If Mary was sinless?

Status
Not open for further replies.

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
MorganParadise said:
Its not profitable for either of us to through sticks at each other so peace. I dont think I could change your mind anymore than you could change mine.

Well, my purpose was not to throw sticks, but to logically examine the arguments so the truth, facts and legitimat argument can be indentied as well as the illegitimate ones.


My purpose was to show you the false dichotomy you were erecting . . the double standard. . .


I was trying to show you that it is not a logically valid requirement to require of us a level of evidence you yourself cannot produce for those beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.


If you can agree this is inappropriate to do, then we can go on to the implicit evidence with a common point of understanding that explicit evidence is not needed.



If you are willing to agree to this, we can continue if you like :)



Peace
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
nephilimiyr said:
This reminds me of the story in 1 Samuel of the Israelites demanding a human King and just because all the other nations had one.
1 Samuel 8:20, That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

The only thing is, in the 1 Samuel account of Saul becomeing Israels first King, God decided to apease the people.
1 Samuel 8:22, And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

God pretty much said 'fine, you don't want to listen to me, then go ahead and have your king'.

Yet I see nowhere in the New testament where God plays this out once again. With Jesus Christ God drew the line. In Matthew 17 God declares during the trasfiguration:
Matthew 17:5, While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
What was it that brought God to declare this? Peter words of religion!
Matthew 17:4, Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
The same spirit that caused the Israelites to demand a king also caused Peter to say what he said there. God said he isn't going to go through that again! this time however God put His foot down and said NO! here is my Son, listen to Him! He is the power and He is the authority, not a church.

And since the transfiguration man has continued to go back to that same spirit. Wanting and even demanding that a church be the power and authority. But God said, "hear ye him"


One can even say... instead of "give us a king like the other nations have." In the church age, some said. "Give us religious leadership like the pagan religions have. One that will tell us what to do and think without question."

I think you're onto something, Neph!

Grace and peace, GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Benedicta00 said:
This is a non-issue; another false assumption based on a false premise. Catholics do take the written word of God as our authority. Of course it’s authoritative… :eek:

Have we ever suggested anywhere in our 2000 year history is wasn’t? :scratch:

We just don’t take it as our only and sole authority and give each and every believer on the planet who lived or who will ever live the sole authority to interpret what it says to others.

We just look to the whole of God’s word, the oral as well and not limit ourselves to just the written and we look to the Church to TEACH us the Christian faith the bible backs up.

But your oral law is in writing. God did not see fit to have it included in Scripture. Why is that? If it truly had equal authority, it would have been included in the canon. I think God is the one who determined what is Scripture, and what is simply commentary.....

1 Corinthians 4:6 niv
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another."
Do not go beyond what is written. If an early church father claimed something to be true? And, its not covered in Scripture? Then, do not go beyond what is written. If you do, you are preferring this man over those who God carried along by the Holy Spirit to write what is contained in Scripture.

If your church did not go beyond what is written? Amazingly! You would be much more in agreement with those who followed after the Reformation, and the Apostles before in their writings. Amazing!

Grace and truth, GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
FreeinChrist said:
well, I disgree. I don't see ANYTHING from the writings of the time of Mary or before that discusses "temple vergins" or that it was a practice.
I while I will respect your view that it comes from the "Orthodox" churches as you understand them, I believe it is an addition that came later and not an original teaching from the Apostles.

If she were a Temple virgin she would not have left the Temple, or special assigned quaters. And, she would have never have been engaged to Joseph. And, Jesus on the Cross would not have told John to take Mary into his house as his mother. I have no idea how this argument got started. But, it makes no sense if one knew what a Temple virgin had required of her. Some became dedicated like a temple virgin later in life. Like some become priests after his wife died.

Luke 2:37 niv
and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying.
Jesus on the Cross,told John to keep his Mary in his house. Not the Temple.

John 19:25-27 (New International Version)
" Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."


And, Gabriel met Mary in her home. Not at the Temple.

Luke 1:26-28 niv
"In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

Last time I checked? The Temple was not located in Galilee! Temple virgins never left the Temple, or their assigned quarters. Mary was no Temple virgin at any time in her life.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,643
17,337
USA/Belize
✟1,738,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
HowardDean said:
Those of us christians are supposed to be fighting the schemes of the wicked one who is very active. We shouldn't be arguing.
Divide and conquer seems to work. :(

Unfortunately, those of us who do not beleive she was sinless, and even had children after having jesus are labeled as bashing her and being "disrespectful", etc. Mutual respect is not granted.
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Benedicta00 said:
Gwen this is a non issue because we know… we know… we know… a thousand times we know that she was from the same line we are all from and that is the human race. We know she would have been subject to sin like all of us. That is not our premise.

Our premise is simple and based on scripture and the early Church. It is that she was saved at her conception and the sin that is passed down by virtue of us being a human being did not infect her… because God prevented it from. If He had not done this Mary would have inherited the sin for the very reasons you give as to why she had the sin.

Mary herself tells us that she rejoices in God her savior and he who is mighty has done great things to her and that all of us will call her blessed.

Well....at least you have a theory...
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
mesue said:
No,the church preaches, the Holy Spirit teaches.
I know so many out there believe this but it’s not true in the way it’s commonly understood by Protestants.

In fact, that statement doesn't even make sense. :scratch:

Of course the Holy Spirit teaches us. We learn through our mistakes and sins that we commit and if we are open and responsive to God’s grace the Holy Spirit will lead us and guide us back on the right path. This is one way he “teaches” us.

The Holy Spirit’s job is to sanctify us and convict us of our sins, to draw us to God, to bring us to a place in our lives where God can transform us.

The Holy Spirit is one and God has but one truth. The Holy Spirit indeed leads is to the one holy truth of God but we have to be willing to go where he leads.

He does not force a person to accept the truth. A person’s will is always his to believe in what he wants, for what ever his reasons are.

The good news about God is, even if a person is drifting away from the fullness of truth he still can use this in order to bring him back to the truth. IOW, sometimes God allows us to leave His Church, puts us where we are at in order that we may be able to see what we couldn't see before. He’ll sometimes allow us to stray in order to lead us back.

But the Holy Spirit does not teach us the bible. The proof of that is in the pudding. If that were true, we would all believe the same things and we don’t.

Christ gave the Holy Spirit to His Church to lead her, guide her and to protect her from ever teaching the world an error and when we sit down and read the bible, which came from the Church’s authority to teach us BTW, we indeed can be inspired by the Spirit to come to know certain things but we are never left to ourselves to legislate doctrine through picking up a bible, reading it for ourselves and then determine what we think it says and then going on to teach someone else our error.

This is not a role the Holy Spirit plays in teaching us truth. If it were, then we would all believe in the same things and we don’t.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
MorganParadise said:
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

For the love of all holiness, let's go through Romans 3 again. Please read the verse again carefully in light of what I have to say.

We know Paul is not speaking of actual sin but original sin because not all people born into this world will commit a personal sin.

Next, if no man can “seekth after God” then why did Moses? Why did Abraham? Why did Mary say she was the handmaiden of the Lord?

These and many others indeed sought after God. So we know Paul does not mean ‘’all’ people can not seek after God because we can read that many of them did.

Looking at this from the perspective of predestination, God does elect people and rises them up for certain roles he destined them to have and they are given special graces in order to seek after God so God’s plan of salvation can be fulfilled. Mary was no exception, just as Moses wasn’t, just as Abraham wasn’t.

So when Paul said “all” Paul was NOT being literal.

What Paul meant was mankind is fallen from grace and mankind needs a savior. He is talking to the JEWISH converts.

They did not have a concept of original sin, why they could not keep the law and why the animal sacrifices was never enough.

Because they had a underlying sin- Adam’s sin. That nothing, not the law, no sacrifice ever could remove, because it wasn’t their sin, it was Adam’s sin.

They could not atone for it no matter if they did keep the law perfectly, no matter how perfect a sacrifice they gave, no matter how contrite their repentance was, they could not make an atonement for original sin.

Christ came and diagnosed the problem as well as fixed it. This is what Paul is explaining to these Jews.

We are no longer under the law but grace. Only Christ is our atonement for original sin, a concept that was foreign to the Jews until Paul made them aware.

So the solution is we have to be born again to be in God’s grace permanently. No law, no good Jew can put us in a state of grace, we have to redeemed by Christ.

And MARY was.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
HowardDean said:
I've read certain words in the original Greek can mean things other than exactly. What word translated ALL in those verses means almost all?
In the original language used, the word all and the word many were interchangeable.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
FreeinChrist said:
Unfortunately, those of us who do not beleive she was sinless, and even had children after having jesus are labeled as bashing her and being "disrespectful", etc. Mutual respect is not granted.

I didn't understand the comment to be as all inclusive as you are insinuating it was . .


Some bash . . some don't. . .that is just a fact of life for Catholics here in GT when our beliefs are disucssed . . .


I am sorry you don't see it happening . . . but I am also sorry you think that when someone makes such a comment that it is all inclusive . . . . I think what is important is to try to understand what the person is saying, instead of painting with so wide a brush and automatically assuming it applies to you or others when you simply state your (collective you) disagreements and why. :)



Peace
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟50,355.00
Faith
Catholic
Benedicta00 said:
That’s based on God’s Holy Word revealed to mankind. Tradition, which includes oral as well as written.

The same thing believing that the Holy Spirit is
    1. CO-Equal with the Father and the Son
    2. CO-Eternal with the Father and the Son
    3. CO-Eternally PRE-EXISTANT with the Father and the Son

Is based on. :)



Peace
 
Upvote 0
Sep 10, 2005
1,620
1,693
61
SE
✟16,768.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
thereselittleflower said:
How do you know your commentaries are really authoritative to speak correctly on this matter?


When did God invest any of those men with the authoirty and ability to comment infallibly on scripture?


Without such proof, you are merely reading the words of men .. and if they have already presupposed a certain theology, they are going to look at commenting on the scriptures in light of their theology . . not the other way around . . . :)


The purpose of commentaries is to comment on scriptures in light of what one believes to be right belief . . .

But if one is wrong in what they believe to be right belief, those errors are going to find their way into the commentary.


One has to read commentaries in light of this fact. ..



Peace
I have faith in the commentaries I studied and the work of the Holy Spirit, which dwells within me.

CC&E
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sep 10, 2005
1,620
1,693
61
SE
✟16,768.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Benedicta00 said:
Al of us are always under the natural law.

Christians are always under the divine law.

What we are no longer under is the OT law.

And the Church does not interpret the natural law.

That is written on all our hearts. All mentally competent people know right from wrong regardless what faith, religion they are or even if they have no faith or religion at all.

And the Church does not interpret the divine law but rather she TEACHES the divine law both oral and written to us in order that we may know truth and know it correctly with out any margin of error.
I think you are playing word games here.

CC&E
 
Upvote 0

Augustine_Was_Calvinist

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2004
5,493
89
✟6,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
FreeinChrist said:
And your scripture use was refuted. Example:

Originally Posted by: Benedicta00
Here is your scripture Chris.

God says to the serpent right here that he is going to create Mary free from sin.




The scripture given:

Genesis 3: 15 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:


No, it doesn't say she will be sinless.




The world’s savior will come through Mary’s saying yes to God.


That the Savior came through mary is not disputed, but the scripture you provided reads differently for Catholics in the Douay-rheims than for Protestants:

Your post has it:
she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel

KJV
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

NASB
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Whose heel was 'bruised" or pierced? The Son's - not the mother's.




Here the angel greets Mary who is to be the “new Eve”.



The scripture you provided:
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

I don't see that she is called the "new Eve". You are adding that interpretation to the verse. IMHO



Here is where Mary gives her fiat. The head of Satan is crushed.


The scripture you provided:
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Again, you added your interpretation to the verse. Eisegesis. Satan's head wasn't crushed at that time, nor does that verse say that. In fact, his head is yet to be crushed - need to wait for the Antichrist to be defeated.



And here is her canticle. She says herself what God has done for her right here.


The scripture you provided:
46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.

Again, to assume sinlessness out of that is adding to the verse.



And then we see in Revelation Mary, she is the great ‘sign” that John sees in heaven. This sign is the same woman in Genesis. Satan was told this sign, 'the woman' will crush his head, so he goes after her who is Mary to get her and her child who is Jesus but check out how he can not reach her in order to stop her from bringing fourth our savior, check out how she was protected from him by God and when Satan can’t get Mary or Jesus, he wages war on us.


Actually that is all interpretation too. Doesn't say she is sinless either.
The woman is Israel.....that is why the stars and moon and sun. Familiar with Joseph's dream where the stars represent his brothers and the sun and moon, Israel and his wife? Christ was promised as coming from Israel, the line Judah and through the line of David. Mary was the one to be the mother of Christ, but she isn't what is referred to in Rev. 12.



:thumbsup:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FreeinChrist again.


 
Upvote 0

Augustine_Was_Calvinist

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2004
5,493
89
✟6,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
thereselittleflower said:
Some bash . . some don't. . .that is just a fact of life for Catholics here in GT when our beliefs are disucssed . . .

In reality, a fact of life is that most Roman Catholics use the "bashing" gambit as an excuse to employ the dialectical tactic of smearing and "bashing" Protestants and non-Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

Augustine_Was_Calvinist

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2004
5,493
89
✟6,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
judaica said:
Okay I see. Well the statement made by TLF is illogical. I don't mean that as a slur against her, it's philosophically illogical. If Mary had to be sinless in order for Christ to be sinless, then we'd have to (to be logically consistent) say the same about Mary's mom and back and back and back til we got to Eve. As I think you've kinda been saying or asking or whatever.

Eggsackly, it's an argument of infinite regress and irrational and illogical.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

judaica

Guest
FreeinChrist said:
For all we know, those women were widows. Even probably, of the line of Levi. There is a stretch from that to "temple virgins."

They were probably more likely virgins than widows or married. The men who were sleeping with these women were the sons of Eli (ie they were relatively young). That's not to say that there weren't young widows, but odds are that the majority of the widows at the time were probably past child bearing age, since mortality was quite high in those days for child-bearing women and their children. The odds that they were married, is even more remote, because Eli's sons as corrupt as they were, probably would not have transgressed the Law that openly and blantantly (incurring death) (Lev 20:10).

In addition, widows were not as prized as virgins. An Israelite male would have prefered a virgin, if he had a choice in the matter.

Judaica
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.