December the Eighth

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

It's logically inconsistent that all men are free of sin, in light of the Fall. This is what is required of your reasoning if you are to say that Jesus could not have been sinless if Mary was not sinless.

No. That is what you are incorrectly reading in to my point.
Just as two people were required for sin to enter the world in Genesis two people are required for salvation to enter the world.

Jakkass wrote: »

If Jesus could not be sinless if Mary was not sinless why does the logic fail:
Mary cannot be sinless unless her parents were sinless.
Mary's parents could not have been sinless unless Mary's grandparents were sinless.
[... ad infinitum]

Your focus is too narrow. Adam was created sinless. Eve was born from Adams body and was sinless. For Jesus to be conceived sinless His mother must also be conceived sinless. The conception of Mary was an act of God and all part of the plan for salvation. There is no case to apply scientific logic to this. Mary's parents were conceived like anyone before or since

Jakkass wrote: »

Again! Why did Mary's conception require intervention if God could have equally done this in the case of Jesus?

If God could have... are you imply God was not involved in the conception of Jesus?
It is because He is the cause of Jesus conception that He intervened in Mary's conception. She is still the product of her parents genes but her conception was without sin so she could be without sin.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Genesis 3:15 you'll need to explain your point on this.

Eve clearly did not crush the head of the serpent and the serpent was not waiting for Eve to crush his head. If not Eve then who?

santing

Onesimus wrote: »

The greek used for ''full of Grace'' in St.Mary's case is ''Kecharitomene'' which means she was endowed with grace in the past tense. Many online greek dictionaries are created by evangelicals and are laced with biased interpretations.

The only other place in scriptures where someone is referred to as being full of grace with a different greek word but same meaning in is in John:1:14 where Jesus is ''full of Grace''

The third place in scripture where someone is described as full of grace is St.Stephen in Acts:6:8 and the exact quote is ''full of grace''. The grace stephen was full of was one of moral conviction.

Ah, we are getting technical. As I said (post 42), the greek word for "full of grace" is a form of "charitoō" and indeed here the "past perfect tense" of the verb. It shows that sometime in the past Mary had received this grace. The only other time this verb is used is in Ephesians 1:6 where it stands in the Aorist form, or "timeless" form, in the KJV translated with "He has made us accepted" or if you like "full of grace" you should translate this with "He has filled us with grace."

The other two occasions where the English translation may have "full of grace" are not really interesting, as there are different words being used in the greek.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

No. That is what you are incorrectly reading in to my point.
Just as two people were required for sin to enter the world in Genesis two people are required for salvation to enter the world.

This makes no sense. You have said that Jesus could not be born sinless if Mary was not sinless. Why does this logic not apply to Mary?

Festus wrote: »

Your focus is too narrow. Adam was created sinless. Eve was born from Adams body and was sinless. For Jesus to be conceived sinless His mother must also be conceived sinless. The conception of Mary was an act of God and all part of the plan for salvation. There is no case to apply scientific logic to this. Mary's parents were conceived like anyone before or since

This makes no sense though given what you have already said. If this is true of Mary, why can't this be true of Jesus. Or is it only that you have to trust whatever is in dogma because it is there?

Festus wrote: »

If God could have... are you imply God was not involved in the conception of Jesus?
It is because He is the cause of Jesus conception that He intervened in Mary's conception. She is still the product of her parents genes but her conception was without sin so she could be without sin.

I'm using if because I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There is no need on a logical level for God to have intervened in Mary's conception. He could have equally done this in the case of Jesus. Why was her conception without sin? Why couldn't Jesus' have been despite Mary having sinned?

Festus wrote: »

Eve clearly did not crush the head of the serpent and the serpent was not waiting for Eve to crush his head. If not Eve then who?

This passage is often used to refer to the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. I have yet to see how it applies to the Immaculate Conception.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm using if because I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

I defer to Oneismus explanation. It is much better than mine.

You believe what you want to believe. I believe what the Holy Spirit says to be True.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

I defer to Oneismus explanation. It is much better than mine.

You believe what you want to believe. I believe what the Holy Spirit says to be True.

How can we know that this is what the Holy Spirit says to be true? I'm just confused. If there was good Scriptural basis for this, I would believe as I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, His miracles on earth, His crucifixion and Resurrection and His impending return to the earth.

Onesimus

santing wrote: »

Ah, we are getting technical. As I said (post 42), the greek word for "full of grace" is a form of "charitoō" and indeed here the "past perfect tense" of the verb. It shows that sometime in the past Mary had received this grace. The only other time this verb is used is in Ephesians 1:6 where it stands in the Aorist form, or "timeless" form, in the KJV translated with "He has made us accepted" or if you like "full of grace" you should translate this with "He has filled us with grace."

The other two occasions where the English translation may have "full of grace" are not really interesting, as there are different words being used in the greek.

Nobody is getting technical at all. Nothing could be more simple.

Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass.

Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action

The other ''full of grace'' used in scripture are certainly interesting. But ''charitoo'' is not ''Kecharitomene''. they are close in nature but completely different in definition.

Onesimus

Festus wrote: »

I defer to Oneismus explanation. It is much better than mine.

You believe what you want to believe. I believe what the Holy Spirit says to be True.

I defer you also to my signature when debating with those in error :pac:

philologos

Your signature is only useful if one can give sound reason as to why we are in error. It's the most frustrating thing about talking about things like this. All I personally am looking for is to see if there is a good Scriptural basis for the Immaculate Conception, I come and I ask, and then it ends up that I get told that I'm "in error". Or that "you can believe what you want to but I believe in the truth". Can you not see how this is actually unhelpful?

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

How can we know that this is what the Holy Spirit says to be true? I'm just confused. If there was good Scriptural basis for this, I would believe as I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, His miracles on earth, His crucifixion and Resurrection and His impending return to the earth.

see post 50

philologos

Yes, I'm aware that the Spirit guides us, including in our reading and assessment of Scripture. What I am not aware of is that this must of effect lead to a belief in the Immaculate Conception which wasn't even a part of RCC dogma until the 19th century.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that the Spirit guides us, including in our reading and assessment of Scripture. What I am not aware of is that this must of effect lead to a belief in the Immaculate Conception which wasn't even a part of RCC dogma until the 19th century.

When is not of any consequence. That He does is. The Holy Spirit guides us to what is hidden in the Scripture and to what is not written in the Scripture. This is supported in Scripture.

To rely on Scripture alone is to deny what scripture says of the Holy Spirit and His mission. He is our guide to all Truth including the extra-Biblical.

There is no conflict and no contradiction between the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and what is in the Bible.

But ask yourself, what are the consequences for Christianity if Mary was not without sin?

Festus

Onesimus wrote: »

I defer you also to my signature when debating with those in error :pac:

so true

Onesimus

When is not of any consequence. That He does is. The Holy Spirit guides us to what is hidden in the Scripture and to what is not written in the Scripture. This is supported in Scripture.

To rely on Scripture alone is to deny what scripture says of the Holy Spirit and His mission. He is our guide to all Truth including the extra-Biblical.

There is no conflict and no contradiction between the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and what is in the Bible.

I think festus your digressing a little from the issue at hand with scripture alone etc. Relax! Jakass has been presented with the truth to which he has not replied. There are books out there Jakass that answer your questions why not go buy them?

This is because Jakass does not WANT to believe. what Jakass needs is not a good rational argument ( of which he has already been presented with ) what he needs is ''faith''. No rational intellectual argument will convert him no matter how hard he trys to make us believe that it would.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

When is not of any consequence. That He does is. The Holy Spirit guides us to what is hidden in the Scripture and to what is not written in the Scripture. This is supported in Scripture.

I agree that the Spirit does this. I also believe that everything that is external to Scripture must have Scriptural basis or a deep consistency with Scripture.

Festus wrote: »

To rely on Scripture alone is to deny what scripture says of the Holy Spirit and His mission. He is our guide to all Truth including the extra-Biblical.

I don't rely on it alone, but it is reasonable to be sceptical of what does not have basis in divine revelation. We are told that we should constantly test the spirits in order to ensure that they are of God. The extra-Biblical must be backed up by the Biblical.

Festus wrote: »

There is no conflict and no contradiction between the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and what is in the Bible.

It makes little sense given what the Gospels actually say about the life and times of Christ. It makes an assumption without basis for belief.

Festus wrote: »

But ask yourself, what are the consequences for Christianity if Mary was not without sin?

Christianity is Christianity even if Mary was like one of us. God chooses inadequate people to serve for His glory. One only needs to look at Moses as an example, or Jeremiah, or Peter, indeed any given disciple. We have all fallen short of the glory of God, and there isn't a solid basis for assuming that this is any different for Mary. Jesus redeemed the world, and Mary as God's servant played a key role in the Incarnation. This is why Mary can be said to be blessed amongst women.

Onesimus

Christianity is Christianity even if Mary was like one of us. God chooses inadequate people to serve for His glory. One only needs to look at Moses as an example, or Jeremiah, or Peter, indeed any given disciple. We have all fallen short of the glory of God, and there isn't a solid basis for assuming that this is any different for Mary. Jesus redeemed the world, and Mary as God's servant played a key role in the Incarnation. This is why Mary can be said to be blessed amongst women.

Yes God chooses the lowly but Mother Mary is greater than any human being ever created, for she is the Mother of God and created perfectly for him. She is the Ark of the New covenant, made immaculate and Holy for God to descend from his throne to his throne.

''All have sinned'' Rom 3:23 these contentions are easily answered and have been for a long time. if all have sinned then that means Jesus has sinned too but was an exception to the rule. If God can make is only son an exception to the rule then he can make Mary an exception to the rule also.

Romans 5:12: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned” Because of Enoch and Elijah, we know that not “all” have died. Also, on the last day, there will be those who do not see death. So in the “all” in reference to death is merely a generalization, the same can be said for the “all” in reference to sin.

Furthermore, since Scripture cannot contradict itself, the Bible cannot say both that “absolutely all” have sinned and “virtually, but not absolutely all” have sinned. This, therefore renders the interpretation of Romans 3:23 as a proof against the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother absolutely incorrect.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes God chooses the lowly but Mother Mary is greater than any human being ever created, for she is the Mother of God and created perfectly for him. She is the Ark of the New covenant, made immaculate and Holy for God to descend from his throne to his throne.

She certainly had a unique role in the coming of God amongst us, but I have yet to see how of necessity she would have had to be sinless to do this given that the Lord God is all powerful. It is God who makes clean, it is not man. Think about it, Jesus died for the penalty of the sin of the world, and we become as white as snow in the sight of God through Jesus' saving death on the cross. Why are you putting limitations on what God could do?

Onesimus wrote: »

''All have sinned'' Rom 3:23 these contentions are easily answered and have been for a long time. if all have sinned then that means Jesus has sinned too but was an exception to the rule. If God can make is only son an exception to the rule then he can make Mary an exception to the rule also.

All have sinned (All mankind). Jesus was not mere man, but God Himself. The second Adam if you will. He came to redeem the world.

Onesimus wrote: »

Romans 5:12: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned” Because of Enoch and Elijah, we know that not “all” have died. Also, on the last day, there will be those who do not see death. So in the “all” in reference to death is merely a generalization, the same can be said for the “all” in reference to sin.

I think the point in the case of Enoch and Elijah would be that the Lord took them before they could die.

Onesimus wrote: »

Furthermore, since Scripture cannot contradict itself, the Bible cannot say both that “absolutely all” have sinned and “virtually, but not absolutely all” have sinned. This, therefore renders the interpretation of Romans 3:23 as a proof against the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother absolutely incorrect.

Not at all.

The contention is that Jesus could not have been born sinless if Mary wasn't:

This is fallacious reasoning on at least two grounds:
1) Why can Mary be sinless without her parents being sinless whereas Jesus can't be?
2) Where is the necessity for Mary to be sinless in order to give birth to Christ in the knowledge that God is omnipotent?

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree that the Spirit does this. I also believe that everything that is external to Scripture must have Scriptural basis or a deep consistency with Scripture.

Agreed.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't rely on it alone, but it is reasonable to be sceptical of what does not have basis in divine revelation. We are told that we should constantly test the spirits in order to ensure that they are of God.

There are the spirits and there is the Holy Spirit. If I understand what you are implying correctly I would find it objectionable. I would urge you to read Matt 4:7

Jakkass wrote: »

The extra-Biblical must be backed up by the Biblical.

Agreed.

ballsymchugh

and after answering the OP in the second post, i think i'll just click unfollow..

Onesimus

She certainly had a unique role in the coming of God amongst us, but I have yet to see how of necessity she would have had to be sinless to do this given that the Lord God is all powerful. It is God who makes clean, it is not man. Think about it, Jesus died for the penalty of the sin of the world, and we become as white as snow in the sight of God through Jesus' saving death on the cross. Why are you putting limitations on what God could do?

I've already prove that in this thread and I wont reiterate myself. Yes Jakass it is God who makes clean. And he made Mary immaculate and clean for his son who is clean. it is you who is putting limitations upon what God can do. Mary descends from the line of David and is the thrown upon which Jesus descends to of the davidic line.

All have sinned (All mankind). Jesus was not mere man, but God Himself. The second Adam if you will. He came to redeem the world.

Where does it say ''all have sinned - mankind'' in the verse of rom:3:23?

It does not. It says ''all have sinned'' therefore you take it for what it is, and if all born of a woman have sinned then that would mean Jesus had sinned as well. But we know that being God he is an exception to the rule. Why deny God the power to make Mary an exception to the rule?

I think the point in the case of Enoch and Elijah would be that the Lord took them before they could die.

Sorry Jakass, your taking it up wrong. They were born of woman and did not ''die'' therefore not all ''died''. Meditate for a while on that one.

Not at all.

not an argument

Onesimus

1) Why ca?n Mary be sinless without her parents being sinless whereas Jesus can't be?
2) Where is the necessity for Mary to be sinless in order to give birth to Christ in the knowledge that God is omnipotent

I've already answered this in my very first post within this thread on page 4.

Nothing worse than having to repeat myself.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

All have sinned (All mankind). Jesus was not mere man, but God Himself. The second Adam if you will. He came to redeem the world.

All mankind except Jesus. This was my point. If Jesus is the second Adam then he must come from the flesh of Mary as Eve came from and was of the flesh of Adam.

Your logic would suggest that the flesh of Jesus was not of the flesh of Mary. If that is your contention say so.

With Adam and Eve, created sinless from the start, sin entered the world later through them so for salvation a new Adam and Eve - Jesus and Mary - entered the world sinless from the start. As Adam sinlessly begat Eve so Mary sinlessly begat Jesus.
As Adam and Eve were created sinless so were Jesus and Mary.

Actually, Jesus is the Last Adam, not the second, and Mary the Last Eve.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

So your interpretation that the Christ you believe in was born from corrupted sinful flesh implies that you believe that the Holy Spirit would see fit to have the Son of Man conceived within corrupted sinful flesh.

Now you're getting the idea. Good man.

Festus

ballsymchugh wrote: »

and after answering the OP in the second post, i think i'll just click unfollow..

Think I'll join you. The same thing can only be said so many times

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Now you're getting the idea. Good man.

Well, at least now we know where your loyalites lie.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Well, at least now we know where your loyalites lie.

No, you don't. My beliefs about whether Jesus was conceived in sinful or sinless flesh says nothing about my loyalties.

However, we are both agreed that Mary was conceived in sinful corrupted flesh.

Onesimus

Festus wrote: »

Think I'll join you. The same thing can only be said so many times

That is the whole point of this 5th page. all I've done is repeat myself again and again. No good argument has yet been but forward.

I think all of us have broken charter rules though:eek: for this topic does not refer to the original post by the op. The previous poster Bally has a point.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

No, you don't. My beliefs about whether Jesus was conceived in sinful or sinless flesh says nothing about my loyalties.

It does. I've suspected for a long time. Thanks for confirming

PDN wrote: »

However, we are both agreed that Mary was conceived in sinful corrupted flesh.

You should read my posts. We are not in agreement.

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

I think all of us have broken charter rules though:eek: for this topic does not refer to the original post by the op. The previous poster Bally has a point.

There's nothing in the Charter to forbid a thread from evolving.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

I've already prove that in this thread and I wont reiterate myself. Yes Jakass it is God who makes clean. And he made Mary immaculate and clean for his son who is clean. it is you who is putting limitations upon what God can do. Mary descends from the line of David and is the thrown upon which Jesus descends to of the davidic line.

Why couldn't God remove the possibility of sin in any other way at the conception of Jesus (which is what you are saying happened to Mary).

I'm not putting any limitations, rather what I am saying is:
1) Given the lack of an adequate Scriptural basis
2) Given the lack of a sufficient necessity for Mary to have been sinless.
Conclusion: Mary more than likely had fallen into sin, but the Lord used her to bring the Lord Jesus into the world.

I honestly don't see why we need to assume any more than what God has revealed to us.

Onesimus wrote: »

Where does it say ''all have sinned - mankind'' in the verse of rom:3:23?

Read the whole chapter. Paul uses the Scriptural example of the Psalmist to demonstrate that all mankind has fallen into sin and as a result have separated themselves from God if we are to consider Isaiah 59:2. In verse 10 he quotes Psalm 14 in saying that there is no one righteous, no not one. (referring to mankind). Paul uses this to show that Jews have no advantage over Greek in respect to God's favour. It is one of the most important realisations in terms of salvation.

Onesimus wrote: »

It does not. It says ''all have sinned'' therefore you take it for what it is, and if all born of a woman have sinned then that would mean Jesus had sinned as well. But we know that being God he is an exception to the rule. Why deny God the power to make Mary an exception to the rule?

Jesus is not one of mankind, but God made flesh. This is different. We also have to remember that before Jesus came on the earth He existed. We are told that before Abraham He was.

It is because Jesus is the fullness of God that He is the exemption to the rule. He is the only candidate for Saviour, because He has not sinned. He can bridge the gap between God and man because He has no sin of His own to pay for on the cross. If this was true of Mary, then it would be the case that Mary could pay for the sin of the world, but it isn't and this is why the coming of the Jesus is hugely inspiring, and something worthy of all our praise. It is only because of Jesus that we can have a full relationship with God the Father again.

Onesimus wrote: »

Sorry Jakass, your taking it up wrong. They were born of woman and did not ''die'' therefore not all ''died''. Meditate for a while on that one.

I'm not in agreement. I'm fairly sure that had God not taken them from the earth that they would have died.

Onesimus wrote: »

not an argument

Indeed, an expression of disagreement based on the afforementioned!

Onesimus

You should read my posts. We are not in agreement.

Festus mary was born in sinful flesh but made exempt by the power of God from contracting the stain of Original sin. Thus she was ''immaculately concieved'' in the womb of her Sinful Mother.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Festus mary was born in sinful flesh but made exempt by the power of God from contracting the stain of Original sin. Thus she was ''immaculately concieved'' in the womb of her Sinful Mother.

Why couldn't this be the case for Jesus? - Am I missing something here in the logic or?

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

Festus mary was born in sinful flesh but made exempt by the power of God from contracting the stain of Original sin. Thus she was ''immaculately concieved'' in the womb of her Sinful Mother.

Ah, so it's possible for a sinless mortal to be conceived in sinless flesh, but not for the sinless Son of God?

casey junior

ballsymchugh wrote: »

and after answering the OP in the second post, i think i'll just click unfollow..

Thanks for the answer, bmh, and goodnight.
And thank you all for a most enlightening debate, some one of you were right, I was indeed born a catholic many years ago in these religion poisoned six counties. And now with things back to near normal I have been able to go out and be warmly welcomed socially by members of differing faiths all of whom I have gained a lot of respect for, as well as their ministers, but my inclination to commune with them has taken a u-turn, I shall go back to my old position , a plague on both your houses.

Onesimus

Why couldn't God remove the possibility of sin in any other way at the conception of Jesus (which is what you are saying happened to Mary).

Because he chose to do so by making her immaculate in the womb of her mother. That was Gods choice and ''Kecharitomene'' which proves that she was sinless in the past tense proves that. Who are we to argue with scripture and Gods choice?

as for it not being scriptural I have proved that in this thread already and absolutely refuse to repeat it over and over.

Read the whole chapter. Paul uses the Scriptural example of the Psalmist to demonstrate that all mankind has fallen into sin and as a result have separated themselves from God. In verse 10 he quotes Psalm 14 in saying that there is no one righteous, no not one. (referring to mankind). Paul uses this to show that Jews have no advantage over Greek in respect to God's favour. It is one of the most important realisations in terms of salvation.

Of Course God existed before abraham but he existed in human nature up until Jesus. thus if all mankind sinned and God is both divine and man, then Jesus sinned as well but we know he is an exception to the rule. Mary thus can be an exception to the rule also. Your idea that enoch died because he was taken into heaven is idiotic. He was assumed body and soul into heaven and did not ''die''. mans death consists of dying and parting with his body. Neither elijah nor enoch sufferred death.

Onesimus

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so it's possible for a sinless mortal to be conceived in sinless flesh, but not for the sinless Son of God?

exactly!!! Mother Mary was not divine only a sinless human. Jesus is Divine and human and thus created for himself the perfect ''throne'' Mary to descend to. Mary is that throne that God promised the throne from the line of David. Jesus deserves the best entry into this world and he did so by creating an immaculate throne to descend to.

philologos

full of grace != sinless

Grace has to do with God's mercy and forgiveness I would have thought. God made Mary able for the task by giving her His mercy and His guidance to do so. There is nothing here that says that Mary was sinless.

Those who believe and trust in Jesus as the living Messiah have also received grace from God.

Onesimus

Jakkass wrote: »

full of grace != sinless

Grace has to do with God's mercy and forgiveness I would have thought. God made Mary able for the task by giving her His mercy and His guidance to do so. There is nothing here that says that Mary was sinless.

Those who believe and trust in Jesus as the living Messiah have also received grace from God.

I've already dealt with this on page 4 upon the different definitions of grace that scripture uses and will not repeat myself again.

Festus

Onesimus wrote: »

Festus mary was born in sinful flesh but made exempt by the power of God from contracting the stain of Original sin. Thus she was ''immaculately concieved'' in the womb of her Sinful Mother.

Maybe it's semantics, or the time of day. Mary was conceived without sin therefore her flesh was sinless from conception and led a sinless life.
That her mother was just like the rest of us and a sinner until Sainthood is accepted.

PDN originally suggested that Mary's flesh was sinful, not that Mary was conceived in the sinful flesh of her mother.

PDN wrote: »

So, Mary being the recipient of grace is not an indication of her sinlessness or worthiness, but rather that God chose her despite her sinfulness and unworthiness.

Festus wrote: »

So your interpretation that the Christ you believe in was born from corrupted sinful flesh implies thatyou believe that the Holy Spirit would see fit to have the Son of Man conceived within corrupted sinful flesh.

PDN wrote: »

Now you're getting the idea. Good man.

then we get the PDN two-step

PDN wrote: »

However, we are both agreed that Mary was conceived in sinful corrupted flesh.

It is easier to kick someone after your tripped them up.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Of Course God existed before abraham but he existed in human nature up until Jesus. thus if all mankind sinned and God is both divine and man, then Jesus sinned as well but we know he is an exception to the rule. Mary thus can be an exception to the rule also. Your idea that enoch died because he was taken into heaven is idiotic. He was assumed body and soul into heaven and did not ''die''. mans death consists of dying and parting with his body. Neither elijah nor enoch sufferred death.

It is Jesus' divine nature that precludes Him from sin. If we are to sin, we have to have someone by whom we sin against. I.E - Sin has to do with our relationship with God. If Jesus Himself is God, this makes this difficult. No doubt Jesus' divine nature itself would preclude Him from sin.

Again, if Mary were sinless she would be a proper candidate to pay for the sin of the world, yet evidently she wasn't because it was only by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus that we are able to be born again as children of God.

By the by, you might want to tone down the "idiotic" stuff. I've only been respectful to you in this discussion. I didn't say that Enoch died. I said that if God had not assumed him to heaven he would have died due to his human nature. A nature which is inclined towards sin (Genesis 6:5). The wages of sin being death (Romans 6:23).

Edit: Also, if the wages of sin is death, why did Mary die if she was sinless?

efb

Wasnt the Immaculate Conception one of the only two Papal infallibility things, that and the ascension...

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Maybe it's semantics. Mary was conceived without sin therefore her flesh was sinless from conception and led a sinless life.
That her mother was just like the rest of us and a sinner until Sainthood is accepted.

PDN originally suggested that Mary's flesh was sinful, not that Mary was conceived in the sinful flesh of her mother.

I've stated that both are true.

It is easier to kick someone after your tripped them up.

I'm more concerned in seeking truth than kicking anyone. But it is unfortunate if people trip themselves up.

santing

Onesimus wrote: »

exactly!!! Mother Mary was not divine only a sinless human. Jesus is Divine and human and thus created for himself the perfect ''throne'' Mary to descend to. Mary is that throne that God promised the throne from the line of David. Jesus deserves the best entry into this world and he did so by creating an immaculate throne to descend to.

Throne of David? As in:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luk 1:32-33 ESV)

Onesimus

It is Jesus' divine nature that precludes Him from sin. If we are to sin, we have to have someone by whom we sin against. I.E - Sin has to do with our relationship with God. If Jesus Himself is God, this makes this difficult. No doubt Jesus' divine nature itself would preclude Him from sin.

Exactly!!! but he still had to take on a divine human nature and he did so without sin. Therefore Mary can be an exception to the rule also.

Again, if Mary were sinless she would be a proper candidate to pay for the sin of the world, yet evidently she wasn't because it was only by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus that we are able to be born again as children of God.

Why would she be a proper canditate? since she is not divine? she only had a sinless human nature thats it. God is the one who saved us for he is both God AND Man.

By the by, you might want to tone down the "idiotic" stuff. I've only been respectful to you in this discussion. I didn't say that Enoch died. I said that if God had not assumed him to heaven he would have died due to his human nature. A nature which is inclined towards sin (Genesis 6:5). The wages of sin being death (Romans 6:23).

Forgive me I was saying it was idiotic idea, not calling you an idiot.

but this last quote of yours only confirms what I've been telling you in the previous post:

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned” Because of Enoch and Elijah, we know that not “all” have died. Also, on the last day, there will be those who do not see death. So in the “all” in reference to death is merely a generalization, the same can be said for the “all” in reference to sin. Furthermore, since Scripture cannot contradict itself, the Bible cannot say both that “absolutely all” have sinned and “virtually, but not absolutely all” have sinned. This, therefore renders the interpretation of Romans 3:23 as a proof against the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother absolutely incorrect.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Exactly!!! but he still had to take on a divine human nature and he did so without sin. Therefore Mary can be an exception to the rule also.

God is the one who forms us in the womb according to numerous Scriptural passages. It is one of the reasons why I am opposed to abortion. (Psalm 139 being an example). However, if God is Lord over this process I don't see why God couldn't have formed Jesus in the womb as a sinless individual.

Onesimus wrote: »

Why would she be a proper canditate? since she is not divine? she only had a sinless human nature thats it. God is the one who saved us for he is both God AND Man.

This is the problem. No one who is merely human can be sinless. Our human nature is inclined towards evil. It is only a divine nature that can be sinless.

Onesimus wrote: »

Forgive me I was saying it was idiotic idea, not calling you an idiot.

You misunderstood what I was saying and I corrected you.

Onesimus wrote: »

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned” Because of Enoch and Elijah, we know that not “all” have died. Also, on the last day, there will be those who do not see death. So in the “all” in reference to death is merely a generalization, the same can be said for the “all” in reference to sin. Furthermore, since Scripture cannot contradict itself, the Bible cannot say both that “absolutely all” have sinned and “virtually, but not absolutely all” have sinned. This, therefore renders the interpretation of Romans 3:23 as a proof against the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother absolutely incorrect.

The only reason Enoch and Elijah did not die was because God spared them from it. If it were not for God they would have died. Death occurs as a process. It isn't something solely immediate. One could say that it is cumulative hence why we say that someone is dying.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I've stated that both are true.

Only one is true.

The other is your interpretation. I note that you hardly ever refer to the Holy Spirit in your interpretations or postings. There is however an awful lot of "I interpret" along with "my God given intelligence".
One can only presume that in the absence of your reliance on the Holy Spirit and excessive reliance on self then much of what you believe to be true is only really half-truth.

So, the truth is - Mary's mother was a sinner, now a Saint, and Mary was sinless, now Mother of God.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

The other is your interpretation. I note that you hardly ever refer to the Holy Spirit in your interpretations or postings. There is however an awful lot of "I interpret" along with "my God given intelligence".
One can only presume that in the absence of your reliance on the Holy Spirit and excessive reliance on self then much of what you believe to be true is only really half-truth.
.

You might get further discussing issues rather than making scurillous ad hominem attacks.

Festus

efb wrote: »

Wasnt the Immaculate Conception one of the only two Papal infallibility things, that and the ascension...

That would be the Assumption. The Ascension is in the Bible.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

You might get further discussing issues rather than making scurillous ad hominem attacks.

Not an attack, merely an observation of the content of the postings and nothing personal.

Onesimus

God is the one who forms us in the womb according to numerous Scriptural passages. It is one of the reasons why I am opposed to abortion. (Psalm 139 being an example). However, if God is Lord over this process I don't see why God couldn't have formed Jesus in the womb as a sinless individual.

I've already addressed this and *out of breath* I'm not going to repeat myself again.

This is the problem. No one who is merely human can be sinless. Our human nature is inclined towards evil. It is only a divine nature that can be sinless.

Already adressed.

The only reason Enoch and Elijah did not die was because God spared them from it. If it were not for God they would have died. Death occurs as a process. It isn't something solely immediate. One could say that it is cumulative hence why we say that someone is dying.

Exactly, Enoch and Elijah did not die because God spared them from it. Good man now your getting it all you need do now is re-read my quote in the previous post and your there.

Mother Mary did not sin because God spared here from it and made her an exception to the rule and kecharitomene is proof of that.

END END END lol

I'm heading out of this thread now. As I'm presuming your just gonna keep coming back with the same aul argument as before of which I will only have to reply ''I refuse to repeat myself''. And I'm getting tired of having to type out ''I refuse to repeat myself.''

It has been a nice discussion. you have your faith I have mine. Many it seems have looked upon this thread as an argument as opposed to a humble discussion amongst two Christians who have a desire to know and love God.

May God grant you a quiet night and perfect end.

Onesimus

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Not an attack, merely an observation of the content of the postings and nothing personal.

Untrue. The words "in the absence of your reliance on the Holy Spirit and excessive reliance on self" is a personal and unpleasant attack.

Actually, the result of the presence of the Holy Spirit is that He glorifies Jesus, not that one makes claims about being led by the Spirit.