The Virgin Birth and Mary's Immaculate Conception

[Randy_Carson]

Where can I read in God’s word does it say that Mary was born without original sin? Thanks

First, a question for you: Where can I read in God’s Word that everything we can know about our faith must be found in scripture? Thanks.

+++

Now to answer your question since you won’t be able to answer mine…Do you speak Greek? If so, then here it is:

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

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

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

 

[po18guy]

I know this is a major problem for non-Catholics, as well as for many Catholics. However, if we consider that each bit of scripture is somehow related to every other bit of scripture (since God’s Word cannot be divided), then it begins to make more sense. Original sin is inherited through the flesh, passed from generation to generation. Now, God could have brought forth children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8), but He did not. Let’s consider Job 14:4, which has been used in regard to original sin: “Who can bring forth the clean from the unclean?” As well, “gratia plena” (Luke 1:28) states that Mary was ‘full of grace’ and that, within her being was nothing that was not graced. Grace is the exclusion of all that is non-grace (sin). But, how to explain this one-time-in-scripture saying? Simply that the triune God, Who chose His mother before time began, graced her from her conception with the purity needed to fulfill His plan - a perfect flesh for His Son. Who can understand how sin is passed on better than the Creator?

 

[po18guy]

First, a question for you: Where can I read in God’s Word that everything we can know about our faith must be found in scripture? Thanks.

So, it appears that the bible-alone theory is telling us that Christians were taught improperly, or at least incompletely until Johannes Gutenberg was able to bind it all into a cohesive book 1,400 year later? Or were Christians improperly taught until the revolt in the 1500s? I am glad I do not have to defend those arguments. Or, can we take Luke at his word that the written Gospel served only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received? So, it seems, from the bible, that the bible is a back-up plan.

 

[rcjones]

As the Mother of our Lord. The Immaculate Conception makes perfect sense to me. If you (of any religion) believe that Jesus was completely pure, it is logical that while in Mary’s womb, her blood flowed through him, they were essentially one. The blood of Christ and the blood of Mary were the same. God would have taken every precaution to keep Christ pure in every way.

Biology 101

The blood of the mother and child are not the same and are not co-mingled. This is why they can be different blood types.

 

[po18guy]

Biology 101

The blood of the mother and child are not the same and are not co-mingled. This is why they can be different blood types.

Questions: Do you believe in original sin? If you do, just how was it passed on from Adam and Eve to you and I?

 

[rcjones]

Questions: Do you believe in original sin? If you do, just how was it passed on from Adam and Eve to you and I?

Yes. I believe the nature of original sin is to live instinctively like animals rather than responding to God’s word first. So whenever we do anything without considering his word first, we are committing original sin.

All the law, and specifically the ‘Golden Rule’ counter this. We are expected to think of God and others first before considering the instinctive flesh.

I believe that our sinful nature, as inherited from Adam, is a result of Adam and Eve being tossed out of a timeless eternity, where things do not decay, and do not get hungry because there is no time, into an existence where time itself is part of the curse called entropy.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Jesus shared in the flesh, and so had the same instinctive nature, getting hungry, hot cold, not wanting to die, etc. But he resisted the nature from birth, never having done something that violated another for his own benefit. You might say that he had ‘eternity [timelessness] in his heart’.

 

[po18guy]

Yes. I believe the nature of original sin is to live instinctively like animals rather than responding to God’s word first. So whenever we do anything without considering his word first, we are committing original sin.

Not to derail, but you believe that original sin is a behavior, rather than a state of being? Might be good to begin another thread on this.

 

[rcjones]

Not to derail, but you believe that original sin is a behavior, rather than a state of being? Might be good to begin another thread on this.

It is a state of being in ‘time’ which causes entropy and decay, and is worked out by an instinctive behavior responding to it, placing ones own survival and well-being… even pleasure before God and others.

Start a new thread if this is interesting and PM me to tell me where it is

 

[po18guy]

It is a state of being in ‘time’ which causes entropy and decay, and is worked out by an instinctive behavior responding to it, placing ones own survival and well-being… even pleasure before God and others.

Start a new thread if this is interesting and PM me to tell me where it is

Sure! Here it is. Let’s talk.

 

[ProPro]

So the catholic church is similiar to cults that make up their own beliefs based upon what man says. No proof whatsoever. Do you see the danger in that? ie; Mormons Jehovah Witness

As you know, mariamism spread quickly throughout the early church. Many families kept their young women virgins hoping she would concieve the son of God. So when Mary did, of course she was idolized. Same as today’s Catholic church.

I see these stupid bumper stickers that say "Can’t find Jesus? Look for his mother. MARY CAN NOT SAVE YOU! Why would you steer people in the wrong direction?

I see people walking around with brown pieces of cloth on a string around their necks thinking that Mary will come get them out of purgatory on the first saturday after they die.

What? Why not on Monday or Thursday? Silly. Pretty sure those things are mass produced in China.

First, a question for you: Where can I read in God’s Word that everything we can know about our faith must be found in scripture? Thanks.

+++

Now to answer your question since you won’t be able to answer mine…Do you speak Greek? If so, then here it is:

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

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

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

 

[ProPro]

I know this is a major problem for non-Catholics, as well as for many Catholics. However, if we consider that each bit of scripture is somehow related to every other bit of scripture (since God’s Word cannot be divided), then it begins to make more sense. Original sin is inherited through the flesh, passed from generation to generation. Now, God could have brought forth children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8), but He did not. Let’s consider Job 14:4, which has been used in regard to original sin: “Who can bring forth the clean from the unclean?” As well, “gratia plena” (Luke 1:28) states that Mary was ‘full of grace’ and that, within her being was nothing that was not graced. Grace is the exclusion of all that is non-grace (sin). But, how to explain this one-time-in-scripture saying? Simply that the triune God, Who chose His mother before time began, graced her from her conception with the purity needed to fulfill His plan - a perfect flesh for His Son. Who can understand how sin is passed on better than the Creator?

One time? Read Acts Of Apostles 6:8

And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Was Stephen born with no sin also? He would have to be for your church to be correct.

 

[po18guy]

There is no point in responding to anti-Catholic bigots who blatantly violate the very forum rules which they promised to obey. Pray for them, as they flail away in their ignorance of what they condemn.

 

[rainfly1]

So confusing…

I am sorry to say I am loosing my faith. I am not sinner. I am not responsible of those sins which I never did. This is just fake and false belive.

Do good have good. Here and hereafter. Simple law, doesn’t it make sense. If jusus died for our sins then why i stop fuking bithces and using drugs. whats a big deal.

i m sorry to say this book (bible) is mixture of many things . so many errors, pornographic material which is of course is not word of jesus or GOD whatever.

I need perfection. God is perfect.

 

[Cruxis117]

One time? Read Acts Of Apostles 6:8

And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Was Stephen born with no sin also? He would have to be for your church to be correct.

This is actually addressed in an article in Catholic Answers.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

A quote from the article which I believe presents the response I was thinking of far better that I would ever do:

Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tenseThe next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)

1. “He has defiled this sacred place” (Acts 21:28)–their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.

1. “The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23)–the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.

1. “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)–that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

We see that Mary was in the past made full of Grace, made pure, and that this has lasting effects into the future. And from another forum, we see this:

catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1168697.0

And a quote from a poster on this forum that I’ve linked to presents the other side to the response:

Although it is true that John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 use the Greek PLERES CHARITOS, which is literally translated “full of grace,” here we have an instance in which Jesus and Stephen, respectively, are filled with grace. That shows that a “filling” of grace can be applied to the God-Man or to a man. Again, a Catholic would understand this action as an infusion of grace, whereas a Protestant would see it as merely an extrinsic divine gift or blessing.

The reason Luke didn’t choose PLERES CHARITOS for Mary is that the phrase cannot, in itself, distinguish time, agent or continuity, whereas KEKERITOMENE can. Being a perfect, passive, participle that is applied on a titular basis, KEKERITOMENE denotes that: (a) the state of grace began in past time, (b) it is a completed and accomplished action, (c) its results continue into the present, (d) that the verbal title is received by Mary from an outside agent.

Granted, this doesn’t “prove” the Immaculate Conception. However, we can easily see that while the translations of Stephen as being “full of grace” and Mary as being “full of grace” are shown to us as equal in English, in the original Greek, Luke uses kecharitomene to aptly describe Mary in a way which is rather distinct from when Stephen is referred to as being full of grace, which is the literal translation of the phrase which is found in Acts 6:8, which is *pleres charitos *, Therefore, we can assume that Stephen was not born without sin, because this was an infusion of grace, which occurs during Baptism. Whereas with Mary, she is described as already being full of grace, before any sort of Baptism and even before the conception of our Glorious Lord.

 

[Cruxis117]

(Edited)

Yes, God is perfect. However, we are all sinners. This is because we have all done things which betrays the Lord, turning away from his Will. While you believe that your “Simple Law” makes sense, it is not the Natural Law. We are able to do “good”, this is true. However, this good cannot ever balance the sins which Jesus redeemed us from (and continues to redeem us from). The Bible is, as you say, a mixture of many things. History, Poetry, Wisdom. But most importantly it is divinely inspired. Any “errors” you think exist do not. There is no “pornographic” material in the Sacred Scriptures. I’m confused about your one rather vulgar sentence regarding about why Jesus died. We are called to repent and to follow the Lord and bear our Cross. This is, while a free action which we are able to make, is also only done with the Grace of God aiding us. We are not “responsible” in the sense that we did not personally commit Original Sin. However, we did commit sins which we are responsible for. And we do bear the stain on our souls which is Original Sin, which was passed on to us by the actions of Adam and Eve. Ultimately, while we are not “responsible” in a personal sense of Original Sin, we are still in need of a Saviour for this, as we cannot remove it ourselves. Only God can. I hope that you find the path to God and enter into a deeper faith in God by staying in his One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church from this forum. Peace be with you.

 

[po18guy]

This is actually addressed in an article in Catholic Answers.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

A quote from the article which I believe presents the response I was thinking of far better that I would ever do:

We see that Mary was in the past made full of Grace, made pure, and that this has lasting effects into the future. And from another forum, we see this:

catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1168697.0

And a quote from a poster on this forum that I’ve linked to presents the other side to the response:

Granted, this doesn’t “prove” the Immaculate Conception. However, we can easily see that while the translations of Stephen as being “full of grace” and Mary as being “full of grace” are shown to us as equal in English, in the original Greek, Luke uses kecharitomene to aptly describe Mary in a way which is rather distinct from when Stephen is referred to as being full of grace, which is the literal translation of the phrase which is found in Acts 6:8, which is *pleres charitos *, Therefore, we can assume that Stephen was not born without sin, because this was an infusion of grace, which occurs during Baptism. Whereas with Mary, she is described as already being full of grace, before any sort of Baptism and even before the conception of our Glorious Lord.

You are up against a hard-bitten anti-Catholic. Good luck.

Anyway, from the Latin Vulgate (written 382-384), which is much older than the source our anti-Catholic friend is using, the two terms are reversed between Luke1:28 and Acts 6:8.

Luke 1:28 "et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

Acts 6:8 “Stephanus autem plenus gratia et fortitudine faciebat prodigia et signa magna in populo”

I’m no Latin speaker, but a reversal of word order, especially when written by the same author (Luke), and translated by the same translator (Saint Jerome) has meaning, so our friend’s argument fails in that regard. In another regard, Stephen had been baptized, and so could then also be full of grace - no reflection whatsoever on his birth, as is the case of Mary. Mary was full of grace pre-Baptism - I hope he thinks of that. Anyway, modern arguments are arrogant, assuming that we moderns are more sophisticated than those crude, uneducated ancients in the bible. Hah!

 

[Randy_Carson]

(Edited)

Here’s an analogy (I hope it works):

Let’s say that your parents and grandparents and their parents before them all lived in Ireland for centuries back into the mists of history. Got the mental picture?

Now, suppose that your parents decided to move to America before you were born. Instead of being born on a small farm outside some village in the south of Ireland, you were born in New Jersey. Do you think your life is different as a result of their decision when compared with what it would have been in the old country? Do you think YOUR children’s lives would have been different had they been born back in Ireland?

Adam and Eve CHOSE to commit a sin against God, and their decision has affected all of their offspring to this very day.

 

[Joero]

The Virgin Mary was not part of the curses imparted by God to Eve. If we use logic with regard to Gen. 3: 15-16, here it is: In Gen. 3: 15, God was speaking to the serpent and the woman He was implying, is the Virgin Mary, not Eve. While in Gen. 3: 16, of course it is explicit, God was speaking to Eve.

This, of course, was taught officially in the catechism of the Council of Trent or the so called the Roman catechism to wit:

The Church’s official catechisms also contain this teaching. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (also known as the Roman Catechism) states:

"But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.

"Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity….

"To Eve it was said: ‘In pain you shall bring forth children’ (Gen. 3:16). Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain." ("The Creed" Article III)

In Gen. 3: 15, take cognizant of this sentence “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will bite his heel.”
enmity = means deep-seated unfriendliness or mortal enemy.
If the woman refers to Eve, it does not follow because she had sinned (1Tim. 2: 13-14), since sinning means you have sided to the devil (1John 3: 8) then it means that enmity is cut off.
The woman in Gen. 3: 15 must have no stain of sin even from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother because only the perfect sacrifice of Christ takes away all sins. Since Christ is the personified Wisdom (1Cor. 1: 24) and Wisdom will not dwell in the body enslave to sin (Wisdom 1: 4), this woman became the mother of Jesus Christ (Luke 1: 31-33),(John 1: 1,14)(Heb. 2: 14), which is the offspring that would crush the head of the serpent.
To identify the offspring:
In Job 41:11 it says that no one on earth could ever attack with impunity the beast called Leviathan. Only God has crushed the heads of the Leviathan (Psalms 74: 12-14).
(In Isaiah 27: 1 the Leviathan is the serpent and in Rev. 12: 9 the serpent is the Devil). Therefore, the offspring is Jesus Christ, the God-man.

 

[scameter18]

@Joero: Wonderful exegesis my friend, especially referencing the Council of Trent which, as Dr. Scott Hahn has said, is too infrequently cited. Thank you very much.

 

[Joero]

@Joero: Wonderful exegesis my friend, especially referencing the Council of Trent which, as Dr. Scott Hahn has said, is too infrequently cited. Thank you very much.

You are welcome:thumbsup: