Why would God have to make Jesus' mother sinless? Jesus, as one Person in the Trinity, is sinless all on His own.
|
Why would God have to make Jesus' mother sinless? Jesus, as one Person in the Trinity, is sinless all on His own.
Very well said.
No, only Mary was sinless. If the others had been sinless, the Pope would have said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So that Mary could bear Jesus. Jesus could not have been born from a sinful mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Also, as St. Augustine told us, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner. Mary had the Spirit as the inseminator and spirits do not have bodies: hence, no sperm, no sin.
And how did the pope know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
God couldn't have managed that?Quote:
So that Mary could bear Jesus. Jesus could not have been born from a sinful mother.
The Pope, as God's vicar on earth, knows many things that come directly from God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Of course, he could. But he didn't. God has free will.Quote:
God couldn't have managed that?
I edited my answer to include the definitive reason that St. Augustine promulgated. As we all know, St. Augustine was a great saint and holy churchman.
Sooooo, I was sinless before I got married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No, you're not getting it. YOUR sinfulness came from your parents. That's true of everybody - except Jesus. He was born without sin as was his mother. Get it, now? I know it's a little confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Mary had parents. Thus, she was sinful because of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
We women need to stop allowing men to bless us with their sperm. That will greatly reduce population totals and after, say, 100 years, this world will be populated only by sinless women.
Ok, good, you're learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Now, let's go to the visit of the angel to Mary. The angel told Mary she would be Jesus' mother. Since Jesus could not be born from a sinful mother, Mary was preserved from all sin. You may then ask, "But, Mary was conceived before Jesus was born". Ah, good. We're getting there. As revealed by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception took place when Mary was conceived.
Mary's conception was IMMACULATE meaning perfect in every way without stain.
Ok?
God the Father had no power to cause Jesus to be born from a sinful woman? This is starting to sound like a chapter from Greek mythology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No! How could it be immaculate if Mary had earthly, sinful parents?Quote:
You may then ask, "But, Mary was conceived before Jesus was born". Ah, good. We're getting there. As revealed by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception took place when Mary was conceived.
Mary's conception was IMMACULATE meaning perfect in every way without stain.
Ok?
A completely non-biblical idea. In no place in scripture does it say that Mary was sinless or, for that matter, free from original sin.
God is All-powerful. He can do anything he wants. For Mary, God wanted her to be born sinless because she would be the mother of his son. Of course, you may now be asking, "Jesus was God's son AND Mary's son?" Does that make God and Mary married? At this stage, it does get a little like Greek mythology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It's a great mystery which has not yet been revealed by the Pope. There is some speculation that the answer to the mystery lies in the three secrets given to the children at Fatima by the Blessed Virgin Mary. The secrets have not yet been totally revealed.
I already answered this. The angel Gabriel came to Mary and said, "Greetings Mary. The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin. Gabriel was sent by God to deliver this message.Quote:
No! How could it be immaculate if Mary had earthly, sinful parents?
So Mary had no choices in life, no free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The Lord is with me every day. I haven't seen Gabriel yet.Quote:
"The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin. Gabriel was sent by God to deliver this message.
Mary had plenty of choices in life including Gabriel's offer. She could have refused, but instead, she said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That doesn't mean Mary did not see him. It's right there in the Bible.Quote:
The Lord is with me every day. I haven't seen Gabriel yet.
That's really a stretch. The expression is used on four other occasions in the Bible. It certainly does not have that meaning at those times.Quote:
"The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin.
- Judges 6:12
The angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior.”- 2 Samuel 7:3. Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the Lord is with you.”
- 2 Chronicles 15:2 and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the Lord is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.
- 2 Chronicles 20:17
You need not fight in this battle; station yourselves, stand and see the salvation of the Lord on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.’ Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out to face them, for the Lord is with you.”
And that's not to mention the many other times where the same basic message is conveyed in slightly different language, such as when it ("the Lord was with him") was said of Phinehas, Hezekiah, Joseph, David, and Samuel.
No specific sin is listed for Simon either, but when he meets Jesus he cries that he's a sinful man. It doesn't matter.Quote:
True, but she has no specific sin listed in Matthew.
More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.Quote:
Both Gospels have Joseph as the father of Jesus, but they both also have the Spirit as the father of Jesus.
Matthew came before Luke, at least that's my conclusion (I don't buy the Mark-and-Q hypothesis). Matthew focused on the wider picture, which is why his account goes straight to the magi, Herod, and all the rest. Luke zeroes in on Mary and her experience. But both make it clear that Joseph hadn't yet touched Mary.
Athos, I admit I'm really enjoying what you're doing here.
ARGH! I wrote that as a separate post. This thing is weird!
Agreed. My point was simply that she had no sin listed in the Matthew passage we were looking at. I have no problem at all agreeing that Mary had sinned, no doubt many times,Quote:
No specific sin is listed for Simon either, but when he meets Jesus he cries that he's a sinful man. It doesn't matter.
If, as you write, the spirit was the real father of Jesus, then that supports a sinless Mary. Since, as previously mentioned, according to Augustine, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner, and the Spirit, being a spirit and not a body, had no sperm. Therefore no sin was transmitted to baby Mary. To assume without evidence, as some have, that Mary sinned later in life is ungallant, the mark of a cad.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.
Hmmm... interesting. I think that hypothesis has some value.Quote:
Matthew came before Luke, at least that's my conclusion (I don't buy the Mark-and-Q hypothesis).
Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.Quote:
Matthew focused on the wider picture, which is why his account goes straight to the magi, Herod, and all the rest. Luke zeroes in on Mary and her experience. But both make it clear that Joseph hadn't yet touched Mary.
Thank you. I, you. Yes, Roel has created an excellent and very easy website to navigate in, but sometimes it gets a bit weird. Usually, it's my own fault when that happens.Quote:
Athos, I admit I'm really enjoying what you're doing here.
ARGH! I wrote that as a separate post. This thing is weird!
I think you mean baby Jesus. I haven't seen anybody claim the Spirit was Mary's father.Quote:
Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.
If, as you write, the spirit was the real father of Jesus, then that supports a sinless Mary. Since, as previously mentioned, according to Augustine, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner, and the Spirit, being a spirit and not a body, had no sperm. Therefore no sin was transmitted to baby Mary.
The notion of Mary being immaculate grew out of flawed logic.
1. Jesus, it was reasoned, was sinless.
2. So he couldn't have been born of a normal, sinful woman.
3. So she must have been born sinless.
But how? Wouldn't that require her mother to be immaculate, and her mother before her, ad infinitum?
The flawed logic comes in the second step, because there is no real reason why Jesus couldn't have been born from a perfectly normal woman. The flaw in logic happened when someone slipped an emotion-based opinion in when nobody was looking. There is no good theological reason why he couldn't.
As I'm sure you know, not many active participants here follow papal decrees. The most fascinating thing about that one to me is how long it took someone to think it up.Quote:
Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.
I don't know about Eastern Orthodox, someone else please chime in on that one, but mainstream protestant churches, definitely not. Perpetual virginity is another one based on a logical fallacy. The reasoning there was simply that the vagina that expelled the Son of God couldn't possibly be defiled by anything else, that would just be too icky to contemplate. (I paraphrase.) That's what that one boiled down to. The Catholic Church also teaches that she wasn't just a perpetual virgin, but a virgo intacta even after she gave birth. Pushing Jesus out didn't break her hymen, which leads me to believe we should be building space ships out of whatever it was made of. (Sorry, I can't help myself. If anyone is offended I sincerely apologize.)Quote:
Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.
I assume it's my fault until proven otherwise. At the same time, I worked on computers for 15 years and I can attest that gremlins are real. I have scars.Quote:
Usually, it's my own fault when that happens.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM. |