I've kept meaning to re-read Mary's song - Magnificat - but you have beaten me to it Nancy. Well spotted.
Last edited:
The Case for the Sinless Ever-Virgin Mary.
- Thread starter Soulx3
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Please QUOTE Jesus’ EXPLICIT words, source and WHO Jesus is speaking TO.
Please QUOTE Mary’s EXPLICIT words, source and WHO Mary is speaking TO.
Copout.
You claiming a person REJECTS SCRIPTURE, when they have SAID NO SUCH THING, IS you making a FALSE ACCUSATION.
You making claims, THEN calling it a waste of your time to SUPPORT your claims WITH SCRIPTURE is a copout, of deceit.
Scripture itself reveals, SCRIPTURE ITSELF “IS” the PRECISE APPROVED BY GOD, means and method TO VERIFY what men TEACH, to BE true or false.
So, AGAIN…According to Gods precise ORDER and WAY….
QUOTE SCRIPTURE which Verifies your CLAIM…THAT:
FORTUNATELY…
God REVEALED…from the beginning MANY things God KNOWS…(which IS KNOWLEDGE), (Which GOD IS ALL KNOWING),
WAS KEPT SECRET FROM ManKIND.
Gods OWN KNOWLEDGE that HE KEEPS SECRET FROM mankind, ARE SECRETS that BELONGS “TO” God and “IS” Secret TO mankind.
SECRETS “OF” God’s ARE “HIS”….” UNTIL such TIME God REVEALS “HIS” secret “TO” manKIND.
Jesus CHOSE “particular” men to FOLLOW Him, LEARN from Him, WRITE “particular” things, REPEAT “particular” words to Other men, Distribute their “writings” to Other “particular” men…….AND WITHHOLD “particular” “SECRETS of God”…such men WERE PRIVY to Hear and Learn.
Absolutely, EVERY WORD Jesus spoke to His Chosen “Disciples” WAS NOT, repeated from their lips….WAS NOT written, Recorded with pen on paper, WAS NOT distributed amongst Other men.
God DID NOT, Jesus DID NOT “appoint” unnamed MEN TO SPEAK, TO WRITE, TO DISTRIBUTE “WORDS” “IN CONTRAST” to Gods WORD AND corruptly TEACH THEM TO claim “IT IS THE WORD OF GOD”.
We are WARNED…OF powerful EVIL spiritual beings, and OF powerful WICKED men…
Who “WOULD” take it upon themselves…TO teach and preach their OWN WORDS, “IN CONTRAST to Gods Word….and Falsely CLAIM, and attribute “their words” to being Gods Word”.
Since Jesus’ own DISCIPLES INFORM YOU…NOT EVERY THING they were FIRST HAND TOLD, by Jesus, was Orally REPEATED or WRITTEN….by, through, or of them…
BY Gods OWN order and way….THAT SECRET KNOWLEDGE, was NOT for YOU to have or possess.
Deut. 29:
[29]The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Obviously…many Secrets WERE revealed to Jesus’ Chosen Disciples….which were NOT revealed to the WHOLE of Mankind.
AND AGAIN…”JOHN”, a faithful servant of God…was instructed TO WRITE A BOOK, and expressly SEND such BOOK “TO”….WHAT? WHERE?
TO “GENTILE” Catholic Churches?
TO “a Gentile Church IN the Vatican City within ROME?
No. John was and did send his written Book TO the Seven Churches of Asia…today, called Asia Minor, and expressly Turkey, a country that which is nearly 99% holding of the Muslim faith….with the Original Churches all but in “RUINS” exhibiting but a smidgen of their former splendor.
And Again as John was writing, what He heard and saw…He Was told to NOT write particular things.
AND AGAIN….”JOHN”, a faithful servant of God, WAS GIVEN A BOOK. He saw it, He handled it….and was told to NOT reveal it’s contents, but rather eat it up.
That book “holds” the SECRETS of the Lord, ONLY revealed TO JOHN…NOT you, NOT me, NOT any other of ManKIND.
Point being…IF it is Gods SECRET NOT revealed to you…it is Gods SECRET TO KEEP FROM YOU.
IF God reveals His SECRETS TO YOU, it is FOR YOU, not the whole world.
Did the Lord God REVEAL…NONE are GOOD?
Did the Lord God REVEAL ALL of manKIND has SINNED?
Did the Lord God REVEAL TO YOU….God “EXCEPTED” Mary FROM ALL OF mankind that SHE was Good, Holy, and NOT created or born IN SIN, committed NO Sin?….making the Lord God a LIAR, by INCLUDING “ALL” have SINNED?
Rom 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Last edited:
You keep repeating the same thing. I've already addressed this (see Post #326). The answer is: for the same reason God (Purity) in his incarnate state would touch any human being (Impurity). He became incarnate to habitate with sinful flesh, in order to save it. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God," 2 Cor. 5:21.
If He could be in contact with sinful flesh the moment He started breathing on his own, He could be in contact with sinful flesh while still attached to the umbilical cord. He COULD have. DID He? I've said a bunch of times now that I don't know, although I am leaning toward He did. There is nothing necessarily precluding it.
Last edited:
What I said was that the RCC rejected her writings. Do you disagree?
(I've read every word of the three links I posted. This is the second time you've used "supposedly" in reference to a post of mine, the first being in reference to my legal career. Are you suggesting I am a liar?)
What I said was that her writings aren't "Scripture," nothing more. I don't need to read her writings in order to know this. I only need to know the definition of "Scripture." Now, if you claim only that her writings are "inspired," or "factually accurate," I'd hesitate to disagree before reading them. But you went further and called them "Scripture" -- and that is what drew my dissent.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Simply repeating your comments prove nothing. YOu refuse to cite the evidence and only give mere maybes. I tire of this, you lack the honor to have a serious and deep and intense discussion, for you refuse to defend your position with the Scriptures and words you say exist. I am finished. Have the last word if you wish.
I will happily have the last word, you have nothing further to say anyway, except to admit that you display a double standard by not abiding by the same standard you demand of others, and apologize for misrepresenting me.
Now, 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 explicit words (spoken in modern day) are found in books that aren't found in the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it. Therefore, it'd be a waste of my time to quote from Scripture that you reject. Unfortunately, you presently limit the knowledge of God to the books that make up the Bible (despite His apostle John mentioning twice that not everything Jesus said and did is written, etc.), but I don't do that because God can't and shouldn't be limited to any book(s). There is and will only ever be four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), but you can't forbid God from revealing information about His and His Mother's earthly life that isn't mentioned in the writings that make up the Bible, and they have/do.
Regarding your claims, 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.
How does God (Purity) Incarnating Himself in an impure human in and of itself save humanity? Why did God (Purity) need to Incarnate Himself in an impure human in order to save humanity?
I'm not suggesting, but rather stating that I know you didn't fact check the information in the articles, and that I can't and don't know for certain you had a legal career. So, do you want to go back and fact check the information in the articles you've supposedly read, or not?
Define how you're using the word "Scripture" when you say Maria Valtorta's writings aren't Scripture, because I call her writings "Scripture" as in "a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative," not "the books of the Old and New Testaments or of either of them."
In and of itself, it doesn't.
No one is suggesting God needed to. Only that He could have. It would be consistent with his mission as described in 2 Cor. 5:21. After all, contact with sinful human flesh didn't faze Him one bit for 30+ years walking the earth, so why must we assume that would have for 9 months in the womb?
It's true that I didn't fact check the claims in these three articles that reject Maria Valtolta's writings. If doing so were to uncover errors in their claims, so be it. The fact remains that -- rightly or wrongly -- the RCC rejects her writings. THAT WAS MY ONLY ASSERTION. I'm not saying more than that. Never have. Now, if you want to point out mistaken factual assertions in these three articles, feel free. It wont change the truth of my statement about the RCC's rejection.
As to my legal career, sure, I could be lying. Just as you could have lied about being female. But I have no reason whatsoever to doubt you. Do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt me? Using the word "supposedly" suggests you do. It's disrespectful to suggest the possibility that I am lying. Better that we be scrupulously respectful with each other, don't you agree?
I would add "by a recognized religion." (Catholicism would qualify, for example. But again, the RCC doesn't consider Maria's writings either sacred or authoritative.)
Last edited:
Anyone claiming that Mary was sinless connot quote any Scripture (Bible) to support their claim. Only references to someone elses opinion. Your insistence on adding your desires to the Scripture is an abomination. As Taken quoted:
Rom 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
That is all that needs to be said. If it's not written in the scriptures, it is merely human conjecture.
Rom 3:
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
That is all that needs to be said. If it's not written in the scriptures, it is merely human conjecture.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Personal interpretation of Scripture is nothing more than conjecture.
Rom. 3 is not to be taken as an absolute. This is easily proven by just pointing to one exception. Jesus. However, there are literally millions of exceptions. Infants and children before the age of reason, who cannot sin yet.
In Luke 1:28, in the original Greek, the angel addresses Mary as kecharitomene. This word, in the grammatical sense in which it was used implies that Mary was without sin from the very first moment of her existence (when she was conceived in her mother's womb), in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter.
Reading a loose English translation of the Bible doesn't render this nuance, so you probably missed it...like many who try to reinvent God's Word on their own. Why do you think there are so many differing, contradicting Protestant denominations, all based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture?
I take it as an absolute. Otherwise it can mean whatever you want. You are the one taking scripture out of context. I agree that it's personal interpretations that separate the denominations, but I don't subscribe to interpret what is plainly written.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
So, you claim that Jesus sinned. And all infants and children under the age of reason. Right? Do you know what sin is?
What makes you think children cannot sin?
I've seen 2 year olds defy their parents, lie, steal toys from others, hit, namecall, all sorts of things. Have you raised children?
Now, whether that sin is accounted to them is a different question entirely. But to say, children don't sin, therefore "All" does not mean "All" is not valid reasoning, and serves only to misrepresent the human condition, and to overturn the plain meaning of Scripture.
Mary was a sinner as are the rest of humanity.
Jesus is the sole exception, as He does not fall short of His Own glory.
Much love!
Jesus did NOT sin and was born without the stain of sin passed down from Adam. he is God's Son so how can you even suggest such a thing or accuse somebody else of it. And although children and infants do not commit sin they are born with that stain of a sinful nature UNTIL they themselves choose to accept Jesus and so are born again. Christians - born again people - have made that choice after the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of the gospel to us. Babies cannot be born again because they can't make that choice and nobody can make it for them. It is a fact that God has no grandchildren - parents can't make the choice for their children.
And to answer your question about sin: sin is not just what we do wrong it is the fact of being born with sinful natures which separate us from God.
Last edited:
You sound like a Catholic. No, Jesus never sinned. If you paid more attention, the quote is from the Scriptures and the sentence structure clearly separates God (that includes Jesus) from the word "all". Do I know what sin is? Yes. One way to sin is to make up things like indulgences and purgatory and praying to Mary, etc. and pretending that they are Godly positions.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Sin is willfully disobeying God. For example, breaking one of the 10 Commandments. Infants and small children do not have a clue what God wants them to do or not do. They're not developed enough, yet, to rebel against God.
According to Scripture, Mary was not a sinner. In fact, that's a relatively late development by Protestantism. Even Martin Luther, who started Protestantism, believed that Mary was sinless:
Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. (Lutheran Mariology - Wikipedia)
Here's a couple of easy questions for you: By what/whose authority do you claim that you are right? Are you claiming to be infallible in your interpretation?
God bless!
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
If you know Scripture, you would know that what you're saying is completely false.
With regard to indulgences, he Bible is full of examples of God remitting the eternal punishment due to sin while still willing temporal consequences. For example, David is forgiven of his sin in 2 Samuel 12:13-18 yet must suffer the death of his son. The Psalmist says in Psalm 99:7-8 that God forgives but avenges wrongdoing. Even Jesus teaches in Luke 12:47-48 that the servant who did what is deserving of punishment without full knowledge will be punished, but in lesser degree.
It is such temporal consequences that indulgences remit. By virtue of its authority to bind and loose, the Church declares certain acts to be of such value that, if they are performed under certain prescribed conditions, sin’s temporal consequences can be remitted, either partially or fully. It is no different than Jesus’ teaching in Luke 11:41, “give alms…and behold, everything is clean for you.”
The Church grants indulgences to help its children heed St. Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 2:12, “work out your salvation,” and to cooperate with God in bringing to completion the good work he has begun in us—Philippians 1:6.
So, the motifs of temporal consequences due to sin and the Church’s authority to bind and loose make a solid biblical foundation for the Catholic dogma of indulgences.
Most Protestants’ experience of worship is really focused on praying, and reading the Bible, and singing. They don’t have the Mass. They don’t have the sacrifice, the sacrificial element. So when it comes to worship, they just assume if you’re praying to Mary, you’re worshiping her.
So they define prayer as worship, whereas we Catholics see the prayer is just the original meaning of it, which is to beseech, just to ask, is to converse with. And if you ask a friend for some help and moving from one house to another, you don’t say that you’re worshiping your friend by asking him to help you, do you? That’s a more of a conversation, and we see prayer to Mary as more of what we do with each other, with our parents, with our friends, with our family and not as somebody we’re worshiping. And Mary's prayers, by virtue of the fact that she's Jesus' mother, are far more effective than ours. Unless you believe Jesus broke one of the 10 Commandments (Honor thy Father AND Mother."?
Sin is to miss the mark. To fall short.
Invariably when I have this discussion/disagreement with others, it's due to their failing to correctly understand sin.
Learn the meaning here:
Romans 5:12-14 LITV
12) Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.
13) For sin was in the world until Law, but sin is not charged where there is no law;
14) but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the coming One.
And understand that there is sin, and there is the imputation of guilt for that sin. The child who does not understand that his stealing is wrong still sins, though that sin may not be imputed to them if they don't understand what they are doing.
Even so, it is the corruption of the flesh that leads the child to sin by stealing, or lying, or hitting, or whatever. I see small children doing all these things.
But let's not whitewash sin in support of some doctrine. When you have to do that, it's a clue you don't understand.
Much love!
Last edited:
I simply believe what I read. You seem to think it cannot be understood unless someone else tells you.
I say, take what they tell you and compare to the Bible. Don't just accept someone's words because they declare, "I know better", when what they say is refuted by clear Scripture.
God's Words over man's words.
Much love!
Similar threads
