Was Mary sinless?

[Nephesh]

There is no reason to trust the Catholic Church when they love your enemies, those who want to hurt.

Does Jesus not say, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44)? Catholics who obey Jesus by loving their enemies shouldn't be trusted you say? Any idea of how un-Christian of a statement that is?

Good but not sinless.

God says that the virtues of holiness and purity are to be respected in Him and achieved within ourselves with His help, as well as that those pure in heart will see Him (Matt. 5:8), and to be pure in heart means to not be impure in thought, word, and deed. For these reasons and others, why would God, the most Holy and Pure One, Incarnate Himself and take form within a woman not completely Pure in thought, word, and deed?

 

[RedFan]

Immediately after the angel, Gabriel, announced to Mary that She will 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. If She had any intention of sexual intercourse with Joseph, or anyone, at any point in the future, She wouldn't have asked that at all, because a pregnancy would've been the natural result of such an act. Therefore, at the moment Mary asked the question, and before She received the answer, Her question itself indicates She had the initial impression that She was to bear this Son through sexual intercourse with a man, and was confused as to how that could happen when She made a vow to remain a virgin for God, even in marriage.

The presumption that Mary both (a) made a vow of virginity and (b) was engaged to be married is ridiculous. Such a vow would have made it sinful on her part not to disclose it at once so that the engagement could be called off immediately. So, if she wasn't sinful, it means she disclosed her vow to her father and to Joseph -- who nevertheless went through with the engagement anyway? Wow! You have a vivid imagination!

 

[Nephesh]

The presumption that Mary both (a) made a vow of virginity and (b) was engaged to be married is ridiculous. Such a vow would have made it sinful on her part not to disclose it at once so that the engagement could be called off immediately. So, if she wasn't sinful, it means she disclosed her vow to her father and to Joseph -- who nevertheless went through with the engagement anyway? Wow! You have a vivid imagination!

Have you ruled out the possibility that Mary did tell Joseph of Her perpetual vow of virginity for God, and in response Joseph respected it, and wanted to do the same, and thus they lived as a chaste married couple for God?

 

[RedFan]

Have you ruled out the idea that Mary did tell Joseph of Her perpetual vow of virginity for God, and in response Joseph respected it, and wanted to do the same, and thus they lived as a chaste married couple for God?

Yes I have. There is just no reason to presume such a state of affairs. Joseph simply would have declined to marry if he too had decided to be a perpetual virgin.

 

[Nephesh]

Yes I have. There is just no reason to presume such a state of affairs. Joseph simply would have declined to marry if he too had decided to be a perpetual virgin.

Oh, so you know exactly how Joseph would've responded to Mary's admission of a perpetual vow of virginity? Why? Because you're a man who wouldn't be chaste in a marriage for God and all other men would do the same?

 

[RedFan]

Oh, so you know exactly how Joseph would've responded to Mary's admission of a perpetual vow of virginity? Why? Because you're a man who wouldn't be chaste in a marriage for God and all other men would do the same?

No, it's because presuming the improbable is just poor logic. No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign.

 

[Nephesh]

No, it's because presuming the improbable is just poor logic. No first century Jewish man would be likely to marry a professed perpetual virign.

Why not? Also, have you ever heard of a Nazirite? They were men back in Moses's day who took vows of dedication for God (Num. 6:1-21). Do you rule out the possibility that Joseph was a Nazirite, someone accustomed to taking vows for God, and when he met Mary and learned of Her vow of perpetual virginity for God, decided to do the same, and thus they lived a chaste and holy life as husband and wife for God, and as Mother and Father to God Incarnate?

 

[RedFan]

Why not? Also, have you ever heard of a Nazirite? They were men back in Moses's day who took vows of dedication for God (Num. 6:1-21). Would you rule out the possibility that Joseph was a Nazirite, someone accustomed to taking vows for God, and thus when he met Mary and heard Her own vow of perpetual virginity for God, decided to do the same, and they lived a chaste life for God as husband and wife?

Heck, why not just assume that Joseph was a eunuch, was ashamed of it, and marrying an avowed perpetual virgin was his way of hiding it from the world? Possible, right?

Look, you can pile improbabilities on top of improbabilities until you reach the moon -- but I'm not climbing on board. This "Well, maybe Joseph thought X" or "Maybe Joseph was Y" or Maybe Joseph did Z" speculation is just that -- speculation. At some point it crosses the line into fantasy.

 

[Nephesh]

Heck, why not just assume that Joseph was a eunuch, was ashamed of it, and marrying an avowed perpetual virgin was his way of hiding it from the world? Possible, right?

Look, you can pile improbabilities on top of improbabilities until you reach the moon -- but I'm not climbing on board. This "Well, maybe Joseph thought X" or "Maybe Joseph was Y" or Maybe Joseph did Z" speculation is just that -- speculation. At some point it crosses the line into fantasy.

I just asked a simple question: "Do you rule out the possibility that Joseph was a Nazirite, someone accustomed to taking vows for God, and when he met Mary and learned of Her vow of perpetual virginity for God, decided to do the same, and thus they lived a chaste and holy life as husband and wife for God, and as Mother and Father to God Incarnate?" Yes or no?

 

[RedFan]

I just asked a simple question: "Do you rule out the possibility that Joseph was a Nazirite, someone accustomed to taking vows for God, and thus when he met Mary and heard Her own vow of perpetual virginity for God, decided to do the same, and they lived a chaste life for God as husband and wife?" Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[Nephesh]

Yes.

Ok, why?

 

[RedFan]

Ok, why?

Because I am accustomed to ruling out improbable explanations for presumed facts, and this one is improbable in the extreme.

 

[Nephesh]

...this one is improbable in the extreme.

Why?

 

[RedFan]

How so?

Look at the chain you are stitching together:

1. Mary's statement to the angel that virgins don't have children must mean she had taken a vow of virginity.
2. Despite that vow, she got engaged to Joseph.
3. She disclosed her vow to him, and he went along with the engagement anyway.
4. He did so because he himself was heavily into vows, and decided that a vow of celibacy made sense out of respect for Mary's vow.

None of the links in this chain are necessary explanations of a Lucan account that is silent on all of them. Together, they just don't support the weight you are placing on them. The simpler explanation is that a betrothed woman had taken no vow of virginity. If Luke accurately quoted Mary's exact conversation with the angel -- and let's not forget, Luke purports to have been an investigative historian, Luke 1:3, writing decades after the events he recounts, so we don't know if he ever interviewed Mary directly or gathered the story from hearsay sources after Mary was gone -- I prefer to give his account no more mental machinations than necessary.

 

[Nephesh]

Look at the chain you are stitching together:

1. Mary's statement to the angel that virgins don't have children must mean she had taken a vow of virginity.
2. Despite that vow, she got engaged to Joseph.
3. She disclosed her vow to him, and he went along with the engagement anyway.
4. He did so because he himself was heavily into vows, and decided that a vow of celibacy made sense out of respect for Mary's vow.

None of the links in this chain are necessary explanations of a Lucan account that is silent on all of them. Together, they just don't support the weight you are placing on them. The simpler explanation is that a betrothed woman had taken no vow of virginity. If Luke accurately quoted Mary's exact conversation with the angel -- and let's not forget, Luke purports to have been an investigative historian, Luke 1:3, writing decades after the events he recounts, so we don't know if he ever interviewed Mary directly or gathered the story from hearsay sources after Mary was gone -- I prefer to give his account no more mental machinations than necessary.

I just simply asked for an explanation as to why its "improbable in the extreme" that Joseph was a Nazirite (Num. 6:1-21), someone accustomed to taking vows for God, who met Mary and learned of Her vow of perpetual virginity for God, and decided to do the same for God, and thus they lived a chaste and holy life as husband and wife for God, and as Mother and Father to God Incarnate. Your post lacks an explanation. If you have one, please respond with it.

 

[MonoBiblical]

It's normal for any concerned mother to be anxious when they can't find their son.

She forgot who the Father was.

Perhaps you forget who she is. That's like saying, "my mother forgets who I am".

Mary forgot he was the son of God.

"not sinless" is the sewage that seeped out of the false philosophies of the Enlightenment Era that had more darkness than light. Modernist liberals started covering up what the reformers taught about Mary, and it spread in (some) Protestantism like a cancer. "not sinless" is a man made tradition less than 200 years old. It's fad theology.

Not all non-Roman Catholics agree that she was. And I might say I am understating the case.

Our God is quite capable of preventing Mary from Original Sin, another biblical doctrine abandoned more and more by Modernist liberals. Not capable puts limits on God's omnipotence. Choose wisely.

But God was not with her like his son. Original sin is not an infection.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Does Jesus not say, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44)?

He doesn't say it now.

Catholics who obey Jesus by loving their enemies shouldn't be trusted you say? Any idea of how un-Christian of a statement that is?

Perhaps you should love murderers and pray for them.

God says that the virtues of holiness and purity are to be respected in Him and achieved within ourselves with His help, as well as that those pure in heart will see Him (Matt. 5:8), and to be pure in heart means to not be impure in thought, word, and deed. For these reasons and others, why would God, the most Holy and Pure One, Incarnate Himself and take form within a woman not completely Pure in thought, word, and deed?

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The Holy Spirit is no longer healing people, and striking potential murderers dead.

 

[RedFan]

I just simply asked for an explanation as to why its "improbable in the extreme" that Joseph was a Nazirite (Num. 6:1-21), someone accustomed to taking vows for God, who met Mary and learned of Her vow of perpetual virginity for God, and decided to do the same for God, and thus they lived a chaste and holy life as husband and wife for God, and as Mother and Father to God Incarnate. Your post lacks an explanation. If you have one, please respond with it.

I gave my explanation. Your four-part surmise (a) he was a Nazirite, (b) he was accustomed to making vows to God, (c) he reacted to Mary's vow by following suit, and (d) they lived a chaste marriage that never got consummated, is just something I find extremely unlikely. I find it far more likely that he would simply call off the wedding. Even more likely is that Mary would have told her father about her vow before Joseph even entered the picture, and her father would either have annulled her vow or nixed any betrothal.

 

[Truther]

They don't. Go ahead, quote any of the verses in the original language Koine Greek, as well those same verses in English, then tell me if you see the word "siblings."

Neither you or I speak ancient Greek. We do not have the luxury to come up with the original definitions. I will leave it to the King James translators. But thanks anyway.

 

[Nephesh]

He doesn't say it now.

God says, "...My words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35), and therefore He says even now and forever, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44).

Perhaps you should love murderers and pray for them.

I do. If I want to obey God, I'm to love and pray for everyone.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The Holy Spirit is no longer healing people, and striking potential murderers dead.

I asked you a question: God says that the virtues of holiness and purity are to be respected in Him and achieved within ourselves with His help, as well as that those pure in heart will see Him (Matt. 5:8), and to be pure in heart means to not be impure in thought, word, and deed. For these reasons and others, why would God, the most Holy and Pure One, Incarnate Himself and take form within a woman not completely Pure in thought, word, and deed?