Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Sime]

Romans 3:23
“since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and Romans 3:10 "“None is righteous”

Some people contend that the above verses means that Mary must have sinned. However, consider the following.

… the whole world has gone after him” [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. [1 John 5:19] Does the whole world there mean everybody?

The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile .

As for none being righteous: Luke 1:5-6
"… there was a priest named Zechariah … his wife … Elizabeth. Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Remember the bible says, “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.” (Matthew 12:33) The bible also says, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:18). Jesus is called the fruit of Mary’s womb in Luke 1:42. So if Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb, what does that tell you about the tree (The Blessed Mother)?

 

[Lillie1210]

I like to comment to the person who excluded infants without sin - it’s apparant that this person does not understand that all, all are born under sin because of what Adam and Eve had done - the bible is very clear that there is no one who is righteous, no one is sinless - but except of course Jesus. Why is this difficult to see, We see that there are many scriptures in God’s Word that speaks of this. Anything that goes against God’s teaching is obviously not true. If you rely on God’s Word alone and not by any other teaching, you will understand the truth in it’s fullness. The Word of God is clear, to say that someone else was sinless is to try to equate that person with God = and no one is God other than Jesus Christ. The trinity is three in one, not four in one. All fall short of God’s Glory. I say this with great respect, but all of God’s people must rely only on His Word for truth. God sent his son to the earth and left his Spirit, and it is by his Spirit that we are led. That is it.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Hey Lillie, you might want to reread the posts you are replying to, as you seem to be arguing against things that nobody said.

For one, you argue that babies are born in a state of sin, but you surely know that the Catholic Church already teaches this? You have heard the phrase “Original Sin”? The exception the other poster spoke about is that babies have not sinned, even though they are in a state of sin. This is surely obviously true? Therefore all have not sinned, if “all” means “everyone in the whole world over the whole history of the world”.

Adam and Eve were sinless in the Garden of Eden: are we equating them with God by admitting that? No, we simply say they were sinless humans. Mary was also a sinless human: that doesn’t make her God at all.

You also seem to have ignored all the Bible verses which say particular people are righteous, which have been quoted in other posts. Why do you think those verses are untrue or “not literal”, and yet this one other verse must be taken as having the meaning you say, even when it forces the Bible into contradiction? Truth cannot contradict Truth.

And I’d really hope that if you are computer-savvy enough to find a Catholic forum, you’re also computer-savvy enough to have done a basic search of Catholic beliefs and seen that Mary is not considered God, or a god, or part of the trinity. What are you hoping to achieve?

 

[animalis]

boppaid,

I see that you gave an answer for yourself from what you quoted in Romans. For Jesus was without sin. I heard a well-known apologist give the same answer to that same question with the same verses.

You might want to see the Constitution on Divine Revelation (also called Dei Verbum), paragraph ten, from the Second Vatican Council (all in www.vatican.va). In paragraph ten it explains that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Papal Magisterium are together like a three legged stool. If anyone could remove Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium from Sacred Scripture it would become useless (like a one-legged stool that is missing two legs) and the bible would not make sense.

Try reading Redemptoris Mater by Pope John Paul II. Look at the references in this document and learn to read about Mary in the right light, or again sit on a three-legged stool.

 

[TimothyH]

Assuming that I get to heaven, the application of Jesus’ saving work was applied forward in time to me. For those who lived before Christ and who made it to heaven, the application of Jesus saving work was applied backward in time to them, during their life and at their death. The same is true for Mary. Mary had a savior. Christ’s saving work was applied back in time to Christ’s Mother, to a time before she was born.

If Christ died in 33 AD, and if Joe Schmoe can accept Christ and be saved on June 16, 2012, then why can’t Mary be saved at the moment of her conception?

As to freedome from sin, I have been kept free from the sin of gambling. I have zero interest in gambling. I don’t hate it, I just feel no attraction to it. Stealing too. I never really felt an urge to steal anything. If God can keep me free from the sins of gambling and stealing, then why can he not keep the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity free from all sin?

I really don’t see why people struggle with a doctrine which says Mary was sinless, unless their beef is really with Catholicism.

-Tim-

 

[Eldad]

When the Bible says, all have fallen short of the glory of God, why do Catholics add “but Mary”. The scripture doesn’t say all were going to fall, and all but Mary did because Jesus saved her, but rather all have “fallen”. Notice the past tense? According to the Bible, and this passage specifically, stated that Mary (included in all) fell short of the glory of God. I cannot stress enough this doesn’t fit your view of Mary never sinning. That doctrine and the scripture are in direct opposition! This whole post was started by a lay person noticing this obvious flaw! Also there are clear examples in scripture of Mary’s sin, and nothing to support her sinlessness. for example, Mark 3:21, his family accused him of being out of his mind. (this includes his mother, see v. 31) If saying that God Incarnate is out of his mind does not count as blasphemy, then Im not sure what does.

My other issue is that she is the catholic church pushing the doctrine of her virginity. I mean surely that would been forsaking part of her marital covenant with Joseph? How does that fit in with the idea of in marriage, two flesh become one? On a more practical note, where did Jesus’ brother’s come from? Are you suggesting there were other virgin births?

Finally Jesus himself denies any special favour rest on Mary with his famous line, Who are my mother and brothers? (Mark 3:33), to which the answer is, we are Jesus adopted family by doing his will, therefore there is no special place for his physical family. The main reason why protestants don’t pray to Mary, and indeed the other saints, is because we have direct access to the Holy Trinity.Why would we go to mere humans?

 

[TimothyH]

Finally Jesus himself denies any special favour rest on Mary with his famous line, Who are my mother and brothers? (Mark 3:33), to which the answer is, we are Jesus adopted family by doing his will, therefore there is no special place for his physical family. The main reason why protestants don’t pray to Mary, and indeed the other saints, is because we have direct access to the Holy Trinity.Why would we go to mere humans?

An intepretation of scripture which looks at it through the lense of western culture in the 20th century is bound to be flawed. The Bible is a Jewish document and has to be looked at through the lense of the time, place and culture in which it was produced and through the eyes of those who wrote it and their intended audience.

We have to have Jewish eyes, and put on our Jewish glasses when we read scripture. Remember that Jesus was a rabbi, and Jesus, his Mother and family, and the people to whom he was talking all lived in first century Israel.

Let’s take a look at the whole verse.

His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him. A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers [and your sisters] are outside asking for you.” But he said to them in reply, “Who are my mother and [my] brothers?” And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. [For] whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35)*

Family geneology was extremely important to Jews, so much so that they thought that the sins of one’s parents could be passed onto the Children. Status in civil society was also determined to a large part on who one’s parents were and their place in society. Jesus’s words are a correction of this misguided belief. Remember that Jesus is a rabbi, and that he is teaching.

Jesus’ words are a correction of the Jewish misconcpetion that your geneology, family lineage, or even your nationalsity is what makes you pleasing to God, that just because you are the son of someone who was righteous does not make you righteous and just because your son is someone important, that doesn’t mean that you are pleasing to God. Just because you are from the tribe of Judah doesn’t mean that you are automatically favored by God. That is what the Jews believed. Jesus the rabbi is correcting this line of thinking.

Jesus the rabbi was using the woman’s remark to instruct the crowd that one is not blessed because of a family relationship, in this case the example was Jesus’ mother, but because one hears the word of God (you will concieve in your womb and bear a son) and obeys (Let it be done to me). The inference is that they should be like his Mother, and then they will be similarly blessed.

Remember that in the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the king was the queen. Jews have always held family lineage in high regard, even imputing sin from one generation to the next. Look how many geneologies are in the Bible - so-and-so begat so-and-so. Geneology and family lineage was extremely important in Jewish culture, so much so that Matthew goes into great detail to prove that Jesus was a descendent of King David and therefor a rightful heir to the throne. Luke likewise goes into great detail to prove that Jesus was a descendent of Adam, the perfect man. John simply states…

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God(John 1:1)

That’s it. That’s his geneology. Jesus is God. God doesn’t have a geneology. God started the whole thing.

The point is that as a Jew, the woman is bringing up Mary’s maternal relationship to Jesus as a reason for her blessedness. We have to always remember that the theater upon which the Gospels are played out is Israel, and the players are all Jewish. We have to always read scripture through a Jewish lense. Since Jesus is the King of the Jews and the Queen in the Davidic Kingdom was usually the Mother of the King, the woman states that Jesus’ Mother is blessed, not only to have carried Jesus in her womb, but blessed because of her maternal relationship to Jesus and the fact that this makes her his Queen.

Jesus tells the woman that it is not the genetic, family relationship which makes one blessed, or one’s nationality, but the fact that one hears the word of God and obeys it, and in so doing he points the woman back to His Mother as the perfect example.

Three verses later, with the same crowd gathered around him, Jesus tells the crowd, “There is something greater than Solomon here” (cf Luke 11:31) and, “There is something greater than Jonah here” (cf Luke 11:33). Jesus is proclaiming himself to be a King greater than Solomon, and a prophet greater than Jonah who was able to bring a mighty nation and its king to repentance.

Jesus simply points out that it isn’t a family relationship or nationality which matters to God. Who your mother or father or son or daughter is does not make you pleasing in God’s sight. Jesus tells the crowd that what makes you blessed is your personal behavior, hearing the word of God and obeying it.

Mary heard the word of God and obeyed it.

Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:38)

Mark 3:31-35 points us to Mary as the perfect example.

-Tim-

 

[Eldad]

Im sorry, I don’t doubt your faith to be sincere, but what you just did was eisegesis. For instance in the Luke 11 passage that I think you changed to halfway through your argument, Jesus doesn’t point back to Mary at all. The greek word used there is translated as “on the contrary”, so he is actually flat denying what this woman was saying (her veneration of Mary). To say that Jesus said “on the contrary, Blessed are those who hear the word and obey it,” but was still talking about the mother he just said ‘on the contrary’ about, doesn’t make a lot of sense. You are reading things into the text if you claim that Jesus was talking about Mary here. Same with your eisegesis of the Mark 3:31-33 passage. Your right that Jewish people had the beliefs you were stating, but to ignore the fact that Jesus was instituting a new family, one who’s importance and relationship ran deeper than blood, is to ignore what the text plainly states. I see you also ignored the earlier passage that leads to this one, where his family states he is out of his mind. In fact, this is a grievance so large, that Mark uses his sandwich technique to fill out this issue of his biological family with the Pharisee’s saying he is using the spirit of Beelzebub! That is a serious offence, but by placing them together in this writting style, Mark is actually comparing the actions of Mary and her other sons with that of the Pharisees.

Don’t get me wrong, the Bible is clear that Mary is a stand up woman, who has great faith, but that does not equate to a need to worship her, or even “ultra venerate” her. We should look constantly to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, and no one else. He even taught us to pray “our Father” not “blessed virgin Mary”. Our prayer, Worship, faith and hope should lie in the Trinity itself, and anything else, I see as a form of idolatry

 

[Michael_Francis]

These posts were split from a thread that was about 5 years old in order to keep the discussion topic current.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Debate on, but please insure that all posts comply with the rules and guidelines link in my signature below.

 

[Sime]

I like to comment to the person who excluded infants without sin - it’s apparant that this person does not understand that all, all are born under sin because of what Adam and Eve had done - the bible is very clear that there is no one who is righteous, no one is sinless - but except of course Jesus. Why is this difficult to see, We see that there are many scriptures in God’s Word that speaks of this. Anything that goes against God’s teaching is obviously not true. If you rely on God’s Word alone and not by any other teaching, you will understand the truth in it’s fullness. The Word of God is clear, to say that someone else was sinless is to try to equate that person with God = and no one is God other than Jesus Christ. The trinity is three in one, not four in one. All fall short of God’s Glory. I say this with great respect, but all of God’s people must rely only on His Word for truth. God sent his son to the earth and left his Spirit, and it is by his Spirit that we are led. That is it.

First, we have to recognize that St. Paul is addressing personal sin in Romans 3:23, not original sin. For in Romans 9:11 St. Paul speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad.”

In the first half of his epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul is constructing an argument that Jews are not de facto saved by being Jewish. By the time Paul gets to chapter three of Romans, he has established that both Jews and Gentiles need Christ for salvation. Paul’s arguments are always leading toward Christ. Paul’s intent is to establish the universal need for Christ. Jews sin. Gentiles sin ("all have sinned’). Both groups need the Messiah in order to be saved.

Let’s also examine the use of the term “all” used in scripture.The Greek word, ‘PAS’, meaning ‘ALL’, can have different meanings as shown in other verses of Holy Scripture:

Mt 3:5-6, “Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and ‘ALL’ Judea, and ‘ALL’ the region about the Jordan; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.”
Were all of the people of Judea, and the region about the Jordan baptized?

Luke 2:1 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that ‘ALL’ the world should be taxed.” Did Caesar tax the people from South Africa, India, China, and South America ?

Rom 11:26, “ALL Israel shall be saved.” We know for certain that ‘ALL’ in Israel will not be saved.

Rom 15:14, “…you yourselves are full of love, filled with ‘ALL’ knowledge…” Yet we know for sure that the only person filled with ‘ALL’ knowledge is GOD Himself.

1 Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam “ALL” die. Yet we know Enoch did not die because he pleased God. Hebrews 11:5. And Elijah didn’t die either - 2 Kings 2:11.

So in Romans 3:23 when St Paul says “all have sinned” he’s speaking about jews and gentiles in a collective sense (that both need Christ for salvation).

The Blessed Mother also needed a Saviour, yet she was saved by the cross in anticipation (preemptively).

Let’s examine some scripture closely to discover a simple truth about the Blessed Mother:

“A TREE IS KNOWN by its FRUIT” Luke 6:44.

“Make a TREE GOOD and its FRUIT will be GOOD, or make a TREE BAD and its FRUIT will be BAD, for a TREE is recognized BY ITS FRUIT” Matthew 12:33.

“A GOOD TREE CANNOT bear BAD FRUIT, and a BAD TREE CANNOT bear GOOD FRUIT” Matthew 7:18

Jesus is called the FRUIT of MARY’S WOMB (Luke 1:42). A tree is recognized by its fruit. Since Christ was without sin and full of grace, and since He is called the ‘FRUIT’ of Mary’s womb, what does that tell you about the ‘TREE’ that BORE the ‘FRUIT’? Remember, “a BAD TREE CANNOT BEAR GOOD FRUIT”

This is why if you read the original translation by St Jerome of Luke 1:28 it reads, "Hail full of grace!

There is much, much more in scripture regarding the Blessed Mother than you realize.

And remember the bible itself says that it is the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

That scripture is not for private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), because it can be distorted and misunderstood by the ignorant and unstable (2 Peter 3:16). One needs the proper guidance to interpret scripture (Acts 8:30-31).

 

[Cachonga]

Just to add my 2 cents worth, Scripture tells us plainly that Jesus was “tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” (Heb 4:15 DR). Scripture does not make this declaration of anyone else. As for those who have been declare righteous in the Scripture, I doubt it means they were without sin their entire life (look at King David - he committed adultery and murder, but was later declared by God to be a man after His own heart); even Elizabeth’s husband was struck mute because of his unbelief. For myself, I find it interesting that Mary made a sin offering (possibly many) in her life (we are told that after her purification she sacrificed the 2 turtledoves. A look back at Leviticus shows that one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering. Also, this same type of offering (2 turtle doves) was required 7 days after the end of the menstrual cycle). To date, nobody has satisfactorily answered the question - How can someone without sin make a sin offering?

 

[Sime]

I like to comment to the person who excluded infants without sin - it’s apparant that this person does not understand that all, all are born under sin because of what Adam and Eve had done - the bible is very clear that there is no one who is righteous, no one is sinless - but except of course Jesus. Why is this difficult to see, We see that there are many scriptures in God’s Word that speaks of this. Anything that goes against God’s teaching is obviously not true. If you rely on God’s Word alone and not by any other teaching, you will understand the truth in it’s fullness. The Word of God is clear, to say that someone else was sinless is to try to equate that person with God = and no one is God other than Jesus Christ. The trinity is three in one, not four in one. All fall short of God’s Glory. I say this with great respect, but all of God’s people must rely only on His Word for truth. God sent his son to the earth and left his Spirit, and it is by his Spirit that we are led. That is it.

I’d also like to point out something that I forgot to mention. Let’s compare these two passages from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans:

Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.”

Now compare that verse with:

Romans 5:14 “But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also WHO HAVE NOT SINNED after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.”

We can plainly see (from the same Epistle) that St. Paul says that there are those who did not commit any sin (like that of Adam by violating the law of God; or breaking a command) yet still died due to the sin of Adam which they inherited (original sin). So it is clear that the term ‘ALL’ in Romans 3:23 is not referring to every specific individual who has ever lived but rather is used in a collective, general sense to include both jews and gentiles.

 

[Journey322]

Romans 3:23
“since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and Romans 3:10 "“None is righteous”

Some people contend that the above verses means that Mary must have sinned. However, consider the following.

… the whole world has gone after him” [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. [1 John 5:19] Does the whole world there mean everybody?

The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile .

As for none being righteous: Luke 1:5-6
"… there was a priest named Zechariah … his wife … Elizabeth. Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Remember the bible says, “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.” (Matthew 12:33) The bible also says, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:18). Jesus is called the fruit of Mary’s womb in Luke 1:42. So if Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb, what does that tell you about the tree (The Blessed Mother)?

The realization that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was without sin is very discouraging. I have no doubt that all humans were born into a sinful nature (Christ being the one and only exception). I believe Mary was faithful and pure in the sight of God, but I don’t think I will ever be able to swallow the notion that Mary was sinless. Even if she, as a human, who was not also fully God as Christ is, managed to live her life completely without sin, she was born with the same sin nature as the rest of us. I have been strongly considering entering RCIA in the Fall, but this realization has caused me to think I may need to reconsider, as this isn’t a small, unimportant discrepancy.

 

[bobtater]

The realization that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was without sin is very discouraging. I have no doubt that all humans were born into a sinful nature (Christ being the one and only exception). I believe Mary was faithful and pure in the sight of God, but I don’t think I will ever be able to swallow the notion that Mary was sinless. Even if she, as a human, who was not also fully God as Christ is, managed to live her life completely without sin, she was born with the same sin nature as the rest of us. I have been strongly considering entering RCIA in the Fall, but this realization has caused me to think I may need to reconsider, as this isn’t a small, unimportant discrepancy.

Something for your consideration philosophically How could Jesus who is God and perfect come from an imperfect human being?? How could God who is holy come from a woman of sin?? I mean he threw Eve out of the garden because she sinned. So if Mary had a sinful nature why would Jesus come into the world thru her?? Just some thoughts for your consideration. God who is holy had to come from a holy vessel so at the moment of her conception God made her a sinless vessel by granting her his salvation immediately. That is why the angel called her full of grace when he greeted her.

 

[Sime]

Im sorry, I don’t doubt your faith to be sincere, but what you just did was eisegesis. For instance in the Luke 11 passage that I think you changed to halfway through your argument, Jesus doesn’t point back to Mary at all. The greek word used there is translated as “on the contrary”, so he is actually flat denying what this woman was saying (her veneration of Mary). To say that Jesus said “on the contrary, Blessed are those who hear the word and obey it,” but was still talking about the mother he just said ‘on the contrary’ about, doesn’t make a lot of sense. You are reading things into the text if you claim that Jesus was talking about Mary here. Same with your eisegesis of the Mark 3:31-33 passage. Your right that Jewish people had the beliefs you were stating, but to ignore the fact that Jesus was instituting a new family, one who’s importance and relationship ran deeper than blood, is to ignore what the text plainly states. I see you also ignored the earlier passage that leads to this one, where his family states he is out of his mind. In fact, this is a grievance so large, that Mark uses his sandwich technique to fill out this issue of his biological family with the Pharisee’s saying he is using the spirit of Beelzebub! That is a serious offence, but by placing them together in this writting style, Mark is actually comparing the actions of Mary and her other sons with that of the Pharisees.

Don’t get me wrong, the Bible is clear that Mary is a stand up woman, who has great faith, but that does not equate to a need to worship her, or even “ultra venerate” her. We should look constantly to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, and no one else. He even taught us to pray “our Father” not “blessed virgin Mary”. Our prayer, Worship, faith and hope should lie in the Trinity itself, and anything else, I see as a form of idolatry

Before I begin, I want you to remember this: In the Old Testament, one could die just for touching the ark of the covenant (1Ch 13:10) (1 Sm 6:1-2).

Now you may ask, "how is that relevant to the Blessed Mother? Compare the Old and New Testament passages.

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled the Ark. The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35] God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and the indwelled Mary. At that time Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35].

The Ark contained the 10 Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that came back to life [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4]. The womb of the Virgin contained Jesus: the living Word of God enfleshed, the living bread from heaven, “the Branch” (Messianic title) who would die but come back to life [Luke 1:35].

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom [2 Samuel 6:1-11]. Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah (Judea) to the home of Elizabeth [Luke 1:39]

Dressed in a priestly ephod, King David approached the Ark and danced and leapt for joy [2 Samuel 6:14]. John the Baptist, son of a priest who would himself become a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the approach of Mary [Luke 1:43].

David shouted for joy in the presence of God and the holy Ark [2 Samuel 6:15]. Elizabeth exclaimed with a loud cry of joy in the presence God within Mary [Luke 1:42].

David asked, “How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?” [2 Samuel 6:9]. Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Luke 1:43].

The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11]. Mary remained in the house of her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months [Luke 1:56].

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark [2 Samuel 6:11]. The word “blessed” is used 3 times in Luke 1:39-45 concerning Mary at Elizabeth’s house.

The Ark returned to its sanctuary and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is revealed in the newly built Temple [2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11]. Mary returned home from visiting Elizabeth and eventually comes to Jerusalem, where she presents God the Son in the Temple [Luke 1:56; 2:21-22].

As you can plainly see, scripture identifies Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. Remember, in the old Testament you could die just for touching the ark. We know that ‘types’ in the New Testament are greater than their counterparts of the Old Testament. For instance in (Romans 5:14) Adam is identified as a ‘type’ of Jesus. And in 1 Corinthians 15:45 Christ is referred to as the ‘last Adam’.

Here are a few more examples of biblical typology:

Peter uses Noah’s ark as a type of Christian baptism (1 Pt 3:18-22).
Paul explains that circumcision foreshadowed Christian baptism (Col 2:11-12).
Jesus uses the bronze serpent as a type of his Crucifixion (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:8-9).
The Passover lamb prefigures the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor 5:7).
Paul says that Abraham “considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb 11:19).

Let’s talk about the construction of the ark for a moment. God was very specific about every exact detail of the ark (Ex 25-30). It was a place where God himself would dwell (Ex 25:8). God wanted his words—inscribed on stone—housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without. The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Dt 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: “a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded.”

Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest.

It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.How much more would he want his Word—Jesus—to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?

In Chronicles Chapter 15 &16 we see awesome reverence (not worship) the jews had for the ark: veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets. So we now venerate the ark of the New Covenant (Mary).

We do not worship Mary. Remember that the ‘types’ of the New Testament are far greater that their counterparts in the Old Testament. Having a great love of Mary and veneration for her does not take anything away from Christ, in fact it honours Him as King. For in the Old Testament it was the Mother of the King who reigned as queen and was shown honour and respect by the King HimseLf (1 Kings 2:19), and the queen also acted as an intermediary (1 Kings 2:18).

Jesus is the King (Luke 1:32). That would make the Blessed Mother Queen. You should treat her accordingly. The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant.

The Blessed Virgin (the ark of the New Covenant and Queen of Heaven) was entrusted to St. John (John 19:27). Then in Rev 11:9 St. John writes:

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.”

We know the temple spoken of is Jesus (John 2:21). Then he mentions the ark of the covenant. What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven?
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rv 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.

This woman is the Mother of all Christians, for her offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus (Rev 12:17). It is interesting to note that whenever Our Lord addressed His Mother in scripture He used the term “woman”. Eve was also called ‘woman’ by Adam; and Eve meant ‘mother of all the living’. Just as the ‘woman’ in Rev 12:17 is said to be the mother of all Christians. Mary is also the “New Eve”, for she is the Mother of all Christians.

The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.

I

 

[hope_7]

I do not believe that Mary was sinless either.

She had a mother and a father through which the sinful nature that we all have was passed down to her all the way from adam and eve. No human being has escaped this. She was born under the curse that God had placed on all mankind and would one day die. Even the orthodox church dosent believe that Mary was sinless from birth. This immaculate conception of Mary was not official dogma of the roman catholic church untill 1854 when pope pius xiv declared it an official dogma. and was a hotly debated topic

The scripture teaches us that Christ is in us if we have recieved Him according to scripture. He comes to dwell in us through the new birth which is recieved through faith. How is it possible for Christ to dwell in me who has sinned when you say Mary had to be without sin and have never sinned at all for Him to be in her? Why would Mary after seeing the angel Gabrial and then going to see Elizebeth say that God has saved her? If she had never sinned what was it the God had saved her from? If she had never sinned why would she need to be saved?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Just to add my 2 cents worth, Scripture tells us plainly that Jesus was “tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” (Heb 4:15 DR). Scripture does not make this declaration of anyone else.

That’s irrelevant. It doesn’t say every single person has sinned except Jesus.

For myself, I find it interesting that Mary made a sin offering (possibly many) in her life (we are told that after her purification she sacrificed the 2 turtledoves. A look back at Leviticus shows that one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering. Also, this same type of offering (2 turtle doves) was required 7 days after the end of the menstrual cycle). To date, nobody has satisfactorily answered the question - How can someone without sin make a sin offering?

If you READ the Greek, it does NOT say Mary made a sin offering. It says for “THEIR” purification which included Jesus and JOSEPH. Ritual impurity was incurred for touching anything too holy – it wasn’t sin, but danger of defiling something Holy.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Law was written with prophecy prefiguring the birth of the Saviour who’s blood would be shed to save us all?

The blood in the placenta is not the mother’s but the son’s. The umbilical cord, presuming it was either salted or cut by Joseph automatically meant he handled something holy. (There is reason to believe, due to the perpetual virginity of Mary that no such cutting happened. There are messianic psalms to the effect that God AkA the Father, delivered his son personally.)

The first time Jesus was Cut (ceremonially by priests, eg: at the circumcision) that is when he was named “God Saves”; not before.

Regarding sin – everyone even slightly possessed by a demon “has” sin, even if they are not sinning personally. Their body is weak through infection with the devil. Just so, baptism in every church from the time of Christ – up until after the year 400 – when we first find out about their baptisms in writing – are KNOWN to have baptized infants with an exorcism included.
There is a big difference between being sinful – a sinner – (or esp. Lawless), and having sin and being under it’s power.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When the Bible says, all have fallen short of the glory of God, why do Catholics add “but Mary”. The scripture doesn’t say all were going to fall, and all but Mary did because Jesus saved her, but rather all have “fallen”. Notice the past tense? According to the Bible, and this passage specifically, stated that Mary (included in all) fell short of the glory of God.

As has already been stated many times, “all” is not proof but only suggestive that every person has sinned. The word has the potential – but not the active power of proving your point. Jesus did not sin, and yet is not excluded from the above statement – which proves “all” does not apply to him – and therefore “all” does not have to apply to everyone else either.

I cannot stress enough this doesn’t fit your view of Mary never sinning. That doctrine and the scripture are in direct opposition! This whole post was started by a lay person noticing this obvious flaw! Also there are clear examples in scripture of Mary’s sin, and nothing to support her sinlessness. for example, Mark 3:21, his family accused him of being out of his mind. (this includes his mother, see v. 31) If saying that God Incarnate is out of his mind does not count as blasphemy, then Im not sure what does.

First off, it could even be his grandmother – Blessed Ann is one such grandmother – who was looking for him. Abraham is called “Our” father and Sarah “Our” mother by the Pharisees, it should be obvious that “mother” can refer to any mother of his; (Or even a wet nurse, like Hagar likely was for Ishmael?)

When Jesus says – “everyone who does the will of God” is mother to me. (Mark 3:35) That, too, shows more than one Woman is his mother both in his immediate family – and in his adopted family. Not only that, there are many “Marys” in the bible … so Jesus could easily have another Mary in his immediate family… (What’s Joseph’s mother’s name?)

But the actual name “Mary” ISNT even mentioned in Mark 3.
Your proof is empty.

Nowhere does scripture EVER record that “Mary the mother of Jesus” held Jesus to be “out of his mind”. It doesn’t EVEN MAKE SENSE. The wedding of Cana occurred before this time – and she had total faith in him regarding water and the miracle that was to come. You’re being careless – and insulting Jesus’ mother without SOLID evidence. I find that extremely offensive – caulumny even! Truly, you are daring Jesus to punish you, regardless of what you really believe or think – whether you do this tongue in cheek – whether you are wrong or even if you are right;

As St. Augustine said “When it comes to sin and the Virgin, I WISH NOTHING TO BE SAID.” That’s wisdom; for St. Augustine is probably the MOST staunch advocate of everyone has sinned… PERIOD – and even he wouldn’t dare say what you say.

My other issue is that she is the catholic church pushing the doctrine of her virginity. I mean surely that would been forsaking part of her marital covenant with Joseph? How does that fit in with the idea of in marriage, two flesh become one? On a more practical note, where did Jesus’ brother’s come from? Are you suggesting there were other virgin births?

Duh, Joseph could have been married before… Half brothers are always called brothers in scripture…
A marriage which is not consummated may be dissolved at any time – there is NO requirement that they consummate the marriage. God simply wanted a human father figure for the family; It is said even today, a child NEEDS both a father and a mother.

Finally Jesus himself denies any special favour rest on Mary with his famous line, Who are my mother and brothers? (Mark 3:33), to which the answer is, we are Jesus adopted family by doing his will, therefore there is no special place for his physical family. The main reason why protestants don’t pray to Mary, and indeed the other saints, is because we have direct access to the Holy Trinity.Why would we go to mere humans?

To the Q. We would do so, because St. Paul tells us to do so. Pray for each other – and God is the God of the living – not the dead (or damned.)

Of his mother, the Holy Spirit (God’s OWN testimony) says – blessed is she [Mary] who BELIEVED.

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

And the Holy Spirit himself taught us the prayer to Mary:

Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

And then the Holy Spirit proves that she did the will of the Father.

Luke 1:45 And blessed is she that believed:

All of this was said TO Mary.

It is clear, then, that Mary did God’s will – and IS his mother in every possible sense. As I already mentioned, there were many biological and close family who were mothers of Jesus – Mark’s saying doesn’t prove (Let alone strongly suggest!) we get to usurp his personal mother !!!

esp: Just because we do his will. (Besides, I’m a man.)
Go insult someone else…

 

[Hamlet123]

Hey Lillie, you might want to reread the posts you are replying to, as you seem to be arguing against things that nobody said.

For one, you argue that babies are born in a state of sin, but you surely know that the Catholic Church already teaches this? You have heard the phrase “Original Sin”? The exception the other poster spoke about is that babies have not sinned, even though they are in a state of sin. This is surely obviously true? Therefore all have not sinned, if “all” means “everyone in the whole world over the whole history of the world”.

Adam and Eve were sinless in the Garden of Eden: are we equating them with God by admitting that? No, we simply say they were sinless humans. Mary was also a sinless human: that doesn’t make her God at all.

You also seem to have ignored all the Bible verses which say particular people are righteous, which have been quoted in other posts. Why do you think those verses are untrue or “not literal”, and yet this one other verse must be taken as having the meaning you say, even when it forces the Bible into contradiction? Truth cannot contradict Truth.

And I’d really hope that if you are computer-savvy enough to find a Catholic forum, you’re also computer-savvy enough to have done a basic search of Catholic beliefs and seen that Mary is not considered God, or a god, or part of the trinity. What are you hoping to achieve?

FYI, this sunday’s (coming sunday) reading is about Zeceria (spelling) and the Scriptures note that he and his wife were “blameless”. I think this can be interrpeted as without sin. And I know you all have not met me, but I am a perfect holy man. Lacking in nothing and full of arogance and spellling mishaps.

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou:

That’s irrelevant. It doesn’t say every single person has sinned except Jesus.

Doesn’t need to. That’s already been covered in Romans. And don’t forget, even infants and the severely mentally handicapped who may not have sinned on their own still have sin against them (thanks to Adam), unless you deny that original sin is sin.

If you READ the Greek, it does NOT say Mary made a sin offering. It says for “THEIR” purification which included Jesus and JOSEPH. Ritual impurity was incurred for touching anything too holy – it wasn’t sin, but danger of defiling something Holy.

Please show me in Lev 12:6-8 where the husband is mentioned in this, and why you don’t think it’s a “sin” offering when the Scripture clearly states that it IS a sin offering.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Law was written with prophecy prefiguring the birth of the Saviour who’s blood would be shed to save us all?

What does that have to do with Mary being sinless? She still made the sin offering (and we know she did because Luke tells us she did).

The blood in the placenta is not the mother’s but the son’s. The umbilical cord, presuming it was either salted or cut by Joseph automatically meant he handled something holy. (There is reason to believe, due to the perpetual virginity of Mary that no such cutting happened. There are messianic psalms to the effect that God AkA the Father, delivered his son personally.)

Nothing in Scripture indicates this was anything but a normal birth.

The first time Jesus was Cut (ceremonially by priests, eg: at the circumcision) that is when he was named “God Saves”; not before.

Again, the Scriptures indicate He had a normal birth.

Regarding sin – everyone even slightly possessed by a demon “has” sin, even if they are not sinning personally. Their body is weak through infection with the devil. Just so, baptism in every church from the time of Christ – up until after the year 400 – when we first find out about their baptisms in writing – are KNOWN to have baptized infants with an exorcism included.

What??? Are you saying that only someone “possessed” by a demon has sin? I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

There is a big difference between being sinful – a sinner – (or esp. Lawless), and having sin and being under it’s power.

Please explain this. It sounds like you’re asserting that we can be sinners without actually commiting any sins personally (I guess for infants with original sin, this might be true, but how do you mean it?).