The Case for the Sinless Ever-Virgin Mary.

[Pearl]

If you don't commit sin then you're without sin, i.e., sinless.

No I'm sorry, but without sin means being born without that stain that all humans are born with and only Jesus was born without that stain because he is God's son. Nobody else can claim to be God's only begotten Son so nobody else can claim to be born without sin. I'm pretty sure that Mary would not have claimed to be without sin. We are all sinners until we turn to Christ and are spiritually re-born.

 

[Soulx3]

No I'm sorry, but without sin means being born without that stain that all humans are born with and only Jesus was born without that stain. We are all sinners until we turn to Christ and are spiritually re-born.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that "only Jesus was born without the stain of original sin and committed no sin." So, you really shouldn't add words to Scripture that aren't there.

 

[Pearl]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that "only Jesus" was born without the stain of original sin and committed no sin. So, you really shouldn't add words to Scripture that aren't there.

Scripture says that Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God. Only Jesus - nobody else

 

[Soulx3]

Scripture says that Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God. Only Jesus - nobody else

And Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. You say that as if it proves Mary had original sin and actively sinned but it doesn't.

 

[Soulx3]

It isn't about not committing sins it is about the fact that only Jesus was born without sin because he wasn't part of the consequence of Adam's disobedience which led to all humans who were born in the natural way falling short of God's perfect standard and with a sinful nature.

Jesus is without sin because he is God so for Mary to also be without sin she too would have to be God and she isn't and to compare Mary's human nature with Jesus' divine nature is completely wrong. Almost blasphemous.

Jesus, God Incarnate, fully divine and fully human, didn't inherit the stain of original sin because His Mother didn't have it. Mary is second to Jesus because He preserved Her soul from inheriting the stain of original sin. In advance God Thought of creating the soul that was to be the soul of the Mother of God Incarnate, and because He knew Her soul would've been subject to the law of the first parents, He preserved it from inheriting the stain of original sin, and thus it became an immaculate soul capable of possessing the fullness of His Grace, then He infused it into the embryo at the moment of Her conception. These factors, coupled with being conceived by and born of two Just human parents and having a natural good will, resulted in Mary being free from sin, and thus a worthy dwelling place for God Incarnate, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the most Holy, Pure, and Perfect One, to take form in and live a divinely Holy life with in Spirit and Body on earth and in Heaven.

It's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, Who abhors sin (not the sinner), willfully wanted to Incarnate Himself in and have for His Mother, a sinful and impure human.

 

[RedFan]

You're the one who's arguing that God Incarnate living among sinful humans is the same as God Incarnating Himself within a sinful human. So, I'm giving you an example where God Incarnate was with a sinful human, Who He had lived among and spent time with, yet He told Her not to touch Him because He was going to be in the presence of God the Father. Why is being uncontaminated by sin and impurity significant in the presence of God the Father? Because God is the Most Holy and Pure One. It's because God is the Most Holy and Pure One that not any and every sinful human was allowed in the Holy of Holies, but rather the High Priest, and even he was a sinful human. It's also why there won't be humans still impure with sins existing in Heaven for eternity with Him. The list goes on. Therefore, aside from the explicit and supportive statements from Scripture for the Mother of God Incarnate being preserved from inheriting the stain of original sin and never having committed sins, it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human.

Jesus's post-resurrection instruction to Mary Magdalene not to touch Him explicitly hinges on the imminent ascension of His glorified body to the Father. The same cannot be said of His gestation period. So the analogy you are trying to draw between the two limps.

If, indeed, "it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human," then it is illogical and blasphemous on its own merits, NOT because 30+ years later, after His resurrection, God Incarnate eschewed physical contact with His glorified body while waiting to ascend to the Father.

I will say it for the third time: I'm not arguing for or against Mary's sinlessness. I'll happily leave that to the rest of the posters you are debating on this thread. I'm only saying that John 20:17 doesn't help to support the argument that Mary was sinless. Neither does Psalm 5:4. Just as Rom. 3:22 and 1 Pet. 2:22 don't help to support the contrary argument (as you have correctly pointed out elsewhere).

 

[Soulx3]

Jesus's post-resurrection instruction to Mary Magdalene explicitly hinges on the imminent ascension of His glorified body to the Father. The same cannot be said of His gestation period. So the analogy you are trying to draw between the two limps.

You're missing the point, whether deliberately or not I can't know. You're the one who's arguing that God Incarnate living among sinful humans is the same as God Incarnating Himself within a sinful human. So, I'm giving you an example where God Incarnate was with a sinful human, Who He had lived among and spent time with, yet He told Her not to touch Him because He was going to be in the presence of God the Father. Why be uncontaminated by sin and impurity in the presence of God the Father? Because God is the Most Holy and Pure One. It's because God is the Most Holy and Pure One that not any and every sinful human was allowed in the Holy of Holies, but rather the High Priest, and even he was a sinful human. It's also why there won't be humans still impure with sins existing in Heaven for eternity with Him. The list goes on. Therefore, aside from the explicit and supportive statements from Scripture for the Mother of God Incarnate being preserved from inheriting the stain of original sin and never having committed sins, it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human.

 

[RedFan]

You're the one who's arguing that God Incarnate living among sinful humans is the same as God Incarnating Himself within a sinful human.

Actually, I am suggesting that God Incarnate being formed in the womb, and God Incarnate living among sinful human beings, both count as "dwelling." I got the first from you (Post # 234). I got the second from John 1:14.

 

[Soulx3]

Actually, I am suggesting that God Incarnate being formed in the womb, and God Incarnate living among sinful human beings, both count as "dwelling."

That's why I said you're the one who's arguing that God Incarnate living among sinful humans is the same as God Incarnating Himself within a sinful human. If you understood they're not the same, I wouldn't be having to explain to you why they aren't. I also referred to a scene where God Incarnate was with a sinful human, Who He had lived among and spent time with, yet He told Her not to touch Him because He was going to be in the presence of God the Father. Why be uncontaminated by sin and impurity in the presence of God the Father? Because God is the Most Holy and Pure One. It's because God is the Most Holy and Pure One that not any and every sinful human was allowed in the Holy of Holies, but rather the High Priest, and even he was a sinful human. It's also why there won't be humans still impure with sins existing in Heaven for eternity with Him. The list goes on. Therefore, aside from the explicit and supportive statements from Scripture for the Mother of God Incarnate being preserved from inheriting the stain of original sin and never having committed sins, it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human.

 

[RedFan]

That's why I said you're the one who's arguing that God Incarnate living among sinful humans is the same as God Incarnating Himself within a sinful human. If you understood they're not the same, I wouldn't be having to explain to you why they aren't. That's why I gave you an example where God Incarnate was with a sinful human, Who He had lived among and spent time with, yet He told Her not to touch Him because He was going to be in the presence of God the Father. Why be uncontaminated by sin and impurity in the presence of God the Father? Because God is the Most Holy and Pure One. It's because God is the Most Holy and Pure One that not any and every sinful human was allowed in the Holy of Holies, but rather the High Priest, and even he was a sinful human. It's also why there won't be humans still impure with sins existing in Heaven for eternity with Him. The list goes on. Therefore, aside from the explicit and supportive statements from Scripture for the Mother of God Incarnate being preserved from inheriting the stain of original sin and never having committed sins, it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human.

I wish you'd quoted my entire post ahead of your answer. By invoking Psalm 5:4 you're the one who claimed that Jesus's gestation was "dwelling" which could not occur with a sinful human. And I'm suggesting that if you're right about gestation counting as "dwelling," then John 1:14 shows that Jesus COULD dwell with sinful humans, so the "no dwelling with sin" argument from Psalm 5:4 didn't help advance your position.

Again, if "it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human," then it is illogical and blasphemous on its own merits, NOT because of what Psalm 5:4 says.

 

[Adrift]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that "only Jesus was born without the stain of original sin and committed no sin." So, you really shouldn't add words to Scripture that aren't there.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that "Mary didn't collect butterflies". That is not an arguement for saying that Mary collected butterflies.

 

[Soulx3]

By invoking Psalm 5:4 you're the one who claimed that Jesus's gestation was "dwelling" which could not occur with a sinful human. And I'm suggesting that if you're right about gestation counting as "dwelling," then John 1:14 shows that Jesus COULD dwell with sinful humans, so the "no dwelling with sin" argument from Psalm 5:4 didn't help advance your position.

I said Ps. 5:4 and Jn. 1:14 were both true statements. I never said God Incarnate dwelling within a sinful human is the same as dwelling among sinful humans because they're not, and if you agreed with me on that then I wouldn't have been explaining to why they're not. Do you now agree?

Again, if "it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human," then it is illogical and blasphemous on its own merits, NOT because of what Psalm 5:4 says.

God Incarnate was with a sinful human, Who He had lived among and spent time with, yet He told Her not to touch Him because He was going to God the Father. Why be uncontaminated by sin and impurity in the presence of God the Father? Because God is the Most Holy and Pure One. It's because God is the Most Holy and Pure One that, for example, not any and every sinful human was allowed in the Holy of Holies, but rather the High Priest, and even he was a sinful human. It's also why there won't be humans still impure with sins existing in Heaven for eternity with Him. The list goes on. Due to this, do you believe it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human?

 

[RedFan]

You're arguing that God Incarnate living among sinful humans is the same as God Incarnating Himself within a sinful human. If you agreed they're not the same, you wouldn't be fighting me on that.

Actually, I said they are different in lots of ways (see my Post # 291). The only sameness relevant here is the "dwelling" aspect. I'm "fighting" (your word) you only to suggest that if both are "dwelling," Psalm 5:4 adds nothing to your argument.

Due to this, do you believe it's illogical and blasphemous to think that God, the Most Holy and Pure One, would willingly Incarnate Himself in, and make His Mother, a sinful and impure human?

I have to tease your statement apart here.

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.)

Do I believe that it's "Due to this?" Absolutely not! One does not logically follow from the other. I've tried to explain the non sequitur numerous times.

 

[Pearl]

And Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. You say that as if it proves Mary had original sin and actively sinned but it doesn't.

Mary wasn't begotten of God. She was the result of two people having sex. She was conceived in the way we all are and born in the normal way to parent who were sinners, not because of the sin they committed but because they were separated from God by Adam's sin as all of us are until we accept Jesus and are born again.

 

[Pearl]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that "Mary didn't collect butterflies". That is not an arguement for saying that Mary collected butterflies.

I'm ready to give up on this. He has been taught by people who themselves have been deceived and is not for budging. I hope that he will one day see that he needs Jesus more than he needs Mary.

 

[RedFan]

I'm ready to give up on this. He has been taught by people who themselves have been deceived and is not for budging. I hope that he will one day see that he needs Jesus more than he needs Mary.

@Soulx3 is a she, not a he. See Post # 305. (I made the same mistake.) But I suspect she would concede that she needs Jesus more than she needs Mary. The RCC doesn't view Mary as a savior; it views her as an intercessor.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say "only Jesus never committed sins." In 1 Pet. 2:22, neither does it say, "only Christ committed no sin," but rather, "Christ ... Who committed no sin." 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. And God is Mary's Savior because he saved Her by preserving Her from inheriting the stain of original sin.

Now just show that from
gods INspired Word and you can make a case.

Otherwise Gods Word is clear: "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!"

Repeating the same statement ot me doesn't make it truer.

 

[Soulx3]

Actually, I said they are different in lots of ways (see my Post # 291).

I didn't say you didn't say that. Again, I was referring to the way you said they are the same.

The only sameness relevant here is the "dwelling" aspect. I'm "fighting" (your word) you only to suggest that if both are "dwelling," Psalm 5:4 adds nothing to your argument.

I said Ps. 5:4 and Jn. 1:14 were both true statements. I never said God Incarnate dwelling within a sinful human is the same as dwelling among sinful humans because they're not, and if you agreed with me on that then I wouldn't have been explaining to you why they're not all this time. Do you now agree that they aren't the same?

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 is it 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?

 

[Soulx3]

Now just show that from
gods INspired Word and you can make a case.

Otherwise Gods Word is clear: "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!"

I can show where it's in Scripture, but you'd reject it because it's not stated in the Bible the way you want. 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 never committed sins." In 1 Pet. 2:22, neither does it say, "only Christ committed no sin," but rather, "Christ ... Who committed no sin." 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.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I can show where it's in Scripture, but you'd reject it because it's not stated in the Bible the way you want. 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 never committed sins." In 1 Pet. 2:22, neither does it say, "only Christ committed no sin," but rather, "Christ ... Who committed no sin." 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 show me where it says anything similar to saying Mary was born sinless and never sinned or any other way it could be said. You don't know if I will reject it until you post it!

Once again show form Gods Word she is an exception to the biblical rule!

So far you are just repeating lines that MAY show a possibility, now show it is fact as the roman Church has declared.