Role of Mary

[Ainesis]

why?
the bible was not meant to contain everything to being a christian.

Certainly not! But it does contain everything necessary to become a Christian.

 

[BjBarnett]

Certainly not! But it does contain everything necessary to become a Christian.

agreed but see it doesnt have everything to be a christian and thus the outside source (the church) comes in to show what needs to be done and what is taught that the bible does not speak of.

 

[Ainesis]

agreed but see it doesnt have everything to be a christian and thus the outside source (the church) comes in to show what needs to be done and what is taught that the bible does not speak of.

I would say that is the job of the Holy Spirit, but if the Holy Spirit is guiding the church (and the church is following) that is essentially the samething.

God Bless!

 

[BjBarnett]

your right the holy spirit is guiding the church. so with that being said "because the church says so" is a good arguement because it comes from the church which is led by God.

 

[thereselittleflower]

No sore spots, no nerves struck, not a volitile issue in the least, once again you are assuming way to much. You have been trying to explain something to me that I did not ask for, and ducking the actual issue. If I am sore it is because of that.

Anyway...

Hi Lollard

No . not assuming anything. . just letting you know how things appear on this end.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Pretty much...

But seriously, although that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, if the Bible is the product of the church, then they sure should have done a better job at actually picking text to include that would come close to supporting what is being claimed.

Ainesis . . do you really believe that the Bishops of the Church would have chosen books to canonize as scripture that did NOT support Church teaching?


That is a really incredible view to take . . and not one I would care to bet the house on!




Peace to all!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Certainly not! But it does contain everything necessary to become a Christian.

Only if understood properly . .


Peace to all!

 

[Momzilla]

Only if understood properly . .


Peace to all!

 

[thereselittleflower]

That is correct. The exception being the spotless lamb, Jesus the Christ, and no one else.

Tell me where in the text of this verse it states this?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"


​

It is not spelled out ANYWHERE else that anyone else was sinless/spotless.

I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. I believe that though it is not explicitly spelled out that Mary is sinless/spotles, it is indeed found in scripture . . but just like it is not obvious from, or EXPlICITYLY STATED IN, the text itself in the verse we are discussing that what you said about Jesus the Christ above is true outside of the teaching of the Church, it is not necessarily obvious from other scripture passages about Mary that this is also true about her, though for different reasons, outside of Church teaching.

Jesus is the exception because He is 100% God and 100% man. He could not have sinned as a man otherwise He could not have been God. Mary was 100% woman and 100% woman, and therefore could have, and did sin and did die.

Let's say it this way . . Jesu was 100% Human Mary was 100% Human

The only difference between them in their natures is that Jesus is also 100% God and Mary is not (you surmised correctly earlier at what I was not saying).

This translates into a difference as to the reason they are sinles . .

Jesus, though God, was fully human and fully tempted as we, but did not sin. How His divine nature played into this is still not fully understood.

Mary, though Human and of Adam's seed and so destined to inherit a sin nature like us all, was preserved from Sin. She was SAVED and so any sinlessness on her part is not of her doing or work, but totally God's . .

Let's compare sin to a dangerous mud pit that will invariably pull you to your death if you fall in and someone doesn't rescue you . .

Man is blinded by his sin nature and so is doomed to fall into the mud pit .. there are only two ways he can be saved from the mud pit:

1) If someone pulls you out after he has fallen in .. that is the state we as believers find ourselves in


2) If someone stops you from falling in in the first place

​

In both instances, your deliverance is due to the intervention of someone else for, in the first, you had already fallen in, and in the second, you, when you didn't even know you were about to fall in in the first place, were prevented from doing so by someone else.


In both instances you were saved from the mud pit . .

Mary's salvation from the mud pit was one of prevention .. and so completely dependent on another . . God . . . through the atoning death of her Son who was slain from the foundations of the world.


We have been giving some of the scriptural support for this teaching . . it is up to each person whether or not they accept it. A failure to accept it does not mean it is not true.



Peace in Him!

Luk 2:35 yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul; that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. ​

 

[FreeinChrist]

well hmm..

we know that the bible is the inspired word of God because the church said so but i guess since thats a weak arguement that it isnt true..

We know the Bible is the inspired word of God because SCRIPTURE says so.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You are of course right here Lollard. We have been able to find Biblical exceptions to "all" dieing, have we seen any for "all" sinning? No, none except Jesus. Not even the claims about Enoch and Elijoah, who were the only ones taken bodily to Heaven prior to death according to Scripture, are said to be sinless.

I have a question .. if death is the result of sin . . then what does that say about Enoch and Elija's sinfulness or sinlessness since they did not die?

How is it that if they were sinful, that they did not die?


Peace to all!

 

[FreeinChrist]

your right the holy spirit is guiding the church. so with that being said "because the church says so" is a good arguement because it comes from the church which is led by God.

But not a perfect arguement by any means...because there are people in churches - ALL churches - that have agendas and influence understanding.

I made the statement "because the church says so" is a weak arguement, because when discussing theological points, the blanket statement "the church says..." is not impressive to one in another denomination of Christianity. Doesn't persuade in the least!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Tell me where in the text of this verse it states this?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"




​

Rom 3:21 But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

Rom 3:22 even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Rom 3:26 for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. I believe that though it is not explicitly spelled out that Mary is sinless/spotles, it is indeed found in scripture . . but just like it is not obvious from, or EXPlICITYLY STATED IN, the text itself in the verse we are discussing that what you said about Jesus the Christ above is true outside of the teaching of the Church, it is not necessarily obvious from other scripture passages about Mary that this is also true about her, though for different reasons, outside of Church teaching.

hmmmm

 

[thereselittleflower]

Let me clarify my question again

That is correct. The exception being the spotless lamb, Jesus the Christ, and no one else.

Tell me where in the text of this verse it states this?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"​

We all agree that Jesus is at least the exception . . but it does not state it in THAT VERSE . . we know it from elsewhere.



It does not explicitly state

"all, EXCEPT JESUS, have sinned" . .​

or explicitily that Jesus was sinless even in the surrounding text!


It appears to leave it as an unqualified "ALL". But we understand that of necessity it is indeed qualified despite appearances.


It was Church teaching when the books of the bible were canonized that Mary was immaculate . . sinless.

Just as it was the teaching of the Church that Jesus was immaculate, sinless.

The verse above does not state that Jesus was excepted, though we all agree He was . .

The verse above does not need to state that Mary was exceted, for the Church also knew that she was.


The whole point is . . ALL does not mean ALL here in this verse wihtout qualification. And the Church had no problem with Mary being called immaculate in light of this verse because they understood ALL did not mean ALL the way some here would have us believe.


Peace to all!

Luk 2:35 yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul; that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. ​

​

 

[FreeinChrist]

That is correct. The exception being the spotless lamb, Jesus the Christ, and no one else.

It is not spelled out ANYWHERE else that anyone else was sinless/spotless. Jesus is the exception because He is 100% God and 100% man. He could not have sinned as a man otherwise He could not have been God. Mary was 100% woman and 100% woman, and therefore could have, and did sin and did die.

You are correct.

When Paul wrote
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Using that alone, we would think Jesus would have to be sinful too. However, we DO have scripture that clearly says He was without sin:
Hbr 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

Hbr 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.

However, as has been stated, there is no scripture that states Mary was sinless - so none was given by those who claim she was.

Addition - What needs to be considered in looking at Romans 3:23 is that Paul was very aware that Jesus was sinless when he worte that - so the context of the scripture is in regards to everyone else. Not Jesus.

 

[SumTinWong]

Tell me where in the text of this verse it states this?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"​

​

It does not say this in this verse.

I have to somewhat disagree with you on this. I believe that though it is not explicitly spelled out that Mary is sinless/spotles, it is indeed found in scripture . . but just like it is not obvious from, or EXPlICITYLY STATED IN, the text itself in the verse we are discussing that what you said about Jesus the Christ above is true outside of the teaching of the Church, it is not necessarily obvious from other scripture passages about Mary that this is also true about her, though for different reasons, outside of Church teaching.

Let me try and correct this misinformation. We can conclude from reading the rest of the new Testament that concerns the issue of Jesus being sinless, that indeed He was sinless.

1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."
1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew not sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."


It is your contention that we can gleen from the scriptures the same thing about Mary? Sorry but not without gymnastics, and assumptions. It is not stated anywhere in the Bible that Mary was sinless. Nowhere.

Let's say it this way . . Jesu was 100% Human Mary was 100% Human

Let's not. Do not try and compare the Lord with Mary. That is ridiculous. There is no comparison. Jesus was man but He was also God. Mary was a woman and nothing else. By His nature He was sinless. Mary by her nature she was not.

The only difference between them in their natures is that Jesus is also 100% God and Mary is not (you surmised correctly earlier at what I was not saying).

I was correct at what you were not saying? There are plenty of other differences by the way that do come from His being God. He is omnipotent. Mary isn't. He is omnipresent. Mary isn't. He is the lamb. Mary isn't. He was there before the creation of the world. Mary isn't. etc...

This translates into a difference as to the reason they are sinles . .

They weren't sinless, He was. The reason He was is because He is Holy, He is God. There could be no sin in Him otherwise He would not be Holy, or in effect be God.

Jesus, though God, was fully human and fully tempted as we, but did not sin. How His divine nature played into this is still not fully understood.

Sure it is. He was man in the flesh. He faced the same temptations but He could not possibly sin. He did not have the ability.

Mary, though Human and of Adam's seed and so destined to inherit a sin nature like us all, was preserved from Sin. She was SAVED and so any sinlessness on her part is not of her doing or work, but totally God's.

Okay here is where the gymnastics come in. She WAS saved, but it happend on the cross at the same time it happend for us. God did not promise her nor did He give to her redemption before the actual event took place. This is just allegorical and unfounded thinking.

Let's compare sin to a dangerous mud pit that will invariably pull you to your death if you fall in and someone doesn't rescue you . .

Oh please not this example... I listen to Catholic Answers from time to time I have heard this all before. The example proves nothing. It is an attempt to try and make reasonable or plausable the possibilty, of nonbiblical teachings without addressing the main point that this dogma is neither necessary nor Biblical.

Mary's salvation from the mud pit was one of prevention .. and so completely dependent on another . . God . . . through the atoning death of her Son who was slain from the foundations of the world.

Pure conjecture. Marys' salvation came when Jesus died and rose again on the third day. The same with all believers. The Bible does not say any different.

We have been giving some of the scriptural support for this teaching . . it is up to each person whether or not they accept it. A failure to accept it does not mean it is not true.

Extrabiblical examples do not make it the truth either. The logic goes both ways, should you hear the truth and do not accept it. Just as coming up with examples to try and make them seem reasonable is not proof that what you are saying is the truth. I have yet to se any scriptural support for mary being sinless. None.

It was Church teaching when the books of the bible were canonized that Mary was immaculate . . sinless.

Because there was a church teaching about it, does not make it right. Please don't even try to drag this into then how can you trust the Bible angle (the same church that gave you this gave you that).

Just as it was the teaching of the Church that Jesus was immaculate, sinless.

The difference being that we can see clearly from the scriptures that this is so. We cannot see without adding our own opinions of what happend believe that Mary was anything more than what the Bible presented her to be.

Anyway I am off for a few days so you all enjoy your weekend.

 

[Benedicta00]

I don't mean to offend you by referring to scriptures. For me, this is the least volatile response as the words are then not my own, but God's. In such a case, it becomes not about what we say, but what He says. Either way, if this is not an approach you prefer, then I will honor that.

Unfortunately, I have tried a myraid of ways to answer your question and nothing short of perhaps agreeing with your understanding seems able to get across. I will, however, offer two more attempts, then perhaps we should let sleeping dogs lie.

Here is an earlier response I gave to Oblio in regards to this question. I repeat it in case you have missed it.



Lastly, perhaps it would help if you share with me your understanding of the Trinity. I have tried to answer your questions sincerely, yet I have continued to ask you this and you never answer.

Scripture does not offend me, it’s just not necessary in me asking something rather pointed. I would just like you to answer, if Jesus is God to you, then how exactly is it Mary is not Mother of God?

 

[Lynn73]

[/indent]It does not say this in this verse.

Let me try and correct this misinformation. We can conclude from reading the rest of the new Testament that concerns the issue of Jesus being sinless, that indeed He was sinless.

1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."
1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew not sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."


It is your contention that we can gleen from the scriptures the same thing about Mary? Sorry but not without gymnastics, and assumptions. It is not stated anywhere in the Bible that Mary was sinless. Nowhere.


Let's not. Do not try and compare the Lord with Mary. That is ridiculous. There is no comparison. Jesus was man but He was also God. Mary was a woman and nothing else. By His nature He was sinless. Mary by her nature she was not.

I was correct at what you were not saying? There are plenty of other differences by the way that do come from His being God. He is omnipotent. Mary isn't. He is omnipresent. Mary isn't. He is the lamb. Mary isn't. He was there before the creation of the world. Mary isn't. etc...

They weren't sinless, He was. The reason He was is because He is Holy, He is God. There could be no sin in Him otherwise He would not be Holy, or in effect be God.

Sure it is. He was man in the flesh. He faced the same temptations but He could not possibly sin. He did not have the ability.

Okay here is where the gymnastics come in. She WAS saved, but it happend on the cross at the same time it happend for us. God did not promise her nor did He give to her redemption before the actual event took place. This is just allegorical and unfounded thinking.

Oh please not this example... I listen to Catholic Answers from time to time I have heard this all before. The example proves nothing. It is an attempt to try and make reasonable or plausable the possibilty, of nonbiblical teachings without addressing the main point that this dogma is neither necessary nor Biblical.

Pure conjecture. Marys' salvation came when Jesus died and rose again on the third day. The same with all believers. The Bible does not say any different.

Extrabiblical examples do not make it the truth either. The logic goes both ways, should you hear the truth and do not accept it. Just as coming up with examples to try and make them seem reasonable is not proof that what you are saying is the truth. I have yet to se any scriptural support for mary being sinless. None.

Because there was a church teaching about it, does not make it right. Please don't even try to drag this into then how can you trust the Bible angle (the same church that gave you this gave you that).

The difference being that we can see clearly from the scriptures that this is so. We cannot see without adding our own opinions of what happend believe that Mary was anything more than what the Bible presented her to be.

Anyway I am off for a few days so you all enjoy your weekend.

I would love to give you a rep point for this post but I have to spread it around first. You explain things excellently and logically and according to Scripture. I agree totally. Thanks!

 

[thereselittleflower]

[/indent]It does not say this in this verse.

That was my point . . and so even though it doesn't explicitly refer to anyone else is that is not an issue either

Let me try and correct this misinformation. We can conclude from reading the rest of the new Testament that concerns the issue of Jesus being sinless, that indeed He was sinless.

1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."
1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew not sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

There is nothing here that was not already understood or presented otherwise.

It is your contention that we can gleen from the scriptures the same thing about Mary? Sorry but not without gymnastics, and assumptions. It is not stated anywhere in the Bible that Mary was sinless. Nowhere.

It is not explicitly stated, I agree . . and that is not what I claimed.

First, the fact that Jesus is sinless is not "gleaned" from the scriptures . it is explicity stated in the scriptures . . just not in the verse we are discussing.

Second, YES, that Mary was indeed immaculate, sinless, CAN be GLEANED from the scriptures . .





Let's look at what "Glean" means:

Webster's 1913 Dictionary



Definition: \Glean\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Gleaned}; p. pr. & vb. n.
{Gleaning}.] [OE. glenen, OF. glener, glaner, F. glaner, fr.
LL. glenare; cf. W. glan clean, glanh?u to clean, purify, or
AS. gelm, gilm, a hand?ul.]
1. To gather after a reaper; to collect in scattered or
fragmentary parcels, as the grain left by a reaper, or
grapes left after the gathering.
To glean the broken ears after the man That the main
harvest reaps. --Shak.
2. To gather from (a field or vineyard) what is left.
3. To collect with patient and minute labor; to pick out; to
obtain.
Content to glean what we can from . . . experiments.
--Locke.

\Glean\, v. i.
1. To gather stalks or ears of grain left by reapers.
And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field
after the reapers. --Ruth ii. 3.
2. To pick up or gather anything by degrees.
Piecemeal they this acre first, then that; Glean on,
and gather up the whole estate. --Pope.

\Glean\, n.
A collection made by gleaning.
The gleans of yellow thyme distend his thighs.
--Dryden.

\Glean\, n.
Cleaning; afterbirth. [Obs.] --Holland.


​

So where Christ's sinlessness is explressly stated and is not the result of putting fragments and scattered scripture peices together (like one has to do for the Trinity), one verse suffices.



But not so with the doctrines of the Mary's sinlessness or the Trinity.

Those have to be gleaned froms scripture . . the fragments that make up the whole pulled out and seen together, laid into the puzzle until the whole picture is visable.

Many of the scriptures we "glean" the scriptural evidence for the doctine of Mary's sinlessness have already been presented in this thread.

I am sorry it seems to you like a matter of gymnastics and assumptions .. it isn't.

It is a matter of the Fullness of the Deposite of Faith handed down from the Apostles to the Early Church and through them down the centuries to us.

Let's not. Do not try and compare the Lord with Mary. That is ridiculous.

How so? Do we not compare ourselves to Christ when we say He is our Brother and we are His brethern? Since when is coimparison to Christ off limits? How can we judge our spirituality if we do not compare ourselves to Christ?

No . comparison is not the real issues .

The real issue is that even though we say over and over and over again that Mary is a mere creature, like us, and not divine, when we say she is sinless AND WHY, it is perceived as something completely different than we are saying. . the "divinity" card is played by those who are distressed over such a claim as though we are somehow claiming divinity for her, even though the one accusing us of such a thing doesn't come out and say it directly.

Comparison? What comparison is wrong OTHER THAN to somehow be perceived as claiming that Mary is divine? For that is what sinlessness is related to in most of Protestantism and NC's (but not all), DIVINITY .. There is no room in most Protestant/NC thinking for a mere creature to be completely sinless even AT THE PERROGTIVE OF GOD .. (though again, this is not true of all protestants and I hope this includes some NC's as well.)

There is no comparison. Jesus was man but He was also God. Mary was a woman and nothing else. By His nature He was sinless. Mary by her nature she was not.

AGREED!!! I do not disagree with what you just said in any way shape or form!!!

That is what I have been trying to say . . !!!

Mary, by her NATURE could NOT be sinless anymore than you or I !!!

.
.
.

But us Catholics and EO's are not talking about her NATURE . . It is not by her nature we claim she is sinless . . but by a singular act of God in His Grace applied the atonement of Christ to Mary in a PREVENTATIVE FASHION.

She did NOTHING to merit this, it is not because of some quality or aspect about her. It was a FREE UNDESERVED GIFT OF GOD . . and so, Mary was born immaculate, immaculate like EVE was created . . so that Mary could truly make the opposite decision that Eve made . instead of disobedience, Mary was able to perfectly submit her will to God in complete obedience.

This paved the way for Christ to enter the world and by His act of Perfect submission and obedience, undo the effect of Adam's disobedience.

TWO were involved in the fall of man . . TWO are by necessity involved in the redemption of man, for without the fiat, the "behold the handmaiden of the Lord, let it be done unto me according to your owrd" of "The Woman" prophesied in Genesis 3:16, her "Seed" would not have been able to enter the world to Redeem mankind from the fall.

Just as it is spoken of that in ADAM all have sinned (not Eve, even though Eve was part of the cause of Adam's fall) it is CHRIST ALONE who ATONES for Adam's sin. . .. but just as there was the component that EVE introduced, it was necessary for there to be "the Woman" of Genesis 3:16 to undo that component that Eve introduced, though she, "the Woman", Mary did NOT atone for our sins. It was her "yes" to God in opposition to Eve's "no" to God that is the important aspect to understand.

The Earliest Christians had no problems making comparisons of Mary to Christ.





Here is a very early one - an inscription from Abercius Bishop of Hieropolis, in Phrygia from mid 100's AD:

"The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while] living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, being by name Abercius, the disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flocks of sheep [both] on mountains and on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere. For this [shepherd] taught me [that the] book [of life] is worthy of belief. And to Rome he sent me to contemplate majesty, and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled; there also I saw a people bearing a shining mark. And I saw the land of Syria and all [its] cities Nisibis [I saw] when I passed over Euphrates. But everywhere I had brethren. I had Paul. . . . Faith everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands from a fountain and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread. These things I, Abercius, having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius. And no one shall put another grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of [the] Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of Hieropolis one thousand pieces of gold."




​

Here he is speaking of the Eucharist, of Holy Communion and Mary's relation to Christ in the Eucharist. He calls her the Holy Virgin who drew with her hands from a fountain the "fish" which is a symbol for Christ. This inscription highlights the Early Church's understanding of Mary's active participation in the redemption of man.



So yes, the types of comparisons (if that is the word you want to use) of Mary with Jesus is the same as we see in the Early Church. There is nothing wrong with these types of comparisons at all.

I was correct at what you were not saying?

Did you really think I was in any way ascribing divinity to Mary? I hope you have had your mind put at ease by now if that was so ..

There are plenty of other differences by the way that do come from His being God. He is omnipotent. Mary isn't. He is omnipresent. Mary isn't. He is the lamb. Mary isn't. He was there before the creation of the world. Mary isn't. etc...

Yes and so? Who said these differences do not exist?

They weren't sinless, He was. The reason He was is because He is Holy, He is God. There could be no sin in Him otherwise He would not be Holy, or in effect be God.

The early Christians called Mary Holy too . Pangagia Most Holy One

the difference is that Holiness is God's nature, but not Mary's . . Holiness was a gift bestowed upon her through the atoning death of her Son in a preventative manner as I said above.

Sure it is. He was man in the flesh. He faced the same temptations but He could not possibly sin. He did not have the ability.

I am not prepared to get into a discussion as to whether he was able to or not . . this gets deep into theology, and theologians have a hard time describing this.

Okay here is where the gymnastics come in. She WAS saved, but it happend on the cross at the same time it happend for us. God did not promise her nor did He give to her redemption before the actual event took place. This is just allegorical and unfounded thinking.

Yes!! it happened AT THE SAME TIME ON THE CROSS . .

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that!

***But God is not limited to time and space as we are .. ****

AND the bible tells us that the Lamb of God was slain BEFORE the foundations of the world!!

How can this be if he was sacrificed only 2000 years ago?

But the bible does not lie ..

God, who is outside of time and to whom everything is present at once, can easily apply what seems to us a future event to something that, in time to us, preceeded it . . .

Now if we want to describe how this could be in scientific terms, we get into quatum physics and string theory, multiple dimensions and branes, etc . . none of which I am prepared to do in this thread. But I have no problem seeing that God can do this even within the limits of time and space.

We have to be careful not to artificially limit God by insisting that everything happen in a linear fashion from our perspective.

Oh please not this example... I listen to Catholic Answers from time to time I have heard this all before. The example proves nothing. It is an attempt to try and make reasonable or plausable the possibilty, of nonbiblical teachings without addressing the main point that this dogma is neither necessary nor Biblical.

It is a great example . . forgetting about Mary for a moment, if you were going to teach someone about sin, is not the mud pit a good one?

Pure conjecture. Marys' salvation came when Jesus died and rose again on the third day. The same with all believers. The Bible does not say any different.

Again, see my comments above about this . .

I have to break this up


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Extrabiblical examples do not make it the truth either. [/i]

ummm .. I said we have been giving some of the SCRIPTURAL support for this . . and that is the comment of mine you were responding to here . . where did you get EXTRAbiblical from??

How is speaking about EXTRAbiblial evidence a response to my claim we have been giving you BIBLICAL evidence?

????

The logic goes both ways, should you hear the truth and do not accept it. Just as coming up with examples to try and make them seem reasonable is not proof that what you are saying is the truth. I have yet to se any scriptural support for mary being sinless. None.

No - reasonable examples, In AND OF THEMSELVES, do not automatically assure that what I am saying is the truth, but rejection of these reasonable examples because they don't fit one's preconcieved ideas does not make what I am saying false either.

Because there was a church teaching about it, does not make it right. Please don't even try to drag this into then how can you trust the Bible angle (the same church that gave you this gave you that).

But I will . . for it is very legitimate to do so, and very logical and very reasonable and very true . .

And it is the teaching of the Deposite of Faith handed down by the Apostle's.

The difference being that we can see clearly from the scriptures that this is so. We cannot see without adding our own opinions of what happend believe that Mary was anything more than what the Bible presented her to be.

No . . it is a grave mistake to confuse "opinion" with "revealed truth". That Mary is snless is "Revealed Truth" not opinion.

And I believe Mary is EVERYTHING the bible presents her to be. Immaculate, Holy, Ever Virgin.

Anyway I am off for a few days so you all enjoy your weekend.

Hope you have a great weekend!!


Peace in Him!

Luk 2:35 yea and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul; that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed. ​

​