If Mary was sinless?

[Qoheleth]

We needed a savior to save us from our sin. But wait a minute. God gave us a sinless Mary to bear Jesus. So if he did this to Mary, he could have done it for any/all of us. So then why did he send Jesus to die? He had another way to save us from our sin???

Are you sure the problem is sin or is it death?

If our Lord created an individual that could not sin, would or could that person still die or not? If they did not sin, would they age or become fragile or need sleep even?


Q

 

[Benedicta00]

Are you sure the problem is sin or is it death?

If our Lord created an individual that could not sin, would or could that person still die or not? If they did not sin, would they age or become fragile or need sleep even?


Q

Well didn’t Jesus do all those human things? He rose from death because he was God but he still died.

What you describe are human things, not necessarily fallen human things either.

 

[Qoheleth]

Well didn’t Jesus do all those human things? He rose from death because he was God but he still died.

What you describe are human things, not necessarily fallen human things either.

Ok.

My question is directed towards Cyberdyne1 though.

Thanks for your opinion nevertheless


Q

 

[FreeinChrist]

No, the Church tells us this is what Mass is. No opinions involved here. Are you saying that this is not what the Church teaches Mass is?

That's nice -- I understand that it is your view, then. I disagree as the use of 'reveal' as I was using it was to reveal His plan of salvation - it has been revealed. If you and your church feel it is still to be revealed....believe as you wish. Are you trying to tell me what I think?

 

[Benedicta00]

That's nice -- I understand that it is your view, then. I disagree as the use of 'reveal' as I was using it was to reveal His plan of salvation - it has been revealed. If you and your church feel it is still to be revealed....believe as you wish. Are you trying to tell me what I think?

Now you are losing me.

The Mass and a ‘Catholic’ church is what God, in Exodus was dictating what he wanted his place of worship to be. Christ fulfilled it- he did not do away with this house of worship God asked for.

The physical appearance, place of what God asked for in Exodus resembles a Catholic church. The kind of worship that he asked to be given to him is what Catholics do at Mass.

The book of Revelation re-affirms the kind of house and kind of worship God wants.

I know you no doubt disagree with this... And that’s okay... but please do not tell me that this is my opinion. It is what the Church says. My opinion has nothing to do with it. It’s the Church’s teaching.

 

[stone]

that makes it your churches opinion that you agree with

 

[GraceInHim]

That's nice -- I understand that it is your view, then. I disagree as the use of 'reveal' as I was using it was to reveal His plan of salvation

actually the word revealed or unveiled is Revelation

sorry, back to topic

 

[Benedicta00]

that makes it your churches opinion that you agree with

The Church’s teachings are not opinions but the faith that Jesus Christ left for us.

 

[BearerBob]

If Mary was sinless, then how weird it must have been. She wouldn't have obeyed ANY of the laws of the day? Doesn't that make her sinfull? Not only that, but if she DID obey the laws, then she was being deceitfull. Even Jesus followed the 10 commandments, but he never had to have a sin atonment. Wouldn't someone wonder WHY Mary never had to do anything? Wouldn't that have been made a BIG deal, and certainly, it would have made it into the bible? If she was sinless, then why doesn't they bible come right out and say that?

If Mary was sinless then the law worked and Jesus' sacrifice was not needed.

 

[FreeinChrist]

actually the word revealed or unveiled is Revelation

sorry, back to topic

? and?

As i was using it, through the OT tabernacle, God was revealing His plan of salvation, though it was clearly revealed when Christ came, died and rose again.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Now you are losing me.

The Mass and a ‘Catholic’ church is what God, in Exodus was dictating what he wanted his place of worship to be. Christ fulfilled it- he did not do away with this house of worship God asked for.


The physical appearance, place of what God asked for in Exodus resembles a Catholic church. The kind of worship that he asked to be given to him is what Catholics do at Mass.

The book of Revelation re-affirms the kind of house and kind of worship God wants.

I know you no doubt disagree with this... And that’s okay... but please do not tell me that this is my opinion. It is what the Church says. My opinion has nothing to do with it. It’s the Church’s teaching.

So you agree with what your church teaches - your opinon agrees with your church's opinion .
You wrote earlier, "I don’t see any Protestant churches looking anything like what God asked his house of worship to look like. "

That is your opinion. He didn't tell us to put gold fixtures or icons or even an alter in a church. I see nothing in scripture relating to the early church with instructions like that. And - gasp - they met in people's homes!

And in YOUR opinion, the Catholic church is the tabernacle now - I disagree. And I have stated why:
No, the tabernacle in heaven is for the New Covenant.
Christ is sitting at the right hand of God as our High Priest and Interecessor:

Hbr 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


Hbr 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

Hbr 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Hbr 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.
Hbr 4:16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.


The Old Covenant beleivers had to have an earthly temple and repeated sacrifices. We can, through the Holy Spirit, approach the heavenly throne. We can do this because Jesus was the better Mediator of a better covenant based on better promises and made with a better sacrifice (once for all) that was offerred at a better temple (heavenly) by the better Priest,who holds His Priesthood forever and and is always interceding for us. (Hebrews in a nutshell)

 

[icedtea]

Mary wasn't sinless because the sin nature is passed along from the father. Which explains why Jesus didn't have one, even though He was born from Mary.

 

[thereselittleflower]

If Mary was sinless then the law worked and Jesus' sacrifice was not needed.

I see no basis or evdence for such a conclusion.

This is a Non Sequitur . .the conclusion does not follow.






Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Mary wasn't sinless because the sin nature is passed along from the father. Which explains why Jesus didn't have one, even though He was born from Mary.

That is a convenient argument to deny the need for Mary's sinlessness, but that makes no sense. I have seen it argued before, however, I have never seen solid evidence to support such a notion.

Your claim needs to be backed up with solid evidence. I see no possibility for that to occur.


The reason it cannot work is because you are saying that the father passes on the wounded human nature.

Now, follow with me the implications of such a claim

• 1. The father passes on the wounded human nature
  2. That means it is the father who passes on the human nature, which for all humans after the fall, happens to be wounded
  3. Jesus did not have a human father.
  4. That means Jesus had no one to pass on a wounded human nature
  5. That means Jesus had no one to pass on a human nature, even a wounded one
  6. That means Jesus did not have a human nature!

To deny Jesus had a human nature is one of the many CHRISTOLOGICAL HERESIES that the Early Church had to deal with.


Jesus had 2 natures, a DIVINE nature and a HUMAN nature.

In order to have a human nature, He had to have taken it from His mother Mary.


This totally invalidates your claim, for according to your claim, a human father is necessary to pass on a human nature. . . but Jesus did not have a human father.


Obviously, His human nature was passed on from Mary.

If she had a flawed, wounded human nature, then that is what she would have had to pass on, then Jesus would have had a woulnded human nature and would have been in need of saving Himself


But He did not inherit a wounded human nature, but a perfect and sound and whole human nature, free of the stain of Adam's sin.

He got that unwounded human nature from Mary, who had to possess it herself in order to be able to pass it on.


She possessed hers because God healed her, saved her at the momment of conception - ie God INTERVENED. Jesus possessed His human nature from conception because He received it NATURALLY from Mary - God did NOT intervene regarding His human nature at the momment of conception.

So where Mary needed internvention, ie a SAVIOR at the momment of her conception, Jesus did not.







Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Church’s teachings are not opinions but the faith that Jesus Christ left for us.

I think this is a ccncept and a distincton some find very hard to grasp.


Peace

 

[revduane]

That is a convenient argument to deny the need for Mary's sinlessness, but that makes no sense. I have seen it argued before, however, I have never seen solid evidence to support such a notion.

Your claim needs to be backed up with solid evidence. I see no possibility for that to occur.


The reason it cannot work is because you are saying that the father passes on the wounded human nature.

Now, follow with me the implications of such a claim

• 1. The father passes on the wounded human nature
  2. That means it is the father who passes on the human nature, which for all humans after the fall, happens to be wounded
  3. Jesus did not have a human father.
  4. That means Jesus had no one to pass on a wounded human nature
  5. That means Jesus had no one to pass on a human nature, even a wounded one
  6. That means Jesus did not have a human nature!

To deny Jesus had a human nature is one of the many CHRISTOLOGICAL HERESIES that the Early Church had to deal with.


Jesus had 2 natures, a DIVINE nature and a HUMAN nature.

In order to have a human nature, He had to have taken it from His mother Mary.


This totally invalidates your claim, for according to your claim, a human father is necessary to pass on a human nature. . . but Jesus did not have a human father.


Obviously, His human nature was passed on from Mary.

If she had a flawed, wounded human nature, then that is what she would have had to pass on, then Jesus would have had a woulnded human nature and would have been in need of saving Himself


But He did not inherit a wounded human nature, but a perfect and sound and whole human nature, free of the stain of Adam's sin.

He got that unwounded human nature from Mary, who had to possess it herself in order to be able to pass it on.


She possessed hers because God healed her, saved her at the momment of conception - ie God INTERVENED. Jesus possessed His human nature from conception because He received it NATURALLY from Mary - God did NOT intervene regarding His human nature at the momment of conception.

So where Mary needed internvention, ie a SAVIOR at the momment of her conception, Jesus did not.







Peace

Where does it say that mary was conceived sinnless, or without original sin. Show me what you would call, solid Biblical evidence, Scriptures, and verses that say that mary was healed in the womb. Because the spirit is never ever healed. It is quickened, and Born-Again.

So for Mary to be sinnless, or conceived without original sin, then God would be obligated by His own actions, to quicken everyone else in the world while in the womb. And Mary is a direct descenent of Adam. Luke Chap 3.

So that would make the scripture that says.

I am the way the truth, and the life. Nobody goes to the Father but by me.

A lie.

 

[aboutface]

here is an offbeat thought.Look at Genesis
Gen 2:16 But the LORD told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden,
Gen 2:17 except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him."


Now it seems to me that Eve wasn't actually there when the order was issued. Was she?

Gen 3:2 The woman answered, "God said we could eat fruit from any tree in the garden,
Gen 3:3 except the one in the middle. He told us not to eat fruit from that tree or even to touch it.

Now that last little bit wasn't true. Was it?

Now to my way of thinking God put Adam in charge, with Eve to be his helper, therefore the responsibility for sinbeing passed down is in the male side of the human line. If then Mary gave birth to a son without the interference of a human male ( Parthenogenesis) then the blood inheritence of sin is lost to the child. Mary however did have a human father and so she was not excluded from the blood inheritence of sin.
By the by Gen 3:15 states categorically in any language that it is the seed of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent and it is the heel of the child that will be struck by the snake ( excuse me serpent).
What one must remember when discussing scritpure with Catholics is the Catholic church holds a caveat. That being:
All scripture is divinely inspired except where scripture disagrees with catholic doctrine.
Here in lies the difficulty faced when trying to use scripture to prove doctrine. Any and all scripture can be ignored by the judiciuos application of this caveat. Mind you having said that, the postmodern protestant church is in no better a boat. So there we have it I can "bash" both sides of the fence. Please learn to read the scriptures with your ears and eyes open to the Holy Spirit, and let Him not the church, your pastor or even me be the one you believe. Who netter to ask then the One who inspired it? Who better to ask then the Counsellor? Who better to turn to then God Almighty when your mind is clouded with opinion( mine or yours.)
Bless you

 

[revduane]

Where does it say that mary was conceived sinnless, or without original sin. Show me what you would call, solid Biblical evidence, Scriptures, and verses that say that mary was healed in the womb. Because the spirit is never ever healed. It is quickened, and Born-Again.

So for Mary to be sinnless, or conceived without original sin, then God would be obligated by His own actions, to quicken everyone else in the world while in the womb. And Mary is a direct descenent of Adam. Luke Chap 3.

So that would make the scripture that says.

I am the way the truth, and the life. Nobody goes to the Father but by me.

A lie.

Also when we are healed of a disease or broken bone. We are healed, but we still have the same inner nature. So if our spirit was healed, then we would still have the exact same nature as before. and wouldn't be a new Creature in christ.

Because I still sin, but i don't want to. I don't want to offend or hurt God. But before my spirit was reborn, when I sinned, I could've cared less, because there was no Holy Spirit in me to even want a new nature of repentence. So to enter the Kingdom of heaven, my spirit must be reborn, and covered by the blood. And the only way to be reborn, is by the accepted gift of Salvation, given by God's Grace. So to be born-again, and to partake in the last will and testament of Jesus. The testator ( Jesus) had to die.

Because a testament of last will, cannot be dispersed until the testator dies.

 

[Cyberdyne1]

Then why are they 2 billion Catholics worldwide?

So more numbers = Right?

Actually the Word says more people will go to hell then will go to heaven...

 

[Benedicta00]

If Mary was sinless then the law worked and Jesus' sacrifice was not needed.

I don't really understand this point.

How would that mean the law worked?

And what's wrong with the law working anyway? You disbelieve that when we follow the 10 commandments that works in our life and we are happiest and then when we break them, we literally break down in our lives and are miserable?

Mary was not under the law because she was created free of original sin, she was under grace. She didn’t have the moral struggles and a fallen human nature that would be inclined to sin. She had a human nature made in a state of original justice that was saved from inheriting the stain of original sin that would have caused her nature to be fallen.

So what does your statement have to do with this?


Original sin is why we were given the law in the first place, because fallen human nature is inclined to immorality and sin so God gave the law for us to follow it. God sent Christ to make atonement for original sin (the reason why we can not follow it all the time) and for all the times we don't follow it.

I sure hope following the law works for us because if it doesn’t then God and Christianity is a sham.