The Case for the Sinless Ever-Virgin Mary.

[Soulx3]

Reasoning from the possible to the actual is faulty reasoning.

I'm not. I was just asking someone if they believe or do not believe that God could have or could not have done x, y, z.

The only way Psalm 5:4 (God cannot dwell with sinfulness) and John 1:14 (God Incarnate dwelt with sinful man) can both be true is if we qualify one or the other of them as being inapplicable to a particular setting. And that is exactly what you did. You declared John 1:14 inapplicable to Jesus in the womb due to Mary's sinlessness.

When I challenged that conclusion, you pointed to the post-resurrection Mary Magdalene incident as proof that the gestational Jesus was as prone to the contaminant of sinful flesh as the pre-ascension glorified body of Jesus. But it ISN'T proof of that proposition at all. Jesus's glorified body awaiting ascension was different from His body in the womb, just as it was different from His body between birth and resurrection.

I said Ps. 5:4 and Jn. 1:14 were both true statements. I also said that God Incarnate dwelling within a sinful human is not the same as dwelling among sinful human, and I referred to Jn. 20:17 after I got the impression you believe that they are the same. Is that impression accurate or inaccurate?

Do I believe It's illogical and blasphemous to think that God would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His mother, a sinful and impure human? I honestly don't know the answer; I see both sides of the argument. (But I'm leaning toward No.)

Consider that God is the Most Holy and Pure One, and that God through Scripture says that the virtues of holiness and purity are to be respected in Him and achieved within ourselves with His help.

God says those pure in heart will see Him (Matt. 5:8), and to be pure in heart means to not be impure in thought, word, and deed. Therefore, why do you think it's a logical possibility that God (Purity) Who is in Heaven (the Kingdom of Purity), a place where nothing impure can enter where He is, did not enter and Incarnate Himself within One Who Is Pure in every way?

 

[Taken]

I don't accuse "forever" virgins (or whatever you call a woman who takes a vow of perpetual virginity) of being sinners for rejecting a command to submit to their husbands -- as long as they never take husbands! And I don't accuse barren wives of being sinners for rejecting a command to multiply.

God established male and female manKind, and the Order and Way pleasing and purposeful to and for Him. People choose, make vows and stand accountable for their choices.

Are you suggesting that a woman who is fertile, but chooses not to marry, breaks two of God's commandments?

No.
This topic is expressly about a female who agreed to take a vow of betrothal, of marriage and of her First born be in a fashion according to Gods Will and Purpose.

God Bless you,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

I said Ps. 5:4 and Jn. 1:14 were both true statements. I also said that God Incarnate dwelling within a sinful human is not the same as dwelling among sinful human, and I referred to Jn. 20:17 after I got the impression you believe that they are the same. Is that impression accurate or inaccurate?

You could be right only if "dwelling within" and "dwelling among" were to connote different meanings of "dwelling." There is no indication that Psalm 5:4 and John 1:14 use "dwell" in such disparate senses, so this different connotation is yours, not Scripture's. And like Scripture, I am adopting a single definition of "dwell" covering both scenarios, so your impression of my view is accurate.

If that's why you pointed to John 20:17, you compared apples to oranges. The glorified body discussed in that verse is qualitatively different from either the body forming in the womb or the body growing up in Nazareth and traversing Palestine with His disciples.

God says those pure in heart will see Him (Matt. 5:8), and to be pure in heart means to not be impure in thought, word, and deed. Therefore, why do you think it's a logical possibility that God (Purity) Who is in Heaven (the Kingdom of Purity), a place where nothing impure can enter where He is, did not enter and Incarnate Himself within One Who Is Pure in every way?

I grant you that nothing impure will enter the Kingdom of Purity. And I hope you will grant me that by becoming incarnate, the Son of God entered the realm of impurity -- so that he could save us sinners.

Is it a "logical possibility" that Mary's womb was an exception? Sure. It's a "logical possibility" that you could win next year's Boston Marathon too. Logical possibility - Wikipedia

 

[Taken]

That's a good question, but to answer it, one has to look at the grammar used in the context of the statement. Not only does it imply that Mary was "full of grace" at the time that the angel said so, but it means it was a permanent state, from the very beginning of her existence. That would be when she was conceived. In addition, the word also implies that kecharitomene was more than a description. It was a title. And, I would add, none of this was through Mary's doing. It was a singular grace granted her by God.

It's interesting that the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, believed that Mary was conceived without original sin, i.e., she was sinless.

Martin Luther said: "... so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin... And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin." (Martin Luther's Works, vol 4, pg 694)

I am pretty confident Martin Luther himself was a long time member of the Catholic Church, was taught and agreed with Catholic teachings, and literate.
Considering the time-frame during Luther’s life-time, and pronouncements of the Catholic Church of intent and acts, seemingly stirred a Big Question according to Luther of a very particular Act instigated by the Catholic Church.
Not much different in these days per Catholics saying, writing this or that and THEN, wondering, challenging, even protesting…their current popes views, pronouncements, regarding Religious and Moral issues, for example…
Islam and Christianity
Blessings over same sex partnerships

One Agreeing with another person on one topic, does not mean one agrees with everything that other person believes.

Catholicism seems to have a code of ethics to join their church, requiring one TO AGREE, with all their popes, ( at any time ), pronounces .

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Pearl]

Catholicism seems to have a code of ethics to join their church, requiring one TO AGREE, with all their popes, ( at any time ), pronounces .

A few years ago our church invited Helen Shapiro the singer to come and share her own journey from Judaism to Christ. I sat with her at tea time and she told me she would go anywhere to share her beliefs apart from a Catholic Church because they were so closed to the truth of the gospel. I know there must be some Catholics who find Christ and leave Catholicism behind but they are in the minority.

 

[Taken]

Fact…There is a HUGE difference between “small” uncomplicated words.

For example;
AS, does not mean IS.
WITH, does not mean IN.

Jesus was SENT forth OUT from God, in Heaven, TO Earth, in the LIKENESS “AS” a man, for men OF “THIS” world, TO SEE, TO HEAR, TO LEARN, “HOW” to become “IN” Gods Likeness, according TO Gods Order and Way.

Many times, From Ancient history TO this day:
Men have been WITH God…
God has been WITH men…
Men have STOPPED being WITH God…
God has STOPPED being WITH men.

Jesus CAME to Earth barring A NEW MESSAGE, with an Offering of A NEW BETTER TESTAMENT. And THAT Offering, included A SECURITY, AN ASSURANCE…
For an Individual to ONCE and FOREVER BE WITH God, and God WITH that individual…BEING so KEPT….Exclusively sure;
BY the POWER of GOD, “WITH-IN” that individual.

Some reach out and “TAKE” Gods Offering…
Some do not, and THUS, forego, forfeit, lose, the Offering, they were Offered and COULD have had, but rather freely chose TO NOT reach out and TAKE it.

Regarding Mary, like all other people, she too was naturally conceived in sin, and Offered Salvation, and willingly TOOK it for herself.

Did her TAKING, or anyone TAKING, “MAKE” her FLESH or anyones FLESH “become” sinless? No.
Clearly, it MAKES the individual’s SINFUL flesh FORGIVEN…and such the OFFERING includes a FUTURE gift, OF ANEW, “sinless, body” FOR that individual.

Mary received her Gift of Gods Spirit “with-IN” her, ie. the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, at the SAME TIME, Jesus’ chosen Apostles received THEIR Baptism of the Holy Spirit…
(AFTER Jesus had RETURNED to Heaven, FROM whence he came to Earth.)

No, Mary was not naturally conceived SINLESS, nor was naturally born SINLESS, nor naturally lived SINLESS…
Mary LIKE OTHERS, received FORGIVENESS “FOR her SIN”, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to be WITH her FOREVER, and the PROMISE to be RAISED UP from her natural dead FLESH, in a glorious SINLESS BODY, per a FUTURE Resurrection Day.

Acts 1:
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
[15] And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 2:
[1] And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
[2] And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
[3] And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
[4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

[5] And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
[6] Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

A few years ago our church invited Helen Shapiro the singer to come and share her own journey from Judaism to Christ. I sat with her at tea time and she told me she would go anywhere to share her beliefs apart from a Catholic Church because they were so closed to the truth of the gospel. I know there must be some Catholics who find Christ and leave Catholicism behind but they are in the minority.

Personally I believe Christ’s Church, was established BY Christ, IS Christ’s and it’s FIRST members WERE JEWS, who went to Synagogue's, to Jews, to PREACH Gods Word, Jesus’ Gospel TO THEM FIRST.

* Subsequently, some Gentiles heard, were curious, heard more, adopted the beliefs of Jesus’s Gospel.
* And While the Original Apostles had their mission to preach TO the Jews…
* Jesus Himself, intervened ON Behave of the curious, wondering, hungry for learning GENTILES by, through, of a WILLING, excellently qualified in Jewish Religion, SAUL, and brought him (up to speed, so to speak,) on WHAT the original Apostles had been taught, Publicly AND Privately (by Jesus Himself)…(ie. Saul willingly being separated, ie. Paul….for 3 years in Arabia, being taught in and of the Spirit.) And thereafter HIS MISSION, TO preach…TO the Jews, the Gentiles and kings.
AND, I am confident, Saul/Paul received Gods Blessings FOR A Job well done AS a Faithful Servant of the Lord God.

I believe
* early Gentiles exhibited a curiosity and zest and zeal learning NEW information….ABOUT God AND Jesus
* JUST AS early Jews exhibited a curiosity and zest and zeal learning NEW information…ABOUT God AND Jesus.

I believe
* what BEGAN as Gentiles trying to establish an intent of an organized “world wide” distribution of the Lord Gods Word….
BECAME a “corrupted, CLICK of Powerhouse Leaders”….Appointing THeMSELVES.
Nothing NEW….The Jewish Pharisee’s, Governing Kings, Christianity, Continuing forth, by, through, of ORGANIZATIONS, of ALL types, Religious, Governments, Nations, with particular goals, set their BOUNDARIES, their FIXED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND LIMITS…. AND THEN…people “in charge”, do as they please, in backroom secret agreements among the few in “supposed leadership positions”, perpetrating above and beyond the limits of the fixed objective standards, at which the PEOPLE AT LARGE, become blind-sided and victims of “their REPRESENTATIVE’S” dirty dealings, and seemingly STUCK in the “pot of boiling water with no means of escape.”

Jesus OFFERED an ASSURED WAY, to protect and SANCTIFY and SAVE every WILLING individual’s SOUL..

Jesus OFFERED an ASSURED WAY, via His Comfort to GET THROUGH the hardships and oppressions of tribulations men threaten and enforce upon other men….
BECAUSE, as long as there ARE mortals living upon the face of this present day earth….there WILL BE EVIL spiritual powers preying and instigating, as well as WICKED human powers preying and instigating UPON the weak, uninformed AND informed of the TRUTH.

Let us be Thankful unto the Lord God for His Offering, His Blessings, His Comfort, despite, those who GAIN temporary positions, power, wealth, FOR construing TRUTHS into LIES, to foster their “temporary” gain.

God Bless you,
Glory to God,

Taken

 

[Augustin56]

I am pretty confident Martin Luther himself was a long time member of the Catholic Church, was taught and agreed with Catholic teachings, and literate.
Considering the time-frame during Luther’s life-time, and pronouncements of the Catholic Church of intent and acts, seemingly stirred a Big Question according to Luther of a very particular Act instigated by the Catholic Church.
Not much different in these days per Catholics saying, writing this or that and THEN, wondering, challenging, even protesting…their current popes views, pronouncements, regarding Religious and Moral issues, for example…
Islam and Christianity
Blessings over same sex partnerships

One Agreeing with another person on one topic, does not mean one agrees with everything that other person believes.

Catholicism seems to have a code of ethics to join their church, requiring one TO AGREE, with all their popes, ( at any time ), pronounces .

Glory to God,
Taken

So, you're claiming that Divine Revelation didn't die with the last Apostle, but picked up again after the Reformation? Where else would Martin Luther have learned his faith other than from the Catholic Church?

If the unchanged teachings of Christ were taught for the first 16 centuries, then the Reformation happened, and suddenly people started changing the teachings (we now have literally 10's of thousands of different-believing denominations now), where would this new revelation have come from?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So, you're claiming that Divine Revelation didn't die with the last Apostle, but picked up again after the Reformation? Where else would Martin Luther have learned his faith other than from the Catholic Church?

Maybe he learned it from God? By reading the word Given By God?

If the unchanged teachings of Christ were taught for the first 16 centuries, then the Reformation happened, and suddenly people started changing the teachings (we now have literally 10's of thousands of different-believing denominations now), where would this new revelation have come from?

lol.. Do you know your own history? What happened to anyone who taught different for the first 16 centuries?

 

[Augustin56]

Maybe he learned it from God? By reading the word Given By God?

lol.. Do you know your own history? What happened to anyone who taught different for the first 16 centuries?

So, if reading the word Given by God was a sure way to know His truth, why are there literally tens of thousands of different-believing Protestant denominations, all reading the same Word, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation? The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of contradiction or confusion.

St. Paul says that it is the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (see 1 Tim 3:15). Nowhere does he say the individual, personally sitting down and interpreting his/her Bible is anything approaching this. Historically, the only Church St. Paul could possibly have been referring to is the original Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church.

So, I would ask... Is it important to get it all right, or are errors acceptable? You might read Gal. 1:8, that says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!"

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So, if reading the word Given by God was a sure way to know His truth, why are there literally tens of thousands of different-believing Protestant denominations, all reading the same Word, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation?

You do realize there are not tens of thousands of different believes do you not? This is quite a ridiculous argument to try to prove your point.

Take this one verse for example.

Eph 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Are you telling me there is 40,000 interpretations of that one verse?

Are you open? if you are. you would see how illogical that is. and wish to determine why you have always thought this

The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of contradiction or confusion.

Amen he is not. But who does God hold accountable to how each individual interprets his word?

St. Paul says that it is the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (see 1 Tim 3:15). Nowhere does he say the individual, personally sitting down and interpreting his/her Bible is anything approaching this. Historically, the only Church St. Paul could possibly have been referring to is the original Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church.

Ah.

So is the church going to stand before God and correct God when we get it wrong?

So, I would ask... Is it important to get it all right, or are errors acceptable? You might read Gal. 1:8, that says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!"

It is important to get it right, Our eternity is at stake.

so listen to no man.. Test each spirit. and seek toe truth

Don;t make the same mistake the jews made, and listened to their religious leaders who were established with moses and arron, who went astray. Because they are mere men

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Jesus and Mary Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, as well as why She didn't commit sins. However, again, their words (spoken in modern day) are found in a book that isn't in one of the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it. You, like most Protestants, demand others to provide scriptural verses that explicitly appear in the Bible for what they believe in order to be true, but you don't abide by that standard yourself. If you did, then you wouldn't be stating as a fact that Mary of Joseph inherited the stain of original sin and committed sins, because nowhere in Scripture does it say "only Jesus was without sin," nor that "only Jesus never committed sins." Jesus, including, for example, children who have died without having committed sins, are exceptions to the "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:22). For these reasons, Rom. 3:22 isn't proof Mary sinned, nor that She can't also be an exception.

Once again all you have done is repeat the same line as to why she may not be sinless, but have not provided evidence.

YOu say Jesus and Mary herself explicitly explain why God preserved her from sin. Okay--where did they explicitly explain this! You make the claim and all you have doen is to dodge and evade answering with evidence that she was actual sinless.

We know Jesus was and is sinless, but you have yet to provide anything other than maybes as to why Mary was sinless. You make the claim, the proof is on you. that is what is civilized and honest debate over an area we disagree on.

BTW I was Catholic for 18 years.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Roland, keep in mind what sin is. IF you take a statement from Scripture in an absolute sense, then all one needs to do is provide one exception to prove that the absolute sense is in error.

The "all have sinned and fallens short of the glory of God" is such a case. Jesus never sinned. That's the first exception. Babies, infants, and young toddlers before the age of reason cannot sin. That's millions and millions of exceptions.

With regard to Mary, Scripture says she was born "full of grace" (the actual Greek word used was kecharitomeneI). (Luke 1:28) That word, used in the manner in which it was (as a perfect passive participle), indicated that 1) Mary was full of grace (without sin) from the first moment of her existence (her conception) in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter. Therefore, Mary qualifies as an exception, also.

Jesus was not just man so He is not an exception.

Infants are lost they are created with a sin nature. they do not get a sin nature when they sin, they sin, because they have a sin nature.

Eph. 2 says all are children of wrath
Ps. 51:5
Gen. 8:21
Ps. 58:3

YOu do not understand the word grace.

Only the Catholics translate it full of grace and that is inaccurate. It means a woman who has received blessing or favor. And the favor is she was chosen to bear the Savior, not that she was born and kept sinless. that is forcing something upon the Scripture that simply is not there.

And perfect passive particple does not mean conceived without sin, but was chosen and has been, is, and will continue to be favored of God by bearing Jesus.

Luke 1:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And because it is passive , it means the favor (not sinlessness) was bestowed on her.

 

[Taken]

So, you're claiming that Divine Revelation didn't die with the last Apostle,

I didn’t mention “Divine Revelation”.
However to THAT Point….I don’t believe every generation born AFTER the Apostles are excluded FROM opportunity to HEAR Gods Word, to BELIEVE Gods Word, to have a One on One Relationship with God, and to have ACCESS to Gods UNDERSTANDING, “according to Gods Order and Way”.

What IS opportunity, IS option, IS offered BY God, IS every individuals FREEWILL Choice to Accept or Reject.

but picked up again after the Reformation?

No.
What I believe has OCCURRED over time, for many generationally, IS ignorant, illiterate, curious and desiring individuals, choosing to become LITERATE, and taking advantage of ACCESS, AFFORDABILITY and OWNERSHIP of Biblical Literature to LEARN first-hand, and VERIFY first hand, and CHOOSING to establish a ONE on ONE offered relationship WITH the Lord God, and HAVING a ONE on ONE Access to HIS Spiritual UNDERSTANDING.

Where else would Martin Luther have learned his faith other than from the Catholic Church?

I wouldn’t credit the Catholic Church with Faith being taught or learned. Faith is a gift from God.
Regarding Martin Luther, in his day, I would presume, ANYONE wanting to hear a Christian teaching would have attended the monopoly “Catholic Church”…and did so for centuries…until such time, Literacy and Bible affordability and availability and desires of individual men superseded men seemingly having only ONE choice regarding Christian teaching.

If the unchanged teachings of Christ were taught for the first 16 centuries, then the Reformation happened, and suddenly people started changing the teachings (we now have literally 10's of thousands of different-believing denominations now), where would this new revelation have come from?

Again: Literacy, Availability, Affordability, was a plague unto itself for centuries while the ONLY option for the people at large was to HEAR what a very small group decided they were entitled to hear.
AND not to forget, much like the ancient days of the Pharisees…Control over the masses, of the poor, the ignorant, the too Busy to verify…advantaged and afforded the FEW in CONTROL, with a pretty cushy luxury life-style…which is always the case with the greedy, even to this day.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

So, if reading the word Given by God was a sure way to know His truth, why are there literally tens of thousands of different-believing Protestant denominations, all reading the same Word, all claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation?

Critiquing Protestants by non-Protestants seems to be a highlight of some Catholics…when there are several reasons;
while Protestants Churches have the SAME CORE Belief upon which their Church is established; being; “Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God”….not all Protestant Churches take their marching orders from one world leader, elected by a handful.

Some Protestant Churches, establish;
A dress code, hours of operation, appointed and hired Pastors (that individuals may or may not like their sermon delivery or Gender for Preaching), distance to travel to attend, specific ceremonies, rituals, entertainment, music selections, ease of access for the elderly and impaired, Sunday school for studying particular topics, on and on and on….that some may agree or disagree with.

Seems to me a greater opportunity for individuals to be at ease with the ‘rules’ of particular Protestant denominations that encompasses participation aside from the SAME CORE BELIEFS and praise and worship unto the Lord God.

I know of many Catholics, who have generationally held allegiance by vow to the Catholic Church, yet don’t attend Church regularly, don’t agree with all of their beliefs, is critical of their own ‘high leader”, the pope, have had very undesirable relationships with their Priests, don’t read the Bible…yet feel obligated as a duty to their family to keep their declaration of being Catholic, or be ostracized.

Everyone is an individual. Christ’s Church belongs to Christ…not the Catholics, not the Protestants.
God called HIS House, a House of Prayer…If individuals are content gathering with others, by whatever name is stamped on the marquee, and worships and praises the Lord God, I believe Christ the Lord God KNOWS their heart and accounts them among His own.

The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of contradiction or confusion.

Not in debate.

St. Paul says that it is the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (see 1 Tim 3:15).

Sure….with the CAVEAT, “that the Church” IS keeping IN-LINE with Gods Word, to whit it IS an Individuals own obligation to VERIFY their preaching and teaching BE SO, according to the Lord God.

Nowhere does he say the individual, personally sitting down and interpreting his/her Bible is anything approaching this. Historically, the only Church St. Paul could possibly have been referring to is the original Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church.

An IRRELEVANT challenge on your part.
NEVER have I said or implied or indicated private Interpretation is an APPROVED method according to Gods Order and Way, or should be considered or effected.

So, I would ask... Is it important to get it all right, or are errors acceptable?

The WHOLE dynamics of the NEW TESTAMENT is not mysterious…Point Blank, Beyond all hullabaloo of rituals and individual Church rules….it is the ALL about doing the Works OF God, which IS to HEARTFULLY BELIEVE ‘and’ CONFESS that BELIEF…which of and in itself IS highest Glory a man can do to pay tribute unto the Lord God.

Every individual knows their own TRUE heartful belief and SO ALSO Does God.
I highly doubt God is concerned with what denomination a man calls himself, but rather, What is IN his Hearts True Beliefs.


Glory to God,
Taken

You might read Gal. 1:8, that says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!"

WHY?

 

[Soulx3]

You could be right only if "dwelling within" and "dwelling among" were to connote different meanings of "dwelling." There is no indication that Psalm 5:4 and John 1:14 use "dwell" in such disparate senses, so this different connotation is yours, not Scripture's. And like Scripture, I am adopting a single definition of "dwell" covering both scenarios, so your impression of my view is accurate.

If that's why you pointed to John 20:17, you compared apples to oranges. The glorified body discussed in that verse is qualitatively different from either the body forming in the womb or the body growing up in Nazareth and traversing Palestine with His disciples.

Regarding Jn. 20:17, yes, Jesus's body became glorified when He Resurrected, but that isn't why He couldn't be touched, because post-first Ascension Thomas, a sinful human, was told to touch Him, but pre-first Ascension Mary Magdalene, another sinful human, was told not to touch Him so as to not contaminate Him as she was still impure from sins, because He was about to go be in the presence of God the Father. Therefore, this is an example of God dwelling among sinners, but evil (sin) being unable to dwell with God, which supports my statement that Ps. 5:4 and Jn. 1:14 are both true.

How this ties into your belief that dwelling within a sinful human is the same as dwelling among them is that while God became human and dwelt among sinners, He is still the Most Holy and Pure One, Who lives in the Kingdom of Purity where no one impure can enter, and through Scripture says that the virtues of holiness and purity are to be respected in Him and achieved within ourselves with His help. Additionally, God says those pure in heart (not impure in thought, word, and deed) will see Him (Matt. 5:8). For these reasons and others, why would God (Purity) enter and Incarnate Himself within One Who is not Pure, and when He could have done so in someone who is Pure?

 

[Soulx3]

Once again all you have done is repeat the same line as to why she may not be sinless, but have not provided evidence.

Again, I have evidence, but it's evidence you reject. Again, Jesus and Mary Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, as well as why She didn't commit sins. However, again, their words (spoken in modern day) are found in a book that isn't in one of the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it. You, like most Protestants, demand others to provide scriptural verses that explicitly appear in the Bible for what they believe in order to be true, but you don't abide by that standard yourself. If you did, then you wouldn't be stating as a fact that Mary of Joseph inherited the stain of original sin and committed sins, because nowhere in Scripture does it say "only Jesus was without sin," nor that "only Jesus never committed sins." Jesus, including, for example, children who have died without having committed sins, are exceptions to the "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:22). For these reasons, Rom. 3:22 isn't proof Mary sinned, nor that She can't also be an exception.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Again, I have evidence, but it's evidence you reject. Again, Jesus and Mary Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, as well as why She didn't commit sins. However, again, their words (spoken in modern day) are found in a book that isn't in one of the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it. You, like most Protestants, demand others to provide scriptural verses that explicitly appear in the Bible for what they believe in order to be true, but you don't abide by that standard yourself. If you did, then you wouldn't be stating as a fact that Mary of Joseph inherited the stain of original sin and committed sins, because nowhere in Scripture does it say "only Jesus was without sin," nor that "only Jesus never committed sins." Jesus, including, for example, children who have died without having committed sins, are exceptions to the "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:22). For these reasons, Rom. 3:22 isn't proof Mary sinned, nor that She can't also be an exception.

so if I am reading you right

People who demand that we see or hear proof from the inspired word of God, and not by other books written by men, not inspired. who wish to test all spirits by a verifiable trustworthy source. are rejecting evidence from the words of men, because the words of God does not support your belief?

Amazing how the jews made the same mistake.. yet no one seems to question when a worldwide church does the exact thing they did..

 

[RedFan]

Regarding Jn. 20:17, yes, Jesus's body became glorified when He Resurrected, but that isn't why He couldn't be touched, because post-first Ascension Thomas, a sinful human, was told to touch Him, but pre-first Ascension Mary Magdalene, another sinful human, was told not to touch Him so as to not contaminate Him as she was still impure from sins, because He was about to go be in the presence of God the Father. Therefore, this is an example of God dwelling among sinners, but evil (sin) being unable to dwell with God, which supports my statement that Ps. 5:4 and Jn. 1:14 are both true.

I grant (once again, see my Post # 346) that the post-resurrection, pre-(first)ascension glorified body of Jesus needed to be untouched by human flesh because He was about to go be in the presence of God the Father. But in the womb, He was NOT about to go be in the presence of God the Father. As applied to God Incarnate Psalm 5:4 is literally FALSE -- God CAN and DID dwell with sin -- unless we are talking solely about that brief post-resurrection waiting period. John 1:14 applies prior to that period. The two verses are not both true as applied to any prior moment in Jesus's earthly life.

The Mary Magdalene incident does NOT show that His gestation is a time when He couldn't be in contact with sinful human flesh. Neither does Psalm 5:4. Neither does any verse in the entire Bible.

 

[RedFan]

Again, I have evidence, but it's evidence you reject. Again, Jesus and Mary Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, as well as why She didn't commit sins. However, again, their words (spoken in modern day) are found in a book that isn't in one of the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it.

So does the RCC.

Is 'The Poem Of the Man-God' Simply a Bad Novel? | EWTN

Steer Clear of Maria Valtorta's "The Book of Azariah"

“A monument to pseudo-religiosity”: A case against <i>The Poem of the Man-God</i>

www.catholicworldreport.com