Was Jesus the only sinless person ever to be born?

[bilop]

It defined her as God bearer, as she bore him, and to deny such would be to deny the incarnation ie gnosticism

She conceived Him in her womb, and bore Him; straight from St. Luke, Ch. 1.

That’s pretty much the dictionary definition of being a mother. There is no part of motherhood that Mary lacked.

God Bless

 

[joe370]

Christ the man is not separate from Christ God, but he is separate from the flesh which Christ the man was manifest in.

Was Jesus both God and Man in the flesh, when He was suffering on the cross?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Was Jesus both God and Man in the flesh, when He was suffering on the cross?

Yes. Since the incarnation there is never a point in time that his two natures are separate.

 

[joe370]

Yes. Since the incarnation there is never a point in time that his two natures are separate.

Therefore Jesus was God in Mary’s womb, and the second He was born… and when He was a child…and when He began His ministry - was what I was driving at…

 

[JonNC]

She bore God manifest in the flesh, she did not make God. She would only have to be perfect if she made a perfect God, which she did not. She merely had him manifest in the flesh inside of her for 9 months

That’s what Holy Theotokos means. She was the God-bearer. A woman who bears a child is called the child’s mother. Jesus is God, Mary is His mother, hence, Mother of God.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

He was God, but also man. Mary was mother of the man part, not the God part as Mary was born probably around 20-15 BC, give or take a year or two, and Jesus has existed eternally.

The divinity of Jesus did not come from Mary. Everyone knows this.

However, Jesus is one person with two natures.

Mary gave birth to a person, not one of the natures.

Therefore, it is theologically accurate to say that Mary is the Mother of God because Mary is the Mother of Jesus who is God.

Anything less is heresy that detracts from an accurate understanding of the incarnation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It was with regards to all people besides Christ being sinners, which was what was asked for.

And you are wrong in your application of Romans to prove that Mary is a sinner.

Let me give you a more precise answer.

**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[annamariamartin]

Where in the bible does it state that Jesus was the ONLY sinless person to walk the earth? I have read many scriptures that state His sinlessness yes, but I have yet to actually read where it states that He was the ONLY one ever???