Sinless Mary

[guanophore]

I did not take it out of context but have used it to show that all who sin die. Unless you have some proof that Mary did not die then that would help your case for Mary not being a sinner. If you can’t then it stands to reason by the Scriptures that Mary to was under the curse of sin and died because of it.

By this logic, so was Jesus. Can you show where Jesus is a sinner too?

The problem is that the Scriptures also attribute the fall of man to Adam and not Eve. This is why Jesus is always compared to Adam and not Eve.

This is a common Protestant error in matters of theology. You say “Adam and not Eve” just as you say “Scripture, and not Tradition.”

There is no need to separate them. Both of them sinned, were disobedient, and inherited the consequences of their sins.

Since Eve also ate she sinned and when they both started to have children the fallness of Adam was passed onto all men and women.

This is why Mary needed to be saved.

It does tell us that all of mankind is fallen since Adam sinned. The only exception is the Lord Jesus because of His miraculous conception and Who He is. Everyone else though was and is a sinner. This would also include Mary.

What you give here is the basic core of the immaculate conception of Mary. Since Jesus took His flesh from Mary, and His flesh was untainted by sin, we understand that Mary’s flesh had to be cleansed of original sin prior to the conception of Jesus.

Romans 5:12-19 is the one of the clearest teachings on the fall. In this section the fall is attributed to Adam and not Eve.

You have made the same mistake you usually do, by picking out one verse or passage, and proclaiming it to the “most clear” and using it to rule out everything else.

All of scripture must be taken together. This verse, regardless of it’s apparent “clarity” to your mind, does not stamp out other passages on the subject of the fall. It is not appropriate to create doctrine through one verse like this.

Either the Scriptures are cultrually biased or its telling us the truth irrespective of culture.

Once again, it is not “either / or” but both. The Scriptures are culturally biased, and they teach eternal truth.

I an inclined to conclude that he would have admired her - of course - as the mother of Christ but certainly would not have elevated her to the state of sinlessness.

No, only God could do that!

     Sorry, but I am inclined to believe that this current heavy Mariology emphasis invaded early Christianity from the competing mystery cults and the Greco-Roman mythology of the time. They had virgin mothers, often more than one, and these were given such titles as the Queen of Heaven.

In order to justify this, you will have to account for the many parts of the Church who were never involved in the Greco Roman mythology of the time, yet still received and practiced these beliefs from the Apostles. These are the Eastern and Oriental Churches that are known for have litttle affection for Rome.

 

[Reformed]

Originally Posted by guanophore
This might come a shock to you, ja4, but Jesus came to bring life, and to save us from our sins, and the wages of our sins. This is why He said, “even though he dies, yet shall he live”. When Paul speaks of the wages of sin, he is speaking about spiritual death, not physical death. If you wish to use that argument, you will have to call Jesus a sinner too.

Good point!

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

I have to strongly disagree. Jesus came to dwell among us, borne of a woman (Mary) under the law with the dual purpose of fullfilling the requirements of the law and to bore the curse of the law as our substitute. So in essence, Jesus’ mission was to die. His life and His death was on our behalf. Physical death is not a natural event in life, but simply a product of the fall of mankind. It is unnatural to die.

Death in Adam, Life in Christ

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass [5] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [6] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 5

 

[guanophore]

It still impresses me that Paul excludes all mention of Mary.

I don’t think the vastness of Mary’s ministry was obvious until many years later. Besides, what has this to do with the topic?

Besides, as has been mentioned before, in the only two occasions that Mary appears in the gospels between the childbood of Jesus and the crucifixion, Jesus actually seems to mildly rebuke her. See John 2:1-22 and Luke 8:19-21.

It seems this way to those who read scripture with anti-Catholic spectacles on their face.

  Frankly, I think Catholicism needs to move away from notions that devout people in earlier centuries could accept but no longer can.

A little more liberalism and moral relativity, if you please! Get with the times you Catholics!

Like the condemnation of Galileo. The Church finally apologized (not long ago) for teaching foolishness re the sun vis a vis the earth and forcing Galileo to recant.

The Church did not teach that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo ws condemned, as he would be today, for imposing upon the Church that the Holy Scriptures should be revised according to his science. He should have stuck with his science, and not tried to prevail upon the Church to revise the Scripture. However, what has any of this to do with the topic?

   Most people with an advanced education today want to embrace a faith that focuses on God and the ethical teachings of Christ, but they will more and more drift away from what appears to them to be well-meaning and pious superstition.

More power to you, Roy5. Some people can be educated into imbecility.

You don’t have this Marian theology in the NT church. You can read the NT in depth and never find anyone praying to her, spoken as queen of heaven, immaculate conception or assumption. None of these things are in the NT. Most don’t appear for centuries in the church. Take her death and assumption as a historical fact:

Well, speak for yourself, ja4. You do not have the fullness of the Apostolic TEaching, so you are, indeed, lacking in the theology of the NT church to some extent.

Much of the NT was written when Mary’s ministry became prevalent in the Church, yet those of us that read the NT do see this theology there. I agree, it cannot be discerned when one reads with anti-Catholic glasses.

Look at church leadership in the church of today and compare with the qualifications of leadership in the NT church. Its not the same.

Well, we read it differently. What has this to do with the topic? Do you realize that you throw this out on any thread whenever you get stuck?

 

[Leeann]

You state part of my posts as if they are my opinion when they are not. My facts are supported by source documents; which, I can give you or you can find on your own. My sources are often secular in origin. Sorry…I shouldn’t have used that word…I should have said…that’s what you believe.
Jerome’s assumption has been proven wrong by the Dead Sea and Ben Sira scrolls. You can verify this through secular sources.
???

Our authority is based upon Christ creating one Church. This is not only verifiable in the Bible; but, history also. You can read letters from **Clement that lived with the Apostles and other early *Christians. (awww…the church as it was known in their *time ) They all show Rome as the one true Church. You may state this is opinion; however, if you read history it is not opinion the evidence is overwheming and very much secular.

Christ is the center of a Catholics life. We bow down before our Lord each Mass. Well…that’s a whole other thread in itself…)We believe in self sacrificing love and redemptive suffering. Christ is our core and our strenght in good and bad times. ( well…that’s hard to distinguish at times with regards to Marian prayers…another separate thread )
Marian theology was from the very beginning. This is supported by secular history again. Protestants often try to project that Marina doctrine is brand knew. (that’s because a lot of it **is **new - not anything like the early church - or the early,early churches when the Apostles were teaching ) I guess they believe this because they only read the Bible and ignore the writings of the early Church Fathers and secular history. We have a papyrus showing a Marian prayer dated prior to any Bible we have. This is history not opinion. (History also has evidence of pagan worship and goddesses at that time)
Your statement that the Catholic Church of today is different then the earliest church is historically inaccurate. I have mentioned to you that one only has to read documentation concerning the Mass. It is the same today as then.(not true…check out the Didache under Rituals)Catholic’s were executed in the firts century for believing in the Body and Blood of Christ just as Catholics believe today.Did you know the earliest Church stood against abortion with Rome. Just as we do now. The Church has not changed. It is still the same Church and you can see this in secular history books.
The Catholic church as we know it today is based on the Catholic church that was established in Rome (Constantine)…not the same as the early churches of the Apostles)
Have you read about how Luther came to the conclusion of faith alone. Read the history of this man. You will see that his theology is a fabrication. This you can actually read his own writings.
I have read it…but the issue isn’t Luther or Protestanism…it’s about the “sinless Mary”.

Peace and God Bless

 

[JoeyWarren]

…it’s about the “sinless Mary”.

Plaese respond to post 217

 

[Leeann]

I’ve already covered the issue with “All Have Sinned” to show without anybody being able to refute my posts concerning PAS, HAPAS, and HOLOS to show that the “ALL” in that verse and others of like nature show that it does not mean "Each and Every Person"

**So now I will give an example of a person that never sinned therefore the person is sinless even though they have the propensity for sin thru the original sin. **

1. A little boy of age 4 survives a plane crash in the jungle.

2. The little boy lives for about 50 years alone.

3. He cannot possibly sin at all since he is alone.

4. He can’t have no other Gods since he has no knowledge of God.

5. He can’t take the Lord God’s name in vain because he has no knowledge of God.

6. He can’t defile the Sabbath, because he has no knowledge of it’s existence

7. He cannot dishonor mother nor father since both have died in the plane crash.

8. He can’t bear false witness against anyone since he had never come in contact with anyone else.

9. He cannot steal from anyone for the same reason as 8.

10 He cannot kill anyone since there is no one to kill.

11. He cannot covet anyones wife.

12. He cannot covet anyones manservant.

13. He cannot covet anyones property.

14. What sin could he possibly commit if he has had no contact with anyone and has no knowledge of God or Jesus what so ever?

15. Would not this person be without any actual sin?

16. At this person’s death, where does he go? Heaven or Hell?

17. If you say he goes to Hell because of Original Sin, please state why.

18. This very important especially those of you that listen to Rick and Bubba. Rick Burgess’ son at the age of 4 drowned in their swimming pool. They claim He is in heaven. But if the child is a sinner because of Original Sin, then some of you need to Call the Rick And Bubba show and tell him that his son is in hell. Okay?

19 Fire away.

20. PS His first 4 years were spent without benefit of any source of information outside the family. The Family chose to live life somewhat similar to the Amish except there was no access to religion.

In direct response to #16 above - Well…at least we know for certain now that it’s not “limbo”…that’s been changed quite “recently” by the Catholic Church (as we know it today)…they’ve finally decided, after years and years and years of allowing a “theory” to be taught - that there is now reason to place our “hope” in God and His grace,mercy,wisdom.

For me personally - that has always been what I’ve done in such circumstances, place my hope in God and His grace, mercy,wisdom and power.

Peace and God Bless

 

[PerryJ]

PerryJ;4189042]

 

[JoeyWarren]

**

In direct response to #16 above - Well…at least we know for certain now that it’s not

** “limbo”…that’s been changed quite “recently” by the Catholic Church (as we know it today)…they’ve finally decided, after years and years and years of allowing a “theory” to be taught - that there is now reason to place our “hope” in God and His grace,mercy,wisdom.

Leeann:
For me personally - that has always been what I’ve done in such circumstances, place my hope in God and His grace, mercy,wisdom and power.

Peace and God Bless**
**
Limbo has neither been Doctrine nor Dogma. It has just been a theory and it has never been taught officially.

**So answer the question. Where does the person go as described in the scenario? Hell or Heaven. **

---

---

 

[guanophore]

We are all sinners and Mary is also a sinner. The only human being that is not a sinner is Jesus Christ for he is the Son of God.

Mary was a great person of course since God has chosen her to carry his son, but that doesn’t mean that Mary is not a sinner. Every single human being is a sinner and needs to accept Jesus Christ in his life for he only is the savior.

Mary did not just “carry” God’s son, but He came flesh from her flesh.

BTW, “accept Jesus Christ in his life” is not found in the bible.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4)

Actually, what you have given here are some of the best supports for the immaculate conception.

Only Jesus was born without a sin. If Mary was born without a sin that means that her parents should have been born without a sin and the parents of her parents … and this is impossible. Jesus is born without a sin through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, anyone who is born with out sin is so because of the HS. John the Baptist is another example of this.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.(Romans 5:12)

These passages are referring to orignal sin, which is why we need a Redeemner.

Mary herself said: And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47)

When do you suppose she was saved?

There is not doubt whatsoever that Mary was a great person since she was the mother of Jesus the man, but after all she is a human being and every human being is a sinner and needs Jesus as a savior.

Mary was not just the mother of “Jesus the man” but of Jesus the second person of the Trinity. This is why the Church gave her the title “mother of God” or “Theotokos” (God - bearer).

Yes, she is a human being - the human being that God created us all to be, without sin, and in perfect fellowship with Himself.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by homer forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:6)

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4)

Actually, what you have given here are some of the best supports for the immaculate conception.

Lets do some word insertion here to make the point hit home with Job 14:4

Who can bring a clean Jesus out of an unclean Mary? not one. (Job 14:4)

**Protestants should try to claim that they can BRING A CLEAN JESUS OUT OF AN UNCLEAN MARY by their objection to the Immaculate Conception. **

 

[justasking4]

I’ve already covered the issue with “All Have Sinned” to show without anybody being able to refute my posts concerning PAS, HAPAS, and HOLOS to show that the “ALL” in that verse and others of like nature show that it does not mean "Each and Every Person"

**So now I will give an example of a person that never sinned therefore the person is sinless even though they have the propensity for sin thru the original sin. **

1. A little boy of age 4 survives a plane crash in the jungle.

2. The little boy lives for about 50 years alone.

3. He cannot possibly sin at all since he is alone.

4. He can’t have no other Gods since he has no knowledge of God.

5. He can’t take the Lord God’s name in vain because he has no knowledge of God.

6. He can’t defile the Sabbath, because he has no knowledge of it’s existence

7. He cannot dishonor mother nor father since both have died in the plane crash.

8. He can’t bear false witness against anyone since he had never come in contact with anyone else.

9. He cannot steal from anyone for the same reason as 8.

10 He cannot kill anyone since there is no one to kill.

11. He cannot covet anyones wife.

12. He cannot covet anyones manservant.

13. He cannot covet anyones property.

14. What sin could he possibly commit if he has had no contact with anyone and has no knowledge of God or Jesus what so ever?

15. Would not this person be without any actual sin?

16. At this person’s death, where does he go? Heaven or Hell?

17. If you say he goes to Hell because of Original Sin, please state why.

18. This very important especially those of you that listen to Rick and Bubba. Rick Burgess’ son at the age of 4 drowned in their swimming pool. They claim He is in heaven. But if the child is a sinner because of Original Sin, then some of you need to Call the Rick And Bubba show and tell him that his son is in hell. Okay?

19 Fire away.

20. PS His first 4 years were spent without benefit of any source of information outside the family. The Family chose to live life somewhat similar to the Amish except there was no access to religion.

Here is a passage from Romans 1:18-25 that refutes much of what you write. In particular the idea that this person would have no knowldege of God and would not sin. Here is the passage:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4191620]By this logic, so was Jesus. Can you show where Jesus is a sinner too?

How about 2 Corinthians 5:21— For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

What do you think this means?

 

[Leeann]

---

**
Limbo has neither been Doctrine nor Dogma. It has just been a theory and it has never been taught officially.

**So answer the question. Where does the person go as described in the scenario? Hell or Heaven. **

---

---

Exactly as I stated in my response (re-posted below) - a “theory” that was allowed to be taught. Oops…must remember to put in the “unofficially”, that makes it better…I guess?

"In direct response to #16 above - Well…at least we know for certain now that it’s not “limbo”…that’s been changed quite “recently” by the Catholic Church (as we know it today)…they’ve finally decided, after years and years and years of allowing a “theory” to be taught - that there is now reason to place our “hope” in God and His grace,mercy,wisdom.

For me personally - that has always been what I’ve done in such circumstances, place my hope in God and His grace, mercy,wisdom and power."

And I did answer your question - you do believe in God’s supreme authority and grace don’t you?

 

[justasking4]

Lets do some word insertion here to make the point hit home with Job 14:4

Who can bring a clean Jesus out of an unclean Mary? not one. (Job 14:4)

**Protestants should try to claim that they can BRING A CLEAN JESUS OUT OF AN UNCLEAN MARY by their objection to the Immaculate Conception. **

Did Jesus become unclean when He touched men and women to help them? I suspect you would not believe that. If this is the case, why should we think that Jesus was in the least affect by Mary’s fall since sin itself has no physical properties?

 

[guanophore]

How about 2 Corinthians 5:21— For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

What do you think this means?

It is a good question for another thread. For the sake of this one, I will state that Jesus was not a sinner, and His taking on the penalty of sin on our behalf did not make Him a sinner.

Did Jesus become unclean when He touched men and women to help them? I suspect you would not believe that. If this is the case, why should we think that Jesus was in the least affect by Mary’s fall since sin itself has no physical properties?

No, but neither did He take their flesh, tainted by original sin, for His own flesh.

If you think that sin itself has no physical properties, then you need to go back and read Genesis three, where the physical and eternal consequences are both spelled out.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Thank you for answering that Guano.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Here is a passage from Romans 1:18-25 that refutes much of what you write. In particular the idea that this person would have no knowldege of God and would not sin. Here is the passage:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Context, Context, Context. See below:

In this passage Paul uses themes and rhetoric common in Jewish-Hellenistic mission proclamation (cf Wisdom 13:1-14:31) to indict especially the non-Jewish world. The close association of idolatry and immorality is basic, but the generalization needs in all fairness to be balanced against the fact that non-Jewish Christian society on many levels displayed moral attitudes and performance whose quality would challenge much of contemporary Christian culture. Romans themselves expressed abhorrence over devotion accorded to animals in Egypt. Paul’s main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.

**Commentary on verses 18-32 Paul is speaking rhetorically. One must become acquainted with Ancient Jewish Culture and the writing styles of the Pauline Era. **

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;4193771]**
Originally Posted by justasking4
Here is a passage from Romans 1:18-25 that refutes much of what you write. In particular the idea that this person would have no knowldege of God and would not sin. Here is the passage:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

JoeyWarren
Context, Context, Context. See below:

Quote:
In this passage Paul uses themes and rhetoric common in Jewish-Hellenistic mission proclamation (cf Wisdom 13:1-14:31) to indict especially the non-Jewish world. The close association of idolatry and immorality is basic, but the generalization needs in all fairness to be balanced against the fact that non-Jewish Christian society on many levels displayed moral attitudes and performance whose quality would challenge much of contemporary Christian culture. Romans themselves expressed abhorrence over devotion accorded to animals in Egypt. Paul’s main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.

Commentary on verses 18-32 Paul is speaking rhetorically. One must become acquainted with Ancient Jewish Culture and the writing styles of the Pauline Era. **

---

How does this refute my point that all men are without excuse because all born are born with an awareness of God internally and He can be seen clearly in creation?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Did Jesus become unclean when He touched men and women to help them? I suspect you would not believe that. If this is the case, why should we think that Jesus was in the least affect by Mary’s fall since sin itself has no physical properties?

guanophore
No, but neither did He take their flesh, tainted by original sin, for His own flesh.

If you think that sin itself has no physical properties, then you need to go back and read Genesis three, where the physical and eternal consequences are both spelled out.

It is true that there are physical consquences to sin but that is diiferent than saying sin in and of itself has physical properties. Sin is not some kind of “physical thing” that can be measured or weighed.

 

[guanophore]

It is true that there are physical consquences to sin but that is diiferent than saying sin in and of itself has physical properties. Sin is not some kind of “physical thing” that can be measured or weighed.

Since that topic is far afield from this thread, I will concede the point. You are purporting that the “wages of sin is death” and that, since Mary died, it proves that she has no sin. But Jesus has removed all sin and effects of sin from those who are “in Him”. Mary was saved, and therefore, will not inherit the consequences of sins.