Mary without original sin?

[JVAC]

No they wouln't have been blessed, because this is a task that requires perfect submission, humility beyond that of the rest of womanhood. I think you should study the Magnificat, Mary was chosen because she was exactly what it took, not because of happenstance.

-James

 

[LetsBeLogical]

No they wouln't have been blessed, because this is a task that requires perfect submission, humility beyond that of the rest of womanhood. I think you should study the Magnificat, Mary was chosen because she was exactly what it took, not because of happenstance.

-James

The problem again is that the Messiah HAD to be born from a certain lineage. Not all women at that time were from that lineage. Yes Mary was blessed, but that doesnt mean that others couldnt have been if they didnt have the lineage that was needed.

LetsBeLogical²

 

[JVAC]

The problem again is that the Messiah HAD to be born from a certain lineage. Not all women at that time were from that lineage. Yes Mary was blessed, but that doesnt mean that others couldnt have been if they didnt have the lineage that was needed.

LetsBeLogical²

Yes it does, because Mary wasn't the one of the House of David, that was Joseph. Joseph is the one who carried the family name "David".

Secondly, the Holy Spirit declared her to be "blessed among women", what other woman can say this?

-James

 

[ukok]

Originally Posted by: ukok

And now let's get back on track:

The Catholic Church asserts that Original sin does not make a person evil but has the affect of predisposing one to the consequences of illness and death and deprives one of being in full union with God.



Tom:

For the most part, I would agree, except I would not agree that the original sin keeps people out of fellowship with God, but rather scripture says that it is our own sin which results from the orientation towards sinful behaviour, which comes from the original sin,

I didn't say that Original sin 'keeps people out of fellowship with God'. I wrote that Original sin predisposes one to not being in full union with God. This doesn't have to remain. Do you agree that baptism is necessary to wash away the stain of Original sin ?

:

Originally Posted by: ukok The Catholic Church asserts that just as we are all cleansed of the stain of original sin through our baptism, Mary recieved this freedom from the stain of Original sin at the very moment of her conception.



Tom:

This is what we do not see in scripture.

We don't see a lot of things in Scripture! It doesn't mean it isn't so.

Jesus Himself never said that everything would be recorded in Scripture:

Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.



Now, are you of the opinion that the whole world isn't big enough to contain the written word of all that Jesus 'did' literally, or all of His teachings also?

What does John 21:25 mean to you?

Originally Posted by: ukok

To imagine that she was born as we are, with the stain of original sin, is in my own view, alarming to say the least. Are we then to suppose that we are of the same calabre as Mary? That Gabriel could have appeared to anyone of us and said :

Luk 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women".

what is it that makes Mary so blessed?



Tom:

She was chosen to carry the Messiah, God in the flesh into the world, the only woman so chosen....seems quite a blessing to me.

Well, obviously Mary was greatly Blessed ! But that wasn't what i was referring to. Why was she chosen to carry the Perfect Son of God if she herself were imperfect ? did God just single her out when she hit her teens or was it a part of God's plan from before even the moment of her conception that she would be the perfectly pure, perfectly sinless Mother of Christ ? If God is all knowing, why would He allow Mary to become stained with sinfulness, if from the very first, He he destined that it be her alone, out of all of female humanity, that would be Mother of Christ...?



Does it really seem probable to you that Mary sinned throughout her life when she was to raise Jesus Christ, the Son of God Almighty...do you think that would have been good enough for God? what kind of sin could she have been guilty of committing ?

By your logic, she could have been sinful in the extreme and still have been chosen as the Mother of Our Lord....think about it. you believe that she was not without original sin, you believe that she had the same propensity to sin as the rest of us, but also that nothing could in any way have prevented her from falling into sin....and propose that the womb of her sinful body was home to Christ Jesus the Son of God...and due to the nature of Christ being co existant and co-equal to God the Father, Christ = God chose to be born in the womb of a sinner..is that correct?



what do you make of Exodus 25:11 ?

Exo 25:11 And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold, within and without; and over it thou shalt make a golden crown round about:

The Ark is made of the purest Gold...who then is the Ark of the New covenent, Tom ?

ukok

If she is not without sin, why is she 'full of grace" ?

Tom:

Grace is "underserved favour" which is how some translation say it. Clearly if she was without original sin, then she would be deserving of favour, since she would be the only woman without sin, but yet the Bible says that she was given underserved favour. That does not in the slightest imply that she was without sin. Indeed quite the contrary.

But regardless, we cannot establish doctrine on what is not said, but on what God does say. Rather than trying to give an interpretation of this to argue that it was possible (which as I showed, I do think you have done either), show us the verse that actually says that she was without sin.

show me the verse that explicitly states that she wasn't. It seems to me that what is the problem here is that you seem not to hold that there was any Original Tradition (ie Church) you seem to suggest that anything that is not expressly stated in the Bible is not to believed, and yet there was not a written New Testament at the time, the Tradition WAS, even in the very beginning of the Apostolic infancy.

..there was ONE church, protestants and Catholics alike, recognise this as fact. Others were heretical. so this is what we first need to address ( though it should be in a different thread, but is relevant to elaborate a little here as you fail to give credence to the Teachings that were accepted by the early Church)



You claim that if something is not expressly stated in scripture it can not be true, then i wonder how you interpret the following verses:





2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.



the Corinthians are praised for following Apostolic Tradition:

.1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

And of the Church it is said:

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

1Ti 3:15 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.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it:

We know that all offices of the Catholic Church were held in the Earliest history of the Church, it didn't just come to be hundreds of years later....see here:

1Ti 3:1 A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.

1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner: chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1Ti 5:17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.



The Apostles and those who followed their teachings were the Early Catholic Church. It grew and grew, it never stopped being Apostolic, it never ceased to be guided by the Holy Spirit. It never halted in its quest to proclaim the exact same Teachings that were taught originally. Only Twelve were allowed to celebrate Christ's Last Supper, they who were his emmisaries, granted full authority as Jesus' representatives of His one and only church.

ukok

Once more we see that Mary is held as the Most Blessed ;

Luk 1:42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. "



Tom:

What did Jesus say when people carried this too far and tried to say similar things in the 1st century?

Erm, what exactly are you referring to? I'm mystified. Catholics don't worship Mary, if that is the point that you are making.

Luke 11:27-28 Tom:

27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" 28 But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

NKJV

God's focus is not on Mary, but the gospel. She was not the focus of why Jesus came to earth, nor do we find much about her in the Bible after the start of Jesus ministry opr indeed the birth of Jesus.

She was honoured by God by having been given the privilege of being the vessel through whom God manifest in the flesh would enter the world...scripture says nothing more.

'Scripture says' is an oft used phrase that establishes very little when attempting to understand this Assumption of Mary Mother of God.

We have already acknowledged that everything is NOT provided by Scripture alone: the Authoritive church is shown in the following Scripture:

The Authoritive church has the power to forgive sins :

Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

The Authority to offer Sacrifice ( the Eucharist) He told His Twelve Chosen one's :

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,

1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

the Authority to speak with the Voice of Christ:

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.



Authority to Discipline:

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Authority to Legislate :

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.



All of these power's are given by Christ to His Apostles, the chosen delegates of His Earthly Church, of which there was ONE :

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Apostles were told one message, given one teaching, and assembled one Earthly church, with Christ at it's head.

Tell me Tom, how do you interpret the above passage, and did the Apostles commence with their mission with ONE shared Truth of the LORD or individual interpretations?

Perhaps now we can move away from this particular aspect and continue with the CC Teaching , rather than what gives the CC the authority to teach..not that i mind, but others may think it detracts from the thread somewhat as it now necessitates that we explore the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church, and that's altogether another thread!

God Bless you, Tom!

 

[ukok]

LF :

Ukok,
The Bible itself says: "Well then, sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned." (Rom. 5:12, JB) The Bible reports that with the requirement of the Mosaic Law, 40 days after Jesus’ birth Mary offered at the temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from uncleanness. She, too, had inherited sin and imperfection from Adam.—Luke 2:22-24; Lev. 12:1-8. FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
Faith,

what we have to ask is would God have allowed Mary to have become estranged from him? The not so logical logic of the argument that Mary was disposed to sin, allows for the possibility that Mary could sin, even in excess and still parent the Son of God..don't you think that's a little odd? If she were only the 'carriage' of Jesus physical birth and raised him exposed to her personal sin, would that be the will of God, do you think? This is the Mother of our Lord and Saviour...if you believe that Mary sinned, then you must also accept that she could have been moderately sinful as easily as you accept that she may be minimally sinful, yes ? With this argument you accept that Jesus could have been raised in a sinful household, and possibly, a very sinful household, is that also correct?

now the passages that you referred to in your post ;

Luk 2:22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:

Luk 2:23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:

Luk 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:

and

Lev 12:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

Lev 12:2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of separation of her flowers.

Lev 12:3 And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised:

Lev 12:4 But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification. She shall touch no holy thing: neither shall she enter into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification, be fulfilled.

Lev 12:5 But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, according to the custom of her monthly courses. And she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin: and shall deliver them to the priest.

Lev 12:7 Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her: and so she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child.

Lev 12:8 And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.

Do you understand how illogical the question is based upon these passages of scripture....Mary was rendered sinless and was obeying Mosaic Law of the time, no command had been issued for her not to fulfill the expected purification process and being the dutiful person that she was, she obeyed the law. Mary's submission to the law had nothing to do with her need for purification and everything to do with her humility and obedience.

Jam 4:6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble.

Logical Fallacy, could you tell me why Jesus (being without sin) submitted to the purification practice of Circumcision. Jesus was intrinsically and infinately holy, why would he obey laws of the old covenant to be purified?

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Yes it does, because Mary wasn't the one of the House of David, that was Joseph. Joseph is the one who carried the family name "David".

Secondly, the Holy Spirit declared her to be "blessed among women", what other woman can say this?

-James

Hold on a second. Mary wasnt the one of the House of David? Mary and Joseph come from the House of David if you read both geneologies. I think you need to relook at the geneology. Heli was the father of Mary not Joseph, however, he would have been the father-in-law of Joseph. Mary is not named because of course it was then that only the men where named in such things.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

We see that it was Jacob that BEGAT Joseph whereas he was called the son of Heli. Jacob was his biological father and Heli was his father-in-law unless of course you want to say that Joseph had two fathers.

LetsBeLogical²

 

[LetsBeLogical]

what we have to ask is would God have allowed Mary to have become estranged from him? The not so logical logic of the argument that Mary was disposed to sin, allows for the possibility that Mary could sin, even in excess and still parent the Son of God..don't you think that's a little odd? If she were only the 'carriage' of Jesus physical birth and raised him exposed to her personal sin, would that be the will of God, do you think? This is the Mother of our Lord and Saviour...if you believe that Mary sinned, then you must also accept that she could have been moderately sinful as easily as you accept that she may be minimally sinful, yes ? With this argument you accept that Jesus could have been raised in a sinful household, and possibly, a very sinful household, is that also correct?

now the passages that you referred to in your post ;

Luk 2:22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:

Luk 2:23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:

Luk 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:

and

Lev 12:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

Lev 12:2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of separation of her flowers.

Lev 12:3 And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised:

Lev 12:4 But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification. She shall touch no holy thing: neither shall she enter into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification, be fulfilled.

Lev 12:5 But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, according to the custom of her monthly courses. And she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin: and shall deliver them to the priest.

Lev 12:7 Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her: and so she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child.

Lev 12:8 And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.

Do you understand how illogical the question is based upon these passages of scripture....Mary was rendered sinless and was obeying Mosaic Law of the time, no command had been issued for her not to fulfill the expected purification process and being the dutiful person that she was, she obeyed the law. Mary's submission to the law had nothing to do with her need for purification and everything to do with her humility and obedience.

Jam 4:6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble.

Logical Fallacy, could you tell me why Jesus (being without sin) submitted to the purification practice of Circumcision. Jesus was intrinsically and infinately holy, why would he obey laws of the old covenant to be purified?

Did Jesus every offer a sin offering as obedience and humility? Of course not! Mary however not only offered the sacrifice for purity but also one for SIN. Since Jesus was without sin (im not sure you read my previous post about how the perfect source was the father) then who was it for?

LetsBeLogical

 

[JVAC]

Your problem is you are trying to harmonize, and that is a theory, not fact. Luke's geneology was of Joseph, just as Matthew's was. Another theory of harmonization, is that they both had different goals with their genelogies. While Matthew thought it important to link Jesus with Abraham and David, Luke saw it much more important to link Jesus up with Adam which further's the lucan universalism that is found throughout the Gospel.

All that mattered of the women is that they were Jewish in the Hebraic customs. Jewish women begat jewish sons and daughters, but the Husband carried on the name of the family. It wasn't luke's cause to affiliate Jesus with David but to affiliate him with Adam, that is why he ends there.

-James

 

[ukok]

Did Jesus every offer a sin offering as obedience and humility? Of course not! Mary however not only offered the sacrifice for purity but also one for SIN. Since Jesus was without sin (im not sure you read my previous post about how the perfect source was the father) then who was it for?

LetsBeLogical

Tell me how you know that Mary offered a sacrifice for purity and Sin?

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Tell me how you know that Mary offered a sacrifice for purity and Sin?

You already answered it in your own post. She offered two turtle doves or two pigeons. Now read the Levitical law as to why each was offered.

Luke 2:22-24 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons


Leviticus 12
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Clearly she offered the two pigeons or turtledoves as required by the Levitical law as a sin offering. Luke and the Leviticus confirm that.

LetsBeLogical²

 

[JVAC]

This is dedication, every first born man and beast must be dedicated to the Lord and be Holy. This is not a Sin thing.

-James

 

[LetsBeLogical]

This is dedication, every first born man and beast must be dedicated to the Lord and be Holy. This is not a Sin thing.

-James

No offence JVAC but you obviously didnt read why someone had to offer up a sacrifice. It wasnt for the purpose of dedication. It was for SIN and it clearly says so in those scriptures.

LetsBeLogical²

 

[ukok]

LBL, what is it that makes you avoid every explanation but the one you want to imagine is true. It is you that missed my explanation. Mary was humble and obedient to the law...can you imagine the scenario that would unfold if she were not humble and obedient? How could she explain that she did not need to partake of this proceedure? Could she tell everyone that she was the Mother of the Son of God???

 

[LetsBeLogical]

LBL, what is it that makes you avoid every explanation but the one you want to imagine is true. It is you that missed my explanation. Mary was humble and obedient to the law...can you imagine the scenario that would unfold if she were not humble and obedient? How could she explain that she did not need to partake of this proceedure? Could she tell everyone that she was the Mother of the Son of God???

And again did Jesus offer up sacrifices for sin to show he was humble and obedient? This is an excuse to get around the fact that she had to follow the law because she was a sinner. If Jesus was sinless and didnt do it then why on earth should his sinless mother do it?

LetsBeLogical²

 

[ukok]

Jesus' sinless mother's obedience has nothing to do with the sacrifice that you refer to.

tell me, why was Jesus circumcised...He was without sin and yet still he was obedient to the law..or was there another reason that you know and i don't?

And may i suggest that if you desire to discuss sacrifice, that you do so in another thread...this one has drifted considerably since it began.

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Jesus' sinless mother's obedience has nothing to do with the sacrifice that you refer to.

tell me, why was Jesus circumcised...He was without sin and yet still he was obedient to the law..or was there another reason that you know and i don't?

And may i suggest that if you desire to discuss sacrifice, that you do so in another thread...this one has drifted considerably since it began.

It hasnt drifted at all. Its completely in context with the question about Mary being sinless which according to scripture she wasnt. YOu mention circumcision as if Jesus done it to himself. However, if Jesus followed all the Levitical laws as an example of humility and obedience then why did he never offer up a sacrifice for sins? It seems you folks are avoiding answering that question for some reason.

LetsBeLogical²

 

[ukok]

What are you getting at LBL, please clarify your question and then maybe when i understand exactly what you are getting at, then i will be able to respond...and i'm not 'you folks'...but thanks for that, the veil of cynicism and condesension is getting thinner with every response that you post.

 

[LetsBeLogical]

What are you getting at LBL, please clarify your question and then maybe when i understand exactly what you are getting at, then i will be able to respond...and i'm not 'you folks'...but thanks for that, the veil of cynicism and condesension is getting thinner with every response that you post.

Ukok, I dont know how much clearer my question could be. If Mary was sinless and yet offered a sin offering ONLY as to show obedience and humility then why didnt Jesus ever offer a sin offering to show obedience and humility. I mean did not Jesus follow the Law? Of course he did. It seems to me that Catholicism sidesteps the scripture in this case because it goes directly against Mary being without original sin. It may seem condescending because I have asked the same question about 3 times without ever getting a reply on it until just now. However, it seems you are doing the same in trying to use "big" words in reference to what you think my posts are doing. Either way how about just answering the question and we can move on. I dont see the difficulty in it.

LetsBeLogical²

 

[ukok]

Ukok, I dont know how much clearer my question could be. If Mary was sinless and yet offered a sin offering ONLY as to show obedience and humility then why didnt Jesus ever offer a sin offering to show obedience and humility. I mean did not Jesus follow the Law? Of course he did. It seems to me that Catholicism sidesteps the scripture in this case because it goes directly against Mary being without original sin. It may seem condescending because I have asked the same question about 3 times without ever getting a reply on it until just now. However, it seems you are doing the same in trying to use "big" words in reference to what you think my posts are doing. Either way how about just answering the question and we can move on. I dont see the difficulty in it.

LetsBeLogical²

Thankyou for the clarification LBL, i have to go and get the children ready for bed, i'll respond when i am able in a little while.

God bless

 

[ukok]

Ukok, I dont know how much clearer my question could be. If Mary was sinless and yet offered a sin offering ONLY as to show obedience and humility then why didnt Jesus ever offer a sin offering to show obedience and humility. I mean did not Jesus follow the Law? Of course he did. It seems to me that Catholicism sidesteps the scripture in this case because it goes directly against Mary being without original sin. It may seem condescending because I have asked the same question about 3 times without ever getting a reply on it until just now. However, it seems you are doing the same in trying to use "big" words in reference to what you think my posts are doing. Either way how about just answering the question and we can move on. I dont see the difficulty in it.

the first thing that springs to mind is this:



Phi 2:8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

Jesus was obedient and did humble Himself, not for the need of Himself, but for the need of others. Jesus was obedient to the law because He was God made Man and lived as Man. Jesus not only honoured the law, but He obeyed the law and then He taught the law. Are you suggesting that Christ did not obey the requirements of the law fully or are we agreeing that he did?

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:

Gal 4:5 That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Jesus was born under Jewish law and was therefore subjected to all it's ordinances...Jesus kept both moral and ceremonial law, where does it say in the Bible that He didn't?..if in fact you are suggesting that He didn't.

I don't understand what the point of this question is, you ask if Jesus obeyed Jewish law. Had you asked that originally i would have answered you, but you beat around the bush asking about sacrifices and such.

so where does this take us....you are proving my point...Jesus obeyed the law and so did Mary His mother, both were without sin., Not equal to one another, but without sin nonetheless. this is what i have stated previously. How does Jesus obeying Jewish Law expose an untruth in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; in so far as you suggest that Mary's adherence to Jewish Law reveals her sinful nature ?