Romans 3:23

[Rogare]

By the way, let’s not forget that the Bible explicitly states that Stephen was literally full of grace (which is never said of Mary!). Was he born this way, or made this way at a point in time? Did Stephen sin before this time, or did he live sinless? For reference:

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. (Acts 6:8)

Once again, the Greek literally says he was “full of grace” unlike what the angel says to Mary.

 

[ddarko]

Well, since you asked:

Good stuff

So now you also know that there can be exceptions to claims of no-one is without SIN

Got anything similar for Mary?

I have the passage from Luke and what I presented to you above. Why exactly do I need more?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

By the way, let’s not forget that the Bible explicitly states that Stephen was literally full of grace (which is never said of Mary!). Was he born this way, or made this way at a point in time? Did Stephen sin before this time, or did he live sinless? For reference:

Once again, the Greek literally says he was “full of grace” unlike what the angel says to Mary.

Aaah, my dear friend. Actually read the original translation. The word “full of grace” used for Mary HAS NOT BEEN used ANYWHERE else in the Bible.

There are number of threads that discuss this matter on CAF. I suggest you educate yourself

God Bless

 

[Rogare]

How can the Christian community of Rome be aware of the sinless nature of Jesus? For all you know, Jesus could have privately sinned.

Really? Really?! Forgive my lack of charity but this is possibly the dumbest statement I’ve ever read on these forums.

Well I mean if you reason in terms of quantity of reference, you have big problems here.

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly talk about the Holy Trinity for an example. Do you think its also bogus?

There are far, far, far more references to the Trinity than there are to the immaculate conception. If you think the two have equal support then I would recommend you crack open a Bible every once in a while.

 

[Rogare]

Good stuff

So now you also know that there can be exceptions to claims of no-one is without SIN

Yes, I sure can since the Bible states it. The Bible nowhere says that May is without sin.

 

[Rogare]

Aaah, my dear friend. Actually read the original translation. The word “full of grace” used for Mary HAS NOT BEEN used ANYWHERE else in the Bible.

There are number of threads that discuss this matter on CAF. I suggest you educate yourself

God Bless

You obviously have not read anything I said. The word used in Luke 1:28 does not mean full of grace. Period It is kexaritomena which means “highly favored.” Not full of grace. Full of grace is only used for Jesus and Stephen. The Bible does not say Mary was full of grace.

Even Jimmy Akin admits that there is not explicit support for the immaculate conception. I guess you don’t even listen to your own apologists.

I would suggest you keep up with the thread instead of introducing your “Jesus may have sinned” theory. I don’t know how you haven’t fallen into heresy with such deep ignorance.

 

[ddarko]

Really? Really?! Forgive my lack of charity but this is possibly the dumbest statement I’ve ever read on these forums.

Ok dude, I am not sure what your problem is.

You said “People in the community commonly knew about Jesus being sinless”

I merely pointed out that didn’t make sense. People can’t KNOW unless it has been revealed or through Reason.

Now I am not saying it was NOT revealed or cannot be known from Reason. Merely that your assertion that it was common knowledge is bogus.

There are far, far, far more references to the Trinity than there are to the immaculate conception. If you think the two have equal support then I would recommend you crack open a Bible every once in a while.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

How many references do you need to accept something? I mean honestly, what is your point? How does the reference count matter?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Yes, I sure can since the Bible states it. The Bible nowhere says that May is without sin.

I think Luke implies that it is true. Tradition says the rest and the Church has spoken. What more do you want?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

You obviously have not read anything I said. The word used in Luke 1:28 does not mean full of grace. Period It is kexaritomena which means “highly favored.” Not full of grace. Full of grace is only used for Jesus and Stephen. The Bible does not say Mary was full of grace.

Read the following. You are totally off the rockers here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=667791&postcount=10

Even Jimmy Akin admits that there is not explicit support for the immaculate conception. I guess you don’t even listen to your own apologists.

Explicit support where? I really don’t get you.

If you are saying whether it is written in the Bible “Mary Immaculately conceived” then NO. But thats not how we know everything.

There are heresies on Christ’s nature, wills etc. We also have no explicit statement that God is three persons in one. Do you know of any? So NO, those are not explicitly stated in Scripture but we have a God given BRAIN that we can use and a God given Church to guide us.

If you don’t want to use both, then you can indeed be stuck on issues like this. But we have no such problems.

I would suggest you keep up with the thread instead of introducing your “Jesus may have sinned” theory. I don’t know how you haven’t fallen into heresy with such deep ignorance.

I would suggest, you read those references I provided with writings by Church father’s so that you don’t make false assertions on other threads.

I never said Jesus was with sin. Read again. I merely pointed out that one can argue he has sinned as a possible interpretation. Possible interpretations are only limited by ones imagination.

So NO, I have not promoted any heresy. You on the other hand HAVE by suggesting that Mary has sinned.

God Bless

 

[Rogare]

I’m going to bow out of this discussion. I am actively losing brain cells by reading the inane drivel you are attempting to pass off as argumentation. I kindly recommend opening a Bible at least once a day, reading some ECF for yourself, and attempting to critically examine issues. Until then, you will be subsisting merely on the milk of the word. May you grow in knowledge.

 

[ddarko]

I’m going to bow out of this discussion. I am actively losing brain cells by reading the inane drivel you are attempting to pass off as argumentation. I kindly recommend opening a Bible at least once a day, reading some ECF for yourself, and attempting to critically examine issues. Until then, you will be subsisting merely on the milk of the word. May you grow in knowledge.

Considering what you said

"Not only that, but the sources for these Traditions are very late. A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th century Christian would most likely be appalled by such a tradition."

I think its best you bow out of this conversation and READ the list I gave you in Post 80

Oh and don’t mix up Greek next time.

Oh and also, try to understand that there are millions of possible interpretations that you can come up with through your private daily Scripture reading sessions. Ask yourself, how am I going to know which one to accept?

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

There are far, far, far more references to the Trinity than there are to the immaculate conception. If you think the two have equal support then I would recommend you crack open a Bible every once in a while.

Yes…IMPLICIT references,not explicit. Show me ONE verse where it gives the complexity of the three distinct persons of the Trinity?

 

[adrift]

I’m going to bow out of this discussion. I am actively losing brain cells by reading the inane drivel you are attempting to pass off as argumentation. I kindly recommend opening a Bible at least once a day, reading some ECF for yourself, and attempting to critically examine issues. Until then, you will be subsisting merely on the milk of the word. May you grow in knowledge.

I have noticed your penchant for attacks in place of reasoned argument.

 

[adrift]

You obviously have not read anything I said. The word used in Luke 1:28 does not mean full of grace. Period It is kexaritomena which means “highly favored.” Not full of grace. Full of grace is only used for Jesus and Stephen. The Bible does not say Mary was full of grace.

Even Jimmy Akin admits that there is not explicit support for the immaculate conception. I guess you don’t even listen to your own apologists.

I would suggest you keep up with the thread instead of introducing your “Jesus may have sinned” theory. I don’t know how you haven’t fallen into heresy with such deep ignorance.

Jimmy Akin also states that the first written mention is in the 2nd century in the Gospel of James. Highly favored does not convey the meaning. Jimmy Akens said it was more accuretly translated as Lady who has been grace. It is talking about a women who has been graced by God in the past at her birth which continues to effect her in the present. I guess you missed this point when you were listening to it.
The meaning of the word is

1. to make graceful 1a) charming, lovely, agreeable 2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour 3) to honour with blessings

 

[Nicea325]

Jimmy Akin also states that the first written mention is in the 2nd century in the Gospel of James. Highly favored does not convey the meaning. Jimmy Akens said it was more accuretly translated as Lady who has been grace. It is talking about a women who has been graced by God in the past at her birth which continues to effect her in the present. I guess you missed this point when you were listening to it.
The meaning of the word is

Likewise,GOD and sin are mutually exclusive (Rev 21:27). Does not it stand to reason that when GOD created the “New Ark of the Covenant”, the vessel that contained “His Word” (Jesus Christ, John 1:1) that He would be equally or more meticulous in creating it? Can GOD co-exist with original sin in the same vessel, the womb of Mary? That ‘vessel’, Mary, had to be worthy of the ‘Treasure’ she carried, Jesus The Christ, the Word Incarnate.

What is the purpose of Baptism? It is to remove the stain of original sin. When we are baptized, sin goes out and GOD comes in. Baptism to remove sin and allow GOD to come in was not instituted until after Jesus had started His ministry (John 3:22-23, 4:2).
So The Blessed Virgin had to have a stainless sin-free body and soul in order for GOD incarnate to dwell within her. GOD imputes the stain of original sin into the soul of each person He creates. What makes anyone think He could not do so for His Son’s mother as well?

By being “full of Grace”, and being told “the Lord is with thee”, is she not higher than Eve who was never told these things? If so, was Eve created with original sin? Of course not! Then why do many think Mary, who is higher than Eve, was born with original sin? Wouldn’t having original sin make Mary lower than Eve? Eve is a “type” of Mary, who is the “antitype”. “Types” are always inferior to “antitypes” and always point to a much greater reality, and never to a symbol.

GOD will not join Himself with anything defiled, Wis 1:4-5, Isa 59:1-4,
Rom 1:18-32, Rev 21:27.

For these reasons, Mary had to be immaculately conceived: Gen 3:15,
Ex 25:8-40, Psa *4:4,18:23,51:10, Psa 132:8, *Song 4:7, *Wis 1:4, Isa 59:2,
*Ez 44:1-3, Lk 1:28,42, *John 1:1 and 1:14 together, Eph 5:27, Tit 3:7.

 

[Quis_ut_Deus_3]

May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,

A timely reminder from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

I believe the best approach in dealing with non-Catholic interpretations of Holy Scripture is to tenaciously pursue the following line of questioning: namely, who is authorized to correctly interpret the Word of God?

If someone claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we can all claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit…however, the Holy Spirit does not contradict the Holy Spirit, does He?

God bless you,
Quis ut Deus 3

 

[CopticChristian]

So then everyone outside of the audience here is exempt from this generalization (aside from Christ, as I addressed in a previous post)?

Let me be even more specific: is it true or false that every person with a biological dad has a sin nature?

Your question deviates from “all have sinned”. The text in context is either distributive or collective. You are taking it to mean distributive and in context it is collective. In this sense it is all the audience. Your question is a good one and can be answered but does not apply to this verse. To take the verse out of context does not answer your question. If we agree that we are all children of adam then we are all born with original sin. This does not correlate with “all have sinned”. That is a different question. There is no need to fall into the Protestant verse for verse unless you believe that is how we are to be taught from the Bible. An explanation I believe would be more appropriate. In NLP one rule of communication is this “he who reframes the conversation controls the conversation”. In the spirit of love and accurate communication reframing is best.

 

[adrift]

I was rather in a hurry earlier today and was unable to post everything.

This was posted in a thread but I no longer no which thread

The Koine Greek used at the time is different from modern Greek. It is a much more precise language than English. The words used of Jesus in John 1 are Pleres Charis. Pleres means “full” or “lacking nothing” (and is applied also to “truth”). Charis simply means “Grace”.The word used of Mary in Luke 1 is Kecharitomene. It is a complex participle. The root of this word is Charis, meaning Grace. The prefix ‘Ke’ means that the grace was already perfectly present before the angel appeared. The suffix ‘mene’ means that Mary was the recipient of this grace. In other words Kecharitomene shows that Mary was a recipient of a fullness of Grace. The grace was given to her. The perfect tense indicates that this filling with grace is a continuous event that was ongoing before the angel appeared.

Now, in modern Greek, Charis can be translated simply as “favour”. So “Highly-favoured” could be a conceivable translation - but this would only be acceptable if the word “favour” were used as a translation for “Charis” everywhere else in the New Testament. But THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Even those bibles which translate “Charis” as Favour" when referring to Mary, translate it as “Grace” everywhere else. This is highly misleading because in the New Testament the word “Grace” has a particular meaning distinct from “Favour”.

In the New Testament “Grace” is a gift of God that saves from sin and its effects. So translating the word any differently is wrong. The correct translation is rightfully “Full of Grace”.

Jimmy Akin has been linked to as denying this but listen to the link. It is in response to a paticular question. I would like to hear the REST of the program. I think a different prospective would be seen.

---

I found the post Mary “full of grace”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Are you saying that “full of gace” means that the person spoken of never sinned?

 

[ddarko]

Are you saying that “full of gace” means that the person spoken of never sinned?

In the specific wording used (see more here)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=667791&postcount=10

and the fact that it is an Angelic being addressing Mary this way

ewtn.com/library/mary/sttomhmy.htm

It does convey that she must have remained sinless by the fullness of grace.

The above is just one interpretation of the evidence. I am sure you have your own too. You just need a little imagination and some creativity and one can come up with their own. I’ve in-fact heard some pretty imaginative explanations that have been presented by Protestant Apologist. But the question to ask is which one is correct? YOU or the CHURCH?

For a Christian, the only reasonable way to know God’s truths is to give full assent to the Church. So out of the many interpretations you probably have, we choose the one that the Church tells us as correct. NOT the one that you privately pray about and think is right.

Now since I see that your religious affiliation is mentioned as Protestant, this might not sit well with you. But that is a different issue for another thread.

All that has to be done in this thread is show that there are reasonable grounds to think that Mary remained sinless. Now, it has been shown that there is support for such claim in Tradition and Scripture of St. Luke’s Gospel, hence it is REASONABLE.

God Bless