Was Mary sinless?

[RedFan]

You said that it is even more likely that Mary would have told Her father, Joachim, about Her vow before Joseph even entered the picture, and that he would only have either annulled Mary's vow or nixed any betrothal. Why would he have only done either of those two options?

I didn't say he would have only done one of those two. I said that such responses were far more likely than continuing to arrange a marriage for Mary. Don't you agree?

And, again, another possibility is that Joachim and Anne brought Mary to the Temple to live as a temple virgin because She wanted to, and they supported Her in that decision.

Temple virgins didn't get betrothed by their fathers unless the virginity vow for Temple service was temporary, not perpetual.

I asked do you rule out the possibility that Mary told Joseph of Her vow, and in reply said that he wanted to be chaste for God as well in marriage.

If one can only "rule out" the impossible, no I don't rule it out. If one can "rule out" what is unlikely in the extreme, then yes I do.

 

[Nephesh]

I find it far more likely that he would simply call off the wedding.

After the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, and thus he obviously didn't call off the wedding.

I said that such responses were far more likely than continuing to arrange a marriage for Mary. Don't you agree?

No, because Mary's response to the angel Gabriel's announcement indicates She had taken a vow of virginity, and was abiding by it as a betrothed woman to a man who already knew of it, and never refused Her as a Spouse because of it. Therefore, the scenario that Joachim and Anne brought Mary to the Temple to live as a temple virgin because She wanted to, is far more likely. Furthermore, it's possible that Mary's father died while She was in the temple, and that when it came time for Her to marry one of Her own stock according to the Law (Lev. 21:14), She asked God for a Spouse who would understand Her life-long vow of virginity. In the end, Mary's response to the angel Gabriel's announcement indicates She had taken a vow of virginity, and was abiding by it as a betrothed woman to a man who already knew of it, and never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.

If one can only "rule out" the impossible, no I don't rule it out. If one can "rule out" what is unlikely in the extreme, then yes I do.

You said you ruled out the possibility that Joseph was told of Mary's vow and wanted to be chaste for God as well in marriage because "No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign." That's when I mentioned Nazirites (Num. 6), men and women who took vows of dedication for God, as an example of why it's not unlikely that a first century Jewish man would've accepted a virgin as a spouse.

 

[RedFan]

You said you ruled out the possibility that Joseph was told of Mary's vow and wanted to be chaste for God as well in marriage because "No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign." That's when I mentioned Nazirites (Num. 6), men and women who took vows of dedication for God, as an example of why it's not unlikely that a first century Jewish man would've refused a virgin as a spouse.

And I stand by my comment that "No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign." Is it possible that one would? Sure. Is it likely? No. Very few first-century Jews were Nazirites (there is no Scriptural evidence that Joseph was one), and anyway, Nazirite vows have never been deemed to include celibacy.

 

[Truther]

Yes, you did, you said, "The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings." However, no, they don't, and to prove it, I told you to quote those verses in its original language, as well as in English, and see for yourself, but you refused because you know the word "sibling" isn't used.

I was commenting on the verses. Think.

 

[Nephesh]

Very few first-century Jews were Nazirites (there is no Scriptural evidence that Joseph was one), and anyway, Nazirite vows have never been deemed to include celibacy.

You can't know that there were very few first-century Jews who were Nazirites, especially when Jewish people are heavily into traditions. It's possible that Joseph was a Nazirite, and if he was, whether or not you believe that Nazirite vows included celibacy, at the very least it meant he would've been someone accustomed to taking vows of dedication for God in general, and thus more understanding of Her vow, and willing to join Her in it.

And I stand by my comment that "No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign." Is it possible that one would? Sure. Is it likely? No.

God ab aeterno would've thought of Mary and Her role in the redemption of mankind, and thus Mary and everything surrounding Her has never and will never be a "normal" situation, because She, a human, was chosen to be the Mother of God Incarnate and the Messiah. How many first-century Jewish people thought it likely that the Messiah would be God Incarnate, rather than a powerful human king? Mary is not your average Jewess. She's someone in deep contact with God more than any woman before and after Her. Therefore, situations that you consider likely among average first-century Jews shouldn't automatically apply to Her. God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her body and spirit had to have already been so Holy and Pure (in part by His doing) to be a Heaven on Earth. God says the pure in heart will see Him, and to be pure in heart means to be pure in thought, word, and deed. Therefore, how much more Pure would Mary have had to be in order to contain within Her body and spirit God, the Most Holy and Pure One, and be His Mother? To the point of being Second only to God? Would God not also want a Spouse and Father of Holiness and Purity for such a Woman as Mary and Her Son (God Incarnate), rather than an average impure male? Do you not think God would bring two holy and pure people together in order to be each other's spouses and parents of God Incarnate?

Whether or not you agree with any of that, after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, he never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.

 

[Taken]

The words "Pure", "Virgin" and "Sinless" are used interchangeably and all mean the same thing in a biblical context.

It is in every case a reference to a pure heart.

Yes, Mary was sinless as she conceived Jesus through the act of compassion. Compassion being the primary nature of the Holy Spirit.

When you make love to your partner, are you doing it in a passionate, self gratifying way. Or do you embody the Holy Spirt and make love in a compassionate way.

When you conceive your own child, how will you do it?

One is sinfull and the other sinless.

Whatever you do, just don't get caught up in all the dogma. When understood correctly, these things will comply with both logical and intuitive capacities. Logic being the key word here.

Was Mary sinless?

No, Mary was Not sinless.
Human beings are naturally conceived and naturally born in unbelief, AGAINST God.
Unbelief in God IS sin Against God.
Mary was naturally conceived and naturally born IN sin.

No, Virgin does Not mean sinless.
Virgin means having NOT engaged in the act of copulation.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

You can't know that there were very few first-century Jews who were Nazirites, especially when Jewish people are heavily into traditions. It's possible that Joseph was a Nazirite, and if he was, whether or not you believe that Nazirite vows included celibacy, at the very least it meant he would've been someonenaccustomed to taking vows of dedication for God in general, and thus more understanding of Her vow, and willing to join Her in it.



From the moment God thought of Mary and Her role in the redemption of mankind it wasn't a "normal" situation, because She, a human, was chosen to be the Mother of God Incarnate. How many first-century Jewish people thought it likely that the Messiah would be God Incarnate, rather than a powerful human figure? Mary is not your average Jewess. She's someone in deep contact with God more than any woman before or after Her. Therefore, situations that you consider likely among average first-century Jews shouldn't automatically apply to Her. God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven and took form within Her, and thus Her womb became His Heaven on Earth. God says the pure in heart will see Him, and to be pure in heart means to be pure in thought, word, and deed. Therefore, how much more Pure would Mary have had to be in order to contain within Her God, the Most Holy and Pure One, within Her and be His Mother? She would have to be so Holy and Pure to the point of being Second only to God. To have a Mother of such Holiness and Purity would require not your average impure Jewish spouse, but someone holy and pure himself in order to be the Spouse and Protector of the Mother of God Incarnate and God Incarnate Himself. Do you not think God would make it possible for such a man to meet Mary?

Whether or not you agree with any of that, after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, he never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.

Look, I totally get your point, no need to repeat it. I've seen the same argument made by others, including Augustine. I'm just not buying into it, because it rests on too many undocumented assumptions and indulges too many improbabilities in order to explain Luke's Annunciation account.

I wasn’t there when Mary and Gabriel had their meeting (and I don’t speak Aramaic, so it wouldn’t have helped me if I was present). Neither was Luke. I don’t know where he got the story from (although I rather doubt it was directly from Mary). I don’t know if he accurately translated the actual word-for-word colloquy between Mary and Gabriel. Luke says he carefully investigated everything, Luke 1:3, but he is only as accurate as his sources -- and he doesn't mention divine inspiration as one of them. There are other parts of his writings which suggest he is not the careful historian he calls himself.​

 

[Nephesh]

Look, I totally get your point, no need to repeat it. I've seen the same argument made by others, including Augustine. I'm just not buying into it, because it rests on too many undocumented assumptions and indulges too many improbabilities in order to explain Luke's Annunciation account.

I wasn’t there when Mary and Gabriel had their meeting (and I don’t speak Aramaic, so it wouldn’t have helped me if I was present). Neither was Luke. I don’t know where he got the story from (although I rather doubt it was directly from Mary). I don’t know if he accurately translated the actual word-for-word colloquy between Mary and Gabriel. Luke says he carefully investigated everything, Luke 1:3, but he is only as accurate as his sources -- and he doesn't mention divine inspiration as one of them. There are other parts of his writings which suggest he is not the careful historian he calls himself.​

From what we know of Luke's account, after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, he never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.

 

[RedFan]

From what we know of Luke's account, after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, he never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.

You are repeating yourself. Word for word. Time to move on . . .

 

[Nephesh]

You are repeating yourself. Word for word.

I know, and I repeat myself again, because this is the truth: from what we know of Luke's account, after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary God's will for Her to bear a Son, and before he explained it'd occur by and with the Holy Spirit (God), Mary asked him how that would happen when She is a virgin. At the time Mary gave that response, She was already betrothed to Joseph, and if She had any intention of sexual intercourse with him, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have responded like that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result. Therefore, there was no reason for Her to question Gabriel, nor mention that She was a virgin, unless She had taken a vow of virginity. Since Mary and Joseph were already betrothed at this point, he would've known of Her vow, he never refused Her as a Spouse because of it.

Time to move on . . .

Ok.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Was Mary sinless?

No, Mary was Not sinless.
Human beings are naturally conceived and naturally born in unbelief, AGAINST God.
Unbelief in God IS sin Against God.
Mary was naturally conceived and naturally born IN sin.

No, Virgin does Not mean sinless.
Virgin means having NOT engaged in the act of copulation.

Glory to God,
Taken

Still covering up what the reformers taught about Mary's sinlessness?? Still supporting a man made tradition that's less than 200 years old? I know the drill, "I don't follow the reformers, I follow the Bible!!" < the purest form of reformism.
You are a reformer reforming the former reformists< theological chaos.
Martin Luther invented "sola scriptura" but he also believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. So did Calvin. So did Zwingli.
I accept what has been consistently handed down for 2000 years.
You accept whatever you choose, including man made traditions from the 18th century.

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

www.catholicapologetics.info

 

[Augustin56]

Still covering up what the reformers taught about Mary's sinlessness?? Still supporting a man made tradition that's less than 200 years old? I know the drill, "I don't follow the reformers, I follow the Bible!!" < the purest form of reformism.
You are a reformer reforming the former reformists< theological chaos.
Martin Luther invented "sola scriptura" but he also believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. So did Calvin. So did Zwingli.
I accept what has been consistently handed down for 2000 years.
You accept whatever you choose, including man made traditions from the 18th century.

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

www.catholicapologetics.info

Jude Thaddeus,

There you go, confusing them with historical facts and clear logic again.

 

[Behold]

I accept what has been consistently handed down for 2000 years.

Yes, all Catholics accept Catholic Church Tradition.
However, the Bible does not support what you believe.

No Apostle said that Mary was sinless, or that Mary Ascended.

Peter never even suggested it, nor did Paul, and they would have known..

(Dont let that fact get in the way of your devotion to the "Virgin".)

So, when you study the "cult of the virgin" teaching on those 2 man made Catholic concepts, you find this..

"well, it can be assumed, based on what we think we know".

"is there any reason not to believe it, when it seem to us, to be probably true"


That is what you find when you look a bit deeper into the murky History of the "cult of the Virgin" once the "dogmas" and so forth start "proclaiming".

 

[Nephesh]

However, the Bible does not support what you believe.

Scripture does support what we believe, even God's very existence and Who He Is supports it. Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God Incarnate and the Messiah. God, the Most Holy and Pure One, came down from Heaven, a place where nholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her body and spirit had to have already been so Holy and Pure (in part by His doing) to be a Heaven on Earth. God says the pure in heart will see Him, and to be pure in heart means to be pure in thought, word, and deed. Therefore, how much more Pure would Mary have had to be in order to contain within Her body and spirit God, the Most Holy and Pure One, and be His Mother? To the point of being Second only to God?

 

[Augustin56]

Yes, all Catholics accept Catholic Church Tradition.
However, the Bible does not support what you believe.

No Apostle said that Mary was sinless, or that Mary Ascended.

Peter never even suggested it, nor did Paul, and they would have known..

(Dont let that fact get in the way of your devotion to the "Virgin".)

So, when you study the "cult of the virgin" teaching on those 2 man made Catholic concepts, you find this..

"well, it can be assumed, based on what we think we know".

"is there any reason not to believe it, when it seem to us, to be probably true"


That is what you find when you look a bit deeper into the murky History of the "cult of the Virgin" once the "dogmas" and so forth start "proclaiming".

When we talk about Tradition, we are talking about the same Tradition that St. Paul insisted that we hold to in 2 Thes 2:15.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that contradicts anything the Catholic Church teaches in her doctrines. Not one thing. If you find yourself disagreeing with Catholic doctrine because you think there is some contradiction in Scripture, then rest assured that your interpretation of Scripture is erroneous.

My assessment is that you know neither history nor Scripture (correctly interpreted). All you have is some mere human's personal interpretation of Scripture, that came within the last 500 years or less, in opposition to what was always taught from the beginning of Christianity. You have been blinded.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

So, when you study the "cult of the virgin" teaching on those 2 man made Catholic concepts, you find this..

"well, it can be assumed, based on what we think we know".

"is there any reason not to believe it, when it seem to us, to be probably true"


That is what you find when you look a bit deeper into the murky History of the "cult of the Virgin" once the "dogmas" and so forth start "proclaiming".

No, that is not what is found. You need to stop with your diabolical lies and a sadistic abuse of a rarely used term.

Marialis Cultus (February 2, 1974) | Paul VI

Blessed Virgin Mary, Devotion to the Virgin Mary, Marialis Cultus, Apostolic Exhortation Marialis Cultus

www.vatican.va

Did you have trouble in high school???

 

[Nephesh]

I was commenting on the verses. Think.

You said, "The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings." However, no, they don't, and to prove it, I told you to quote those verses in its original language, as well as in English, and see for yourself, but you refuse to do that because you know the word "sibling" isn't used.

 

[Behold]

Scripture does support what we believe,

No verse teaches that "Mary was born sinless"..
No verse teaches that "Mary ascended upon her death, or 3 days later".


So, what teaches this?

"Catholic Dogma" "Tradition".

See, the thing about a Catholic, is... they elevate "Church Tradition", and "What Catholic Church "fathers", said..... above the Bible.

And like i said previously......no verse says that the Apostles were with Mary when She died.....Yet, "Catholic teaching" says they were there.

And no verse given by any Apostle, says that "mary was sinless" or "mary died a virgin" or "mary ascended to heaven".

Its CATHOLICISM that teaches those concepts.. not the Bible, not the Apostles.

So, its always...>"what our Church taught us to believe" and if its not found in the Bible, then "that's ok with us".

 

[Behold]

Did you have trouble in high school???

See there......Its Just like a carnal catholic, to try to make a discussion turn into a spit fight, simply because they don't like the fact that the Bible does not support the majority of the Catholic Dogmas, or "Church Fathers" nonsense.. @Jude Thaddeus

- Pathetic

 

[Truther]

You said, "The verses clearly state that they were Jesus' siblings." However, no, they don't, and to prove it, I told you to quote those verses in its original language, as well as in English, and see for yourself, but you refuse to do that because you know the word "sibling" isn't used.

You’re making a silly argument. I am KJVO. Of course I wouldn’t say the word sibling is in the Bible.