The RC proposes that Mary had to be pure (i.e sinless) for Jesus Christ to be born sinless. We know that the scripture says that no one is sinless except Jesus Christ. So is this doctrine scripturally true?
|
The RC proposes that Mary had to be pure (i.e sinless) for Jesus Christ to be born sinless. We know that the scripture says that no one is sinless except Jesus Christ. So is this doctrine scripturally true?
Therein lies the dichotomy. If you believe ALL of the word of God then Mary must have been born of Sin, and into sin. God however used her because she was favored of God. IE she had a repentive heart, or a heart for God. Just like God used David and so many others that, although sinners were also repentive and chose to follow God. Sound familiar? How can anyone who claims to believe in the complete word of God not understand that Mary had one and one only virgin birth. All of her other births were created the normal way. In other words Mary and Joseph had Sex and she conceived! EGADS that is a horrifying thought.
inhisservice
I do believe that Mary was an immaculate conception.
That is that she was born without sin.
I also believe that the bible says that all normally born people were born with sin.
Mary was not normally born.
Now I KNOW that is hard for a Protestant to swallow.
It was one of the major sticking points for me before I became a Catholic.
In fact I still have some trouble with the ever virgin teaching, although not much trouble.
I really don't care whether Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, but I can see the other points of view that they were cousins or children of Joseph from a former marriage.
Yes it DOES make sense to me that Mary had to be pure sinless for Jesus to be born the pure lamb of God to be sacrificed under the NEW COVENANT, the Christian Passover.
If it does not make sense to you I can also understand that, for I was once there also.
When I came to believe that The Church was ans is the foundation and pillar of The Truth and that The Church is what we today know as the Catholic Church it was then that I was willing to accept that as God's truth on this planet.
Peaceand kindness,
Fred.
The bible tells us that there was a young virgin named Mary. The
angle of the Lord came to Mary and said,"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and overshadow you". He went on to tell her that a child would be formed in her, and she would give birth to the Massiah. This is the way God entered into humanity to bring a second Adam. God the Son
enfleshed Himself, the Holy Spirit bring about conception, the virgin beging, without the intervention of normal reproductive cycle of man.
That is why Jesus is called the Son of God. He was not the son of Joseph
or any human father . He was by the Holy Spirit . God brought about
virtually a second creation, a second man Without the Original Sin of a
male line from Adam. This links Jesus into the family tree of Mary
that makes Him a descendant of David and Abraham, which fulfilled
the various promises that God had made to them. It was from His
mother Mary, that the Lord receivied His human nature.
We are all born as sinners our fathers being from Adam, so yes
Mary was a sinner, we all are, because our fathers are of man, but she had no sexual contact with a male which made her a virgin and this was necessary.
Maggie 3
Thank you, arcura, for a gentle reply. I am curious how you came to the view that Mary was immaculately conceived? I am Protestant myself, and basing my theology on Scripture and reason, I don't see why Mary's immaculate conception is necessary. No biblical text mentions it, and I don't see why Jesus couldn't have had a sinful mother, provided that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. If a sinless person must have a sinless mother, then shouldn't Mary's mother also have had an immaculate conception, and her mother, and her mother? I'm sure that a great deal has been written on this point, so I'm showing my ignorance of Catholic theologians; but if there is a line of reasoning you found particularly compelling, I am interested.
amccune,
I came to the belief that Mary was/is the immaculate conception because the foundation and pillar of the truth teaches that and it is based on holy scripture.
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia...
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
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.
Other texts
From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God's Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no theological conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus". For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God.
I only have one thing to say... ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Now the last time I looked up the word ALL it meant... ALL. She was favored of God... she was special but she was a sinner.
It isn't because I'm "protestant" that I can't swallow she was sinless" it IS because the word of God says we were ALL born into sin after the fall of Adam.
Therefore to answer the question... did she have to be sinless to be the Lord Jesus mother... according to the Bible the answer is... NO WAY!
Fred, How in God name can you make such blasphemous statements with a straight face?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The Bible is emphatic that there was only ONE born of a virgin and HIS name was Jesus.
But I understand you are still blinded to the truth by the false teachings of your religion. As I have mentioned several times before, maybe you need to learn to read the BIBLE and not some false interpretation from your religious organization that is being written to align itself with the teachings of your religion.
For the Catholic the question has been settled by a pronouncement:Quote:
Originally Posted by inhisservice
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854
As a matter of faith, Catholics hold that Mary was born Immaculate. She cannot be perceived as a 'mere' woman. The OP has several of misconceptions both regarding Mary as insignificant and regarding what the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church's declaration of the Immaculate Conception. The most obvious is the misconception is that process by which a sinless Christ HAD to be borne by a sinless woman. It isn't that Christ HAD to be borne of a sinless woman but that he WAS borne of a sinless woman. This was foretold by prophesy. God preserves Mary from original sin so that His Justice will prevail. “I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15). In His infinite mercy God overthrows the infernal serpent through the Blessed Virgin. Those who eviscerate the Blessed Virgin Mary would stain and subjugate Mary to Satan would do well to look to the Catholic faith hold Blessed Virgin singularly preserved exempt from ALL stain of sin original sin or private sin through God's grace.
Paul tells us why this is; “For as by the disobedience of one man [the original sin of Adam], many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), consequently any man born has this original sin. Christ being man and God was the perfect sacrifice. "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. These are two seeming diametrically opposed absolutes; one that all men are born with original sin, the stain of sin, the other that Christ was perfect without sin. But Christ is both man and God perfect on both accounts. As a result, there can only be solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a women whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, He would be born of a woman that hadn't known sin because of His residence within her. St. Jerome ventures still further;
…that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Whether Joseph was virgin is really immaterial here. However what is material is the verse, Jeremiah 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” we see God's mystical solution, rightly we conclude that Mary was Immaculate, protected from knowing the sins of Adam, protected from knowing the sins of men. But, how does one COMPASS Christ the man without ENCOMPASSING the God that is Christ? At the moment Christ was conceived God was infused; at that moment Mary's Womb would have been spiritually clean; as clean as the ritual cleansing of the Tabernacle of Moses. It's important that this be perceived as infusion not a junction or a injection of God into man. Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary's womb became the dwelling place of God, a Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. This Ark would remain pure as did the Virgin Mary in her life celibacy. Being literally full of grace, full of God, would we, (could we), expect less. Would the Jewish Nation accept a Paschal Lamb any less than spotless, less flawless?
It seemed the heretic Nestorius developed a theological view similar to many Protestants who hold Mary 'merely a woman'; “if He whom she [Mary] bore was not man, but God the Word, then she was not the mother of Him who was born, for how could she be the mother of Him who is of a different nature from herself?” This was in 429 A.D. an age when the Protestants claim Christians didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception. If you don't understand, I'll try to explain if you don't already see the grievous error here. Nestorius believed that that God incarnate with man was a "junction", rather than enosis, that is a "unification." He referred to it as two Christs or two Sons or a unity of the prosopon. He was denounced by St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria as well as his own clergy. St. Cyril had sent his five books "Contra Nestorium" to Rome reproving Nestorius.
Nevertheless, we can go much further than St. Jerome or early Christian faith. The gospels tells us that the Messiah was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This birth has God literally encompassed by the womb of Mary, much the same way the Ark of the Covenant encompassed the Law in the Holy of Holies. The Tabernacle contained an outer court and inner court. See Ex 25-31 and Ex 39-40. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, called by God to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur along with Ooliab to build the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle we move from outside inward we to a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ's warning, “narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the perfect Lamb is sacrificed.
The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant
God was resident in a place made holy by his commands. Therefore, Moses was ordered to keep the Tabernacle spiritually and ritually clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God; all of which resided in the womb of Mary in the Person of Jesus. Judaism or Catholicism certainly wouldn't suggest that God reside in an unholy place.
The Tabernacle was the birthplace of the Jewish religion. Mary was a living Tabernacle and the birthplace of our Catholic faith as well. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant. But Matthew doesn't stop quoting Christ with simply “filling”, “For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.” And too, we shouldn't forget that with Christ's birth, another wondrous birth occurs; the birth of God's Kingdom on earth.
Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into man to become Christ. At the very moment of conception, within the womb of Mary, Christ, became man and. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after the proper time, Christ was born of Mary as according as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, He passes through the veil; it's not rent, but passes like light passes through a window. Christ now becomes the Menorah (light) of the world, whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (The Twelve). These loaves were consumed by the high Priests who were said to receive Divine knowledge. As you probably know, a Divine Hope is born out of knowledge giving the expectation of obtaining the Vision of the Divine.
And just as the Jewish Kingdom of faith was born in the Ark of the Covenant, so was the Church of Jesus Christ infused in a human Ark, an ark like Noah's carrying the future of man across the waters of death, i.e. sin, within the womb of Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary carries the spotless sacrificial lamb across the waters of death in sin to landfall - our salvation. And when He hung on the Cross, he gave up the ghost with a loud cry; and it was then “the veil of the temple was rent in two, from the top to the bottom.” His death was the beginning; it was then that the veil was rent with the birth of the newly commissioned Church, built on Peter commissioned to minister to salvation. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being a continuation of sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New, body, soul and Divinity contained within Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit conceived the Church of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16 we see sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God.
Therefore we can only conclude that Mary is Ever Virgin and immaculate. Any less immaculate and Christ could not be considered a spotless, sinless, the Paschal Lamb. As in the time of Moses, whenever the Tabernacle was moved, the site became Holy remaining clean. As when Christ was born, so too was Mary. Mary being literally full of Grace, we hold that this Tabernacle could never be desecrated.
Mary had to be sinless for the Messiah to be born of her. More important still, failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with sin means that the 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' resided in filth and thus having contact with sin couldn't be 'perfect' preventing every Jew of the day from seeing Christ as God. To dismiss Mary's virginity is to say that God came from the seed of man – and in order to be God would require 'creation'. How can the uncreated be created? To dismiss that Mary was Ever Virgin is to say that one can be in physical contact with Grace Personified and still turn away – once again making God back into man. Either way, renouncing Mary's immaculate nature places the 'un-created' God on the same plane as the 'created', man, a contradiction most Catholics are unwilling to make.
JoeT
450donn,
It is YOUR judgment that what I said is blasphemous.
I'm happy that God is the judge and NOT you.
It was NOT blasphemous!!
Joe just did an excellent job of presenting the Catholic understanding of Mary's sinlessness.
Either TRY to understand or don't and keep you mind closed to other views on theology.
I'm sorry if this might seem to be hostile but I'm getting tired of your hate and hostility.
Let's stop with false knee jerk accusations and TRY to understand one another.
Anger gets us nowhere positive and into the quick sand of negativity.
I prefer Peace and kindness,
Fred
See Fred, I have no issues with any religion as long as it teaches the whole and complete word of God directly from the Bible. What I take issues with is any brand of religion that forces it's members to disregard the Bible in favor of the writings of some obscure person or persons throughout history that has taken the word of God and translated/transformed it into something that is NOT taught in the scriptures. People in the old testament were under the law. 650 or so of them to be exact. Jesus came to fulfill the laws and to replace them with grace.
I have in the past asked you honest questions which you have skirted or let someone else to answer for you. On occasion you have come back with NO scriptural references to back up your claims. Why is that? All anybody wants is a honest discussion with scripture to back up your claims, not some obscure quote from someone only a catholic might have heard of. Why is that so difficult? People will continue to hammer you until you start answering questions with an honest scriptural base.
As for Joe's comments, all I need to do to refute his entire line of baloney is to quote Luke 2 starting in vs4 and continuing. So Joseph also went up from Nazareth to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her FIRSTBORN, a son.
See Luke the physician makes specific reference to her FIRSTBORN. Being a physician and learned how difficult is it to understand that he chose his words with great care? No where does he make any sort of mention that she never had any more children. It is really interesting that the RCC has ignored this scripture don't you think? If as you try to claim she had never had any more children do you suppose Luke would have used the word, First born? I think not!
And since the scriptures are very clear on the subject that Jesus was the first and only ever born of a virgin it is unconscionable that your claims hold anything but hot air. Sorry if that disturbs your fragile ego, but that IS the truth.
Fred not everyone who opposes your point of view is filled with hate and hostility. We see that Joe and yourself are people of faith in the pronouncements of your Church and that you become quite angry when those pronouncements are challenged. However there is no kind way of telling you that we disagree with your point of view on certain subjects for in order to say so we must refute what you believe and have been told.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Uhmm, let’s look at this; I have 6 children, and Junior was my firstborn.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
I have 4 children, and Junior was my firstborn
I have 1 child whose name is Junior. Now who was my firstborn? See if you can figure it out, I know it’s hard.
Ta da! If you guessed Junior, you’re right!
Exodus 13:2: Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, as well of men as of beasts: for they are all mine.
So, the Jew didn’t sanctify his only son?
Numbers 3:13: For every firstborn is mine: since I struck the firstborn in the land of Egypt: I have sanctified to myself whatsoever is firstborn in Israel both of man and beast, they are mine: I am the Lord.
So, if it’s the only son, then he doesn’t belong to God?
Numbers 3:42: Moses reckoned up, as the Lord had commanded, thefirstborn of the children of Israel: 43 And the males by their names, from one month and upward, were twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three.
So, is the first born reckoned by Moses not include those from fledgling families with only one child, or from women who only happened to have one child ?
The argument of firstborn is nonsense. If you have a child, whether you go on to have more children, the first to be born is T-H-E “Firstborn”. In the order of the count 1 comes before 2; you do remember that don’t you? Consequently, if you only have one, guess who is in the 1st in the order of the count – you guessed it ‘the firstborn’. Secondly, there was a great store placed in Judah’s ‘firstborn’ because they knew what God had intended, that is to “make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.” (Psalms 88:28).
Added:
Zacharias 12:10
And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers: and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn.
JoeT
Joe and Fred,
If you can ever show me in the inspired, word of God that I am incorrect concerning Mary, than you have my full attention. For I am a work in progress and I don't claim or pretend to know it all. BUT... it MUST be in the 66 books.
I have NO other authority...
But lets not fight about it because I'm certainly not upset that you are wrong on the subject.
Wondergirl, gosh I almost fainted that you agreed with me. :) And the world thinks miracles don't continue to happen... this is living proof! :)
Then you didn't read this:https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2276813Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
JoeT
The writer is talking about two kinds of grieving: an inconsolable mourning for an only son and grief for a firstborn. The mourning for an only son is incredibly deeper than for a firstborn. The death of an only son means there are no other children to carry on for; the family name/heritage/traditions stop with the father. The death of a firstborn says there are other children to live for and to carry on the family name/heritage/traditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I agree completely with certain other answers. That there is no reason why Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus. It seems to me that there are certain religions that try to hold up Mary at a higher statute because she did give birth to Jesus. I will even make even another statement about Jesus that might be controversial. People think that because Jesus was sinless that there was no way he would be with any one or even have children himself? Why not? I would not think the importance of Jesus would change. So Mary being held up as the Mother of God, and that she had to be sinless, not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by inhisservice
I won’t belabor the point, but please feel free to read the following link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First-BornQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It may give a singular insight, as to first, second, third, fourth, etc.
When Christ is referred to as the firstborn it can be taken both literally and in the metaphorical sense.
JoeT
Please post a secular source in favor of your argument. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit prejudiced. That would be like my posting my proof from Luther's Works. I suspect you wouldn't buy into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
classyT,
Thanks, we are all a work in progress most positive a few negative.
In the case of Mary's sinlessness at the birth of Jesus it is a situation of deductive reasoning.
The bible tells us several times that Jesus was pure.
That He was and is the Lamb of God of the Passover is there also as you already know.
For Jesus to be born without the stain of sin it is reasonable to conclude that Mary was without the stain of sin.
The Catholic Church and many others so conclude.
Several posts here have shown why those denominations so believe and teach.
Those posts are for others to understand why.
If you and others do not want to understand that it is your choice.
I like to try to understand others points of view and I am NOT hostile that others think differently, unlike a few here who are.
I am saddened much that we Christians who are all under attack from a hostile world of people whose religion hates Christianity and others who are purely secular can not stand together regardless of our few differences to face the war against us.
After all, most all denominations have far more similarities than differences.
Yet those few differences SEEM to keep us apart and in some cases aggressively so.
That is very sad.
450donn,
When Joe answers before I do (as often happens), I do not feel it necessary to do it all over again so I do not. I hope that is OK with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 PM. |