicted with a child-like mindset due to a mental disorder.
Further, if Mary was a sinner, then we have to logically conclude that Jesus would have inherited His motherâs sinful human nature, since Original Sin gets passed on through the flesh. It doesnât matter that Jesus is perfectly divine; He is still perfectly human, also. Him being God does not somehow cancel out His human nature.
Plus, Jesus was not the only one who was without sin. Mary is without sin, as myself and many people on this thread have demonstrated already. Adam and Eve, when they were first created, were without sin. Scripture even has several recorded instances of people being called âblameless before God,â such as Elizabeth and her husband.
Thereâs are a few problems with this argument:
- Jesus was born of a human too. Further, according to you, He was born of a fallen human being. Therefore, your logic dictates that Jesus must have been a sinner too, especially because He was perfectly human.
- Explain why some people, like Elizabeth and her husband, were described as being âblameless before God.â
- Scripture makes it quite clear that God does not tolerate sin. Therefore, there is no logical reason as to why God would allow His only begotten Son to be conceived, carried, and birthed by a sinful woman.
P
PJM
Guest
REALLY
HERE MY FRIEND ARE TWO PROOFS:
- [26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virginâs name was Mary.*** [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.*** [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. [31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God".
- Understanding Godâs Divine Nature is the second proof:
God MUST remain ALWAYS Perfect inorder to be God
God Literally COULD NOT permit God to become Incarnate of a women whom He ahd not ALREADY made perfect. IMPOSSIBLE!
Mary is the Choice of Godâs Iniative; NOT Maryâs
God could have chosen someone else with BILLIONS of choices; BUT God Choose Mary
Mary HAD TO by her own freewill choice cooperate fully; completely, constantly W/O exception ever with Godâs Devine Will for Her.
Mary was Perfected through the Merits of her Savior SOn. Keep in mind: Times does not exist for God; everything is âpresent time.â and that God can do ANY good thing.
So dear friend, the proof is there. The question is will you now accept it?
Godâs continued Blessings,
pat /PJM
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
One must be careful to not fall into Nestorianism when understanding the nature of Christ.
Do you think that Jesus can be born from sin?
Peace,
Jose
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I sure do know Jesus was born without sin and could not sin, he is God, and God can do anything. Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, not usual conception which happens in the fallopian tubes. Also no Y chromosone , except for God his father. The fetus gets his blood from the father , no blood is mixed between the fetus and the mother , just nourishment and O2,
so for Jesus to be sinless he could not of had Marys DNA, but yes I do believe she was a virgin. I also believe she is very special and cared for Jesus. Mary herself said she needed a Saviour and she got one. Mary was born of human just like us, and if one believe Gen, we believe Adam and Eve were the beginning of the human race so we are all decendants born with original sin, or the sin nature what some call it. So while Mary is certaintly a very special blessed woman and the earth mother of Jesus , I donât understand why the Church finds she is without sin.
Peace
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
So you believe that Mary was under Satanâs dominion then?
P
Pheonix
Guest
And by saying God could not have made Mary sinless, you are limiting His power.
As I said before, God does not tolerate sin; Scripture makes this blatantly clear. Therefore, there is no logical reason as to why God would allow His only begotten Son to be conceived, carried, and birthed by a sinful woman. Thatâs why itâs only fitting that God saved Mary from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception.
God does not tolerate sin, and yet He put His only begotten Son in the womb of a sinful woman? Thatâs a contradiction if I ever saw one.
This is not scientifically accurate, not 100 percent at least. Blood is mixed between the fetus and the mother during certain circumstances, such as abortion, miscarriage, and birth. So yes, Jesus did have Maryâs blood running through Him, which is how He inheirted a human nature.
Except Jesus did have Maryâs DNA; He could not have been perfectly human if He did not. He inherited His human nature from His mother.
As I mentioned before, this is faulty logic. Mary needing a Savior does not rule out the possibility of her Immaculate Conception.
Again, this is not a good argument. Jesus Himself was born of human just like us. Therefore, your logic dictates that He too was a sinner.
We believe in Maryâs Immaculate Conception because of Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, and the Tradition of the Apostles as evidenced by the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
S
stewstew03
Guest
The mother also passes along red blood cell antigens.
You make it seem as if Jesus was not human at all (this heresy is known as Monophysitism).
Do you deny that Mary is the Theotokos?
Note: You may want to start a thread if you want to discuss Maryâs sinlessness, itâs only tangentially related to the topic of this thread.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I firmly believe Jesus was Divinity and bodily human, but Iâm repsonding to another post here,
we according to the RCC are all born with origianal sin, so Mary had to be also, but God created Adam, so there is no need to believe that Mary had to be sinless, as God implanted Jesus in her. God would have perfect DNA and you canât have perfect DNA if born from the dna of a human being, which is why everyone in the Bible sinned and were sinners, except for Our Lord and Saviour.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I think it is a lot harder to:
- believe that the Word God became flesh from sin
- believe that God (Who is sinless) would become flesh by making that flesh without sin.
And that Mary was just as sinful as one of us?
L
Luvtosew
Guest
God himself, no I donât believe God became flesh from sin,I think it is a lot harder to:
than it is to:
- believe that the Word God became flesh from sin
You donât think it is possible for God to have kept Mary from sin?
- believe that God (Who is sinless) would become flesh by making that flesh without sin.
And that Mary was just as sinful as one of us?
Has God kept anyone from sin in the Bible?? Was Mary sinful, no but she was a human being,
and she was a woman who loved God, and he blessed her as the earth Mother of our Lord.
Why do we not think God would of been born to human beings as he himself became one, although he could not sin or had sin.
Did Abraham not sin, how about Issac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, are we not all decendants of Adam and Eve, is that not what the RC teaches. Because Mary may of not been perfect doesnât not make her special in the eyes of God, apparently he found her special to him.
Does God expect perfection from us, no as that would be impossible.
I think we run into a problem if Mary was free of sin , then her parents had to be and their parents. Would that not be breaking the law of God, to make some people special. God choose people, he didnât make them have faith and believe.
I donât feel this in anyway says anything bad about Mary, we all know God found her special and blessed her to be his earth Mother.
S
stewstew03
Guest
I guess this is all just your personal opinion�
What is your personal opinion/interpretation of the following passage:
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:5-6[/BIBLEDRB]
If no person is righteous, including Mary, what does this passage mean?
S
stewstew03
Guest
Luvtosew,
- God is omniscient, omnipotent, and consistent.
- God chose Mary to bring His Son into the world.
- Actual Sin separates us from God, and the stain of Original Sin makes us inclined to oppose God.
- God would not create a mother who is inclined to oppose or reject her own son.
- Jesus was Maryâs son.
- Mary was not inclined to oppose or reject her own Son, Jesus.
- God is omniscient, omnipotent, and consistent; therefore, God would not create Mary with the stain of Original Sin, while at the same time creating her for the purpose of carrying His Son in her womb, and bringing His Son into the world.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Since you brought what the RC teaches
.From catholic.com:
The Immaculate Conception
Itâs important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christâs conception in Maryâs womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived âby the power of the Holy Spirit,â in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stainâthatâs what âimmaculateâ means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by Godâs grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angelâs greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, âHail, full of grace, the Lord is with youâ (Luke 1:28). The phrase âfull of graceâ is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, âfull of grace,â is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of âhighly favored daughter.â Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for âdaughterâ). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning âto fill or endow with grace.â Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angelâs visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
Fundamentalistsâ Objections
Fundamentalistsâ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Maryâs consequent sinlessness is that we are told that âall have sinnedâ (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her âspirit rejoices in God my Saviorâ (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.
Letâs take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special wayâby anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been âsavedâ 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 Christâs grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
ContinuedâŚ
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
From previous post:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was âredeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Sonâ (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
But what about Romans 3:23, âall have sinnedâ? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he canât sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they âhad done nothing either good or badâ (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paulâs statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paulâs comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Maryâbut she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was âinventedâ at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18â20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
You can find the rest here:
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was âredeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Sonâ (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
But what about Romans 3:23, âall have sinnedâ? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he canât sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they âhad done nothing either good or badâ (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paulâs statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paulâs comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Maryâbut she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was âinventedâ at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18â20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.
You can find the rest here:
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Hereâs a link for Pope Pius IX regarding the âIneffabilis Deusâ and the Immaculate Conception.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
N
Nicea325
Guest
Lutosew:
The above argument is weak and for several reasons.
- By stating if Mary was free of sin,it absolutely means her parents and their parents were also free of sin. So God cannot prevent one girl from original sin simply because it would mean also her parents had to be born of original sin?
- By making such a claim absolutely means God is limited and therefore cannot be an Eternal God with endless limits.
- Such a position would render that God the Creator of everything seen and unseen is NOT capable of simply picking ONE person and not be born with original sin.
- Status