The Case for the Sinless Ever-Virgin Mary.

[VictoryinJesus]

How would Mary being most Holy and Perfect, to the point of being Second to God, in order to conceive God Incarnate and offer Him as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity, etc., make the Power of God be of Mary and not God?

In what it’s become. Mother Mary. All a ritualistic affair. See …something about that is sideways Mary becomes the Priest making the offering of her holy and perfect sacrifice which is her son …she becomes the Offerer …the son is only the product of a sinless and perfect offering of the Mother Mary to give for the sins of the world because she has no sin.

If you would read the OT bitter water curse with the two women …one is free and a free woman who conceives seed …meaning she bears not: sin unto death but conceives righteous unto Liberty (freedom): the one called NO adulterous. Why? Who steps in “to drink?”

Then there is the woman called the adulterous who drinks and found guilty of sin unto death. Bound to a curse.

Mary is the one in the place of judgement to drink of the bitter water. But someone drinks on her behalf. Whom the Son makes Free is Free indeed. The ultimate fulfillment of “Honor thy Mother and Father.” I could be wrong but I suspect Mary was resurrected and set on High now to be called the Mother of us all: New Jerusalem, which is above and Free. But if it wasn’t for “although He possessed all things, yet He became poor that many be made rich” Mary would still be without the gate with the others asking to speak with him. I get you may say that is hogwash. Man wants, I think, the Mother Mary to be exonerated but for what reasons? What if she IS exonerated but it’s not so they can use her to fulfill their own lust? Would God let men play with the Mother like that? I do think after her experience of labour pains God has set Her in the Heavenly but she ain’t flesh(gold trinkets, silver and money). Nor stone.

 

[Jack]

If Mary was sinless the Bible would clearly say so. It doesn't. Not even a hint.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

If Mary was sinless the Bible would clearly say so. It doesn't. Not even a hint.

I’m confused. Do they really fight for sinless or mainly asserting that she never slept with a man. Which is likened to being sinless. Makes my head spin.

 

[RedFan]

Once again, you guys are talking past each other. Let's hit the reset button, and start by distinguishing between what the Catholics call "original sin" (inherited from Adam as part of the human condition) and "actual sin" (the choices we humans make against God's commandments of love).

Can we agree that Paul's "all have sinned" reference was a reference to "actual" sin? Otherwise Paul would not have used the aorist tense ἥμαρτον and instead would have said that all were born into sin.

Can we agree that the argument for Mary's sinlessness in order to birth Jesus is an argument for Mary being conceived without "original" sin? (As I understand it, that is precisely what Catholics are taught -- which is why the RCC adopted the Immaculate Conception as dogma in the nineteenth century and, after they figured out that being born without original sin would necessarily exempt one from physical death, the Assumption as dogma in the twentieth century).

Once this distinction is front and center, Paul no longer contradicts the claim about Mary's supposed sinlessness.

 

[Pearl]

You suggested what if Mary didn't sin up to the point of Jesus's birth, but then sinned afterward. I'm asking why would that be the case?

Mary was born a sinner just as all humans are. If she had been without sin the bible would have said so.

 

[marks]

Can we agree that Paul's "all have sinned" reference was a reference to "actual" sin? Otherwise Paul would not have used the aorist tense ἥμαρτον and instead would have said that all were born into sin.

Romans 5:12 KJV
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:

This passage bridges that gap.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

Mary was born a sinner just as all humans are. If she had been without sin the bible would have said so.

I'm sorry, but while I agree that (1) Mary was not born without sin, I do not agree that (2) if she had been born without sin the Bible would have said so.

I subscribe to Proposition (1) because the burden of proof is on those who advance such an unusual claim as Mary being born sinless, and that that burden has not been met. But Proposition (2) just has nothing at all to commend it; the Bible is silent on a great many theological subjects, and that doesn't mean they aren't true.

 

[marks]

As is so often the case, the debate here seems to be between logic (a sinless Jesus could not have proceeded from a sinful Mary as his vessel for coming into the world) and Scripture (Paul told the Romans that all have sinned – which is the same as God saying it, so it must be true). I disagree with both of these propositions, but for present purposes let me just suggest a way that both could be true simultaneously: Mary could have been sinless up until giving birth to Jesus, and sinned thereafter.

I find that in the contest between logic and Scripture, I always go with the Scripture, and I find the logic sorts itself out. If we try to go with the logic, then that tends to prevent a real understanding of the Scriptures. As I see it.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

I find that in the contest between logic and Scripture, I always go with the Scripture, and I find the logic sorts itself out. If we try to go with the logic, then that tends to prevent a real understanding of the Scriptures. As I see it.

Much love!

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

 

[marks]

Funny, I have an almost opposite experience. Logic actually helps me make more sense out of Scriptures.

I'm not saying I don't use logic. I think critical thinking is sorely lacking in general. It's a matter of which is supreme. This thread essentially says that Mary must have been sinless - logic says so - therefore, there must be exceptions to the Scriptures, even though they have no exceptions stated. "Logic first" causes this one to deny the Scriptures.

But when we accept the Scriptures as true on their face, we can use logic and critical reasoning as measures of what they do and don't say, and how they interrelate with each other.

Much love!

 

[Augustin56]

Interesting side note...

Whenever a woman gets pregnant, regardless of whether she carries the child to term, some of the cells from that child travel into the woman's body and live there her entire life. If the woman gets injured or becomes ill, those cells travel to the problem area and try to help with healing the woman. This whole process is called microchimerism.

Apply this to Jesus and Mary. Some of Jesus' cells traveled into Mary's body and lived there her whole life.

All that aside, Scripture tells us in Luke 1:28, in the original Greek, that the angel addressed Mary as kecharitomene. This word, used in the grammatical sense it was, indicates that Mary was "full of grace" (one cannot sin and be "full" of God's grace) from the first moment of her existence (conception) in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter, going forward. So, according to Luke 1:28, Mary was conceived "full of grace" (sinless) and remained in that state her entire life.

Quoting Romans 3:23 in an absolute sense, requires only one exception to disprove the absoluteness of the statement. Start with Jesus. Jesus was like us in all things but sin. Babies, before the age of reason, are not capable of sinning. And, Mary, by a unique grace of God, was born sinless and remained so her entire life.

Even Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed that Mary was sinless.

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." Martin Luther (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527)

 

[marks]

All that aside, Scripture tells us in Luke 1:28, in the original Greek, that the angel addressed Mary as kecharitomene. This word, used in the grammatical sense it was, indicates that Mary was "full of grace" (one cannot sin and be "full" of God's grace) from the first moment of her existence (conception) in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter, going forward. So, according to Luke 1:28, Mary was conceived "full of grace" (sinless) and remained in that state her entire life.

Let's see if this is what the passage says, or if you are misrepresenting it.

I'm always curious to compare what someone says when they reference a passage, and make claims about it, but don't quote it.

Luke 1:28 KJV
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.

Nowhere does this verse say anything about conception or the like. What about the grammatical form to you means from conception? It's a perfect passive verb, which does not indicate the timing, only that the act of favoring Mary was done at that time, and remains done. Mary did in fact bear the Christ.

There is only one other place this same word is used:

Ephesians 1:6 LITV
6) to the praise of the glory of His grace in which He favored us in the One having been loved,

Though you don't seem to be asserting that all of us were born without sin.

Much love!

 

[marks]

And, Mary, by a unique grace of God, was born sinless and remained so her entire life.

Scripture plainly refutes this.

Romans 5:12 KJV
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:

So we can either accept your assertion about Mary, or we can accept the statements in the Bible, but we cannot do both.

Much love!

 

[Augustin56]

Let's see if this is what the passage says, or if you are misrepresenting it.

I'm always curious to compare what someone says when they reference a passage, and make claims about it, but don't quote it.

Luke 1:28 KJV
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.

Nowhere does this verse say anything about conception or the like. What about the grammatical form to you means from conception? It's a perfect passive verb, which does not indicate the timing, only that the act of favoring Mary was done at that time, and remains done. Mary did in fact bear the Christ.

There is only one other place this same word is used:

Ephesians 1:6 LITV
6) to the praise of the glory of His grace in which He favored us in the One having been loved,

Though you don't seem to be asserting that all of us were born without sin.

Much love!

Marks, what you're doing is taking an English translation, which necessarily has errors in translation because of the difference in languages, and trying to figure out what the author intended to say while looking through 21st century lenses. Translation is more art than science. In modern languages certain words and phrases often do not easily translate from one language and culture to another, so you can imagine the problems that are sometimes present trying to translate a 2,000-year-old language into modern languages.

“Full of grace” is literally “pleres charitos,” and that wording is used in reference to Jesus (John 1:14) and to St. Stephen (Acts 6:8). Obviously, its used with two different meanings in those two passages, but its meaning is clearly gleamed by its context. Technically, anyone who was recently baptized or received the sacrament of confession is pleres charitos.

In Luke 1:28, however, the word that the angel uses is kecharitomene. So it’s not literally “full of grace,” but its root word is the Greek verb “to give grace” (charitoo). The word is the past perfect tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred. It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished. The word was also used as a title. The angel did not say, “Hail Mary, you are kecharitomene” but rather, “Hail kecharitomene.” Therefore the word is not simply an action but an identity.

 

[RedFan]

All that aside, Scripture tells us in Luke 1:28, in the original Greek, that the angel addressed Mary as kecharitomene. This word, used in the grammatical sense it was, indicates that Mary was "full of grace" (one cannot sin and be "full" of God's grace) from the first moment of her existence (conception) in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter, going forward. So, according to Luke 1:28, Mary was conceived "full of grace" (sinless) and remained in that state her entire life.

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?

 

[Augustin56]

Scripture plainly refutes this.

Romans 5:12 KJV
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:

So we can either accept your assertion about Mary, or we can accept the statements in the Bible, but we cannot do both.

Much love!

The Scriptural sense does not always support a absolute, as you are inferring here. We, and Scripture, can refer to something in a general way as "always" or "all" while still allowing exceptions. Case in point, Romans 3:23. "...all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." All one has to do is provide one (1) exception to destroy the notion of the statement being in absolute (NO exceptions) terms. In this case, we can not just point to Jesus, but also to all infants and children before the age of reason, who aren't old enough to sin yet.

 

[Augustin56]

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?

The grammar is important here, where the word used (kecharitomene) is used in such as sense as to mean that Mary was "full of grace" from the very beginning of her existence (conception) and in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter. It doesn't mean that she could not have sinned, since she still had her free will. It means that she didn't sin. Our existence begins, for each of us, at conception.

 

[RedFan]

The grammar is important here, where the word used (kecharitomene) is used in such as sense as to mean that Mary was "full of grace" from the very beginning of her existence (conception) and in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter. It doesn't mean that she could not have sinned, since she still had her free will. It means that she didn't sin. Our existence begins, for each of us, at conception.

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 between.

 

[marks]

The grammar is important here, where the word used (kecharitomene) is used in such as sense as to mean that Mary was "full of grace" from the very beginning of her existence (conception) and in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter.

That's simply not true. In what sense would it mean that? Please explain in detail, because I know about this, and we need to get to the brass tacks.

Much love!

 

[marks]

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 between.

Exactly.

Much love!