• 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.

What does it matter?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
A person born with the consequences of original sin, which is death, would not need a Savior, they would be immortal, and have no sins to cleanse.

This would be true of Adam and Eve, because they were created before the fall, but Mary was concieved after the fall, and there is still temporal punishments for sin...death.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary needed a Saviour too, but her justifying grace was applied at conception, were our is at our baptism.

Saying that Mary was "purified" or cleansed of OS in her mother's womb, would mean the Holy Spirit was in her at this time, and would always stay with her..therefore the Holy Spirit wouldn't have had to come upon her to conceive Jesus, He would have already been there.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but even we after recieving justifying grace, recieve additonal graces, and gifts from the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
This would be true of Adam and Eve, because they were created before the fall, but Mary was concieved after the fall, and there is still temporal punishments for sin...death.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary needed a Saviour too, but her justifying grace was applied at conception, were our is at our baptism.



I understand the point you are trying to make, but even we after recieving justifying grace, recieve additonal graces, and gifts from the Holy Spirit.


Please show me one reference to a pre schism CF who said that Mary was born sinnless, and her her saving grace applied in the womb..


Well once we recieve are "justifying grace" in Baptism/Chrismation, the Holy Spirit is always with us. Therefore if Mary already had the Holy Spirit in her, beause He entered her in the womb, then He would have always been with her, and therefore would not have to "come upon her" once again.

All the grace and gifts we receive by the Holy Spirit is a result of Him being always with us, not coming and going..

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
 
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
She was still under the temporal effects of sin, because creation fell.

But by your agrument, how could have Jesus being sinless died, ...for the wages of sin are death.


Christ did not die a natural "old age" death, Mary did.

Christ gave himself up willingly.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Please show me one reference to a pre schism CF who said that Mary was born sinnless, and her her saving grace applied in the womb..

I really don't have an arsenal, of Eastern Fathers quotes at my disposal, to go on an attack. I merely asked a question, on why the Orthodox believe in Mary being the New Eve, and not accept the Immaculate Conception.

It wasn't a baited question or anything like that, because I am well aware, that most of the Orthodox on this forum are well schooled in their faith.

However, your question did spark an interest....when Orthodox say they reject the Dogma of Immalculate Conception. Does that mean they are rejecting the fact that the Western Church has defined it, and that it has been discussed (for a lack of the better term), in the Eastern Church at some point in history, but not yet defined? Or does it mean, that the Eastern Church, rejects it all together the possiblity of that Mary could have been immaculately concieved? Judging by the question you asked me, I guess your answer would be no, but just wanted to clarify.


Well once we recieve are "justifying grace" in Baptism/Chrismation, the Holy Spirit is always with us. Therefore if Mary already had the Holy Spirit in her, beause He entered her in the womb, then He would have always been with her, and therefore would not have to "come upon her" once again.

All the grace and gifts we receive by the Holy Spirit is a result of Him being always with us, not coming and going..

I didn't mean to imply a coming and going of the Holy Spirit, just that we can recieve additional graces and gifts.
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
I really don't have an arsenal, of Eastern Fathers quotes at my disposal, to go on an attack. I merely asked a question, on why the Orthodox believe in Mary being the New Eve, and not accept the Immaculate Conception.

It wasn't a baited question or anything like that, because I am well aware, that most of the Orthodox on this forum are well schooled in their faith.

No I know it wasn't a loaded question, I am reffering to the IC, and said nothin about New Eve. But she doesn't have to been IC'd to be called New Eve, it just means she said yes, where Eve said no..

And you mean to tell me that the RCC does not have one writing or Church Father to go on as far as the IC is concerned? So basically what you are saying is that the early Church never believed in the IC, and the Holy Spirit only revealed it to Rome in 1854?


However, your question did spark an interest....when Orthodox say they reject the Dogma of Immalculate Conception. Does that mean they are rejecting the fact that the Western Church has defined it, and that it has been discussed (for a lack of the better term), in the Eastern Church at some point in history, but not yet defined? Or does it mean, that the Eastern Church, rejects it all together the possiblity of that Mary could have been immaculately concieved? Judging by the question you asked me, I guess your answer would be no, but just wanted to clarify.

It's rejected all together as the IC was something concocted in Rome. It was never an issue prior, nor was it ever discussed. The HS revealed the whole Truth and everything was squared away and defined by the 8th century. Not that anything was created in the 8th century, just finally defined. It really has nothing to do with the childish idea that we reject it because Rome said it..



I didn't mean to imply a coming and going of the Holy Spirit, just that we can recieve additional graces and gifts

Well since you are saying that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary in her mother's womb to cleanse her of OS, so that she may be born sinless, and Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit came upon her when she conceived Christ..this would imply that He came, left and came back again..

Also BTW, even if let's say this did happen, and the HS came upon her in her mother's womb, and she was cleansed of OS, this still does not say how she was immaculitly conceived. Conception is the moment a sperm and egg join. And in this case, she would have been conceived with sin just like anyone else, and there is really nothing immaculate at all about it..
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
It seems like the Catholics have no idea what the belief of the IC is..

From the Catholic Encyclopedia..

". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

Says here she was excluded from OS, not that she was cleansed in the womb...she never had it..

And based on what the article says, they really have nothing firm to stand on...
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And you mean to tell me that the RCC does not have one writing or Church Father to go on as far as the IC is concerned? So basically what you are saying is that the early Church never believed in the IC, and the Holy Spirit only revealed it to Rome in 1854?

I never said that the Catholic Church didn't have writing or CFs inregards to the Immalculate Conception. I said "I" didn't have an arsenal of Eastern Father quotes, to go on the attack....meaning I simply was asking a question, and wanted to know for my own curiosity.


It's rejected all together as the IC was something concocted in Rome. It was never an issue prior, nor was it ever discussed. The HS revealed the whole Truth and everything was squared away and defined by the 8th century. Not that anything was created in the 8th century, just finally defined.

It really has nothing to do with the childish idea that we reject it because Rome said it..

:sigh: I was not implying that the Eastern Church rejected the Immaculate Conception, just because it came from Rome.

I asked:

when Orthodox say they reject the Dogma of Immalculate Conception. Does that mean they are rejecting the fact that the Western Church has defined it, and that it has been discussed (for a lack of the better term), in the Eastern Church at some point in history, but not yet defined?

To pharse it another way, I was asking...If the Eastern Orthodox rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds because it had been declared a dogma? Meaning, that was it something that was discussed within the Eastern Church, but not defined, and the issue was more of the fact it had been declared dogma, rather than the concept itself.

Or I was wondering, was it because it was never discussed by the ECFs and they reject the whole ideal altogether.

Judging by your post since I originally ask the question, looks lack the latter was true.
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It seems like the Catholics have no idea what the belief of the IC is..

Now what is that supposed to mean?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia..

". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

Says here she was excluded from OS, not that she was cleansed in the womb...she never had it..

And based on what the article says, they really have nothing firm to stand on...


I posted that link back in post #119, including that quote.
Christian Forums - View Single Post - What does it matter?
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
I never said that the Catholic Church didn't have writing or CFs inregards to the Immalculate Conception. I said "I" didn't have an arsenal of Eastern Father quotes, to go on the attack....meaning I simply was asking a question, and wanted to know for my own curiosity.

Well based on the "Catholic Encyclopedia", where I pulled that quote in my last post out of, it seems they really have no ECF's backing them up..which really doesn't surprise me.



I was not implying that the Eastern Church rejected the Immaculate Conception, just because it came from Rome.

Well it sounded like you asked if we reject it, because Rome declared it Dogma, in which the answer would be no.


To pharse it another way, I was asking...If the Eastern Orthodox rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds because it had been declared a dogma? Meaning, that was it something that was discussed within the Eastern Church, but not defined, and the issue was more of the fact it had been declared dogma, rather than the concept itself.

Or I was wondering, was it because it was never discussed by the ECFs and they reject the whole ideal altogether.

Honestly Rome declaring Dogma after the schism, especially in 1854, would not concern the EOC at all.

Judging by your post since I originally ask the question, looks lack the latter was true.

Well like I said, it was because it was never an issue, until Rome "infalliably" declared it Dogma in 1854..actual is still isn't an issue, except for the ever present RCC vs. EOC..
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Luke 1:28

The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.


So grace now means immaculatly conceived?

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).


I see nothing about immaculate conception..but it does say Jesus died for her sins as well...

And pretty much the rest of the Father's speak of her purity, not so much that she was IC'd..
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well based on the "Catholic Encyclopedia", where I pulled that quote in my last post out of, it seems they really have no ECF's backing them up..which really doesn't surprise me.

They listed some toward the bottom, but I haven't looked them up.

Mary as the second Eve
This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt -- that is to say, not subject to original sin -- and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:
The absolute purity of Mary
Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.
  • The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
  • Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
  • Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
  • Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
  • Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
  • In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
  • Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
  • it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
  • she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
  • she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
  • when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
  • The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
  • To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
  • Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.
St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary. From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.


Well it sounded like you asked if we reject it, because Rome declared it Dogma, in which the answer would be no.

Sorry, that is why I rephrased the question.




Honestly Rome declaring Dogma after the schism, especially in 1854, would not concern the EOC at all.

LOL..but I guess by this answer you still don't understand what I was asking. :sigh: I can't think of any other way to phrase it right now.



Well like I said, it was because it was never an issue, until Rome "infalliably" declared it Dogma in 1854..actual is still isn't an issue, except for the ever present RCC vs. EOC..

Well, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I every asked an EOC a question about Orthodoxy, and will probably be my last...lol. I asked a simple question to begin with.....on How could Mary be considered the New Eve, if she wasn't immaculately concieved? And a simple answer would have sufficed...such as "We don't believe that the Immaculate Conception was necessary, for Mary to be the New Eve, because.............." . However, at the time I asked that question, I didn't know on what grounds the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception, where because the were rejecting the declaration of the dogma....or the concepts behind the dogma itself.
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
They listed some toward the bottom, but I haven't looked them up.

And none speak of her imm. conc. only her purity.



LOL..but I guess by this answer you still don't understand what I was asking. :sigh: I can't think of any other way to phrase it right now.

It sounds like you are asking if we reject it because it is Dogma...?





Well, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I every asked an EOC a question about Orthodoxy, and will probably be my last...lol. I asked a simple question to begin with.....on How could Mary be considered the New Eve, if she wasn't immaculately concieved? And a simple answer would have sufficed...such as "We don't believe that the Immaculate Conception was necessary, for Mary to be the New Eve, because.............." . However, at the time I asked that question, I didn't know on what grounds the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception, where because the were rejecting the declaration of the dogma....or the concepts behind the dogma itself.

I was never in the Mary/New Eve convo..I asked before that if Mary was IC'd, why did she need a savior. This is what I am talking about. And I did answer you by the way..

And like I said, we reject the concept itself.

Also the Catholic Encyclopedia is very contradicting, and just shows how off base this Dogma is...in one part, it says that Mary never had OS, and in another, it says that she needed Jesus as a Savior like we all do. I don't get how this can make sense to you. If she never had OS, then she wouldn't need a savior...it just shows how flawed this idea is...

." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul."

The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin.

the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died

What sins? According to the IC, she had none to begin with..


Plus the fact that Rome created a Dogma that has no bearing on our relationship with Christ, nor does this Dogma say anything pertaining to Christ...which in the EOC, any Doctrine pertaining to Mary, has to do with Christ not Mary..this Dogma is only about Mary...and for a Church of Christ, this seems irrelivent..
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It sounds like you are asking if we reject it because it is Dogma...?

n/m If I can think of a better way to phrase the question, I'll ask later on


I was never in the Mary/New Eve convo..I asked before that if Mary was IC'd, why did she need a savior. This is what I am talking about. And I did answer you by the way..

And like I said, we reject the concept itself.

Yes, I gathered that...thanks.

Also the Catholic Encyclopedia is very contradicting, and just shows how off base this Dogma is...in one part, it says that Mary never had OS

Right, it was because of the redemptive merits of Christ on the Cross, that she was preserved (or excluded, as the CE says), from the stain of original sin. So she was made exempt, because Christ merited her exemption on the Cross, thus making Him her Savior. True, in our linear time, the sacrifice hadn't taken place yet, but also on the flipside, the sacrifice that I partake in happened 2000 years ago. Point is, there is no time in eternity...it can move forward and backwards, because it is not limited to our earthly concept of time.

and in another, it says that she needed Jesus as a Savior like we all do. I don't get how this can make sense to you. If she never had OS, then she wouldn't need a savior...it just shows how flawed this idea is...

See above.


Peace be with you....Pam
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
n/m If I can think of a better way to phrase the question, I'll ask later on






Yes, I gathered that...thanks.



Right, it was because of the redemptive merits of Christ on the Cross, that she was preserved (or excluded, as the CE says), from the stain of original sin. So she was made exempt, because Christ merited her exemption on the Cross, thus making Him her Savior. True, in our linear time, the sacrifice hadn't taken place yet, but also on the flipside, the sacrifice that I partake in happened 2000 years ago. Point is, there is no time in eternity...it can move forward and backwards, because it is not limited to our earthly concept of time.



See above.


Peace be with you....Pam

But if Mary never had OS to begin with, there was nothing to save her from. I understand the concept that she was saved at conception because of the future events that will happen, but this would make her un human. She never had sin to begin with, and this is contradicting Scripture that plainly says, Christ is the only one without sin..
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But if Mary never had OS to begin with, there was nothing to save her from.

But she would have been born with Original Sin, if she had not been saved, at her conception by the redemptive merits of Christ.


I understand the concept that she was saved at conception because of the future events that will happen, but this would make her un human.

Were Adam and Eve...."unhuman"


She never had sin to begin with, and this is contradicting Scripture that plainly says, Christ is the only one without sin..

Christ is the only one born without sin, by His own nature. Mary was born without sin, by grace. That is the difference.

Peace be with you...Pam
 
Upvote 0

repentant

Orthodoxy: Debunking heretics since 33 A.D.
Sep 2, 2005
6,885
289
45
US of A
✟8,687.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
But she would have been born with Original Sin, if she had not been saved, by the redemptive merits of Christ.




Were Adam and Eve...."unhuman"?

Peace be with you...Pam


To be human then, was to be born without sin..now that is not the case.

If Mary was concieved without sin, this would make her in every aspect sinless. There is only one person who was ever sinless, and that was Jesus Christ. IC contradicts Scripture..sorry..
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
To be human then, was to be born without sin..now that is not the case.

If Mary was concieved without sin, this would make her in every aspect sinless. There is only one person who was ever sinless, and that was Jesus Christ. IC contradicts Scripture..sorry..

Well, then...I guess we are just going to have to agree, to disagree.:hug:

Peace be with you..Pam
 
Upvote 0

PassthePeace1

CARO CARDO SALUTIS
Jun 6, 2005
13,265
700
✟39,260.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You know, I was willing to leave it at "let's agree to disagree", but I guess your not..lol


Do you agree with this?

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:


12Therefore, just as through (X)one man sin entered into the world, and (Y)death through sin, and (Z)so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

First of all, does the use of the word "all", in this passage, used to mean "all" as in everyone? Or "all" as in a large number? It is my understanding the Greek word for "all", can mean both.

Second, it says "death through sin, and so death spread to all men". How can it mean to all men here, because Enoch and Elijah, didn't die? So is it possible that the word "all" here, could just be referring to a large group of people, and not necessarly....everyone?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.