Was Mary Sinless?

[Lovette]

It took a minute, but I do get the connection. God formed Adam and breathed on him and Adam became a living soul, and in the same sense, God breathed (His Word) on Mary and she received Him. Is this a reasonable synopsis of your idea?

The Lord's partaking of Adam's, "From dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return" especially comes to mind (though, unlike Adam, triumphant against decay).

Like Adam, Jesus died also; but unlike Adam, he died for the sin of mankind, not his own, Dan. 9:26. Also unlike Adam, he rose from the dead in a new body, as you pointed out. The emphasis is Jesus's humanity, he humbled himself in flesh and blood and dwelt among us.

 

[rewriter]

Based on the amount of speculation on this topic, most of which has no basis in scripture and the balance seems to have questionable links to the topic, asking someone to back up their opinion with scripture seems to be irrelevant, except when one wishes to attempt to discredit someone else's speculation on a topic.

The virgin birth is mentioned only in Matthew and Luke. Matthew does not claim to be an eyewitness and Luke flat out denies being one, yet scripture REQUIRES two or three eyewitnesses if one is to know if something is true. And claiming that God inspired the gospel accounts is a statement of faith, and unprovable, so just like this discussion, speculation claiming to be faith.

 

[Genipher]

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Josh 10:13
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Prov 14:15
The sun still stands still in the center of heaven and the planets rotate around it.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thess 2:11

Let's look at more than just the 1 verse. See what happened before and after, eh?
Joshua 10:12-14

Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.
Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.

You aren't giving much of your own thoughts but I get the impression that you think the sun not moving was an everyday occurrence? Just the simplicity of the natural cycle of the planets and sun? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

From the context of the scriptures it's clear this was an event that had never happened before or ever again after. It was unnatural.

 

[wolfwint]

Please reread #81 and do not repeat yourself or else discussion is useless.
Again, the suggestion that the miracle was the implantation of a clean zygote merely states what the miracle was,
NOT how it was done.
If you do not like my idea, what is your understanding of what the miracle was?

I do not discuss it. Your idea ist just your idea. Nothing more. A miracle in my understanding is something what is not to explain with what we can measure in our world. If you can explain it, then it is no miracle. In case of Mary, every Suggestion is wasted time. But if you like to waste the time. It is your time.

 

[GWH]

I'm not, Paul was, read his theological argument in Rom. 5:12-21 - "therefore, as through one man's offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

As I said, you are the first person I have met who interprets that passage as teaching the first sinner is on par with the eternal Redeemer.

 

[GWH]

I do not discuss it. Your idea ist just your idea. Nothing more. A miracle in my understanding is something what is not to explain with what we can measure in our world. If you can explain it, then it is no miracle. In case of Mary, every Suggestion is wasted time. But if you like to waste the time. It is your time.

Both of our ideas are just that, but I share mine honestly, while you are reluctant to share yours for some reason,
but instead you repeat the idea that miracles cannot be explained, which I have already agreed with, so we both waste time.

 

[Lovette]

As I said, you are the first person I have met who interprets that passage as teaching the first sinner is on par with the eternal Redeemer.

As I said, I'm not, Paul was the first who made the comparison. The second Adam died for the sin of the first Adam.

 

[seeking_christ]

Mary subjected child Jesus and Mary pondered everything in her heart

 

[seeking_christ]

Mary subjected child Jesus and Mary pondered everything in her heart

because Jesus was off to the races but he was like a child so his parents told him not yet and Jesus obeyed too

 

[Lovette]

I do not discuss it. Your idea ist just your idea. Nothing more. A miracle in my understanding is something what is not to explain with what we can measure in our world. If you can explain it, then it is no miracle. In case of Mary, every Suggestion is wasted time. But if you like to waste the time. It is your time.

The entirety of this miracle depends on your definition of "virgin". The original word for virgin means "unmarried young maiden". Per Mary's own words, "I've never known a man." By no means does it cling to the integrity of a woman's hymen, which could be broken in any physical activity. I've studied a lot about this, the hymen's primary fuction is to block pee and poop, once a girl is potty trained, it's served its purpose. Therefore, in modern time, if a woman who's never been sexually active gets pregnant through IVF or IUI, that could count as a virgin birth. But since neither IVF, IUI or other reproductive assistance existed in first century Judea, and I'm sure "overshadowing" was neither of these techs, the immaculate conception was qualified as a miracle.

 

[Genez]

From a discussion elsewhere I had about the nature of Sin...


I don't agree. Jesus' flesh and human spirit had no sin at all. Jesus was likely given Mary's DNA but without Joseph's DNA because Joseph would then have taken credit for a "Work" in producing Christ. Flawed Works had to be atoned for and could not produce Eternal Life. Jesus was Eternal Life and was the product of God's Work alone.

DNA can apparently produce defective combinations, but in Mary's case it appears that God "healed" any possible defects in the order of these chemical combinations and the state they were in. The flesh within her imperfect flesh was rendered perfect as far as Christ's being was concerned.

Because human Works are carried on through reproduction, all of mankind, except for Christ, have inherited a Sin Nature and cannot, apart from Christ's Grace, obtain Eternal Life. All of us inherit human DNA as well as a sin-infected human spirituality that disqualifies us from obtaining Eternal Life apart from Christ's Grace.

We all sin, even though through Christ our New Christian Nature may prevail over our Sin impulses--not perfectly but sufficient to show the Nature that we have chosen to reign in our lives. Inheriting human DNA means we inherit flawed Human Flesh. But the Sin is not in the fleshly flaws, eg diseases but rather in the spiritual corruption.

The flesh and the spirit are two separate things. Before we do any Sin we have already been born with a contaminated spiritual nature and will Sin as soon as we are able.

Again, the trial we undergo in life is in proving what Nature we wish to prevail--our New Nature from Christ, which desires to submit to Christ's Righteousness, or our carnal Nature, which wishes to make choices independent of God, even if at times those choices agree with God's choices.

The real battle is in choosing to partner with God *always,* because this proves what Nature we choose to have and to dominate in Eternity. It is not our Sin Nature that condemns us in Eternity. Rather, it is in our choice for Christ, producing a New Nature, or not.

The Bible reveals that they sin nature is transferred biologically to the flesh in reproduction by the male's sperm.
That is why it says sin entered the world through one man (Romans 5:12), even though the woman was the first sinner.

The woman's ovum does not transfer the sin nature.
That is why we see the odd wording found in Genesis 3:15.

And I will put enmity​

Between you and the woman,​

And between your seed and her Seed;​

He shall bruise your head,​

And you shall bruise His heel.”​

There was no mention of the man's seed in Genesis 3:15.
The woman's ovum itself does not introduce the defective genes to produce a sin nature.

If Adam never fell?
His seed and Eve's ovum would not have had the sin nature enter the world!
For their child would have been born without a sin nature, like Jesus was.

That is why God used Mary's ovum to produce the body of Jesus.
The Holy Spirit provided the perfect genetic materials needed to fertilize the ovum of Mary!

I believe mankind is called Satan's seed because Satan introduced the fall of Adam which resulted with man having a fallen nature.
Like, George Washington is referred to as the father of the USA.

 

[bytheblood]

Then the Lord said in His Word if one doesn't work he should not eat - ever see that in 2 Thessalonians 3:10?

In other words there is no free ride, so free loaders should not be given free stuff so they can lay around being lazy.





And yet in the scripture we see the Lord putting labels on bad actors.

Like when Jesus called some folks tares who are children of the devil mixed in with believers for the purpose of trying to deceive believers.

Those that refuse to accept the Lord's warnings given in His Word do so at their own peril.

The time has come to man up and stand for the Lord first and foremost and stop putting people before the Lord which is what many are doing as they accept all manner of false doctrine as being "christian" just because those peddling the false doctrine claim to be Christians

I said nothing about giving anyone a " free ride ". Jesus Himself said " For you have the poor with you ALWAYS, and WHENSOEVER YOU WILL YOU MAY DO THEM GOOD: but Me you have not always." Mark 14:7. We'll ALWAYS have poor people to help, well, maybe not you, but those of us who are so grateful that God GAVE us His Son (Jn 3:16) that we have no problem sharing out of our abundance.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Was Mary sinless? Of course she wasn't.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

You aren't giving much of your own thoughts but I get the impression that you think the sun not moving was an everyday occurrence?

It wasn't until the 1800's that the Christian Church officially accepted the heliocentric (Sun-centered) system.

Just the simplicity of the natural cycle of the planets and sun? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

I think you nailed it. While I wouldn't refer unto the ordinances of heaven as simplicity since by seeing, it wasn't seen until 1543 AD that the Sun stands fixed in the center of heaven yet spins in different directions.

 

[GWH]

As I said, I'm not, Paul was the first who made the comparison. The second Adam died for the sin of the first Adam.

Paul compared them, but he viewed Jesus as Lord and Adam as needing Messiah's atonement, as you admit,
so let us not put Adam on par with Jesus, which is a false equivalence. Adam was dust made human;
Jesus was God made human/incarnate.

 

[Gideon300]

As I said, I'm not, Paul was the first who made the comparison. The second Adam died for the sin of the first Adam.

Lord Jesus was the last Adam, not the second Adam. The reason that He was the last Adam is that He perfectly pleased God in every way. There is no need for another Adam. Now a the Second Man, Lord Jesus heads up a whole new race of beings. Outwardly, we look the same. Inwardly, everything has changed. We really are new creations in Christ Jesus. When believers see this great truth, it sets them free from many problems and gives them great stability.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

yet scripture REQUIRES two or three eyewitnesses if one is to know if something is true.

Are you sure the scriptures requires that they must be eyewitnesses?

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut 19:15

A fingerprint can be a witness, DNA can be witness. While they didn't have those forms of evidence. But say one person says another other person stole their calf, and the person accused denies he stole the calf and has two other witnesses that affirm that it is his calf. So do the three witnesses established that the calf wasn't stolen? What if the person who says his calf was stolen brings the calf's mother, the calf is going to follow its mother, so what does that say when the calf follows the person's cow as to who the calf belongs to. I think anyone can see that the person stole the calf even if nobody actually saw the person steal the calf.

 

[rewriter]

Are you sure the scriptures requires that they must be eyewitnesses?

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut 19:15

A fingerprint can be a witness, DNA can be witness. While they didn't have those forms of evidence. But say one person says another other person stole their calf, and the person accused denies he stole the calf and has two other witnesses that affirm that it is his calf. So do the three witnesses established that the calf wasn't stolen? What if the person who says his calf was stolen brings the calf's mother, the calf is going to follow its mother, so what does that say when the calf follows the person's cow as to who the calf belongs to. I think anyone can see that the person stole the calf even if nobody actually saw the person steal the calf.

There were ancient traditions regarding the transfer of property which all required eyewitnesses. If the claim is being made that a calf was not stolen but rather sold, eyewitnesses could be summoned to verify the sale.

But the requirement for eyewitnesses is rooted in knowledge of the value of hearsay. Is the hearsay evidence being reported correctly? What was the intent of the person passing along the hearsay, were they seeking to pass along the truth or did they have some other agenda, perhaps trying to protect someone else, maybe telling a joke, maybe wanting to inflate their own importance? There is a very good reason why hearsay is not allowed in courtrooms where the facts are supposed to be determined and that is that hearsay leaves far too many questions unanswered. Luke wrote two volumes of history dedicated to an individual, plausibly Vespasian, in a time when the purpose of history was not to present the truth but to deliver a message, and if that meant distorting the facts, well so be it. Citing God as the ultimate author contradicts what Luke claims and is likewise based on an unprovable claim, unless you have been able to converse with the Apostle Paul, long dead, and find out directly from him what he meant in 2 Timothy 3:15-16. But that would require conversing with the dead and I believe that there is a prohibition on that in the OT.

But you are correct, an eyewitness does not need to be a human, it just needs to be a person or thing that can be examined by anyone to determine just what factual evidence it is bringing into consideration

 

[Lovette]

Paul compared them, but he viewed Jesus as Lord and Adam as needing Messiah's atonement, as you admit,
so let us not put Adam on par with Jesus, which is a false equivalence. Adam was dust made human;
Jesus was God made human/incarnate.

Since Jesus was God made human/incarnate, he must be made of dust too, for the first human was made of dust. Didn't the lord die a mortal death, in the most excruciating way? Wasn't he buried in a tomb? I made no false equivalence, you misinterpreted.

 

[Cameron143]

Paul compared them, but he viewed Jesus as Lord and Adam as needing Messiah's atonement, as you admit,
so let us not put Adam on par with Jesus, which is a false equivalence. Adam was dust made human;
Jesus was God made human/incarnate.

Paul wasn't making them equal; he was showing how Adam was a type of Christ in that he represented humanity as did Christ. Hence, first Adam represented mankind before God as did the second Adam.