Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Lukaris]

The Blessed ( Ever) Virgin Mother was born into the same fallen world as anyone ( Romans 5:12-14). She was favored by God as no one else was & chosen by God
to be the Mother of God ( Luke 1:28-31). The Lord told His favorite disciple to behold her as his mother ( John 19:25-27). She is to be honored like no one else ( Matthew 19:19), not to be neglected or worshipped in error.

 

[BeyondET]

Well we don't have a copy of His DNA but we do know that from a DNA/Biology POV - His Father was God.

It was important to be the same as man physically.

 

[JulieB67]

. She is to be honored like no one else ( Matthew 19:19)

This verse simply states we are to honor our mother and father which is one of the 10 commandments. Where is is stated that she is to be honored like no one else? This verse does not set aside Mary in it. And she was not neglected in her lifetime. We call her blessed to have given birth to Christ our Savior but that verse does not state she is to be "honored" anymore than someone else honors their mother.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There is an alternative to this syllogism:

Man is created good [Cf. Genesis 1:31]
Mary was protected from sin giving birth to God/man without original sin.[Cf. Luke 1:28-35]
]
Jesus Christ is sinless, therefore a worthy atonement for the sins of man.

Sin nature doesn't exist, if it does you have a pernicious God, creating you as sin then finding you culpable.

JoeT

Jesus, while full man, was not born with the train of original sin which is passed through the father as though from Adam. Jesus had no earthly father so He did not inherit original sin. Mary had original sin but since the sin nature is passed through the father, her sin nature was not passed to Jesus. Despite what Catholics say, it was not necessary for Mary to be without original sin.

Catholics employ a self-serving logic here. They say Mary had to be without original sin for Jesus to be without it. Therefore, God preserved her from original sin even though her parents had it. If God could so protect Mary, why could not have protected Jesus? It was not necessary for Mary's parents to be without original sin for Mary to be born without it (according to the Catholic view), so why would it be necessary for Mary to be without original sin for Jesus to be? It isn't. Nothing in Scripture says Mary was born without original sin.

If God is pernicious, then you besmirch the character of God. You may not understand God's plan but it's clearly stated and it included a sin nature that was passed on by Adam's sin. Listen to Paul:

14 What shall we say then? wIs there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, x“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,2 but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, y“For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For zwho can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, ato answer back to God? bWill what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 cHas the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump done vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience evessels of wrath fprepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known gthe riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he hhas prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he ihas called, jnot from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

God allowed Pharoah's sin to consume him and used it as a means of His redemption. Who is responsible for Pharoah's sin? Did God force Pharoah to sin or did Pharoah sin on his own? Was God pernicious here?

 

[BobRyan]

"Jesus is not denying the woman's statement, but adding to it."

Luke 11:28 Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, | Christ's Words

christswords.com

Young's Literal Translation
Luke 11:27-28 YLT
27 And it came to pass, in his saying these things, a certain woman having lifted up the voice out of the multitude, said to him, `Happy the womb that carried thee, and the paps that thou didst suck!'
28 And he said, `Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!'

NASB
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Jesus' Father was not human.
All humans that have been born -- have a human father
Jesus was not 100% just like anyone else.

I agree with that position almost 100% Psa 51:5 For I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
Jesus was 100% a human MAN, just no carnal mind until Gethsemane.
1 Co 15:21 "For since by man(Adam) came death, by man(Jesus) came also the resurrection of the dead."
Both men were made/born outside the carnal mind. Where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. Level playing field.

If that was a passing of the carnal mind from Father to child then we see that clearly in humans.
If it was a passing from mother to child then that would have applied to Jesus, but as He was sinless, it has to be a passing
from Father to child.
God does not have a carnal mind at odds with Himself, so neither does His child Jesus.

Good point

However, in the garden of Gethsemane we can see that He partook of the carnal nature/mind of man in that when He had
previously rebuked Peter for not wanting Him to go to the cross and die, He himself was now praying the Father to remove that cup.

His prayer was unlike Peter's strong objection in Matt 16 where in response to that - Jesus said to Peter "Get thee behind Me Satan"

Rather Jesus prayer was in the explicit context of His own statement "nevertheless not MY will but THY will be done".

Peter did not make his statement in that context at all.

It's one thing to say "I don't want to be burned alive at the stake as a heretic by my false accusers...nevertheless not my will but Thy will be done Lord"

IT is a very different thing to say "May it never BE Lord!" and leave it at that. As if one were "correcting God" and refusing His will outright.

 

[BobRyan]

It was important to be the same as man physically.

Adam had the DNA of a human - but was sinless at his creation. Very different from you and I.

Jesus could not be a descendant in every respect as Adam or He to would have a sinful nature just as we do -- just as Adam passed on to his own children -- and in that case He Himself would need the gospel to save Him as well.

Rom 5:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ...15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus, while full man, was not born with the train of original sin which is passed through the father as though from Adam. Jesus had no earthly father so He did not inherit original sin. Mary had original sin but since the sin nature is passed through the father, her sin nature was not passed to Jesus. Despite what Catholics say, it was not necessary for Mary to be without original sin.

True - and oddly enough Catholic doctrine passively admits to the same exact point when they claim that Mary was born without sin , by a mother who did have original sin. Thus the very mechanism that provides for a sinful being to give birth to a sinless being - they already admit to even in a case where the father is not God Himself - which is an even MORE EXTREME case than Christ being born without sin - since in Christ's case the Father was not someone with a sinful fallen nature - unlike the case with Mary's father.

I don't see how they miss this point.

 

[BobRyan]

. She is to be honored like no one else ( Matthew 19:19), not to be neglected or worshipped in error.

Please expound on that a bit "worshiped in error"

I assume you mean "she is not to be worshiped" as though she were a fourth member of the Trinity etc.
And do you find it "much expected" that no scripture gives her the title "Mother of God"??

 

[Clare73]

Man, in his very nature is sinful.
Jesus was 100% man.
Therefore Jesus’ nature was sinful.

In God's economy, the nature of descendancy is based on the father, not the mother.
You are king if your father was of the kingly line, not your mother.
You are without a sin nature if your father, not your mother, was without a sin nature.
Jesus' father was God, therefore, Jesus had no sin nature.

There is an alternative to this syllogism:

Man is created good [Cf. Genesis 1:31]
Mary was protected from sin giving birth to God/man without original sin.[Cf. Luke 1:28-35]

That is a doctrine of man.
There is nothing in the NT that states Mary was ever sinless.
She was called "favored one" by the angel, but that does not make her without Adam's nature.
Abraham was favored as the origin of God's people, but that does not mean he was sinless.

Jesus Christ is sinless, therefore a worthy atonement for the sins of man.
Sin nature doesn't exist,

Then you are in disagreement with the NT, particularly Ro 7 (v.23).

if it does you have a pernicious God, creating you as sin then finding you culpable.

That baby rattlesnake in my backyard where my children play didn't ask to be a rattlesnake, but he is culpable nonetheless, and I will kill him.

 

[JoeT]

Jesus, while full man, was not born with the train of original sin which is passed through the father as though from Adam.

Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man. Both natures God/man are uniquely and inseparably joined without mixing, mingling, or confusion.

Jesus had no earthly father so He did not inherit original sin. Mary had original sin but since the sin nature is passed through the father, her sin nature was not passed to Jesus. Despite what Catholics say, it was not necessary for Mary to be without original sin.

The problem with "headship," (more properly described as “Federal Headship"), is it makes men the actual thing we call sin, which we aren't. It is built on the concept of “once saved always saved ". Its an attempt to explain away the need of Mary from God's plan for our redemption. With your concept of "headship" Mary can bear a man who is sin yet remain the Personification of the Word. This concept has sin hanging on a cross as the Personification of God's Breath produces reparations for the sins of man is an absurdity. The Theoandros is completely lost.

Recall the Messias, the Son of David, or the Son of God is "begotten not made". The reformer cannot abide in Mary (a human) becoming an instrument of God’s plan of salvation consequently there god is 'remade' in the womb of Mary. He was as you say totally human. Therefore, the being God/man then the man Jesus Christ goes from conception to to birth the same as any child. He receives the flesh of His mother.

If His mother is corrupt, this Jesus Christ is born with corrupted flesh. If He avoids this as a 'bubble child' He is a mad god, which of course is an absurdity except in polytheism.

Catholics employ a self-serving logic here. They say Mary had to be without original sin for Jesus to be without it. Therefore, God preserved her from original sin even though her parents had it. If God could so protect Mary, why could not have protected Jesus? It was not necessary for Mary's parents to be without original sin for Mary to be born without it (according to the Catholic view), so why would it be necessary for Mary to be without original sin for Jesus to be? It isn't. Nothing in Scripture says Mary was born without original sin.

Look God gave us a brain when we were created. Short of Christ being God made, bubble boy there is no other way He can take on flesh. [Cf. Hebrews 4:15]. Could God have taken on uncorrupted human flesh no doubt, but He found it fitting to be begotten of Mary.

If God is pernicious, then you besmirch the character of God. You may not understand God's plan but it's clearly stated and it included a sin nature that was passed on by Adam's sin. Listen to Paul:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, x“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,2 but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, y“For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Catholicism does make Him pernicious it is the Protestant paradigm. There is no injustice on God's part, none whatsoever. However the paradigm suggested does indeed make Him unjust. The birth of Christ without sin is not addressed by these verses in Romans 9.

The only way Christ is born of woman is to be the child of a New Eve, a woman without sin.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For zwho can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, ato answer back to God? bWill what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 cHas the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump done vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience evessels of wrath fprepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known gthe riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he hhas prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he ihas called, jnot from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Why resist Mary's role in the birth of the Personification of your salvation.

God allowed Pharoah's sin to consume him and used it as a means of His redemption. Who is responsible for Pharoah's sin? Did God force Pharoah to sin or did Pharoah sin on his own? Was God pernicious here?

What does this have to do with the discussion?

JoeT

 

[jacorian]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

Stephen "being full of grace"
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human.

This is not a slam against Mary, or Stephen or Jesus. It is just what the Bible teaches.

Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?

Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.

Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

================================

BTW - It is not very helpful to claim that anyone who differs with this post is attacking Mary, or Jesus or Stephen. That kind of statement proves nothing.

No this is incorrect. Mary was born without sin. That is why she was assumed into heaven directly.

 

[Valletta]

Jesus, while full man, was not born with the train of original sin which is passed through the father as though from Adam. Jesus had no earthly father so He did not inherit original sin. Mary had original sin but since the sin nature is passed through the father, her sin nature was not passed to Jesus. Despite what Catholics say, it was not necessary for Mary to be without original sin.

The early Christians understood Holy Scripture and understood Mary was without sin:

Justin Martyr
“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

[BobRyan]

No this is incorrect. Mary was born without sin.

No Bible text says that.

That is why she was assumed into heaven directly.

No Bible text says that.

 

[BobRyan]

The early Christians understood Holy Scripture and understood Mary was without sin:

Interesting that no early Christian that actually wrote scripture - ever said that "Mary was without sin" or that "Mary was the mother of God" in an actual text of scripture.

Certainly a "detail" of that magnitude would be important enough to at the very least - make "honorable mention" in a text of scripture.

 

[BeyondET]

Adam had the DNA of a human - but was sinless at his creation. Very different from you and I.

Jesus could not be a descendant in every respect as Adam or He to would have a sinful nature just as we do -- just as Adam passed on to his own children -- and in that case He Himself would need the gospel to save Him as well.

Rom 5:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ...15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Nay he had to carry the sinful nature on his shoulders literally, otherwise there's no power over death. It wasn't special DNA not of this world.

 

[BobRyan]

Nay he had to carry the sinful nature on his shoulders literally, otherwise there's no power over death. It wasn't special DNA not of this world.

His Father "was not of this world".

DNA is a composite of both Father and mother.

I don't see anyway around it.

 

[Valletta]

Interesting that no early Christian that actually wrote scripture - ever said that in an actual text of scripture.

Certainly a "detail" of that magnitude would be important enough to at the very least - make "honorable mention" in a text of scripture.

Like the Holy Trinity? One God, three Persons? Mary is indeed right there in the Bible at the key events with Jesus. The first "woman," Eve, came into the world without sin but fell to sin. The New Eve, Mary, came into the world full of grace and was particularly blessed because she did God's will--she did not sin. From Genesis to Revelation.

 

[JoeT]

In God's economy, the nature of descendancy is based on the father, not the mother.
You are king if your father was of the kingly line, not your mother.
You are without a sin nature if your father, not your mother, was without a sin nature.
Jesus' father was God, therefore, Jesus had no sin nature.

Before we go much further please tell me what "sin nature" is and how we were made evil. Why did God find Adam and Eve culpable of being evil after He made them evil. Just to be clear we are talking about the same thing, nature is the innate common attributes all men have. Nature is "The essence of a being considered as the principle of activity."

That is a doctrine of man.

Nature is how God created us. Men had nothing to do with it.

There is nothing in the NT that states Mary was ever sinless.

There is nothing in Sacred Scripture that says she wasn't, and everything to say she was.

Mary's legacy to us magnifies the Lord, literally. It is through her we see the “Real Presence” of our Lord. We see that Mary overshadowed by the God, her spiritual spouse. Christ’s conception is miraculously without original sin, thus the “seed of man". It was Mary’s immaculate soul and most perfect flesh (without original sin - thus a New Eve) which Christ bore. We can't say that it was God's flesh that he bore else he would not be man and we know Christ to be wholly God and wholly man uniquely and inseparable joined. Further, as mother of the Lord, she becomes by right of motherhood, queen mother of her Lord, [Apocalypse of St. John 11:19]. This role can only rightly be taken by Mary who intercedes for the citizens of the Kingdom of God. Mary is the only figure in Scripture addressed by an emissary of God, "Hail Mary" receiving foreknowledge that her yet to be conceived Son is God. God's emissary's words are spoken as if addressing a queen, “Hail”. This is the language seen in the courts of kings and queens. Then Gabriel goes on to say of Mary, “kecharitomene”. This Greek word is translated as “most favored or highly favored” and from the traditional Latin translation to English “full of grace“ or in Latin “gratia plena”. What it means however is that the woman being hailed is “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." [Blass and DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature].

She was called "favored one" by the angel, but that does not make her without Adam's nature.

That's one of two interpretations I'm aware of. What difference does it make? She remains “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

Abraham was favored as the origin of God's people, but that does not mean he was sinless.

And He is adored as Father Abraham by Jews and Christians alike.

Then you are in disagreement with the NT, particularly Ro 7 (v.23).

That baby rattlesnake in my backyard where my children play didn't ask to be a rattlesnake, but he is culpable nonetheless, and I will kill him.

St. Paul is indeed discussing our nature in this verse but the nature of sin. Sin is a voluntary immoral word, act or desire. These are acts contrary to the laws of reason. We aren't unthinking animals, God made us rational beings. The result is not only corruption to death, sin therefore elicits disordered desire, a loss of original justice.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses, posited law, Eternal law Divine law, natural law, human law, Divine law, Divine law, and law of sin. I'd be happy to discuss them

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Interesting that no early Christian that actually wrote scripture - ever said that in an actual text of scripture.

Certainly a "detail" of that magnitude would be important enough to at the very least - make "honorable mention" in a text of scripture.

Maybe they didn't need to because it was common knowledge.

JoeT