Mary Sinless?

[calluna]

I really don't know how you can interpret these passages into anything else than what they clearly say.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough and educated enough to realise that what Mary said can be interpreted in a number of ways, as we all learned in comprehension lessons at school. Of course, committed Catholics may not want to think about them.

Obviously, Mary didn't run away from Gabriel

But Mary had read her Bible, you see. She knew that it was perfectly useless to try to run away from God.

or say no

Did she have that option? Or do you need to read the Bible yourself, perhaps?

what was wrong with the second one?

Nothing. I'll be delighted to deal with that when we have properly dealt with the first one. And when, or if, we do that, depends on you.

 

[MrPolo]

If that's true, then how did Mary get around that and still be sinless???

As Adam and Eve were created without sin prior to the cross, so too was Mary, saved in advance by the Resurrection, by the Holy Spirit outside of time. God is able to preserve someone from falling (Jude 1:24). It is not outside His purview. Exceptions once thought impossible had happened before (e.g. 2 Kg 2:11).

The rest of your post is answered in what I've already said. Remember the typology of the Immaculate Conception understood here, held for centuries upon centuries through apostolic successors and councils, and even the Reformers without a real dispute. The Scriptural roots and basis have been shown here. The Biblical parallels mentioned here are unmistakable. At this point, I'll have to recommend finding an exhaustive treatment by a source that further explains this. But if you reject Tradition as revelation from the get-go, then you may likely not embrace what has been revealed through the Church throughout the centuries as God's word. And that is up to you to accept or reject.

 

[larry_boy_44]

As Adam and Eve were created without sin prior to the cross, so too was Mary, saved in advance by the Resurrection, by the Holy Spirit outside of time. God is able to preserve someone from falling (Jude 1:24). It is not outside His purview. Exceptions once thought impossible had happened before (e.g. 2 Kg 2:11).

The rest of your post is answered in what I've already said. Remember the typology of the Immaculate Conception understood here, held for centuries upon centuries through apostolic successors and councils, and even the Reformers without a real dispute. The Scriptural roots and basis have been shown here. The Biblical parallels mentioned here are unmistakable. At this point, I'll have to recommend finding an exhaustive treatment by a source that further explains this. But if you reject Tradition as revelation from the get-go, then you may likely not embrace what has been revealed through the Church throughout the centuries as God's word. And that is up to you to accept or reject.

Jude 1:

24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

The only problem with using this verse is that Jude is talking to people who were already fallen, they'd already sin and been made clean and pure again. Thus, doesn't work.

2 Kings 2:

11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Not even remotely related to the issue at hand.

But, here is the question you need to answer. If God could just make Mary sinless and without original sin, then there is NO NEED for Mary. Mary existing doesn't prove anything. So why would God break His own ruels to make Mary sinless so Jesus could have a sinless mother, when He could have just made Jesus just like He made Mary??

If God was willing to just change His own rules on that level, then Mary was unnecessary (in fact, if God is willing to change rules on that level, than Jesus was unnecessary too as God could just have made us all pure and sinless again and then kept us from sinning)...

In fact, under your theory, Mary had no free will... Jesus was only able to withstand temptation because He was God... What was Mary's reason? Humans fall. Either Mary wasn't human or she fell...

 

[MrStain]

Is there not one Catholic, out of all the millions, who can show that Mary was obedient?

I posted a couple of quotes from early Christians back in post #5 that pointed out Mary's obedience -- using Scripture -- as opposed to Eve's disobedience. Would you like some Protestant commentary on Luke 1:38 that points out Mary's obedience as well? I'm pretty sure a fair reading of Martin Luther's & Matthew Henry's commentaries will indicate Mary was obedient to the Lord. It's pretty simple stuff.

I still am hoping to get an answer to what I posed to you earlier. What teacher in the mold of Marcion are you following since you must have a different version of the Gospels the rest of us are using.

 

[dinomight]

I posted a couple of quotes from early Christians back in post #5 that pointed out Mary's obedience -- using Scripture -- as opposed to Eve's disobedience. Would you like some Protestant commentary on Luke 1:38 that points out Mary's obedience as well? I'm pretty sure a fair reading of Martin Luther's & Matthew Henry's commentaries will indicate Mary was obedient to the Lord. It's pretty simple stuff.

I still am hoping to get an answer to what I posed to you earlier. What teacher in the mold of Marcion are you following since you must have a different version of the Gospels the rest of us are using.

I would also like to know why it's being suggested that the Bible shows Mary as being anything less than obedient. That line of discussion does not make any sense to me whatsoever, as she always was depicted as doing the will of God.

One interesting comment that was made suggested something about how Mary's freewill would have been taken away, forcing her to be obedient to God. Not sinning is not the same as lacking freewill, though. Adam and Eve were sinless at first, and they were free to choose whether to follow God's commandment. The point is there's a difference between being forced to serve the Lord and being given the privilege to honor Him as He desires.

 

[MrStain]

I would also like to know why it's being suggested that the Bible shows Mary as being anything less than obedient. That line of discussion does not make any sense to me whatsoever, as she always was depicted as doing the will of God.

One interesting comment that was made suggested something about how Mary's freewill would have been taken away, forcing her to be obedient to God. Not sinning is not the same as lacking freewill, though. Adam and Eve were sinless at first, and they were free to choose whether to follow God's commandment. The point is there's a difference between being forced to serve the Lord and being given the privilege to honor Him as He desires.

As I'm sure you are finding out in your journey through our Christian past, scoundrels have been attempting to twist the Gospels since the beginning. Paul addressed these heretical attempts in his epistles to the Galations & the Corinthians and of course you know the followers of the Apostles (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Irenaeus, etc.) had to also deal with heretics such as Simon Magus (see Acts 8), Valentinus, Marcion, etc. Now we have these modern day Davinci Code theologians trodding out the same old nonsense.

 

[Kat8765]

I would also like to know why it's being suggested that the Bible shows Mary as being anything less than obedient. That line of discussion does not make any sense to me whatsoever, as she always was depicted as doing the will of God.

I was just thinking that too. I don't know why I was trying to argue that anyway. I really never knew it was an issue. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess we should ask where it shows that she wasn't?

 

[MrStain]

Here's a line of biblical reasoning to ponder:

The bible says we are saved by grace (Eph 2:8, Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, etc.). The bible also says that sin shall not be your master if you are under grace (Rom 6:14). Lastly, the angel Gabriel reminds us that Mary is full of grace (Luke 1:28) and so it is safe to reason that Mary was saved & had mastery over sin even before the incarnation.

Well, it makes sense unless you deny that God's grace is what saves us and aids us in our efforts to avoid sin.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here's a line of biblical reasoning to ponder:

The bible says we are saved by grace (Eph 2:8, Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, etc.). The bible also says that sin shall not be your master if you are under grace (Rom 6:14). Lastly, the angel Gabriel reminds us that Mary is full of grace (Luke 1:28) and so it is safe to reason that Mary was saved & had mastery over sin even before the incarnation.

Well, it makes sense unless you deny that God's grace is what saves us and aids us in our efforts to avoid sin.

you are still reading things into it that aren't even remotely said...

also, "grace" has more than one meaning, you do know that, right?

 

[MrStain]

you are still reading things into it that aren't even remotely said...

also, "grace" has more than one meaning, you do know that, right?

I did not read anything into those verses of our Sacred Scriptures. I just looked at the plain meaning of the inspired words.

We are saved by grace! That's what the bible says.
Grace helps us overcome sin! That's what the bible says.
Mary is full of grace. That's what the bible says.
Truth + Truth = Truth. Plain and simple.

Grace is an interesting subject. Here is a good explanation of Grace

 

[dinomight]

As I'm sure you are finding out in your journey through our Christian past, scoundrels have been attempting to twist the Gospels since the beginning. Paul addressed these heretical attempts in his epistles to the Galations & the Corinthians and of course you know the followers of the Apostles (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Irenaeus, etc.) had to also deal with heretics such as Simon Magus (see Acts 8), Valentinus, Marcion, etc. Now we have these modern day Davinci Code theologians trodding out the same old nonsense.

Simon Magus is one that I've read quite a bit about in my book. In The Four Witnesses, the author makes a good point about how the Devil has always tried to "muddy the waters" by causing churches to divide and principles/doctrine to be compromised. He also goes over the question of "how were Christians in that time able to determine which Christianity was authentic?" The answer, of course, is that they believed the Apostles because they were the ones who were closest to Jesus, who truly knew His teachings and had the authority to pass them on to others. It amazes me that the Gnostic churches were actually springing up while the Apostles were still alive and preaching the true Gospel.

 

[MrStain]

Simon Magus is one that I've read quite a bit about in my book. In The Four Witnesses, the author makes a good point about how the Devil has always tried to "muddy the waters" by causing churches to divide and principles/doctrine to be compromised. He also goes over the question of "how were Christians in that time able to determine which Christianity was authentic?" The answer, of course, is that they believed the Apostles because they were the ones who were closest to Jesus, who truly knew His teachings and had the authority to pass them on to others. It amazes me that the Gnostic churches were actually springing up while the Apostles were still alive and preaching the true Gospel.

Bingo!

Unfortunately, there are those who even deny that logical line of reasoning.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I did not read anything into those verses of our Sacred Scriptures. I just looked at the plain meaning of the inspired words.

We are saved by grace! That's what the bible says.
Grace helps us overcome sin! That's what the bible says.
Mary is full of grace. That's what the bible says.
Truth + Truth = Truth. Plain and simple.

Grace is an interesting subject. Here is a good explanation of Grace

Grace is defined by the good folks at Merriam-Webster as:

1 a: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b: a virtue coming from God c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
2 a: approval , favor <stayed in his good graces> barchaic : mercy , pardon c: a special favor : privilege <each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage — Rudyard Kipling> d: disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency e: a temporary exemption : reprieve
3 a: a charming or attractive trait or characteristic b: a pleasing appearance or effect : charm <all the grace of youth — John Buchan> c: ease and suppleness of movement or bearing
4—used as a title of address or reference for a duke, a duchess, or an archbishop
5: a short prayer at a meal asking a blessing or giving thanks
6plural capitalized : three sister goddesses in Greek mythology who are the givers of charm and beauty
7: a musical trill, turn, or appoggiatura8 a: sense of propriety or right <had the grace not to run for elective office — Calvin Trillin> b: the quality or state of being considerate or thoughtful

Also, you should note that the word in Luke 1:28 in Greek is not the same word as the one in the other verses you cited, although the word in the other ones is a "root word" of the one in Luke 1:28. They don't have the same exact meaning.

The better understanding of what the angel says to Mary is "highly favoured". Mary is blessed because she was chosen to carry Jesus, not because she was somehow born without original sin (which, again, begs the question "what was the point?" of the whole no father, virgin birth thing??)...

Now, to make my point even better, the root word of the Greek word translated to grace means:

1) to rejoice, be glad
2) to rejoice exceedingly
3) to be well, thrive
4) in salutations, hail!
5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute

where exactly in that is there a statement of perfection? Nowhere. Mary was being told that she was blessed and to rejoice, not being told she was perfect. The fact the word is the same in English is inconsequential because they didn't speak English.

 

[MrStain]

Good stuff, Larry!

Grace is defined by the good folks at Merriam-Webster as:

Also, you should note that the word in Luke 1:28 in Greek is not the same word as the one in the other verses you cited, although the word in the other ones is a "root word" of the one in Luke 1:28. They don't have the same exact meaning.

Well, I must admit that I've never used Merriam-Webster's as my guide for theological definitions. That said, I think it covers some of the basics i.e. unmerited gift and/or a state of sanctification.

The better understanding of what the angel says to Mary is "highly favoured". Mary is blessed because she was chosen to carry Jesus, not because she was somehow born without original sin (which, again, begs the question "what was the point?" of the whole no father, virgin birth thing??)...


Now, to make my point even better, the root word of the Greek word translated to grace means:

I hear ya, but according to the Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (and many others) the word &#954;&#949;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#951; (kecharit&#333;men&#275;) is a perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed & enriched with grace (charis). Therefore, even the heroes of Protestantism Tyndale & Wycliffe translate kecharit&#333;men&#275; as "full of grace" just as Jerome did for the Vulgate. The term cannot be seperated from grace.

where exactly in that is there a statement of perfection? Nowhere. Mary was being told that she was blessed and to rejoice, not being told she was perfect. The fact the word is the same in English is inconsequential because they didn't speak English.

Of course I don't see a "statement of perfection" in your list! Now, that wouldn't help your argument, would it? Where is there a statement that we are saved by grace or that grace is a gift from God in your list? They all share the same root afterall. Pulling a root of a root does not address the fact that a complete word was used which could mean so much more than just a component of the word.

What you're doing is comparable to looking at the sentence, "Together, Starsky & Hutch doggedly pursued the villains.", and then telling people you have proof there was a 4 legged domestic pet chasing the bad guys. If you dissect a word & then take it out of context you are bound to be confused.

That's all I got in me for one night, Larry. It's been good chatting with you this evening.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Good stuff, Larry!

Well, I must admit that I've never used Merriam-Webster's as my guide for theological definitions. That said, I think it covers some of the basics i.e. unmerited gift and/or a state of sanctification.

except that, other than in reference to Mary, I have NEVER heard "grace" used in that sense.

It IS an unmerited gift, and it is the reason we can recieve sanctification, but to say that grace and sanctification are synonyms just doesn't make sense. They aren't.

Now, I know you are going to ask how I can say that when it is in the dictionary. The answer is simple read definition 1c. The definition contains the word "grace" which makes it not make sense. Grace cannot be "a state of sanctification obtained through divine grace", that's nonsensical and shows how the word has been contorted to fit this doctrine (rather than creating the doctrine with the words and meanings we currently have)...

I hear ya, but according to the Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (and many others) the word &#954;&#949;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#951; (kecharit&#333;men&#275;) is a perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed & enriched with grace (charis). Therefore, even the heroes of Protestantism Tyndale & Wycliffe translate kecharit&#333;men&#275; as "full of grace" just as Jerome did for the Vulgate. The term cannot be seperated from grace.

That's fine, I wasn't arguing that "full of grace" wasn't a proper phrase for that spot. I was saying that using full of grace to describe how she was sinless doesn't fit with the other interpretations that are possible for that phrase and could still be corrected. It is more saying "highly blessed" not "perfect and sinless"...

Of course I don't see a "statement of perfection" in your list! Now, that wouldn't help your argument, would it? Where is there a statement that we are saved by grace or that grace is a gift from God in your list? They all share the same root afterall. Pulling a root of a root does not address the fact that a complete word was used which could mean so much more than just a component of the word.

What you're doing is comparable to looking at the sentence, "Together, Starsky & Hutch doggedly pursued the villains.", and then telling people you have proof there was a 4 legged domestic pet chasing the bad guys. If you dissect a word & then take it out of context you are bound to be confused.

That's all I got in me for one night, Larry. It's been good chatting with you this evening.

It wasn't my list. It comes from www.blueletterbible.com... I can't help it if the definition of the word doesn't fit what you are trying to make it say...

and what you describe is closer to what you are doing, not what I am doing. Grace rarely (if ever) means "perfect" or "sinless" it means "unmerited favor" the vast, vast majority of the time. And Mary having a lot of unmerited favor with God does NOT mean she is sinless (although, to be honest, it also doesn't mean its impossible that she was so, it just is absolutely not an evidence that she was)

The only reason I'm saying she wasn't sinless is because if she wasn't sinless it makes Romans 3:23 false. Jesus was sinless because He was God, Mary is not God so for her to not "fall short of the glory of God" would show that verse to be false.

 

[MrPolo]

If God could just make Mary sinless and without original sin, then there is NO NEED for Mary

God has no need for mankind at all. No need for the earth, light, or matter. No need for the Incarnation. No need for anything. As soon as you start determining what God "needs", then you subordinate His will to yours. Fact remains, He chose to do things the way He did.

 

[calluna]

God has no need for mankind at all. No need for the earth, light, or matter. No need for the Incarnation. No need for anything. As soon as you start determining what God "needs", then you subordinate His will to yours. Fact remains, He chose to do things the way He did.

He gave Mary no choice, did he.

 

[larry_boy_44]

God has no need for mankind at all. No need for the earth, light, or matter. No need for the Incarnation. No need for anything. As soon as you start determining what God "needs", then you subordinate His will to yours. Fact remains, He chose to do things the way He did.

you are missing my point (and making it at the same time)...

If God can just *POOF* someone into being perfect and without original sin without virgin birth, then there was no reason to jump through those hoops with Jesus. The reason Jesus was born the way He was was to bypass original sin (passed down through the father).

If God can just *POOF* and make it dissapear, there's no reason to do that with Mary so Jesus doesn't have it, because He could have just done it with Jesus.

There is absolutely no reason to choose to have Mary be sinless as well... There are tons of reasons to choose to have Jesus be sinless and to choose to have Jesus die for our sins (and many of those have to do with the fact that Jesus was God)... Mary was none of those things, there is no reason to make Mary perfect and, in fact, Mary being sinless actually undermines what Jesus did and makes it worth less.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It always amazes me, that those who can not believe that Mary was sinless, can believe that Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Why can God do one and not the other?


Jim

 

[larry_boy_44]

It always amazes me, that those who can not believe that Mary was sinless, can believe that Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Why can God do one and not the other?


Jim

The problem is that the Bible says that all have sinned except God (and Jesus was God)...

The only way anyone other than Jesus could be sinless is if they were God...