Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Cachonga]

Nicea325:

Again,tell me where Scripture teaches explicitness? Can you tell me from the exact whereabouts of the 12 Apostles? Does scripture teach Thomas went to India?

I’m not sure what you mean. Scripture doesn’t tell us where all the Apostles went after Pentacost. How does this relate to what I wrote?

Pure conjecture! Where does Scripture teach it is BEYOND God? You a mere finite creature are being the Judge of Divine Revelation and God your student. Who are you to claim 100% certitude God CANNOT and WOULD NOT preserve Mary from original sin?

Straw man arguement. Where did I ever say God couldn’t do something? What I’ve been trying to get across is that since Scripture doesn’t say He did preserve Mary from all stain of sin from conception, then I see no reason to believe He did such a thing (or if He did, it is not necessary for my Christian walk to believe such a thing).

In regard to the canon questions, I’ve answered them in previous posts, and I don’t see how they’re related to the topic, so I see no reason to go over this again.

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou:

Post #22, Cachonga?

Yes. Specifically, the part that says, " I see no reason to attempt to carry on a further dialogue with you,". However, I will respond to this one item -

No, There is no use of HER in those verses – there is the use of THEM.

If you examine what I wrote carefully, you will notice that this is NOT in reference to Luke 2:24, but refers to Leviticus 12:6-8.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nicea325 Again,tell me where Scripture teaches explicitness? Can you tell me from the exact whereabouts of the 12 Apostles? Does scripture teach Thomas went to India?

I’m not sure what you mean. Scripture doesn’t tell us where all the Apostles went after Pentacost. How does this relate to what I wrote?

Of course you do my friend. Since you believe Scripture does not mention much on Mary,therefore it must be false. Precisely why I asked you were does Scripture teach explicitness?

Quote:Nicea325 Pure conjecture! Where does Scripture teach it is BEYOND God? You a mere finite creature are being the Judge of Divine Revelation and God your student. Who are you to claim 100% certitude God CANNOT and WOULD NOT preserve Mary from original sin?

Straw man arguement. Where did I ever say God couldn’t do something? What I’ve been trying to get across is that since Scripture doesn’t say He did preserve Mary from all stain of sin from conception, then I see no reason to believe He did such a thing (or if He did, it is not necessary for my Christian walk to believe such a thing).

Straw man argument when it is not going in one’s favor. You just proved my point again: Since you believe Scripture does not mention God preserving Mary from all stain of sin, therefore it must be false-right? Precisely why I asked you were does Scripture teach explicitness and that it must be said from God’s mouth?

In regard to the canon questions, I’ve answered them in previous posts, and I don’t see how they’re related to the topic, so I see no reason to go over this again.

They are very related. You are either dodging the connection or simply do not understand the history of the canon. Here let me use your own argumentive words with some word replacements:

• Since Scripture doesn’t say the** finalized canon**, then I see no reason to believe He did such a thing (or if He did, it is not necessary for my Christian walk to believe such a thing). *

Therefore according to your argument and standards-why should I or ANY Christian believe such a thing as the canon?

 

[Sime]

No hurry. This is more just a matter of curiosity to me. I seem to have wandered off topic again (sorry). In regard to what any ECF has said, we can both find ECF’s to support our favorite position, and we both know (I hope) that no ECF was infallible or always right about everything he addressed. That being the case, I don’t see a great deal of value in looking to ECF’s on a thread that deals with the Bible (like this one is supposed to be doing).

To say that we can both find writings of the Early Church Fathers that would support either of our positions is erroneous Only if you isolate and distort their writings can you do this. If you read all of their writings as a whole they are clearly Catholic.

Sorry you misunderstood. I am not trying to prove my argument from history. Scripture is what I am looking at (which fits with the topic of this thread). I do seem to get off track rather easily lately (could be the new meds).

No problem, it happens. I would suggest doing some research into all the scriptures of the Old Testament which foreshadow the the Blessed Mother.

Seems a little difficult for me to believe that anyone taught such a thing for centuries (apparently) and yet nobody wrote about it for a very long time (especially considering the amount of writing going on). This is the main reason I’m curious about when this first appears in writing (again, no hurry as it is off topic).

This could also be said of the bible. Jesus left no written record; nor did He instruct any of the apostles to write anything down. The Church existed and flourished without a written New Testament for a long time; the faithful were taught and instructed in the faith orally. What you should concentrate on is what the early Church Fathers DID write about the Blessed Mother. When you do that, and study scripture in more depth, you will begin to make the connections.

BTW – I have glanced at the link you gave (to matt1618), but haven’t had a chance to go over it in any depth. It will take me a couple of days (hopefully), but I promise I will go over it and see what is says (may not comment on this thread, but it may come up some other time).

Okay, take your time.

As I mentioned before, John’s baptism was not for forgiveness of sins (he did not have that authority from God). Furthermore, if this “repentance” is for sin, what of the times that God repented in the OT (surely you’re not accusing God of sin?)

Right, John’s Baptism was a Baptism of repentance. So are you saying that Jesus needed to repent when He was Baptized by John? That was my point I was trying to get you to see. Even though Jesus didn’t need to repent of anything, He nevertheless was Baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness.

So when God’s written word says it’s a sin offering, that doesn’t mean it’s an offering for sin? I’m beginning to feel like I’m on a merry-go-round. Let’s see if we can’t simplify this. I don’t believe Mary was sinless because I don’t find anything in Scripture to convince me she was anything other than a normal human being (at least up until the angel greeted her). You (and many others here) believe she is sinless because your Infallible Magisterium says so (and only they can “infallibly” define and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, or so they claim, but that’s a story for another thread).

When God’s word says “for as in Adam ALL die” (1 Corinthians 15:22), does it really mean that every single person has died? We know that this isn’t true and that exceptions can be made. Enoch and Elijah did not taste death. Does that mean that 1 Cor 15:22 is in error?

Regarding the sinlessness of the blessed Mother. Remember, scripture says that “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). Jesus is called the fruit of Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42). Since “a tree is known by its fruit” (Luke 6:44), and since Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb, what does that say about Mary (the tree)?

I’ve already addressed this in a previous post.

Heard it before. May not be relevant to the topic (Mary’s sinlessness, not the Trinity), but I have shown in the past the Biblical proof, and was then informed that the proof I gave was somehow completely missed by everyone until it was officially defined by the church.

This is a topic for another thread. We can discuss this another time.

Following this line of reasoning (again, off topic, but I’ll address it anyway), then either Mary is NOT part of the Body of Christ, or she has somehow managed to give birth to herself.

You must remember, although Mary gave birth to Jesus his divinity was not from her; so although she is not the source of all grace, all grace flows through her.

It is the Roman Catholic who is using the term “woman” as an indication (or proof?) of claims made for Mary. If she was the only person Jesus ever addressed in this fashion, I would be inclined to agree that you might have a valid point. However, since He uses this term of other women, then what is it that makes Mary special when He uses it of her? You don’t need to answer (it doesn’t really address her sinlessness, so it’s not really on topic).

I’ve already answers this question in the forum. The term ‘woman’ is not the only ‘proof’ of this claim. It is all the biblical reference to Mary in both Old and New Testaments.

Not on topic.

Off topic, but I am looking for specific references, not “allusions”, “indications”, or even “pretty darn close!” I am aware that Scripture was not divided into chapters and verses until centuries after they were written. Still, it shouldn’t be a problem for an author to write something like “As John says in his Apocalypse, …” followed by a direct quote.

When I find the answer I’lll contact you. May take a while to find.

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

Thanks for responding. I am sorry but this a long post.

I believe that when St. Gabriel greeted Mary he was making a universal statement. A universal doesn’t change. I think that the Bible is very clear that we are born sinners and that is our nature. I don’t think that Mary could be born a sinner and then be hailed as if she is completely pure. I am not saying it is outside of God’s power because I believe we will be purifed in order to enter heaven but that is a continual process. In order for Mary to be hailed as a perfectly pure human she had to be born that way. I understand that this appears as conjectural though.

In response to an earlier post you made to someone else, I believe that the difference between Jesus calling His Mother “woman” as compared to other women; from what I have heard is that it would be unsual in that culture for a son to address his mother by the title woman, not that it’s disrepectual but that it is just not normal. So by Jesus calling His Mother Woman He was identifying her as the woman in Genesis. Also, it seems to be a very pronounced point when He is on the cross. The passion narrative is very typological and we must pay attention to why He would have said it and why it would be included in the Gospel, that He says “Woman, behold your son” it seems to make sense in light of Genesis which says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offpring and hers” Again Christians have long seen this as Messianic and noted that the statement talks about the Woman’s offspring and not man and woman. This is because the Woman is a Virgin, Eve was not a virgin but the Blessed Mother is.

To answer your comparison between Mary and the Ark. You said that Mary could be compared to the Levites but not the Ark. That doesn’t work because Jesus is typologicaly the Torah being the Word of God. So Mary is the Ark that carries Christ. You said that the Ark was holy only after it was put together but that doesn’t hurt the typology because (first of all these are only types) we aren’t claiming that the cells and biological material are Immaculate because they aren’t a human and don’t have a soul. It is when the cells form into Mary that she is Immaculate. Likewise the material before the Ark is formed aren’t holy but when they become the Ark they become holy.

The reason why I mentioned St. Paul is because he is who introduced the mention of the Second Adam. St. Paul could have called Mary the Second Eve except that he doesn’t talk about Mary, but the failure to mention something doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

I said that you are making the Old Testament better than the New because youre allowing for Eve to start out sinless but not the Second Eve. You are allowing for the Ark to holy that if people touch it they die, but the New Ark you are saying is stained and sinful. You are saying that Adam was taken from a pure dwelling being the uncursed ground, but that the New Adam was taken from a place that was cursed to begin with.

You said it is possible for God to purify Mary right before her conception of Jesus. But don’t you think that God can do more than that? God asked Mary if she would be His Mother. I think that God goes above and beyond and He could and did honor His Mother greater than only purifying her right before His conception in her womb.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Yes. Specifically, the part that says, " I see no reason to attempt to carry on a further dialogue with you,". However, I will respond to this one item -

If you examine what I wrote carefully, you will notice that this is NOT in reference to Luke 2:24, but refers to Leviticus 12:6-8.

You haven’t demonstrated that Leviticus 12:6-8 even applies.
Without the data of Luke to specifically tie the sacrifice to her – you have to do eisegesis. Tut tut.

If there is no point in dialoging with me – then don’t bother responding.
As I said, either learn – or close your mouth.

It is you, specifically, who said that you left the church.
I merely agreed with you that it was Good. Agreement is never uncharitable.

but: There is nothing less charitable than a hypocrite who is sensitive to a trifling slight to themselves, crying out with wounded emulations – while grinding another person into the ground mercilessly.

You have no answer, that’s why you won’t answer. You must change the subject… !

 

[Cachonga]

Nicea325, I would suggest you take a reading comprehension course and go back over what I’ve written. I see no value to anyone by trying to respond to what you think I said, so I have no reply to your post. When you can comment or question something I’ve actually said, then we can try and carry on a meaningful dialogue.

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

This could also be said of the bible. Jesus left no written record; nor did He instruct any of the apostles to write anything down. The Church existed and flourished without a written New Testament for a long time; the faithful were taught and instructed in the faith orally. What you should concentrate on is what the early Church Fathers DID write about the Blessed Mother. When you do that, and study scripture in more depth, you will begin to make the connections.

I’ve heard similar arguments, and I have to wonder – do you think the writers of the New Testament were being disobedient to Jesus when they wrote the God-breathed Scriptures? Of course there was an oral tradition, and the NT took a while to compile, but even Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture. Remember, the New Testament was written while many eye-witnesses were still alive to confirm what was written (Revelation could be an exception, but even that was believed to have been written by an eye-witness of Jesus). Copies of these writings (as well as many others) were circulated in the early Church. The point here is that we have a written record of things taught from eye-witnesses of the events they reported, and (in the case of Scripture) they were inspired by God Himself.

I have studied Scripture (and continue to do so – I know enough to realize I don’t know everything), and I notice how God makes things clear in His word (for example, we know the exact relationship between Abraham and Lot because the Scriptures tell us plainly who Lot’s father was). I have found no such clear teaching on many Catholic doctrines, including Mary’s alleged immaculate conception. I find nothing in the OT that talks about her being slinless (no mention of a sinless woman in Gen 3:15 that I can see, or in any other OT prophecies). I realize someone might say, “Yes, but the OT doesn’t say Jesus would be sinless either!” Perhaps, however, we know that God was the Father of Jesus (just as He was the Father of Adam and Eve, who were created without sin), and the NT DOES say that Jesus “knew no sin” (see 2 Cor 5:21), so we do see from Scripture that Jesus was sinless. I find no such clear testimony for anyone else. As far as what ECF’s taught, again I say, they are not infallible or always right.

Right, John’s Baptism was a Baptism of repentance. So are you saying that Jesus needed to repent when He was Baptized by John? That was my point I was trying to get you to see. Even though Jesus didn’t need to repent of anything, He nevertheless was Baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness.

I think you missed my question about God repenting in the OT. We do see where God “repented” in the OT, but this has nothing to do with sin (unless you want to argue that God sinned, but that would be a completely different thread). It is actually a “change of mind” (look at Jer 4:28 in some different versions and see how “repent” is translated). There are other examples besides this. My point is that “repent” is more a “change of mind/heart” (hence, John turned the hearts of the people back to God as the voice crying in the wilderness), and there was no problem with Jesus using Johns baptism to “change” from private life to public ministry.

When God’s word says “for as in Adam ALL die” (1 Corinthians 15:22), does it really mean that every single person has died? We know that this isn’t true and that exceptions can be made. Enoch and Elijah did not taste death. Does that mean that 1 Cor 15:22 is in error?

They haven’t tasted death yet. Remember the 2 witnesses in Rev who will be killed by the anti-Christ in Jerusalem? Some people think it’s Moses and Elijah (even though Moses died). Others (including myself) believe it will be Enoch and Elijah. Furthermore, I would suggest that Enoch and Elijah could be considered exceptions (at least for now), and that we know they are exceptions because God has told us in His written word.

Regarding the sinlessness of the blessed Mother. Remember, scripture says that “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). Jesus is called the fruit of Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42). Since “a tree is known by its fruit” (Luke 6:44), and since Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb, what does that say about Mary (the tree)?

That she was most blessed of women. Even if she had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus (I don’t believe that’s the case, but let’s explore this for a bit), God could have made her an acceptable, sinless vessel at any time in her life (just as He did with the Ark of the Covenant). Nothing in the idea of her being sinless to be the mother of Jesus requires that she be sinless from conception (or even that she remain sinless all her life). God makes no mention of any such sinlessness for Mary in His written word, so I see no reason to believe she was without sin.

You must remember, although Mary gave birth to Jesus his divinity was not from her; so although she is not the source of all grace, all grace flows through her.

This could be a topic for another thread, but where in Scripture do you find this teaching?

When I find the answer I’lll contact you. May take a while to find.

You can always PM me. Take your time, and thanks!

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

I believe that when St. Gabriel greeted Mary he was making a universal statement. A universal doesn’t change. I think that the Bible is very clear that we are born sinners and that is our nature. I don’t think that Mary could be born a sinner and then be hailed as if she is completely pure. I am not saying it is outside of God’s power because I believe we will be purifed in order to enter heaven but that is a continual process. In order for Mary to be hailed as a perfectly pure human she had to be born that way. I understand that this appears as conjectural though.

I would agree that your opinion on this is just as valid as mine. While the Scriptures do not exclude the possibility of Mary being sinless from conception, they also do not exclude the possibility of her being a “normal”, sinful human being whom God may have cleansed at some point prior to her conception of Jesus.

In response to an earlier post you made to someone else, I believe that the difference between Jesus calling His Mother “woman” as compared to other women; from what I have heard is that it would be unsual in that culture for a son to address his mother by the title woman, not that it’s disrepectual but that it is just not normal. So by Jesus calling His Mother Woman He was identifying her as the woman in Genesis. Also, it seems to be a very pronounced point when He is on the cross. The passion narrative is very typological and we must pay attention to why He would have said it and why it would be included in the Gospel, that He says “Woman, behold your son” it seems to make sense in light of Genesis which says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offpring and hers” Again Christians have long seen this as Messianic and noted that the statement talks about the Woman’s offspring and not man and woman. This is because the Woman is a Virgin, Eve was not a virgin but the Blessed Mother is.

This is off topic, but I understand that Jesus was not disrespectful to Mary when He addressed her as “woman”. He also addressed other women as “woman” (as already mentioned). Add to this the fact that He said, “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” (see Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35). Also keep in mind that this was said in response to someone in the crowd calling out a blessing on His mother.

To answer your comparison between Mary and the Ark. You said that Mary could be compared to the Levites but not the Ark. That doesn’t work because Jesus is typologicaly the Torah being the Word of God. So Mary is the Ark that carries Christ. You said that the Ark was holy only after it was put together but that doesn’t hurt the typology because (first of all these are only types) we aren’t claiming that the cells and biological material are Immaculate because they aren’t a human and don’t have a soul. It is when the cells form into Mary that she is Immaculate. Likewise the material before the Ark is formed aren’t holy but when they become the Ark they become holy.

Off topic, but just a quick clarification. I said (or should have said, I haven’t looked back at the specific post) that I would see the Korahites as a type of Mary because they were charged with carrying the Ark as Israel moved around (and up until it was moved into the Temple). I don’t believe I ever said the Ark couldn’t be a type of Mary, I just didn’t see it that way. I also don’t have a problem with seeing the Ark as a type for Jesus incarnate. Certainly He embodied the Law, the Bread of Life and the Authority from the Father. To be honest, I don’t have a big problem with the types, parallels, etc… that are being put forth. My questions are more concerned with the interpretation of these things (especially on what basis are the specific dogmas being taught).

The reason why I mentioned St. Paul is because he is who introduced the mention of the Second Adam. St. Paul could have called Mary the Second Eve except that he doesn’t talk about Mary, but the failure to mention something doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

I completely agree. But I also have to wonder why, if God didn’t see fit to mention it in His written word, should I (or anyone else) be required to believe something (like the immaculate conception)?

I said that you are making the Old Testament better than the New because youre allowing for Eve to start out sinless but not the Second Eve. You are allowing for the Ark to holy that if people touch it they die, but the New Ark you are saying is stained and sinful. You are saying that Adam was taken from a pure dwelling being the uncursed ground, but that the New Adam was taken from a place that was cursed to begin with.

A bit off topic (I’ve been doing a lot of that lately), but for the sake of answering the charge, I’ll respond. Eve was created without sin, but died a sinner. New Eve (if such a thing existed) was born a sinner, but died (or “ended her earthly walk”) fit to enter directly into heaven, where she is sinless. Both Adam and Jesus (the New Adam) had God as their Father, and so where without sin (at least until Adam ate the fruit).

In regard to the Ark, this is one reason I see the Ark as more a type of Jesus than Mary, but (as I hope is obvious) this is my personal opinion. From a Scriptural point of view, it seems to be just as valid as claiming the Ark is a type of Mary (that is, Scripture doesn’t use the term “New Ark” anywhere I‘m aware, so it could refer to Jesus or Mary, or even both to some extent).

You said it is possible for God to purify Mary right before her conception of Jesus. But don’t you think that God can do more than that? God asked Mary if she would be His Mother. I think that God goes above and beyond and He could and did honor His Mother greater than only purifying her right before His conception in her womb.

I don’t limit God in anything. I admit He could have just as easily have created Mary without sin from conception. However, since Scripture doesn’t tell us she was sinless, then I find no reason to believe she was anything other than a normal human being. As far as God asking Mary if she would be His mother, I would first ask where in the annunciation do you find any question being asked of Mary? If you examine the text, you’ll see the angel made a declaration (“you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus” Luke 1:31 NASB). This is not a question. Second I would point out that it was the 2nd person of the Godhead that was incarnate (as we all agree), and even the angel told Mary that “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High;” (Luke 1:33 NASB). I have always found the term “Mother of God” to be a bit misleading (and, I see in Luke’s gospel, not altogether Scriptural). Consider this – If you came across a group of people who had never heard this before and told them Mary was the Mother of God and Jesus is the Son of God, what do you think they would think of the relationship of Mary and Jesus? Seems to me they would conclude that Mary was the grandmother of Jesus.

 

[Lincoln7]

Clearly written? Your trying to tell me that the definition of the Blessed Trinity is found clearly within scripture? The definition of the Holy Trinity: One God, three persons, all eternally coexistent with each other. That the Holy Spirit is Divine and the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, and that it proceeded from the Father and the Son as most Christian churches profess? We know this definition and this term, not because it is in the Holy Bible, but because Christ’s Church, which embraced the only Christian Faith for the first 1000+ years of Christianity taught us this.

Oh how Athansius would lament at such a statement! Right after a masterful demonstration of the Holy Trinity, what does he have to say? - “But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say.” (1) I’m inclined to agree with Athanasius… It’s plain, and is fully authoritative, partaking of the authority of God. As it is plain on the topic in hand.

Kind regards

Lincs

1 - newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325, I would suggest you take a reading comprehension course and go back over what I’ve written. I see no value to anyone by trying to respond to what you think I said, so I have no reply to your post. When you can comment or question something I’ve actually said, then we can try and carry on a meaningful dialogue.

How funny! I have no need to re-read what you posted,because it has been answered. Problem is you dislike what I have to say. And I would highly suggest you gather your thoughts so they can be cohesive and learn some history on the canon. I beg your pardon? Comment or question something you have said? Are you joking? I did and very easily. Problem is you cannot accept the fact I have you cornered on the silence of the fixed canon from Scripture. It is very obvious!

These are your own argumentive words. I merely switced some words.

*Since Scripture doesn’t say the finalized canon, then I see no reason to believe He did such a thing (or if He did, it is not necessary for my Christian walk to believe such a thing). *

Therefore according to your argument and standards-why should I or ANY Christian believe such a thing as the canon? Did God say it somewhere?

Perhaps you have the comprehension issue?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To all who are studying this; I’d like to trace a bit of Chaconga’s apologetic/argument folly as a study of human psychology and scriptural ventriloquism by those outside the church.

If you examine what I wrote carefully, you will notice that this is NOT in reference to Luke 2:24, but refers to Leviticus 12:6-8.

Really?-- CAREFULLY Notice what he ALREADY said (below) WAAAY back in post #11.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9427365&postcount=11

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.

He can’t deny he actually said this; and everyone knows by now that I have DEMONSTRATED – this is NOT told to us by the original scriptures. He forgets (psychology) what he doesn’t want to remember?

(I am not nitpicking over her herself, vs. her offering – I am after the bigger blunder – and pointing to the uncertainty that she needed to offer it at all.)

Anti-women bias of the Elizabethan English period aside (KJV?), and translational errors made by men who don’t want to include Joseph – let alone Jesus – in the statements of Luke – These issues my be cast aside as we HAVE The ORIGINAL composing language of Luke – and all copies agree to him saying “They” and NOT “her”.

There are several codex and papyrus snippets I can show of original texts if anyone doubts the point beyond the standard Nestlie Aland, and Westcott Hort which are widely circulated; and which I quoted before.

Chaconga then goes on to say:

A look back at Leviticus shows that one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering.

He is correct regarding the purpose of the two doves in the single passage of Leviticus: AND – !!!really!!! – There is no doubt he is connecting Luke’s account to Leviticus 12; esp. regarding Mary – because there is no other possible new testament text mentioning MARY.

This isn’t an unreasonable connection – except for the fact there are many places where these sacrifices are required; and LUKE himself CONSPICUOUSLY doesn’t tie the sacrifice with Mary as a woman alone as is EXPLICIT in Leviticus 12.

He goes out of his way, even, to avoid it…

However, though “they” (not her) need this purification sacrifice according to Luke – Luke DOES indicate only a single sacrifice – not more than one – was made.

Hence the sin offering is not provably Mary’s; It could just as easily be for Joseph, or for all of them on account of Joseph’s actions during the birth or afterward. There is no explicit exclusion for Jesus, either. (circumcision? maybe not…)

Chaconga says:

Also,** this same type of offering** (2 turtle doves) was required 7 days after the end of the menstrual cycle).

Therefore, Chagonga is clearly aware of the ambiguity of the sacrifice – for he-himself – lists an alternate reason for it; the end of a menstrual cycle.

So – There is no doubt Cachonga realizes that the sin sacrifice is tied to the LOSS OF BLOOD.

(The technical meaning of lost, vs alternate non-sinful ways the blood is disposed of is not being considered at this time. )

Then he says:

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

So, I point out the obvious – There is little or no doubt he is trolling; for he has used this question in the past in an abrasive manner. Let us see if he will ever be satisfied, even by a detailed explanation.

If Chaconga holds that the blood loss demands a sin offering – then he also knows that loss of blood infers sin. If this is so, then when scripture says “Jesus was tempted like us in all things, but didn’t sin” – that must include bleeding/placenta loss as a baby – just like all original sinners must do…

But if Jesus DIDN’T loose his blood as a baby, then we can legitimately infer that something miraculous must have happened. The miracle can exempt Mary from blood loss and thus the sin sacrifice.

I’ll say it again – the statement in Luke 2:28 is an all or nothing proposition; If Jesus can’t be said to have sinned – though he is in the group that the sin offering is made for; then neither can Mary be proven to have sinned.

Again – Let anyone see if they can actually get a straight answer from Cachonga on what Mary was guilty of (what sin, specifically?); and see if he can come up with anything but blood loss based on what the bible TELLS him, and not what he brings to the text.

Again:
I have no reason to believe the OT shows proof of original sin in all descendants of Adam; for not even the NT explicitly teaches it without the possibility of exceptions. I believe in the doctrine AND IT’S LIMITS because of the Church’s authority in interpreting what the scriptures contain – and the ambiguity of certain key statements in scripture.

I believe because the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all Truth.
Personal interpretation simply doesn’t suffice.

Original Sin – an essential truth of the faith.
CCC 388:
With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the people of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.

The OT DOESN’T give enough information to prove original sin. The new has the church’s Teaching.

Cachonga Left the church, therefore I won’t concede his right to use her Teaching without reference to the whole of the teaching. His dissection of the teaching permits apologists to demand he prove each of the Church’s doctrines based on Scripture alone before we accept his version of Our Teacher.

And I think it important to actually draw out the inferences of his twisted logic vs. Catholic Teaching;

The Catholic church does not accept that Mary had any impurity whatsoever with respect to the virginity of her womb. Her womb was never physically opened/violated is a direct inference of the Catholic Teaching;
and this Teaching is made with GOOD reason found even outside the Catholic Church.

Many Eastern churches (Orthodox, even those in schism with the Latin Rite) – explicitly hold that the birth of Jesus did not include a traversal of the birth canal. We see a supporting statement made in the Prophecy of the Messiah concerning God’s interference in the natural course of this particular child’s birth (Psalm 22) – “But you took me from my mother’s womb.” (not from the birth canal…??) This psalm clearly refers to God’s activity of protecting the messiah from some kind of danger (poss. of sin?) during his specific birth under it’s specific conditions. It supports the miraculous birth position.

The Catholic church was aware of these traditions from the time of Christ himself; and she contemplated them for some time before stating definitively a conclusion of her perpetual and PERFECT virginity.

Many Catholic Apologists (perhaps in deference to the Vulgate) may wish to ignore the exact words of Luke; and hypothesize that Mary offered the doves;
This is acceptable – but un-necessary – and possibly wrong.

But even then, Chaconga’s statement that this act is (paraphrase)“itself false witness” is folly; for Jesus too entered the water for a baptism of repentance – though he has no sin of his own to repent of.

There is no false scripture witness – rather, Chaconga is offering false personal accusation.

I mentioned that Moses’ body was assumed/made incorruptible; The Catholic Church holds that Mary’s body is likewise incorruptible. I will not trace the issue out here – and they are not identical; Moses’ issue is a far less demanding point… but I do suggest to the aspiring scripture student study the question as to why Moses was not guilty of transgression (personal) and subject to corruption; (Contrary to what scripture says, “I will not suffer my faithful one to see corruption.”)

The technical requirements of the Law concerning the conviction of a person of sin (Mortal and/or venial) is something that is not present in this thread – and others like it on CAF (eg: that I have seen) – and this is a bit of a lacuna; Since the “sin” attack is so common by anti-Catholics, I would hope we would arm ourselves more with the meaning of the Law; it will certainly bolster the defensibility of the Marian doctrines as she was under that Law.

Shalom.
–Andrew.

 

[GraceSofia]

I stopped reading a couple pages back , so forgive me if this has been posted, but I would like to share this informative article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the entry for

The Immaculate Conception

for people who are honestly seeking the truth about our faith .

“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.”

 

[Sime]

I’ve heard similar arguments, and I have to wonder – do you think the writers of the New Testament were being disobedient to Jesus when they wrote the God-breathed Scriptures? Of course there was an oral tradition, and the NT took a while to compile, but even Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture. Remember, the New Testament was written while many eye-witnesses were still alive to confirm what was written (Revelation could be an exception, but even that was believed to have been written by an eye-witness of Jesus). Copies of these writings (as well as many others) were circulated in the early Church. The point here is that we have a written record of things taught from eye-witnesses of the events they reported, and (in the case of Scripture) they were inspired by God Himself.

No I don’t think they were being disobedient but the fact remains; Jesus did not command any of the apostles to write a New Testament; and yet the Church was still flourishing. And even when scripture was being written, they were ‘occasional’ writings that addressed the particular theological or disciplinary needs of a particular community. There was no concerted effort to bring theses writings into a single codex among the writers themselves because the faith had always been transmitted primarily by oral tradition. Nor does the bible itself claim to be the sole authority of Christians or even contain the entire deposit of the faith.

(if the Bible is our sole authority and all Tradition is contained therein) then why does the bible itself tell us to obey our Church leaders and submit to their authority? (Hebrews 13:17). Why does the bible itself call the Church the pillar and foundation of truth? 1 Timothy 3:15

I have studied Scripture (and continue to do so – I know enough to realize I don’t know everything), and I notice how God makes things clear in His word (for example, we know the exact relationship between Abraham and Lot because the Scriptures tell us plainly who Lot’s father was). I have found no such clear teaching on many Catholic doctrines, including Mary’s alleged immaculate conception. I find nothing in the OT that talks about her being slinless (no mention of a sinless woman in Gen 3:15 that I can see, or in any other OT prophecies). I realize someone might say, “Yes, but the OT doesn’t say Jesus would be sinless either!” Perhaps, however, we know that God was the Father of Jesus (just as He was the Father of Adam and Eve, who were created without sin), and the NT DOES say that Jesus “knew no sin” (see 2 Cor 5:21), so we do see from Scripture that Jesus was sinless. I find no such clear testimony for anyone else. As far as what ECF’s taught, again I say, they are not infallible or always right.

The NT DOES say that Jesus “knew no sin” (see 2 Cor 5:21) and it also says that a tree is known by its fruit (Luke 6:44 ), and Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42). And since a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Luke 6:43 ) Mary had to be sinless since she bore good fruit (Jesus), because a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, nor a good tree bad fruit. If you always need a literal statement then you are going to run into a lot of trouble. For instance, where does it say in the bible to “ask Jesus to come into your heart as your personal saviour”? Or where is the sinner’s prayer found in the bible? Both are good things but there is no explicit statement of this in scripture. Also, to get really technical here, no where does Jesus ever command his apostles to pray to Him, rather he says to pray to the Father in His name. Now I think it is healthy and wise to pray to Jesus but if you want to get really technical there is no direct statement in scripture where Jesus commands us to pray to Him.

I think you missed my question about God repenting in the OT. We do see where God “repented” in the OT, but this has nothing to do with sin (unless you want to argue that God sinned, but that would be a completely different thread). It is actually a “change of mind” (look at Jer 4:28 in some different versions and see how “repent” is translated). There are other examples besides this. My point is that “repent” is more a “change of mind/heart” (hence, John turned the hearts of the people back to God as the voice crying in the wilderness), and there was no problem with Jesus using Johns baptism to “change” from private life to public ministry.

I didn’t miss it, I never said Jesus sinned or needed to repent. I said he didn’t need to repent yet was still baptized. You simply didn’t get what I was trying to say. To repent means to turn away from sin and towards God. Now Jesus had nothing to repent of yet he was still baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). In the same manner, Mary fulfilled the law with the offering (in order to fulfill the law). It’s not that difficult.

They haven’t tasted death yet. Remember the 2 witnesses in Rev who will be killed by the anti-Christ in Jerusalem? Some people think it’s Moses and Elijah (even though Moses died). Others (including myself) believe it will be Enoch and Elijah. Furthermore, I would suggest that Enoch and Elijah could be considered exceptions (at least for now), and that we know they are exceptions because God has told us in His written word.

Yes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that the bible says, “for as in Adam ALL die”. So are you now saying that when God says the word ‘ALL’ it doesn’t necessarily mean every single person? And does the bible say that they are the only two exceptions? Because if you believe they are the only two exceptions then the bible must literally state “Enoch and Elijah are the only to exceptions” in order for you to believe that. If the bible doesn’t give such a literal statement then you are going outside of the bible and merely expressing your opinion.

That she was most blessed of women. Even if she had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus (I don’t believe that’s the case, but let’s explore this for a bit), God could have made her an acceptable, sinless vessel at any time in her life (just as He did with the Ark of the Covenant). Nothing in the idea of her being sinless to be the mother of Jesus requires that she be sinless from conception (or even that she remain sinless all her life). God makes no mention of any such sinlessness for Mary in His written word, so I see no reason to believe she was without sin.

John 20:30; 21:25 says- Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures yet He said to “OBSERVE ALL I have commanded,” .Matt. 28:20 - but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.2 John 1:12 - Having many things to write unto you, I WOULD NOT WRITE WITH PAPER AND INK: but I trust to come unto you, AND SPEAK FACE TO FACE, that our joy may be full .

Look closely at this passage. John says that he would rather speak face to face so that their joy may be complete, instead of writing using ink. - write what? An epistle!

Same with Paul: 1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

Oral Tradition was the primary way that Christ’s teaching were handed down.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12, - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone, and no indication whatsoever that ALL Tradition is in the bible.

The very fact that you think the bible alone is your sole authority (even though the bible never says that) proves that you have unbiblical beleifs.

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

The way we interpret the declaration “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” is that Jesus was saying following God is most important but that obviously Mary did that so He was implicitly praising her.

I am not saying that Jesus was being disrespectful in calling Mary woman, I am pointing out why it was siginifigant in that it would be unusual for Him to have done so unless there was a reason, unlike the circumstance in addressing the other women that way.

One of the scriptural indications that Mary is the New Ark is because in Revelation that Ark is seen in heaven and a couple of verses later so is the Woman seen to be Mary.

Anyhow I said that the Law is clearly a type of Jesus and Mary carried and brought Jesus
into the world through her womb and the Ark did the same thing for Law. So I see the Ark as more of a type of Mary. If you see it as possible that the Ark is a type of Mary then don’t you think that is a good argument for the Immaculate Conception?

God did not use the term Trinity in His written word and some people would unfortunately try to use that as indication that it isn’t true. We both know that that is unjustifed and absurd. I see there being good scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception, one of which being that it is reasonable to connect Mary as the Second Eve just as it is reasonable to identify the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as divine and therefore three persons in one God.

Also, do you accept that the woman identified in Genesis is Mary? If so that would give strong scriptural evidence that she is the second Eve.

I have argued that Adam came from something that was pure and never impure so the Second Adam must have likewise. What is your feeling on that?

Mary said “let it be with me according to your word” and with that gave God permission. In questioning whether Mary is the Mother of God or not you are going down the path of the heresy Nestorianism which separates Christ’s divinity and humanity. Christ is God, so Mary being His Mother is the Mother of God. In saying that Jesus is the Son of God we recognize that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. I know you don’t deny this, so no Mary is not the grandmother of God.

 

[PoorKnight]

Nice try, but no cigar. Let’s review the problems with it –

1. Job lived before the Law was given.
2. Job was not a Levitcal priest, and so could not make a sin offering (according to the Law).

Where do I use the term “coincidence” in what I wrote? I pointed out some well known parallels between President’s Lincoln and Kennedy, but offered no conclusion (there are plenty out there to choose from). I then stated that I could take the list of parallels between Eve and Mary, substitute “Church” in place of “Mary” and still have a valid list of parallels. The point was, parallels are easy to find. The conclusions arrived at are what I question. Mostly, I question that if the conclusion is true, and it is something that Christians really need to know, why didn’t God inspire someone to include it when they were writing Scriptures? We certainly know about Jesus being the New Adam because it’s clearly stated in Scripture, and there was opportunity in Scripture for these things to have been included, even places where one might logically expect to read about such things (for example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture we learn she is a virgin, lives in Nazareth, and is engaged to marry Joseph, but there is not a single word about her having any vows or being free from all stain of sin from conception).

I’ll bet you could provide enough scare crows for the entire state of Kansas with all the straw men you’re building here. You brought up coincidences, so why are you accusing me of things I didn’t say?

This is off topic, but just to give you something to cogitate on, do you infallibly understand ANY infallible doctrine of the Church? For myself, I have never claimed infallibility (I have asked some close friends to “take care of me” if I ever do).

Wow, there’s so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin…

Job was before the Law was given? As a Sola Scriptura follower I bet then the book of Job gives a date…

I could care less if Job was a Levitical Priest (The Scriptures don’t say one way or another) but he was Just in the eyes of God, yet offered sin offerings for his children. You created information not in Scirpture to refute information in Scripture.

It’s this kind of Create-a-doctorine; declare it true and then find proof in the Bible that origionally got me questioning all of Protestantism…

You didn’t use the exact word “co-incidence” but that was you DIRECT INFERENCE. Kinda like ‘Trinity’ in the Bible.
Can’t find the word in the “plain text” but that’s what many texts Directly point to.
Kinda like Mary as New Eve,
Kinda like Mary as Arc of the New Covenant,
Kinda like Mary as Queen of Heaven,
Kinda like Mary as Immaculately Concieved and Sinless
Kinda like Mary as ever Virgin

You don’t find those EXACT WORDS in Sola Scriptura but all the inferences as there - If you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

"Mostly, I question that if the conclusion is true, and it is something that Christians really need to know, why didn’t God inspire someone to include it when they were writing Scriptures? "

Then you question the Trinity, the Table of Contents in your Bible, and many MANY other “Essentials” that are not in the “plain English Text”. Yeah that got me questioning Protestantism too when you tried to argue from the Greek / Hebrew and get the response of “then why didn’t they write it that way”.

If you actually look at Scripture as much as you can in 1st Century Greek / Jewish context and not in a “sola Americana” context, the “paralells” (I believe you used that word) are overwhelming. If you don’t have the ears to hear and the eyes to see…

I have more to comment on but don’t have time right now…

 

[PoorKnight]

I have studied Scripture (and continue to do so – I know enough to realize I don’t know everything), and I notice how God makes things clear in His word (for example, we know the exact relationship between Abraham and Lot because the Scriptures tell us plainly who Lot’s father was).

Oh really? Since you brought up Abraham…

When and how was Abraham “Saved”? I’m sure Scripture is clear on that… I mean c’mon he’s the Father of the Faith! God should surely show clearly, exactly, the moment he was ‘saved’ right?

Or how about Jesus’ geneology. Please use “Sola Scriptura” to show me how to rectify the two geneologies.

Or how about where does the Bible say “Sola Scriptura”?

Or How about that Scripture is VERY clear at the time of the 1st Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) that the only way to be “Saved” is by circumcision, yet Peter, speaking for the Church, ruled that circumcision is not necessary and the saving Grace of God would be still applied to Gentile and Jew alike. Why was Peter able to do that? Remember, there was no “New Testament” the only Scripture they had was the Law / Prophets / Psalms.

Or even where is the Table of Contents in inspired Scripture?

Or the definition of “Trinity”?

Or how about teachings on things like First Strike Nuclear War?

Or Teachings on stem cell research?

Or the ethecicy of Invitro fertilization?

You’re taking a preconcieved notion and applying it.

Yes, our FULL understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary comes from God Inspiried Tradition AND Sacred Scripture, however, there is enough in Scripture "alone: to show that this is not just some hairbrained, Pull-it-out-of-nowhere idea. The fact that you reffuse to see it is not our problem.

P.S. Calling “strawman” is a great way of getting out of something you cannot answer…

 

[PoorKnight]

“…but there is not a single word about her having any vows or being free from all stain of sin from conception.”

Kecharitomene

There’s your “single word about her … being free from all stain of sin from conception”.

 

[Nicea325]

Oh really? Since you brought up Abraham…

When and how was Abraham “Saved”? I’m sure Scripture is clear on that… I mean c’mon he’s the Father of the Faith! God should surely show clearly, exactly, the moment he was ‘saved’ right?

Or how about Jesus’ geneology. Please use “Sola Scriptura” to show me how to rectify the two geneologies.

Or how about where does the Bible say “Sola Scriptura”?

Or How about that Scripture is VERY clear at the time of the 1st Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) that the only way to be “Saved” is by circumcision, yet Peter, speaking for the Church, ruled that circumcision is not necessary and the saving Grace of God would be still applied to Gentile and Jew alike. Why was Peter able to do that? Remember, there was no “New Testament” the only Scripture they had was the Law / Prophets / Psalms.

Or even where is the Table of Contents in inspired Scripture?

Or the definition of “Trinity”?

Or how about teachings on things like First Strike Nuclear War?

Or Teachings on stem cell research?

Or the ethecicy of Invitro fertilization?

You’re taking a preconcieved notion and applying it.

Yes, our FULL understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary comes from God Inspiried Tradition AND Sacred Scripture, however, there is enough in Scripture "alone: to show that this is not just some hairbrained, Pull-it-out-of-nowhere idea. The fact that you reffuse to see it is not our problem.

P.S. Calling “strawman” is a great way of getting out of something you cannot answer…

Precisely why Cachonga will not reply to me,because I cornered him on the canon of scripture. I asked him to tell me where does Scripture explicitly mention a list of books which should be ratified as canonical? Better yet, where does God even say a single word about it in Scripture? His rebuttal: I need to take a course on comprehension?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

“…but there is not a single word about her having any vows or being free from all stain of sin from conception.”

Kecharitomene

There’s your “single word about her … being free from all stain of sin from conception”.

Karl Keeting has quoted a statement, I think it was from Ludwig Ott on this point. The apologetic doesn’t stand up well by itself and isn’t convincing to the non-catholic community in general; setting aside the anti-catholics…

It would be better, as an apologist, to look up John Duns Scotus; it was his argument (and not the above word, alone) which convinced the Pope that Mary was indeed immaculately conceived.

I am down on Cachonga for knowingly using a bad apologetic and detraction ; eg: There is no need to drag Mary through the mud and purposely insult the Catholic Faith and attempt to incite disbelief over “sound bites” which he knows don’t hold up – but which do cause emotional distress to less informed Catholics. Esp. as the Marian doctrine did not affect the salvation of Catholics over all the early centuries…

But, what Cachonga is doing just isn’t something that needs to be on CAF.
If he weren’t attempting to blame sin on her without clear and solid proof; I’d be far more circumspect.

Many of his arguments are partially true – and on the word kecharitomenH, I haven’t seen a Catholic apologist yet explain exactly why it would apply (necessarily) to her conception – rather than at a later time in her life.
It Can – and there may even be a reason that it does apply to her conception – but I haven’t seen a convincing argument on the point. If there is one, I’d like to have it … just for my own reference.



Shalom.
–Andrew.