[JoeT777]

Believing in the Holy Trinity, the Godhead of three distinct Persons in perfect unity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then are we obliged by that affirmation to understand the Blessed Mary to be singularly preserved exempt from all sin and ever virgin?

As an example we say Christ is one Person in the Holy Trinity and is the union of the nature of God and man. Also, we say that the Son of God was begotten and not made, of one essence with the God; when the incarnation took place, at that very moment of conception, the mystery of the union of God and man took place. Without a sinless Mary, the incarnation took place in a corrupted Ark, Christ is born of sin, which of course is an illogical response.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

That isn't necessarily the case. Romans 5 tells us that sin passed to all through Adam; that is, sin nature passes through paternity. Mary didn't have to be sinless, because Jesus didn't have a human father and hence sin didn't get passed to him regardless of Mary's situation.

[Fr_Chuck]

While of course while I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as true and valid, one does not automatically prove or disprove the other.

Sin as dwashbur discussed has been shown though custom and tradition also to be passed down by the male, but of course for Mary to be without sin, there had to be another act of God to allow her to be born sinless , since she did have a father and would have been born with sin, without an act of God to change that.

But of course if one can accept and believe in the virgin birth, accepting something as merely being born without sin should be an easy leap of faith.

[JoeT777]

While of course while I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as true and valid, one does not automatically prove or disprove the other.

I don't think I set out to 'prove' or 'disprove', I used the word 'obliged' deliberately to avoid such connotations. Nevertheless, holding first the view of the Holy Trinity then the second view must logically follow unless we harm our belief in the Holy Trinity.

Sin as dwashbur discussed has been shown though custom and tradition also to be passed down by the male, but of course for Mary to be without sin, there had to be another act of God to allow her to be born sinless , since she did have a father and would have been born with sin, without an act of God to change that.

This seems to me to be an example as well. All men born of woman have original sin. The only exception would be a man born of Eve before the fall. If we don't acknowledge this then we harm the two natures of Christ, Theandros, God/Man.

We hold that the Blessed Mary was just such a woman, a new Eve, without sin, without knowledge of knowing sin. Fr. Placid Conway, in his biographical study of Saint Thomas Aquinas reminds us of St. Thomas' Commentary on the Epistle to Romans: "All men have sinned in Adam, excepting only the most Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of Original Sin". Conway also illustrates with St. Thomas' discourse on the purity of Mary.

• "Increase of purity is to be measured according to withdrawal from its opposite, and since in the Blessed Virgin there was 'depuratia' from all sin, she consequently attained the summit of purity; but yet under God, in Whom there is no capability of defect as is in every creature of itself". And again he writes in Dist. XLIV, Quest. I, art 3 "
• "Purity is increased by withdrawal from its opposite, and consequently some created being can be found purer than which nothing can be found in creatures, if never sullied by defilement of sin, and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was exempt from original and actual sin". [depuratio ab omni peccato – purified of all sin]

... Romans 5 tells us that sin passed to all through Adam; that is, sin nature passes through paternity. Mary didn't have to be sinless, because Jesus didn't have a human father and hence sin didn't get passed to him regardless of Mary's situation.

The verses of Romans 5:12-13 emphatically states that no man is born without original sin and pays the price of death for the original sin of Adam and that actual sins are known whenever there is a known transgression of God's Law.

Consequently, it is inescapable that every man enters the world through sin; being a man, this would include Christ. Since Christ is the union of man and God, that is wholly man and wholly God, the only way a man enters the world is through woman. There are only two types of woman, Eve, before the fall. And the second type of woman is the fallen woman who inherits death through Adam. Since perfection is not born of sin, the new Adam, Christ, must be born of a new Eve, a woman without sin. This compels us to the acknowledge the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But of course if one can accept and believe in the virgin birth, accepting something as merely being born without sin should be an easy leap of faith.

How great a leap is it to believe a man that was born of a virgin? If you can believe this, then how small must a step be to believe the Immaculate Conception?

Man born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries. Who comes forth like a flower, and is destroyed, and flees as a shadow, and never continues in the same state. And do you think it meet to open your eyes upon such an one, and to bring him into judgment with you? Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? Job 14:1-4

JoeT

[classyT]

Joe777,

where you been? I've been wondering where you were. Missed all of our discussions... you remember them... YOU being wrong.. me being right. It was fun. :) Glad your back.

Mary was blessed by God and she was special because she was chosen to be the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ and in that way I acknowledge her. But NOwhere does the NT or OT suggest she was sinless. To make her deity is wrong and I personally think she would be appalled by it.

Christ was the last Adam.. the Bible is crystal clear about it. But there isn't a verse in the Bible that says that Mary was the new, second or last EVE. In fact, there really isn't much about Mary at all. Why? Because our focus should be on the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Not a created being.

Even if you REASONED it out it doesn't make sense. She was born with sinful parents. 1+1=2. If she could suddenly be without original sin, then why couldn't he do that for all of us.

Genesis 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent..
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Does that say anything about the NEW eve? Naaaah just the woman.. the fallen woman.

[hauntinghelper]

I just don't understand the need to add Mary into the divine mix? Why must we push the issue of her being sinless, which simply by definition of her being human means she had sins to deal with same as you and I. Why must we push the issue of her being forever a virgin? The bible is clear that Jesus had siblings. Joseph went on to marry her... why on EARTH would we just assume they never had sex? I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers in Christ, but my goodness... what is your focus on?

[dwashbur]

The verses of Romans 5:12-13 emphatically states that no man is born without original sin and pays the price of death for the original sin of Adam and that actual sins are known whenever there is a known transgression of God's Law.

Consequently, it is inescapable that every man enters the world through sin; being a man, this would include Christ. Since Christ is the union of man and God, that is wholly man and wholly God, the only way a man enters the world is through woman. There are only two types of woman, Eve, before the fall. And the second type of woman is the fallen woman who inherits death through Adam. Since perfection is not born of sin, the new Adam, Christ, must be born of a new Eve, a woman without sin. This compels us to the acknowledge the Blessed Virgin Mary.

No, it doesn't compel any such thing. It clearly implies that sin nature comes through paternity, so Jesus' sinlessness came not because of anything to do with his mother, but because God was his father and he didn't have any earthly father to pass sin to him. There's no reason to bring anything about Mary into it. And as ClassyT pointed out, there's no indication of any second Eve anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there a "new" or "second" Adam; Jesus is called the "last" Adam, a life-giving spirit. Maternity has nothing to do with anything. It's all about paternity, and Jesus was able to be born sinless because he didn't have a human father. It really is that simple.

[hauntinghelper]

Dwashbur, well said.

If Mary, being sinless, was all Jesus needed, then it would have been sufficient for him to have two earthly parents... but, no, he needed that divine nature imparted into His human life... that's what makes Him an acceptable sacrifice for our sins... it has to do with His blood and NOTHING to do with Mary.

[JoeT777]

I just don't understand the need to add Mary into the divine mix? Why must we push the issue of her being sinless, which simply by definition of her being human means she had sins to deal with same as you and I. Why must we push the issue of her being forever a virgin? The bible is clear that Jesus had siblings. Joseph went on to marry her...why on EARTH would we just assume they never had sex? I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers in Christ, but my goodness...what is your focus on?

Why then did God ‘choose’ the mother of the Son of God? Why didn’t he simply choose an incubator? Saint Ambrose reminds us that it was Mary’s flesh in which Christ was born and given in the perfect sacrifice and glorified in His resurrection. If as suggested, the flesh of Mary was impure then Christ bore the flesh of sin and His Passion on the Cross would have not been a sacrifice but atonement needed for His resurrection. To ignore this would be to ignore the contradiction that sin shall be judged. Christ being the judge then we could ask, who would then Judge then Judge?

He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

The Blessed Mary was the handmaiden that the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed. She in effect became bound to God by her vow to a spiritual marriage. Would we then say that Christ was the offspring from the marriage of sin and Divine Holiness? (Cf. Luke 1:35).


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

How great a leap is it to believe a man that was born of a virgin? If you can believe this, then how small must a step be to believe the Immaculate Conception?

Why do we have to make that "small step"? There's nothing in the Bible to support it, and much to support the leap.

[Wondergirl]

Why then did God ‘choose’ the mother of the Son of God? Why didn’t he simply choose an incubator?

Electricity hadn't been discovered yet. In the same way, why didn't he have Jesus produced by a great fish?

The amazement and glory of the nativity story is that God blessed a young woman "just like us" to be the mother of His Son.

[hauntinghelper]

God CHOSE her because he needed to be born human. I'm not doubting her purity and obviously she was someone special to be chosen to begin with. HOWEVER, aside from birthing and raising Jesus, she not sits in the background of the Triune God. I say stick to the Word and not to what the Church tells you. Spiritual marriage? Don't put words in God's mouth... the Catholic church would be taken a little more seriously if it laid off the assumptions and just stuck to Scripture. Mary has no place in the current church of God, Saint so and so and Saint whoseywhat don't either. These are not scriptural beliefs, they are man made dogma. When Mary or Saint blah-blah die for my sins... they just might get a prayer from me.

[dwashbur]

Saint Ambrose reminds us that it was Mary’s flesh in which Christ was born and given in the perfect sacrifice and glorified in His resurrection. If as suggested, the flesh of Mary was impure then Christ bore the flesh of sin and His Passion on the Cross would have not been a sacrifice but atonement needed for His resurrection.

Joe,
You're still dodging the idea that the sin nature is passed through paternity. If that is the case, and Scripture seems to say it is, then it didn't matter whether Mary's "flesh" was pure or impure or anything else. You need to address this question before we can make any more progress.

And do me a favor: don't quote church fathers to me as if they carry some authority, because for me they don't. I speak only for myself, of course, but anything that is going to have weight of argument for me is going to have to come from the Bible itself. The writings of the fathers can give us a lot of insight into how they believed, and they can often help illuminate biblical passages. But they do not stand on any kind of par with revealed truth. That only comes from the Word. I know you probably don't agree, and you believe that authority is shared between the Bible and the Church. I don't begrudge you that view, all I'm saying is, since I don't accept church authority as absolute, it's not going to move us ahead any in the discussion to invoke it.

I hope that doesn't sound snide, because it's not meant to be. I'm having a little trouble formulating exactly what I'm trying to say there, so I hope it comes across okay.

[JoeT777]

Why do we have to make that "small step"? There's nothing in the Bible to support it, and much to support the leap.

If there is nothing in Scripture to support it we should drop it, right? Should we also drop the Holy Trinity as well? The same type of reasoning is used to in the Creed to establish the Truth of the Trinity, is it not?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Electricity hadn't been discovered yet. In the same way, why didn't he have Jesus produced by a great fish?

The amazement and glory of the nativity story is that God blessed a young woman "just like us" to be the mother of His Son.

Nor was I, nor were Fish n Chips – by the way, it takes a deep electric fryer.

The point is the glory is much more than the blessing of a little farm girl. A godly Rabbi could've done that. This birth completely transformed heaven and earth. Deep fryers didn't come anywhere near to this type of glory.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

If there is nothing in Scripture to support it we should drop it, right? Should we also drop the Holy Trinity as well? The same type of reasoning is used to in the Creed to establish the Truth of the Trinity, is it not?

JoeT

There are many supporting Bible verses for the Trinity. The Creeds don't establish the truth of the Trinity; they only summarize Christian beliefs into a convenient package.

[JoeT777]

There are many supporting Bible verses for the Trinity. The Creeds don't establish the truth of the Trinity; they only summarize Christian beliefs into a convenient package.

Does Truth rely on the satisfaction of numbers? What is the magic number for Truth? Or is Truth a God given synthesis of reason? The Blessed Mary's purity and spotlessness is only another facet of the Truth in the Trinity.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Does Truth rely on the satisfaction of numbers? What is the magic number for Truth? Or is Truth a God given synthesis of reason? The Blessed Mary's purity and spotlessness is only another facet of the Truth in the Trinity.

JoeT

Oh, for Pete's sake, Joe! Truth is in the Bible.

[dwashbur]

Does Truth rely on the satisfaction of numbers? What is the magic number for Truth? Or is Truth a God given synthesis of reason? The Blessed Mary's purity and spotlessness is only another facet of the Truth in the Trinity.

JoeT

How did numbers get into it? There's something here that I'm not grasping.

The truth of things like Jesus is established by God's revelation in the Bible. I have no idea what numbers have to do with anything.

[Athos]

But they do not stand on any kind of par with revealed truth. That only comes from the Word. I know you probably don't agree, and you believe that authority is shared between the Bible and the Church. I don't begrudge you that view, all I'm saying is, since I don't accept church authority as absolute, it's not going to move us ahead any in the discussion to invoke it.

I hope that doesn't sound snide, because it's not meant to be. I'm having a little trouble formulating exactly what I'm trying to say there, so I hope it comes across okay.

No, it doesn't sound snide, but it does take away part of Joe's belief, and you insist that he discuss the issue by your groundrules. That's not snide, but it's not fair.

As to Mary not having human paternity, and therefore not subject to original sin, the other side of that logical coin must be that Mary is half-human and half-divine since the paternal role was played by God.