Search results

Your first sentence is spot on; I believe either one could be true. I can't say which, but I'm leaning strongly toward NOT without sin. I would agree with your second sentence if you replaced "both scenarios" with "either scenario." And since all things are possible with God, I answer your...

I've just been called "mentally disabled" by @darkspeed6 on another thread, because I don't agree that "a change in what you're doing is a change in yourself." It's just sad.

That depends on the sense in which you are using "nothing" here. For instance: This statement will be true or false depending on whether “Nothing” refers to the word itself or to the word’s meaning. If the word itself is the referent, the statement is true (because, as we see, there it is...

She could have been. Doesn't mean she was.

I don't know that it's a "valid" argument. That's your word. But I see the argument. Its not convincing to me, but I see it.

Fair point.

I don't know if Mary was sinless or not. The Bible is silent on the issue. To those who say that such silence proves she wasn't sinless, I say your logic is faulty; the Bible is silent on a great many things that are true. So @Pearl, you shouldn't have rested your case so quickly. (On the...

It's creating change. Doesn't mean HE changed when that creating actvity ceased.

Locusts and honey isn't enough protein?

I see nothing in this passage suggesting that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life. Do you?

I think Job 38:4-7 is the source here, correct?

I thought the physical universe was the referent here. What, besides God, does the bible say existed prior to "the beginning" mentioned in Genesis 1:1?

And no one can deny that there is existing FALSE information about people/places/events that is lacking in the writings that make up the Bible. You really need to get off this "The Bible doesn't say No, therefore YES" kick. You've got some good points to make, and this type of silliness only...

It IS an argument for her sinlessness! But the Bible's silence on the issue is not. (Any "The Bible doesn't say No, therefore Yes" argument is invalid.)

And no scriptural verse that prohibits the exception from applying to you or me. How is that an argument for our sinlessness?

Fair point. But translators, being human, can be quite imprecise. How we arrived at "full of grace" from kecharitomene -- I guess the Latin Vulgate's "gratia plena" is the source -- is a matter of interpretation subject to human imprecision. We could as easily come away with "highly favored"...

I'm not seeing the grammar you are seeing. It seems to me we should translate it as "you who have been graced” -- which means it happened before the angel spoke, but we can't know how long before; the tense supports a minute before, a day before, a year before, at conception, and anything in...

I'm not following the "permanent" argument. If an angel tells me today I am full of grace, how does it follow that I cannot sin tomorrow? I'm not following the "conceived" argument. If an angel tells me today I am full of grace, how does it follow that I could not have sinned yesterday?

Time is a measure of change. Prior to God's creating the universe there was no "time" at all. Think of it this way: if all is static -- if there is no change (because no matter yet exists that could change) -- then sentient beings in that milieu would have no concept of time.

Funny, I have an almost opposite experience. Logic actually helps me make more sense out of Scriptures. (My Post #64 above is an example.)