You didn't answer the question in post #34 three or four times. You've now added the sin of lying to your denial of Jesus's words, "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).
Was Mary sinless?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- 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!
You didn't answer the question in post #34 three or four times. You've now added the sin of lying to your denial of Jesus's words, "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).
You seem to be having a great time having a conversation with yourself, I'm not going to distract you any longer.
Much love!
I'm actually quoting passages of Scripture. They are plainly stated, so no need for commentary.
Much love!
Now you've added cowardice to your sin of lying, and your denial of Jesus's words, "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).
Claiming I'm saying something I haven't said is lying. Lying about someone is also called slander. Lying about others isn't cool.
And the fact is I've addressed this over and over, and I'm putting you on ignore now.
Much love!
You denied Jesus's words, "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26) by refusing to accept the truth of that statement, which wouldn't have happened had you been willing to answer the question in post #34. You lied when you said you answered that question in post #34 three or four times, and to deny that is asine because it can be verified just by scrolling back through the thread.
Last edited:
You should meditate on those words, as well as the fact that you denied Jesus's words, "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26) by refusing to accept the truth of that statement, which wouldn't have happened had you been willing to answer the question in post #34. You lied when you said you answered that question in post #34 three or four times, and to deny that is asine becsuse it can be verified just by scrolling back through the thread.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God's preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.
(that's why she said "My heart rejoices in God my Savior" Luke 1:47-49
She knew she was saved without reciting the Sinners Prayer)
All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of "faith alone," as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)
Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions (yet another instance of my general theme).
Read more:
umm...no
Last edited:
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
That's not a reply to post #49. I can see you fall into error by rejecting what the reformers themselves taught, through the lens of 18th century Modernism, and other heresies previously mentioned.
All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely “tradition” with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.
Let’s see what the founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as “silly,” “desperate,” “obviously false,” “unbiblical tradition” here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same “errors” are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them — sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: “all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Perpetual Virginity Of Mary: Held By All Protestant Reformers
The Catholic, apostolic, patristic, & biblical doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was universally held by the founders of the various sects of Protestantism in the 16th century.
www.patheos.com
I suppose you are a reformer reforming the former reformists.
Last edited:
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
If I had a parrot, and taught the parrot to recite certain passages of Scripture, and the parrot, from time to time, for no obvious reason, would blurt out Scipture passages, would that mean much of anything to a passerby, other than being impressed that the parrot could seem to speak? Is it sort of like an incantation, whereby if you say the words "magic" happens?
If you are to make your point and try to teach, you need to provide context and reason along with the passages. Why is this or that passage relevant? How does it relate to the point? And so forth.
Reminds me of the guy who was in a mall and asked a man passing by "Hey! Would you know what time it is?" The man passing by responded, "Yes!" And the guy asking the question said, "Ok. Thank you!" He never told him what time it was because he took the question literally. "Do YOU know what time it is?" LOL
Behold
Well-Known Member
I do appreciate that you clearly and truthfully stated that its "Catholics" who created this idea of Mary as having no original sin by twisting a bible verse into Catholic theology.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
You do realize that it isn't just Catholics who believe this, right? Marin Luther, the father of Protestantism also believed it. ALL of he Protestant Reformers were Catholic originally. Then, they splintered off and began to change what was always taught. The major ones, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, all had a strong devotion to Mary. This anti-Mary meme is something that came later, spurred by anti-Catholic sentiment and misinterpretation of Scripture. Some denominations are so far from the original teachings of Christ (Catholic teaching) that they are technically not even Christian (Mormonism, for example, who believe in a different Jesus).
Behold
Well-Known Member
When you try to associate Martin Luther with Catholic Doctrine, in 2024, you are not realizing that the Protestant denominations do not accept this, because they recognize that ML was very indoctrinated by the "cult of the Virgin" and some of it remained.
Its often the case, that when a "cult of the virgin" disciple, is delivered from this spiritual deception, that some of the indoctrination, will persist.
Very common.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
"Catholics" didn't "create this idea of Mary as having no original sin," 18th century relativist liberals denied what the reformers taught and what GOD did, not the Catholic Church. It's a fashionable tradition of men. But I know the drill. You don't follow the reformers, you follow the Bible! (ironically, the essence of reformism)
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
So, you think the way it works is that every individual has to reinvent theology based on his/her personal interpretation of Scripture at any given time, regardless of education in Scripture, theology, philosophy, history, etc. Right? And how has that worked for you? Tens of thousands of different-believing, man-made denominations (and counting).
If you had a classroom of 100 2nd graders, and gave them a 1 problem math quiz: 2 + 2 = _____. And you got 100 different answers, how many, at most could be correct? One. So you must believe that it's really not important whether you get it 100% right or not, right?
Look at Gal. 1:8, that says, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
So, yes, teaching error is indeed a danger. St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15, says that the CHURCH is the "pillar and foundation of truth." He didn't say every individual, personally interpreting Scripture is anything of the sort. Historically, there was NO OTHER CHURCH other than the Catholic Church when He wrote this. NONE. And certainly no Protestant church, since Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century. So, if the original teachings of Christ, taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years now, are in error, where would the "corrections" come from? Did an angel come down (like the Mormons claim)? Or did Jesus make a quick trip back and say, "Hey! I have a few corrections to what was always taught!"? WHERE would it have come from?
Behold
Well-Known Member
The Mainline Protestant church in '2024 does not teach that Mary flew to heaven, and never died.
So, you can spin that, deny that, redefine that, but you can't overcome it.
All you can do, is state the current Catholic "mary's ascension" position, as it was given in '1950 by the "cult of the Virgin".
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary flew to heaven and never died.
Mary was assumed into heaven, and the Church is silent as to whether this happened before she died, at the moment she died, or after she died.
If you're going to speak about Catholic teaching, try to do so from facts, not erroneous opinions.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Those on the 'milk' of God's Word still do not understand the difference between flesh and Spirit. Jesus of Nazareth is... GOD come in the flesh. This is the main subject of 1 John 4:3 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. The meaning is that The Christ, Immanuel God with us is come in the flesh. So which does that point to that entered... into the flesh? It points to GOD as Spirit came in the flesh as Jesus Christ.
That means Jesus Christ could NEVER commit sin, because of His Spirit being GOD, even while... He was in the flesh. Putting trust in flesh is not what His Salvation is about. Our flesh is not what is saved. Thus it is always error to try and compare our Lord Jesus' Salvation to flesh. Like Apostle John said, "God is a Spirit". This is why Jesus also existed perfect BEFORE He was born in the flesh.
I know that Jesus is God Incarnate. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In God's humanity, he was susceptible to the temptations of evil, and through His will, in cooperation with God the Father's help, He didn't commit sins. He's proof that other humans could do the same, if we have constant strong enough willpower and ask for God 's help. Therefore, Jesus is also the human exception to the "all have sinned," including children who've died without having committed sins. For these reasons, Rom. 3:23 isn't proof that Jesus's Mother sinned, nor that She can't also be an exception.
Do you agree that our God, Who "with all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26), was capable of preserving the soul of the Mother of God from becoming subject to the law of the first parents (inheriting original sin)?
Similar threads
