• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Role of Mary

Role of Mary

  • She is the Mother of God

  • She was only a mere woman


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,905
20,003
USA
✟2,103,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Lollard said:
[/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.
AMEN!!
 
Upvote 0

BjBarnett

Viva il Papa!
Mar 18, 2004
3,180
123
40
Middlesboro, Kentucky
✟26,513.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
FreeinChrist said:
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!

yeah well no doubt that all churches have people in them that have there agendas I agree with that. but when it comes to doctrine no one can push there "agenda" because you cant change doctrine atleast not in the Catholic Church. So what was in the church has always been in the church and thus would make the teachings of the church right since it was Christ himself that instituted the teachings. So yes "because the church says so" is a good answer because its the same as saying "because Christ said so"
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,905
20,003
USA
✟2,103,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
BjBarnett said:
yeah well no doubt that all churches have people in them that have there agendas I agree with that. but when it comes to doctrine no one can push there "agenda" because you cant change doctrine atleast not in the Catholic Church. So what was in the church has always been in the church and thus would make the teachings of the church right since it was Christ himself that instituted the teachings. So yes "because the church says so" is a good answer because its the same as saying "because Christ said so"
Well, that's your opinion, but I don't believe there has been a lack of an agenda there, either. So no, "because the Church says so" is not a good answer, and is not accepted by a large majority of Protestants.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟65,355.00
Faith
Catholic
I would like to add to this:
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.

As the doctrines of the Trinity and the sinlessness of Mary are gleaned from the scriptures instead of being overtly and obviously stated as are the scriptures regarding the sinlessness of Christ, it takes time, and patience and effort to understand the fragments and how they fit together and how they form a complete picture, as we see inherent in the defintions of 'glean' above.

It requires that one take time to study and a willingness of heart and mind to try to understand when something presented seems so foriegn an idea that it might even be wrong. But if one is willing to do so, as the bereans did for Paul, the rewards in the opening of the depths of scripture are wonderful and incredible.

I can speak from personal experience.

The Catholic view of Mary was something I strongly opposed on a deep level inside pretty much all my life. Since my mother was a convert to the EO and never accepted their teaching on Mary and the Saints, I absorbed her negative view of it. I had no idea ho deeply I had, over the years, internalized the common Protestant/NC notions and views towards the Catholic veneration of Mary until I started confronting it and my beliefs regarding it.

They were very strong against all of what we have been talking about in this thread.

It took months, months of exposing myself to the spirituality and teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Mary and investigating and researchng what I was hearing and reading.

In the end, I came to accept on an intellecutal level that the Communion of Saints is indeed real, and so the Catholic Chruch's teaching on Mary and her role in the Communion of Saints is correct.

But it was still an intellecutal acknowledgement that there was nothing in the scriptures that prevented this from beign true and according to the teachings and practices of the anti-nicen fathers it was true..

It had to be a leap of faith when I finally, like a child, turned to God and asked, "Is this You?" "Is this really "You?" (meaning is this really of You God?)

God's answer was immediate and incredible and I was shown the reality of the Communion of Saints and Mary's unique role.

When you ask for a piece of bread, your Father in heaven is not going to give you a stone . . when you ask for a fish, you Father in heaven is not going to give you a scorpion that will harm you.

From that point on, as I continued to learn about the Church's teaching regarding Mary, doctrines which we have been discussing here were not easy to accept . . but God would reveal something to me about Mary I had not encountered yet in my studies . . things I found confusing until I came across their explanaiton.

What I know and share is not something I am merely parroting back from what the Church has taught, but something I have taken a great deal of time to learn about and understand as my Catholic and Orthodox brethern in this thread have also done.


If one is willing to lay aside their preconceived notions about Mary and the Church, and start this journey, I can say with all my heart, God will honor your desire to understand with great understandings and delight in Him you would never dream of right now.


There is actually so much in the bible about Mary . . but since it must be gleaned, it must be searched for, patiently and minutely gathered and mined from scripture. What one finds when they have done so with an open heart before the Lord is such depth of understanding in such small pieces gleaned from the scriptures, small portions that speak volumes in such few words.


May God bless all of you richly, and especially the endevours of those who desire to walk this path of openeness before the Lord in regards to Mary, the Mother of God.


Peace be with you!
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,905
20,003
USA
✟2,103,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
thereselittleflower said:
I would like to add to this:
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 . .


IF it can be 'gleaned' from the scritures - What scriptures?
 
Upvote 0

BjBarnett

Viva il Papa!
Mar 18, 2004
3,180
123
40
Middlesboro, Kentucky
✟26,513.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
FreeinChrist said:
Well, that's your opinion, but I don't believe there has been a lack of an agenda there, either. So no, "because the Church says so" is not a good answer, and is not accepted by a large majority of Protestants.

well the fact of the matter is Catholic doctrine cant be changed (well ya know if God came down and changed it then it could be lol) and the reason the "large majority" of protestants dont believe that is because they cant rely on what there church has passed down because the teachings were passed down by by some guy that decided 400 years ago that they didnt want to be in the Catholic church anymore. where as the Catholic church can rely on it because Christ was the man the founded our church 2000 years ago and set the doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Mary_Magdalene

AKA..Godschosengirl
Feb 3, 2004
12,255
408
✟37,828.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
BjBarnett said:
well the fact of the matter is Catholic doctrine cant be changed (well ya know if God came down and changed it then it could be lol) and the reason the "large majority" of protestants dont believe that is because they cant rely on what there church has passed down because the teachings were passed down by by some guy that decided 400 years ago that they didnt want to be in the Catholic church anymore. where as the Catholic church can rely on it because Christ was the man the founded our church 2000 years ago and set the doctrine.


no.....but i guess that is another thread which has been argued here about a million times before.

:prayer:
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Ainesis said:
Now you are certainly entitled to your opinion and also have the right to judge, slander, and accuse. But, at least be honest about it.
My words were a warning about how some arguments might be perceived. If you chose to see yourself reflected in that, that is your judgement.

No, I have never said that. Heavenly blessings and exaltations are for God to give out as He sees fit. It is very likely that mary will be given greater rewards than other believers in Heaven, afterall she is Jesus' mother. However, in terms of how we exalt and honor each other as fellow believers, we are not instructed to exalt her but to honor her the way we would any other child of God.


Er... All generations shall call me blessed. (Not "call every other believer" blessed.)

What I have noted is what Jesus said in terms of His mother deserving the same amount of honor that we give to all believers. Never once did He indicate that we sure exalt or bless her more.
Jesus never qualified either of His statements with the attribute of 'perfection' as you have.

"And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:33-35


The part of this passage you fail to give due weight to is: For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

Jesus speaks of the believer who does the will of God. The blessing is conditional. When Jesus speaks of doing the will of God, does He mean doing a bit of the will of God, or part of the will of God? No. He means doing the whole will of God. Or even the perfect will of God.

Jesus looks around on those who were with Him and said "Behold my mother and my brethren." If your understanding is that 'doing the will of God' is equated by Jesus as meaning perfection, then all of those in the room with Him were perfectly doing God's will. For He says that they meet the criteria He has set forth as doing the will of God and are therefore the same as His mother and brethren.
Jesus spoke about the motley crowd who were listening to Him at that moment. At that moment they were all doing the will of God, in listening to His teaching. And so He includes them at that moment as His brethren and family. But that was far from a guarantee they would continue in that role. The criteria for doing the will of God is not just sitting in a room listening. It is an ongoing faithfulness and obedience. Constantly doing the will of God, not sitting in that room, is the criteria for being of Jesus family. And we know that many/most/all of those who sat in that room later sinned, fell away, and otherwise did not do the will of God. So they are by no means ultimately as blessed as Mary. (Even if we take the statement as literally as you wish to.)

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."Luke 11:27-28

Yet again, no reference to perfection. All believers are called to be doers of God's word.
..hear the word of God, and keep it." These are the key words. It is not just about hearing the word, it is keeping the word, that makes one blessed. And it doesn't say, keep some of the word. Therefore the criterion is clearly keeping all of the word. Yes. We can be forgiven, and forgiven many times for our errors and failings, but having errors and failings does not make us in any manner as blessed and exalted as those who are great examples in the Faith such as Mary and the heavenly Saints.

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

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12
You seem obsessed by the word "all" in these passages, which we already know is NOT an absolute which precludes exceptions. Numerous examples have been given of this already. The "all" (pas) is a rhetorical "all" as in "all" the world was counted".

We also know specifically that Jesus did not sin, Gabriel, Michael and the majority of the angels did not sin, the newborn and the mentally incapacitated do not sin either.

Since the "all" in these passages has to be an absolute, no exceptions whatsoever "all", for it to be able to be used as an argument against the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, the argument falls.

"So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. " Galatians 3:9

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" Ephesians 1:3
I must repeat, the word for "blessed" used of Mary, eulogio, is used in the Bible extremely rarely, and mostly in relation to God and His direct actions. The word for more normal blessing is makarios. Even in the two verses you have found where eulogio, appears to be applied to the faithful, the main focus of the word (which means blessed/exalted), is on God and on Abraham. Only in association with these, and in the sense of blessings being given, (not being inherent), is the word used of faithful believers.

Why should mary be mentioned with any reference to honor due? Oh, you know what? She isn't.
Another silly jibe, which is not even related to the facts, for Mary clearly is highly honoured several times in the scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Lollard said:
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.
You seem to be assuming that the only being that can possibly be sinless or commit no sin is God.

This is clearly not the case. The newborn, the unconscious, the mentally incapacitated, have committed no sin. Gabriel, Michael, and the majority of the angels are completely sinless. Are they God? Are they divine? No. Of course not. Adam and Eve came into the world sinless.

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.
Not at all. Firstly, Mary gave her flesh and human nature to Jesus. She could not have given a sinful nature or sinful flesh to Jesus. That is impossible. If it were so, Jesus would have needed redemption!

Secondly, Mary says in the Magnificat, thirty or forty years before Jesus died on the cross.

Luke 1.47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour

Note: Mary says: "God my saviour" (Present tense). Not, "God who will be my Saviour", (future tense) as she would have to say if she was yet to be saved. This is a clear indication that Mary is already saved. As is the angel's greeting "Hail, full of Grace."

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.
Yours is the conjecture. See above.
 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
lollard said:
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).

Certanly. You may not like the fact that the Church. The one united Catholic Church, gave us the bible, compiled it, selected its contents, verifiied it and preserved it. However it is nonetheless fact. Protestants only have the bible because the SAME church that taught the sinlessness of Mary, the Veneration of the saints, Apostolic succession, the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the vital importance of Holy Tradition, compiled and preserved it. Of course as Jesus said a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. If the Church that taught these doctrines was bad, then its fruit, the Bible cannot be good. This is your dilemma.

Similarly the fact that the early Christians taught Mary's sinlessness, and of the honour she is due, stands for a great deal. This is especially true, since the ones who try to demean and disregard Mary, denying her sinlessness, and failing to join all generations in her praise, have only appeared on the scene in the past two or three hundred years.

I would far rather hold to what Christians have always taught and believed down through all the ages, than to recently invented theories never heard of before the last few hundred years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reader Nilus
Upvote 0
Jun 24, 2003
3,870
238
72
The Dalles, OR
✟5,260.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
It is a new thing to dis Mary, that is true. All the reformers felt she was Ever-Virgin, but that changed with Sigmund Freud which seems to carry more weight than centuries of Christian witness.
I used to feel that way, but when I had an encounter with the Blessed Virgin, I knew my protestant dogma was wrong.
Jeff the Finn
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟65,355.00
Faith
Catholic
jeffthefinn said:
It is a new thing to dis Mary, that is true. All the reformers felt she was Ever-Virgin, but that changed with Sigmund Freud which seems to carry more weight than centuries of Christian witness.
I had not made the tie yet to Freud . . . but it is interesting .. Could you elaborate on it more Jeff?

I used to feel that way, but when I had an encounter with the Blessed Virgin, I knew my protestant dogma was wrong.
Jeff the Finn
Amen! :) Once one has encountered the Blessed Ever Virgin Mary, there is no more room for doubt . . :)

This is so true! :)
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟65,355.00
Faith
Catholic
Axion said:
Certanly. You may not like the fact that the Church. The one united Catholic Church, gave us the bible, compiled it, selected its contents, verifiied it and preserved it. However it is nonetheless fact. Protestants only have the bible because the SAME church that taught the sinlessness of Mary, the Veneration of the saints, Apostolic succession, the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the vital importance of Holy Tradition, compiled and preserved it. Of course as Jesus said a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. If the Church that taught these doctrines was bad, then its fruit, the Bible cannot be good. This is your dilemma.

Similarly the fact that the early Christians taught Mary's sinlessness, and of the honour she is due, stands for a great deal. This is especially true, since the ones who try to demean and disregard Mary, denying her sinlessness, and failing to join all generations in her praise, have only appeared on the scene in the past two or three hundred years.

I would far rather hold to what Christians have always taught and believed down through all the ages, than to recently invented theories never heard of before the last few hundred years.

Bless you Axion! :)


Peace in Him!
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Axion said:
Certanly. You may not like the fact that the Church. The one united Catholic Church, gave us the bible, compiled it, selected its contents, verifiied it and preserved it. However it is nonetheless fact. Protestants only have the bible because the SAME church that taught the sinlessness of Mary, the Veneration of the saints, Apostolic succession, the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the vital importance of Holy Tradition, compiled and preserved it. Of course as Jesus said a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. If the Church that taught these doctrines was bad, then its fruit, the Bible cannot be good. This is your dilemma.

Similarly the fact that the early Christians taught Mary's sinlessness, and of the honour she is due, stands for a great deal. This is especially true, since the ones who try to demean and disregard Mary, denying her sinlessness, and failing to join all generations in her praise, have only appeared on the scene in the past two or three hundred years.

I would far rather hold to what Christians have always taught and believed down through all the ages, than to recently invented theories never heard of before the last few hundred years.
:amen: It sure is nice when the two largest and oldest Churches in the world agree!

Forgive me...:liturgy:
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes Bless Axion. Someone came close a few pages earlier I think, but Axion hits a homer. After 42 pages someone mentions the fact that we all have a "fallen nature" inherited from Adam and Eve. Mary representing a "new Eve" if you will, is given before her creation the Grace to be born and remain pure, free from all sin including our fallen nature. That would be the result of being "full of Grace" and something even the angel acknowledged she already had, before she was asked to make a choice, before our Lord was conceived, as in past tense. This state of Grace of Mary, this purity, being free from sin was not something Mary did for herself. It was a gift from God from her conception and would be necessary if the human nature of Jesus, which He gets completely from Mary, is to be pure.

Now no one will argue that Jesus was without sin. But if Mary was not free of all sin including the stain of our fallen nature, then how could she give our Lord a pure flesh?

Assuming one holds to our having a fallen nature, even at our birth, the only other way to explain Jesus having flesh unstained from our fallen nature is too make that flesh something other than human, which some of tried even very early in Church history. He must be both 100% human and 100% divine.

He gets 100% of His humanity from the only human involved in his conception, Mary. We must acknowledge that God did not have to become flesh in this manner, but how wonderful that He did so. To say Mary was just a vessel to me not only cheapens the significance of His choice on HOW HE would become fully Man, it would mean that Jesus was really not fully man. In order to be fully man He needed to get His flesh from Mary. Since it would be harder for us to relate had He just appeared at 30 ready for the slaughter, we would all agree this was a wise choice for that and many other reasons.

My thought is one couldn’t be “FULL OF GRACE” and sin. Obviously from scripture this was something Mary already had before agreeing to be God’s handmaiden. So then the only question left becomes when did she reach that state? The thought also occurs that no one could reach such a state without being given a lot of Grace by God, something the angel also acknowledges.

Now tie this to the idea of our fallen nature and it follows she would had to have been given it from conception. If she were given that grace then, she does not inherit the fallen nature and so cannot pass it on to any offspring, just like Eve before the fall. Mary still has free will, but if she is still “full of Grace” from before birth she can live a sinless life so that at the conception of Jesus, she can still pass on a pure flesh to her Son. The only remaining question is would God remove this Grace from Mary after Jesus was born. To me the immediate question becomes why would He?

If you create a pure Mary to bear your Son into the world as pure and sinless baby, then why would you then allow Mary to be corrupted? And what would that say about honoring your mother if He did remove the Grace Mary had after Jesus was born? To me a sinless Mary just makes sense. Even though a lifelong Baptist, when explained in this way it is a no brainer, at least it was for me.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,905
20,003
USA
✟2,103,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Axion said:
Certanly. You may not like the fact that the Church. The one united Catholic Church, gave us the bible, compiled it, selected its contents, verifiied it and preserved it. However it is nonetheless fact. Protestants only have the bible because the SAME church that taught the sinlessness of Mary, the Veneration of the saints, Apostolic succession, the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the vital importance of Holy Tradition, compiled and preserved it. Of course as Jesus said a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. If the Church that taught these doctrines was bad, then its fruit, the Bible cannot be good. This is your dilemma.
Protestants have the Bible because GOD inspired the writers, NOT thanks to the RCC. And God perserved His word despite the workings of man. The OT writings already existed before the Catholic church. But THAT is another topic for another thread. I don't buy your point here in the least.

The question of WHEN the church began to teach the sinlessness of Mary and veneration of saints is one I have, for I do not believe that it was taught in the beginning of the church.


Similarly the fact that the early Christians taught Mary's sinlessness, and of the honour she is due, stands for a great deal. This is especially true, since the ones who try to demean and disregard Mary, denying her sinlessness, and failing to join all generations in her praise, have only appeared on the scene in the past two or three hundred years.
I haven't seen that the early church taught the sinlessness of mary....and that includes the early church that wrote the new Testament.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,905
20,003
USA
✟2,103,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
DrBubbaLove said:
Yes Bless Axion. Someone came close a few pages earlier I think, but Axion hits a homer. After 42 pages someone mentions the fact that we all have a "fallen nature" inherited from Adam and Eve. Mary representing a "new Eve" if you will, is given before her creation the Grace to be born and remain pure, free from all sin including our fallen nature. That would be the result of being "full of Grace" and something even the angel acknowledged she already had, before she was asked to make a choice, before our Lord was conceived, as in past tense. This state of Grace of Mary, this purity, being free from sin was not something Mary did for herself. It was a gift from God from her conception and would be necessary if the human nature of Jesus, which He gets completely from Mary, is to be pure.
And that is an interpretation that adds a GREAT DEAL to scripture.

Now no one will argue that Jesus was without sin. But if Mary was not free of all sin including the stain of our fallen nature, then how could she give our Lord a pure flesh?
Because of the HOLY SPIRIT. He WAS involved too!!

Assuming one holds to our having a fallen nature, even at our birth, the only other way to explain Jesus having flesh unstained from our fallen nature is too make that flesh something other than human, which some of tried even very early in Church history. He must be both 100% human and 100% divine.
So what about Mary's mother.....sinless? Her father???? And the grandparents? sinless?

I don't buy it. I believe Mary was full of grace in that God blessed her with being the mother of the Messiah - the desire of every Hebrew woman.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
152,905
20,003
USA
✟2,103,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Axion said:
My words were a warning about how some arguments might be perceived. If you chose to see yourself reflected in that, that is your judgement.



Er... All generations shall call me blessed. (Not "call every other believer" blessed.)
And she is. She was blessed with being the mother of the Messiah, chosen by God.
She is the mother of God Incarnate.


You know, we will not all agree on this issue in the least.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 24, 2003
3,870
238
72
The Dalles, OR
✟5,260.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
I am always astounded at the utter dismissal of human beings by protestants, it makes me wonder why they feel the incarnation took place to begin with. I also wonder why if human beings were created in the ikon and likeness of God, that now that is null and void. The only way, I mean the only way any of us know of the Gospel is through human beings. The Bible was written by human beings, it did not fall out of the sky in bonded leather, the only way anyone knows what is in the Bible is because human beings chose the books, they did not come together out of the blue.
Without man there is no Bible, there is no Christianity, so to continue to down play the human role of the Tradition makes no sense!
Jeff the Finn
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benedicta00
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.