Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Lillie1210]

Prayer:
Father, Lord in Heaven, we are saved by no other name but the name of Jesus. God’s Word is about redemption, salvation and love for Him and for each other. You did not give in rebellion or conceit but humility and had sacrafised yourself to make us right before God. You gave your life so that we can ALL live and we do not have or cannot give anything in return but our love and devotion to you alone. Help us be led by your Spirit for all answers to all matters concerning this world. Grant us more life in your Spirit to breathe life to others who give to things that are not exclusively honoring you. Help us to want to worship You alone in Spirit and in Truth. Breathe fresh fire upon the Catholic church - HElp them see your HAND upon them, and not their own thoughts of what is considered Holy or Divine. Help them honor and read your Word more AND rely only on your Word. May they understand that it is only by your Word and nothing else that grants salvation. Help them see that by reading your Word, they would gain disearnment. Help them know the Commander in Chief more , who is over all matters, above heaven, on earth and below earth, you have all control. HElp them understand that it’s not by bread alone that we move but by every Word that proceeds from Your mouth - it is by Your Word exclusively that we are able to GAIN LIFE. May no weapon be formed against us , your people, as we are conquerors in Christ. Grant us a chance to live your fullness by preaching the gospel to others who are in need of the life saving Words - the bible. May the Catholic leaders, Priest and all encourage the lay people to read God’s Word more - to believe that it is a foot print , a path to eternal life. Help them have a living relationship with you - to help them see the “arm of the Lord”, in Jesus’ name. Grant them revelation of what stumbles them from moving powerfully in your Spirit. Help them see that by placing full devotion to you ALONE, WOULD help them live a life that pleases you. Remove idolatry and all distractions that prevent your people from recognizing who you are in the church, in Jesus’ name. I pray these things in the name of the Father , the son and of the Holy Spirit. AMEN

 

[cc42]

Cachonga and Lillie1210 too:

As far as intercession of saints, there really isn’t a problem. You would ask someone on earth to pray for you so why not someone in heaven? Jesus is God so I don’t know why you wouldn’t pray to Him (I know what you said but the Bible says the angels worship Him).

Whether you accept typology or not the writer’s of the Bible did and the Holy Spirit seems to make use of it. Typology locks contrasts and parallels into place.

For instance: In Adam we die, but in Christ we live (Rom. 5:12). The first Eve was formed from the sinless Adam, the second Adam was formed from the sinless Eve. There is no arguing with the connections as long as you believe that the New Testament takes what is from the Old and makes it New and better because it is superior.

I know I have already made these points but they seem to give very solid Biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception.

Perhaps they even give good enough evidence, but for you something has to be made more clearly, I guess I don’t know where that authoritative claim comes from. I think that Jesus founded the Church (Mt. 16:16), but I don’t read anywhere that He commissioned people to write down everything that needs to known about theology and record it in the Bible.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

As far as intercession of saints, there really isn’t a problem. You would ask someone on earth to pray for you so why not someone in heaven? Jesus is God so I don’t know why you wouldn’t pray to Him (I know what you said but the Bible says the angels worship Him).

Problem with this idea is – I can’t ask someone in another state (or even another part of town) to pray for me if I have no way to communicate with them. What phone service do you have that reaches to people in Heaven? Furthermore, I have never heard anyone (Catholic or otherwise) ask a friend to intercede on their behalf in the same kind of language that is applied to Saints in Heaven.

Whether you accept typology or not the writer’s of the Bible did and the Holy Spirit seems to make use of it. Typology locks contrasts and parallels into place.

For instance: In Adam we die, but in Christ we live (Rom. 5:12). The first Eve was formed from the sinless Adam, the second Adam was formed from the sinless Eve. There is no arguing with the connections as long as you believe that the New Testament takes what is from the Old and makes it New and better because it is superior.

Excuse me, but you gave a Scripture verse to prove the typology of Adam/Christ. Where is the Scripture verse to prove the typology of Eve/Mary? I would say that there is no arguing with the connections as long as you accept, without question, what the “infallible” magisterium of the catholic church tells you is true (in spite of any evidence, or lack thereof).

I know I have already made these points but they seem to give very solid Biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception.

I’m still not convinced that she even had to be sinless, much less immaculately conceived. I don’t deny it could have happened, but I find no reason to accept it as true, and certainly no basis for anyone to require Christians to believe it (even if they claim “Apostolic” authority). This gets into the issue of authority, which is way beyond the topic of this thread.

Perhaps they even give good enough evidence, but for you something has to be made more clearly, I guess I don’t know where that authoritative claim comes from. I think that Jesus founded the Church (Mt. 16:16), but I don’t read anywhere that He commissioned people to write down everything that needs to known about theology and record it in the Bible.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB). Your argument against Scriptures seems strange in light of the fact that God inspired the writers of Scripture to put down what they wrote. Just because Jesus never told anyone to write, does that mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were being disobedient to God’s word when they wrote their gospels? Certainly not! I would hope we would agree that 2 Tim 3:16-17 applies to Revelation just as much as it applies to Genesis (and everything in between). Maybe you could explain to me how Scripture equips you to teach the immaculate conception (assuming you believe it to be a good work to do so). I would say that if Scripture doesn’t help you teach this, then either Paul (through the Holy Spirit) lied to Timothy (hopefully nobody would believe that), or it’s not something that we, as Christians, need to believe. I would hasten to point out that in 2 Tim 3:16-17 there is no mention of Tradition in conjunction with the Scriptures.

 

[aragonjohn1]

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.

mary’s sinlessness

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

However, what was NOT a matter of debate was Mary’s sinlessness. The universal witness of the Church, from Pentecost until today, has always professed that Mary was without sin. The only question was: “When did her sinlessness begin”? And it was from this question that we arrive at the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, even those saints of the Church (like Aquinas or Bernard) who rejected the Immaculate Conception, STILL taught that Mary was sinless; and they suggested that her sinlessness began at the time of her birth, rather than at her conception. And we see this belief in Mary’s sinlessness going back to the earliest days of the Church. For example, …

Around 390 AD, St. Augustine writes:

“Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.”

Similarly, St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397) says:

“Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain.”

Likewise, the Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary “Panagia” (“All-Holy One”) and “Panagiota” (“All-Sinless One”).

Furthermore, in the Syrian Church, we have St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350), who says:

“Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother.” (Poem to Christ)

And,

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (Ibid)

Also, the Syrian St. John Damascene (645-750) speaks of Mary, saying: “The serpent never entered that Paradise.”

Likewise, among the early Church Fathers, we have St. Irenaeus of Lyon (a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John the Apostle himself – the caretaker of Mary, according to John 19:26-27). And, according to St. Irenaeus, writing in 180 AD, we are told,

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III c. 180 AD)

• scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV
• philvaz.com/apologetics/a28.htm

 

[aragonjohn1]

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.

as for infant baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.

• philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm
• scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

SHALOM
GOD BLESS

 

[Lillie1210]

Cachonga,

I know you are a child of God because you believe in Jesus and unfortunately there are differences that exists among His people. I strongly with all my heart - believe what I read in the bible. With his eyes, I read, and there is nothing or no one that is equal to God - there is only God, the Father, Jesus , the son and the Holy Spirit. To say that St. Mary is sinless is saying that she is divine, and she is not 100% divine, - she and no one on this earth is equal to God - and yes, to say that she is sinless is placing her in a level that is not biblical and remember always refer to God in these matters - read his Word.
His Word clearly says that all who follow his will are his mother, brother and sister. There is no one that is seen any more special or separate. Sure, the saints, like Paul, Peter, etc are truly gifted and had done God’s will, but even these saints that had died for his name were not seen to be divine. It was God that brought Jesus down to earth, not St. Mary, she served as a mighty vessel - which was great, but that is it. Why so much emphases on giving her same authority as Jesus. Look, just read and pray before you read God’s Word. There are many scriptures that indicate that no one is exempt and all fall short of Glory and all have sinned. Why try to read it any other way. There are countless of scriptures that account for this truth:
JOb:
Job 15:14 What [is] man, that he should be clean? and [he which is] born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

PT: Only Jesus had NO SIN - HE WAS THE ONLY ONE!!!
ROMANS:
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Look, I can go and post practically the entire bible - the Word of God and you will find that everywhere will may statement be testified - There is no one under heaven, on earth and under earth that has someone who has been on earth in the flesh that had no sin.

There is so many man made traditions within the catholic church that it prevents God’s people in the Catholic church from recognizing the truth because people are not devoting their entire hearts to juST THE TRUTH - THE BIBLE. that is the only authority.
The Catholic church does not allow people of God to recieve the Eucharist unless he/she is catholic - but Jesus welcomes all to his table - this he has told me. Who’s rule is that to say YOu must be a catholic - but a Man. The catholic church says that a person is in sin - mortal sin if he or she leaves the catholic church and joins another Godly church like an assembly of God church - whose rule is that? That is made from man, not from God. We all know that God looks at the heart and he is not concerned with names being a “Catholic” or a Protestant - baptist or assembly of God - God will take that person and transform him and he will raise up prophets and godly people so long that they follow him.Jesus made the church - the church is not the “catholic church” , the church is his bride - those who follow him, who have surrendered their entire hearts and who chosen him to be the leader and solo Lord of their lives - I have made him my only God, and though not perfect yet - since I"m still a work in progress, I know enought to only rely on HIS Word alone. The catholic church believes that they are superior because they have the Eurcharist and it’s presence of the bread is seen to be symbolic else where - I’m here to tell you that the Lord is in places and houses of worship where he is worshipped in Spirit and in truth and he strongly permeates where he is worshipped alone and where people have surrendered their hearts to him - there are miricles and blessings that have happened where the gifts of the HOly Spirit manifests themselves completely in a Protestant church, because they within the church have decided to only, and only make him the LEADER . People of God - must know this because they hear from him. I have a truly living relationship with the living God. He speaks and I try to follow his commands on the daily basis - but this happens because I am walking in the Spirit. The Lord says clearly that it won’t matter where you worship so long you worship him the Spirit and truth for the Father is Spirit. I confess my sins totally to him and go straight to the throne of heaven, why would I want to go backwards and pray to a saint to get to him - it’s like you asking your brother if you can talk to your father - why, when you can go straight to the father. The catholic church places too many hinderances upon the people of God and these hinderances blockade people from recognizing the truth - that it’s only by his Word that you are saved - there is no other name but the they of Jesus. But, they try to dietize St. Mary - and yes, many inadvertenly worship St. Mary - and it’s sad. They do not mean to but altars and kneeling down to lift up prayers to her to get to the father - even in God’s Word the very few scriptures she’s records state that she refers people to him - that is it. Keep it simple. Use the Holy Bible to be the footprint , the path and will of God is all in there sacred Words - and if you place your heart to only reading God’s Word, many will uncover the truths of what I say in this website. Many lay people are now coming around praise God - and are recognizing that they have authority in Christ - it’s not just the “priests” - God will choose anyone to do his work, like he did with David - and unexpected person he selected - a child practically , but it was his heart that God looked at. Keep it simple my Christ following friend. I call you in friend because we have one common ground JEsus - we simply have to minister to people about who Jesus is. We do not have to explain the "hail mary " prayers or explain how Holy you thing a saint was because that is not what will breathe life into people. LIfe is given when you plant a seed - that seed is God’s Word - REad it in the parables that JEsus taught concerning the vineyard and planting seeds. YOu see, when you just dedicate yourself to his Word and not to man - made traditions, you "see: very clearly. May God bring you to read his Word more and more each day and as you do, I pray that he illuminates your path more!
This I say in Jesus’ name.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

A Bad Tree can not yield good fruit. Jesus is God and that’s what He said–if Mary was Depraved and infested with sin as the Protestants would have you believe–how could she a bad tree give birth to a perfect tree which was Jesus? How could He inherit His unblemished humanity from Mary if she were BAD!!!

Mary is the Mother of God–not the incubator of God!

Jesus receives His unblemished humanity from Mary Full of Grace and without sin–just like Eve was before the fall.

Jesus who is God could be united to perfect humanity like Adam and Eve’s humanity was before the fall–He could not unite with BLEMISHED humanity like Adam and Eve had after the fall–He had to be unblemished to perform the perfect sacrifice for our salvation–yet He also had to inherit His humanity from Mary–that way He would truely be one of us.

People who believe that Mary has sinned believe that God was incapable of making a human who could not sin–in other words they really do believe that Satan is more powerful than God–they really believe that if God gives a person so much grace that they are full of grace to where He can’t even give them more grace that they will still fall to sin!

In other words they think that Satan is more powerful than God!

They’re also as envious and jealous as Lucifer was right before he fell from heaven. In their heart of hearts it burns their guts out that God would give Mary so much grace–and let’s be honest–they figure since they aren’t perfect that everyone else should be brought down to their level–who does that sound like?–you guessed it–Satan!

Mary being sinless isn’t about Mary–it’s about the Humanity of Christ–His perfect UNBLEMISHED sacrifice–His humanity that was inherrited from Mary–and God’s plan of salvation which included Mary.

I’m HAPPY that God gave Mary more grace than me!

Shouldn’t everyone be happy when God graces someone else?

Satan isn’t. Protestants aren’t either.

Let me correct that–Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Wesley all thought Mary was unblemished.

The fact that many Protestants today don’t see it as they did just goes to show you how FAR Satan will lead people off the right path!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Welcome to the Forums Lillie, and thank you for your prayer.

Cachonga,

I know you are a child of God because you believe in Jesus and unfortunately there are differences that exists among His people. I strongly with all my heart - believe what I read in the bible. With his eyes, I read, and there is nothing or no one that is equal to God - there is only God, the Father, Jesus , the son and the Holy Spirit. To say that St. Mary is sinless is saying that she is divine,

no, lilly; it does not make her divine. That’s being silly.
Jesus washes your sins away – you too can be sinless. That is what everyone receives at baptism.

and she is not 100% divine, - she and no one on this earth is equal to God - and yes, to say that she is sinless is placing her in a level that is not biblical and remember always refer to God in these matters - read his Word.

Of course, read it – and I agree with all of it, not just parts.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Don’t forget Job, was not a Jew at birth…
Regarding the psalm, it is quite special in the exact words it uses.
It is referencing, also, Jacob using magic to damage sheep – or rather, getting the females to breed in an un-natural heet.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

And don’t forget what St. Paul said about a child of even 1 christian parent.

1Cori 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

PT: Only Jesus had NO SIN - HE WAS THE ONLY ONE!!!
ROMANS:
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

You’re quoting that out of context. The psalm itself says “The FOOL says in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt…”

The fool says everyone is like themselves, corrupt !
Read it through, it’s psalm 13/14 or 52/53.

There are “son’s of men” and then there are “sons of God”;
Genes 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There ARE righteous people that one can’t accuse of sins in their EARLY life.
The Bible gives us examples of holy Children.
Everyone can sin in the future, up until the day they die – but that doesn’t make them guilty of committing sin in the life which went before.
Even an infant can die without doing anything right or wrong !
Consider:

Matth 19:17 [Jesus said] … if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matth 19:18 He saith unto him [Jesus], Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Matth 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matth 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Matth 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Jesus does not condemn the man; in other scriptures it even says that Jesus THEN looked on him with LOVE.
Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven

Look, I can go and post practically the entire bible - the Word of God and you will find that everywhere will may statement be testified - There is no one under heaven, on earth and under earth that has someone who has been on earth in the flesh that had no sin.

No, you really can’t. You can only do that if you chop up the bible into pieces and accept one part of a sentence, and not another. Why is it so important that everyone be sinful – are you jealous? I don’t mind that someone might be better than I – It’s God’s gift. I rejoice that there are Holy People, even from their birth.

There is so many man made traditions within the catholic church that it prevents God’s people in the Catholic church from recognizing the truth because people are not devoting their entire hearts to juST THE TRUTH - THE BIBLE. that is the only authority.

You have Such strong feeling, like a tree swaying in the breeze.
But the bible nowhere says that the bible is the only authority – on the contrary, Government comes from God. For example, The king, Cyrus, of Persia – a non Jew – God calls HIM in scripture – “my annointed” literally, my christ-os.
Oh, I’ll let most of this go – there’s too much that has little or nothing to do with Mary here.

I do understand your fears and strong feelings; I too wish to see Jesus – but not at the expense of insulting him by ignoring large swaths of the bible, and common sense.

But, they try to dietize St. Mary - and yes, many inadvertenly worship St. Mary - and it’s sad.

I don’t. I never have worshiped (and to be more precise, I have never adored her – and never will.)

We do not have to explain the "hail mary " prayers or explain how Holy you thing a saint was because that is not what will breathe life into people.

The Hail mary is just good old Luke
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:
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.**

It was the very breath of life itself, the Holy Spirit – who said those words out of St. Elisabeth’s mouth.

I don’t quite see what you mean. Mary is to be blessed – forever – among women. AMEN.

LIfe is given when you plant a seed - that seed is God’s Word - REad it in the parables that JEsus taught concerning the vineyard and planting seeds. YOu see, when you just dedicate yourself to his Word and not to man - made traditions, you "see: very clearly. May God bring you to read his Word more and more each day and as you do, I pray that he illuminates your path more!
This I say in Jesus’ name.

And to the prayer, I say AMEN. Ignorance of Scripture, is ignorance of Jesus himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lillie-

There are many errors in your lengthy response to Cachonga…too many to address all at once. Therefore, I’m going to limit myself to your misapplication of two verses.

ROMANS:
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

---

**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Keep on reading Gods love story the Bible Given to us by Christs church !!!

Shalom
God bless

 

[Cachonga]

Jerry-Jet:

A Bad Tree can not yield good fruit. Jesus is God and that’s what He said–if Mary was Depraved and infested with sin as the Protestants would have you believe–how could she a bad tree give birth to a perfect tree which was Jesus? How could He inherit His unblemished humanity from Mary if she were BAD!!!

Do you think God is incapable of making a bad tree good? What exactly do you mean by “infested with sin”? To say someone has sinned does not imply an “infestation” (at least not here on Earth). You make it sound as if Protestants are claiming Mary could have been on the cover of “Girls gone wild”. I’m sure that isn’t what you’re implying (I certainly hope not), but be mindful of what you say and how you say it (I try to do that myself).

As far as Jesus “inheriting” anything from Mary, of course there is no DNA test to prove or disprove that He got any of His genetic makeup from her. What we do know is that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. His genetic make-up could have been completely separate from hers. It’s apparent that He didn’t get all of His DNA from Mary, otherwise He would have been a She). Even if she HAD to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, it doesn’t necessarily follow that this had to be from conception, or even all her life.

Mary is the Mother of God–not the incubator of God!

As the angel told her, she is the mother of the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). He is, without question, fully God and fully man. However, if you want to follow what Scripture says, you would have to admit that she is the mother of the Son of God (and I do not see how this is creating 2 different Jesus’. If anyone is going to make that charge, please explain how following the Scriptures does this).

Jesus receives His unblemished humanity from Mary Full of Grace and without sin–just like Eve was before the fall.

Unproven speculation. As I mentioned above, we have no proof that Jesus got any of His genetic material from Mary.

Jesus who is God could be united to perfect humanity like Adam and Eve’s humanity was before the fall–He could not unite with BLEMISHED humanity like Adam and Eve had after the fall–He had to be unblemished to perform the perfect sacrifice for our salvation–yet He also had to inherit His humanity from Mary–that way He would truely be one of us.

Jesus was sinless (as Adam and Eve were when they were created) because (like Adam and Eve) His Father was God. His humanity enabled Him to inhabit a womb for nine months, as well as be handled by “normal”, sinful human beings throughout His life on Earth (even after His resurrection, he allowed Himself to be touched and handled by “normal” people, like Doubting Thomas). None of them had to be sinless. On the other hand, if we’re going to look at it “logically”, then in order for Mary to be a good tree, wouldn’t her mother and father also have to have been good trees? And couldn’t this argument be taken all the way back to Eve?

People who believe that Mary has sinned believe that God was incapable of making a human who could not sin–in other words they really do believe that Satan is more powerful than God–they really believe that if God gives a person so much grace that they are full of grace to where He can’t even give them more grace that they will still fall to sin!

… and following …

Your logic is underwhelming. For myself, I have never denied that God COULD have created a sinless Mary from conception (as the church dogmatically proclaims), I just don’t find any evidence for Him doing this within Scripture. As a result, I have to conclude that either He didn’t make her sinless from conception, or it’s not something we, as Christians, need to believe in order to live a successful Christian life. I most certainly do NOT believe Satan is more powerful than God. You are obviously not familiar with the Protestant position (either that or you’re a liar and a deceiver, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt). I would encourage you to find out what Protestants really believe and represent it fairly and honestly (unless you don’t really care for Truth, which is a dangerous place to be in!).

As far as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc…), first I would hope we can all agree that they were not infallible. Second, the Reformation was not due to abuses of Mary, so obviously they didn’t spend a great deal of thought or study on what the Church taught about Mary; rather they stuck with what they had been taught, and it was left to future generations to “water the acorn” (to borrow an analogy used by the catholic church).

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

With God all things are possible, just because language with saints is different that should be expected because as you said they are in a different place.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Meaning it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training. I think I am using it for all of those things. I believe that the Bible is inspired so when it allows for so many parallels to be made I know that they are there for a reason and not just some coincidence. No I don’t think the Gospel writers were in error in writing the Gospels but I don’t think that the Gospel writers had the idea in mind that they would right down everything that could be known (see Jn. 20: 30-31). I also don’t think that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and then went away.

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

With God all things are possible, just because language with saints is different that should be expected because as you said they are in a different place.

You missed the point. Let me try and clarify. When was the last time you asked a friend to pray for by saying something like, “Hail, friend, full of compassion and care for his fellow servant of Christ. I pray that you might intercede on my behalf with God that I might recover from this cold quickly. I ask this in Jesus name. Amen”. Again, when was the last time you asked for Mary’s intercession with something like this, “Dear St. Mary, I’m coming down with a cold. Please ask Jesus to heal me. Thanks!”.

Being in a different place only means there has to be a sure means of communication in order to be heard. What is your sure means, and how do you know it’s sure?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Meaning it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training. I think I am using it for all of those things. I believe that the Bible is inspired so when it allows for so many parallels to be made I know that they are there for a reason and not just some coincidence. No I don’t think the Gospel writers were in error in writing the Gospels but I don’t think that the Gospel writers had the idea in mind that they would right down everything that could be known (see Jn. 20: 30-31). I also don’t think that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and then went away.

You asserted that you’re using the Scriptures correctly, but you haven’t answered the question. Just to refresh the memory, the question was “explain to me how Scripture equips you to teach the immaculate conception (assuming you believe it to be a good work to do so)”. You point to parallels, but the conclusions (which you don’t even mention here) are not supported within Scripture (and we already have a precedent in the Adam/Jesus parallel). Furthermore, there is no explanation of how these parallels or their conclusions help you teach the immaculate conception.

As far as the Gospels not containing everything Jesus ever said or did, that goes without saying. But consider this – there is no biography of anyone that contains everything that person ever said or did (not even an autobiography). That doesn’t make these things unreliable, and it certainly doesn’t give one license to say some important (and perhaps even contradictory) things happened that didn’t get recorded. Surely you would agree that the author would include everything they thought was important in what they wrote. Just so, the Scriptures (which were, ultimately, authored by God Himself) would contain exactly what He wants us to know.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as Jesus “inheriting” anything from Mary, of course there is no DNA test to prove or disprove that He got any of His genetic makeup from her. What we do know is that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. His genetic make-up could have been completely separate from hers. It’s apparent that He didn’t get all of His DNA from Mary, otherwise He would have been a She). Even if she HAD to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, it doesn’t necessarily follow that this had to be from conception, or even all her life.

Sounds like Jesus wasn’t fully human.

As the angel told her, she is the mother of the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). He is, without question, fully God and fully man. However, if you want to follow what Scripture says, you would have to admit that she is the mother of the Son of God (and I do not see how this is creating 2 different Jesus’. If anyone is going to make that charge, please explain how following the Scriptures does this).

Jesus had two natures; human and divine. However, He was only one person. Mary gave birth to that one person - not to His human nature only. Mary was the mother of the person who was fully God. Consequently, Mary was the Mother of God. To claim anything less is to fall into a heresy that was dealt with in the fourth century.

Unproven speculation. As I mentioned above, we have no proof that Jesus got any of His genetic material from Mary.

Kinda diminishes the incarnation, doesn’t it?

Jesus was sinless (as Adam and Eve were when they were created) because (like Adam and Eve) His Father was God. His humanity enabled Him to inhabit a womb for nine months, as well as be handled by “normal”, sinful human beings throughout His life on Earth (even after His resurrection, he allowed Himself to be touched and handled by “normal” people, like Doubting Thomas). None of them had to be sinless. On the other hand, if we’re going to look at it “logically”, then in order for Mary to be a good tree, wouldn’t her mother and father also have to have been good trees? And couldn’t this argument be taken all the way back to Eve?

No, Mary’s parents did not have to be sinless; it was sufficient that she was sinless in order for Jesus to be free from the stain of original sin. And, btw, Joseph was not sinless, but he was God’s chosen to “handle” His Son. However, Joseph did not contribute any DNA nor did he pass on his original sin to Jesus.

Your logic is underwhelming. For myself, I have never denied that God COULD have created a sinless Mary from conception (as the church dogmatically proclaims), I just don’t find any evidence for Him doing this within Scripture.

This is because A) you are poorly educated about these things, and B) having been presented with the facts, you refuse to believe them because they are at odds with what your current “church” believes.

As far as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc…), first I would hope we can all agree that they were not infallible. Second, the Reformation was not due to abuses of Mary, so obviously they didn’t spend a great deal of thought or study on what the Church taught about Mary; rather they stuck with what they had been taught, and it was left to future generations to “water the acorn” (to borrow an analogy used by the catholic church).

And are you willing to consider the possibility, then, that there were a great many other theological matters about which they gave very little thought before embarking upon their foolish enterprise?

They used every available means to discredit the Catholic Church and the papacy; if they thought they had theological grounds for discrediting the Church on the basis of Marian doctrines, they would have done so with great relish.

They didn’t.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You asserted that you’re using the Scriptures correctly, but you haven’t answered the question. Just to refresh the memory, the question was “explain to me how Scripture equips you to teach the immaculate conception (assuming you believe it to be a good work to do so)”.

Aren’t you quoting James White from his debate with Patrick Madrid?

No worries. So, you want something from scripture that explains the Immaculate Conception? It is a pity that as a former Catholic, you are not familiar with these things.

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.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

Just as a glass that is full of water cannot be partially full of air, so one who is full of grace cannot be partially full of sin.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Hope this helps.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Sounds like Jesus wasn’t fully human.

He was as human as Adam and Eve (who did they get their DNA from?)

Jesus had two natures; human and divine. However, He was only one person. Mary gave birth to that one person - not to His human nature only. Mary was the mother of the person who was fully God. Consequently, Mary was the Mother of God. To claim anything less is to fall into a heresy that was dealt with in the fourth century.

So you’re saying it’s heresy to say what the Scriptures say about Jesus and Mary?

Kinda diminishes the incarnation, doesn’t it?

I don’t see how. The conception was still a miracle performed by God, and God did create Adam out of dirt (not much genetic material there, unless you hold to the “primordial soup” theory of explaining away God’s work in creation), and He created Eve out of Adam’s rib (couldn’t use all of his DNA, otherwise Eve would have been a guy and we would have become extinct a long time ago). If God can create their genetic makeup when He needs to, why is it any less of a miracle for Him to do it for His Son?

No, Mary’s parents did not have to be sinless; it was sufficient that she was sinless in order for Jesus to be free from the stain of original sin. And, btw, Joseph was not sinless, but he was God’s chosen to “handle” His Son. However, Joseph did not contribute any DNA nor did he pass on his original sin to Jesus.

If what you say is true, then don’t you think God could have made her sinless at any time in her life? And even if she had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, why would this sinlessness need to extend her entire life? And don’t forget, Joseph wasn’t the only person to “handle” Jesus (there was a priest that circumcised Him, Simeon and Anna when He was dedicated, undoubtedly other children He grew up with touched Him during games, etc…

This is because A) you are poorly educated about these things, and B) having been presented with the facts, you refuse to believe them because they are at odds with what your current “church” believes.

A) I have been “shown” Scriptures that MAY indicate Mary MIGHT have been cleansed of sin by God at some point in her life (whether from conception or not, there has been no evidence provided from Scripture one way or the other). B) I have been told what I was being presented with were facts, but there has been nothing to substantiate the claims (other than “because the Church says so”). C) I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to how a person without sin can make a valid sin offering, as Mary did (I believe I have shown that to be true from the Scriptures, but Catholics, who believe the “Church” regardless of evidence, have excused it away without any valid explanation).

I have admitted the immaculate conception could have happened, and I can accept it IF I am given sufficient evidence to believe it. It is the Roman Catholic Church that is making the dogmatic, infallible claim. I am just looking for some kind of evidence within the pages of Scripture. If there is none (which I haven’t seen anything convincing so far), why get upset with me and start making accusations? You have shown your “evidence”, I’ve looked at, and I have explained why I find it lacking. There was an appeal to ECF’s, but the topic concerns the Bible, not the Bible and tradition.

And are you willing to consider the possibility, then, that there were a great many other theological matters about which they gave very little thought before embarking upon their foolish enterprise?

Since the Reformers are not the topic of this thread, I haven’t given them a great deal of thought.

Oh. You want something from scripture that explains the Immaculate Conception. It is a pity that as a former Catholic, you are not familiar with these things.

What was the topic of the thread again? Oh yeah – Sinless Mary and the Bible. I wonder why I thought I could ask for something from Scripture? It’s a pity that as a current Catholic, you seem to have some difficulty with Scriptural explanations.

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 tense used indicates that the filling of grace took place at some point in the past, not necessarily from conception (as I have pointed out before). I have already conceded that God MAY have made Mary sinless, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be from conception (or even all her life). You are reading into the text what your Church has told you to find (because otherwise, you would have to admit that your “infallible” authority may not be as infallible as you thought).

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.

Read what I had to say above. Note your words – “Catholics hold”. Based on what evidence? The only thing I find it could be based on is the dogmatic teaching, which just goes to verify what I already said. It’s the Catholic who is reading things into the text.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

Odd that God would bestow a title on someone as important as Mary and never use it again within the pages of Scripture. Just curious (it’s a bit off topic, so you don’t have to answer), how many ECF’s addressed her with this title?

A glass that is full of water cannot be partially full of air. Similarly, one who is full of grace cannot be partially full of sin.

Even if this is a true comparison, the glass was not made full of water. Again, while I admit God MIGHT have removed sin from Mary, I have seen nothing to convince me it had to happen at conception, or even remain all her life.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

I hope people see that from this passage (and what has gone before on this post), it is clear that the Catholic is engaging in eisagesis, reading things into the text that aren’t there in order to maintain the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Do you think God is incapable of making a bad tree good?

True, a very good pointing out of a problem.

As far as Jesus “inheriting” anything from Mary, of course there is no DNA test to prove or disprove that He got any of His genetic makeup from her. What we do know is that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. His genetic make-up could have been completely separate from hers.

I don’t think that’s possible; but it’s an open question.

Jesus had to take on humanity to redeem it – anything else would be creation a-new. Genetics, however, are only the material – eg: slime of the earth – it is the spirit which gives life, and forms the material; not the other way around.

It’s apparent that He didn’t get all of His DNA from Mary, otherwise He would have been a She). Even if she HAD to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, it doesn’t necessarily follow that this had to be from conception, or even all her life.

Good point again.

As the angel told her, she is the mother of the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). He is, without question, fully God and fully man. However, if you want to follow what Scripture says, you would have to admit that she is the mother of the Son of God (and I do not see how this is creating 2 different Jesus’. If anyone is going to make that charge, please explain how following the Scriptures does this).

Unproven speculation. As I mentioned above, we have no proof that Jesus got any of His genetic material from Mary.

The bible doesn’t talk about DNA; obviously. Although the Catholic might turn to DNA found in miraculous items. For example, the Shroud of Turin’s blood stains, etc. There are of course debates about authenticity – but there is nothing preventing a Catholic from choosing to believe these are genuine. There is sufficient evidence to link it to Christ, and insufficient evidence to prove it is not from the holy land at the time of Jesus. Scientific issues have flip-flopped on the question – but the preponderance of evidence is in the positive.

Jesus was sinless (as Adam and Eve were when they were created) because (like Adam and Eve) His Father was God. His humanity enabled Him to inhabit a womb for nine months, as well as be handled by “normal”, sinful human beings throughout His life on Earth (even after His resurrection, he allowed Himself to be touched and handled by “normal” people, like Doubting Thomas). None of them had to be sinless.

:yup:

On the other hand, if we’re going to look at it “logically”, then in order for Mary to be a good tree, wouldn’t her mother and father also have to have been good trees? And couldn’t this argument be taken all the way back to Eve?

Infinite regression doesn’t work as an objection. The seeds of a fruit are what bring a new tree into existence, not the fruit itself – nor the parent tree (except genetic weaknesses). We need to examine what constitutes a good tree – rotten fruit, wounded trunks, etc.

Very clearly, in the animal analogy – for example, the sheep of Jacob which were blemished – couldn’t be offered in sacrifice because of their quality. However, it is Jacob’s sheep which are the parents of many pure coated sheep who through selective breeding – became acceptable sacrifices.

Again, an animal with broken bones couldn’t be offered, even if it were later healed. But this is not a reason to reject its offspring which have no such imperfections.

Your logic is underwhelming.

Have you ever noticed how fast Jet’s go?
They tend to “over-shoot” the target.

For myself, I have never denied that God COULD have created a sinless Mary from conception (as the church dogmatically proclaims), I just don’t find any evidence for Him doing this within Scripture.

There is little evidence, I’ll agree with that – too.

As a result, I have to conclude that either He didn’t make her sinless from conception, or it’s not something we, as Christians, need to believe in order to live a successful Christian life.

The latter…


Disbelief while remaining under the authority of the Latin Rite church is a different matter.

Come Holy Spirit, breath on me. Fill me with life a-new.
Come Holy Spirit, breath on me. Teach me to love what you love, and to do as you do.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

“Dear St. Mary, I’m coming down with a cold. Please ask Jesus to heal me. Thanks!”.

Good question, I think it has been about a week an a half for me.
I repeat the Hail part, only because of Luke 1:28. If an angel would do that, whom we are a little lower than – I tend to think I better respect her title.
But, I do sometimes forget…

OTOH, to be honest – I prefer the chaplet of divine mercy.

Being in a different place only means there has to be a sure means of communication in order to be heard. What is your sure means, and how do you know it’s sure?

Have you ever written a letter that gets returned? or an e-mail?
Darn. Try Try again… ??? (But don’t give up altogether!)


The rest of that post has little to do with me, so I’ll just watch.
This is getting more interesting… much better than the start of the thread.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

He was as human as Adam and Eve (who did they get their DNA from?)

Yes, but it misses the point; Adam was a unique creation – all subsequent humans are derivative of him. Your argument is understandable, but I think you are being rushed into an apologetic dead end.

God chose reproduction as the method for subsequent humans to come into existence.

… and He created Eve out of Adam’s rib (couldn’t use all of his DNA, otherwise Eve would have been a guy and we would have become extinct a long time ago). If God can create their genetic makeup when He needs to, why is it any less of a miracle for Him to do it for His Son?

Whoops, go back to genetics 101. Males have EXTRA genetic material, the X chromosome. The man also has a Y chromosome. God deleted part of Adam’s genetics – which are found in the marrow of the bones – to make Eve; if we interpret it literally…

If what you say is true, then don’t you think God could have made her sinless at any time in her life? And even if she had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, why would this sinlessness need to extend her entire life?

Randy gets the former all by himself; but the latter, I’ll tell you, is the true force of the Greek word – it is in the Perfect tense. Her relationship (Grace is bidirectional, gift AND thanks) was consummate before the time of the Angel’s visit; it was proclaimed by the Angel’s word to be a permanent disposition in the future not to be abrogated (eg: while the world remained).

As Catholics, we don’t believe one can begin to sin after they die – so the Angel’s greeting applies to the whole of her existence from some-time before that day, but continuing permanently afterward as well.

I think your position is the same regarding the after death issue, no?

C) I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to how a person without sin can make a valid sin offering, as Mary did (I believe I have shown that to be true from the Scriptures, but Catholics, who believe the “Church” regardless of evidence, have excused it away without any valid explanation).

Cachonga!
:tsktsk:

It doesn’t say “Her”. A & B are fine objects, C isn’t and you know it.

What was the topic of the thread again? Oh yeah – Sinless Mary and the Bible. I wonder why I thought I could ask for something from Scripture? It’s a pity that as a current Catholic, you seem to have some difficulty with Scriptural explanations.

I’ll leave that to Randy; It’s his words that brought that sarcasm on…

Read what I had to say above. Note your words – “Catholics hold”. Based on what evidence? The only thing I find it could be based on is the dogmatic teaching, which just goes to verify what I already said. It’s the Catholic who is reading things into the text.

It’s based on a logical inference, and a hierarchy of whom the logical inference could possibly apply to. But, you are free to pin Randy down on the eisegesis issue regarding Luke 1:28… Keeting got nailed for it too…

BTW: I’d like to understand Keeting’s apologetic better myself. I really can’t use it until I do…

Odd that God would bestow a title on someone as important as Mary and never use it again within the pages of Scripture. Just curious (it’s a bit off topic, so you don’t have to answer), how many ECF’s addressed her with this title?

Odd Jesus would get Hail applied to him only once in scripture, too…
Very odd…

I hope people see that from this passage (and what has gone before on this post), it is clear that the Catholic is engaging in eisagesis, reading things into the text that aren’t there in order to maintain the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

General plug, not aimed at anyone…
A true apologist, when they don’t know – should say so, or say “I’ll get back to you on that.” That’s something that is an issue of charity and humility as well for all of us.

I hope your Sunday is blessed Chaconga…, Randy…,
Shalom. The debate is good… You two are reasonably matched.

Your brother in Christ, Jesus,
–Andrew.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He was as human as Adam and Eve (who did they get their DNA from?)

I agree with you as far as I understand you. However, this thread really isnt about DNA, so I’ll move on.

So you’re saying it’s heresy to say what the Scriptures say about Jesus and Mary?

Of course not. It’s your interpretation of scripture that may be flawed.

I don’t see how. The conception was still a miracle performed by God, and God did create Adam out of dirt (not much genetic material there, unless you hold to the “primordial soup” theory of explaining away God’s work in creation), and He created Eve out of Adam’s rib (couldn’t use all of his DNA, otherwise Eve would have been a guy and we would have become extinct a long time ago). If God can create their genetic makeup when He needs to, why is it any less of a miracle for Him to do it for His Son?

Sailing pretty close to the wind, aren’t you? Why should God bother to have Mary involved at all? God could have simply made Himself a body out in the desert somewhere and then entered into it. Or simply come down from heaven in the form of a man. But again, this is not the central point of this thread, so let’s move on.

If what you say is true, then don’t you think God could have made her sinless at any time in her life? And even if she had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, why would this sinlessness need to extend her entire life? And don’t forget, Joseph wasn’t the only person to “handle” Jesus (there was a priest that circumcised Him, Simeon and Anna when He was dedicated, undoubtedly other children He grew up with touched Him during games, etc…

COULD God have made Mary sinless at some point after her birth but before the conception of Jesus in order to protect Jesus from inheriting original sin?



God CAN do anything, of course, but that seems to be counter-intuitive to the concept of original sin, doesn’t it?

Additionally, it seems puzzling to me that evangelicals are so insistent upon pulling Mary down into the mud with the rest of us. I thought the whole point of the incarnation was to ultimately raise all of us up to the state of grace that we were intended to have before the fall. Why does it trouble you so much that Mary received from the moment of her conception that state which the rest of us were and are supposed to experience?

A) I have been “shown” Scriptures that MAY indicate Mary MIGHT have been cleansed of sin by God at some point in her life (whether from conception or not, there has been no evidence provided from Scripture one way or the other).

Great. It’s a start.

B) I have been told what I was being presented with were facts, but there has been nothing to substantiate the claims (other than “because the Church says so”).

I understand. And here we begin to get to the heart of your problem. You have a flawed understanding of the nature of the Church.

C) I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to how a person without sin can make a valid sin offering, as Mary did (I believe I have shown that to be true from the Scriptures, but Catholics, who believe the “Church” regardless of evidence, have excused it away without any valid explanation).

I am sorry you are not satisfied. One person enjoys a meal and gets up from the table content. Another is dissatisfied because he cannot stomach what was offered. Where is the fault?

But as for your “evidence”, perhaps you will then prove to us all from scripture alone that Mary commited personal sins (a listing of specific occasions of sin is necessary here) or that scripture proves that Mary was not protected from original sin (in which case, you have the unenviable task of proving an negative). Alas, Romans 3:23 will not rescue you.

I have admitted the immaculate conception could have happened, and I can accept it IF I am given sufficient evidence to believe it.

I applaud your open-mindedness. :clapping:

It is the Roman Catholic Church that is making the dogmatic, infallible claim.

Yes, it is. Again, there is the heart of the problem. You do not understand that the Church is, in fact, infallible in matters of faith and morals. Arguing the Immaculate Conception before accepting the infallibility of the Church is putting the cart before the horse.

I am just looking for some kind of evidence within the pages of Scripture.

Fair enough. But why must I limit myself to scripture alone? That is your Achilles’ heal, not mine.

If there is none (which I haven’t seen anything convincing so far), why get upset with me and start making accusations? You have shown your “evidence”, I’ve looked at, and I have explained why I find it lacking. There was an appeal to ECF’s, but the topic concerns the Bible, not the Bible and tradition.

I did present material which explained the full meaning of kecharitomene, but this was insufficient for you.

Since the Reformers are not the topic of this thread, I haven’t given them a great deal of thought.

Right. You reject the tradition of the Catholic Church, and you reject that of your own Protestant tradition, as well. This is why Protestantism has fractured into thousands of competing and contradictory denominations…no one will listen to anyone but himself in matters such as these. Every man is a pope unto himself.

What was the topic of the thread again? Oh yeah – Sinless Mary and the Bible. I wonder why I thought I could ask for something from Scripture? It’s a pity that as a current Catholic, you seem to have some difficulty with Scriptural explanations.

As a convert to Catholicism, I have attempted to indulge you and your current adherence to sola scriptura. As we both know, Jesus did not leave us a book; He left us a Church which later wrote the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The tense used indicates that the filling of grace took place at some point in the past, not necessarily from conception (as I have pointed out before). I have already conceded that God MAY have made Mary sinless, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be from conception (or even all her life). You are reading into the text what your Church has told you to find (because otherwise, you would have to admit that your “infallible” authority may not be as infallible as you thought).

You have this the wrong way round. Begin with infallibility.

Read what I had to say above. Note your words – “Catholics hold”. Based on what evidence? The only thing I find it could be based on is the dogmatic teaching, which just goes to verify what I already said. It’s the Catholic who is reading things into the text.

Odd that God would bestow a title on someone as important as Mary and never use it again within the pages of Scripture. Just curious (it’s a bit off topic, so you don’t have to answer), how many ECF’s addressed her with this title?

You are suggesting that the ECF’s were unfamiliar with the Greek?

Even if this is a true comparison, the glass was not made full of water. Again, while I admit God MIGHT have removed sin from Mary, I have seen nothing to convince me it had to happen at conception, or even remain all her life.

So, to be clear, you are saying that Mary was conceived in sin…that she inherited original sin from her mother and father, and that at some point along the way, she MIGHT have been cleansed from all sin?

I hope people see that from this passage (and what has gone before on this post), it is clear that the Catholic is engaging in eisagesis, reading things into the text that aren’t there in order to maintain the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

I hope that people can see that the non-Catholic is forced to explain away both those passages from scripture that do not fit with his flawed understanding of theology as well as the clear, consistent Tradition of the Church. I also hope that people can see that the non-Catholic fails to grasp that the dogmatic teaching of the Church is formed by and flows from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and remains internally consistent with both streams of the Word of God.