Did Mary have to be Sinless for Jesus to be born sinless?

Wondergirl,
We really don't know how much time Mary spent with Jesus.
We doubt even know what happened to Joseph or when.
All that is speculation.
But we do know that Mary did spend some time with Jesus and was with Him at times.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The issue with common sense is that it also says that a person can not die and come back from the dead,

Common sense tells you that you can not walk on water, heal the sick by touching them and more.

So when dealing with the power of God common sense is not what you need, but faith , faith of a innocent child who does not "know" better, but one that can accept that God does things his way, not the way man wants him to

Yes, I agree. The NT reports some of these times. I don't believe Mary was fully aware of who Jesus was. She had been told things and knew of the prophecies, but all the permutations, the enormity of who Jesus was and what He had ahead of Him had to overwhelm and even confuse her.

I doubt ( really I really feel) that no one really knew fully who Jesus was till after he came back.

They were still confusing the earthly king and their current political problems with that of heaven and the world to come.

We see that all of the followers ( that did not run away) were in hiding after Jesus Death, they were in fact still hiding 3 days latter ( when Jesus returned) they were behind "locked" doors.

And although Thomas gets the blame, I bet that all of the followers had doubts but Thomas actually spoke out. You don't real that Peter yelled Jesus and ran to him, they were all amazed, in fear and did not believe it was really him.

We are all born into this sin nature. My babies sure didn't sin. But as they grew they surely did because they had a sin nature. There are babies born daily ...they have not sinned.

God is no respecter of persons....Mary needed a savior too.

It took a few minutes to figure out where this question came from. We hadn’t talked on this thread whether or not Jesus was followed by Mary during his ministry. I did find on another thread where I asked just how we could know that Mary did or didn’t follow Christ around Palestine. We don’t know, and will likely never know, whether she did or didn’t. I contend that it was likely that she did, at least at a distance, and it’s even more likely in the last few month of His ministry than at the start. The reason being is that we see her at Calvary and at most of the gatherings with the Apostles; presumably with John.

It’s true; it’s a man’s world. And it was even more of a man’s world in Christ’s time. Women would be assigned roles much like the older girls in the household of the 1950’s. (Notice I didn’t say ‘of today’). They were expected to mind, keep house, cook, and work in the fields, etc. I’m afraid that most women today couldn’t muster up to the rigors of daily life. (In the same breath let me say that the differences are, in most ways, an improvement.) All of which is to say that society in year 1 was much different than today.

I do contend that it is more likely that Mary lived an ascetic life, or at least started off living a life of chastity. But, here too, we have little evidence. Asceticism isn’t a New Testament invention of Catholic monks. Various Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. Some Jews and some Christians would exercise body, mind and spiritual along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. The practice dates as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable in Christ’s time. Some came from the Jewish sect of Pharisees; a good analogy might be to say they were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary may have lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn’t have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. There are a few hints in scripture such as, ‘Joseph was a just man’ was no simple tribute made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” (St. Josemaria Escriva). “Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May he always guard, protect and enlighten families.” Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early tradition which included the concept of an Immaculate Mary. While we can’t rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they tell of the nature of early Christian worship and society. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. The authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it is pseudography. What’s important to us here is that the The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes at least one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. And too,it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a recent construct.

Nevertheless, all of the above is speculation, but, more likely than your suggestion that she was a homebody or a concubine. Whatever gave you that idea anyway; how do you know Martha and Mary were ‘homebodies’? I do have a great deal of trouble with even thinking that “Mary M. Was Jesus' mistress or wife.” Don’t tell me, after hounding me for ‘Scriptural proof,’ time and time again, that you put more credence in Dan Brown than a 2,000 year old Christian tradition of an Immaculate Mary?

JoeT

I stopped reading when I came to this. Her adopted patriarch?

Classy I think that is the most profound refuting of the argument that Mary had to be free of original sin to be the mother of Jesus. It is so obvious and yet none of us has said it. The RCC dogma in fact means that Mary didn't need a saviour and all need a saviour. If Mary was free from original sin then Mary wasn't human, and therefore Jesus wasn't human and his sacrifice could not have accomplished our redemption.

I actually agree with you....no one had a clue and their actions more than their words speak volumes. When the Lord asked the disciples who did they say he is...Peter spoke right up and announced He was the Christ the son of the living God. The Lord said flesh and blood hadn't revealed that to Peter but the Holy Spirit had. We can conclude they didn't know by their actions. Mary was no different. She KNEW how he was concieved but she hadn't a clue of what he was going to do and who he REALLY WAS. Not until after the ressurrection....and EVEN then they didn't understand everything.

JoeT, John was her patriarch? Do you know what that means?