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

[NotUrAvgGuy]

So are you saying that St Peter didn't make it to Rome until 400 years after the resurrection of Christ?

If and when Peter made it to Rome is inconsequential. Paul spent a lot of time in Rome but that doesn't make him the first Pope. Probably more time than Peter did. Peter visiting Rome and him setting up the Roman Catholic Church are two different things. We think he visited Rome and may have even died there but we don't have any record of him officiating a church from there and establishing Rome as the headquarters for such a church. That is based on the unproven assumption that Jesus appointed him head of a "Church" in which he and his successors would rule.

What you have been taught in this regard is the political teachings of mant Protestant churches. Are you aware of the littoral meaning of "Catholic?" I means "universal." So not only the Church of Rome but The Church of Jerusalem, Greece, Ethiopia, Athens, Alexandeia, Arminia, Bulgarian, Constantinople, Corinth, Cypres, Ephisious, and so on and so on. The Catholic or "Universal" Church was unified all over the globe and the Bishops from each Dioseys had a vote on the canon of Scripture because Emporer Constantine requested a summary of Christian teaching. They broke it down to the most essential teachings but thet circulated many other books written by the Apostles and their students.

Once again, big "C" vs little "c". The universal catholic church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Having a universal church does not mean it has to be one uniform ecclesiastical structure. What makes the church universal is our common adherence to the fundamentals of the faith. We don't have to sing the same songs, wear the same clothes, have the same order of service, ... to be a universal church. There is a lot of freedom in what prayers to pray, which Scriptures to read, what sermons to give. So long as things are Scriptural they don't have to be completely uniform.

While some non-canonical books were considered useful for historical purposes, they were never considered authoritative.

[QUOTES]It contains all a Protestant needs because they mistakenly believe that all one needs is a Bible and the Holy Spirit as a teacher. If that were true, why are there over 1,000 different Protestant denominations? If every single Bible reader only needs the Hoy Spirit, why would that Holy Spirit lead them nto over 1,000 different directions? No, in the beginnig there was one Church founded by Christ and he handed the eys of the Church to St Peter, as it is written:

[/QUOTE]
Different denominations does not mean different directions. I belong to a non-denominational church. I have visited Baptist churches that were essentially the same. I have good friends who are Lutheran and Presbyterian and we are in complete agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. We share a common faith, common love for the Lord, and a common call the preach the Good News. We dont' need to be under one ecclesiastical structure to be unified. We don't need to read our prayers from a common book or read the same Scripture verses each Sunday. That's ecclesiastical unity not to be confused with spiritual unity.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

He changed Imon's name to Peter which means "rock." Also:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Who is it better to folow, the word of the Church founded by Christ or a Church founded by some random dud to took what they liked from the Catholic Church and threw away what they didn't like. Do we worship the Bible or God?

I and countless others have detailed why we don't take those verses to mean what Catholics do. I would be happy to point you to those discussions but will not repeat them here. What should Martin Luther have done when he witnessed heresy being preached in his church? He tried to get the church to reform but it wouldn't. It was never Luther's intent to start another church. The RCC left the faith so Luther left the RCC church. I would say Luther was trying to keep the church on the path founded by Christ and was more faithful to the Lord than the RCC leaders of his day.

Perhaps she did not have to be but she was. Wven with the sinful nature borne in here she lived by faith and was found more worthy than any woman on Earth.

And the exception need to come through a clean vessel to remain clean.Jesus was tempted but he lacked a sin nature that could give into temptation. Mary not only gave birth to Christ but she raised him to know who he was and what his mission was. That is why she allowd him to spend 3 days teachin at Temple in his adolecence.


Since the only knowledge of Christ's mission is contained within the Bible and that is where all of the answers of the Universe lay. Why don't you quote the Bible passage that explains clearly when, where, and how, Mary sinned?

Do you think God waited until 3 BC to see who the most worthy woman was and then chose Mary? I think God predestined that Mary, a woman born in the late BC's to be the mother of the Lord. Mary was the most worthy because God made her the most worthy. I don't mean to imply Mary did nothing and did not cooperate with God's will for her life but God made Mary, Mary did not make God.

I don't read the account of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem and being found discussing faith with the Rabbis Mary allowing him to do that. Why would she and her relatives have left and be heading home if she was "allowing him" to remain. In that case she would have remained in Jerusalem with him. As it was, no one realized he was left behind and when they discovered it they rushed back to Jerusalem. That was not Mary's plan.

Since the Bible clearly teaches that "all have sinned" and lists no exceptions, the burden of proof that Mary was sinless is on those who claim so. Lots of people are mentioned in Scripture without their sins being listed but that hardly proves they were sinless.

 

[JulieB67]

That is why she allowd him to spend 3 days teachin at Temple in his adolecence.

This is false. Quite the opposite. She was upset. She thought he was with them.

Luke 2:43 "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the Child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and His mother knew not of it."

Luke 2:44 "But they, supposing Him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance."

Luke 2:45 "And when they found Him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking Him."

......

Luke 2:48 "And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, "Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us? behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing."

Luke 2:49 "And He said unto them, "How is it that ye sought Me? wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?"

Luke 2:50 "And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them."

At that time, Mary didn't even understand what he was talking about.

 

[Valletta]

Since the Bible clearly teaches that "all have sinned" and lists no exceptions, the burden of proof that Mary was sinless is on those who claim so. Lots of people are mentioned in Scripture without their sins being listed but that hardly proves they were sinless.
[/QUOTE]
As I have pointed out so often, Jesus never sinned. Newborn babies never sinned. "All" either means every individual or it does not. It obviously does not. Applying that verse to Jesus or newborns or Mary is an error.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Since the Bible clearly teaches that "all have sinned" and lists no exceptions, the burden of proof that Mary was sinless is on those who claim so. Lots of people are mentioned in Scripture without their sins being listed but that hardly proves they were sinless.

As I have pointed out so often, Jesus never sinned. Newborn babies never sinned. "All" either means every individual or it does not. It obviously does not. Applying that verse to Jesus or newborns or Mary is an error.
[/QUOTE]

It should be obvious that Jesus is an exception as Jesus if fully God and God cannot sin. That statement does not even apply to Jesus.

Newborn babies are considered sinners as they are born with the taint of original sin and should they live long enough they will actually sin without exception. They need a savior. I don't believe babies are held to the same standard of accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior as they are not mentally developed enough to do so but they still need the blood of Jesus Christ to cover for them.

So there are no exceptions. The statement doesn't even apply to Jesus as his spiritual nature is divine and incapable of sin.

 

[Valletta]

It should be obvious that Jesus is an exception as Jesus if fully God and God cannot sin. That statement does not even apply to Jesus.

Newborn babies are considered sinners as they are born with the taint of original sin and should they live long enough they will actually sin without exception. They need a savior. I don't believe babies are held to the same standard of accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior as they are not mentally developed enough to do so but they still need the blood of Jesus Christ to cover for them.

So there are no exceptions. The statement doesn't even apply to Jesus as his spiritual nature is divine and incapable of sin.

You're taking a sentence where the context is not about Mary and trying to apply it to Mary. Since Jesus is an exception then "all" does NOT mean every individual. As to babies, there is a difference between who you consider "sinners" and "all have sinned" as the Word of God states. The Bible clearly uses the past tense, and yet I believe you would admit that babies have committed(past tense) no sin. You're simply changing Biblical text to suit your own opinion.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You're taking a sentence where the context is not about Mary and trying to apply it to Mary. Since Jesus is an exception then "all" does NOT mean every individual. As to babies, there is a difference between who you consider "sinners" and "all have sinned" as the Word of God states. The Bible clearly uses the past tense, and yet I believe you would admit that babies have committed(past tense) no sin. You're simply changing Biblical text to suit your own opinion.

Romans 3:23 – …all have sinned.

Romans 3:23 is in a critical context of the book of Romans. In 1:16-17 Paul gives the theme verses of Romans – the righteousness of God. Then from 1:18-3:8 he proceeds to show how all mankind is under the condemnation of God starting with the Gentiles and then the Jews. In Romans 3:9-20 he summarizes this and we’re all under the condemnation of God, headed to hell…

1. Then Romans 3:21 starts with the greatest “But” in the Bible as Paul explains the gospel from 3:21-31. Romans 4 then gives Abraham and David as examples.
2. So, the “All” of 3:23 are all of those on the ship that sank back in 1:18-3:20!!! And, Jesus Christ is clearly separated out and explained to be the solution in 3:20-22.
3. And, 3:23 starts with “For” which means “Because” showing that 3:23 is not an independent statement but rather a dependent statement show the reason we all need the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

So, per context and proper hermeneutics, 3:23 is part of a HUGE context and Christ is not included in the “all.”
If that doesn't convince you, turn to Romans chapter 5. Read the entire chapter. Verse 12, sin entered the world through one man - Adam. Sin and death came to "all people, because all sinned." This includes babies. Verse 14, "death reigned...even over those who did not sin by breaking a command..." (emphasis mine). Back to verse 12, sin leads to death and death comes to all people. Verse 14, death comes to even those who did not sin which includes babies. Why? Verse 12 again, "sin entered the world through one man." Adam brought sin upon the entire human race. All men are born in sin. It not only applies to babies but to Mary as well.

Just because Jesus was fully man (fully human) does not make him part of the "all" or an exception to the "all" because Jesus was more than human. He was also fully divine. No one else in history was fully human and fully divine. Jesus was sent by God to be the solution to the problem of man's sin. Jesus was not an exception to the all. He was never part of the all. He is unique. He is the Son of God. God in human flesh. His divine nature means he didn't need to be made an exception. The "all" are the rest of us who are not divine and who do have a sin nature whether we have actually sinned or not.

Mary is a part of the context because she, like the rest of us, are part of the "all" Jesus was sent to save. Only someone outside of the "all" could save us. Only someone who was fully human and full divine who did not receive the same sin nature we all do because he is fully divine. Since our spirit comes from God, and is not part of our DNA, Mary did not need to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. She contributed to Jesus' human nature, not to his spiritual nature.

 

[Valletta]

Romans 3:23 – …all have sinned.

Romans 3:23 is in a critical context of the book of Romans. In 1:16-17 Paul gives the theme verses of Romans – the righteousness of God. Then from 1:18-3:8 he proceeds to show how all mankind is under the condemnation of God starting with the Gentiles and then the Jews. In Romans 3:9-20 he summarizes this and we’re all under the condemnation of God, headed to hell…

1. Then Romans 3:21 starts with the greatest “But” in the Bible as Paul explains the gospel from 3:21-31. Romans 4 then gives Abraham and David as examples.
2. So, the “All” of 3:23 are all of those on the ship that sank back in 1:18-3:20!!! And, Jesus Christ is clearly separated out and explained to be the solution in 3:20-22.
3. And, 3:23 starts with “For” which means “Because” showing that 3:23 is not an independent statement but rather a dependent statement show the reason we all need the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

So, per context and proper hermeneutics, 3:23 is part of a HUGE context and Christ is not included in the “all.”
If that doesn't convince you, turn to Romans chapter 5. Read the entire chapter. Verse 12, sin entered the world through one man - Adam. Sin and death came to "all people, because all sinned." This includes babies. Verse 14, "death reigned...even over those who did not sin by breaking a command..." (emphasis mine). Back to verse 12, sin leads to death and death comes to all people. Verse 14, death comes to even those who did not sin which includes babies. Why? Verse 12 again, "sin entered the world through one man." Adam brought sin upon the entire human race. All men are born in sin. It not only applies to babies but to Mary as well.

Just because Jesus was fully man (fully human) does not make him part of the "all" or an exception to the "all" because Jesus was more than human. He was also fully divine. No one else in history was fully human and fully divine. Jesus was sent by God to be the solution to the problem of man's sin. Jesus was not an exception to the all. He was never part of the all. He is unique. He is the Son of God. God in human flesh. His divine nature means he didn't need to be made an exception. The "all" are the rest of us who are not divine and who do have a sin nature whether we have actually sinned or not.

Mary is a part of the context because she, like the rest of us, are part of the "all" Jesus was sent to save. Only someone outside of the "all" could save us. Only someone who was fully human and full divine who did not receive the same sin nature we all do because he is fully divine. Since our spirit comes from God, and is not part of our DNA, Mary did not need to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. She contributed to Jesus' human nature, not to his spiritual nature.

As I have said, "all" is either meant to refer to every individual or it is not. If I say "all of the even numbers between 3 and 9 are represented, I mean every single individual number. If I say "all" of the town went to see the basketball game, I am not including poor Dolores Hopper who is bed-ridden and under doctor's orders not to leave her bed, nor Paige Smith who is in labor at the hospital, nor who knows how many others. Either I am being specific or it is a way of speaking. If there is one of more exception it is a way of speaking. If I say "all of Judea" went out to see John the Baptist, it is a way of speaking. It is not a statement to make it clear that every Roman soldier and official and every sick person or woman in labor in Judea went out to see John the Baptist. If Jesus is not included in a general "all" then it is a way of speaking.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I have said, "all" is either meant to refer to every individual or it is not. If I say "all of the even numbers between 3 and 9 are represented, I mean every single individual number. If I say "all" of the town went to see the basketball game, I am not including poor Dolores Hopper who is bed-ridden and under doctor's orders not to leave her bed, nor Paige Smith who is in labor at the hospital, nor who knows how many others. Either I am being specific or it is a way of speaking. If there is one of more exception it is a way of speaking. If I say "all of Judea" went out to see John the Baptist, it is a way of speaking. It is not a statement to make it clear that every Roman soldier and official and every sick person or woman in labor in Judea went out to see John the Baptist. If Jesus is not included then it is a way of speaking.

Wow, you are missing the WHOLE point of Romans and the Gospel! It is precisely because ALL have sinned that God sent a savior. There are no exceptions. All of humanity has sinned and is unworthy of heaven. There are countless verses that say ALL of mankind is sinful, unworthy, etc. NO exceptions!

Your mistake is including Jesus. You are taking "all" to mean everyone who ever walked the earth. Wrong! There are two groups of people: those who need a savior and the Savior. The first group contains everyone born to man and woman and the first humans created by God - Adam and Eve. The second "group" is not a group. It contains one person. Jesus Christ who is fully human and fully man. He is the only one qualified to be the savior because he is human and because, being divine, he is sinless. He alone can atone for our sins. Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned" applies to every person in the first group. Everyone with a mother and a father save Adam and Eve. They are the "all have sinned" group. They need a savior. Jesus doesn't need a savior. He IS the Savior.

You are insisting Jesus is part of the group and therefore must be an exception and then implying that if he can be an exception then so could Mary be (which still would not prove she was). When you read all of Romans, and the Gospel in general, you see that all humanity is condemned. "There is none that are righteous, no not one." Countless verses condemn humanity. You are supposing Jesus is the exception to all those verses. He's not because unlike the rest of humanity, his spirit is from God. He is divine. He is not just another human like you and I. We don't have a divine nature and neither did Mary. We are all under the curse of Adam and Eve. Jesus was not. If Jesus was he could not have been the savior. He would have needed a savior himself. He is not part of the "all" and this is not just a figure of speech as you suggest. All of the town going to a basketball game would obviously not include those who are bedridden or in the hospital. All have sinned must be definition include all of humanity or else we would not "all" need a savior. Even Mary called acknowledged she needed a savior. Did she or anyone else ever say Jesus needed a savior? No! He was like us in the flesh but not in the spirit. He did not sin and could not sin because he has a divine spirit which no else has ever had. He is unique. The only God-Man. The context of "all' is all of sinful humanity of which Jesus is not a part of. You are assuming that because he was fully human and waked the earth then he would be part of the "all" so must have been an exception. No. "All" does not refer to every human who ever walked the earth. It refers to every sinful person born of man whose Father was not God and whose spirit is not divine. That is precisely why he, and he alone, can be our Savior.

All this to try and say Mary could have been an exception (which as I just pointed out makes no sense) while not even proving she was an exception. Why would Mary even need to be an exception? Jesus' spirit did not come from Mary. She only contributed to his human DNA not to his "spiritual DNA." That came from the Father. Her being a sinner, part of the "all have sinned", did not prevent her from being chosen to give birth to Jesus not did it prevent him from being born without original sin or a sin nature as his spiritual nature came from the Father and is fully divine thus not subject to the curse of Adam. That is why he can be the "second Adam."

If you can't see that then I have no more words for you. To keep insisting "all" doesn't mean "all" and putting Jesus in a group he has no part of is to miss the message of Romans and the Gospel completely!

 

[Valletta]

Wow, you are missing the WHOLE point of Romans and the Gospel! It is precisely because ALL have sinned that God sent a savior. There are no exceptions. All of humanity has sinned and is unworthy of heaven. There are countless verses that say ALL of mankind is sinful, unworthy, etc. NO exceptions!

Your mistake is including Jesus. You are taking "all" to mean everyone who ever walked the earth. Wrong! There are two groups of people: those who need a savior and the Savior. The first group contains everyone born to man and woman and the first humans created by God - Adam and Eve. The second "group" is not a group. It contains one person. Jesus Christ who is fully human and fully man. He is the only one qualified to be the savior because he is human and because, being divine, he is sinless. He alone can atone for our sins. Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned" applies to every person in the first group. Everyone with a mother and a father save Adam and Eve. They are the "all have sinned" group. They need a savior. Jesus doesn't need a savior. He IS the Savior.

You are insisting Jesus is part of the group and therefore must be an exception and then implying that if he can be an exception then so could Mary be (which still would not prove she was). When you read all of Romans, and the Gospel in general, you see that all humanity is condemned. "There is none that are righteous, no not one." Countless verses condemn humanity. You are supposing Jesus is the exception to all those verses. He's not because unlike the rest of humanity, his spirit is from God. He is divine. He is not just another human like you and I. We don't have a divine nature and neither did Mary. We are all under the curse of Adam and Eve. Jesus was not. If Jesus was he could not have been the savior. He would have needed a savior himself. He is not part of the "all" and this is not just a figure of speech as you suggest. All of the town going to a basketball game would obviously not include those who are bedridden or in the hospital. All have sinned must be definition include all of humanity or else we would not "all" need a savior. Even Mary called acknowledged she needed a savior. Did she or anyone else ever say Jesus needed a savior? No! He was like us in the flesh but not in the spirit. He did not sin and could not sin because he has a divine spirit which no else has ever had. He is unique. The only God-Man. The context of "all' is all of sinful humanity of which Jesus is not a part of. You are assuming that because he was fully human and waked the earth then he would be part of the "all" so must have been an exception. No. "All" does not refer to every human who ever walked the earth. It refers to every sinful person born of man whose Father was not God and whose spirit is not divine. That is precisely why he, and he alone, can be our Savior.

All this to try and say Mary could have been an exception (which as I just pointed out makes no sense) while not even proving she was an exception. Why would Mary even need to be an exception? Jesus' spirit did not come from Mary. She only contributed to his human DNA not to his "spiritual DNA." That came from the Father. Her being a sinner, part of the "all have sinned", did not prevent her from being chosen to give birth to Jesus not did it prevent him from being born without original sin or a sin nature as his spiritual nature came from the Father and is fully divine thus not subject to the curse of Adam. That is why he can be the "second Adam."

If you can't see that then I have no more words for you. To keep insisting "all" doesn't mean "all" and putting Jesus in a group he has no part of is to miss the message of Romans and the Gospel completely!

I pointed out your mistake before . You avoided the fact that infants have not sinned or greatly mentally handicapped people have not sinned by changing around the wording to support your claim. God did not make a mistake in His words. The fact is that the infants, etc. have not actually committed a sin. You can try to call them sinners or say they have a sin nature or have original sin, but the the fact is the Word of God says "have sinned." Grammatically if there is one exception it is a way of generalizing, a way of speaking.

As to your separate point, I think you will agree that God's ways are far above our ways. God could have ordered rotted wood and rusty metal be used to construct the Ark of the Covenant. Likewise God could have chosen the worst sinner on earth to be his mother.

You make the same mistake with the righteous statement, there are righteous people in the Bible. It is a general way of speaking, just the all of the people in town going to see a basketball game. In my interpretation of the Bible I understand that Abraham was righteous, and I believe Job, a friend of God, was also righteous. Are you ready to have a debate with God was to why you believe those two are not righteous?

 

[JulieB67]

Wow, you are missing the WHOLE point of Romans and the Gospel! It is precisely because ALL have sinned that God sent a savior. There are no exceptions. All of humanity has sinned and is unworthy of heaven. There are countless verses that say ALL of mankind is sinful, unworthy, etc. NO exceptions!

Exactly right.

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jew and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"

Romans 3:10 "As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one:"

We know Christ is not included in that.

We also know most people's sins are not included in the Word unless specifically specified to a matter of importance. So the argument of "it doesn't say Mary sinned" is not an argument at all. If that's the case there are many many people in the Word where it doesn't state their sins. Are they sinless? No of course not. And being full of grace does not mean she was sinless as well. God has bestowed His grace on many.

But it does state all are under sin. One man brought sin into the world and here we are, needing the Savior. Mary is no exception. And as I've stated if Christ didn't raise her up over anyone that does the will of God, we should be following his lead.

 

[Valletta]

Exactly right.

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jew and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"

Romans 3:10 "As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one:"

We know Christ is not included in that.

We also know most people's sins are not included in the Word unless specifically specified to a matter of importance. So the argument of "it doesn't say Mary sinned" is not an argument at all. If that's the case there are many many people in the Word where it doesn't state their sins. Are they sinless? No of course not. And being full of grace does not mean she was sinless as well. God has bestowed His grace on many.

But it does state all are under sin. One man brought sin into the world and here we are, needing the Savior. Mary is no exception. And as I've stated if Christ didn't raise her up over anyone that does the will of God, we should be following his lead.

That God is sending a savior to save us from sin is a point made in the Bible long before Romans was written.

Exactly right.

Romans 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jew and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"

Romans 3:10 "As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one:"

We know Christ is not included in that.

We also know most people's sins are not included in the Word unless specifically specified to a matter of importance. So the argument of "it doesn't say Mary sinned" is not an argument at all. If that's the case there are many many people in the Word where it doesn't state their sins. Are they sinless? No of course not. And being full of grace does not mean she was sinless as well. God has bestowed His grace on many.

But it does state all are under sin. One man brought sin into the world and here we are, needing the Savior. Mary is no exception. And as I've stated if Christ didn't raise her up over anyone that does the will of God, we should be following his lead.

He's trying to show that Mary "committed" a sin from that statement, which has nothing to do with Mary. He hasn't said what sin. It's the same as your Romans 3:10 example about not one being "righteous." As I explained before, there are righteous people such as Abraham and Job, a friend of God's. It is a lament, a generalization. It is not a statement that Noah and Job and Abraham were not righteous!

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
RSVCE

 

[Clare73]

That God is sending a savior to save us from sin is a point made in the Bible long before Romans was written.

Your point?

He's trying to show that Mary "committed" a sin from that statement, which has nothing to do with Mary. He hasn't said what sin.

We are all guilty of Adam's sin( Ro 5:18) imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:12-14), which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed (Ro 5:18-19) to those of Christ.

It's the same as your Romans 3:10 example about not one being "righteous." As I explained before, there are righteous people such as Abraham and Job, a friend of God's.
It is a lament, a generalization. It is not a statement that Noah and Job and Abraham were not righteous!
Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
RSVCE

Not "righteous" in the NT (Ro 3:10) sense of the word; i.e., sinless, as in Christ.

 

[Valletta]

Your point?

We are all guilty of Adam's sin( Ro 5:18) imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:12-14), which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed (Ro 5:18-19) to those of Christ.

Not "righteous" in the NT (Ro 3:10) sense of the word; i.e., sinless, as in Christ.

Romans is from Psalm 14:1-3. It's a generalized lament, and I have given other examples, that is not meant to apply to Jesus or infants or Mary or highly mentally disabled people. When the statement was made none of those people "had sinned." What sins do you charge them with? What proof do you have? Just like when all of Judea went out for John the Baptist, the point was not to show that a woman giving birth kept walking to see John while she was having a baby, or that every Roman guard in Judea left his post to see John the Baptist. Mary is part of salvation history, the story of salvation documented from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Clare73]

It's a generalized lament, and I have given other examples, that is not meant to apply to Jesus or infants or Mary or highly mentally disabled people. When the statement was made none of those people "had sinned." What sins do you charge them with? What proof do you have?

God charges them with their imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-14, 18-19).

Just like when all of Judea went out for John the Baptist, the point was not to show that a woman giving birth kept walking to see John while she was having a baby, or that every Roman guard in Judea left his post to see John the Baptist. Mary is part of salvation history, the story of salvation documented from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[rturner76]

f and when Peter made it to Rome is inconsequential. Paul spent a lot of time in Rome but that doesn't make him the first Pope.

Peter was an Apostle. What do Apostles do? They build Churches. St Peter built one in Rome and stayed there developing it until he was Martyerd. Bottom line. What you are talking about is politics, the undermining of the original Church, and an attempt to discredit their authority while attempting to solidify their own authority.

Peter visiting Rome and him setting up the Roman Catholic Church are two different things.

They are and he didn't just visit Rome he founded the CHurch in Rome and was the head Bishop.

we don't have any record of him officiating a church from there and establishing Rome as the headquarters for such a church.

It wasn't the headquarters at that point. Churches were autonomous. In the earliest days, the Church of Jerusalem was the largest Church. It took longer to develop the Roman Church because it had to remain underground. It doesn't change the fact that St Peter was "first among equals" therefore, so were his successors. It wasn't until The Vulgate was written by St Jerome that Rome became absolut leader of the CHurch, but every Bishop still had a vote from every dioces. It's just that as always to this day the leader of the Church of Rome is first among equals.

Once again, big "C" vs little "c". The universal catholic church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Having

In the first Church big and little were combined. When other churches started popping up like fast-food restaurants that it became a sort of denomination but every Church in the world got it's most basic theology from Catholicism. Itt's just like I said, they just change the things they didn't like, if a highly respected member of a church doesn't like what they are being taught, they just drop out and create a new senomination.

What makes the church universal is our common adherence to the fundamentals of the faith.

Yes, now. The CHurch no longer teaches that only Catholics are saved. Still many many churches teach in error and there is no longer a universal standard. Instead of fish dinner, we now have a church buffet. They are very delicious and diverse but a lot of people over eat in them.

here is a lot of freedom in what prayers to pray, which Scriptures to read, what sermons to give. So long as things are Scriptural they don't have to be completely uniform.

It no longer does and now people can accept and throw out anything they don't like or just church hop into a church that they agree with more. Easy.

While some non-canonical books were considered useful for historical purposes, they were never considered authoritative.

Them not being cannonized doesn't negate their usefulness. If there is conflicting information, go with the Bible. However I don't find many discrepancies in the writings of ost Church theologians. In fact, the majority of Protestant churches are based on Augustine theology which doesn't conflict with the Bible.

Different denominations does not mean different directions. I belong to a non-denominational church. I have visited Baptist churches that were essentially the same. I have good friends who are Lutheran and Presbyterian and we are in complete agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. We share a common faith, common love for the Lord, and a common call the preach the Good News. We dont' need to be under one ecclesiastical structure to be unified. We don't need to read our prayers from a common book or read the same Scripture verses each Sunday. That's ecclesiastical unity not to be confused with spiritual unity.

I and countless others have detailed why we don't take those verses to mean what Catholics do.

I have also detailed it. Ever since the earliest Protestant churches, whatever they didn't like that was taught by the Mother Church, they chucked out, and they added what felt good to them.

Do you think God waited until 3 BC to see who the most worthy woman was and then chose Mary? I think God predestined that Mary, a woman born in the late BC's to be the mother of the Lord. Mary was the most worthy because God made her the most worthy. I don't mean to imply Mary did nothing and did not cooperate with God's will for her life but God made Mary, Mary did not make God.

God did he plan the way he needed to. I surely can't read the mind of God and his methods are guesswork.I don't read the account of Jesus being left behind in Jerusalem and being found discussing faith with the Rabbis Mary allowing him to do that. Why would she and her relatives have left and be heading home if she was "allowing him" to remain. In that case she would have remained in Jerusalem with him. As it was, no one realized he was left behind and when they discovered it they rushed back to Jerusalem. That was not Mary's plan. Is Jesus God incarnate? Yes? Is Mary his mother? Yes? THere you go.

Since the Bible clearly teaches that "all have sinned" and lists no exceptions, the burden of proof that Mary was sinless is on those who claim so. Lots of people are mentioned in Scripture without their sins being listed but that hardly proves they were sinless.

We are all born in sin but we don't all act out our sinful nature. Wheather one believes Mary was sinless or even doesn't really matter in terms of faith. It's just another thing that Protestants didn't like so they changed it.

 

[rturner76]

Luke 2:43 "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the Child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and His mother knew not of it."

Luke 2:44 "But they, supposing Him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance."

Luke 2:45 "And when they found Him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking Him."

Oh yeah, she was worried. What mother wouldn't be? The statement wasn't "she knew where he was going," nor was it "she gave him permission." The statement was "She allowed it to happen." Now did she not allow it to happen? No. Did she allow it to happen? Yes.

At that time, Mary didn't even understand what he was talking about.

Did she need to? She just needed to allow him to go about his Father's business and did she? Yes.

 

[jacorian]

Mark 3:
20 And He *came home, and the crowd *gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 And when His own people heard about this, they came out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” NASB

31 Then His mother and His brothers *came, and while standing outside they sent word to Him, calling for Him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 And looking around at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, this is My brother, and sister, and mother.” NASB

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

Mark 3:
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” NIV
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

Incorrect. Mary was born w/o sin. She is the immaculate conception. If Mary were not perfect then I highly doubt that she would have appeared as many times as she has to certain people. Why would God send a person who sinned? She was assumed directly into heaven, a privilege that the rest of us cannot experience.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I pointed out your mistake before . You avoided the fact that infants have not sinned or greatly mentally handicapped people have not sinned by changing around the wording to support your claim. God did not make a mistake in His words. The fact is that the infants, etc. have not actually committed a sin. You can try to call them sinners or say they have a sin nature or have original sin, but the the fact is the Word of God says "have sinned." Grammatically if there is one exception it is a way of generalizing, a way of speaking.

You are confusing actual sin (I stole a shirt from a store) with the guilt of sin that is upon the entire human race just for being born human. In the eyes of God, everyone is condemned. Without Christ's death on the cross, not one person, not one baby, not one person born with mental challenges, would go to heaven. All of humanity fell when Adam fell. The Bible teaches this. At that moment, all humanity (including those not yet born) were under the curse and condemnation of sin and fit only for eternity in hell. You didn't have to actually sin. You were born condemned. Born guilty. You posses a sin nature which does not even require actual sin to make you guilty. When you read the entire book of Romans, Paul hammers this point over and over and over again. We are all guilty, we have all sinned, none is righteous, ... It doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, rich or poor, young or old, male or female, slave or free. In the eyes of God we are all guilty. Our good works are filthy rags. We cannot share in the glory of God.

Yet, God loves us so provided a way through Jesus Christ. The only way we can be forgiven is through His shed blood. The only way we can be righteous is through His righteousness. When the OT says Abraham or Job was righteous, it means before man. No one is perfectly righteous. Not by God's standard. That is the context when Paul writes "None are righteous, no not one." By God's standard, no one is righteous. Not Abram, not Job, not Peter, not Paul, not David, ...

You say Job was righteous. What does Job say about himself:

"Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth." Job 40:4

Job defended himself against his friend's accusations thinking himself to be righteous. By the end of the story Job realizes he's not. He was a good, upright man in most respects yet he still had pride. In the eyes of man he was righteous. He walked upright and better than most. God took Job on a journey to show him that he wasn't as righteous as he thought. Job learned humility.

There are two types of righteousness. There is man's righteousness and God's. The only righteousness that counts eternally is God's righteousness. Man's righteousness doesn't measure up. Through faith we receive the righteousness of Christ. That is the only way we can be truly righteous in God's eyes. We are told Abraham believed God (faith) and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. It was Abraham's faith that made him positionally righteous before God just like our faith does. Abraham was a good man, He was a righteous man by human standards. By God's standards Abraham was not righteous. No one is.

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor 5:21)

It is through Chrit was become the "righteousness of God."

"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17)

It is by faith we are made righteous. We are not, and cannot, be righteous on our own. Not by God's standard of righteousness.

So you have to understand what the Bible means when it says "None are righteous, no not one." It is talking about the righteousness of God without which we cannot see God. Job and Abraham were made righteous by faith. They were called righteous but in a human sense. The Bible says elders are to be mean "without reproach." Is anyone truly without reproach?

So yes, those men were righteous in a human sense and were made righteous by God through faith but the statement still stands, without exception, that "None are righteous, no not one." Without the righteousness of God no one is righteouss. These are not general statements with exceptions. All have sinned. None are righteous. We all stand condemned. We all need a savior. Even Mary called God her savior. Mary needed a savoir. Catholics sometimes argue that God saved Mary by preventing her from having a sin nature and sinning. While I disagree, it shows that even Mary needed saving. Had God not intervened (as Catholics insist) she would have stood condemned. Why would Mary need saving if she never actually sinned? Mary needed a savoir because she was human, part of a fallen race. She stood guilty before God. We all fell in Adam. No one is born innocent. Innocent in a human sense but not innocent in a judicial sense in the eyes of God.

As to your separate point, I think you will agree that God's ways are far above our ways. God could have ordered rotted wood and rusty metal be used to construct the Ark of the Covenant. Likewise God could have chosen the worst sinner on earth to be his mother.

You make the same mistake with the righteous statement, there are righteous people in the Bible. It is a general way of speaking, just the all of the people in town going to see a basketball game. In my interpretation of the Bible I understand that Abraham was righteous, and I believe Job, a friend of God, was also righteous. Are you ready to have a debate with God was to why you believe those two are not righteous?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Incorrect. Mary was born w/o sin. She is the immaculate conception. If Mary were not perfect then I highly doubt that she would have appeared as many times as she has to certain people. Why would God send a person who sinned? She was assumed directly into heaven, a privilege that the rest of us cannot experience.

All of the apprations of Mary contain non-biblical teaching. These are demonic. This is not Mary appearing.

 

[BobRyan]

Incorrect. Mary was born w/o sin. She is the immaculate conception.

ok - but it is "instructive" that those who believe such a thing - very often state it -- and we have no such teaching in scripture.

If Mary were not perfect then I highly doubt that she would have appeared as many times as she has to certain people.

Saul encounters and apparition of Samuel in 1 Sam 28 - after Samuel dies - via the services of a witch and a familiar spirit (demon) - but that did not make the real Samuel "born sinless" or "immaculately conceived".

Why would God send a person who sinned?

Did He do that?

Elijah and Moses both appeared in real life to Christ and three disciples in Matt 17 on the mount of transfiguration , but even the Catholic Church admits that this was not sufficient to then suppose that either one of them was immaculately conceived or sinless.