Christian Forums

Quote from: Norton on Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 17:21:52
Mary was "full of grace". Noah "found grace in the eyes of the Lord."  Daniel was "highly esteemed". As far as we know, none of them transmitted their grace to their progeny through the flesh, or DNA. That Jesus inherited his grace through Mary is a very suspect doctrine to me.

None of them gave birth to anyone either.

Prophecy of Jeremias 31:22  How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN.

Her 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus Christ was made like unto His brethren in all things, of the seed of Abraham. This truth alone destroys the false doctrine of the immaculate conception. Such a claim absolutely could not be made, if in fact Jesus Christ was born of a woman who knew no sin by the special intervention of God. This would mean that His mother and Father were nothing like any of us. He would not have come in our flesh.

1 Joh 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

It is the spirit of antichrist which denies that Christ came in our flesh. If Christ's Father and mother were not anything like us, then He did not come in our flesh, and He is not our Savior. He came in our flesh to deliver us from the same, that we might walk in the spirit and not in the flesh.

QuoteStrong's Greek Lexicon - 4561. sarx sarx probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, not of the seed of a sinless human being. The Lord Jesus Christ is, has been, and will continue to be the only sinless human being this side of heaven before He returns again to deliver all the saved from the same. It is in the very fact that He took upon Himself our fallen nature, that He was able to defeat sin in the same and therefore provide salvation for all in the same condition who will place their faith and lives in His hands. this is the gospel of Jesus Christ which the Roman Catholic church does always pervert and corrupt by her false doctrines in service of the evil one who ever battles against Christ and His own.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

So does the Church of Rome pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ by denying that He conquered sin in our flesh, that we might be delivered from the same through His victory. So does she pervert the gospel by claiming authority to change God's law, and teaching that one of the commandments no longer needs to be kept, that she might prevent the righteousness of the law from being fulfilled by the professors of Christ. So does she exalt Mary to co-redemptoris that souls may be deceived into looking unto her for salvation when Christ alone can provide for the same. This is just to mention a few of her false doctrines designed to deceive unto death by the evil one.

Quote from: Norton on Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 17:21:52
Mary was "full of grace". Noah "found grace in the eyes of the Lord."  Daniel was "highly esteemed". As far as we know, none of them transmitted their grace to their progeny through the flesh, or DNA. That Jesus inherited his grace through Mary is a very suspect doctrine to me.

Jesus did not inherit grace from Mary.  God is grace itself.  In order for God to take Immaculate flesh from Mary, gave saved Mary in a greater way.  God saved Mary from original sin, in the same way that Eve was created in original grace. 

Look at it this way:

A man falls into a pit and another man saves him out of the pit.  Then another man comes along who is about to fall into the same pit but the man says stop or you will fall into the pit.  The man stops and does not fall in to the pit.  Who was saved in a greater way??  The man who did not fall into the pit.

Mary is full of grace because God is with her.

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

Jesus came to the world through Mary and so, all men must go through Mary back to Jesus.

John 14:6  Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."

Ecclesiasticus 24:24-25  I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope.  In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-0WywmkQCw

Only a fool would believe that Mary was sinless in lieu of Romans 5:12... "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."  Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to fabricate another lie--the Assumption of Mary.  If Mary never sinned, then how could she die, because the Bible says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 04:40:12
Only a fool would believe that Mary was sinless in lieu of Romans 5:12... "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."  Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to fabricate another lie--the Assumption of Mary.  If Mary never sinned, then how could she die, because the Bible says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli′jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2Kg 2:11)
Elijah did not die. 

Moreover the Dogmatic definition of the Assumption does not state that Mary died or did not die, only that "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".

So who is the fool?

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 04:40:12
Only a fool would believe that Mary was sinless in lieu of Romans 5:12... "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."  Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to fabricate another lie--the Assumption of Mary.  If Mary never sinned, then how could she die, because the Bible says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

The wages of sin is spiritual death, not physical death.

If Mary was sinless, why is she not our Savior?

God required a sinless, spotless sacrifice to be the atonement for the sins of the world...if Mary was sinless, why not her? 

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 08:41:47
If Mary was sinless, why is she not our Savior?

God required a sinless, spotless sacrifice to be the atonement for the sins of the world...if Mary was sinless, why not her?

1. Because a sinless, spotless sacrifice was not enough. A lamb without blemish would be sinless and spotless.

2. Because she needed a saviour herself (from original sin).

3. Because she is not God.

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 08:56:35
1. Because a sinless, spotless sacrifice was not enough. A lamb without blemish would be sinless and spotless.

2. Because she needed a saviour herself (from original sin).

3. Because she is not God.

Just one more false idea, concept or notion that derives from the false doctrine of original sin.

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 08:56:35
1. Because a sinless, spotless sacrifice was not enough. A lamb without blemish would be sinless and spotless.

The lambs they were using had to be sacrificed over and over again, but it seems that the blood of Christ, which was sinless, was enough...so why wouldn't Mary's have been?

Quote2. Because she needed a saviour herself (from original sin).

So she has "orignial sin", but somehow remains sinless at the same time?  Im confused about how that can be so.

Quote3. Because she is not God.

I agree.    But, how can *any* human person be without sin, BUT God?

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 08:56:35
1. Because a sinless, spotless sacrifice was not enough. A lamb without blemish would be sinless and spotless.

2. Because she needed a saviour herself (from original sin).

3. Because she is not God.

Two of these statements are scriptually incorrect.

1. A sinless, spotless sacrifice is sufficient.
1 Peter 1:18-19
"...knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

3. Nowhere in scripture is said that the sacrifice must be God. It had to be God, because no one else is sinless and spotless.



The other statement is actually contrary to RCC dogma, so Winsome you can consider yourself anathemized

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful...."

http://www.piustheninth.com/apps/app12.htm

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 09:02:52I agree.    But, how can *any* human person be without sin, BUT God?

That is what the "immaculate conception" is all about.  Original sin did not attach itself to her.  But in point of fact, all are the product of an immaculate conception.  None are born with sin.  We become sinners when we sin. Paul said "All have sinned". But he also said "where there is no law, sin is not imputed".  So then once you figure out what he meant by "where there is no law" you will begin to understand.  And in doing so keep in mind his condemnation of the Gentiles who, who Paul says, are without excuse, so obviously he was not talking about the Law of Moses, but rather law generally.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 10:06:30
Two of these statements are scriptually incorrect.

1. A sinless, spotless sacrifice is enough.
3. Nowhere in scripture is said that the sacrifice must be God. It had to be God, because no one else is sinless and spotless.

The other statement is actually contrary to RCC dogma, so winsome consider yourself anathemized

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful...."

http://www.piustheninth.com/apps/app12.htm

Just more poppycock introduced and demanded by the false notion of original sin.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 10:10:15
That is what the "immaculate conception" is all about.  Original sin did not attach itself to her.  But in point of fact, all are the product of an immaculate conception.  None are born with sin.  We become sinners when we sin. Paul said "All have sinned". But he also said "where there is no law, sin is not imputed".  So then once you figure out what he meant by "where there is no law" you will begin to understand.  And in doing so keep in mind his condemnation of the Gentiles who, who Paul says, are without excuse, so obviously he was not talking about the Law of Moses, but rather law generally.

Its irrelevant to the discussion.
The RCC teaches that everybody is born with original sin.
It also teaches that in case of Mary, she was born without original sin.

This is dogma in the RCC and every Catholic is required to believe this.
Rejecting the dogma is in fact heresy, and the believer is under the anathema of the church.

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 09:02:52
The lambs they were using had to be sacrificed over and over again, but it seems that the blood of Christ, which was sinless, was enough...so why wouldn't Mary's have been?

Because sinlessness was not enough.

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 09:02:52
So she has "orignial sin", but somehow remains sinless at the same time?  Im confused about how that can be so.

Original sin refers to the fallen state that we inherit from Adam not personal sin.
Mary did not personally sin

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 09:02:52
I agree.    But, how can *any* human person be without sin, BUT God?

By God's grace.

Do you think God cannot do that?

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 10:10:15
That is what the "immaculate conception" is all about.  Original sin did not attach itself to her.  But in point of fact, all are the product of an immaculate conception.  None are born with sin.  We become sinners when we sin. Paul said "All have sinned". But he also said "where there is no law, sin is not imputed".  So then once you figure out what he meant by "where there is no law" you will begin to understand.  And in doing so keep in mind his condemnation of the Gentiles who, who Paul says, are without excuse, so obviously he was not talking about the Law of Moses, but rather law generally.

Original sin

The Council of Trent defines Justification as "being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour." (sess 6 Chap IV)

According Paul in the letter to the Romans chap 5
12. "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned"
Who was this one man? Adam.

It continues
17 "If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ."
18 "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."
19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."
Adam's sin affected all mankind; it affected our nature and brought death into the world and we became separated from God and subject to condemnation.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1Cor 15:22).
When we are born we are "in Adam". We need to be "in Christ". So that "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 8:1)

Paul says in Eph 2: "we [Christians] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
But in Gal 3:25 he says "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God"
When we are "in  Adam" we are "children of wrath" but when we are "in Christ"  we are children of God.

That movement from being "in Adam", subject to death, subject to condemnation, being "children of wrath", to being "in Christ", made alive, brought out of condemnation, being children of God, is effected by baptism.
We born "in Adam" but to have life we must be "born again", renewed, born by the Spirit in baptism (John 3:5, Ti 3:5).

When we are baptised we "put on" Christ (Gal 3:27); we become part of the body of Christ, and therefore children of God (1Cor 12:13); we become part of a new creation in Christ (2Cor 5:17); we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."(Jn 3:5) and yet he also says "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 19:14)

winsome,

Yes I know all the claims made for original sin.  I particularly like that you quote Romans 5.  As most who look to Romans 5 for support of the false concept of original sin, you highlight the first half of all those verses and then ignore or grossly misinterpret the second half.  And it is in fact the second half that Paul is actually emphasizing. Consider just one of them which you posted and highlighted, namely verse 18:

Rom 5:18  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Clearly if the first half of the sentence is actually meant to apply for all men, then so also the second half is actually meant to apply to all men.  So then what is Paul really saying?  Given the whole rest of the NT, he certainly didn't intend to teach a universal salvation for all.  But then he is not speaking about salvation. All he is saying is that the effect of Adam's trespass upon all humanity was negated by the effect of Jesus' righteousness.  That is what you call original sin due to Adam was cancelled out.  So that because of Jesus' righteousness we have original grace not original sin.  And that of course was/is retroactive to the very beginning.  Mankind is not born in sin; mankind is born in grace.  Now then according to verse 12, death, spiritual death, spread to all men, not because of what Adam did, but rather, as Paul stated, because all men have sinned.

You also noted John 3:5.  Please observe that it is the spirit that is reborn.  The spirit first formed in man by God (Zech 12:1) is not dead but alive.  It becomes dead in OUR trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1) and needs therefore to be reborn.  Paul continues in verse 2 to emphasize that fact by saying that was where WE once walked, not where Adam once walked.

With respect to Romans 5, I could go through each of those verses (vv.12-19) and make the same analysis as I did for verse 18.  But the message is clear.  The efficaciousness of of Jesus' obedience far exceeds that of Adam's disobedience.  If Adam's sin may have produced original sin, Jesus' righteousness wiped it out, making it null and void.  So Paul, in the passage in Romans 5, deals with the effect of Adam's sin.  He then proceeds, in Romans 6, to deal with our own sins.

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 11:59:38
By God's grace.

Do you think God cannot do that?

Oh, I think there is nothing that God *cannot* do, but there are a LOT of things He will not do...

To force Mary into being a sinless being is to cheapen Christ's sinlessness.

It lessens the miracle of Him being the sinless spotless lamb of God.

Mary was a wonderful woman to be sure, and I cannot wait to share a chat or two with her in Heaven...because she raised the only perfect child in all of creation, but there still must have been challenges in that. I am *fascinated* to hear her perspective.
But, she was just a regular sinful human just like the rest of us.
Jesus is the sinless miracle here, not His dear, sweet, precious momma.
Jesus.

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 13:27:17
Oh, I think there is nothing that God *cannot* do, but there are a LOT of things He will not do...

To force Mary into being a sinless being is to cheapen Christ's sinlessness.

It lessens the miracle of Him being the sinless spotless lamb of God.

Mary was a wonderful woman to be sure, and I cannot wait to share a chat or two with her in Heaven...because she raised the only perfect child in all of creation, but there still must have been challenges in that. I am *fascinated* to hear her perspective.
But, she was just a regular sinful human just like the rest of us.
Jesus is the sinless miracle here, not His dear, sweet, precious momma.
Jesus.

The whole argumentation from the RCC is flawed.
They claim that in order for Jesus to not be effected by original sin, Jesus MUST have come from a sinless being.
But then they claim the same for Mary, but surprisingly Mary's parents were not sinless.

The reason WHY the RCC claims Mary was sinless however is not because Jesus needed it, no.
The RCC needs Mary to be sinless because they have claim that Mary co-participated with Jesus in the salvation of mankind.

When Jesus died on the cross, it was both His sacrifice together with Mary's sacrifice that facilitated salvation.
Its really very scary. God, from the moment the angel was sent to Mary, was totally dependent on Mary's cooperation.
Mary was the only person who was sinless, so she was the only option for God to have Jesus born.
If Mary would have said "no", then salvation would not have happened.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 13:02:09
winsome,

Yes I know all the claims made for original sin.  I particularly like that you quote Romans 5.  As most who look to Romans 5 for support of the false concept of original sin, you highlight the first half of all those verses and then ignore or grossly misinterpret the second half.  And it is in fact the second half that Paul is actually emphasizing. Consider just one of them which you posted and highlighted, namely verse 18:

Rom 5:18  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Clearly if the first half of the sentence is actually meant to apply for all men, then so also the second half is actually meant to apply to all men.  So then what is Paul really saying?  Given the whole rest of the NT, he certainly didn't intend to teach a universal salvation for all.  But then he is not speaking about salvation. All he is saying is that the effect of Adam's trespass upon all humanity was negated by the effect of Jesus' righteousness.  That is what you call original sin due to Adam was cancelled out.  So that because of Jesus' righteousness we have original grace not original sin.  And that of course was/is retroactive to the very beginning.  Mankind is not born in sin; mankind is born in grace.  Now then according to verse 12, death, spiritual death, spread to all men, not because of what Adam did, but rather, as Paul stated, because all men have sinned.

You also noted John 3:5.  Please observe that it is the spirit that is reborn.  The spirit first formed in man by God (Zech 12:1) is not dead but alive.  It becomes dead in OUR trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1) and needs therefore to be reborn.  Paul continues in verse 2 to emphasize that fact by saying that was where WE once walked, not where Adam once walked.

With respect to Romans 5, I could go through each of those verses (vv.12-19) and make the same analysis as I did for verse 18.  But the message is clear.  The efficaciousness of of Jesus' obedience far exceeds that of Adam's disobedience.  If Adam's sin may have produced original sin, Jesus' righteousness wiped it out, making it null and void.  So Paul, in the passage in Romans 5, deals with the effect of Adam's sin.  He then proceeds, in Romans 6, to deal with our own sins.

4WD
I think you are mistaken.

Firstly verse 18 says one man's trespass led [past] to condemnation, but one man's act of righteousness leads [current and future] to acquittal.
It does not say one man's act of righteousness acquits everyone past present and future.

Then if you go back to verse 12 it says: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.
Babies die yet they have not sinned. Therefore Christ did not negate all the effects of Adam's sin on all humanity past, present and future. If everyone, from conception (or birth), has the original grace that Adam had then babies should not die.

And verse 16: And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
If, as you claim, the efficaciousness of Jesus' obedience far exceeds that of Adam's disobedience, then it is because Adam's was only one sin but Jesus obediance makes up for many sins

Moreover Paul says in Eph 2:3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
If we were by nature children of wrath then babies must be children of wrath when they are born.

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 13:27:17
Oh, I think there is nothing that God *cannot* do, but there are a LOT of things He will not do...

To force Mary into being a sinless being is to cheapen Christ's sinlessness.

It lessens the miracle of Him being the sinless spotless lamb of God.

I didn't suggest that God forced Mary not to sin. I suggested she was sinless by God's grace. He made her "full of grace" and with God's help she remained "full of grace"

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 15:03:22Then if you go back to verse 12 it says: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.
Babies die yet they have not sinned. Therefore Christ did not negate all the effects of Adam's sin on all humanity past, present and future. If everyone, from conception (or birth), has the original grace that Adam had then babies should not die.

Physical death is not the result of sin.  Rather spiritual death is the result of sin.  Physical death is an integral part of the physical creation.

Earlier you quoted Jesus who said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:14).  Do you really believe that the kingdom of heaven belongs to a bunch of sinners?  Surely not.  But then maybe you do.  Must be some reason that you believe in the foolishness of infant baptism  --  another false doctrine that derives from the false concept of original sin.

Maybe you should read Ezekiel 18 and really try to grasp just what it is that God is saying there when he says "The soul who sins shall die" (vv. 4,20).

And since this is a bit off topic, I will leave it at that except to say that to believe that God forms a dead spirit in man is more than just a little sick.

The Bible says that no one is sinless except Jesus. We ALL fall short is pretty easy to understand.

I honestly think its appalling that anyone should claim that she is somehow the same as Jesus in this. She was clearly a sinner as we all are. In need of her saviour as we all are.

Its yet another man made idea that completely contradicts what God says.   

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 15:06:24
I didn't suggest that God forced Mary not to sin. I suggested she was sinless by God's grace. He made her "full of grace" and with God's help she remained "full of grace"

I have know quite a few believers who are full of grace, it doesn't make them sinless.

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 15:06:24
I suggested she was sinless by God's grace.

Prove this. Book, chapter and verse.

"For ALL have sinned..."

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."



He made her "full of grace" and with God's help she remained "full of grace"

Rubbish.

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

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

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

Quote from: winsome on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 15:06:24
I didn't suggest that God forced Mary not to sin. I suggested she was sinless by God's grace. He made her "full of grace" and with God's help she remained "full of grace"

I didn't say the suggestion was that God was trying to force sinlessness upon her...it is people that are doing that, and it cheapens Christ's true sinlessness IMO. If it were possible that Mary was sinless, its no big deal that Jesus is, its not a miracle at all, it lessens the utter importance of Him being the sinless spotless lamb of God.

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 19:01:32
Rubbish.

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

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

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

Kiwi, I appreciate this post. Thank you. I was thinking earlier today on the "full of grace" claim...thanks for touching on that.

Quote from: AVZ on Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 03:44:28
This argument is completely moot.
Mary's parents were not conceived without original sin, neither were they sinless.
The Catholic Church holds that by special act from God, Mary was conceived sinless nevertheless.

What escapes the Catholic Church is that is such and act was possible for Mary, where a sinless person could be conceived by "contaminated" people, the exact same act would also have been possible for Jesus.

So it was not absolutely necessary for Mary to be conceived sinless, in order for her to give birth to a sinless Christ.
And if it was not necessary for her parents, then it was not necessary for her.

Would God have placed those things that were in the "Ark of the Covenant" in a dung heap"? If anyone other than who was authorized by God even touched the Ark, what happened to them? DUH! Once those things were in the Ark, the Ark became PURE and HOLY.

Seriously, here we have God Himself coming to earth IN THE FLESH. Now ask yourselves, would God have placed Himself anywhere except in a sinless, pure woman?

Remember, it was the Holy Spirit (also a part of the Godhead) that did the creating along with Mary. That's a DOUBLE REASON for a sinless vessel. You don't take what is PURE and HOLY, from what is PURE and HOLY, and put it anywhere other than what is PURE and HOLY. The orthodox teaching is the correct teaching on this one.  Next issue!

Quote from: Ladonia on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 23:23:03
Would God have placed those things that were in the "Ark of the Covenant" in a dung heap"? If anyone other than who was authorized by God even touched the Ark, what happened to them? DUH! Once those things were in the Ark, the Ark became PURE and HOLY.

Seriously, here we have God Himself coming to earth IN THE FLESH. Now ask yourselves, would God have placed Himself anywhere except in a sinless, pure woman?

Remember, it was the Holy Spirit (also a part of the Godhead) that did the creating along with Mary. That's a DOUBLE REASON for a sinless vessel. You don't take what is PURE and HOLY, from what is PURE and HOLY, and put it anywhere other than what is PURE and HOLY. The orthodox teaching is the correct teaching on this one.  Next issue!

2 Corinthians 5:21.
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Hebrews 4:15.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 2:21-22.
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

Jesus is presented to us as an example of one who has been tempted and has suffered and yet did not ever sin, there fore we ought to follow in His steps. Nobody else is given to us as an example of sinlessness, so as to follow in his or her steps. Jesus is the only one who is said to be without sin...ever. Any claim that somebody else in the Bible can be presented as sinless would be based purely on human speculation.

Don't you know that your claim that Mary had to be sinless, because there would be no way that a Holy being would be conceived and carried within her womb otherwise, actually follows a Gnostic way of thinking. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus could not have become flesh because that would taint Him and make Him unclean. They said to those John wrote to in his letters that Jesus was only a spirit being, and existed strictly in spirit form. John reinforced the position that Jesus had come in the flesh and said that those who teach otherwise are antichrists.

Now, I am not saying that you are teaching as an antichrist, by no means. It just occurred to me the comparison in the thinking of how some people feel like they have to try and keep Jesus clean and untarnished from human uncleanness. I personally do not believe we have to invent ways to protect Jesus from human sinfulness or uncleanness. I think Luke 1:35 is enough for us to understand that God can use a sin tainted person to bring the Messiah into the world:

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Inasmuch as God has the power to bring about a pregnancy in a virgin, so can He work out any issues He might have with the fact that Mary was not sinless. I do not believe any sin Mary may have committed would rule out her womb as a sufficient vessel; it's not like her sins would somehow tamper with the formation and birth of Immanuel, or somehow make Him born a sinner.

The short of it is this: Jesus was the only sinless person to ever live. That is to me without a shred of doubt.

Quote from: Ladonia on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 23:23:03
Would God have placed those things that were in the "Ark of the Covenant" in a dung heap"?

What better way to prove His deity than to be born of a sinner.

Come on. The Bible is CLEAR. Mary was a good, Jewish woman. But like the rest of us, was a sinner.


Seriously, here we have God Himself coming to earth IN THE FLESH. Now ask yourselves, would God have placed Himself anywhere except in a sinless, pure woman?

Seriously, God tells us that JESUS is the ONLY sinless person.

If you think "full of grace" ( which the Bible does NOT say about mary ) means sinless, then Stephen was also sinless. "And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).


Remember, it was the Holy Spirit (also a part of the Godhead) that did the creating along with Mary.

So mary is the mother of the Holy Spirit by catholic reckoning?

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 19:09:51
Kiwi, I appreciate this post. Thank you. I was thinking earlier today on the "full of grace" claim...thanks for touching on that.

You're welcome.

These catholics are tough nuts to crack! 

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 18:17:46
The Bible says that no one is sinless except Jesus. We ALL fall short is pretty easy to understand.

Really? And what sin have new born babies committed then?

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 18:17:46
She was clearly a sinner as we all are. In need of her saviour as we all are

If she was clearly a sinner give me one example where she sinned.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 18:17:46
Its yet another man made idea that completely contradicts what God says.

It doesn't contradict God's word. It may contradict your false interpretations of God's word.

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 19:01:32
Rubbish.

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

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

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

When Gabriel greeted Mary he said Chaire Ketcharitome, which is often badly translated as Hail, favoured one.
Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of the Greek charitoo. It means endowed with grace. 
The Greek perfect tense denotes something which took place in the past and continues in the present.

  "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

Bibles that translate "Full of grace" include the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, Christian Community Bible and interestingly the Wycliffe Bible

More on Chaire Ketcharitome


"chaire kecharitomene"

"chaire" - Means "hail" or "rejoice"

"charis" – Means "grace"

"charitoo" – Greek verb ending in omicron omega ("oo") means to put the person or thing into the state indicated by the root. The root being "charis" or "grace," "charitoo" means "to put into a state of "grace."

"ke" – Greek perfect tense prefix indicates a perfected, completed present state as a result of past action. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or "grace," as a result of past action.

"mene" – Greek passive participle suffix indicates action performed on subject by another. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or "grace," as a result of the past action of another. As the speaker is the angel Gabriel, the "other" is God.

Therefore, "chaire kecharitomene" means: "Hail, who has been perfectly and completely graced by God." The common Catholic rendering, "full of grace," while good, may actually fall short!


See: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=288189