Mary Sinless?

[bbbbbbb]

Not true. The brothers and sisters refereed to in Scripture, were cousins of Jesus. During Mary's time, extended families lived within the same households and villages. To prevent in-breeding, siblings down through the 3rd generation were revered to as brothers and sisters.

You, sir, are mistaken. Please review the thread, "Brothers and sisters, oh my!" on the Mariology forum for a very complete discussion of this aspect.

The difficulties with your view are as follow:

1. It is not the teaching of the Catholic church which holds an entirely different view.
2. There are five very clear passages written by three different authors (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) which use exactly the same words, rather than the word for cousin. There is a specific Greek word for cousin and it is used in the New Testament, but these writers uniformly did not use it.
3. It is not the translation used in any English Bible - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or other. In English the distinction is made and if the Greek words actually meant cousins, do you think any Catholic translator would have translated the five passage as being brothers and sisters?
4. One of the difficulties is that in two of the passages Jesus is in a house when he is told that His mother and brothers (who are named individually) and sisters are outside wanting to see Him. He turns to the disciples and tells them that all who obey God are His mother and brothers and sisters. If these, indeed, are merely cousins, then Christ merely is spouting a generic platitude. We would then be well-advised to cease from calling nuns "Sister" and monks "Brother" if, indeed, they are merely cousins.

 

[MrStain]

The problem here is that too much is being made out of a doctrine that isn't explicitly stated.

What is the purpose of the gymnastics to try and explain away Jesus' brothers and sisters when its simpler to say "maybe they are siblings, maybe they did have sex, who knows"???

There is no good reason to say/think/assume that Mary never had sex. It seems to me it is nothing but an attempt to diefy Mary on some level.

You're showing your bias! Just because we believe someone remained chaste it does not mean we are deifying them. That is a very illogical conclusion that it typically seen by the biased.

 

[MrStain]

Nonsense.

That pretty much sums up the contributions you've given to this thread. Good job ole-boy!

 

[calluna]

Ok, you didn't answer any of my questions.

So you have noticed that you were mistaken. Not the first Catholic to do so!

 

[dinomight]

So you have noticed that you were mistaken. Not the first Catholic to do so!

Lol, just because I have a decent understanding of Catholicism doesn't mean I am Catholic. I'm actually Baptist, if you'd like to know.

I'm also proud to stand alongside my Christian brethren in the Catholic Church.

 

[MrStain]

But the Bible seems to indicate no one gets to heaven until everyone gets there together... Rather, it seems to indicate that those who are dead (except Jesus) are "sleeping"...

Were Moses & Elijah sleep walking at the transfiguration as recorded in the synoptic Gospels (Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30)??

 

[bbbbbbb]

One of the interesting questions that has been discussed on the Mariology section, which also relates to this OP is the Catholic belief in the sin of marital relations. In order for Mary to have been sinless she could not have marital relations with her husband, Joseph. IMO, this is a very peculiar connection because is this not the same church that forbids contraception of every form and encourages large families? If marital relations would have caused Mary to have fallen from her sinlessness, what about all those married folks in the Catholic church?

 

[MrStain]

Now, we're really getting into interesting territory. My belief is that a saved person immediately goes to Heaven upon death. Catholics believe that a soul generally goes to Purgatory first, which simply means a purification before being in the presence of God. I have heard this third idea you mention of a state of sleep before the judgment as well, but I strongly disagree with that one. Unfortunately, I think it's hard to say for certain what happens to the soul immediately upon the death of the body, because the Bible doesn't seem to explicitly state the fact. Still, I've never seen anything that would cause me to believe the soul goes to sleep.

You're doing great, dinomight!!

Heb 12:29
29 For our God is a consuming fire.

1 Cor 3:10-15
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1 Pet 1:6-7
6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ

 

[larry_boy_44]

Mary required the saving sacrifice of Jesus. However, God granted her forgiveness at her conception, in anticipation of Jesus sacrifice, who would come into the world through her.

Mary was in fact, the first Christian for no other human, knew and accepted who Jesus was, before she did, when she answered the Angel Gabriel, "Lord, let it be done to me according to your will."

Jim

This I could buy...

But this doesn't even resemble the "Mary never sinned and never had sex" thing...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Except that there were no brothers and sisters of Jesus, at the foot of the cross with His mother. Instead, Jesus, from the cross, places the care of His mother into the hands of John.



Why didn't Mary go and live with Jesus brothers and sisters if he had any?

Jim

Why exactly is Jesus suppose to be the sole caretaker of his mother?

and where's Joseph in all of this, too???

You are assuming things that aren't even alluded to before you read it...

 

[dinomight]

One of the interesting questions that has been discussed on the Mariology section, which also relates to this OP is the Catholic belief in the sin of marital relations. In order for Mary to have been sinless she could not have marital relations with her husband, Joseph. IMO, this is a very peculiar connection because is this not the same church that forbids contraception of every form and encourages large families? If marital relations would have caused Mary to have fallen from her sinlessness, what about all those married folks in the Catholic church?

That is an interesting question you bring up. But, I've never seen anything that indicates the Catholic Church considers marital relations a sin; rather, it considers pre-marital relations to be sinful. So, it seems to me that the main Catholic argument for Mary remaining a virgin is that no one else could be worthy to enter the earth by the same gate as Christ, and they referred to a passage from Ezekiel. I'm pretty sure that was mentioned in this thread at some point, though I'm not positive I didn't read that in another thread instead. So, it seems like the perpetual virginity and sinlessness are separate issues.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Tell me, have you ever asked someone to pray for you? Do you believe that Jesus listens to people who pray on your behalf? I know that it makes me feel good to know that not only am I praying about some issue, but that others are also praying for me. I also believe that the souls of those who are saved are now in Heaven. These are the saints. I think that more than likely these fellow Christians who have gone before us, heavenly saints, still care for Christians living on the earth, that is earthly saints. Something that's really great about Heaven is that the people there no longer have to struggle with sin as we do. They are immeasurably happy and enjoying being in the presence of God. They pray and they worship. So, why would it not be permissible to ask these Christian brethren of ours, who still live, to join us in prayer to Jesus, our one intercessor before the Father?

Revelation 5 (King James Version):



5And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
8And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

the problem with this is that you don't know who those elders are and, even if you did, there simply weren't enough of them present for them to be the church on the whole...

We simply do not know when we get to heaven, any statement to the contrary is not based on Scripture, but based on romantic ideals...

 

[MrStain]

What???? It is not known if "Jesus placed the care of His mother into the hands of John?" So, are you now denying the veracity of the Gospel of John? If so, what is your point of reference in this discussion? Are there other pieces of Scripture that you disagree with? It seems like you are unwilling to defend your ideas with Scripture, as the rest of us have tried to do. You just use inflammatory statements, such as summarizing my comment as "nonsense." Why, sir, is it nonsense? Is it nonsense because it leads to the idea that the Catholic Church may have possibly correctly interpreted something from the Bible?

I've really thrown a lot of questions at you in the previous paragraph, but maybe you can see that I'm once again trying very hard to rationalize the mindset that has led you to make some of your statements. Earlier, I was browsing through another thread on Catholicism, and I noticed that you were quite opinionated there as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it just appears that you are anti-Catholic for the very sake of being anti-Catholic. Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of your worldview other than you seem to harbor ill feelings towards anything remotely Catholic.

You are on the right track, but he/she will not answer that question. I've asked him/her multiple times if he/she was following some kind of Marcion/Gospel mutilating wanne-be and he/she will not answer. I can only assume that calluna is a follower of the spaghetti monster.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Sorry for the delay. I was watching my Seahawks get spanked.

uhh. What bible are you reading? Mary was not pregnant when the angel gave her the salutation of "full of grace" (kecharitomene) as recorded in Luke 1:28. Kecharitomene (full of grace) is a perfect passive participle of charitoo which is reference to the past action with present perfection. This was a reference to her grace filled characteristic, not a reference to her pregnancy which was obviously to occur later. The announcment of the Spirit coming upon her was definitely after the salutation.

Again, I am pleased that you agree that grace (charis) cannot be removed from the greeting/title given to Mary. You are right about grace being unmerited, but wrong about it helping us overcome sin. Scripture tells us otherwise and I posted this earlier. Romans 6 is a good example when it says, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." The Bible clearly informs us that grace helps us overcome sin. You really should stop selectively trumpeting the power of God's grace, for He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

It doesn't say when Mary "got pregnant", but I'm pretty sure since the "next things he did" was go to see her cousin and her cousin's baby leaped when Mary (and her baby) came near, that she was pregnant when the angel went to her. Its a much smaller leap than the ones you are making.

and that verse in Romans 6 isn't talking about us not sinning because of grace, but rather that we aren't under the PUNISHMENT of sin because of grace. What you are getting and what it says are completely different things.

Its comparing the law (strict penalties for any/every sin) to grace (we're forgiven because Jesus took the penalty for us)... In both cases, we still screw up.

We don't overcome sin by stopping (note: we should be trying to stop and working to stop, but we will still fall), we overcame sin already through the blood Christ shed.

Any other interpretation is just diminishing what Christ did on the cross and in the streets of Jeruselam that day.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You are expecting too much if you need an exact comparison. The word of God vs. the Word of God is a type, a similar comparison between the old covenant occurance and the New covenant. It does not have to be exactly the same. Thankfully the fullness of the OT is revealed in the new as Peter referenced in his 1st Catholic epistle (1 Pet 3:18-22). If you go as far as you seem to be going in exactness I'm not surprised you don't ask for a boat to be present at every Baptism.

they aren't referencing the same thing. The word of God and the Word of God are not the same, there is no reference between them.

In fact, the word of God is just as valid to us today as it was back then. If anything the tabernacle is a type of the church (where God's presence lives) and salvation, not Jesus Himself and definately not Mary.

 

[MrStain]

One of the interesting questions that has been discussed on the Mariology section, which also relates to this OP is the Catholic belief in the sin of marital relations. In order for Mary to have been sinless she could not have marital relations with her husband, Joseph. IMO, this is a very peculiar connection because is this not the same church that forbids contraception of every form and encourages large families? If marital relations would have caused Mary to have fallen from her sinlessness, what about all those married folks in the Catholic church?

Where do people get this stuff. The "Catholic belief in the sin if marital relations". Are you kidding me? The Catholic Church is one of the few organizations left opposing the attack on marriage and the family unit. This is nonsense! I would ask you to read the Catholic Catechism starting at paragraph 1601.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You're showing your bias! Just because we believe someone remained chaste it does not mean we are deifying them. That is a very illogical conclusion that it typically seen by the biased.

and it isn't biased to read things into Scripture that aren't even remotely there??

And, sorry, I hate to tell you this but when you say someone never sinned, say they are the New Covenant's Ark of the Covenant, and that they for no reason other than it sounds nice never had sex (not even with thier husband), you are diefying them.

There is no other way to put it. You are putting holiness upon Mary that there is no reason to put upon her other than the fact that some Catholic leaders somewhere wanted to have a goddess, too, so they started making up stuff about how awesome Mary was. Is that what everyone does about it? No. But I would bet that's where it started.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Were Moses & Elijah sleep walking at the transfiguration as recorded in the synoptic Gospels (Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30)??

I think you are forgetting that God took Moses' body and that Elijah didn't die.

Its perfectly possible that those two are in heaven and no one else is (since one didn't die and the other was "taken away" by God Himself)

 

[Clifford B]

I guess the question is "why bother"? If you have a relationship with Jesus, and he is the one intercessor, ask him directly.... The scripture says there is ONE intercessor between God and man. You, being a human, is trying to get through to God...Jesus is it. It's pretty simple. It is not as if Jesus is put off by your requests and you need somebody that is a good, protective mother figure, eh?
If you don't have a one-on-one with Jesus, prayer doesn't matter much anyway.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Where do people get this stuff. The "Catholic belief in the sin if marital relations". Are you kidding me? The Catholic Church is one of the few organizations left opposing the attack on marriage and the family unit. This is nonsense! I would ask you to read the Catholic Catechism starting at paragraph 1601.

you are defending the traditional family while making Jesus' family even more disfunctional than it had to be in the first place.

Also.. in Jewish tradition... Aren't you not actually married until you have sex with the person?

Thus, if Mary & Joseph never had sex, then they were never actually married...