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

[NotUrAvgGuy]

This discussion surrounds the phrase "sin nature". I've consistently stated that there is no such thing because it implies God is pernicious as the human nature is inherent, attributes imbued in God's creation of man, in the birth of each man/woman.

Indeed He did not make us evil, but that's precisely what the term "sin nature" accuses God of. We are not "made" into sin, we choose to sin.


Notice the word "perfect" comes from the Latin perfectus, i.e. finished or completed. We can conclude we have the capability to be perfect, without want, according to our maker. To deny God's creation is perfect is disbelief.

JoeT

It has been argued that if man has a sin nature (or "original sin") then it makes God pernicious (having a harmful effect on man). Stated more strongly, some contend it would make God evil for forcing man to be sinful.

Let's start with what we know. When God finished creation, He pronounced it "very good." (Genesis 1:31). One would assume God would not have called creation "very good" if it contained sin. However, while created free of sin, we know from chapter two that God allowed Satan into the Garden and Satan had already sinned and fallen so while initial creation contained no sin, sin and temptation entered through Satan.

Sin already existed before Adam and Eve were created. Not that sin is a created thing. Sin is a failure to live up to God's standards and to obey Him. Satan, and a third of the angels, had already sinned. Since sin is not "a thing", sin cannot be created and so the original creation was without sin. You cannot have sin until someone sins. Sin is not like a cold you catch from germs such that you say creation was not perfect if cold germs existed. Creation was a blank slate in which sin had not yet occurred and thus "very good."

To quote John Calvin:
. . . the Lord had declared that "everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good" [Genesis 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

Satan, however, was allowed to enter creation sometime after the creation of Adam and Eve. Scripture does not tell us how much time transpired between the creation of Eve and her temptation by Satan. It could have been many years, even decades. We simply don't know. At some point Satan entered the Garden and tempted Eve. Eve gave into temptation and sinned and then Adam did as well.

People sometimes ask, "where did sin come from?" Sin is not a created thing. Sin did not come from anywhere. Sin is simply a moral imperfection in failing to obey God. Thus God is not responsible for our sin. We choose to sin. Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

Adam and Eve sinned of their own volition. Their sin resulted in consequences not only for them but for all of humanity to come from them. Death, pain, disease, etc, came to them and all mankind. All of creation was infected by sin and fell. Sin was universally felt. It tainted all of creation which included Adam and Eve's children, grandchildren, and all of humanity.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12, 18-19)

These three verses sum Paul's main point. In verse 12 we learned that through Adam, "death came to all people." Death (spiritually and physically) are consequences and judgments of sin. Note it says "and in this way death came to all people." In other words, by Adam's disobedience sin came to everyone. What is the proof of this? "because all sinned" which echoes Romans 3:23 ("for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.")

Adam's sin infected all of creation and all of humanity which is why creation longs for redemption (Romans 8:19-23). So all of humanity was infected by the sin of Adam. We call this original sin. Back to Romans 5:12, "and in this way death came to all people." Romans 3:23 parallels Romans 5:12 and Romans 3:24 parallels Romans 5:18-19.

Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Romans 3:24
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus

Romans 5:18-19
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Putting it all together, we know that God is not the author of sin. God cannot sin and plainly tells us that He does not cause anyone to sin. We know Satan and a third of the angels sinned. We know Adam and Eve sinned. We are told that "sin entered the world through one man" and we know that man is Adam. We know that sin tainted or infected all of creation resulting in "all sinned." This sin infection of creation is what theologians call "original sin."

Therefore, taking Scripture at its word, God is NOT pernicious. God did not take something He pronounced "very good" and turned it into "very bad." We (mankind) chose to sin. We turned "very good" into "very bad." Adam's sin affected all of creation such that all are now born into sin. We are born into sin (results of the fall) and we chose to sin none of which is on God.

An analogy might be AIDS babies. God didn't create the AIDS virus. It got created by fallen creation then passed from monkeys to humans. Humans passed it to each other and then some babies got infected through their mothers. Does that make God responsible for babies having AIDS? NO!

Thankfully, as all have sinned in Adam so all may be made righteous in Christ. These are the bookends. Sin and death through Adam. Forgiveness and righteousness through Christ and eternal life.

 

[LoveofTruth]

No, the only person of whom the phrase "full of grace" is used in the KJV is Jesus Himself:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

I’m agreeing with that I believe I said the same in another post.

And all Christian’s have grace from Gid in faith.

Romans 5: 17. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)”

 

[David Lamb]

That's untrue. We read of just or holly people throughout the bible. Sin and holiness repel each other like oil on water.

No you don't, Mary receives her justification at her conception. God saves her, thus to proclaim her savior is quite appropriate.

Conversely, you are left with the conundrum of explaining how Christ's humanity is born without original sin which is received by ALL born of woman.

JoeT

Yes, people are described as holy, just, or righteous, but not sinless. David says:

“For I have kept the ways of the LORD, And have not wickedly departed from my God.” (Ps 18:21 NKJV)

Yet he had committed adultery and murder! He certainly wasn't claiming sinlessness.

As for Mary receiving her justification at conception, where do you find that taught in the bible?

If you say she had no original sin, and committed no actual sin, what did did she need saving from?

There is no conundrum in Jesus being born of a woman. We are told that God's Holy Spirit would come upon her:

“And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Lu 1:35 NKJV)

 

[JoeT]

Yes, people are described as holy, just, or righteous, but not sinless.

A state of justification implies sin is not present unless you can find a way where sin and holiness coincide.

David says:

“For I have kept the ways of the LORD, And have not wickedly departed from my God.” (Ps 18:21 NKJV)

Superfluous verse; we know being in a state of sin and a state of holiness is cannot coexist.

Yet he had committed adultery and murder! He certainly wasn't claiming sinlessness.

Yes, but David confesses his sins, amends his life with the grace of God. When stated, David is therefore perfect as the father is perfect, a state of being 'right with God' or righteous.

As for Mary receiving her justification at conception, where do you find that taught in the bible?

Luke 1:28; "kecharitomene," Greek translated as "full of grace".

If you say she had no original sin, and committed no actual sin, what did did she need saving from?

I am a life saver if I keep you from stumbling off the cliff edge or if I catch you after you fell off the cliff on your way down to destruction. Likewise no matter when she receives the state of Grace, it's source and savior is God.

There is no conundrum in Jesus being born of a woman.

Remember, Jesus Christ, our God, is born of woman and bears the flesh of woman. Isn't it a contradiction to say that good flesh comes from evil flesh? We know that original injustice is inhered, if Christ is born of woman, then wouldn't He inhere original sin?

We are told that God's Holy Spirit would come upon her:

“And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” (Lu 1:35 NKJV)

How is it all that is holy becomes the spouse of sin?

What kind of God do you worship?

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You are correct on the King James translation but not on the rest. First, realize that the Apostles were the first bishops of the Catholic Church. As I explained, the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. It was hardly a matter of "organizing." First, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church decided to compile the books of the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about Jesus ordering such a compilation. The process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. The final list was not decided upon by the Catholic Church until the 300s. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D.

You claim they were the first bishops but that is based on your assumption that what became the RCC is "the Church." All we know for sure is that the Lord's brother James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. He is named as such in Scripture. Anything beyond that is speculation or Catholic tradition. The same with Peter being a bishop in Rome and having successors. Regardless of how you interpret the "rock" verses, it does not say that Peter would hold an office that would have successors. That is again speculation and RCC tradition.

The canon developed over hundreds of years although the early church used and recognized letters and gospels that would be later named to the canon. Athanasius' list is the first we know of but that doesn't mean it was the only list and that there wasn't already pretty solid agreement on which books were authentic and inspired. The reason for a final list was because of false teaching that was spreading and false letters and gospels starting to appear and deceive some. As I have posted before, I do not consider the men who met and agreed up a list as being Catholics. They were just early Christians. Those things that make the RCC distinctive had not yet developed. It was many centuries before a church resembling the modern RCC developed. By that time the Apostles were long gone. The RCC claims to go back to the Apostles but I don't believe that as the RCC began teaching things that contradicted Scripture most of which was written by the Apostles. Anything taught by the Apostles orally would have agreed with what they wrote. Since there are a number of things believed by the RCC that don't agree with Scripture, then I must reject them as not being from the Apostles as they would not contradict themselves. When Catholic teachings don't square with Scripture we are told to believe them since not everything was written down and since they claim to be the one and only true church founded by the Apostles. The RCC's attempts to validate their unique teachings from Scripture fail. We are to believe what they teach solely on their self-proclamation as the only true church and preserved from error.

I refuse to believe anything that contradicts Scripture as the oral teachings of the Apostles would not go against their written teachings. One must come to Scripture biased by RC beliefs in order to accept their interpretation of passages they cite to back their theology. An example, is Mary being ever-virgin. Scripture does not teach that and lists some of Jesus' siblings. The RC church argues that the word used for brothers and sisters could refer to cousins. Maybe so but that would not be the plain and obvious understanding of those passages and it's not definitive proof Mary remained a virgin. The natural understanding would be that Jesus had siblings. Since Scripture says children are a blessing, why wouldn't God have wanted Mary to go on and have children with Joseph so that Jesus would grow up in a family with other kids? That would be normal and natural. It just doesn't go with the RCC's belief that Mary must have remained a virgin as God would not have the womb that bore His Son give birth to lesser children. Scripture does not state she remained a virgin and there is nothing in Scripture to say it would have been bad for her and Joseph to have other children. The only clear teaching is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Scripture nowhere says she stayed a virgin nor does it teach that such a thing would have been bad or outside of God's will. None of the letters or gospels say she remained a virgin. I will stick with the plain and obvious teaching of Scripture which is that Mary and Joseph had other children. The same with Mary's assumption into heaven, her being born without original sin, and her living a sinless life. None of these are plain and obvious teachings in Scripture and her being born without original sin and living a sinless life contradict Scripture. The arguments the RC church puts forth to defend these doctrines are not convincing and require a biased interpretation. It's more like trying to create doubt in the mind of a juror to get a defendant off. Since juries much belief in guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" it only takes a little doubt to achieve that. The RCC church uses this kind of thinking when it says "they could have been cousins" and "she could have remained a virgin" and "we aren't told of her death and burial so she could have been taken bodily to heaven." There are not confirming Scriptures but they attempt to play doubt as making it possible for their teachings to be true. That type of argument is only going to work with those already committed to the RCC. I put no faith in RC tradition as some of it clearly violates Scripture so I must reject all of it and stick to what the Scriptures teach.

 

[Valletta]

You claim they were the first bishops but that is based on your assumption that what became the RCC is "the Church." All we know for sure is that the Lord's brother James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. He is named as such in Scripture. Anything beyond that is speculation or Catholic tradition. The same with Peter being a bishop in Rome and having successors. Regardless of how you interpret the "rock" verses, it does not say that Peter would hold an office that would have successors. That is again speculation and RCC tradition.

The canon developed over hundreds of years although the early church used and recognized letters and gospels that would be later named to the canon. Athanasius' list is the first we know of but that doesn't mean it was the only list and that there wasn't already pretty solid agreement on which books were authentic and inspired. The reason for a final list was because of false teaching that was spreading and false letters and gospels starting to appear and deceive some. As I have posted before, I do not consider the men who met and agreed up a list as being Catholics. They were just early Christians. Those things that make the RCC distinctive had not yet developed. It was many centuries before a church resembling the modern RCC developed. By that time the Apostles were long gone. The RCC claims to go back to the Apostles but I don't believe that as the RCC began teaching things that contradicted Scripture most of which was written by the Apostles. Anything taught by the Apostles orally would have agreed with what they wrote. Since there are a number of things believed by the RCC that don't agree with Scripture, then I must reject them as not being from the Apostles as they would not contradict themselves. When Catholic teachings don't square with Scripture we are told to believe them since not everything was written down and since they claim to be the one and only true church founded by the Apostles. The RCC's attempts to validate their unique teachings from Scripture fail. We are to believe what they teach solely on their self-proclamation as the only true church and preserved from error.

I refuse to believe anything that contradicts Scripture as the oral teachings of the Apostles would not go against their written teachings. One must come to Scripture biased by RC beliefs in order to accept their interpretation of passages they cite to back their theology. An example, is Mary being ever-virgin. Scripture does not teach that and lists some of Jesus' siblings. The RC church argues that the word used for brothers and sisters could refer to cousins. Maybe so but that would not be the plain and obvious understanding of those passages and it's not definitive proof Mary remained a virgin. The natural understanding would be that Jesus had siblings. Since Scripture says children are a blessing, why wouldn't God have wanted Mary to go on and have children with Joseph so that Jesus would grow up in a family with other kids? That would be normal and natural. It just doesn't go with the RCC's belief that Mary must have remained a virgin as God would not have the womb that bore His Son give birth to lesser children. Scripture does not state she remained a virgin and there is nothing in Scripture to say it would have been bad for her and Joseph to have other children. The only clear teaching is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Scripture nowhere says she stayed a virgin nor does it teach that such a thing would have been bad or outside of God's will. None of the letters or gospels say she remained a virgin. I will stick with the plain and obvious teaching of Scripture which is that Mary and Joseph had other children. The same with Mary's assumption into heaven, her being born without original sin, and her living a sinless life. None of these are plain and obvious teachings in Scripture and her being born without original sin and living a sinless life contradict Scripture. The arguments the RC church puts forth to defend these doctrines are not convincing and require a biased interpretation. It's more like trying to create doubt in the mind of a juror to get a defendant off. Since juries much belief in guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" it only takes a little doubt to achieve that. The RCC church uses this kind of thinking when it says "they could have been cousins" and "she could have remained a virgin" and "we aren't told of her death and burial so she could have been taken bodily to heaven." There are not confirming Scriptures but they attempt to play doubt as making it possible for their teachings to be true. That type of argument is only going to work with those already committed to the RCC. I put no faith in RC tradition as some of it clearly violates Scripture so I must reject all of it and stick to what the Scriptures teach.

Let me take just one example which can be applied to other false claims, I know a tactic of anti-Catholics, often out of frustration in debates with Catholics, is to throw out a long list of multiple accusations that have been refuted time and time again. The topic of this thread is not to see how many false claims can be made against Catholics. I'll take one example and the general principle can be applied to all:

The misinterpretation about Mary and Joseph supposed having other children is not one made by those with an understanding of the Bible and the original Koine Greek. In fact the Greek does not tell us one way or another, it indicates nothing about what happens after the word translated into the English "until." In your case you are following the tradition of your teachers, who provide a teaching OUTSIDE of Holy Scripture, an extra-Biblical teaching. It is a tradition held by some Protestant religions, a man-made tradition. Likewise the word translated into the English "brother" is not limited to brothers with the same parents or even one same parent. To teach that it does is also extra-Biblical. To me I can find no good reason for a Protestant to care one way or another because what does the difference between zero or dozens of more children have to do with your salvation? Those serious about their beliefs, Catholics or Protestants, should study the Greek and learn for themselves.

I understand how one can initially be fooled into believing Catholics somehow go against the Bible. Realize that it was the Catholic Church that decided to compile the books of the Bible, it was more than ten years after the Crucifiction before the first of the Gospels were written. Masses were taking place without any NT readings. Soon Catholics began to have readings of the Gospels at masses. And while the Gospels and other books known to have come straight from the Apostles were accepted at masses there were a number of books that were accepted in some places and not in others. It was the Catholic Church that decided to compile a God-breathed list of books into the Bible, and the controversies as to what was authentically God-breathed and what was not spanned centuries and were not resolved until the late 300s.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Let me take just one example which can be applied to other false claims, I know a tactic of anti-Catholics, often out of frustration in debates with Catholics, is to throw out a long list of multiple accusations that have been refuted time and time again. The topic of this thread is not to see how many false claims can be made against Catholics. I'll take one example and the general principle can be applied to all:

The misinterpretation about Mary and Joseph supposed having other children is not one made by those with an understanding of the Bible and the original Koine Greek. In fact the Greek does not tell us one way or another, it indicates nothing about what happens after the word translated into the English "until." In your case you are following the tradition of your teachers, who provide a teaching OUTSIDE of Holy Scripture, an extra-Biblical teaching. It is a tradition held by some Protestant religions, a man-made tradition. Likewise the word translated into the English "brother" is not limited to brothers with the same parents or even one same parent. To teach that it does is also extra-Biblical. To me I can find no good reason for a Protestant to care one way or another because what does the difference between zero or dozens of more children have to do with your salvation? Those serious about their beliefs, Catholics or Protestants, should study the Greek and learn for themselves.

I understand how one can initially be fooled into believing Catholics somehow go against the Bible. Realize that it was the Catholic Church that decided to compile the books of the Bible, it was more than ten years after the Crucifiction before the first of the Gospels were written. Masses were taking place without any NT readings. Soon Catholics began to have readings of the Gospels at masses. And while the Gospels and other books known to have come straight from the Apostles were accepted at masses there were a number of books that were accepted in some places and not in others. It was the Catholic Church that decided to compile a God-breathed list of books into the Bible, and the controversies as to what was authentically God-breathed and what was not spanned centuries and were not resolved until the late 300s.

I agree the Greek does not tell us one way or the other. What I said was that the most natural understanding of the text is that they did have other children. That cannot be proved, as it could be cousins, but the natural reading is there were other children. That best explains the reaction of the townspeople of Nazareth when Jesus visited there. The townspeople could not believe Jesus was the Messiah because they knew him as a boy, knew his parents, knew his siblings, and because of this familiarity, they could not believe him to be the Messiah. They had not seen him perform miracles growing up and to outward appearances, he was a normal boy from a typical family. Nothing that would strike them as unusual.

33 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:53-58)

While the word translated "brothers" and "sisters" can refer to other than a blood brother or sister, the context in its simple sense indicates they were blood brothers and sisters. I am not a Greek scholar so I can't speak with authority, but if these were cousins being listed, why call out their sex and name them? If Jesus was an only child, why not just say "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary?" Why even mention cousins? Unless his cousins lived with his family, they would be less likely to include them. One can be rich and have poor cousins. One can be famous and have hardly known cousins. The point was they knew Jesus and his family and had seen nothing to suggest to them that this typical town boy was the Messiah. As far as they could see, he was just a normal kid who grew up there so what's all this about him being the Messiah? That does not prove they couldn't have been talking about cousins but it also does not prove it was not talking about blood siblings.

A rule I learned as a young Christian was "if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense." The plain sense is that these were his siblings. I have never argued that the Greek is precise in saying brother and sister so your charge that I don't know the Greek is faulty.

While I agree that my salvation has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had siblings, I see this as part of a greater concern in which the RCC tries to set Mary apart with claims about her being sinless, remaining a virgin, being taken bodily to heaven, etc. Those are all extra-biblical by your definition. I have never claimed that there is incontrovertible evidence in Scripture that Jesus had siblings but I do think that makes sense and I see no problem with Mary and Joseph having other children. Why do Catholics care so much?

As I have previously stated, Scripture was canonized by leading Christian men of that time before the RCC really came into existence so I do not credit the RCC with canonizing the Scriptures.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

A state of justification implies sin is not present unless you can find a way where sin and holiness coincide.

Superfluous verse; we know being in a state of sin and a state of holiness is cannot coexist.

Yes, but David confesses his sins, amends his life with the grace of God. When stated, David is therefore perfect as the father is perfect, a state of being 'right with God' or righteous.

Luke 1:28; "kecharitomene," Greek translated as "full of grace".

I am a life saver if I keep you from stumbling off the cliff edge or if I catch you after you fell off the cliff on your way down to destruction. Likewise no matter when she receives the state of Grace, it's source and savior is God.

Remember, Jesus Christ, our God, is born of woman and bears the flesh of woman. Isn't it a contradiction to say that good flesh comes from evil flesh? We know that original injustice is inhered, if Christ is born of woman, then wouldn't He inhere original sin?

How is it all that is holy becomes the spouse of sin?

What kind of God do you worship?

JoeT

Sorry for jumping in, but justification and being just are two different things. Justification is a legal term saying we are guiltless in the eyes of God and made righteous from the righteousness of Christ. In human terms we sometimes call a man a "just man." We are not saying he is perfectly holy or even justified spiritually. We are simply saying he is an honorable man who acts justly as far as we can see. He may, and does, have private sins beyond our knowledge but outwardly appears just. David was spiritually justified by his faith but was still a sinner. We do not achieve a sinless state in this life. We are never justified before God without the righteousness of Christ. We can never be that just. One sin is all it takes for us to not be just before God. Even if we repent and ask forgiveness, we are still not just (in the salvific sense) before God. That only comes by faith through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

The same with holiness. Many people would say Mother Theresa was a holy woman but they don't mean she never sinned. I am sure Catholics believe the Pope to be holy yet even the Pope admits he sins. We become righteous in Christ so that we can be both a sinner and justified. That is what salvation is!

Catholics read more into kecharitomene than it implies. We also must interpret Scripture by Scripture. Since we know "all have sinned", Mary could not have been "full of grace" in the sense that she was born without original sin and lived a sinless life. She was full of grace in a limited sense as no one in this life ever is as full of grace as possible. I have previously defended why "all" does mean "all" and will not repeat myself here.

I have also previously argued that original sin is not something genetic we receive from our parents or mother. It is a spiritual condition and not part of the flesh. Jesus is God and his spiritual nature is divine. God cannot sin. Since Jesus' spirit came from God, it was sinless and pure and did not require Mary to be so. Mary was Joseph's spouse not God's.

We worship the God of the Bible. The glorious God who could choose a lowly, imperfect handmaiden to bear His Son just as He used many imperfect people throughout history. Since Jesus' spirit came from God and is God, it could not be tainted by original sin.

 

[Valletta]

I agree the Greek does not tell us one way or the other. What I said was that the most natural understanding of the text is that they did have other children. That cannot be proved, as it could be cousins, but the natural reading is there were other children. That best explains the reaction of the townspeople of Nazareth when Jesus visited there. The townspeople could not believe Jesus was the Messiah because they knew him as a boy, knew his parents, knew his siblings, and because of this familiarity, they could not believe him to be the Messiah. They had not seen him perform miracles growing up and to outward appearances, he was a normal boy from a typical family. Nothing that would strike them as unusual.

33 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:53-58)

While the word translated "brothers" and "sisters" can refer to other than a blood brother or sister, the context in its simple sense indicates they were blood brothers and sisters. I am not a Greek scholar so I can't speak with authority, but if these were cousins being listed, why call out their sex and name them? If Jesus was an only child, why not just say "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary?" Why even mention cousins? Unless his cousins lived with his family, they would be less likely to include them. One can be rich and have poor cousins. One can be famous and have hardly known cousins. The point was they knew Jesus and his family and had seen nothing to suggest to them that this typical town boy was the Messiah. As far as they could see, he was just a normal kid who grew up there so what's all this about him being the Messiah? That does not prove they couldn't have been talking about cousins but it also does not prove it was not talking about blood siblings.

A rule I learned as a young Christian was "if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense." The plain sense is that these were his siblings. I have never argued that the Greek is precise in saying brother and sister so your charge that I don't know the Greek is faulty.

While I agree that my salvation has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had siblings, I see this as part of a greater concern in which the RCC tries to set Mary apart with claims about her being sinless, remaining a virgin, being taken bodily to heaven, etc. Those are all extra-biblical by your definition. I have never claimed that there is incontrovertible evidence in Scripture that Jesus had siblings but I do think that makes sense and I see no problem with Mary and Joseph having other children. Why do Catholics care so much?

As I have previously stated, Scripture was canonized by leading Christian men of that time before the RCC really came into existence so I do not credit the RCC with canonizing the Scriptures.

The Word of God states Mary was a virgin, by your logic, if Mary had other children the Bible should flat out say so. It does not. Yet you spend a lot of time proclaiming your teaching which simply is not found in the Bible. Don't you follow Sola Scriptura? You keep talking about a "natural reading," which seems to be any interpretation that backs up your beliefs. The Bible just does not state what you teach. It is a huge mistake to always take the "plain" sense of a translated text, as I have pointed out before a lack of knowledge of the original language and a lack of knowledge of Jewish idioms causes avoidable human errors in interpretation. The original God-breathed text in the original language is always superior to translated text no matter how plain you judge the translated text to be. A "canon" is simply a list, there were many lists compiled by Catholics, as I said the process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. As time went by the lists got closer to the final list of NT books credited to St Athanasius. You can compare the list of Holy Scripture books that Constantine came up with a little over thirty years before the Athanaius list and see for yourself it is close but not the same. As part of your religion's Biblical canon, a manmade tradition, you use the Catholic list, even using the very same order, with seven books removed.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The Word of God states Mary was a virgin, by your logic, if Mary had other children the Bible should flat out say so. It does not. Yet you spend a lot of time proclaiming your teaching which simply is not found in the Bible. Don't you follow Sola Scriptura? You keep talking about a "natural reading," which seems to be any interpretation that backs up your beliefs. The Bible just does not state what you teach. It is a huge mistake to always take the "plain" sense of a translated text, as I have pointed out before a lack of knowledge of the original language and a lack of knowledge of Jewish idioms causes avoidable human errors in interpretation. The original God-breathed text in the original language is always superior to translated text no matter how plain you judge the translated text to be. A "canon" is simply a list, there were many lists compiled by Catholics, as I said the process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. As time went by the lists got closer to the final list of NT books credited to St Athanasius. You can compare the list of Holy Scripture books that Constantine came up with a little over thirty years before the Athanaius list and see for yourself it is close but not the same. As part of your religion's Biblical canon, a manmade tradition, you use the Catholic list, even using the very same order, with seven books removed.

The Bible only states Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It makes no statement about her virginity lasting her entire life.

As stated previously, the early lists were created by Christiam men, not Catholics as Catholicism did not yet exist.

Men later removed 7 books because they contained clear contradictions to the rest of Scripture. It was a mistake to ever include them.

I do study Greek and Jewish idoms.

 

[Valletta]

The Bible only states Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It makes no statement about her virginity lasting her entire life.

Your teaching that Mary had other children is indeed not stated in the Bible.

As stated previously, the early lists were created by Christiam men, not Catholics as Catholicism did not yet exist.

False, the Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. As I said, once the Gospels were written, and this did not occur for over ten years past the date the Catholic Church was founded, the Gospels were quickly used for readings at masses. But other books varied, and the Catholic Church began the process of selecting God-breathed text for the Bible.

Men later removed 7 books because they contained clear contradictions to the rest of Scripture. It was a mistake to ever include them.

Indeed, your list is manmade and is not part of the Word of God. What authority do you believe these men had to remove the books?

 

[Tom8907]

Yes, amen. Mary may have more rewards in heaven than all of us and maybe the greatest prophet but that does not mean we idolise her.

 

[David Lamb]

A state of justification implies sin is not present unless you can find a way where sin and holiness coincide.

Justification doesn't imply never sinning. It is the declaration that God looks upon sinners who believe on His Son as righteous, not because of their own lack of sin, but because their sin is forgiven, and te perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them.

Superfluous verse; we know being in a state of sin and a state of holiness is cannot coexist.

It's not superfluous. David there is saying that he had kept God's laws, yet He had sinned against God in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. He had been forgiven by God

Yes, but David confesses his sins, amends his life with the grace of God. When stated, David is therefore perfect as the father is perfect, a state of being 'right with God' or righteous.

Luke 1:28; "kecharitomene," Greek translated as "full of grace".

Kecharitomene is a particular grammatical form of a word meaning "grace", which is applied to all Christians, not just Mary. It's translated as "made us accepted" in Ephesians:

“to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Eph 1:6 NKJV)

I am a life saver if I keep you from stumbling off the cliff edge or if I catch you after you fell off the cliff on your way down to destruction. Likewise no matter when she receives the state of Grace, it's source and savior is God.

Remember, Jesus Christ, our God, is born of woman and bears the flesh of woman. Isn't it a contradiction to say that good flesh comes from evil flesh? We know that original injustice is inhered, if Christ is born of woman, then wouldn't He inhere original sin?

No, because He was conceived as a result, not of a man having intercourse with her, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

How is it all that is holy becomes the spouse of sin?

What kind of God do you worship?

The Almighty, holy God Who extends His grace to sinners, and sent His Son to die for all who put their trust in Him.

JoeT

 

[LoveofTruth]

Let me take just one example which can be applied to other false claims, I know a tactic of anti-Catholics, often out of frustration in debates with Catholics, is to throw out a long list of multiple accusations that have been refuted time and time again. The topic of this thread is not to see how many false claims can be made against Catholics. I'll take one example and the general principle can be applied to all:

The misinterpretation about Mary and Joseph supposed having other children is not one made by those with an understanding of the Bible and the original Koine Greek. In fact the Greek does not tell us one way or another, it indicates nothing about what happens after the word translated into the English "until." In your case you are following the tradition of your teachers, who provide a teaching OUTSIDE of Holy Scripture, an extra-Biblical teaching. It is a tradition held by some Protestant religions, a man-made tradition. Likewise the word translated into the English "brother" is not limited to brothers with the same parents or even one same parent. To teach that it does is also extra-Biblical. To me I can find no good reason for a Protestant to care one way or another because what does the difference between zero or dozens of more children have to do with your salvation? Those serious about their beliefs, Catholics or Protestants, should study the Greek and learn for themselves.

I understand how one can initially be fooled into believing Catholics somehow go against the Bible. Realize that it was the Catholic Church that decided to compile the books of the Bible, it was more than ten years after the Crucifiction before the first of the Gospels were written. Masses were taking place without any NT readings. Soon Catholics began to have readings of the Gospels at masses. And while the Gospels and other books known to have come straight from the Apostles were accepted at masses there were a number of books that were accepted in some places and not in others. It was the Catholic Church that decided to compile a God-breathed list of books into the Bible, and the controversies as to what was authentically God-breathed and what was not spanned centuries and were not resolved until the late 300s.

One spiritually dangerous false gospel is to trust that wearing a thing called a “scapular”, will save you from the eternal fires of hell.

This is plain and simple, another gospel . If simply wearing a scapular around your neck was enough to save you from the flames, then Christ died in vain and your entire understanding fails.

I believe I read that all Popes wear this scapular and many others also.this is also a works salvation of man by simply “wearing” this. As it says on the back of it,

“Whoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”

Shocking really.

 

[David Lamb]

Your teaching that Mary had other children is indeed not stated in the Bible.

James is called "the Lord's brother". The Greek word is "adelphos", which I understand means either "a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother" or "having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman" or some other meaning that like, "having the same national ancestor" would make no sense in singling James out.

False, the Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. As I said, once the Gospels were written, and this did not occur for over ten years past the date the Catholic Church was founded, the Gospels were quickly used for readings at masses. But other books varied, and the Catholic Church began the process of selecting God-breathed text for the Bible.

I wonder when, according to you, the Roman Catholic Church was founded. If the Roman Catholic Church had been in existence before any of the New Testament was written, hoiw surprising that not one word of that Testament makes any reference to such a church claiming authority over all Christians. There is mention of a local church in Rome, and Paul wrote a letter to its members, but there is nothing to mark that local church out as being over other local churches.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Your teaching that Mary had other children is indeed not stated in the Bible.


False, the Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. As I said, once the Gospels were written, and this did not occur for over ten years past the date the Catholic Church was founded, the Gospels were quickly used for readings at masses. But other books varied, and the Catholic Church began the process of selecting God-breathed text for the Bible.


Indeed, your list is manmade and is not part of the Word of God. What authority do you believe these men had to remove the books?

Neither is it stated that she did not have children. I only said that a natural reading of the text would lead one to conclude she had other children. The RCC started with the belief she remained ever-virgin then tried to explain away texts that indicated she had other children because it did not mesh with their ever-virgin presupposition. I agree we cannot be 100% sure but would it ruin the Catholic faith to believe Mary had other children?

What Catholics call "the mass" is not necessarily what the early church practiced. They had meetings, sang songs, broke bread, etc, but we have no proof they believed in transubstantiation. That would be a distinguishing feature as Protestant churches sing songs, break bread, etc. That they read passages from early Scriptures does not make it a RC mass.

I contend that what started at Pentecost was the church universal. The body of Christ on earth. It was not Roman Catholic. What became known as Roman Catholicism developed over centuries and many of its distinguishing features occurred centuries after the time of the Apostles. The RCC church claims, based on tradition, that their mass goes back to the time of the Apostles but we have no proof of that.

The men who met and canonized the first list of NT books had no authority other than that which God gives to all men to be instructed through the Holy Spirit. It was a gathering of leading bishops of the time to make a joint statement on what books should be considered Scripture. In doing so they were not infallible. Some of the books they included were later judged to be in contradiction to the rest and so were removed. You will have to judge for yourself. The Word of God itself does not provide us with a list so any list we have is manmade but we trust guided by the Holy Spirit. There was not unanimous agreement on some of the books. What emerged was a consensus but not without disagreement. I personally believe the excluded books to be in error and not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. They have some use for historical purposes but I would not base theology on them. I don't believe the RCC has any authority except over its own members.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Justification doesn't imply never sinning. It is the declaration that God looks upon sinners who believe on His Son as righteous, not because of their own lack of sin, but because their sin is forgiven, and te perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them.

It's not superfluous. David there is saying that he had kept God's laws, yet He had sinned against God in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. He had been forgiven by God

Kecharitomene is a particular grammatical form of a word meaning "grace", which is applied to all Christians, not just Mary. It's translated as "made us accepted" in Ephesians:

“to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Eph 1:6 NKJV)

No, because He was conceived as a result, not of a man having intercourse with her, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

The Almighty, holy God Who extends His grace to sinners, and sent His Son to die for all who put their trust in Him.

To add to what David wrote, Biblically salvation is saving us from our sins. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8). Salvation is never described as an act saving us from sinning. Salvation is where our sins are washed by the blood of Christ and we are made righteous through his imputed righteousness. If we have not sinned (as claimed of Mary) there is no sin to save from. Saying God "saved" Mary by not allowing her to sin is using salvation in a way the Bible does not. The entire Catholic argument rests on the Greek word Kecharitomene made popular by Jerome's translation of it in Latin as "full of grace." Arguments are made to say it means she was perfectly graced from beginning to end but such arguments are not agreed upon and do not agree with Scripture that teaches that "all have sinned."

This is another case of reasoning backward from a conclusion. The conclusion was that Mary could not have been a sinner and given birth to a sinless man therefore she must have been sinless. Once that conclusion was reached, attempts were made to support it from Scripture. No NT writer refers to Mary as being sinless. That her sins are not listed is meaningless. There would be no point in naming them and many people are introduced in the Bible without their sins listed. This is not proof she was sinless. Likewise, attempts are made to say "all" does not mean "all" when Scripture says "all have sinned." It is argued that this would make Christ a sinner but clearly he is excluded because unlike the rest of humanity including Mary) he had a divine spirit that did not come from Mary. As Jesus was/is fully God means he cannot sin. That was not because his mother was sinless (she wasn't) but because he is fully God and thus could not sin. He was fully human in his physical being but our sin nature does not come via DNA. It is not something passed genetically.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Actually it is written in Koine Greek as well, Catholics use the Greek Septuagint for the OT because that's what the Apostle's taught from. There is no distinction made in the Greek Septuagint. But as I expressed in my previous post, I go with "he." The original Hebrew allows either "he" or "it' and that too can be translated as "she." I am not surprised that "she" is not seen in any Protestant Bibles given so many important teachings about Mary were eventually dropped. But this does not take away from Mary's role, she is spoken of right there in Genesis and finally in Revelation, so many other important times within the Bible, it is sad that so many wish to deny her her role in salvation history.

The Septuagint was used by the Apostles but not exclusively. Neither does their use of the Septuagint mean they endorsed the Apocryphal books. It would be wrong to infer they only used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew OT. There is one quote in the NT that neither comes from the Hebrew OT or the Septuagint but rather from the Aramaic Targums on the Pentateuch (e.g. Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30). Jesus was quoted as reading from the Hebrew OT in the synagogues.

The original Septuagint, contained only the books of the Pentateuch as translated in Alexandria in 72 days which is what the word Septuagint means (literally 72). That work was later extended, by other authors, to the rest of the Hebrew OT and added the books of the Apocrypha although with some variance. The NT writers did quote from the Septuagint at times but when Jesus read from scrolls in the Synagogue he was probably reading from Hebrew scrolls. While there are allusions to parts of the Apocrypha in the NT, there are no direct quotations from it and its use is more for historical purposes.

No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha. These books were found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew OT. None of the NT writers quoted from them. Since we know the OT was originally written in Hebrew, I would not throw out the Hebrew and only rely on the Greek. There were cases where the Greek translators took indefinite Hebrew words and replaced them with definite Greek words thereby inserting their own interpretation into the text. None of that is to say the Septuagint is of no value as obviously the NT writers did quote from it but they also had access to the Hebrew scriptures. Since they were writing in Greek it made sense to quote from the Septuagint rather than do their own translation from the Hebrew but we trust they knew if an original meaning was changed when the Septuagint was translated.

 

[Sunflower39]

It frustrates and amuses me how Protestants are often lumped together on certain issues. As a Protestant myself, I believe Mary deserves to be honoured, and I don’t see that as crossing into worship.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I repeatedly see Catholics reference the "thousands of Protestant denominations" as proof that we all feel free just to interpret Scripture any way we want as opposed to having a central authority that decides all issues. The truth is, very little separates most Protestant denominations doctrinally. There is agreement on the essential doctrines of the faith. It's not a free-for-all where every church is radically different. There are differences in style. Some follow a liturgy while others don't. Some only sing Psalms or hymns while others will incorporate contemporary Christian music. Some churches are more formal while others are more casual. There is freedom in these things and no need to mandate a liturgy or a style of music.

You have disagreement within the RCC as well but there you have a central authority that can overrule and state what is the official position of the church. Still, you read about individual bishops disagreeing with the Pope all the time. The RCC church also changes its own teaching. For most of Catholic history, the mass was said in Latin with the priest's back to the people. It was forbidden for the mass to be said in any other language. That changed at Vatican II which led to some individual Catholics, including priests, to break away not believing this change to be allowable. There is a lot of variance in what individual priests and bishops believe. In Paul's writings, he gives the qualification for elders and deacons which include married men yet in time the RCC insisted priests must be single and celibate. Why did they diverge from an Apostle's teaching? Why aren't RC churches run by a group of elders like Paul specified? The claim that all RC tradition is based on the teaching of the Apostles is false or there would be married priests (I realize there are some men who were Episcopal or others where marriage was allowed who were able to keep their wives when they converted to Catholicism and became Catholic priests but that is the only exception).

Outsiders don't see the RCC as in total agreement on issues. We do not believe the Magisterium of the RCC has the authority to decide for everyone what the Bible teaches. We do not believe Peter was given "the keys" to mean the authority to decide all things (I have written on that before). We do not see in Scripture any provision made for Peter to have successors. We do not read of Paul or other NT writers referring to Peter as their head. While historically the Bishop of Rome may have come to be the "first among equals", we do not see that in Scripture. It was a manmade tradition aided by the fact that Rome was the center of power and had the ear of the Emporer with Constantine. There is nothing in Scripture that says the church was to be led by a bishop in Rome. Paul never writes of such a thing and he was in Rome. These are RC claims but rejected by non-Catholics as we do not see support for them in Scripture.