If Mary was sinless?

[BigChrisfilm]

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?

 

[Macca]

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?

Read Galations 4: 4. That pretty clearly says tha she was born under law. If she was born under law, then she was affected by Adam's sin, as we all are.

 

[WAB]

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?

It did make it into the Bible...

In what is known as the magnificat, Mary very clearly says... "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit hs rejoiced in God my Savior."

Only a sinner needs a Savior....

Shalom... WAB

Edited to include the reference... Luke 1:46,47.

 

[thereselittleflower]

If Mary was sinless, then how weird it must have been. She wouldn't have obeyed ANY of the laws of the day?

Well, I think that's the first time I've seen that fabrication!

How you got she wouldn't have obeyd an of the laws of the day from, "if Mary was sinless" is quite beyond any right use of logic and reason I have any familiarity with.

It is a wrong use of logic and reason.

It is a LOGICAL FALLACY - NON - SEQUITUR, one of the most blatant I have ever seen in threads here in GT.

The conclusion does not follow the premise. . it is logcally invalid.


Sorry, but saying that she would not have obeyed the laws of the day if she was sinless is pure fantasy on your part.

Doesn't that make her sinfull?

A conclusion of a logical fallacy is also logically false.

Your argument is also another LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN

You simply errected a false argument, your own strawman, one that is easy to attack and defeat, and then attacked it. . . That's all strawman arguments are.

I see lots of straw flying around, not much else . . . .

Not only that, but if she DID obey the laws, then she was being deceitfull.

Again, more straw . . . .

Your argument also engages in another LOGICAL FALLACY - assumes facts not in evidence.

Even Jesus followed the 10 commandments, but he never had to have a sin atonment.

You just defeated your own argument. Attacking strawmen can result in fatal injuries when one gets too carried away. . . ..


If Jesus, being sinless, had to follow the law, then so did Mary, and sinlessness didn't enter into it at all.

Jesus had to keep the whole law of Moses, not just the 10 Commandments, and He had to offer sacrifices as was required of every Jew, or He would have been in violation of the Law of Moses and would have then been guilty of sin.


Your argument just fell totally apart.

Wouldn't someone wonder WHY Mary never had to do anything?

LOLOL . . LOGICAL FALLACY - assumes facts not in evidence. Sorry, but you have provided not one shred of evidence that Mary was any different than Jesus or did not have to obey the Law of Moses.

I don't know where you are getting your ideas and information from, but your soure of information is obviousy flawed.

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?

Two totally different issues being treated as one and the same.

One is the fabrictaed issue that she didn't keep the Law of Moses for which no evidence is presetend to back up such an outlandish claim . . A total and comlete fabricaiton in which your own argument regarding Jesus defeated your own argument regarding Mary . I don't believe I have seen quite the like of this before here in GT.

The other is her sinlessness, and a FALSE requirement/expectation that if she were sinlesss, that the bible would explicitly tell us this.

But this is nothing more than a clear double standard, for, in order to post in this section of CF, one must believe in the Trinity.

Yet the bible never explicitly states 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-pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Yet by posting in this section of CF you are proclaiming to us all that you believe something that is not explicitly stated in the bible.

So, since it is obvious you believe something not explicitly stated in the bible, ie it is only alluded to in the bible, it is a double standard if you require that our belief regarding Mary's sinlessness be explicitly stated in the bible.

Such a requirement is obviously logically invalid on its face and needs no further answer.


It is hypocritical to require of Catholics when one believes these things about the Holy Spirit absent the same type of evidence for it in the bible.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Read Galations 4: 4. That pretty clearly says tha she was born under law. If she was born under law, then she was affected by Adam's sin, as we all are.

Becaise she would have inhereited a fallen human nature from Adam, this is why she needed to be saved from the momment of her conception.

But your argument is a logical fallacy. Non -Sequitur - it does nt follow.

Your conclusion that she would have een affected by Adam's sin becase she was born under the law does not follow.


Being born under the law has to do with timing, when one was born. . . . Mary was born during the Old Covenant, which would have placed her n a time which was under the law, just as Jesus was born under the law and was bound to keep it.




Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

It did make it into the Bible...

In what is known as the magnificat, Mary very clearly says... "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit hs rejoiced in God my Savior."

Only a sinner needs a Savior....

Shalom... WAB

Edited to include the reference... Luke 1:46,47.

No . . one who is prevented from having a fallen human nature predisposing one to sin also needs a savior to accomplish this.



Peace

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Well, I think that's the first time I've seen that fabrication!

How you got she wouldn't have obeyd an of the laws of the day from, "if Mary was sinless" is quite beyond any right use of logic and reason I have any familiarity with.

It is a wrong use of logic and reason.

It is a LOGICAL FALLACY - NON - SEQUITUR, one of the most blatant I have ever seen in threads here in GT.

The conclusion does not follow the premise. . it is logcally invalid.


Sorry, but saying that she would not have obeyed the laws of the day if she was sinless is pure fantasy on your part.




A conclusion of a logical fallacy is also logically false.

Your argument is also another LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN

You simply errected a false argument, your own strawman, one that is easy to attack and defeat, and then attacked it. . . That's all strawman arguments are.

I see lots of straw flying around, not much else . . . .



Again, more straw . . . .

Your argument also engages in another LOGICAL FALLACY - assumes facts not in evidence.





You just defeated your own argument. Attacking strawmen can result in fatal injuries when one gets too carried away. . . ..


If Jesus, being sinless, had to follow the law, then so did Mary, and sinlessness didn't enter into it at all.

Jesus had to keep the whole law of Moses, not just the 10 Commandments, and He had to offer sacrifices as was required of every Jew, or He would have been in violation of the Law of Moses and would have then been guilty of sin.


Your argument just fell totally apart.




LOLOL . . LOGICAL FALLACY - assumes facts not in evidence. Sorry, but you have provided not one shred of evidence that Mary was any different than Jesus or did not have to obey the Law of Moses.

I don't know where you are getting your ideas and information from, but your soure of information is obviousy flawed.





Two totally different issues being treated as one and the same.

One is the fabrictaed issue that she didn't keep the Law of Moses for which no evidence is presetend to back up such an outlandish claim . . A total and comlete fabricaiton in which your own argument regarding Jesus defeated your own argument regarding Mary . I don't believe I have seen quite the like of this before here in GT.

The other is her sinlessness, and a FALSE requirement/expectation that if she were sinlesss, that the bible would explicitly tell us this.

But this is nothing more than a clear double standard, for, in order to post in this section of CF, one must believe in the Trinity.

Yet the bible never explicitly states 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-pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Yet by posting in this section of CF you are proclaiming to us all that you believe something that is not explicitly stated in the bible.

So, since it is obvious you believe something not explicitly stated in the bible, ie it is only alluded to in the bible, it is a double standard if you require that our belief regarding Mary's sinlessness be explicitly stated in the bible.

Such a requirement is obviously logically invalid on its face and needs no further answer.


It is hypocritical to require of Catholics when one believes these things about the Holy Spirit absent the same type of evidence for it in the bible.



Peace

So if Mary was sinless, would she have had to make an atoinment for sins? If not, don't you think someone would have asked her why? If she said, I have never sinned, she would have been the laughing stock of the day. Plain and simple.

 

[thereselittleflower]

So if Mary was sinless, would she have had to make an atoinment for sins? If not, don't you think someone would have asked her why? If she said, I have never sinned, she would have been the laughing stock of the day. Plain and simple.

LOGICAL FALLACY - assumes facts not in evidence.

I have already addressed your questions in this thread and in others . .

Why so many threads about the same thing BigChrisfilm?


Peace

 

[Jig]

I see several religious institutes giving this falsely heightened regard for Mary, that we just don't see in Scriptures. It's highly odd that a woman of such importance (at least to the degree of veneration) would be absent from the epstiles of the NT and hold absolutely no part in the early Church (at least this is what it appears given the inspired writings we have).

I think we see a prime example of this heightened attitude towards Mary in Scripture only to see Jesus Himself level it back down and redirect it to where the attention and veneration should be going to.

Luke 11:27-30


27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
28He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

 

[Under_His_Shadow]

I don't understand why the original poster asked the question? Did someone suggest to you that Mary was sinless? The Bible certainly doesn't teach that. Read Ps.53:2-3; Rom.3:10, 23!

 

[BigChrisfilm]

I don't understand why the original poster asked the question? Did someone suggest to you that Mary was sinless? The Bible certainly doesn't teach that. Read Ps.53:2-3; Rom.3:10, 23!

lol, It's called The Vatican.

 

[Mister Emu]

Did someone suggest to you that Mary was sinless?

The majority of Christendom.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

The majority of Christendom.

Really, I thought it was just the Roman Catholics. Who else believes that?

 

[Mister Emu]

Who else believes that?

Well I know the EOC teaches it,

I believe the OOC teaches it,

beyond that(which already consitutes a majority) I can't remember which ones do and don't...

 

[Jig]

The majority of Christendom.

If you paid any attention to any number of past presidental elections, you would easily understand how the majority aren't always correct or right.

Just because a belief is in the majority, does not make it right. You should know this...

 

[Mister Emu]

I never stated, nor did I mean to imply(though I can see how it is read that way) that majority made right.

I only meant to say that it is not some small cult belief...

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you paid any attention to any number of past presidental elections, you would easily understand how the majority aren't always correct or right.

Just because a belief is in the majority, does not make it right. You should know this...

And just because a majority believes it, that doesn't make it wrong either.

An appeal to majority is not valid in and of itself, that's true. .

But the fact that themajority of all chirstians believe something should make one stand up and take notice if they happen to be one of those who don't and figure out why this is the case rather than just dismiss it, ESPECIALLY when the majority can clearly trace their teachings all the way back to the apostles.


That is the point. . . . .



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well I know the EOC teaches it,

I believe the OOC teaches it,

beyond that(which already consitutes a majority) I can't remember which ones do and don't...

There are protestants who also believe it.


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

First of all, let's be logical, OK?

You have not attacked my faith with much of what you posted.

You simply created strawman arguments that were easy to defeat and then acted as though those strawman arguments you fabricated had something to do with our teaching.

But they were mere fabrications.

They are not our teachng.


So the appropriate response is to identify the logical fallacies being employed, EXPOSE THEM so they can be dealt with, an end it there.

I don't have to defend something the Catholic Church doesn't teach simply because you want to claim they do.


I have seen many fabrications in your claims and arguments about the Catholic Church.

Surely you don't think it is logical to expect one to defend against somthing that has nothing to do with what one believes now do you?


If you do, this is simply another logical fallacy and i will simply call it out . . that is the only necessary response.


It is evident you don't understand the first thing about Catholicism.

I mean, she was obviously NOT sinless.

Again, Logical Fallacy - Assumes facts not in evidence

Again, Logical Fallacy - Ignores facts in evidence

If she was, then she didn't have to make atoinment for sin, which would have cause an uproar. This isn't logical fallacy, it is simple FACT.

Again, Logical Fallacy - Assumes facts not in evidence

Again, Logical Fallacy - Ignores facts in evidence


If you want to debate Catholicism, then first you need to learn how to make a logically valid argument . .



Peace

 

[Jig]

And just because a majority believes it, that doesn't make it wrong either.

An appeal to majority is not valid in and of itself, that's true. .

But the fact that themajority of all chirstians believe something should make one stand up and take notice if they happen to be one of those who don't and figure out why this is the case rather than just dismiss it, ESPECIALLY when the majority can clearly trace their teachings all the way back to the apostles.


That is the point. . . . .



Peace

I'm thinking this was the pattern of thinking the Pharisees used. Did you know they traced their roots back to Moses?

God had a hard time with the majority of Israel (His chosen people) believing correctly...only a small fraction withstood. History has the tendency to repeat itself.