Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Randy_Carson]

There was an appeal to ECF’s, but the topic concerns the Bible, not the Bible and tradition.

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?

Cachonga,

If you had gone to church on a Sunday morning in the first four centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ, what might you have heard preached from the pulpit regarding the sinlessness of Mary?

Hippolytus (AD 235)

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (*Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante [A.D. 235]).

---

Origen (AD 244)

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

St. Ephraim the Syrian (AD 361)

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 A.D. 361]).

“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.)

---

St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 387)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30 [A.D. 387])

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

St. Augustine** (AD 415)**

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Interesting. You have chosen to follow in the path they forged, yet you have given little thought to what the Reformers had to say.

Well, Cachonga, if you had gone to church on a Sunday morning in Germany to hear the great Martin Luther himself preach, what might you have heard him say regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December ?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., *Luther, *authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)

**“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin - something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” **(Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)

You see, not only have you strayed from the faith of the Church that Jesus built upon Peter, the Rock, but you have also strayed from the faith of those who first lost their way during the 16th century.

Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Finally, have you ever actually read Ineffabilis Deus? It’s only seven pages or so of fairly easy reading.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

With God all things are possible. So I have faith that because He is all powerful that He can allow my prayers to be communicated to the saints in heaven so that they can pray for me.

I do not think that God was required to make all things totally apparent in scripture in order for them to be true, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be found. I believe that God made the parallels striking for a reason. I also know that God is mysterious and at times hidden. I follow the Church is trying to understand His ways. I have explained why the Second Adam must have come from completely pure vessel and that there must be a Second Eve in order to fulfill the Old Testament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Purification of Mary

Mary went through the post-childbirth purification ceremony for the same reason Jesus went through the post-childbirth circumcision ceremony: out of obedience to the Mosaic law. Both rites—purification (ritual cleansing of the mother) and circumcision (removing the foreskin of the child)—symbolized being freed from sin. Jesus and Mary underwent them not because they needed to be freed from sin but because they were Jews who followed the Mosaic law. That’s why Jesus was baptized: not because he needed it himself but to set the pattern for us to follow.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains Mary’s purification ceremony in this way:

As the fullness of grace flowed from Christ on to his Mother, so it was becoming that the Mother should be like her Son in humility: for “God giveth grace to the humble,” as is written James 4:6. (Summa Theologiae III:37:4)

St. Bernard wrote:

Nothing was impure in her conception, nothing impure in her birth; there was nothing to be cleansed, for the Child itself was the origin of all purity, and came into the world to purify it from sin. Truly, O happy Virgin, thou wast not in need of purification, but thou wouldst pass as a woman among women, as thy Son also passed for a child among children.

 

[GraceSofia]

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?

I also puzzle over this question because I find peace in knowing that the Assumption of Mary is an anticipation of resurrection for the rest of us. I like knowing that the early Christians, all Christians really, up until relatively recently believed exactly what the Catholic Church still teaches.

And to all your excellent posts in this thread.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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

I don’t think it right to lump all ECF’s into the same language category.
It is certain that Origin, for example, would not only know the Greek – he would know every minor variation of it, every obscure word…

On the Other hand, St. Augustine knew it – but not every obscure word; His background is solidly Latin. There are letters between him and St. Jerome regarding words that Augustine couldn’t be certain of the meaning.
Notably, Psalm 50/51 which is so important in the doctrine of Original sin contains a Greek word which is exceptionally obscure; and neither Augustine, nor even Jerome who’s Greek was quite decent, although not perfect – shows any cognizance of it’s impact on the doctrine of Original sin and possible interpretations of the Eastern Churches. Although one might suppose that the Hebrew was “Original”, and the thrust of Augustine’s inquiry – that’s not tenable. The Eastern churches have always relied on the Greek LXX.

Entertaining the idea of the Hebrew theory – would have Augustine attempting to argue from a large number of disagreeing Hebrew manuscripts!

That would not have been convincing in the slightest against the Pelagian Heresy; They had a Greek Bible that PREDATES even Jesus himself…

Therefore, Augustine was arguing against Greek speakers NOT Hebrew. It is on this account that Augustine notes the Exorcism practiced by all churches both east and west with regard to infant baptism.
That alone is enough to secure the argument in the Eastern churches. It is the Tradition of the churches which supports original sin – etc.

The Purification of Mary

Mary went through the post-childbirth purification ceremony for the same reason Jesus went through the post-childbirth circumcision ceremony: out of obedience to the Mosaic law. Both rites—purification (ritual cleansing of the mother) and circumcision (removing the foreskin of the child)—symbolized being freed from sin. Jesus and Mary underwent them not because they needed to be freed from sin but because they were Jews who followed the Mosaic law. That’s why Jesus was baptized: not because he needed it himself but to set the pattern for us to follow.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains Mary’s purification ceremony in this way:

As the fullness of grace flowed from Christ on to his Mother, so it was becoming that the Mother should be like her Son in humility: for “God giveth grace to the humble,” as is written James 4:6. (Summa Theologiae III:37:4)

St. Bernard wrote:

Nothing was impure in her conception, nothing impure in her birth; there was nothing to be cleansed, for the Child itself was the origin of all purity, and came into the world to purify it from sin. Truly, O happy Virgin, thou wast not in need of purification, but thou wouldst pass as a woman among women, as thy Son also passed for a child among children.

Both of these writers rely on St. Jerome, who is not reliable concerning the translation of Luke. As I demonstrated in earlier posts – the New Testament in Greek does NOT tell us Mary offered anything. It is a speculation based on what commonly happened with Jewish women, that she did so.

However, the Greek is in the Plural regarding the purification – and the sacrifice mentioned is NOT sufficient for more than one purification, or for that matter – one purpose of the OT Law. We only know that there is a time period mentioned in Luke where they could not come to the temple; However, that does not imply nor prove a sin offering by itself.

Notice, there is something that one MUST do at the temple: One must ransom the FIRSTBORN child back, rather than sacrifice him. That has nothing to do with purification of the Mother – period.

This is a command directly from God concerning the meaning of the Passover and the Exodus.
Since, In Luke there is only a single sacrifice mentioned. Jerome’s interpretation, and the Piety it inspires regarding submission to the law, is not a certainty of Faith.

In the Ronald knox version of the bible, also already quoted by me – he explicitly translates 2:24 – “and so they must offer for HIM, as God’s law commanded, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons.”
(This is to show Catholic sensibities, I’m not concerned with the accuracy of his traslation here.)

The sacrifice of these two animals is found throughout the old testament as a replacement for a lamb. Unless Mary lost blood at childbirth – herself – there would be no mandate for her to offer these in sacrifice:

Leviticus 12:5-6 makes it clear that the purification is strictly on account of a loss of blood.

However, I see no reason to believe she was not excepted from this pain in childbirth. The sacredness of the Child’s blood in the placenta is reason enough that God would see fit to spare her the ripping of the placenta out of the womb.

Again, if we are looking to Luke as evidence there is a problem in that Leviticus 12 does not specify anything about the Father or the Child. Hence we have a lack of information as to why only one sacrifice is offered.

But translators are influenced heavily by Jerome and Thomas (Who, by the way – was WRONG concening Mary’s Immaculate conception,and who blatantly refused to heed Augustine’s warning.) who suppose, based on Jewish rabbis – who LONG after the temple was destroyed, came up with this opinion about what the sacrifice was for – knowing full well the significance of Mary whom they wished to discredit.

Again, there is only one sacrifice mentioned in St. Luke – and it is difficult for me to believe that a mere purification sacrifice for sin to precedence over a mandatory sacrifice to ransom the firstborn child back.

Leviticus 12 is NOT about the firstborn child, it is about any childbirth whatsoever. However, the FIRSTBORN son required a sacrifice that is distinct in its purpose –

KJV:
Exodu 13:12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s.
Exodu 13:13 And every firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.
Exodu 13:14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:
Exodu 13:15 And it came to pass,** when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast**: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

Why a purification sacrifice is more important to Luke than a sacrifice for the redemption of the son is impossible for me to grasp. The Sacrifice itself is referenced to Leviticus 13:2 – which is distinct from Leviticus 12. There is, I will reiterate – only ONE sacrifice mentioned in Luke-- and it is immediately following Luke mentioning the dedication; No mention is made of a second sacrifice for purfication. Since there is only one sacrifice, you have to rely on more than Thomas who was in error, or Jerome who did not translate the Original Greek correctly. We do have Greek manuscripts from the 400’s, both codex/textus Vaticanus – and codex/textus Sainaiticus.

What Jerome and Thomas did clearly came from non-catholic, non eastern rite, Jews who had agendas regarding discrediting the virgin birth. Although you are free to have a pious belief regarding the sacrifice, the piety itself does not require all Catholics to believe this; and I think it unwise to note it without qualification.

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou:

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.

So if Mary didn’t have to come from sinless parents to be immaculately conceived, why does Jesus have to come from a sinless mother (especially since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and His Father is God, and therefore He is without sin, just as Adam and Eve when they were created)?

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.

So are you saying that God was incapable of making an “ordinary” woman (like Mary appears to have been) a fit mother for Jesus?

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

Actually, I think you need to go back. The DNA (including the X and Y chromosomes) are found in every cell of the body, except for mature red blood cells. I will agree that this is a “dead end” of sorts since Scriptures do not deal directly with genetics. Still, a man conceived without any genetic material (otherwise known as “seed”) is not a normal thing (hence, Jesus is clearly the “seed of the woman”, as prophesied in Genesis).

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?

So you agree that the word, in and of itself, does not indicate this had to be from conception. There is evidence that she could have been “full of grace” from the point God filled her until the day of her death (things change at death – marriage vows no longer apply, nobody can have children after they’re dead, and certainly there is no more dealing with sin). However, I’m not convinced that “full of grace” means “sinless”. The argument is, “How can someone who is full of grace have sin?” Well, how can a room full of light have any darkness? (Hint: it’s called a “shadow”.) To ask it another way, how can someone with grace from God commit sin? Obviously the church teaches such a thing is possible, or there would be no need for confession after baptism.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

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.

Maybe to fulfill Scripture (seed of the woman, remember?).

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?

I would say we get original sin from our father (Adam). Of course, since God was the Father of Jesus, He couldn’t inherit original sin from Mary.

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

As mentioned above, original sin is passed on by our father (Adam), and God was the Father of Jesus. No problem with Mary having original sin (Jesus would not inherit it from Mary).

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?

First of all, I’m a Reformed Baptist, not an evangelical. Secondly, I am not “pulling Mary down into the mud”. I am trying to honor her by speaking the truth about her (as found within the pages of Scripture). Whether or not she was conceived without sin does not affect my walk with Jesus, but elevating her (or anyone else) above what God has done for them is (in my opinion) very close to a form of idolatry. I will not go beyond God’s word (that’s what got Eve into trouble, and there are warnings against that within Scripture).

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.

Do I? Let’s see – the church claims to be infallible in its teaching office. We know they are because Scripture tells us (Scripture, which only the “infallible” magisterium has the right to define and interpret), and also from Sacred Tradition (which, again, can only be defined and interpreted by the “infallible” megisterium). Am I the only one that sees a problem with this set up? And you believe it to the point that you read back into the text of Scripture things that are not there because “the church says” it’s there (and thereby you defend their “infallible” dogmas).

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?

I guess not everybody likes Alpo for dinner.

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.

Very clever! Rome has made the claim that Mary was immaculately conceived, and when their Scriptural claims are shown to be bad, they comeback by challenging their opponent to prove a universal negative. I don’t have to name a specific time, place or sin to prove Mary was a sinner any more than I have to do that to prove that James was a sinner. Scripture never says she was immaculately conceived, or that she was ever made sinless in any way, so I can believe that she was a “normal’, sinful person (just like the rest of us). I can easily believe and accept that her sins were few and minor, but nevertheless, I believe she sinned. Your church is making the claim this is not so – I’m just asking you to make your case from Scripture (since that is the topic of this thread).

I know that you require more than Scripture to “prove” the claim (tradition and “because the church says so”), but the OP limited the discussion to the Bible. If you can’t give any solid evidence from Scripture (which I haven’t seen yet), just admit that you need more than Scripture and we can end the discussion.

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.

As I mentioned above, I have a real problem accepting an authority that claims to be infallible, and proves it from sources that it alone has the “right” to infallibly define and interpret. I think back to a time I played a game of Monopoly with my older brother and sister (very long time ago). He was in school and could read, so he read the rules and we played the game. My sister and I got suspicious of his “interpretation” of the rules when he started buying hotels and putting them on the railroads, “Free Parking”, and even in the jail.

If the church can’t show the Scriptural evidence is sufficient, why should I (or anyone else) believe it when it claims to be infallible? On the other hand, if it can show it’s sources say exactly what they claim, then I would be more inclined to believe them.

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

In this case, it is the OP that gave the Bible as a limitation.

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

I have some Greek sources of my own, and as I have pointed out, the tense used only indicates this filling of grace took place at some time prior to the angel making the announcement. There is nothing in the word or the text that would require me to believe it was given her at her conception. It is pure eisagesis to state that this filling took place at conception.

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.

You’ve been hanging around Tim “King of Ad Hominem” Staples, haven’t you?

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

Sorry. I cannot begin at a point that has been shown to be bad many times in many places. I know you don’t see it that way, and you have (apparently) given your free will over to this authority. The result is not pretty.

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 find nothing in Scripture that would indicate otherwise.

Finally, have you ever actually read Ineffabilis Deus? It’s only seven pages or so of fairly easy reading.

I did follow the link provided, and I read the entire thing. I found nothing in it that would change my opinion.

Mary went through the post-childbirth purification ceremony for the same reason Jesus went through the post-childbirth circumcision ceremony: out of obedience to the Mosaic law. Both rites—purification (ritual cleansing of the mother) and circumcision (removing the foreskin of the child)—symbolized being freed from sin. Jesus and Mary underwent them not because they needed to be freed from sin but because they were Jews who followed the Mosaic law. That’s why Jesus was baptized: not because he needed it himself but to set the pattern for us to follow.

Part of her purification was a sin offering (Lev 12:6-8). No such sin offering was required for Jesus at any time in His life. Yes, Mary fulfilled the Law, but how can someone with no sin make a sin offering (or will you take the position that when God instructed Moses to write this down, He did not really mean a sin offering)?

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

I do not think that God was required to make all things totally apparent in scripture in order for them to be true, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be found. I believe that God made the parallels striking for a reason. I also know that God is mysterious and at times hidden. I follow the Church is trying to understand His ways. I have explained why the Second Adam must have come from completely pure vessel and that there must be a Second Eve in order to fulfill the Old Testament.

I agree. God certainly wasn’t required to give us any Scriptures. But we recognize that He did. That being the case, why would you think He wouldn’t tell us what is important? If He thought it was important that we knew Mary was the New Eve, why wouldn’t He tell us? If He created Mary without sin from her very conception, why wouldn’t He tell us? To use a “Catholic” term, I would say this is an argument from silence. That is, because God does NOT tell us Mary is the New Eve, or that she was immaculately conceived, then these are NOT things we need to know to live a successful Christian life.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sime,

The entire understanding of what you are saying has to be understood in light of to whom the letter to the Romans was written for, for what reason, and where the dialogue changes.

First. The letter was written to Christians…

7to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

  8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. 9For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, 10always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. 11For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; 12that is,** that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine**.

Second. It was written to instruct in the “obedience of Faith”…mentioned in the beginning of the letter and the end of the letter…The first and last time Paul mentions the word Faith he says “obedience of Faith” or Faith in Action…

1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the **obedience of faith **among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

and

25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

Once that is understood you need to know when Paul does a zig and a zag…and at the beginning of Romans 3 is where he takes a turn…and specifically starts addressing the problem of the Judaizing Christians by addressing the Jew in the Christian population…

**1Then what advantage has the Jew? **Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

Notice that here Paul says…first of all…now I don’t know about you but when I see, first, I expect a second…and I will now take a break while you and everyone else looks for the next point that Paul makes to tie this all together…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Maybe to fulfill Scripture (seed of the woman, remember?).

Since God is the author of scripture, he could have easily chosen the plan I suggested long before scritpure was ever written. He would not have boxed himself into a corner. Sheesh.

I would say we get original sin from our father (Adam). Of course, since God was the Father of Jesus, He couldn’t inherit original sin from Mary.

As mentioned above, original sin is passed on by our father (Adam), and God was the Father of Jesus. No problem with Mary having original sin (Jesus would not inherit it from Mary).

So, we only inherit sin from our male parent? Where are you getting this idea from?

First of all, I’m a Reformed Baptist, not an evangelical. Secondly, I am not “pulling Mary down into the mud”. I am trying to honor her by speaking the truth about her (as found within the pages of Scripture). Whether or not she was conceived without sin does not affect my walk with Jesus, but elevating her (or anyone else) above what God has done for them is (in my opinion) very close to a form of idolatry. I will not go beyond God’s word (that’s what got Eve into trouble, and there are warnings against that within Scripture).

Obviously, I do not feel that the Catholic Church has ever “gone beyond” scripture.

Do I? Let’s see – the church claims to be infallible in its teaching office. We know they are because Scripture tells us (Scripture, which only the “infallible” magisterium has the right to define and interpret), and also from Sacred Tradition (which, again, can only be defined and interpreted by the “infallible” megisterium). Am I the only one that sees a problem with this set up? And you believe it to the point that you read back into the text of Scripture things that are not there because “the church says” it’s there (and thereby you defend their “infallible” dogmas).

Yes, you do. And no, you are not alone…but that does not make you right.

I guess not everybody likes Alpo for dinner.

Meaningless.

Very clever! Rome has made the claim that Mary was immaculately conceived, and when their Scriptural claims are shown to be bad, they comeback by challenging their opponent to prove a universal negative. I don’t have to name a specific time, place or sin to prove Mary was a sinner any more than I have to do that to prove that James was a sinner. Scripture never says she was immaculately conceived, or that she was ever made sinless in any way, so I can believe that she was a “normal’, sinful person (just like the rest of us). I can easily believe and accept that her sins were few and minor, but nevertheless, I believe she sinned. Your church is making the claim this is not so – I’m just asking you to make your case from Scripture (since that is the topic of this thread).

I did not ask you to prove a negative. Rather, I pointed out that you would have to do so if you were to pursue that line of reasoning. We both know this would be unreasonable for me to demand.

Although I have suggested where scripture may point to the sinlessness of Mary for your sake, I am happy to rely on the infallible teaching of the Church, and I will eagerly prove THAT from scripture in another thread if you require it.

At the end of the day, however, you have admitted the problem; you believe that Mary sinned, but you cannot prove that she did. You have your opinions; I have an infallible Church. I’m good.

I know that you require more than Scripture to “prove” the claim (tradition and “because the church says so”), but the OP limited the discussion to the Bible. If you can’t give any solid evidence from Scripture (which I haven’t seen yet), just admit that you need more than Scripture and we can end the discussion.

Okay.

As I mentioned above, I have a real problem accepting an authority that claims to be infallible, and proves it from sources that it alone has the “right” to infallibly define and interpret. I think back to a time I played a game of Monopoly with my older brother and sister (very long time ago). He was in school and could read, so he read the rules and we played the game. My sister and I got suspicious of his “interpretation” of the rules when he started buying hotels and putting them on the railroads, “Free Parking”, and even in the jail.

If the church can’t show the Scriptural evidence is sufficient, why should I (or anyone else) believe it when it claims to be infallible? On the other hand, if it can show it’s sources say exactly what they claim, then I would be more inclined to believe them.

Again, I have both the scriptures and the teaching of the Church itself to demonstrate that the Church founded by Jesus is infallible…but this is another topic.

In this case, it is the OP that gave the Bible as a limitation.

Sure. I’m just pointing out that this is a weakness of YOUR theology. Catholics do not need to limit themselves to only a portion of God’s revelation.

I have some Greek sources of my own, and as I have pointed out, the tense used only indicates this filling of grace took place at some time prior to the angel making the announcement. There is nothing in the word or the text that would require me to believe it was given her at her conception. It is pure eisagesis to state that this filling took place at conception.

And you have the credentials and expertise to stand by this claim?

You’ve been hanging around Tim “King of Ad Hominem” Staples, haven’t you?

The statement that I made is an accurate portrayal of the state of Protestantism. But you have admitted in another thread that you are a fan of James White, so I have a pretty good idea where you’re coming from.

Sorry. I cannot begin at a point that has been shown to be bad many times in many places. I know you don’t see it that way, and you have (apparently) given your free will over to this authority. The result is not pretty.

Hardly. I will be happy to discuss the basis for believing that the Catholic Church is infallible based upon both scripture and the writings of the earliest believers at another time.

I find nothing in Scripture that would indicate otherwise.

Well, that’s something, I guess. We’re both agreed that Mary might have been free from all sin at some point in her life.

I did follow the link provided, and I read the entire thing. I found nothing in it that would change my opinion.

Interesting. You obviously noted that the document cited ancient writings and sources as evidence of the doctrine’s antiquity…and this meant nothing to you? Let me ask this then: When the novelty of the Immaculate Conception was first proposed, was there outrage at the notion of such a heresy? Can you cite any ECF’s, for example, who rejected the teaching?

Part of her purification was a sin offering (Lev 12:6-8). No such sin offering was required for Jesus at any time in His life. Yes, Mary fulfilled the Law, but how can someone with no sin make a sin offering (or will you take the position that when God instructed Moses to write this down, He did not really mean a sin offering)?

I take the position that Mary and Jesus made the offerings to satisfy the requirements of the law even if they did not need to have sins addressed by such action.

Similarly, Jesus was baptized and paid the Temple tax even though He was God to whom the offerings were made.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So you agree that the word, in and of itself, does not indicate this had to be from conception. There is evidence that she could have been “full of grace” from the point God filled her until the day of her death (things change at death – marriage vows no longer apply, nobody can have children after they’re dead, and certainly there is no more dealing with sin).

I agree with everything you have said to this point. I am aware of NO logical reason that the word, by itself, would extend back to conception. If such a reason exists, it hasn’t been articulated well; and I do differ from Randy on this point.

However, I’m not convinced that “full of grace” means “sinless”.The argument is, “How can someone who is full of grace have sin?”

That’s Randy’s argument in this thread, not mine.

I do agree with him, but for a different reason. Her flesh was the only thing Jesus took – if it were tainted with sin; She would have given him sinful flesh. It is imperative, therefore, that some time before Jesus was conceived, Mary was free from all sin. Specifically, here’s why:

Psalm 51 indicates that the mother, in conceiving a child, can form him in “iniquity.” because of her sin;

Although God could have purified Jesus’ flesh, a sacrificial lamb of God – which is itself saved – is not acceptable as sacrifice according to the Law.

God agreed to the Law (with Moses) – therefore – he bound himself by oath to follow it with regard to his promise.

Well, how can a room full of light have any darkness? (Hint: it’s called a “shadow”.)

Then the room is not perfectly full of light, is it? The word is in the perfect tense.

To ask it another way, how can someone with grace from God commit sin? Obviously the church teaches such a thing is possible, or there would be no need for confession after baptism.

Yes, but again, the perfect tense includes a permanence with regard to the future. The effect remains as long as the power which instituted the perfection remains. In Luke 1:28, that power is clearly God by implicit reference.

So if Mary didn’t have to come from sinless parents to be immaculately conceived, why does Jesus have to come from a sinless mother (especially since He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and His Father is God, and therefore He is without sin, just as Adam and Eve when they were created)?

I already answered that in detail.

So are you saying that God was incapable of making an “ordinary” woman (like Mary appears to have been) a fit mother for Jesus?

Quite the opposite. He HAD to have done that.

Actually, I think you need to go back. The DNA (including the X and Y chromosomes) are found in every cell of the body, except for mature red blood cells.

But you will admit it is in immature blood cells. Stem cells, also, are by definition immature cells. It is from these that all tissue differentiates.

You are correct, the DNA is found throughout the body (during cell growth, at least). I don’t see what that has to do with what I said, Eve was from the bone – not from the rest of Adam. (Literal interpretation, although I am not restricted to that by the Catholic Teaching at this time.)

I will agree that this is a “dead end” of sorts since Scriptures do not deal directly with genetics. Still, a man conceived without any genetic material (otherwise known as “seed”) is not a normal thing (hence, Jesus is clearly the “seed of the woman”, as prophesied in Genesis).

I have no reason to refute you. But I will comment, every person is formed in the Womb by God. Every man’s spirit is given by God Directly – and not from a child’s parents.

There are both scientific issues, and theological issues, that are beyond my skill at this time; I am not certain what you are saying is correct, but I don’t have evidence of any fault in your reasoning here.

As an aside, I am using the KJV more for copyright and convenience (it’s on my computer, which dumped and is only partially restored); it isn’t “aimed” at anyone…

KJV:
Isaia 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesusalem, whom I have chosen.

Jerim 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Eccle 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

This last passage, I think, has variations in translation – eg: is also translated along the lines of “how the breath (spirit) comes into the child…”

As the child in the womb is under water, and the air, life, breath, and blood carrying the breath were connected even in the ancient’s mind – this reality is a mystery to them.

I think this passage is also the most explicit reference to what I am saying. If I have made a mistake on this passage, then there is another that is more explicit – ( !!! which I can’t remember the location of at this time. Memory overflow… !!! )

There are also references to the wicked going astray from the womb;

And notice the logic of Psalm 50/51, it is called the prophecy of David at the time when Nathan came in to accuse him of adultery (with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah);

The psalm is not clear whether David refers to an iniquity on the part of his own mother; or whether he refers to the damage he and Bathsheba did to their first child because of their sin. That first child was struck dead by God.

Prophecy often speaks with shifting references, where the prophet whom God speaks THROUGH (eg: David) may say words about himself or another with pronouns that are unexpected to the reader. See for example the passage of Isaiah referenced here, where the Prophet speaks of Jesus:

Acts 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Acts 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
Acts 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

Or one might look at the passage where St. Paul talks of “a man” who was caught up to the third heaven, and “this man” is clearly St. Paul himself later in the passage.

 

[Lillie1210]

Sime - and all :
Colasians 2:9, 10

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Since God is the author of scripture, he could have easily chosen the plan I suggested long before scritpure was ever written. He would not have boxed himself into a corner. Sheesh.

Unquestionably, He could have. But I hope we can agree that He didn’t. Rather than deal with “could have done’, why not deal honestly with “what was done”?

So, we only inherit sin from our male parent? Where are you getting this idea from?

Romans 5:12-14 (“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” NASB), and 1 Cor 15:20-22 (“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” NASB) are just a couple of places that certainly indicates that original sin comes from Adam. Remember, the command not to eat the fruit was given directly to Adam from God, not to Eve. And I find it interesting that it wasn’t until Adam ate the fruit that their eyes were opened.

Obviously, I do not feel that the Catholic Church has ever “gone beyond” scripture.

Obviously. This is to be expected when one surrenders their will to another authority, but that is off topic.

Yes, you do. And no, you are not alone…but that does not make you right.

True, but it doesn’t make me wrong, either (except from the perspective of one who has given their free will over to an allegedly infallible authority, and accepts what they are told without question). I think we’ve made our positions clear enough.

Although I have suggested where scripture may point to the sinlessness of Mary for your sake, I am happy to rely on the infallible teaching of the Church, and I will eagerly prove THAT from scripture in another thread if you require it.

I have admitted that God could have made her sinless. I don’t think that is really part of the question at this point. What hasn’t been shown from Scripture is that she was conceived without sin, and was kept sinless her entire life.

At the end of the day, however, you have admitted the problem; you believe that Mary sinned, but you cannot prove that she did. You have your opinions; I have an infallible Church. I’m good.

I believe that Mary was just like any other human being, created with faults and original sin. Since there is nothing in Scripture that says otherwise, I feel confident in asserting that either Mary was a sinner like everyone else or God did not think it was important for us to know she was sinless.

Just because we don’t have specific sins mentioned in Scripture does not mean a person is sinless. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Enoch, Seth, Elijah, or anyone else was sinless because Scripture never mentions them committing any sin.

And you have the credentials and expertise to stand by this claim?

Credentials and expertise aside, can you prove what I said is false? While I don’t have the credentials, I have access to people who do (and with more expertise than myself as well). Just because I don’t have a degree in Theology does not mean I do not know what I’m talking about.

I take the position that Mary and Jesus made the offerings to satisfy the requirements of the law even if they did not need to have sins addressed by such action.

So you don’t believe a sin offering is an offering for sin?

Similarly, Jesus was baptized and paid the Temple tax even though He was God to whom the offerings were made.

What does this have to do with Mary’s sin offering? As already discussed, John’s baptism was not for forgiveness of sins, and paying the Temple tax certainly had nothing to do with covering sin. This is like saying, “My mom paid for 2 hours of parking downtown, and my dad drinks coke with a shot of vodka”. There is no connection!

This should be my last response to Randy on this thread. He has admitted that he needs more than Scripture to prove the claim of the immaculate conception, and since the OP limited this to the Bible, there is no point in going on with him. Just to recap – I recognize that God COULD have made Mary sinless at any time in her life (from conception up to her death), but that He did not tell us in His written word that He did this. Because of this, I believe that Mary was like any other human (at least up until she was informed she would be the mother of Jesus). In regard to her sinlessness, whether she was or wasn’t, it does not seem that it was important enough for God to mention in His written word, so I see no reason why any Christian should have to believe such a thing was done.

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou:

I do agree with him, but for a different reason. Her flesh was the only thing Jesus took – if it were tainted with sin; She would have given him sinful flesh. It is imperative, therefore, that some time before Jesus was conceived, Mary was free from all sin. Specifically, here’s why:

Psalm 51 indicates that the mother, in conceiving a child, can form him in “iniquity.” because of her sin;

Although God could have purified Jesus’ flesh, a sacrificial lamb of God – which is itself saved – is not acceptable as sacrifice according to the Law.

God agreed to the Law (with Moses) – therefore – he bound himself by oath to follow it with regard to his promise.

As I pointed out in my last post to Randy, it appears we get our sin nature from our father, not both parents. Since God was the Father of Jesus, Mary’s condition would be irrelevant. However, even if it was necessary for Mary to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, God could have completely cleansed her at any time in her life. It is not necessary for her to be without sin from conception, or even all her life.

Then the room is not perfectly full of light, is it? The word is in the perfect tense.

So where in κεχαριτωμένη do you find the word “perfect”?

Quite the opposite. He HAD to have done that.

Why?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As I pointed out in my last post to Randy, it appears we get our sin nature from our father, not both parents. Since God was the Father of Jesus, Mary’s condition would be irrelevant.

Psalm 51 says nothing of the Father, only the mother. For this reason, I don’t agree. It’s un-scriptural and eisegetical to claim the Father alone.
I’ll read the post to Randy in a moment.

A wife is considered “The flesh” of the Husband; “For this reason the two become one flesh”. SInce the man is the head of the wife, he is responsible for her sins. But, that does NOT mean the wife can’t sin on her own. Adultery, for example.

However, even if it was necessary for Mary to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, God could have completely cleansed her at any time in her life. It is not necessary for her to be without sin from conception, or even all her life.

I already conceeded my lack of knowledge on this point; and that the word “ITSELF”, doesn’t prove that point as far as I know. Unless you have more information to add, let’s move on.

So where in κεχαριτωμένη do you find the word “perfect”?

It’s in the perfect tense: This might be confusing because we don’t have a perfect tense in English; this is purely a Greek issue.

For example Let’s examine another word to get the idea of how this works; I’ll pick an arbitrary one:

τε-τελε-σ-ται

and compare it to the one for Mary,

κε-χαρι-τω-μέν-η

The dashes break the word into logical parts to aid in determining the tense.

The word means “Consummate”; τε-τελε-σ-ται – it is a participle (Meaning a verb usable as a Noun…) In English, we don’t change the word to make it a participle, but we do, often, add a definite article (eg “The”); For example “He Judged her” vs “The judge”. The first is an act, the second is a person; the first is a verb, the second is a participle.

Both words can be understood as participles; and if they are not, they cause contradictions in scripture. The verb aspect, however, still remains.

The first part of each word (τε) and (κε) is a temporal augment (lengthening how long it takes to say the start of the word.), The Perfect tense uses a particular kind of temporal augment called “Re-duplication”; which makes a redundant starting sound. It’s a bit like stuttering…
TeleTh, becomes TE-Tele… Charis becomes KE-Chari…

The reduplication at the start of these words plus the ending parts “s-tai”, and “tO-Men-E”, respectively, are more than enough to prove that both words are in the perfect.

Now, I ask you – if the former word (τε-τελε-σ-ται) even allows an imperfection of any kind in the consummation? Note: It comes from John 19:30. You may reject both, or neither; but you can’t pick and choose.

By saying this, I let you answer your own question.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Romans 5:12-14 (“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” NASB), and 1 Cor 15:20-22 (“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” NASB) are just a couple of places that certainly indicates that original sin comes from Adam. Remember, the command not to eat the fruit was given directly to Adam from God, not to Eve. And I find it interesting that it wasn’t until Adam ate the fruit that their eyes were opened.

A decent argument, but incomplete. Adam did not sin alone, we have scripture which says the children do not become unclean by a single unbelieving 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.

• The wife is sanctified directly, not the child. The father sanctified Mary, regardless of when – he did not sanctify Jesus alone. If he did, Jesus is saved and not a fit sacrifice.
• Adam and Eve sinned together, if EITHER of them had remained faithful, we have no proof that death would have reigned over the children – we do have scripture saying the opposite, however.
• The sin belongs to Adam, for certain, on the basis of him being given the Law (not Eve); but the transmission, to children, of death (2nd) is on account of the communion of parents in the sin.

Obviously. This is to be expected when one surrenders their will to another authority, but that is off topic.

I have admitted that God could have made her sinless. I don’t think that is really part of the question at this point. What hasn’t been shown from Scripture is that she was conceived without sin, and was kept sinless her entire life.

Kept sinless from her conception up to some hypothetical point, we’re not discussing – I hope – the sinlessness after she is called ke-charito-men-E.
Or do you wish to hold an unexpected position?

I believe that Mary was just like any other human being, created with faults and original sin. Since there is nothing in Scripture that says otherwise, I feel confident in asserting that either Mary was a sinner like everyone else or God did not think it was important for us to know she was sinless.

Technical … but, OK – it’s your philosophy.

Just because we don’t have specific sins mentioned in Scripture does not mean a person is sinless. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Enoch, Seth, Elijah, or anyone else was sinless because Scripture never mentions them committing any sin.

The Eastern Church, under Pelagius’s invention, would hold these people are sinless – and that there is no such thing as original sin, but only a sin which the children learn to copy by the example of the parents.

The two issues are inextricable.

Credentials and expertise aside, can you prove what I said is false?

I decline to answer what I never accused you of; that belongs to Randy alone.

So you don’t believe a sin offering is an offering for sin?
…
What does this have to do with Mary’s sin offering?

Randy holds she made it, I clearly don’t based on the ORIGINAL language of scripture, and the singularity of the sacrifice – which is insufficient for two purposes. Randy, therefore – has this burden alone, too.

This should be my last response to Randy on this thread. He has admitted that he needs more than Scripture to prove the claim of the immaculate conception, and since the OP limited this to the Bible, there is no point in going on with him. Just to recap – I recognize that God COULD have made Mary sinless at any time in her life (from conception up to her death), but that He did not tell us in His written word that He did this. Because of this, I believe that Mary was like any other human (at least up until she was informed she would be the mother of Jesus). In regard to her sinlessness, whether she was or wasn’t, it does not seem that it was important enough for God to mention in His written word, so I see no reason why any Christian should have to believe such a thing was done.

You mean, no Catholic Christian, should have to believe… ?

 

[Cachonga]

Huiou Theou:

Psalm 51 says nothing of the Father, only the mother. For this reason, I don’t agree. It’s un-scriptural and eisegetical to claim the Father alone.
I’ll read the post to Randy in a moment.

First of all, I did say it “appears” we get our sin nature from our father (I gave 2 Scriptures to show what I was basing this on, and I can show more verses if needed). Secondly, it’s not eisagesis to point out verses that actually do substantiate what is being said, so long as one does not go beyond what is written and begin reading in things that are not there (like from traditions or church teachings, and yes, I know for a fact many Protestants are just as guilty of doing that as Catholics). Third, it really isn’t wise to comment on something without hearing all that is said (see Prov 18:13).

Finally, Ps 51 could be explained like this (in regard to Mary) – Mary was engaged to Joseph. Before they were married, Mary became pregnant, but not by Joseph. The only explanation is that she was impregnated by someone else (like, say, the Holy Spirit, but any other woman, could have been the pool boy).

A wife is considered “The flesh” of the Husband; “For this reason the two become one flesh”. SInce the man is the head of the wife, he is responsible for her sins. But, that does NOT mean the wife can’t sin on her own. Adultery, for example.

I’m not sure I would agree with this (I do agree that the two become one flesh, and I remind God of that every time I pray for my step children, who are the fruit of my wife’s womb, and therefore they are mine). I’m not sure about the husband being responsible for her sins.

It’s in the perfect tense: This might be confusing because we don’t have a perfect tense in English; this is purely a Greek issue.

… and following …

I have admitted that my Greek is not where I would like it to be, so I will need to study this a bit more before I can give a definite answer. I will concede the point for now, but reserve the right to bring this up again at a later time (once I’ve examined it in greater depth).

A decent argument, but incomplete. Adam did not sin alone, we have scripture which says the children do not become unclean by a single unbelieving 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.
• The wife is sanctified directly, not the child. The father sanctified Mary, regardless of when – he did not sanctify Jesus alone. If he did, Jesus is saved and not a fit sacrifice.
• Adam and Eve sinned together, if EITHER of them had remained faithful, we have no proof that death would have reigned over the children – we do have scripture saying the opposite, however.
• The sin belongs to Adam, for certain, on the basis of him being given the Law (not Eve); but the transmission, to children, of death (2nd) is on account of the communion of parents in the sin.

I suppose I could argue that Paul wrote to the Corinthians some time after Jesus was born, but honestly, I think that would not be a very strong argument. Instead, I will point out that this applies to families with one believing spouse. If the wife is the believer, the husband is sanctified for her sake; if the husband is the believer, the wife is sanctified for his sake. The result is that their children are clean. I don’t think you’re implying that Mary wasn’t a believer, are you? Of course, Mary and Joseph were still under the Law (as was everyone before the resurrection). There is no mention of sin in these verses. For myself, I would say that both Mary and Joseph were believers (at least, in the OT sense), so naturally Jesus would have been clean (or “holy” to use your translation). How does this apply to Mary being sinless?

Kept sinless from her conception up to some hypothetical point, we’re not discussing – I hope – the sinlessness after she is called ke-charito-men-E.
Or do you wish to hold an unexpected position?

I agree God COULD have made her sinless, but there is nothing in the word or the text of Scripture that would cause any honest person to insist it was from conception (I will concede, for the sake of those who bow to the infallible magisterium, that it can be “proven” by the use of other sources besides Scripture, such as tradition and the say so of the church).

You mean, no Catholic Christian, should have to believe… ?

I’m trying to avoid oxymoron’s. I don’t see that anyone who considers themselves to be a Christian should have to believe in the immaculate conception.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First of all, I did say it “appears” we get our sin nature from our father (I gave 2 Scriptures to show what I was basing this on, and I can show more verses if needed). Secondly, it’s not eisagesis to point out verses that actually do substantiate what is being said, so long as one does not go beyond what is written and begin reading in things that are not there (like from traditions or church teachings, and yes, I know for a fact many Protestants are just as guilty of doing that as Catholics). Third, it really isn’t wise to comment on something without hearing all that is said (see Prov 18:13).

Intentionally or not – you were telling a boldface lie to me about what you said to Randy.

As I pointed out in my last post to Randy, it appears

BUUUUT … You really said:

a couple of places that certainly indicates that original sin comes from Adam

I read both posts quite carefully, and then read it again.

But, since you now emphasize one side of a two faced remark – I reply – but scripture also says:
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Continuing on to the critique of me, I’ll say – “it takes one to accuse everyone”

Prove 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
Cf: Luke 2:35

Prove 18:3 When the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt, and with ignominy reproach.
Prove 18:5 It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment.

Mary was righteous; so, according to Proverbs – why are you judging her sinful? :ehh: Or do you wish to call me a fool because I want to be silent on her sin?

Prove 18:12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.

You clearly judge Mary by appearances and haughtily. You yourself have repeatedly insisted she has sin, when you have given me nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Saying “I admit God could have” is not excusing her from sin; That would be duplicity and equivocation as sure as saying “appears” equals “Certainly”.

If you hadn’t asserted that the mother was not responsible, to avoid the consequence of the mother being able to damage the child (cf: Psalm 51) this would be a non-issue.

I’m pointing out that ALTHOUGH Sin does come from Adam, it’s consequences are because BOTH failed to believe. Sanctification/purity only requires one parent to sanctify the OTHER parent. (Not excluding any auxiliary/ancilliary ACT(S) to protect the child).

Finally, Ps 51 could be explained like this (in regard to Mary) – Mary was engaged to Joseph. …

Original sin is in regard to Adam; Not Mary:

Are you saying I’m the one who is off subject?

The point I intended to make about Mary – was that SHE was sanctified by God (A non baptized husband is a potential problem.) God is Faithful, the SAME word that means “Belief”. Hence, Mary is sanctified ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Jesus was not sanctified (unblemished) directly by God at conception as you suggested earlier (I mean before he took on the sins of his friends and sanctified them in himself; John 17:14). I’m saying – Jesus was already sanctified at conception because his Mother was sanctified (past & perfect tense).

The Eastern church calls her PAN-`agia; “All Holy”, I think I am presenting a reason WHY from scripture. See Randy’s quotes of the ECF.

I’m not sure I would agree with this (I do agree that the two become one flesh, and I remind God of that every time I pray for my step children, who are the fruit of my wife’s womb, and therefore they are mine). I’m not sure about the husband being responsible for her sins.

Your prayer is certainly good.

My remarks clearly apply to Adam and Eve, as the Father has no “Flesh”.

Also, when using inclusive language – “male” includes “female”; when discussing a group – the male is the representative. We would be told Adam sinned even if his wife actually did (too). The latter is implied by the result that the children suffered corruption and were unclean, although they did not sin like Adam.

Paul is so hard to comprehensively grasp, sometimes…

To some degree, this also applies to God with respect to Mary, as God is the Father of her child, though there was not Sex – and hence no Adultery. That is also why having a “Church” as a bride in Revelation – is NOT polygamy, nor adultery.

I’ll ignore the rest of your theory, I think it was off topic – and confusing.

Instead, I will point out that this applies to families with one believing spouse.

YES!

Grace is a reciprocity – and therefore a relationship. Mary had perfect Grace; and once perfectly Graced – a perfect relationship; A perfect relationship has no sin. no sin = sanctified, holy, clean.

I anticipate a complaint; study reciprocity by context in St. Pauls’ work using a concordance. I’d prefer a GOOD debate. It would help to look up: Eu-Chari-st. A Thank you, and also the Gift. Both: Send and Receive.

I await your study of the Greek, esp: te-telestai vs. Ke-Chari-to-menE take your time; I don’t want to rush you…

If the wife is the believer, the husband is sanctified for her sake; if the husband is the believer, the wife is sanctified for his sake. The result is that their children are clean. I don’t think you’re implying that Mary wasn’t a believer, are you? Of course, Mary and Joseph were still under the Law (as was everyone before the resurrection).

Yes she believed. YES – she sanctified Jesus … and I already said this…

My comments were primarily directed to your quotes about Adam; so why is this happening?


You NOW selectively ignore Adam, but your quotes of Paul rely exclusively on him… I think we are talking past each other… Try again…

There is no mention of sin in these verses. For myself, I would say that both Mary and Joseph were believers (at least, in the OT sense), so naturally Jesus would have been clean (or “holy” to use your translation). How does this apply to Mary being sinless?

One way is this:
1John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for** his seed** remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Seed is Jesus Chirst AND I was referring to the time after she was called KecharitomenE. You were backpedaling the point with Randy after our discussion of it; I wanted to re-establish my earlier position in distinction to Randy so you wouldn’t use your argument against him – with me – unfairly. I approach the time after she was called Ke-Charitomen-E according to perfected Grace.

I agree God COULD have made her sinless,

And yet, you repeatedly accuse her of sin based on appearances of a hypothetical sin offering that you can’t technically prove happened? Your “COULD” clearly is NOT a ceasing to accuse her.

Let all judgment stand on the word of two or three witnesses.
If two do not agree, a third is required to resolve the case.

Furthermore:
Judges (Tribunal?) do not accept cases where the “crime/sin” can’t be defined.
A circumstantial and hypothetical violation of the law is thrown out of court.
If a particular crime is not alleged, there is nothing to try in court – but once something IS alleged, then it becomes open season with respect to other crimes that are uncovered in court.

You claim to be above the law OR tell me, what is her crime ?

…from conception…

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. It’s getting to be a pretty dead horse… I conceded some point pre-angelic message…

(I will concede, for the sake of those who bow to the infallible magisterium, that it can be “proven” by the use of other sources besides Scripture, such as tradition and the say so of the church).

You needn’t say it can be proven; That sounds sarcastic.
But, it’s just pragmatic. A pragmatic Catholic obeys the Church regarding accusing Mary of Sin. Period. Whether or not they have doubts. Period.

Such an accusation is detraction and/or calumny; it’s also disobedience to one’s OATH as a Catholic to obey. it’s also un-necessary. Salvation does not require Mary to be a sinner; even an erroneous belief on this point would not stop salvation.

But: On the day of Judgement, such accusations at-tempt/tempt Jesus to violate the spirit of God’s own commandment to Honor one’s father and mother.

There will be those who accuse you on the last day – providing you continue in this vein, how will Jesus acquit you except by exposing his mother’s hypothetical imperfection at the final judgement ?

Jesus gave a maxim: as You judge, YOU will BE Judged.
Therefore, you too may be judged by mere “appearances” and common assumptions, rather than the reality.

The early ECF’s, even the staunchest champion of Original sin, St. Augustine, is aware of this danger scripturally; He cites a potential innocence as a mandatory reason to avoid the accusing Mary of sin. It’s WISDOM to decide not to bother talking… Says the Book of proverbs…!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9497811&postcount=161