Sinless Mary

[Good_Fella]

Since Jesus and His diciples knew Mary best where do we see any of them speaking of Mary like this? Where do we see them referring to her as an ark type?
Secondly, in Luke 1:47 she refers to God as her Savior. This is an admittance of being a sinner on her part.
Thirdly, where in the Gospel accounts do we see her engaging the devil directly? Do the Scriptures say she is in any passages?

You know very well that Luke draws a parallel between Mary and the ark of the Old Covenant. It’s been pointed out to you repeatedly in other threads and maybe this one too. Honestly, JA4, you should change your user name to:

Justaskingthesamequestions4ever

Luke 1:47 is written in the indicative mood, not the imperative mood: Luke has Mary say “I am saved,” not “You save me.” A person who assuredly declares “she is saved” is without sin. One is not definitely “saved” while still a sinner. God intervened and redeemed Mary at the instant he fashioned her soul with the infusion of sanctifying grace. Being conceived in a state of original sin means God’s sanctifying grace is absent in the soul. Thus Mary could begin her declaration with the words:

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.”

We see Mary (the New Eve) at enmity with Satan at the moment she declares her humble and obedient ‘fiat’:

“Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”

PAX :heaven:

 

[Leeann]

Its because the Catholic Church is the only Church that historically goes back to Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it must be the Church that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against. It must be the Church which Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth. It must be the Chruch that the bible calls the pillar and foundation of truth because any student of history would have to admitt that it is the same Church establish by Christ.

and this MUST be so…because this is what the Catholic Church teaches and claims and anyone who doesn’t agree…MUST be anathema!

 

[East_and_West]

and this MUST be so…because this is what the Catholic Church teaches and claims and anyone who doesn’t agree…MUST be anathema!

What a silly thing to say. The reason it must be so is that it is the historically accurate truth. Look at all the Churches? Where did the Catholic Church come from? You can’t find any other starting point for it but the Apostles. No other Church has that quality.

 

[Leeann]

Your statement is very flip considering thousands of people have died for the Faith. The Faith that gave you the Bible. The Faith that manually wrote the Bible for over a thousand years. Did you know that it took a Catholic monk over one year to write a Bible. A Faith that lived through the two great persecutions of the Romans. A Faith that 19,000 people alone died for the Eucharist in Lyon. The faith that pulled humanity out of the dark ages.

Read a little history. The early Church Fathers show that the first christians were Catholic. They were tortured and killed so that you would even have a Faith. Your response to all these saints is “and so it continues.”

Before you respond with something like the Inquistion or some other nonsense I would check your facts. We know our history on this site very well. Of course you do
and how to “portray” it…it’s been worked on and done for years!
Of course no response to my post showing that Mary is sinless via the Bible. I guess your right “so it continues” it is easier to denigrate than search for the truth?

I’ve been living my “real life” too…outside of the “thread rooms”…not hanging on every word to get back and see what has been posted, as it’s all pretty much the same…almost by rote…however, when I was able to get back on, I made a point of reading your posting “via the Bible” - thank you for the time and effort you put into that - a lot of the old test. verses were “stretched” I’d say in relation to applying to Mary’s sinlessness…but that happens when you really have a need to support a dogma…as to trying to make me feel guilty for all the past “Christians” who have given their lives for the “faith”…my comment was not aimed at them or their sacrifices that they gave for their genuine love and faith in Christ…my comment was aimed at the same old/same old postings that keep showing up…with regards to “The Church” itself.

Thank you again though for your sincere effort and response and insight.

 

[Mannyfit75]

and this MUST be so…because this is what the Catholic Church teaches and claims and anyone who doesn’t agree…MUST be anathema!

Well, anyone who is Catholic will be anathema. For a Catholic to deny the teachings of the Catholic Church would be to deny Divine Revelation, which God has revealed to us. More is at state for a Catholic to disagree what the Church teaches than a Non-Catholic Christians such as yourself.

Many priests such as Fr. Corapi that for a Catholic to not to be obedient to teachings of the Catholic Church, he becomes a heretic.

 

[PerryJ]

I’ve been living my “real life” too…outside of the “thread rooms”…not hanging on every word to get back and see what has been posted, as it’s all pretty much the same…almost by rote…however, when I was able to get back on, I made a point of reading your posting “via the Bible” - thank you for the time and effort you put into that - a lot of the old test. verses were “stretched” I’d say in relation to applying to Mary’s sinlessness…but that happens when you really have a need to support a dogma…as to trying to make me feel guilty for all the past “Christians” who have given their lives for the “faith”…my comment was not aimed at them or their sacrifices that they gave for their genuine love and faith in Christ…my comment was aimed at the same old/same old postings that keep showing up…with regards to “The Church” itself.

Thank you again though for your sincere effort and response and insight.

Leeann,

I believe you are sincere. If one reads history one will see that the Catholic Church is the true Church. The matrys were not Christians they were Catholic. It is a Protestant myth to use the term Chrisitian. Read the history of these matyrs. They were Catholic in every sense. The mass they attended was Catholic. Papal authority is not only in the Bible it is in secular history. As a former Protestant I thought that Catholicism was a myth made up by Catholics. I am an avid reader of history. If one reads secular historians about Rome and Romans one will find a Catholic belief. Not a Protestant one. If you read letters written from the early Church one sees Catholicism not Protestant belief. One can refute Mother Mary; however, there is evidence that she enters this world and touches people. Signs such as 70,000 people seeing her over 20 mile area. Atheist and secular newspaper supporting the testimony of the believers. The evidence is overwhelming. Protestant do not want people to read history because once one does it is very clear that it is the Catholic faith that did all of this not just “Christians”. Sola Scriptura is designed to keep the truth hidden from people. If you truly want to know the world of God read some history books for yourself and see if what I state is true. It will show the early Christians were taught by the Apostles and they were Catholic. Do not read Catholic or Protestant historians. (Protestant historians will always use the word Christian instead of Catholic) Read secular historians and get to the details of the beliefs. You will see Catholicism not Protestant beliefs. I was the most ardent against Catholicism. I debated Catholic’s constantly. I read books with the intent of gaining knowledge to refute Catholic beliefs. As I read more and more books it became very clear that Protestant thoughts were man made thoughts designed to keep people ignorant of the truth. Do you want to know the truth about Christ? I challenge you or anyone else to begin to read history. Read what the exact cause of Christian persecution was in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What were they charged with. Read the letters of the earliest Christians. You will see Catholicsim. The evidence is overwhelming. I am a Catholic now because the truth forced me to be.

 

[justasking4]

How do supporters of the sinless of Mary deal with Romans 5:12 which says the following:
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—

Where in Scripture does it say this does not apply to Mary specifically?

 

[PerryJ]

How do supporters of the sinless of Mary deal with Romans 5:12 which says the following:
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—

Where in Scripture does it say this does not apply to Mary specifically?

This was part of my post before concerning Mary and Romans.

Note that we have context of the entire Bible showing she has to be sinless. Protestant refutation is a couple of verses taken out of context.

How can she be sinless Romans 3:23 states all have sinned. Peter in this verse is speaking of personnel sin versus original sin. If we also believe that it truly includes all then Jesus would have to be included. Paul though here is referring back to Psalm 14 which is David talking about rebellion in Israel. The rebellion includes not just gentiles but also fellow Israelites. In this context he is using the collective all not the distributive all. We know this because he then distinguishes the evildoers. He also refers to the generation of the righteous. This shows that he was using a collective all and not a distributive all.

If we look at Romans 5:12 and 5:18-19 where Paul teaches that men inherit original sin we have three examples that it was not inherited: Jesus, Adam and Eve. There exist exceptions for inheriting original sin. We Catholics believe Mary is the knew Eve and as such would not inherit original sin.

How do you refute all the references that Mary has to be sinless to carry or Lord?

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4179400]
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do supporters of the sinless of Mary deal with Romans 5:12 which says the following:
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—

Where in Scripture does it say this does not apply to Mary specifically?

PerryJ
This was part of my post before concerning Mary and Romans.

Note that we have context of the entire Bible showing she has to be sinless. Protestant refutation is a couple of verses taken out of context.

How can she be sinless Romans 3:23 states all have sinned. Peter in this verse is speaking of personnel sin versus original sin. If we also believe that it truly includes all then Jesus would have to be included.

This would not include Christ since He was not born of nomal natural means. Mary was born of 2 human parents while Jesus was not.

Paul though here is referring back to Psalm 14 which is David talking about rebellion in Israel. The rebellion includes not just gentiles but also fellow Israelites. In this context he is using the collective all not the distributive all. We know this because he then distinguishes the evildoers. He also refers to the generation of the righteous. This shows that he was using a collective all and not a distributive all.

Even if this is the case it still does not support Mary being sinless.

If we look at Romans 5:12 and 5:18-19 where Paul teaches that men inherit original sin we have three examples that it was not inherited: Jesus, Adam and Eve. There exist exceptions for inheriting original sin. We Catholics believe Mary is the knew Eve and as such would not inherit original sin.

Notice the nature of the exceptions for Jesus, Adam and Eve. None of them had a birth by 2 human parents. All 3 were in a sense a special creation of God while Mary was not. She inherited the sin of Adam through her parents.

How do you refute all the references that Mary has to be sinless to carry or Lord?

Nothing to refute. Mary did not need to be sinless to be carry Christ in her womb.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Manny

Not “early enough” - the earliest post was 100 or 110 A.D. - many false teachings had already been introduced throughout the original “true church” of believers. Obviously these ones were in support of them.

What about St. Ignatius of Antioch? He was a disciple of St. John, the Apostle, who is believed to have died in 110AD, the same year St. Ignatius was martyred. St. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter, the Apostle.

I know Manny brought this up, to which you thanked him for his insight. While a ‘thank you’ is nice, it does not tell us what you think in reference to your statement that by that time many false teachings had been introduced.

Also, in reference to your statement that by 100 to 110AD, many false teachings had been introduced, how does the teachings of reformers 1500 years after the death and resurrection of Christ become ‘true’ teachings?

 

[PerryJ]

Nothing to refute. Mary did not need to be sinless to be carry Christ in her womb.

This title “full of grace” shows that one is not touched by sin. Sin diminishes grace. To be full of grace one must not have been touched by sin.

God is speaking to Satan and tells him that the woman’s offspring will strike at the serpents head. All Christians believe this is Jesus. The enmity that is between Jesus and Satan is the same enmity that is between the serpent and the woman. This woman must be Mary and as Jesus is not ensnared by the devil also Mary must not be

Genesis 3:15 ”I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel”

Why would Satan be angry with Mary if she was just another sinner?

Revelation 12:17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The keeper of the covenant was blessed. This blessing is for keeping just the word of the Lord not Christ himself. Would not the keeper of the Lord be more blessed?

What about the cleanliness required to be in the presence of the Lord. Would not Mary have to be more “clean”?

Not even animals could be present when God visited Mount Sinai. The people also had to be sanctified and even had to wash their garments.

Exodus Chapter 19:10-14 10 And he said to him: Go to the people, and sanctify them today, and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments. 11 And let them be ready against the third day: for on the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon Mount Sinai. 12 And thou shalt appoint certain limits to the people round about, and thou shalt say to them: Take heed you go not up into the mount, and that ye touch not the borders thereof: every one that toucheth the mount dying he shall die. 13 No hands shall touch him, but he shall be stoned to death, or shall be shot through with arrows: whether it be beast, or man, he shall not live. When the trumpet shall begin to sound, then let them go up into the mount. 14 And Moses came down from the mount to the people, and sanctified them. And when they had washed their garments

If nothing unclean can enter heaven why would God touch one that is unclean at birth?

Revelation 21:27 There shall not enter into it anything defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb

If the word of the Lord had to be in an object without stain or defect the Lord would not come via an impure object.

You ignore the context of many verses by mis-interpreting one

 

[JoeyWarren]

This would not include Christ since He was not born of nomal natural means. Mary was born of 2 human parents while Jesus was not.

I always find this comical when someone as a last resort results in telling an outright lie.

**Let me set the record straight on this fallacy of justasking4 and others. **

**Jesus was BORN of normal natural means. He came out the womb just like I did. **

Now the means by which Jesus was CONCEIVED is left solely up to the imagination since the exact mechanism is not known in it’s entirety.

---

All we know for sure is that the Holy Spirit OVERSHADOWED Mary.

---

**What that OVERSHADOWING involved and entailed in it’s entirety is not known. **

---

This is what we don’t know:

---

First: Did God use one of Mary’s Ovaries or did God provide the Ovary.

---

**Second: We know that an Ovary must be fertilized by a Sperm. So with that in mind, Did God provide the Sperm or did God employ the method of self fertilization that he has implemented in other species that inhabit this earth. **

---

**Third: OVERSHADOWING? Did God send the Holy Spirit in pure spirit form or did God send the Holy Spirit in Physical form? **

---

To all three questions we can’t be 100% percent sure as how Jesus was conceived, but we can say for certain that he was born the same way that you and I were born. That being thru the VAGINAL CAVITY.

---

**ADAM AND EVE were not conceived or born. **

---

**We also believe in another exception besides Mary. **

---

**Yes! And that would be St. John the Baptist. St John the Baptist was Sinless as well. **

---

Then there is always the argument of what “Original Sin” verses "Actual Sin"

---

**If “Original Sin” and “Actual Sin” are equal then you have a quandary, Every person that has died without accepting Jesus as Lord has been given a one way ticket straight to Hell. That inlcudes children and babies as well. **

Mary did not need to be sinless to be carry Christ in her womb.

**And no Catholic believes so. What we do believe is that it was fitting **for her to be sinless.

---

**Hope this helps:tiphat: **

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;4179681]**
Originally Posted by justasking4
This would not include Christ since He was not born of nomal natural means. Mary was born of 2 human parents while Jesus was not.

JoeyWarren
I always find this comical when someone as a last resort results in telling an outright lie.**
What outright lie are you referring to?

Let me set the record straight on this fallacy of justasking4 and others.

Jesus was BORN of normal natural means. He came out the womb just like I did.

Now the means by which Jesus was CONCEIVED is left solely up to the imagination since the exact mechanism is not known in it’s entirety.

All we know for sure is that the Holy Spirit OVERSHADOWED Mary.

What that OVERSHADOWING involved and entailed in it’s entirety is not known.

This is what we don’t know:

First: Did God use one of Mary’s Ovaries or did God provide the Ovary.

Second: We know that an Ovary must be fertilized by a Sperm. So with that in mind, Did God provide the Sperm or did God employ the method of self fertilization that he has implemented in other species that inhabit this earth.

Third: OVERSHADOWING? Did God send the Holy Spirit in pure spirit form or did God send the Holy Spirit in Physical form?

To all three questions we can’t be 100% percent sure as how Jesus was conceived, but we can say for certain that he was born the same way that you and I were born. That being thru the VAGINAL CAVITY.

Would you agree that even though we don’t know the nature of the “overshadowing by the HS” we do know that no human male sperm of any man was required?

ADAM AND EVE were not conceived or born.

true.

We also believe in another exception besides Mary.

Based on what? The Scriptures are the only source of what we know of Mary and they don’t come even close to saying she was some kind of exception as Adam, Eve or Jesus was.

Yes! And that would be St. John the Baptist. St John the Baptist was Sinless as well.

Where do you get this idea?

Then there is always the argument of what “Original Sin” verses “Actual Sin”

If “Original Sin” and “Actual Sin” are equal then you have a quandary, Every person that has died without accepting Jesus as Lord has been given a one way ticket straight to Hell. That inlcudes children and babies as well.

Being born with “original sin” is not equal to acutal sin. Original sin has to do with the fall and our inheriting it from Adam. Actual sin is what we all want to do either by thought or deed.

Quote:justasking4
Mary did not need to be sinless to be carry Christ in her womb.
JoeyWarren
And no Catholic believes so. What we do believe is that it was fitting for her to be sinless.

You can say this was fitting but there is no basis in Scripture to support such a claim.

Hope this helps

 

[JoeyWarren]

Would you agree that even though we don’t know the nature of the “overshadowing by the HS” we do know that no human male sperm of any man was required?

No I would not agree either way since Scripture is silent on the exact explicit mechanism. The Holy Spirit could have just as easily taken human form during the Overshadowing and thus provided a divine sperm.

---

**Again, Scripture is silent or at least vary vague. **

---

What I have written is my honest objective opinion.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You can say this was fitting but there is no basis in Scripture to support such a claim.

**So you say and claim. We have on a number of occasions given you the parallels of the Old Testament and the New Testament. **

---

You might claim coincidence at your own peril.

---

**With God there is no coincidences. **

---

**Hope this helps.:tiphat: **

 

[justasking4]

**So you say and claim. We have on a number of occasions given you the parallels of the Old Testament and the New Testament. **

---

You might claim coincidence at your own peril.

---

**With God there is no coincidences. **

---

**Hope this helps.:tiphat: **

The problem with using parrallels like this is that they still fail to demonstrate that it was fitting for her to be without sin. For example no writer of the NT ever says she was without sin because she was the mother of Christ. They don’t even hint at such a thing.

 

[JoeyWarren]

ISAID :Yes! And that would be St. John the Baptist. St John the Baptist was Sinless as well.

YOU SAID:
Where do you get this idea?

ANSWER: From the same Scriptures that you read.

This is not something that the Catholic Church teaches, but it is what may be called a pious and probable belief among Catholics.

The reason is that in Luke 1:13-15, when an angel prophecies the birth of John the Baptist, he says:

Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.

And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;

for he will be great before the Lord,and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
It is commonly understood that the Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin. As Catholics use the term, “original sin” refers to the privation of the sanctifying grace which unites us with God. A soul filled with the Holy Spirit seems unquestionably to be united with God and thus not deprived of sanctifying grace. Hence, it has not original sin as the term is commonly used among Catholics, just as every person who has been baptized or otherwise justified has not original sin as Catholics use the term.

(N.B., Protestants have a different and more expansive definition of the term “original sin,” which includes the corrupt nature we inherit from Adam and which remains with us after we are justified. Consequently, it would sound very improbable to them that any person in this life does not have original sin, but this is because of the way the term is used in their circles, not because of a substantive theological difference.)

(N.B.B., If it is granted that John the Baptist was freed from original sin before birth, it does not follow that he was immaculate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is firstly because he may have been freed of original sin after his conception and before birth, whereas Mary was preserved from her conception from contracting original sin. And it secondly is because Mary was not only free of original sin, as is posited in the case of John the Baptist, but also utterly free of the stain of original sin, which includes more than just the deprivation of sanctifying grace. It also includes, for example, the later tendency to sin–concupiscience–to which we are subject in this life.) Jimmy Akin

“The Church observes the day of John [the Baptist’s] birth as a holy day: none of the fathers is thus solemnly commemorated. We celebrate John’s birth as we celebrate Christ’s. I cannot let this feast pass without a sermon…” (St Augustine, Sermon 293).

 

[JoeyWarren]

The problem with using parrallels like this is that they still fail to demonstrate that it was fitting for her to be without sin.

That is your personal opinion.

For example no writer of the NT ever says she was without sin because she was the mother of Christ. They don’t even hint at such a thing.

**]Actually you are wrong here. Luke did say such, but it is poorly interpreted by Protestants. Luke chose the Greek word “Kecharitomene” . St Jerome interpreted it as “Grata Plena” which rendered in English is “Grace Filled” or more commonly translated “Full of Grace” **

---

**Protestants chose “Highly Favored” which is gross distortion of the Root Greek word “Charito” which has as it’s primary meaning “Grace” IE from Strongs Numbers as shown below. **

---

**

**
G5487**

χαριτόω
charitoō*
khar-ee-to’-o*
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.
** When the Protestant translators did not like the “To Grace” because it concreted the Papist’s position, they went our of their way to find an alternative definition. These definitions are always listed last as “be highly favoured” is in this case. **

---

**If Strong and his cohorts were actually true to God and truely in Christ they would have dissected each and every word that is used in the Greek. **

---

**Instead they took the Cowards way out to justify their own position and lightly defined the root word. **

---

**Charito is never found in the New Testament in it’s root form. It is found twice in a conjugated form. So in all fairness to God and his word a concise and exact dissection of the 2 words is required. **

---

Strong’s fruits look good on the outside, but when you get down to studying Strong’s dictionary, one finds that it is full of intentional deception.

---

**Hope this helps. :tiphat: **

---

But you have been told all this before and you still choose to ignore it at your own peril.**

 

[justasking4]

JoeyWarren;4180527]**
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem with using parrallels like this is that they still fail to demonstrate that it was fitting for her to be without sin.

JoeyWarren
That is your personal opinion.

For example no writer of the NT ever says she was without sin because she was the mother of Christ. They don’t even hint at such a thing.

**Actually you are wrong here. Luke did say such, but it is poorly interpreted by Protestants. Luke chose the Greek word “Kecharitomene” . St Jerome interpreted it as “Grata Plena” which rendered in English is “Grace Filled” or more commonly translated “Full of Grace”
It is quite easy as you have shown to see what words mean and the context they are to be taken. Look carefully at the definition of
Full of Grace. In the defintion itself it says nothing of being sinless.

Protestants chose “Highly Favored” which is gross distortion of the Root Greek word “Charito” which has as it’s primary meaning “Grace” IE from Strongs Numbers as shown below.

Quote:

G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to’-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

When the Protestant translators did not like the “To Grace” because it concreted the Papist’s position, they went our of their way to find an alternative definition. These definitions are always listed last as “be highly favoured” is in this case.

If Strong and his cohorts were actually true to God and truely in Christ they would have dissected each and every word that is used in the Greek.

Instead they took the Cowards way out to justify their own position and lightly defined the root word.

What do the Catholic lexicons say about this word?

Charito is never found in the New Testament in it’s root form. It is found twice in a conjugated form. So in all fairness to God and his word a concise and exact dissection of the 2 words is required.

Strong’s fruits look good on the outside, but when you get down to studying Strong’s dictionary, one finds that it is full of intentional deception.

Hopefully you have a Catholic lexicon on this verse that says otherwise. Then we can look at the differences.

Hope this helps.

View attachment 4082

 

[PerryJ]

Would you agree that even though we don’t know the nature of the “overshadowing by the HS” we do know that no human male sperm of any man was required?

For one that supposedly believes in Sola Scriptura you believe in a lot of stuff not in the Bible. Now you know exactly how Christ was begotten?