Sinless Mary and the Bible

[savedwretch]

In Luke 1:47 Mary says, “and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” If Mary had no sin, from what did God save her? Mary was absolutely a virgin when she was with our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:27, 34, Isaiah 7:14)but we know that she had to have sin because of the same reason we all have sin (and because of the verse I cited,Luke1:47), because we inherited it from the first man Adam. Mary was not of a different created race of people that had no sin. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all men sinned-” Our sin is inherited according to Romans 5:12. We sin because were sinners and we’re sinners because we sin. For Mary to be sinless her father would have had to be sinless and his father and so on.

 

[savedwretch]

Also this is where scripture says the value of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” How would you even know anything about our Lord Jesus Christ without scripture? Someone would tell you but then have nothing to back it up. Scripture is God’s word. In John 17:17 our Lord Jesus says when praying to the Father, “Sanctify them by your Your truth. Your word is truth.” That’s what God the Son has to say about scripture, that it is God’s truth.

 

[Cachonga]

Nicea325:

And where in Scripture does it say everything must be said in Scripture?

First of all, who said everything must be said in Scripture? We certainly don’t have a physical description of Jesus, even though the Apostles spent a lot of time with Him. The point is that unless Scripture tells us that God did something (like allow Mary to be conceived without any stain of sin, including original sin), then it is unreasonable to assume He did such a thing. Furthermore, 2 Tim 3:16 (as mentioned by savedwretch) says, “All Scripture is inspired by God …”. I don’t find this declaration made in regard to tradition or anything else, so what else should a Christian look to for guidance (of course, the Church should teach the Scriptures, but when it includes other things, like tradition and an allegedly infallible magisterium (which is the only thing that can “infallibly” define AND interpret both Scripture and tradition, which sounds very fishy to me), I find good reason to question the teachings of that church).

Care to show me where Scripture mentions the canon?

Where does Tim Staples (or any author) give a complete list of all of their works within the body of any book they have written (order forms at the end of the book don’t count)? Just because an author doesn’t list his/her complete works doesn’t invalidate their work (or what is written in them) .Here you are confusing the Scriptures (what God has inspired in writing) with the list of books that make up the Scriptures (the canon).

 

[GraceSofia]

Seems to me you are confusing the miraculous conception with the birth. Not the same thing. His conception was, without a doubt, a miracle. It doesn’t necessarily follow that His birth was also miraculous (especially since God didn’t see fit to tell us that was the case in His written word).

It is all of a piece. It all goes together. You can’t just take this out of context, and then take that out of context, etc, etc.

I think this is straying off topic, which has to do with sin, not virginity.

YOU are the one who said

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

Again, the Scriptures indicate He had a normal birth.

but now you’ve decided it is off topic? LOL LOL

 

[pablope]

Seems to me you are confusing the miraculous conception

With all due respect, he is not my father. Perhaps I should have addressed him as Dr. Pacwa (he has earned his doctorate).

And who said he is your father? It is a sign of respect and humility…says much about you, doesn’t it?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And where in Scripture does it say everything must be said in Scripture?

First of all, who said everything must be said in Scripture? We certainly don’t have a physical description of Jesus, even though the Apostles spent a lot of time with Him. The point is that unless Scripture tells us that God did something (like allow Mary to be conceived without any stain of sin, including original sin), then it is unreasonable to assume He did such a thing.

Double standard.Listen to what you are saying:

*Unless scripture tell us that God did something (like allow Mary to be conceived without any stain of sin, including original sin), then it is unreasonable to assume He did such a thing. *

You are accusing Catholics of following a belief not supported in scripture,yet your argument falls on the same criteria. Therefore, precisely tell me where does **Scritpure teach unless it is said by God in Scripture **it is to be considered void? Your argument falls on Scripture,thus where is it taught?

Furthermore, 2 Tim 3:16 (as mentioned by savedwretch) says, “All Scripture is inspired by God …”. I don’t find this declaration made in regard to tradition or anything else, so what else should a Christian look to for guidance (of course, the Church should teach the Scriptures, but when it includes other things, like tradition and an allegedly infallible magisterium (which is the only thing that can “infallibly” define AND interpret both Scripture and tradition, which sounds very fishy to me), I find good reason to question the teachings of that church).

Broken record and debunked a billion times,not going through this again. Allegedly infallible church? Wow! What great luck a fallible church has managed to produce such great doctrines such as the Trinity. Do you also question those doctrines…since a fallible church developed and defined them over the centuries?

Quote:Nicea325
Care to show me where Scripture mentions the canon?

Where does Tim Staples (or any author) give a complete list of all of their works within the body of any book they have written (order forms at the end of the book don’t count)? Just because an author doesn’t list his/her complete works doesn’t invalidate their work (or what is written in them) .

And are Tim Staples works considered inspired by the Church or binding to our salvation? The issue here deals with doctrines:canon,Trinity,etc.,not what works someone has written.

Here you are confusing the Scriptures (what God has inspired in writing) with the list of books that make up the Scriptures (the canon).

Not confusing anything at all. The list of writings and what was canonized are two different issues. How do you know they are inspired? Did you determine that all on your own? Second, the canon is NO WHERE mentioned within the inspired writings-right? Therefore,using your argument…
The point is that unless Scripture tells us that God did something (like mentioning a list of writings to be canonized), then it is unreasonable to assume He did such a thing. *

The canon is therefore false? Right? Using your standards.

 

[pablope]

Also this is where scripture says the value of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” How would you even know anything about our Lord Jesus Christ without scripture?

You forgot v14…2 Timothy 3:14…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

Does v14 say anything about Scripture? It talks about oral teaching. So it is not just Scripture.

And besides, if you use this a proof text, what does Scripture refer to here? The Septuagint…there was not NT at the time this was written. So if you are going to use this…and use it in cotext…you should only use the Septuagint.

Someone would tell you but then have nothing to back it up. Scripture is God’s word.

 

[pablope]

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.

Mary being sinless, and perpetual virginity, were decided by a Church council…the Lateran Council of 649.

So, let me ask you…do you think the Council made a mistake in making this pronouncement? So, despite the verses being contested here…do you think the Holy Spirit did not guide the bishops and Pope Martin I in approving the Lateran Council decision on the Perpetual Virginity into a proper understanding of this dogma?

Another question…do you think the HS guides individuals into contesting correctly these Bible passages?

Or is it, that the Holy Spirit guided the Council, and the Pope…into properly understanding these passages…and came to the right conclusion on the Perpetual Virginity?

And why would you believe the interpretation of others instead of the Church?

Ponder on this passage:
1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

So, my question to you…those espousing different understanding and meanings of the passages…where did they get their interpretation? Were those borne out of disobedience?

Anyway, just questions for you to ponder on.

A book suggestion for you in your search…Scott Hahn’s Hail Holy Queen.

 

[Church_Militant]

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?

Your logic and premise fail based upon the Word of God.

How can one without sin be baptized? Yet…
Matthew 3: [13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. [14] But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? [15] And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him.

 

[pablope]

Just to add my 2 cents worth,

To date, nobody has satisfactorily answered the question - How can someone without sin make a sin offering?

When the offering is made out of love, humility and obedience…and the offering is not just for oneself…but also for the love of others…for the sin of others.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

So then you agree with the baptism of infants and that is washes away sins?
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
The Case For Infant Baptism

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).

Your faulty conclusion and premise is dealt with in my previous post.

 

[Church_Militant]

Baptism was not required by the law. Also, this was a turning point for Jesus, from His private life into His public ministry.

Sorry but you’re dead wrong here, since baptism is nowhere required in the Jewish law, and John’s was a baptism of repentance…what would Our Lord Jesus Christ have been repenting of?

Mary’s grace was gifted to her by God at her conception, which, if you knew your NT Greek you’d know was made plain by the archangel Gabriel at the annunciation when he used the title “full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” 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 angel’s 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.

Furthermore, as you are apparently a Sola Scriptura/Bible only Christian now, where exactly in the New Testament do we find any reference that might indict Mary in sin? I’ve read the whole Bible (all 73 books of it) many times and I know of no such verse or passage.

 

[Church_Militant]

Seems to me you are confusing the miraculous conception with the birth. Not the same thing. His conception was, without a doubt, a miracle. It doesn’t necessarily follow that His birth was also miraculous (especially since God didn’t see fit to tell us that was the case in His written word).

Then. as a SS believer, you cannot make that assumption since you have nothing to base it upon.

With all due respect, he is not my father. Perhaps I should have addressed him as Dr. Pacwa (he has earned his doctorate).

This is just you being offensive to Catholics. If you intend to hang around here, you’ll show proper respect to us and especially to our clergy. We are courteous in our references to n-C clergy and the same is expected…in fact, mandated by the Forum Rules you agreed to when you joined CAF.

 

[Sime]

Where in Scripture does it say that Mary is the second Eve or that she is sinless? Even if she had to be free of sin before conceiving Jesus (which I doubt was the case, but this is my personal opinion), that doesn’t mean she had to be sinless from birth (she could have been cleansed of sin just before the angel came and told her she would be the mother of Jesus).

Many things are not said literally in scripture but that does not negate their truth. For instance, the word “Trinity” is not found in scripture. The word ‘bible’ is not found in scripture, nor is there a list of any of the books that make up the New Testament to be found in scripture itself; nor any mention of how they came to be compiled into a single canon. You will also not find a sentence that reads “God is omnipotent” or “God is omniscient”, yet we know the concepts are also shown in scripture. So please bear in ming that just because something isn’t expressly stated in scripture, doesn’t mean that the concept or teaching is not illustrated.

Mary as the “New Eve”

Eve came out of Adam, Jesus came out of Mary.

Eve said yes to the spirit lucifer allowing sin to enter into the world. Mary said yes to the spirit Gabriel, allowing salvation to enter the world.

Eve appeared at the beginning of the Old Testament. Mary appears at the beginning of the New Testament.

Eve was an immaculately created virgin. Mary was an immaculately created virgin.

Eve gave mankind forbidden fruit for his damnation; Mary gave mankind the fruit of her womb for our salvation. (Jesus is called the fruit of Mary’s womb in Luke 1:42). “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke 6:43-44). If Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb who is full of grace and truth (John 1:14), and if a tree (Mary) is known by its fruit (Jesus), what does that tell you about Mary?

Also, in Genesis 2:17 & Genesis 3:6 it shows that eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge would cause death. What does scripture say if you eat the fruit of Mary’s womb? John 6:53-58 says you will live forever. Read John 6 with 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 11:26-27 to see that Jesus was not being symbolic in John 6 when He said to eat is flesh and drink his blood.

Adam named Eve “woman” which means mother of all the living; Jesus (the New Adam) calls Mary “woman” at the beginning of His ministry (where He works His first miracle at Mary’s request), and He calls her ‘woman’ at the end of His ministry while He is on the cross. He says to St. John, “behold your mother.” John 19:26-27.

So Eve (called ‘woman’ by Adam) was the mother of all the living, and through her act of disobedience by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, sin and death entered the world. Mary (called ‘woman’ by Christ - the New Adam) is the Mother of all Christians for through her act of obedience, the fruit of her womb (Jesus -the the way, the truth and the life) entered the world and brought salvation to all who believe in Him and obey His commandments (Matthew 28:20). So to paraphrase, since Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the faithful are the body of Christ (the Church), she ‘gave birth’ to all the faithful as well. Therefore she is the Mother of all Christians.

If you read my other posts on this topic you will see that scripture also shows that the Blessed Mother is the ark of the New Covenant, and the ark mentioned at the end of Rev 11 and the ‘woman’ of Rev 12.

 

[Church_Militant]

In Luke 1:47 Mary says, “and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” If Mary had no sin, from what did God save her? Mary was absolutely a virgin when she was with our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:27, 34, Isaiah 7:14)but we know that she had to have sin because of the same reason we all have sin (and because of the verse I cited,Luke1:47), because we inherited it from the first man Adam. Mary was not of a different created race of people that had no sin. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all men sinned-” Our sin is inherited according to Romans 5:12. We sin because were sinners and we’re sinners because we sin. For Mary to be sinless her father would have had to be sinless and his father and so on.

Not so. And Mary’s acknowledgement of her need for a savior in no way precludes the preemptive grace that bestowed on her as the 2nd most unique person in history. She was the ark of the New Covenant, if the original ark was so pure it was death to touch it though all it contained was the ten commandments and some other religious relics, then how much more so would the ark that carried the 2nd covenant, the Son of God, God incarnate, Our Lord Jesus Christ. you can seek to deny it all you want, but the fact is that [11] By the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes.

Also this is where scripture says the value of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” How would you even know anything about our Lord Jesus Christ without scripture? Someone would tell you but then have nothing to back it up. Scripture is God’s word. In John 17:17 our Lord Jesus says when praying to the Father, “Sanctify them by your Your truth. Your word is truth.” That’s what God the Son has to say about scripture, that it is God’s truth.

No Catholic will have a problem with any of those verses and what they say. We do, however have a problem with your very fallible interpretation of them .

None of that…not one…even remotely infers that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found in the Bible and having read the Bible many times and continuing to do so, I know you cannot offer a single verse that specifies that or where the Bible claims the final and ultimate authority that you ascribe to it. It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?

 

[Church_Militant]

First of all, who said everything must be said in Scripture?

But that’s your defacto premise. You ascribe to scripture an authority that it never lays claim to, in fact, it refutes it when St. Paul states in
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Where does Tim Staples (or any author) give a complete list of all of their works within the body of any book they have written (order forms at the end of the book don’t count)? Just because an author doesn’t list his/her complete works doesn’t invalidate their work (or what is written in them) .Here you are confusing the Scriptures (what God has inspired in writing) with the list of books that make up the Scriptures (the canon).

Nice dodge there. Truth is that without the Catholic Church in the 4th century checking and confirming their inspiration at the Council of Carthage the canon of scripture might still be in question.

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures  should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures.  But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,  Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon,  two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve  books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith,  Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon  47 [A.D. 397]).

The only time it was questioned after that was by the reformers and the Council of Trent affirmed what had been canonized in the 4th century in response.

 

[Augustine3]

Seems to me that the catholic church doesn’t believe the Scriptures always mean “Sin” when it clearly reads sin (as in “sin offering”). Unless Mr. Pacwa can give sources for his assertion, I see no reason to believe him.

Like said it was just food for thought, I know Father Pacwa would not make statements without evidence. Here’s the website if you’re interested in hearing the full homily. Unfortunately he does not cite references, after all it is a homily not a university lecture.

youtube.com/watch?v=KAl7R1wGx58

I find your standard interesting. You are so quick to believe Mary was born with original sin for one of the reasons being she made a sin offering, yet your willing to overlook Jesus’ baptism by St John. St John was performing baptism for sinners only not for the righteous, with a baptism of repentance. Jesus subjected Himself to such an act when clearly He was not a sinner. You mentioned in one of your posts Jesus was making way from His private to public life. In scripture He gives this explanation “it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness”. Mary also fulfilled righteousness by remaining obedient to the law like any other good Jewish girl would do. I have no idea how you can reconcile this without using a double standard.

God bless,

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry but you’re dead wrong here, since baptism is nowhere required in the Jewish law, and John’s was a baptism of repentance…what would Our Lord Jesus Christ have been repenting of?

Mary’s grace was gifted to her by God at her conception, which, if you knew your NT Greek you’d know was made plain by the archangel Gabriel at the annunciation when he used the title “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. Furthermore, as you are apparently a Sola Scriptura/Bible only Christian now, where exactly in the New Testament do we find any reference that might indict Mary in sin? I’ve read the whole Bible (all 73 books of it) many times and I know of no such verse or passage.

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry but you’re dead wrong here, since baptism is nowhere required in the Jewish law, and John’s was a baptism of repentance…what would Our Lord Jesus Christ have been repenting of?

Mary’s grace was gifted to her by God at her conception, which, if you knew your NT Greek you’d know was made plain by the archangel Gabriel at the annunciation when he used the title “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. Furthermore, as you are apparently a Sola Scriptura/Bible only Christian now, where exactly in the New Testament do we find any reference that might indict Mary in sin? I’ve read the whole Bible (all 73 books of it) many times and I know of no such verse or passage.

There is no verse saying Mary sinned. It is pure conjecture based on an old anti-Catholic sentiment…plain and simple.

 

[mark_a]

I cannot stress enough this doesn’t fit your view of Mary never sinning. That doctrine and the scripture are in direct opposition!

I just can’t understand how the ECF missed that.