Mary Sinless?

[Kat8765]

If we were suppose to make such a big deal about Mary's virginity throughout her life, why wouldn't Paul or Peter say something about it in their writings early on?

I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I do know that Mary's perpetual virginity was a teaching as far back as the second century, which we can only gather is based on first century knowledge. These beliefs are older than the ones claiming Mary had other children and she was not perpetually a virgin. I think these claims were made somewhere in the around 380 AD.

I'll have to ask around about Paul or Peter. I'll get back to you.

 

[calluna]

I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I do know that Mary's perpetual virginity was a teaching as far back as the second century, which we can only gather is based on first century knowledge. These beliefs are older than the ones claiming Mary had other children and she was not perpetually a virgin.

That is hardly a credible claim to make, is it, because Christianity was illegal from Trajan until Constantine, and only ideas acceptable to Rome would have survived in that time.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

That is hardly a credible claim to make, is it, because Christianity was illegal from Trajan until Constantine, and only ideas acceptable to Rome would have survived in that time.

would the Holy Spirit allow the entire Church to go so much into error right in the beginning?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The problem is that that "sacred tradition" goes against the teachings in the Bible that all humans have fallen.

Mary was saved by God too. Only at her conception. But she was also redeemed.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Here's some information on Mary's perpetual virginity:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm
Scroll to the bottom for quotes by the ECFs..

the early Church - just like the Catholic Church today - cared very much that they taught the same things that the Apostles taught. Apostolic Succession was one of the arguments they used against Gnosticism (gnostics also supported their views with Scripture!) So if they taught that Mary was a virgin, it's VERY likely that that's what the Apostles taught too.
Why is it not in the Bible? Well the Bible tells us to hold fast to the traditions that were handed down by word or by letter... I guess this one was 'by word'! The Church is not sola scriptura.. it ALL comes from the Holy Spirit; the Bible and Tradition (with a capital letter)

 

[MrStain]

Jeremiah 1:5 says no such thing. It says he was appointed, not sanctified. There is a HUGE difference.

same thing with John, too... That doesn't mean he never sinned, it doesn't mean he never was married or had sex. Could he have never married? Sure. although I'd argue that since he was human he had to have sinned (plus we're filled with the Spirit, too, and we still sin)

How many translations did you look at? I see several reputable translations that do in fact use the word "sanctified". Regardless of the translation (appointed, sanctified, hallowed) the point still remains the same, which is God has set special people apart throughout salvation history to fulfill a Divine purpose.

And I agree with what you are saying about when she was impregnated, I'm just saying we don't know when the exact conception was, it isn't like there is a point she knew because that's when she had sex or something like with most kids... But those phrases you described in Luke 1:31 and 35 can be multiple tenses, just because they are future tense in English doesn't mean they were in Greek (nor does it mean that's what the angel said). The word is used in other places in other tenses...

Well, I just took at look at those verses in the Greek and it appears that the words related to her conception by the Holy Spirit (conceive, bear, come, overshadow) are all in the future tense. So, again, she is considered to be "full of grace" even before becoming the God bearer.

 

[larry_boy_44]

would the Holy Spirit allow the entire Church to go so much into error right in the beginning?

considering the amount of time it took the entire nation of Israel to go from right with God to directly opposing God in every way...

I'd say "YES!"

 

[larry_boy_44]

Mary was saved by God too. Only at her conception. But she was also redeemed.

and niether of those things mean she was sinless...

In fact, in order for her to need salvation and be capable of being redeemed, she would have had to sin at some point...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here's some information on Mary's perpetual virginity:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm
Scroll to the bottom for quotes by the ECFs..

the early Church - just like the Catholic Church today - cared very much that they taught the same things that the Apostles taught. Apostolic Succession was one of the arguments they used against Gnosticism (gnostics also supported their views with Scripture!) So if they taught that Mary was a virgin, it's VERY likely that that's what the Apostles taught too.
Why is it not in the Bible? Well the Bible tells us to hold fast to the traditions that were handed down by word or by letter... I guess this one was 'by word'! The Church is not sola scriptura.. it ALL comes from the Holy Spirit; the Bible and Tradition (with a capital letter)

yet at the same time, they also warned against the traditions of men and taught against tradition (actually, they taught against tradition more)...

and it isn't very likely... The fact is, if we look at the history of humanity and God, humanity turns against God completely very, very fast.

 

[larry_boy_44]

How many translations did you look at? I see several reputable translations that do in fact use the word "sanctified". Regardless of the translation (appointed, sanctified, hallowed) the point still remains the same, which is God has set special people apart throughout salvation history to fulfill a Divine purpose.
[\quote]

looknig again, it appears the passage in question is most often translated to "Set you apart" or "consecrated you" and only the KJV seems to have "sanctified you"...

even the Hebrew word seems to imply that God had a plan for him, not that God made him somehow Holy...

look at the definition of "sanctify":

1: to set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use

it isn't about being saved or being pure, but it means that there is a use you have been set aside for...

 

[MrStain]

Yeah, it was a little Jack Chick admittedly but it isn't like it would be the first time the church did something like that (see: Christmas & Easter just as the starting point), but it also could easily fit especially with some of the over-reverence I've seen personally and read about towards Mary.

As for the rest of what you said. Not one word of it says that Mary had to never sin.

God MADE those things holy Himself when He entered them. They weren't created flawless, they just became flawless and pure for the time He was in them...

So could the argument be made that Mary was completely holy during the time she was pregnant? Yes.

But to make htat argument about any other moment in her life is to actually IGNORE the precedent that God set. None of those items were holy before they became those items. They were only made holy once God entered them.

That's ok. I've always enjoyed the humor of Jack Chick! Too bad some folks actually believe the stuff he's put out there. What are ya going to do? A lot of folks were duped by the DaVinci code.

Well, clearly we aren't going to come to agreement on this, but I believe the salutation (kecharitomene = perfect passive participle) we covered earlier points to the fact that she was set-apart even before her conception. Additionally, here's something I was just thinking about. Wouldn't Jesus physically -- specifically his blood -- remain with Mary after the conception? The saving blood of God in flesh seems like a pretty darn Holy thing to me.

 

[MrStain]

looknig again, it appears the passage in question is most often translated to "Set you apart" or "consecrated you" and only the KJV seems to have "sanctified you"...

even the Hebrew word seems to imply that God had a plan for him, not that God made him somehow Holy...

look at the definition of "sanctify":



it isn't about being saved or being pure, but it means that there is a use you have been set aside for...

Not to be too nitpicky, but a quick search showed that in addition to the KJV there are several others that use sanctified. That said, I basically agree with you that it means being set apart from the world -- and focused on the Divine. Holiness is of course the outcome of this sanctification.

 

[larry_boy_44]

That's ok. I've always enjoyed the humor of Jack Chick! Too bad some folks actually believe the stuff he's put out there. What are ya going to do? A lot of folks were duped by the DaVinci code.

Well, clearly we aren't going to come to agreement on this, but I believe the salutation (kecharitomene = perfect passive participle) we covered earlier points to the fact that she was set-apart even before her conception. Additionally, here's something I was just thinking about. Wouldn't Jesus physically -- specifically his blood -- remain with Mary after the conception? The saving blood of God in flesh seems like a pretty darn Holy thing to me.

No... I'm pretty sure the infant's blood is not kept by the mother...

also, Jesus' blood was not yet "the saving blood of God" as He hadn't died yet...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Not to be too nitpicky, but a quick search showed that in addition to the KJV there are several others that use sanctified. That said, I basically agree with you that it means being set apart from the world -- and focused on the Divine. Holiness is of course the outcome of this sanctification.

I agree, and "sanctified' is a proper word... Its just not the proper word when used the way that it was used in this thread.

It didn't mean forgiven, it meant set apart. There's a HUGE difference.

Being destined for something doesn't make you sinless.

 

[Kat8765]

That is hardly a credible claim to make, is it, because Christianity was illegal from Trajan until Constantine, and only ideas acceptable to Rome would have survived in that time.

So your saying that all of the early Church fathers were wrong? Christianity might have been illegal, but that doesn't mean that pertinent information didn't get passed down.
I guess Helvidius must have had some inside info, and all those biblical scholars such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine were just misinformed. Really?

 

[dinomight]

I don't think the comparison made to the Jews earlier is a particularly fair one, as the Jewish people did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the Christian Church does. So, for what it's worth, I'll take the other side and say I think it's likely that the Holy Spirit would not have allowed the Church to incorporate false doctrines in its earliest stages.

 

[MrStain]

No... I'm pretty sure the infant's blood is not kept by the mother...

also, Jesus' blood was not yet "the saving blood of God" as He hadn't died yet...

It was just a thought. The mother's body does sustains her child during a pregnancy and in this case, Mary became the the lifeblood for Jesus and so the blood that coursed through His veins in the womb coursed through Mary's. That same source of life -- interwoven with the Divine -- continued to course through her as she lived out the remainder of her life.

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! - Lk 1:42

ETA: I wonder what Jesus' blood-type was? I'm pretty sure I've heard some speculation on this before, but I can't remember where.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think the comparison made to the Jews earlier is a particularly fair one, as the Jewish people did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the Christian Church does. So, for what it's worth, I'll take the other side and say I think it's likely that the Holy Spirit would not have allowed the Church to incorporate false doctrines in its earliest stages.

Isreal fell while God was leading them directly via a pillar of fire...

I mean, they were standing at the base of the mountain. Moses was on top with God Himself and they could see it and there was a giant pillar sitting there waiting for them to be ready to move agian...

So what do the people do? THEY BUILD AN IDOL!!!!

YEAH!!

Wait... what?!?!?!

Yeah. They just saw the 10 plagues, the Red Sea part, Mana is falling daily from heaven, a pillar of fire/cloud is directing them when they travel and thier leader is on top of a mountain with God...

and they are worshipping an idol...

And you think the chuch can go 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? 2000 years without completely going off teh path and needing a complete, 100% makeover back to what God wanted??? Really?

 

[larry_boy_44]

It was just a thought. The mother's body does sustains her child during a pregnancy and in this case, Mary became the the lifeblood for Jesus and so the blood that coursed through His veins in the womb coursed through Mary's. That same source of life -- interwoven with the Divine -- continued to course through her as she lived out the remainder of her life.

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! - Lk 1:42

Jesus' actual flesh wasn't divine... It was just like ours...

 

[MrStain]

Jesus' actual flesh wasn't divine... It was just like ours...

Well, there is that whole hypostatic union part that probably makes it a bit different. His two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Please don't ask me to try & explain this mystery of the Incarnation.