To be deep in the Bible: For all have sinned

[MariaG]

This is from this messy thread here

originally posted by allischalmers

Roman 3:23 For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Does that not include Mary the mother of Jesus.

Let me ask you a series of questions first.

Does all have sinned include infants?

Does all have sinned include Jesus, since Jesus was fully man?

Does all have sinned include the mentally retarded?

Does all have sinned include a 2 year old child?

Are those part of “All”?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mattrue]

why is it so hard to believe that the MOTHER OF GOD, the MOTHER OF JESUS was free from sin. She gave BIRTH to GOD JESUS who is free from sin, so she herself was free from sin, clean as snow. Why would Jesus who is all perfect not have a mother who is perfect. Hail Mary. Peace be to you all.

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by** CindyGia** post #47 in response to allischalmers

Well then you could then say that Jesus, being born of Mary, could also be a sinner. Uh-uh!

You wouldn’t put your finest jewelry in a dirty old coffee can would you? Would you hide your most valuable treasure in something filthy? No! Of course not!
Mary was specifically created by God, pure as crystal - to carry His only begotten divine Son. Mary could not have been born with sin. It is impossible. Simple common sense.

I’m sure your next argument will be:
When Mary said the Magnificat, she said "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior - meaning that She (Mary) needed a savior.

A great analogy to prove she is without sin even though She said those words is this:
a person is walking along and not seeing a huge pit, falls into it. He yells for help for someone to come get him out of the pit and of course, someone comes to the rescue. After he is pulled out of the pit he says - “thank you for saving me.”

The other way this could happen is like this:
A person is walking along on a road and just seconds before she takes that last step before plummeting into the pit, a person reaches out and grabs her from falling into the pit - to which she thankfully replies - “thank you for saving me from falling into that pit”

Do you understand?
:yup:

 

[estesbob]

mattrue:

why is it so hard to believe that the MOTHER OF GOD, the MOTHER OF JESUS was free from sin. She gave BIRTH to GOD JESUS who is free from sin, so she herself was free from sin, clean as snow. Why would Jesus who is all perfect not have a mother who is perfect. Hail Mary. Peace be to you all.

She had to be free from sin since her womb became the Holy of Holies, the perfect , purified, tabernacle for 9 months. For her to have been soiled by sin would have been an afront to Jesus and the Holy Spirit

 

[allischalmers]

The writter of Romans was writting about all humans other than Jesus. It is foolish to think that Jesus could sin , he was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God. but all others no matter their situation in life have been born in a state of sin.

 

[drforjc]

The writter of Romans was writting about all humans other than Jesus. It is foolish to think that Jesus could sin , he was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God. but all others no matter their situation in life have been born in a state of

This is your interpretation, it is not explicit in the verse. So much for Sola Scriptura.

 

[NotWorthy]

Allis,
There you go again. Do you know of the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and how it pre-figured Mary? It was made of the finest materials to contain the presence of God.

Just as Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant was a pure container for the Presence of Jesus.

Notworthy

 

[Ziggy]

MariaG:

originally posted by** CindyGia** post #47 in response to allischalmers

Well then you could then say that Jesus, being born of Mary, could also be a sinner. Uh-uh!

You wouldn’t put your finest jewelry in a dirty old coffee can would you? Would you hide your most valuable treasure in something filthy? No! Of course not!
Mary was specifically created by God, pure as crystal - to carry His only begotten divine Son. Mary could not have been born with sin. It is impossible. Simple common sense.

I’m sure your next argument will be:
When Mary said the Magnificat, she said "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior - meaning that She (Mary) needed a savior.

A great analogy to prove she is without sin even though She said those words is this:
a person is walking along and not seeing a huge pit, falls into it. He yells for help for someone to come get him out of the pit and of course, someone comes to the rescue. After he is pulled out of the pit he says - “thank you for saving me.”

The other way this could happen is like this:
A person is walking along on a road and just seconds before she takes that last step before plummeting into the pit, a person reaches out and grabs her from falling into the pit - to which she thankfully replies - “thank you for saving me from falling into that pit”

Do you understand?
:yup:

I’m a Catholic, believe in the Immaculate conception, and have heard this analogy a 100 times. I can now say, for the first time, YES I DO UNDERSTAND. It’s funny how you can read something 10, 20, or 100 times and not understand even if it is TRUTH staring at you in your face… I’m just glad that the light bulb in my head finally turned on. God Bless

 

[estesbob]

allischalmers:

The writter of Romans was writting about all humans other than Jesus. It is foolish to think that Jesus could sin , he was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God. but all others no matter their situation in life have been born in a state of sin.

Then we have to assume that Mary is a liar-at Lourdes she told us she was “The Immaculate Conception”

 

[Kurt_G]

allischalmers:

The writer of Romans was writing about all humans other than Jesus. It is foolish to think that Jesus could sin , he was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God. but all others no matter their situation in life have been born in a state of sin.

Your first statement is your opinion, and your second statement is just incorrect, allis. Adam had no original sin. Eve had no original sin. We hold that the “new Adam” had no original sin, and that the “new Eve” had no original sin.

This is also kind of neat:
From Genesis “I will put enmity between you (devil) and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.” The very same enmity, or total opposition, which her offspring (Jesus) would have to evil, the “woman”, Mary, also would have the same total opposition to evil. (We know He’s not talking about Eve, because Eve has already cooperated with the Devil… no enmity there.)

Basically, allis, you allow for one exception to the Romans verse (Jesus) while we acknowledge 2 exceptions (Jesus & Mary).

God Bless Us All!

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

estesbob:

Then we have to assume that Mary is a liar-at Lourdes she told us she was “The Immaculate Conception”

With all respect to Catholics, Protestants as a rule do not believe the Marian apparitions are genuine, so that line of argument probably is not going to make much headway.

 

[mercygate]

The Iambic Pen:

With all respect to Catholics, Protestants as a rule do not believe the Marian apparitions are genuine, so that line of argument probably is not going to make much headway.

Not only that, but some Protestants believe that Mary, at best, was merely some kind of Hefty bag used as a tool to deliver the Incarnation. Using Marian apparitions to authenticate Catholic dogma when in dialog with them can only prejudice the case!

That said, it strikes me as strange that people who believe that every baby is born without sin, find the Immaculate Conception a difficult doctrine. OK, perpetual sinlessness of Mary, I can see quibbling about that, but the gap between “every baby is innocent” to “all have sinned” seems unbridgeable.

 

[allischalmers]

Adam and Eve were not born they were a direct creation by God. They were created without sin because God can not create anything with the stain of sin. But Adam and Eve did eventually sin.
Also we know that Jesus was/is sinless, 2 Corinthians 5:21.
Then we have is, God can not lie, Numbers 23:14 "God is not a man that his should lie, and Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God that can not lie, etc.
In conclusion, if Paul was writting what the Holy Spirit (God) was leading him to write ,and he was, and Mary was without sin then what Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 is not true. So if one verse in the Bible is false then how we can trust any of the rest of the Bible .

Allischalmers

 

[estesbob]

The Iambic Pen:

With all respect to Catholics, Protestants as a rule do not believe the Marian apparitions are genuine, so that line of argument probably is not going to make much headway.

Why should I be shackled by the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura when discussing theology? The One True Church has validated the Lourdes apparition.

 

[estesbob]

mercygate:

Not only that, but some Protestants believe that Mary, at best, was merely some kind of Hefty bag used as a tool to deliver the Incarnation. Using Marian apparitions to authenticate Catholic dogma when in dialog with them can only prejudice the case!

.

So as Catholics we should be shackled with the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura whenever dicussing theology with Protestants? We have to argue using their false perceptions as a basline and play on their playing field, We have to ignore 2,000 years of the teachings and traditions of the One True Church???

I dont really care if protestants dismiss it out of hand. The TRUTH is THE TRUTH!! Mary said she was the Immaculate Conception-it doesnt get any clearer than that.

 

[mattrue]

why would God want his own mother to be tainted by sin and the Devil. You can actually put your own mothers into this equation. As a son or daughter we want to protect our mothers and honor them as in the commandment, “honor thy father and thy mother.”
In Christ, Matt

 

[mercygate]

estesbob:

So as Catholics we should be shackled with the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura whenever dicussing theology with Protestants? We have to argue using their false perceptions as a basline and play on their playing field, We have to ignore 2,000 years of the teachings and traditions of the One True Church???

I dont really care if protestants dismiss it out of hand. The TRUTH is THE TRUTH!! Mary said she was the Immaculate Conception-it doesnt get any clearer than that.

To some extent, we do have to “play on their field.” When we present our views from a position that has been rejected a priori by those with whom we are in dialogue, we must first establish the credibility of our position – e.g., why we accept a Marian apparition. Otherwise, we will be talking to the proverbial wall.

Moreover, as you know very well, no dogma, no doctrine, no teaching of the Catholic Church is BASED on any Marian apparition. These may affirm doctrine, but they do not create or introduce it.

 

[estesbob]

mercygate:

To some extent, we do have to “play on their field.” When we present our views from a position that has been rejected a priori by those with whom we are in dialogue, we must first establish the credibility of our position – e.g., why we accept a Marian apparition. Otherwise, we will be talking to the proverbial wall.

Moreover, as you know very well, no dogma, no doctrine, no teaching of the Catholic Church is BASED on any Marian apparition. These may affirm doctrine, but they do not create or introduce it.

We have to speak the Truth. As a Member of the One True Church I am not going to be shackled in debate byt the limitations of the Sola Scriptura.

And yes Mary’s proclomation that she was the Immacualte conception was an affirmation of existing doctrine. Youll have to admit , though, thats it pretty powerful evidence! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[asteroid]

Here’s another use of the word “all” (pas), this time from the Gospels:

Mar 1:4 John was in the desert, baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance, unto remission of sins.

Mar 1:5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea and all they of Jerusalem and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

If we take “all” to mean “all” then absolutely everyone in Judea and Jerusalem was baptised by John. This would include not only the disciples of Jesus but the Romans stationed there and the entire Jewish authorities and all the priests in the temple.

I don’t think anyone anywhere would interpret the word “all” here as “all” in this way. Anyone with half a brain would make exceptions to the “all”.

So why is it an impossible stretch for many people (including me in the past) to see exceptions to the “all” in Romans 3:23?

There are other verses where “all” (pas) has obvious exceptions.

The point is that if we believe Mary HAS TO BE included in Rom3:23, then we should also believe that the Jewish authorities were in the “all” baptised by John. Which would be daft.

 

[mike182d]

allischalmers:

The writter of Romans was writting about all humans other than Jesus. It is foolish to think that Jesus could sin , he was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God. but all others no matter their situation in life have been born in a state of sin.

Where in the Bible does Paul make that clarification?