Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because not everyone believes that Mary was The mother of (not only her LORD) but our LORDIf Mary was conceived without sin, then why couldn't everyone be?
Because not everyone believes that Mary was The mother of (not only her LORD) but our LORD
And...because our mother is "Eve"
We mut be born again of (THE SEED). ..CHRIST
And that's not a natural birth and has nothing to do with passing on genes
There's no reason to think that Mary WAS conceived without sin, but if she was...If Mary was conceived without sin, then why couldn't everyone be?
It's not a blessing to be sent out from the original and holy presence of full fellowship with GOD to be covered in a tainted covering and the way blocked lest we eat from the "TREE OF LIFE"I've never heard the original blessing possibility, but that's an optimistic way of looking at it.
That she is the Mother of MY LORD
Just as Elizabeth, filled with the HOLY SPIRIT understood
Jesus did not reveal His glory while in the womb though, did He.What happened when anyone saw the Glory of God?
and yet..it is so. For Jesus was not born of Adam but of God ..the seed was not of Adam .Mary was not sinless as that would and does contradict plain scripture .nor did she need to beJesus is fully man, and fully God.
I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?
For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless
I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.
Where were you born?I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.
Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a world where there was real good and evil.
In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."
Grace means unearned favour.. the manifestation of God in the flesh .come to die for us all is the same Grace ,the same unearned favor ..it doesn't make a person sinless just favored very mercifully.That isn't true. Good luck finding a reference. "[T]his concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the bond of sin to a man's posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from it by regeneration."
Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:23 (A.D. 420).
"a man's posterity" means future generations, it doesn't exclude women from original sin.
Sex was evil to the Gnostic heretics. They were the ones Paul was talking about who "forbade marriage" in 1 Tim. 4:3. What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin. Moreover, the rather earthy Jewish attitude toward sex lacks entirely the Christian distaste for it.
You mean the Puritan distaste for it, an offshoot of Calvinism. Marriage has always been a sacrament since God established it in Genesis.
Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says
Group says Catholics have more enjoyable sex, more often.
No early church father taught that. I think you are confused.
Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his sperm on the ground.
Gen. 38:9 - also, the author's usage of the graphic word "seed," which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan's death.
The sin is contraception, not murder.
Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).
Your theory is flawed. Where did Jesus get His humanity from?
No, it didn't matter, but God saw it was fitting.
They didn't have microscopes in the 1st century??? What stupid Catholics!
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception hinges on the Word of God delivered by an angel, "Hail Mary! Full of Grace!!!"
The question is WHEN she was Full of Grace. It's a phrase in royal terms.
She did not have the HOLY SPIRIT, but the HOLY SPIRIT had revealed to her THE TRUTH, which is why she glorifies GOD in her MagnificatI still don't understand, I assume Mary was not sinless? But was she filled with the Holy Spirit, or did she have the Holy Spirit.
a sinner. "for all have sinned and fallen short...."
Jesus did not reveal His glory while in the womb though, did He.
Ah, here's where the speculation begins. If Mary were to carry and give birth to the baby Jesus, wouldn't that be tacky or untoward or inglorious, assuming that Mary was a sinner like every other mortal? Why, yes, says the mind of man. Therefore, it could not be, says the mind of man. And so the "remedy" to that situation is invented and we call it the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.More to the point why wouldn't God just cause Jesus to be conceived without sin? What would be the point in Mary being conceived without sin?
She did not have the HOLY SPIRIT, but the HOLY SPIRIT had revealed to her THE TRUTH, which is why she glorifies GOD in her Magnificat
Which is why Elizabeth glorified GOD
Which is why Zechariah glorified GOD
These outbursts magnifying GOD are because THE HOLY SPIRIT revealed to them the TRUTH
But no one had received the HOLY SPIRIT and would not receive the HILY SPIRIT until after CHRIST entered into HIS GLORY (the GLORY which HE had with the FATHER before the world ever was)
But THE CHRIST has to suffer before entering into HIS GLORY and before the HOLY SPIRIT would be poured out upon all those who would believe
Ah, here's where the speculation begins. If Mary were to carry and give birth to the baby Jesus, wouldn't that be tacky or untoward or inglorious, assuming that Mary was a sinner like every other mortal? Why, yes, says the mind of man. Therefore, it could not be, says the mind of man. And so the "remedy" to that situation is invented and we call it the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Interestingly enough, that turn of phrase is found in the King James Version of the Bible. Almost every other one uses "have found favor with God" or words similar to that. So we have the Catholic churches insisting that "full of grace" means something like "fill 'er up" at the gas pump, all the while they consider the KJV to be inferior to their own translations of the Bible.I am a Calvinist Baptist, so I strongly believe all have fallen short of the Glory of God, and are dead in their sins, and slaves to sin, and need to be given faith so that they can be saved, even faith its a gift.
Scripture does say Mary was Full of Grace, I'm not sure what they implies I am seeking out this matter
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?