Was Mary sinless?

[Aunty Jane]

The Question about David’s Son​

Matthew 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit,[a] calls him Lord, saying,​

44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,​

Sit at my right hand,​

till I put thy enemies under thy feet’?​

45 If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions.​

​

Read full chapter​

New World Translation
Matthew 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them:+ 42 “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.”
+ 43 He asked them: “How is it, then, that David under inspiration+ calls him Lord, saying,
44 ‘Jehovah* said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?
+ 45 If, then, David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”+ 46 And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, and from that day on, no one dared to question him any further.

View attachment 46638

Yep that’s you all right...utterly clueless.
Have you ever read the Psalm that Jesus quoted?

It says.....Psalm 110:1-2....
“A Psalm of David.
The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion,saying,
“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.” (NASB)

Do you see two “Lords” mentioned in this verse.....one is in capitals and the other is not.....now, if you read it from the Jewish Tanakh, it says “Jehovah/Yahweh says to my Lord, sit at my right hand”......who is David’s “Lord” (Master) as opposed to his God? (The LORD) Your Catholic Bible says the same thing....

It is Jehovah/Yahweh who will make his Messiah’s enemies ‘a footstool for his feet’.
It is Jehovah/Yahweh who will give his appointed king the power to ‘rule in the midst of his enemies’.

Jesus is “the son of David” because he is descended by birth from the Davidic line of kings.
Is that clear enough now......the NWT is correct.

You don’t do any real Bible study, do you....you just parrot off what someone else told you.....
Aren’t you sick of being shown up as a puppet for your corrupted church?

No questions asked of you are ever answered...and we know why.....you have no answers apart from what comes from your own teachers, yet you point fingers at others for supposedly the same reason....at least we know our Bible.....you prove that your church has never known it, or its author.....

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Mary was not sinless. As a matter of fact, she was with the 120 at the upper room when she received the gift of the Holy Ghost. She was needing of the born again experience like everybody else.

So, you support the great cover up what the reformers themselves taught about Mary's sinlessness. This cover up started due to the false philosophies of the Enlightenment Era in the 18th century. Before that, not a single Protestant denomination taught that Mary was a sinner.

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

www.catholicapologetics.info

You are a reformist reforming the former reformists. Got any more anti-Protestant reformisms?​

​

 

[Truther]

So, you support the great cover up what the reformers themselves taught about Mary's sinlessness.

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

www.catholicapologetics.info

I only support what the Bible says...


12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

I suppose God made sure of her mentioned here because he knew Mary worship was a future problem.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Now I know why you are Catholic......if you were in a court of law, the opposing lawyer would wipe the floor with you.....because your “circumstantial evidence” is not even based on any circumstance that the Bible mentions....why is no Catholic aware of this? Indoctrination by any chance?

A court of law would never accept a distorted Bible as evidence.

Your beliefs cannot be substantiated by any Biblical statements.

Using a false translation is dishonest.

Why do you keep asking the same question when it has been answered....? Just not the answer you want.
I’m not feeding the trolls any more.

Matthew 22: 46 And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, and from that day on, no one dared to question him any further.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

I only support what the Bible says...


12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

I suppose God made sure of her mentioned here because he knew Mary worship was a future problem.

"Mary worship" is a stupid insult used by anti-Mary bigots. You can't or won't answer the question at hand, so you throw in an off topic emotional zinger. Most of the anti-Mary animus stems from a single meaning of the term "brother", which has multiple meanings even in English. If you cannot accept plain English, there is no point in discussing anything with you.
Do you not know if God is capable or not of preserving Mary's soul from inheriting original sin? Can you run any faster???

 

[Truther]

"Mary worship" is a stupid insult used by anti-Mary bigots. You can't or won't answer the question at hand, so you throw in an off topic emotional zinger. Most of the anti-Mary animus stems from a single meaning of the term "brother", which has multiple meanings even in English. If you cannot accept plain English, there is no point in discussing anything with you.
Do you not know if God is capable or not of preserving Mary's soul from inheriting original sin? Can you run any faster???

Not a shred of scriptural evidence saying that Mary was sinless.

You can say that the rest of her children with Joseph also never sinned?

How many of them are qualified to die for our sins since there are more than one sinless persons?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Not a shred of scriptural evidence saying that Mary was sinless.

First, it's been posted several times, you just ignore it.
Second, scripture does not demand "scriptural evidence" for every authentic belief or practice, that's your man made tradition.

You can say that the rest of her children with Joseph also never sinned?

Mary having other children is an 18th century invention. You are covering up what the reformers themselves taught. That too, has been posted several times that you have never dealt with. Theological flip flops signifies the chaos that you are a slave to.

How many of them are qualified to die for our sins since there are more than one sinless persons?

You are getting desperate with this stupid question. You ran from post #162. Got any more anti-Protestant reformisms?
Do you not know if God is capable or not of preserving Mary's soul from inheriting original sin?
It appears you and AJ haven't a clue.

 

[Truther]

First, it's been posted several times, you just ignore it.
Second, scripture does not demand "scriptural evidence" for every authentic belief or practice, that's your man made tradition.

Mary having other children is an 18th century invention. You are covering up what the reformers themselves taught. That too, has been posted several times that you have never dealt with.

You are getting desperate with this stupid question.

She was not naughty until after Jesus was born...


25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.


Now that's scritural evidence!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

She was not naughty until after Jesus was born...


25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.


Now that's scritural evidence!

It's scriptural ignorance.

Matt. 1:25 – this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 – I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 – John was in the desert “up to the point of (until) his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 – Anna was a widow “up to the point that” (until) she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 – Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 – “up to the point (until) that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 – the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 – the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 – but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 – Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

 

[Truther]

It's scriptural ignorance.

Matt. 1:25 – this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 – I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 – John was in the desert “up to the point of (until) his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 – Anna was a widow “up to the point that” (until) she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 – Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 – “up to the point (until) that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 – the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 – the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 – but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 – Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

25 And knew her not(NO SEX) till(UNTIL) she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Yikes!

 

[Truther]

The Lord instructed Joseph to keep his cotton pickin hands off Mary until after Jesus was born.

 

[Truther]

The New Testament of the Bible mentions Jesus's brothers in Mark 6:3, as James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. Mark and Matthew also mention unnamed sisters. Other scriptures that mention Jesus's siblings include:

• 1 Corinthians 15:7: Jesus appears to his brother James after his resurrection
• Matthew 28:10: Jesus appears to the rest of his brothers in Galilee after his resurrection
• Acts 1:14: Mary and all of Jesus's brothers are present when the Holy Spirit descends on believers at Pentecost
• Acts 12:17: Peter sends word to James and his brothers about his release from prison

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

She was not naughty until after Jesus was born..

Protestant: It bothers me that perpetual virginity indicates an opinion that sex is sinful.

I see. So you are equally concerned, I imagine, when Paul (in 1 Corinthians 7) praises those who are voluntarily celibate for the sake of undistracted devotion to the kingdom (i.e., those who lived as he did). I guess he, too, thinks sex is sinful because of that advice. Jesus must agree that it is sinful as well, since He talked approvingly about those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom (Matthew 19).

Why anyone would conclude that heroic virginity or celibacy according to the evangelical counsels and St. Paul’s advice is somehow anti-sex is beyond me. It’s like saying, “I prefer and ‘choose’ apples over oranges; therefore I am anti-oranges.” Huh? The reductio ad absurdum shows the fallacy in the original assertion.

It’s not normal for wives to be celibate.

Mary wasn’t a normal Jewish wife. She was miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus: God the Son, without having had sexual relations (most Protestants still accept the Virgin Birth, I think). Consecrated virginity is far less notable than those two events, which Protestants (excepting liberal ones who are scarcely historic Protestants at all) all agree with.

Randall Davis:
Dave, the only problem is you made all of these excellent points, but it is still highly unlikely that you convinced the Protestant.

It’s always tough to convince anyone of anything, but I think that if a person doesn’t have a built-in bias against it and is willing to follow biblical data to wherever it leads, there is a fair chance of persuading a person like that.

The bias is the killer. When a person is convinced that we believe in the PVM because we hate sex (that this accounts for the very origin of it), and other nonsense notions like that, then forget it: the Bible is helpless to convince such a person, with their preconceived false ideas.

Reynaldo de Leon:
Being married and remaining a virgin even after the birth of Christ contradicts the purpose of marriage in the first place.

Does the Virgin Birth contradict the purpose of sex too?

You’re missing the point Dave, I think almost every Protestant throughout history has pointed out that to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is virtually pointless, and furthermore to make the claim valid would mean that you would have find a legal loophole to say that remaining a virgin in marriage is healthy.

Why be a virgin during a birth then? That’s against the purpose of sex for procreation! Doesn’t God know that!? They were married then, too, from the time of the Annunciation till the birth of Jesus.

She had to be a virgin at the time of the birth, so there were several months of married virginity up till then, even in your belief. Why, if that goes against the nature of marriage, etc.?

Jesus even sanctioned leaving wives for the sake of the kingdom and discipleship (which is essentially mutual agreement to separate, as is believed to be the case with St. Peter):

Luke 18:29-30 (RSV) And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, ] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”​

​

Again Dave, this is the issue: After the birth of Christ, why would it be necessary for Mary to remain a virgin when (1) it goes against the nature of marriage and (2) it does not logically fit with the Scriptures? Even if we were to assume Mary did this for the sake of the kingdom, we have no proof that she chose to do this for that purpose or for that matter, enough evidence that Christ’s teaching applies to this particular instance.​

Why would it be necessary for Mary to remain a virgin after being married, till the day of Jesus’ birth if it goes against the nature of marriage?

We’re talking about after Dave, not before. Mary was engaged with Joseph, she was a virgin throughout because she was pregnant at the time.

It’s not required to abstain from sex during pregnancy (thank heavens). So that “argument” falls flat. It remains true that if marital chastity is some terrible, unnatural thing in all cases at all times, then it is from the time of the Annunciation till Jesus’ birth as well. I never thought of that before. Thanks for helping me develop a good new argument, by being so obstinate, Rey! Praise be to God!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The New Testament of the Bible mentions Jesus's brothers in Mark 6:3, as James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. Mark and Matthew also mention unnamed sisters. Other scriptures that mention Jesus's siblings include:

• 1 Corinthians 15:7: Jesus appears to his brother James after his resurrection
• Matthew 28:10: Jesus appears to the rest of his brothers in Galilee after his resurrection
• Acts 1:14: Mary and all of Jesus's brothers are present when the Holy Spirit descends on believers at Pentecost
• Acts 12:17: Peter sends word to James and his brothers about his release from prison

Even in English, "brother" has several meanings. Cherry picking one meaning to support your preconceived notions is dishonest. If you refuse to use English properly, there is no point in further discussions with you.

 

[Truther]

Protestant: It bothers me that perpetual virginity indicates an opinion that sex is sinful.

I see. So you are equally concerned, I imagine, when Paul (in 1 Corinthians 7) praises those who are voluntarily celibate for the sake of undistracted devotion to the kingdom (i.e., those who lived as he did). I guess he, too, thinks sex is sinful because of that advice. Jesus must agree that it is sinful as well, since He talked approvingly about those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom (Matthew 19).

Why anyone would conclude that heroic virginity or celibacy according to the evangelical counsels and St. Paul’s advice is somehow anti-sex is beyond me. It’s like saying, “I prefer and ‘choose’ apples over oranges; therefore I am anti-oranges.” Huh? The reductio ad absurdum shows the fallacy in the original assertion.

It’s not normal for wives to be celibate.

Mary wasn’t a normal Jewish wife. She was miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus: God the Son, without having had sexual relations (most Protestants still accept the Virgin Birth, I think). Consecrated virginity is far less notable than those two events, which Protestants (excepting liberal ones who are scarcely historic Protestants at all) all agree with.

Randall Davis:
Dave, the only problem is you made all of these excellent points, but it is still highly unlikely that you convinced the Protestant.

It’s always tough to convince anyone of anything, but I think that if a person doesn’t have a built-in bias against it and is willing to follow biblical data to wherever it leads, there is a fair chance of persuading a person like that.

The bias is the killer. When a person is convinced that we believe in the PVM because we hate sex (that this accounts for the very origin of it), and other nonsense notions like that, then forget it: the Bible is helpless to convince such a person, with their preconceived false ideas.

Reynaldo de Leon:
Being married and remaining a virgin even after the birth of Christ contradicts the purpose of marriage in the first place.

Does the Virgin Birth contradict the purpose of sex too?

You’re missing the point Dave, I think almost every Protestant throughout history has pointed out that to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is virtually pointless, and furthermore to make the claim valid would mean that you would have find a legal loophole to say that remaining a virgin in marriage is healthy.

Why be a virgin during a birth then? That’s against the purpose of sex for procreation! Doesn’t God know that!? They were married then, too, from the time of the Annunciation till the birth of Jesus.

She had to be a virgin at the time of the birth, so there were several months of married virginity up till then, even in your belief. Why, if that goes against the nature of marriage, etc.?

Jesus even sanctioned leaving wives for the sake of the kingdom and discipleship (which is essentially mutual agreement to separate, as is believed to be the case with St. Peter):

Luke 18:29-30 (RSV) And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, ] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”​

​

Again Dave, this is the issue: After the birth of Christ, why would it be necessary for Mary to remain a virgin when (1) it goes against the nature of marriage and (2) it does not logically fit with the Scriptures? Even if we were to assume Mary did this for the sake of the kingdom, we have no proof that she chose to do this for that purpose or for that matter, enough evidence that Christ’s teaching applies to this particular instance.​

Why would it be necessary for Mary to remain a virgin after being married, till the day of Jesus’ birth if it goes against the nature of marriage?

We’re talking about after Dave, not before. Mary was engaged with Joseph, she was a virgin throughout because she was pregnant at the time.

It’s not required to abstain from sex during pregnancy (thank heavens). So that “argument” falls flat. It remains true that if marital chastity is some terrible, unnatural thing in all cases at all times, then it is from the time of the Annunciation till Jesus’ birth as well. I never thought of that before. Thanks for helping me develop a good new argument, by being so obstinate, Rey! Praise be to God!

Sex is a carnal act. Mary was carnal many times having kids(sons and daughters).

 

[Truther]

Even in English, "brother" has several meanings. Cherry picking one meaning to support your preconceived notions is dishonest. If you refuse to use English properly, there is no point in further discussions with you

Mary's egg was fertilized by God to make Jesus.

This is conception/begotten.

Now, the brethren of Jesus were actually half brothers(and sisters).

This means they shared the same mother as Jesus, with different fathers(one Divine, one human).

This is Mary's claim to fame.

You need to give Mary back her humanity, fella.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A court of law would never accept a distorted Bible as evidence.

I guess that depends on which “distorted Bible” you are referring to? Look up those scriptures in your Catholic Bible and tell me which one is in line with the original Greek, and which is the real departure....
Both say the same thing.

Using a false translation is dishonest.

“Dishonest”? You really want to play the dishonesty card? No church in today’s world among the thousands that exist, distorts the truth more that the RCC.
Not a single doctrine can be backed up by any scripture that is not mistranslated or twisted to suggest what your church teaches.

The Reformation was permitted by God to break the power of the horribly corrupt and only “Christian” church in existence....and to give the Bible back to the people without backlash from the church that kept it away from them so that they would never know how far from the truth they had strayed. Why was the one who caused that revolution, one of your own, fed up with the corruption he saw and knowing what the Bible taught was not followed by his church?
Why, do you suppose God let that happen?

Matthew 22: 46 And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, and from that day on, no one dared to question him any further.

I gave you the Scriptural answer and you deny what your own Bible says......that is on you.
How is Messiah David’s “Lord”? How is Jesus “the son of David” if he is God? Untwist that one for us....” and no one dared question him any further”......they had no answers just as you have no answers.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Mary's egg was fertilized by God to make Jesus.

This is conception/begotten.

Now, the brethren of Jesus were actually half brothers(and sisters).

This means they shared the same mother as Jesus, with different fathers(one Divine, one human).

This is Mary's claim to fame.

You need to give Mary back her humanity, fella.

So, do you mean Mary was a pass-around between 2 husbands?
My Bible says Joseph was a just (righteous) man. Do you think he would be so stupid as to violate The Temple while not even being a high priest??? Your only way out is to deny Mary was a Temple. Or unwittingly assert that Mary was a re-useable incubator. For God one day and for Joe the next. Good luck with that.

 

[Truther]

So, do you mean Mary was a pass-around between 2 husbands?
My Bible says Joseph was a just (righteous) man. Do you think he would be so stupid as to violate The Temple while not even being a High Priest??? Your only way out is to deny Mary was a Temple. Good luck with that.

Mary did not marry God.

God fertilized her egg before she was married.

God likely created a sperm cell for mating purposes because Jesus had to be a legitimate begotten son of God(not just Mary's biological son).

Thus, we have the son of God/son of man.

 

[Truther]

Mary's egg did not self fertilize without a sperm.

Nor was Mary implanted with a microscopic embryo, nor a fetus.

Her egg was fertilized by a created sperm, which made Jesus(the last Adam) a redo of the first Adam.

A real human, not a God man.