Mary Sinless?

[justinangel]

If someone came unto you right now, and said that Enoch was sinless because:

Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." Mark 10:27


Would you believe that person?

I wouldn't believe that person, because such a claim contravenes the universal teaching of the Church and does not belong to the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. That Mary was sinless is not the novel claim of an individual person. It's a revealed truth declared to the Church - "the pillar and foundation of the truth"- by the Paraclete (Jn 16:12-13).

"The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name."
Luke 1, 49

PAX

 

[Lion King]

I wouldn't believe that person, because such a claim contravenes the universal teaching of the Church and does not belong to the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. That Mary was sinless is not the novel claim of an individual person. It's a revealed truth declared to the Church - "the pillar and foundation of the truth"- by the Paraclete (Jn 16:12-13).

"The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name."
Luke 1, 49

PAX

Why should we believe you, then?

 

[justinangel]

Why should we believe you, then?

To answer your question I would have to digress into ecclesiology. But the point is, the historic Church isn't an individual someone. So your logic doesn't apply.

PAX

 

[Lion King]

To answer your question I would have to digress into ecclesiology. But the point is, the historic Church isn't an individual someone. So your logic doesn't apply.

PAX

How exactly would your preach this doctrine of yours to the Bereans?

 

[narnia59]

How exactly would your preach this doctrine of yours to the Bereans?

The same way Paul preached the Gospel to them -- through the oral tradition of the church. And they received it eagerly.

Let's not forget that if the Bereans had required all of their beliefs to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture, they'd still be Jews. As it was, they were willing to study the OT archetypes of the Christ, and then accept the oral witness of the church that the person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled them.

So I would say the Bereans are an awesome example of the way the Marian doctrines should be accepted.

 

[Lion King]

The same way Paul preached the Gospel to them -- through the oral tradition of the church. And they received it eagerly.

Let's not forget that if the Bereans had required all of their beliefs to be explicitly spelled out in Scripture, they'd still be Jews. As it was, they were willing to study the OT archetypes of the Christ, and then accept the oral witness of the church that the person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled them.

So I would say the Bereans are an awesome example of the way the Marian doctrines should be accepted.

Just like the Bereans, I have tested the spirits (studied the Scriptures), and have found what you say to be false. Jesus Christ is the only man who is without sin. Based on Scripture, the miracle of Jesus Christ's conception was that He alone was conceived as the only perfect and sinless one, because of his complete union with the divine nature of God.

The Scriptures identifies Jesus the Christ as the sinless One, not Mary:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

Aside from the Lord Jesus, the Bible is quite clear that nobody else has ever been sinless:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23


As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.” Romans 3:10-12

Notice, none of these verses say "all have sinned, except Mary."

Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:21-22


Mary knew she needed a Savior

In Luke's gospel, Mary herself admits that she was a sinner. Otherwise she would never have concluded that she needed a Saviour:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1:46-47



Conclusively, to elevate Mary to the same position as the Christ violates the very word of God!

 

[narnia59]

Just like the Bereans, I have tested the spirits (studied the Scriptures), and have found what you say to be false. Jesus Christ is the only man who is without sin. Based on Scripture, the miracle of Jesus Christ's conception was that He alone was conceived as the only perfect and sinless one, because of his complete union with the divine nature of God.

If you were just like the Bereans you would accept the testimony of the church and not rely on your own personal interpretation to be infallible.

The Scriptures identifies Jesus the Christ as the sinless One, not Mary:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

Aside from the Lord Jesus, the Bible is quite clear that nobody else has ever been sinless:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

The text does not say that "all have sinned, including Mary".

The Biblical use of the word 'all' is quite clear it is not referring to individuals but making general statements about mankind.

Examples:
Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Do you "interpret" that verse to mean that every individual in Jerusalem was baptized by John? The Romans, Herod, the Pharisees, every individual? If not, why do you apply a different standard to Romans 3:23 to mean every individual, including Mary?

2 chapters later in the book of Romans:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:12 says that all men sinned, and death has come to ALL men. If ALL means every individual, then Scripture contradicts itself, for Elijah and Enoch did not die. Nor will those Christians who are living at the return of Christ die.

"ALL" in Biblical context refers to all types of people, some of everyone. If you will look at Romans 3:23 in context, Paul is making sure both groups (Gentile and Jew) know that neither group has anything to boast about over the other.

As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.” Romans 3:10-12


Notice, none of these verses say "all have sinned, except Mary."

And none of these verses say "including Mary", which is your line of interpetation.

No one, none, each, every.... all of these fall into the same category of "all" -- not making statements about individuals but generic statements about mankind. Therefore, Scripture does not contradict itself when it identifies those who indeed seek God (1 Chronicles 16:10, 2 Chronicles 15:12, 2 Chronicles 34:3, Job 5:8, Psalms 9:10, Psalms 63:1, Psalms 119:10, Hebrews 11:6 and others). Nor does it contradict itself when it calls certain people righteous (Luke 1:6) or notes that there are indeed people who do good (Judges 8:35, Isaiah 38:3, Acts 9:36)

Your none, all, etc prove nothing about the individual Mary.

Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:21-22

Mary knew she needed a Savior

In Luke's gospel, Mary herself admits that she was a sinner. Otherwise she would never have concluded that she needed a Saviour:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1:46-47

It would be nice if you learned what you are arguing against before you start. You work here from a presumption that in order for Christ to save Mary, it was necessary for Him to wait until she sinned. What is your basis for that logic?

Catholics quite agree she needed a Savior -- we simply understand the gift He gave His mother of saving her from falling into sin, which would have been inevitable without His saving power and grace. She is indeed saved by her Savior!

Conclusively, to elevate Mary to the same position as the Christ violates the very word of God!

If you believe that being sinless elevates one to the same position as Christ, it is you who are in error of elevating those that do not belong there. For example, the angels who remained faithful never sinned -- but that does not elevate them to the position of God. Adam and Eve were created in an initial state of holiness and only by their choice did they sin.... God did not cause their sin. If they would have fulfilled their destiny in God, they would never have sinned. That would not have elevated them to being God however. Sinless does not mean equal to God!

God binds himself to his own commandments when he chooses to become man, and to live according to His law. One of those commandments is to honor his mother. Please face the fact that He is not bound to honor you or me, but He is bound to honor Mary. Does he fulfill that command? I believe so. Does he fulfill it perfectly? Of course. So how could one believe that he fulfilled the command to honor his mother perfectly, yet would choose to allow her to be touched by Satan and sin? Is that 'honoring' her?

The other wonderful gift he gives to his mother in this way is to spare her from knowing the suffering she watches him endure is in some way caused by her personal sin. Blessed be Jesus who so loved and protected his mother!

The perfect man, the perfect son gives a most precious gift to his mother, and bottom line this turns into an assertion that by all means she can't receive something I did not....

 

[justinangel]

Just like the Bereans, I have tested the spirits (studied the Scriptures), and have found what you say to be false.

Concerning the Messiah, the Jews feel the same way about how we have interpreted the books of the OT prophets in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. When Paul and Peter mention the Scriptures, they mean the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't written yet, so the mediums of divine revelation in apostolic time were both OT Scripture and the oral Tradition. The Church is the final teaching authority - not the Bible, though it is the objective rule of faith. And it is by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent to guide his church in all truth, that the Church does not teach error. Paul certainly understood that the OT scriptures were materially sufficient, but formally insufficient apart from sacred Tradition: that being the mighty deeds of God in salvation history, declared by the Holy Spirit who bears witness to the One who sent him. Thus sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has consistently believed in through the knowledge granted by the Holy Spirit. Tradition (the spoken word of God) cannot possibly contain anything that contradicts Scripture (the written word of God). The two mediums of divine revelation are in harmony with and support each other. There is nothing that is contained in Tradition that is not found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form, including the sinlessness of Mary (Lk 1:28): "Chaire kecharitomene," (cf. Gen 3:15) and the divinity of Christ in his humanity: "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7).

Anything that belongs to Scripture and Tradition is of divine origin, although Paul understood the OT in a different light from how the Jews understood it when reading the prophets. Jesus told his disciples that there was much more he would "tell" them, but that they couldn't understand it then, since he had to first return to the Father and send them the Holy Spirit, who would declare to them and their associates in the episcopacy the things that are coming and guide the Church in all truth. (As a Catholic, I believe that one "visible" and hierarchical church historically to be the Catholic Church which was commissioned to teach all nations until the end of time (Mt 28:20), and which the gates of hell would not prevail against by infusing falsity in its teachings (Mt. 16:18).) If the Church, whose teaching authority can be traced by lineage back to the Apostles, has erred in its understanding of Mary in the divine plan of redemption, then there's no reason to be assured that it hasn't erred in its understanding of the Messiah and consequently abused the OT texts. Paul would be in no position to declare, "Therefore, brothers, stand fast and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess 2:15). The Greek word for "hold" is krateite, so the apostle means to tell the Thessalonians that they will be strong in their faith and prevail in the divine truth only if they embrace the traditions of the Church which are reflected in the apostolic letters and have preceded them. Tradition makes more explicit what has been implicitly revealed in Scripture. And it serves as the Church's living memory and reminds us what the faithful have consistently believed in since the time the apostles and their close associates orally preached, which is explicitly much more than what was put down in writing to serve as a norm of the faith.

Jesus Christ is the only man who is without sin. Based on Scripture, the miracle of Jesus Christ's conception was that He alone was conceived as the only perfect and sinless one, because of his complete union with the divine nature of God.

The Scriptures identifies Jesus the Christ as the sinless One, not Mary:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21

Aside from the Lord Jesus, the Bible is quite clear that nobody else has ever been sinless:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23


As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.” Romans 3:10-12

Notice, none of these verses say "all have sinned, except Mary."

Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:21-22

Concerning 2 Corinthians 5:21, in light of Mary's sinlessness, the Mother was justified and sanctified by the grace of God when she was preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instance of her conception in view of the merits of Christ, who alone could be made an eternal propitiation for our sins as a sacrificial offering to God because of his substantial grace of union with the Father. Unless God had intervened with his grace, Mary would have sinned like any human creature is inclined to sin, and so she too was in need of redemption being a descendant of Adam. She became the righteousness of God through the merits of her divine Son - the living principle of grace - in view of his eternal sacrifice, when God sanctified her in her mother's womb. And it was by the habitual grace of God and his helping graces that Mary remained personally sinless in time in virtue of her divine maternity. This is a traditional belief that has been handed down to us by the apostles, however much the substance of this article of faith has developed over time through discernment of the spoken and written word.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
St. Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235)

In Romans 3:23, the Greek word for "all" is pantes, which indicates an exception to the rule. All are inclined to sin because of the effect of original sin, save Jesus and his mother Mary. All of us are "prisoners of sin" (Gal 3:21-22), in that we are subject to the law of original sin. Mary was no less subject than we are, so God had to intervene to save her the unique way he did.

The basis of Romans 3: 10-12 is Psalm 14. The psalm does not say that each human being ever created is sinful, but that every human being who is wicked is sinful. Human wickedness and sinfulness are synonymous. If there were no God, human beings would still be wicked, but not sinful. But those who continue to seek God are righteous and are not counted among the wicked who offend him.

Mary knew she needed a Savior

In Luke's gospel, Mary herself admits that she was a sinner. Otherwise she would never have concluded that she needed a Saviour:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1:46-47

It was because Mary was redeemed in advance in the most perfect salvific manner, preservation from the stain of sin, by the merits of her divine Son, that her soul could proclaim the glory of God who sanctified it and made her originally just in his sight. Actual sin is produced by an inordinate love of self and indifference towards God who is in reality the supreme object of our love. One of the great pains in hell is the sense of eternally losing God, now that all other distracting objects which impede our will towards absolute goodness have been removed by the absence of any physical sense of perception. Mary's canticle of praise is a living testimony of her unfailing faith and love for God, whom she always placed before any created thing and herself. It was because of her humility and poverty of spirit (self-denial) that she was found worthy to conceive and bear the Son (Lk 1:30). There was no room for pride in Mary's soul that prevented it from glorifying God. And so she was blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it by refusing to offend God (Lk 11:28). Jesus regarded Mary to be truly his mother because of her spirituality, made possible by the grace of God.

Conclusively, to elevate Mary to the same position as the Christ violates the very word of God!

By whom he has given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
2 Peter 1, 4

And everyone who has this hope in him sanctifies himself, as he also is holy.
1 John 3, 3

Mary did not have to possess a divine nature in order to be sinless. God's grace was sufficient for her. All of us are called to partake of the divine nature through sanctification and justification. God's efficacious (cooperative) grace, which was never denied to Mary at any moment in her life, as it may be in our lives for the sake of testing our faithfulness, made it infallibly sure that the Mother would not offend the Son. The Father willed to present his Son a mother entirely worthy of him, a woman who should constantly "fly from the corruption of that concupiscence that is in the world" because of original sin, and who could unfailingly be counted among the "inherently" righteous by the "infused" grace of God, to be pure as he is pure in his "humanity" (Ezek 36:26-27).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 (A.D. 377)

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

I wouldn't believe that person, because such a claim contravenes the universal teaching of the Church and does not belong to the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. That Mary was sinless is not the novel claim of an individual person. It's a revealed truth declared to the Church - "the pillar and foundation of the truth"- by the Paraclete (Jn 16:12-13).

"The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name."
Luke 1, 49

PAX

You don't think anyone in the Church every taught Jesus had brothers after the flesh whose parents were Joseph/Mary? If she had additional children, would that make her a sinner?

 

[Lion King]

If you were just like the Bereans you would accept the testimony of the church and not rely on your own personal interpretation to be infallible.

As it is written:

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

The text does not say that "all have sinned, including Mary".

The Biblical use of the word 'all' is quite clear it is not referring to individuals but making general statements about mankind.

Examples:
Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Do you "interpret" that verse to mean that every individual in Jerusalem was baptized by John? The Romans, Herod, the Pharisees, every individual? If not, why do you apply a different standard to Romans 3:23 to mean every individual, including Mary?

2 chapters later in the book of Romans:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:12 says that all men sinned, and death has come to ALL men. If ALL means every individual, then Scripture contradicts itself, for Elijah and Enoch did not die. Nor will those Christians who are living at the return of Christ die.

"ALL" in Biblical context refers to all types of people, some of everyone. If you will look at Romans 3:23 in context, Paul is making sure both groups (Gentile and Jew) know that neither group has anything to boast about over the other.

And none of these verses say "including Mary", which is your line of interpetation.

No one, none, each, every.... all of these fall into the same category of "all" -- not making statements about individuals but generic statements about mankind. Therefore, Scripture does not contradict itself when it identifies those who indeed seek God (1 Chronicles 16:10, 2 Chronicles 15:12, 2 Chronicles 34:3, Job 5:8, Psalms 9:10, Psalms 63:1, Psalms 119:10, Hebrews 11:6 and others). Nor does it contradict itself when it calls certain people righteous (Luke 1:6) or notes that there are indeed people who do good (Judges 8:35, Isaiah 38:3, Acts 9:36)

Your none, all, etc prove nothing about the individual Mary.

I could easily do the same and provide verses that suggest ALL means literally everyone, but that will get us nowhere. Well then, if we are to prove what you say is true, why don't you simply provide Scriptural evidence that explicitly states that Mary was sinless?

Simple.

It would be nice if you learned what you are arguing against before you start. You work here from a presumption that in order for Christ to save Mary, it was necessary for Him to wait until she sinned. What is your basis for that logic?

Catholics quite agree she needed a Savior -- we simply understand the gift He gave His mother of saving her from falling into sin, which would have been inevitable without His saving power and grace. She is indeed saved by her Savior!

So, if God made Mary incapable of falling into sin, why did He not make Adam and Eve as well? Or better yet, why didn't He make all of us incapable of falling into sin as well?

Does that mean that the LORD actually wants some of us to burn in hell for eternity?

If you believe that being sinless elevates one to the same position as Christ, it is you who are in error of elevating those that do not belong there. For example, the angels who remained faithful never sinned -- but that does not elevate them to the position of God.

Are we talking about angels here? Do angels have the same position as humans?

Adam and Eve were created in an initial state of holiness and only by their choice did they sin.... God did not cause their sin. If they would have fulfilled their destiny in God, they would never have sinned. That would not have elevated them to being God however. Sinless does not mean equal to God!

God binds himself to his own commandments when he chooses to become man, and to live according to His law. One of those commandments is to honor his mother. Please face the fact that He is not bound to honor you or me, but He is bound to honor Mary. Does he fulfill that command? I believe so. Does he fulfill it perfectly? Of course. So how could one believe that he fulfilled the command to honor his mother perfectly, yet would choose to allow her to be touched by Satan and sin? Is that 'honoring' her?

The other wonderful gift he gives to his mother in this way is to spare her from knowing the suffering she watches him endure is in some way caused by her personal sin. Blessed be Jesus who so loved and protected his mother!

The perfect man, the perfect son gives a most precious gift to his mother, and bottom line this turns into an assertion that by all means she can't receive something I did not....

Who did Christ say His TRUE family was? The ones who do the will of the Father.

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:31-35

Jesus Christ's family is of the Spirit and not the flesh.

 

[narnia59]

As it is written:

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

But if I tarry long , that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God Ephesians 3:9-10

I could easily do the same and provide verses that suggest ALL means literally everyone, but that will get us nowhere. Well then, if we are to prove what you say is true, why don't you simply provide Scriptural evidence that explicitly states that Mary was sinless?

Simple.

I am not a sola-scripturist; I do not hold that any doctrine I believe must be explicitly found in Scripture. You however do, which is why your professed belief that Mary sinned falls short of your own standard -- lacking an explicit statement in Scripture that she did so, supported only with an attempt to piece together fragments of Scripture that have no applicability or can be easily shown to fall short of any reasonable standard. Like "all have sinned". Used in the exact same context in Romans 5:12 with "all have died", when Scripture clearly points to those who have not and will not die.

So, if God made Mary incapable of falling into sin, why did He not make Adam and Eve as well? Or better yet, why didn't He make all of us incapable of falling into sin as well?

Does that mean that the LORD actually wants some of us to burn in hell for eternity?

Again, you should learn what you are arguing against before you engage in trying to disprove it. There is nothing in the Marian doctrines that teach Mary was not capable of falling into sin. She was created in the same state as Adam and Eve, an initial state of holiness with no innate tendency to fall into sin. They freely chose to sin; Mary freely chooses not to. Her ability to make this choice was enabled by grace.

Mary is the new Eve. Have you not read that Christ is the new Adam? Eve is formed from Adam's flesh. Christ takes flesh from Mary. Paul shows this 'reversal' of sorts in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 when he says that "Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman (Eve) came from man (Adam), so man (Christ) is born of woman (Mary); but all things are from God."


And God desires all to be saved.

Are we talking about angels here? Do angels have the same position as humans?

We are talking about the false concept that being sinless is equivalent to having a divine nature.

For what it's worth, in Catholic teaching Christ is sinless by nature. Mary is sinless by grace.

Who did Christ say His TRUE family was? The ones who do the will of the Father.

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:31-35

Jesus Christ's family is of the Spirit and not the flesh.

Are you proposing that the woman who pronounced (at great personal risk) "Be it done unto me according to thy word" is not one who has done God's will and is somehow not part of Christ's TRUE family?

Are you denying he had a command to honor his mother?

What would be your basis for such claims?

 

[Lion King]

Concerning the Messiah, the Jews feel the same way about how we have interpreted the books of the OT prophets in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. When Paul and Peter mention the Scriptures, they mean the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't written yet, so the mediums of divine revelation in apostolic time were both OT Scripture and the oral Tradition. The Church is the final teaching authority - not the Bible, though it is the objective rule of faith. And it is by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ sent to guide his church in all truth, that the Church does not teach error. Paul certainly understood that the OT scriptures were materially sufficient, but formally insufficient apart from sacred Tradition: that being the mighty deeds of God in salvation history, declared by the Holy Spirit who bears witness to the One who sent him. Thus sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has consistently believed in through the knowledge granted by the Holy Spirit. Tradition (the spoken word of God) cannot possibly contain anything that contradicts Scripture (the written word of God). The two mediums of divine revelation are in harmony with and support each other. There is nothing that is contained in Tradition that is not found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form, including the sinlessness of Mary (Lk 1:28): "Chaire kecharitomene," (cf. Gen 3:15) and the divinity of Christ in his humanity: "You are my son, today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7).

So, if Mary is considered to be sinless simply because she is said "highly favored and also blessed among women". Does it mean that Abraham was sinless as well? I mean, Abraham was also highly favored and blessed by the LORD, was he not? After all, the Christ was the seed of Abraham!

Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:1-3

Anything that belongs to Scripture and Tradition is of divine origin, although Paul understood the OT in a different light from how the Jews understood it when reading the prophets. Jesus told his disciples that there was much more he would "tell" them, but that they couldn't understand it then, since he had to first return to the Father and send them the Holy Spirit, who would declare to them and their associates in the episcopacy the things that are coming and guide the Church in all truth. (As a Catholic, I believe that one "visible" and hierarchical church historically to be the Catholic Church which was commissioned to teach all nations until the end of time (Mt 28:20), and which the gates of hell would not prevail against by infusing falsity in its teachings (Mt. 16:18).) If the Church, whose teaching authority can be traced by lineage back to the Apostles, has erred in its understanding of Mary in the divine plan of redemption, then there's no reason to be assured that it hasn't erred in its understanding of the Messiah and consequently abused the OT texts. Paul would be in no position to declare, "Therefore, brothers, stand fast and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess 2:15). The Greek word for "hold" is krateite, so the apostle means to tell the Thessalonians that they will be strong in their faith and prevail in the divine truth only if they embrace the traditions of the Church which are reflected in the apostolic letters and have preceded them. Tradition makes more explicit what has been implicitly revealed in Scripture. And it serves as the Church's living memory and reminds us what the faithful have consistently believed in since the time the apostles and their close associates orally preached, which is explicitly much more than what was put down in writing to serve as a norm of the faith.

The roman catholic church is not the CHURCH but simply a denomination just like the SDA, JW, Mormons fully capable of falling into error.

Anyway, I'm not interested to learn about the supposedly history of the RCC, my only concern is the topic at hand.

Concerning 2 Corinthians 5:21, in light of Mary's sinlessness, the Mother was justified and sanctified by the grace of God when she was preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instance of her conception in view of the merits of Christ, who alone could be made an eternal propitiation for our sins as a sacrificial offering to God because of his substantial grace of union with the Father. Unless God had intervened with his grace, Mary would have sinned like any human creature is inclined to sin, and so she too was in need of redemption being a descendant of Adam. She became the righteousness of God through the merits of her divine Son - the living principle of grace - in view of his eternal sacrifice, when God sanctified her in her mother's womb. And it was by the habitual grace of God and his helping graces that Mary remained personally sinless in time in virtue of her divine maternity. This is a traditional belief that has been handed down to us by the apostles, however much the substance of this article of faith has developed over time through discernment of the spoken and written word.

Your personal opinions are of no particular interest to me, I only require Scriptural evidence to what you claim, since you said it yourself that, "There is nothing that is contained in Tradition that is not found in Scripture".

So, where are the Scriptures?

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
St. Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235)

Disregarded...NOT the Word of God, but the opinions of a mere man.

In Romans 3:23, the Greek word for "all" is pantes, which indicates an exception to the rule. All are inclined to sin because of the effect of original sin, save Jesus and his mother Mary. All of us are "prisoners of sin" (Gal 3:21-22), in that we are subject to the law of original sin. Mary was no less subject than we are, so God had to intervene to save her the unique way he did.

The basis of Romans 3: 10-12 is Psalm 14. The psalm does not say that each human being ever created is sinful, but that every human being who is wicked is sinful. Human wickedness and sinfulness are synonymous. If there were no God, human beings would still be wicked, but not sinful. But those who continue to seek God are righteous and are not counted among the wicked who offend him.

Again, please provide the Scriptures that say so?

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE. Romans 3:10

It was because Mary was redeemed in advance in the most perfect salvific manner, preservation from the stain of sin, by the merits of her divine Son, that her soul could proclaim the glory of God who sanctified it and made her originally just in his sight. Actual sin is produced by an inordinate love of self and indifference towards God who is in reality the supreme object of our love. One of the great pains in hell is the sense of eternally losing God, now that all other distracting objects which impede our will towards absolute goodness have been removed by the absence of any physical sense of perception. Mary's canticle of praise is a living testimony of her unfailing faith and love for God, whom she always placed before any created thing and herself. It was because of her humility and poverty of spirit (self-denial) that she was found worthy to conceive and bear the Son (Lk 1:30). There was no room for pride in Mary's soul that prevented it from glorifying God. And so she was blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it by refusing to offend God (Lk 11:28). Jesus regarded Mary to be truly his mother because of her spirituality, made possible by the grace of God.

Scriptures?

By whom he has given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
2 Peter 1, 4

And everyone who has this hope in him sanctifies himself, as he also is holy.
1 John 3, 3

Why did you quote these passages? I do not see how they are supposed prove Mary's sinlessness..

Mary did not have to possess a divine nature in order to be sinless. God's grace was sufficient for her. All of us are called to partake of the divine nature through sanctification and justification. God's efficacious (cooperative) grace, which was never denied to Mary at any moment in her life, as it may be in our lives for the sake of testing our faithfulness, made it infallibly sure that the Mother would not offend the Son. The Father willed to present his Son a mother entirely worthy of him, a woman who should constantly "fly from the corruption of that concupiscence that is in the world" because of original sin, and who could unfailingly be counted among the "inherently" righteous by the "infused" grace of God, to be pure as he is pure in his "humanity" (Ezek 36:26-27).

Again, Scripture please? It's all I ask of.

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 (A.D. 377)

PAX

Disregarded...NOT the Word of God, but the opinion of a mere man.

 

[Lion King]

But if I tarry long , that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God Ephesians 3:9-10

Well, I believe that the RCC is fully capable of falling into error just as the churches in Pergamum, Thyatira, Ephesus, Sardis etc (Revelation 2 and 3) did.

I am not a sola-scripturist; I do not hold that any doctrine I believe must be explicitly found in Scripture. You however do, which is why your professed belief that Mary sinned falls short of your own standard -- lacking an explicit statement in Scripture that she did so, supported only with an attempt to piece together fragments of Scripture that have no applicability or can be easily shown to fall short of any reasonable standard. Like "all have sinned". Used in the exact same context in Romans 5:12 with "all have died", when Scripture clearly points to those who have not and will not die.

Well, if you cannot provide any Scriptures for your beliefs, we have nothing to discuss really. I will not myself be led astray by the traditions of man:

Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such things do you. Mark 7:13

PS. I'm no sola-scripturist, but only seek to validate what you say with the Scriptures as the Bereans did, for too many anti-christ have gone out in the world.

Again, you should learn what you are arguing against before you engage in trying to disprove it. There is nothing in the Marian doctrines that teach Mary was not capable of falling into sin. She was created in the same state as Adam and Eve, an initial state of holiness with no innate tendency to fall into sin. They freely chose to sin; Mary freely chooses not to. Her ability to make this choice was enabled by grace.

Mary is the new Eve. Have you not read that Christ is the new Adam? Eve is formed from Adam's flesh. Christ takes flesh from Mary. Paul shows this 'reversal' of sorts in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 when he says that "Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman (Eve) came from man (Adam), so man (Christ) is born of woman (Mary); but all things are from God."

So, if Mary is the new Eve as you claim, is she a "life-giving spirit" as Christ was? Did she have a heavenly body as Christ did?

So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

And God desires all to be saved.

Are ye sure? Does all really mean ALL in the Scriptures?

We are talking about the false concept that being sinless is equivalent to having a divine nature.

For what it's worth, in Catholic teaching Christ is sinless by nature. Mary is sinless by grace.

When applied to ANY human, it is indeed a false teaching, that goes against the very word of God. Only Christ was made without sin as the Scriptures say. As for Mary being without sin (by grace), I will never believe such doctrines, as it is never substantiated by the Scriptures.

Are you proposing that the woman who pronounced (at great personal risk) "Be it done unto me according to thy word" is not one who has done God's will and is somehow not part of Christ's TRUE family?

Are you denying he had a command to honor his mother?

What would be your basis for such claims?

Who did Christ say His mother was?

 

[narnia59]

Well, I believe that the RCC is fully capable of falling into error just as the churches in Pergamum, Thyatira, Ephesus, Sardis etc (Revelation 2 and 3) did.

Do you hold this same opinion of yourself, that you are fully capable of falling into error?

Well, if you cannot provide any Scriptures for your beliefs, we have nothing to discuss really. I will not myself be led astray by the traditions of man:

Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such things do you. Mark 7:13

PS. I'm no sola-scripturist, but only seek to validate what you say with the Scriptures as the Bereans did, for too many anti-christ have gone out in the world.

I can provide many Scriptures for my belief but I have little doubt that you will dismiss them and bow to your own prowess of interpretive skills.

So, if Mary is the new Eve as you claim, is she a "life-giving spirit" as Christ was? Did she have a heavenly body as Christ did?

So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Is this passage speaking of Eve? I can't see that it is, so I can't see how you think this applies to Mary as the new Eve.

Are ye sure? Does all really mean ALL in the Scriptures?

Are the passages referring to God's desire for all to be saved speaking in the context of individuals or a comparison of "groups" (as Romans 3:23 does)? Please remember that in context, Paul is teaching the Jews and the Gentiles that neither group has anything to boast about.

When applied to ANY human, it is indeed a false teaching, that goes against the very word of God. Only Christ was made without sin as the Scriptures say. As for Mary being without sin (by grace), I will never believe such doctrines, as it is never substantiated by the Scriptures.

So you do not believe that Adam and Eve were made without sin?

Who did Christ say His mother was?

Who does Scripture say His mother was? Do you profess Christ contradicts Scripture and somehow denies Mary as his mother? Please note that I do not believe that Christ's generous, overflowing love that invites us into his family is in some way a denial of his mother -- it would seem apparent to me that you do.

Take a gander through Mark 7 sometime where the Pharisees have been teaching that one can ignore the command to honor their parents by taking care of them if instead they are diverting their resources to the work of "God", and listen to Christ's view of them.

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

So does Christ nullify the word of God and deny his own mother? Does he set aside that commandment? You seem to profess he has no reason to follow this commandment at all -- is he teaching the Pharisees do as I say but not as I do? Follow my example in all things except this?

If I've misinterpreted the intent of your questioning about who Jesus says his mother is in response to my point about his 'honoring' her as part of the commandments, please do clarify.

 

[Lion King]

Do you hold this same opinion of yourself, that you are fully capable of falling into error?

I'm not God, only EL SHADDAI alone is incapable of error..

Even Peter was not infallible, for on numerous occasions was he proven to be wrong. For instance, the LORD and Paul (by the Holy-Spirit) had to intervene to show Peter the error of his ways in separating himself from the gentiles.

I can provide many Scriptures for my belief but I have little doubt that you will dismiss them and bow to your own prowess of interpretive skills.

To be honest, if you had such Scriptures ready at hand, you would have provided them by now.

Anyway, since you say you have "many" biblical references to provide, please do share them with us.

Is this passage speaking of Eve? I can't see that it is, so I can't see how you think this applies to Mary as the new Eve.

So, how did you reach (Scripturally) to the conclusion that Mary is the new Eve? Who gave birth to the new creation of God? Was it Mary or was it the LORD Himself?

Are the passages referring to God's desire for all to be saved speaking in the context of individuals or a comparison of "groups" (as Romans 3:23 does)? Please remember that in context, Paul is teaching the Jews and the Gentiles that neither group has anything to boast about.

Who was this passage below spoken to again? Was it not both "groups"? Both the JEWS and the GENTILES?

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

So you do not believe that Adam and Eve were made without sin?

Everyone was created WITHOUT sin.

Who does Scripture say His mother was? Do you profess Christ contradicts Scripture and somehow denies Mary as his mother? Please note that I do not believe that Christ's generous, overflowing love that invites us into his family is in some way a denial of his mother -- it would seem apparent to me that you do.

Take a gander through Mark 7 sometime where the Pharisees have been teaching that one can ignore the command to honor their parents by taking care of them if instead they are diverting their resources to the work of "God", and listen to Christ's view of them.

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

So does Christ nullify the word of God and deny his own mother? Does he set aside that commandment? You seem to profess he has no reason to follow this commandment at all -- is he teaching the Pharisees do as I say but not as I do? Follow my example in all things except this?

If I've misinterpreted the intent of your questioning about who Jesus says his mother is in response to my point about his 'honoring' her as part of the commandments, please do clarify.

You do have to understand what Christ was fully trying to say in Mark 3. He was merely saying that the true family of Christ is not that of flesh, but of the Spirit. In essence, Mary was not Christ's mother because she gave birth to the flesh of Christ, but rather, because she obeyed the word of God. Anyone who follows the will of the Father is the "mother, brother and sister" of Jesus the Christ.

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:14-17

 

[justinangel]

So, if Mary is considered to be sinless simply because she is said "highly favored and also blessed among women". Does it mean that Abraham was sinless as well? I mean, Abraham was also highly favored and blessed by the LORD, was he not? After all, the Christ was the seed of Abraham!

Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:1-3

And coming to her the angel said, "Hail, O favored one."
Luke 1, 28

In the Greek text, the singular female vocative "favored one" is kecharitomene. It can be paraphrased as "completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace." The perfect passive participle shows "a completeness with a past result." The term does not merely mean that God granted Mary the special favour of a divine vocation. Grace and favour are associated insofar God graced Mary and preserved her from the stain of all sin because of her divine maternity. The root of this word is charis, which means grace. The prefix ke means that Mary was graced by the time the angel appeared to her. The suffix mene indicates that Mary was the recipient of God's grace. True, charis may also be translated as meaning "favour" or "kindness", but it's inconceivable that Luke intended the word to merely mean this, for the word never means favour or kindness in other parts of the NT or anywhere else in Scripture. Even Bibles which translate charis as favour in Luke 1:28 translate it as grace everywhere else in Scripture. This discrepancy is misleading, because in the NT the word grace has a particular meaning that is distinct from favour. Grace is a gift from God through the Holy Spirit that saves us from the state of sin. The correct translation of the term kecharitomene is the one we find in Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Aramaic Peshitta of the 3rd century which accurately reflect the Apostolic Tradition of the "Catholic" Church: "full of grace". Indeed, this is how the Greek Fathers of the early Church interpreted Luke's text.

"O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow,
and a body made purer than any gold."
St.Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270 A.D.)

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo. Verbs ending in "oo" signify that the subject has been put in the state expressed by the root, which here is charis (grace). Thus Luke's text tells us that Mary has been put in a state of grace as a result of a completed past action that occurred before the angel appeared. Catholics believe that point in time to be the first instance she was conceived in her mother's womb and God fashioned her soul. Now we musn't confuse the fullness of grace which Mary was endowed with "completely, perfectly, and enduringly" since she was created with the fullness of grace bestowed upon all baptized Christian believers (Eph 4:7). It's fallacious (a faulty analogy) to compare an individual person with a group of people whose state of grace is possessed in different measure. The state of sanctification is quantifiable, or else we would be mistaken in asserting that some people live holier lives than others by the grace of God who is the cause of all spiritual goodness. Upon our baptism we can increase or decrease in sanctification, as we grow in holiness towards divine perfection. Unlike any believer, Mary is uniquely addressed by the angel in a manner that denotes who she is rather than what she is. The female vocative kecharitomene assumes the form of a pronoun. Mary essentially is what it means to be sinless and in the state of sanctifying grace in its constant fullness. Moreover, Luke uses a special conjugated form of charitoo (kecharitomene), whereas Paul uses escharitosen in his letter to the Ephesians (1:6). The former term, as I noted, is a perfect passive participle, while the latter is an active indicative aorist. Escharitosen means "He graced" or "bestowed grace" and denotes a "momentary action" brought to pass. For the Ephesians, or all believers, are prone to sin and occasionally fall from God's grace and the perfect state of sanctification. But, as it has been said, kecharitomene shows a "completeness with a permanent result." Mary is what she has been "endowed" with and how she has been fashioned by God according to his specifications: a figure of the fullness of grace. To be in the state of grace is to be sinless. To embody in one's person the fullness of grace is to embody what it means to be sinless. Always being in a state of grace and sinless is who Mary was, unlike Eve. In the person of Mary, God put Satan at total enmity with the woman and her offspring (Gen 3:15). "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Lk 1:42).


"Mary, a Virgin, not only undefiled, but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin."
St. Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388)

The roman catholic church is not the church but simply a denomination just like the SDA, JW, Mormons fully capable of falling into error.

For the first millennium there was only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which was established by Christ on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. There existed 5 bishoprics: the Holy Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. This is a historical fact, whether you like it or not, as is the rise of countless denominations founded by individual mortal men since the 16th century. By the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, the one, visible, hierarchical, universal Church cannot err in its teachings in matters of faith and morals. It is for this reason that Jesus sent the Paraclete when "his" Church was born. The Church is the final teaching authority, not Scripture. So please quit asking where something explicitly is in the written word. You won't find a definite answer in the Holy Book alone.

Your personal opinions are of no particular interest to me, I only require Scriptural evidence to what you claim, since you said it yourself that, "There is nothing that is contained in Tradition that is not found in Scripture".

So, where are the Scriptures?

I'm showing you the Scriptures, or haven't you noticed? Unfortunately you fail to see that Scripture (the written word of God) has proceeded from Tradition (the spoken word of God). Both mediums are "God breathed" and form the deposit of faith. Thus Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Your personal interpretation or understanding is alien to what the "Catholic" (to quote the ECFs) Church has been teaching and growing in understanding since apostolic time. As long as you read the Scriptures in a purely literal and explicit sense on your own, as if it were a catechism containing formal definitions of faith, apart from the living Tradition of the Church established by Christ and not man, and cherry pick isolated verses to accommodate your personal bias, you will never see the fullness of divine truth.

The eyes of the Lord are directed toward the righteous
and his ears toward their cry.
Psalm 34 16 (17)

Blessed are those who do what is right, whose deeds are always just.
Psalm 106, 3

If you consider that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who acts in righteousness is begotten by him.
1 John 2, 29

The Scriptures show that it is possible for us to be made righteous before God by his grace. To contend that Mary had to have been sinful necessarily because no one can ever be righteous as Jesus was righteous is not only an untraditional belief of the Church but unscriptural.

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me." So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Acts 8, 30-31

Disregarded...NOT the Word of God, but the opinions of a mere man.

What the Early Church Fathers unanimously taught for 8 centuries was not a personal opinion, but a testimony to a living tradition of the "one" Apostolic Church. And they taught with the divine authority invested in them by Christ through apostolic succession.

Why do you quote these pasages? I do not see how they are to prove Mary's sinlessness.

Have you lost your train of thought? I quoted these passages to show you that a person does not have to possess a divine nature - at least not ontologically - in order to be sinless. It is by the grace of God that Mary partook of the divine life and emulated her Son in his sinless humanity while in a perpetual state of "infused" grace.

PAX

 

[narnia59]

I'm not God, only EL SHADDAI alone is incapable of error..

Even Peter was not infallible, for on numerous occasions was he proven to be wrong. For instance, the LORD and Paul (by the Holy-Spirit) had to intervene to show Peter the error of his ways in separating himself from the gentiles.

Again one should learn what they are arguing against before commencing to argue....

The Catholic church does not teach that Peter was incapable of error, mistakes, or bad conduct, nor any pope. We do teach that in certain circumstances Peter, and popes, are indeed infallible -- in specific circumstances when proclaiming the teachings of the church. That holds true for the collective of bishops as well. God is capable of not only protecting His written word; He is capable of protecting the proclamation and interpretation of it from error as well.

I would suggest you hold to a belief yourself that in certain limited circumstances men can indeed be infallible. When penning Sacred Scripture for example?

The apostles speak infallibly when they speak the word of God on Pentecost. Peter acts infallibly when he pens two epistles, and he acts infallibly on Pentecost when he offers the first preaching of the Gospel.

And while Peter's behavior could sometimes be scandalous and required connection by a fellow elder, nonetheless when other apostles teach in error (as James does about the requirement for circumcision), it is Peter who receives a direct vision and revelation from God about the Gentiles which he proceeds to proclaim infallibly at the council in Jerusalem. Please note that the testimony of Paul and Barnabas does nothing to resolve the swirling debate -- it is Peter's testimony of God's direct revelation of teaching to him that allows God's will for the Gentiles to be discerned and then proclaimed by the collective of elders, God's appointed overseers of the church.

However, Lion King has no such qualifications.

To be honest, if you had such Scriptures ready at hand, you would have provided them by now.

Anyway, since you say you have "many" biblical references to provide, please do share them with us.

I will point you to 15 verses in 2 Samuel 6 (1-15) and 18 verses in Luke Chapter 1 (39-56) where Luke creates 6 strong parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. Will you say mere coincidence and dismiss?

So, how did you reach (Scripturally) to the conclusion that Mary is the new Eve? Who gave birth to the new creation of God? Was it Mary or was it the LORD Himself?

According to Scripture, Mary gives birth to the Word made flesh. Galatians 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law"

The "law" Christ was born under included a command to honor his mother, the woman who gave him birth. Does he do so, or not?

There are numerous contra-parallels given in Scripture between Mary and Eve:

Paul draws the parallel in 1 Corinthians 11:12 between the first woman coming from the flesh of man (Eve from Adam) and now man comes from the flesh of woman (Christ from Mary).

Eve is approached by a fallen angel; Mary is approached by one of God's faithful angels.

Eve accepts the word of the fallen angel; Mary accepts the word of Gabriel.

Eve chooses disobedience; Mary chooses obedience.

Eve accepts the "fruit" offered by the fallen angel; Mary accepts the "fruit" offered by Gabriel -- the "fruit" of her womb.

Eve's "fruit" from the tree results in the fall of man; Mary's "fruit" (Christ) from the tree (cross) results in man's redemption.

Who was this passage below spoken to again? Was it not both "groups"? Both the JEWS and the GENTILES?

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

"All" in the context of Romans 3:23 is speaking of "all" groups -- both Jews and Gentiles -- have sinned.

It is not in reference to individual people, which quite clearly comes to focus in chapter 5 when "all" who have sinned and "all" have therefore died -- creating clear exceptions to the "all" as Paul uses the term in this context. Aside from that, in chapter 5 he also refers to the "many" who were made sinners...

Everyone was created WITHOUT sin.

Psalms 51:5 5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

You do have to understand what Christ was fully trying to say in Mark 3. He was merely saying that the true family of Christ is not that of flesh, but of the Spirit. In essence, Mary was not Christ's mother because she gave birth to the flesh of Christ, but rather, because she obeyed the word of God. Anyone who follows the will of the Father is the "mother, brother and sister" of Jesus the Christ.

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:14-17

Yes, Paul no longer sees Jews vs. Gentiles. Our biological pedigree does not stand in the way of our ability to come into Christ.

You are aptly demonstrating why the church considers the Marian doctrines to be Christ-centered and of great importance, for they always point to the true nature of Christ. Their dismissal easily leads to misconceptions about Christ himself.

This is shown quite clearly by your view that what Christ somehow "sets aside" the family relationships that belong to him in the natural order and moves you towards Docetism -- a belief that Christ appears to us in human form but is not really human. Tell me, why did Christ weap at the death of Lazarus? Had he not seen the reality of death and suffering amongst all people? It is his true human nature we see when Lazarus has died and Mary and Martha are suffering so, because they are special to him in his human nature. Christ does not separate himself from the reality of his human nature -- his embraces it.

Your inability to even acknowledge that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ identifies how far off kilter you are. While admonishing others to obey the command to honor their mother (I count 5 times in the Gospels), you wish to portray a Christ who has set aside his own mother, making her at best one of the crowd. In doing so, you deny much more than Mary as his mother -- you deny the reality of his human nature.

 

[Lion King]

And coming to her the angel said, "Hail, O favored one."
Luke 1, 28

In the Greek text, the singular female vocative "favored one" is kecharitomene. It can be paraphrased as "completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace." The perfect passive participle shows "a completeness with a past result." The term does not merely mean that God granted Mary the special favour of a divine vocation. Grace and favour are associated insofar God graced Mary and preserved her from the stain of all sin because of her divine maternity. The root of this word is charis, which means grace. The prefix ke means that Mary was graced by the time the angel appeared to her. The suffix mene indicates that Mary was the recipient of God's grace. True, charis may also be translated as meaning "favour" or "kindness", but it's inconceivable that Luke intended the word to merely mean this, for the word never means favour or kindness in other parts of the NT or anywhere else in Scripture. Even Bibles which translate charis as favour in Luke 1:28 translate it as grace everywhere else in Scripture. This discrepancy is misleading, because in the NT the word grace has a particular meaning that is distinct from favour. Grace is a gift from God through the Holy Spirit that saves us from the state of sin. The correct translation of the term kecharitomene is the one we find in Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Aramaic Peshitta of the 3rd century which accurately reflect the Apostolic Tradition of the "Catholic" Church: "full of grace". Indeed, this is how the Greek Fathers of the early Church interpreted Luke's text.

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos" and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. Acts 6:8.

5485. charis
charis: grace, kindness
Original Word: χάρις, ιτος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: charis
Phonetic Spelling: (khar'-ece)
Short Definition: grace, favor, kindness
Definition: (a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ, (b) favor, (c) gratitude, thanks, (d) a favor, kindness.

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

"O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow,
and a body made purer than any gold."
St.Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270 A.D.)

DISREGARDED!

In the person of Mary, God put Satan at total enmity with the woman and her offspring (Gen 3:15). "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Lk 1:42).

Christ is the seed of Abraham, and was richly blessed by the LORD. Shall we assume that Abraham is SINLESS also?

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Genesis 3:15

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. Galatians 3:16

"Mary, a Virgin, not only undefiled, but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin."
St. Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388)

DISREGARDED!

For the first millennium there was only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which was established by Christ on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. There existed 5 bishoprics: the Holy Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. This is a historical fact, whether you like it or not, as is the rise of countless denominations founded by individual mortal men since the 16th century. By the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, the one, visible, hierarchical, universal Church cannot err in its teachings in matters of faith and morals. It is for this reason that Jesus sent the Paraclete when "his" Church was born. The Church is the final teaching authority, not Scripture. So please quit asking where something explicitly is in the written word. You won't find a definite answer in the Holy Book alone.

The RCC has absolutely no authority whatsoever on me and if I believed that the RCC was the CHURCH of the LORD, I would be part of its assembly.

Simple.

PS. I will keep asking you for Scriptures since you explicitly stated in one your previous post, that there is nothing contained in your tradition that is not found in the Scriptures.

I'm showing you the Scriptures, or haven't you noticed? Unfortunately you fail to see that Scripture (the written word of God) has proceeded from Tradition (the spoken word of God). Both mediums are "God breathed" and form the deposit of faith. Thus Scripture must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Your personal interpretation or understanding is alien to what the "Catholic" (to quote the ECFs) Church has been teaching and growing in understanding since apostolic time. As long as you read the Scriptures in a purely literal and explicit sense on your own, as if it were a catechism containing formal definitions of faith, apart from the living Tradition of the Church established by Christ and not man, and cherry pick isolated verses to accommodate your personal bias, you will never see the fullness of divine truth.

Just like the Bereans, I will always ask of the Scriptures and as long as there is breath in my body, I will never deviate from such a noble practice.

The eyes of the Lord are directed toward the righteous
and his ears toward their cry.
Psalm 34 16 (17)

Blessed are those who do what is right, whose deeds are always just.
Psalm 106, 3

If you consider that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who acts in righteousness is begotten by him.
1 John 2, 29

The Scriptures show that it is possible for us to be made righteous before God by his grace. To contend that Mary had to have been sinful necessarily because no one can ever be righteous as Jesus was righteous is not only an untraditional belief of the Church but unscriptural.

Stephen was a man endowed with full of grace and power by the LORD, yet he was a sinner?

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? Proverbs 20:9

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me." So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Acts 8, 30-31

Thank the LORD for the Holy-Spirit He has faithfully bestowed upon all of those who believe.

I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1 John 2:26-27

What the Early Church Fathers unanimously taught for 8 centuries was not a personal opinion, but a testimony to a living tradition of the "one" Apostolic Church. And they taught with the divine authority invested in them by Christ through apostolic succession.

If it was really from the LORD what they taught, then it should correlate with the written word of God. However, since it does not, I disregard these statements and dismiss them as mere opinions, and not the word of God!

Have you lost your train of thought? I quoted these passages to show you that a person does not have to possess a divine nature - at least not ontologically - in order to be sinless. It is by the grace of God that Mary partook of the divine life and emulated her Son in his sinless humanity while in a perpetual state of "infused" grace.

PAX

By which are given unto us exceedingly great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:4

We are all partakers of Christ's divine nature, but that does mean that we are sinless now, does it?

 

[Lion King]

Again one should learn what they are arguing against before commencing to argue....

The Catholic church does not teach that Peter was incapable of error, mistakes, or bad conduct, nor any pope. We do teach that in certain circumstances Peter, and popes, are indeed infallible -- in specific circumstances when proclaiming the teachings of the church. That holds true for the collective of bishops as well. God is capable of not only protecting His written word; He is capable of protecting the proclamation and interpretation of it from error as well.

I would suggest you hold to a belief yourself that in certain limited circumstances men can indeed be infallible. When penning Sacred Scripture for example?

The apostles speak infallibly when they speak the word of God on Pentecost. Peter acts infallibly when he pens two epistles, and he acts infallibly on Pentecost when he offers the first preaching of the Gospel.

And while Peter's behavior could sometimes be scandalous and required connection by a fellow elder, nonetheless when other apostles teach in error (as James does about the requirement for circumcision), it is Peter who receives a direct vision and revelation from God about the Gentiles which he proceeds to proclaim infallibly at the council in Jerusalem. Please note that the testimony of Paul and Barnabas does nothing to resolve the swirling debate -- it is Peter's testimony of God's direct revelation of teaching to him that allows God's will for the Gentiles to be discerned and then proclaimed by the collective of elders, God's appointed overseers of the church.

However, Lion King has no such qualifications.

Actually, I never said that the roman catholic church taught that. I merely used Peter as an example to show our weakness; that we are all prone to error.

Only the LORD alone is without error.

So, to state that the RCC cannot err (when it comes to its teachings) is actually a fallacy, since we all know that the churches of God sometimes haven fallen to error, as was clearly proven by Revelation 2 and 3.

I will point you to 15 verses in 2 Samuel 6 (1-15) and 18 verses in Luke Chapter 1 (39-56) where Luke creates 6 strong parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. Will you say mere coincidence and dismiss?

Can you please share with us the similarities between those two passages?

According to Scripture, Mary gives birth to the Word made flesh. Galatians 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law"

The "law" Christ was born under included a command to honor his mother, the woman who gave him birth. Does he do so, or not?

There are numerous contra-parallels given in Scripture between Mary and Eve:

Paul draws the parallel in 1 Corinthians 11:12 between the first woman coming from the flesh of man (Eve from Adam) and now man comes from the flesh of woman (Christ from Mary).

Eve is approached by a fallen angel; Mary is approached by one of God's faithful angels.

Eve accepts the word of the fallen angel; Mary accepts the word of Gabriel.

Eve chooses disobedience; Mary chooses obedience.

Eve accepts the "fruit" offered by the fallen angel; Mary accepts the "fruit" offered by Gabriel -- the "fruit" of her womb.

Eve's "fruit" from the tree results in the fall of man; Mary's "fruit" (Christ) from the tree (cross) results in man's redemption.

Adam along with Eve gave birth to the old creation. Did Mary (along with Christ-the Last Adam) give birth to the NEW CREATION of God? Did Mary give birth to all the Christians? Is Mary the mother of all living?

Mary did not give birth to us, God did! Christ, the Last Adam is a life giving Spirit who gave birth to the NEW CREATION of God.

For whoever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4

Please do not make such blasphemous statements...

"All" in the context of Romans 3:23 is speaking of "all" groups -- both Jews and Gentiles -- have sinned.

It is not in reference to individual people, which quite clearly comes to focus in chapter 5 when "all" who have sinned and "all" have therefore died -- creating clear exceptions to the "all" as Paul uses the term in this context. Aside from that, in chapter 5 he also refers to the "many" who were made sinners...

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE. Romans 3:10

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

Everyone has sinned, including Mary (thus she needs a Savior). The only One who did not sin was Christ.

If you claim Mary never sinned, why did she need a Savior?

Psalms 51:5 5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

That passage simply means we are all born with a propensity to sin. No one is born a SINNER, but that we are all born with a sinful nature (our flesh/our heart).

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Yes, Paul no longer sees Jews vs. Gentiles. Our biological pedigree does not stand in the way of our ability to come into Christ.

You are aptly demonstrating why the church considers the Marian doctrines to be Christ-centered and of great importance, for they always point to the true nature of Christ. Their dismissal easily leads to misconceptions about Christ himself.

This is shown quite clearly by your view that what Christ somehow "sets aside" the family relationships that belong to him in the natural order and moves you towards Docetism -- a belief that Christ appears to us in human form but is not really human. Tell me, why did Christ weap at the death of Lazarus? Had he not seen the reality of death and suffering amongst all people? It is his true human nature we see when Lazarus has died and Mary and Martha are suffering so, because they are special to him in his human nature. Christ does not separate himself from the reality of his human nature -- his embraces it.

As I have already said earlier, the true family of Christ is not that of flesh, but of the Spirit. In essence, Mary was not Christ's mother because she gave birth to the flesh of Christ, but rather, because she obeyed the word of God. Anyone who follows the will of the Father is the "mother, brother and sister" of Jesus the Christ.

If that is Docetism (or whatever that is), then are I (lion king) am one

Your inability to even acknowledge that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ identifies how far off kilter you are. While admonishing others to obey the command to honor their mother (I count 5 times in the Gospels), you wish to portray a Christ who has set aside his own mother, making her at best one of the crowd. In doing so, you deny much more than Mary as his mother -- you deny the reality of his human nature.

Can you please show me where I stated that Mary is not the mother of Christ?

 

[narnia59]

Actually, I never said that the roman catholic church taught that. I merely used Peter as an example to show our weakness; that we are all prone to error.

Only the LORD alone is without error.

So, to state that the RCC cannot err (when it comes to its teachings) is actually a fallacy, since we all know that the churches of God sometimes haven fallen to error, as was clearly proven by Revelation 2 and 3.

You know I could put a great big "Disregard" on every opinion you put forth. Are not the opinions of those early Christians as least as valuable as your own? If not, I'd like to know the reason you believe yours are superior.

Scripture says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Is it in error?

Can you please share with us the similarities between those two passages?

Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.

When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.

When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark.

The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.

When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant | Catholic Answers

Adam along with Eve gave birth to the old creation. Did Mary (along with Christ-the Last Adam) give birth to the NEW CREATION of God? Did Mary give birth to all the Christians? Is Mary the mother of all living?

Mary did not give birth to us, God did! Christ, the Last Adam is a life giving Spirit who gave birth to the NEW CREATION of God.

For whoever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4

Please do not make such blasphemous statements...

Christ took flesh from Mary just as Eve took flesh from Adam.

Please identify the statement I made that was blasphemous....

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE. Romans 3:10

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

Everyone has sinned, including Mary (thus she needs a Savior). The only One who did not sin was Christ.

If you claim Mary never sinned, why did she need a Savior?

Luke 1 "5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. "

As you note below this, we are all born with a propensity to sin. Mary need to be saved in order to enable her to not sin.

Please note that Mary does not refer to this child in her womb as her 'future' Savior. Christ has already saved Mary when she utters the words.

That passage simply means we are all born with a propensity to sin. No one is born a SINNER, but that we are all born with a sinful nature (our flesh/our heart).

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Indeed we are, unless God intervenes.

As I have already said earlier, the true family of Christ is not that of flesh, but of the Spirit. In essence, Mary was not Christ's mother because she gave birth to the flesh of Christ, but rather, because she obeyed the word of God. Anyone who follows the will of the Father is the "mother, brother and sister" of Jesus the Christ.

If that is Docetism (or whatever that is), then are I (lion king) am one



Can you please show me where I stated that Mary is not the mother of Christ?

A few lines above where you deny Mary's unique motherhood of Christ and claim she is no more mother to Christ than any of us.

Just because Christ uses her obedience as a model for us all does not mean she ceases to have her unique role as his mother. This interpretation would contradict Scripture, which cleary and frequently identifies Mary as the mother of Christ.

Matthew 1:18 -- When his mother Mary
Matthew 2:11 -- they saw the child with Mary his mother
Matthew 2:13 -- Rise, take the child and his mother
Matthew 2:14 -- And he rose and took the child and his mother by night
Matthew 2:20 -- Rise, take the child and his mother
Matthew 2:21 -- And he rose and took the child and his mother
Matthew 12:46 -- behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside
Matthew 13:55 -- Is not his mother called Mary
Mark 3:31 -- And his mother and his brothers came
Mark 3:32 -- Your mother and your brothers are outside
Luke 1:43 -- And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me
Luke 2:33 -- And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him
Luke 2:34 -- and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother
Luke 2:48 -- And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him
Luke 2:51 -- and his mother kept all these things in her heart
Luke 8:19 -- Then his mother and his brothers came to him
Luke 8:20 -- Your mother and your brothers are standing outside
John 2:1 -- On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there
John 2:3 -- When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him
John 2:5 -- His mother said to the servants
John 2:12 -- After this he went down to Caper'na-um, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples
John 19:25 -- But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother
John 19:26 -- When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother
Acts 1:14 -- together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus
Matthew 1:16 -- the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born
Luke 2:7 -- And she gave birth to her first-born son
1 Corinthians 11:12 -- for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.
Galatians 4:4 -- God sent forth his Son, born of woman