Was Mary Sinless?

[rewriter]

Why should I defend myself against something I did not say?

This is what it says about Jesus being human.

Philippians 2:6-8

6​

Who, being in very nature God,​

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;​

7​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

8​

And being found in appearance as a man,​

he humbled himself​

by becoming obedient to death—​

even death on a cross!​

The key in breaking that mystery is understanding the two natures of Christ.
And, having those two natures even before the Incarnation.

He was not man in that He was also God.
In being a man?
He made Himself to become as a man....

I can show you how.

I love that Philippians quote, do you recognize the historical context? I suspect that you do not or you would not be quite so fast to cite it. But also, to know the context you really have to do some dedicated study. As for a hint, Dodd, from the early 20th century, Bultmann from the mid-20th and Brown from the end all touch briefly on the context but do not follow it all the way. I would have to look back to recall the scholar who takes it a little farther in this century. But also note, no scholar who has seen my arguments, is willing to say I am wrong, instead they say I am making more sense than any other scholar they have ever heard of, including conservative evangelical ones.

 

[Genez]

This applies to every one of us...
No longer to be limited like we had been born into.

Just do not expect the response from God to be instantaneous.
It might require for God will take us through a process that can take months!

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, ​

and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who ​

doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." James 1:5-6​

​

.​

 

[Genez]

No they won't

They'll still only believe bits and peices of God's Word continuing to reject the Whole Counsel of God.

That's how the cherry pickers do business as you are aware.

You cherry-pick, sir.

 

[Genez]

I love that Philippians quote, do you recognize the historical context? I suspect that you do not or you would not be quite so fast to cite it. But also, to know the context you really have to do some dedicated study. As for a hint, Dodd, from the early 20th century, Bultmann from the mid-20th and Brown from the end all touch briefly on the context but do not follow it all the way. I would have to look back to recall the scholar who takes it a little farther in this century. But also note, no scholar who has seen my arguments, is willing to say I am wrong, instead they say I am making more sense than any other scholar they have ever heard of, including conservative evangelical ones.

Where's the answer in that?

Bluffing does not work.
Man up, and give what you know!

 

[TruthDefender]

Why don't you know?
That is the real problem.

​

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; ​

you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:4​

Being justified by the Law would be doing something to keep what grace provided for you outside from the Law.
Like? Trying to keep one's salvation by works.

When a believer is too full of himself, the Holy Spirit who wishes to fill him, can not get the person's attention.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed ​

for the day of redemption." Ephesians 4:30​

​

In whom you were sealed:
The sealing of the Holy Spirit signifies ownership, security, and authenticity. In ancient times, a seal was used to denote possession and to protect the contents of a document or item. Similarly, believers are marked by the Holy Spirit as belonging to God, ensuring their eternal security.

This seal is a guarantee of the believer's inheritance, as mentioned earlier in Ephesians 1:13-14. The Holy Spirit's presence in a believer's life is the assurance of God's promise and the future fulfillment of salvation. This sealing is a divine act, not dependent on human effort, underscoring the grace and sovereignty of God
in salvation. https://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-30.htm


Why are you so jealous of the saved?


.....

You don’t even know who you are arguing with! I don’t live by the Law.

 

[TruthDefender]

Dumb answer.
It is the classic loser's way out.

You need to become a winner.
And, by God's grace you can.

This is what people say when they’re stuck in the corner with limited Scripture.

 

[Genez]

This is what people say when they’re stuck in the corner with limited Scripture.

Nice to know you agree with me for once.

 

[sawdust]

I would guess you looked at wiki or maybe AI. I looked at PubMed and found the following. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10227352/
It is an article and the heading begins with:

A new hypothesis may explain human parthenogenesis and ovarian teratoma: A review study​

but all these doctors and scientists don't know what they are talking about, they just study the odd events, not what is commonly accepted as real, right?

And regarding Melchizedek, did you just look at Hebrews or did you also look at the Genesis reference,

I looked at Pub Med too and Science Direct. It may well occur spontaneously but the process has yet to produce anything but tumors. No human has been born from the process.

I looked at the Hebrews reference. Which Genesis reference are you talking about? I don't know of any that reference his birth or parentage in Genesis. Try using chapter and verse please.

 

[Lovette]

And your point is wrong. I have scripturally shown you that the LORD (the WORD), not a medium, came to Abrams tent door and that God(the WORD) met Moses face to face, not a medium. It couldn't have been the Father, for He said " Thou canst not see My face: for there SHALL NO MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE." Exodus 33:20. Yet Abram and Moses continued living.

The error is yours. In the very same chapter, God spoke to Moses "face to face", yet the visible form was a pillar of cloud, that is a medium. Therefore, seeing the medium of God counts as meeting God "face to face", according to not me, but the scripture. Likewise, the man Abraham met and the man Jocob wrestled with were both mediums. The reason for mediums is given in Deut. 18:15-19, God the Father scared the Israelites to death, a relatable human medium is a necessity.

All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tabernacle door, and all the people rose and worshiped, each man in his tent door. So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle. (Ex. 33:10-11)

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’“ And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. (Deut. 18:15-19)

 

[rewriter]

I looked at Pub Med too and Science Direct. It may well occur spontaneously but the process has yet to produce anything but tumors. No human has been born from the process.

I looked at the Hebrews reference. Which Genesis reference are you talking about? I don't know of any that reference his birth or parentage in Genesis. Try using chapter and verse please.

Genesis 14:18 notes that Melchizedek was a High Priest of the Most High God. Hebrews 7:3 notes he was "without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God", it also references, just before this quote, that he had neither mother or father. But of course, that cannot be true, thus the statements of scripture must be interpreted to fit with what tradition teaches. Adjusting the meaning of scripture to accommodate what is desired is "proper interpretation". Of course, if the proposed adjustment are not consistent with what is desired to be expressed, it is not proper.

As for what parthenogenesis produces, tumors are the most common, but there is also a full set of chromosomes, the same case as a fertilized egg, and without genetic testing on every female born, the birth of a clone of the mother cannot be ruled out. Just because the mother was sexually active, and thus there is a potential father, does not mean that successful parthenogenesis has not occurred, just that it is not proven.

 

[TruthDefender]

Nice to know you agree with me for once.

You are in dream mode….

 

[rewriter]

Where's the answer in that?

Bluffing does not work.
Man up, and give what you know!

Well, telling you what I know would cause you and likely everyone else following this topic to be baffled and tell me that I cannot possibly know this and that it cannot possibly be true. To explain it requires a few book chapters, I am done with that issue by chapter 6 in the book I am writing (Chapter 1 Ignored History, 2 Ephesians, 3 Matthew and Mark, 4 John, 5 Luke-Acts, 6 Pauline Epistles) and posting such would not be possible. But if you can name the three major events that followed Sulla's death that link back to Asiatic Vespers (all in chapter 1), without having to look things up but rather just pull them off the top of your head, then I can point you in the proper direction, but knowing them and linking them back takes a lot of knowledge.

If I tell a 1st grade student a truth from quantum physics, I am not bluffing, but neither are they ready for a full explanation, they have to learn a lot. So how much do you already know?

 

[Genez]

Well, telling you what I know would cause you and likely everyone else following this topic to be baffled and tell me that I cannot possibly know this and that it cannot possibly be true. To explain it requires a few book chapters, I am done with that issue by chapter 6 in the book I am writing (Chapter 1 Ignored History, 2 Ephesians, 3 Matthew and Mark, 4 John, 5 Luke-Acts, 6 Pauline Epistles) and posting such would not be possible. But if you can name the three major events that followed Sulla's death that link back to Asiatic Vespers (all in chapter 1), without having to look things up but rather just pull them off the top of your head, then I can point you in the proper direction, but knowing them and linking them back takes a lot of knowledge.

If I tell a 1st grade student a truth from quantum physics, I am not bluffing, but neither are they ready for a full explanation, they have to learn a lot. So how much do you already know?

If that be the case?
Why even bother telling anyone in the first place?

 

[Genez]

It's the spirit that gets regenerated, not the soul. All human spirits are NOT regenerated until receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. You're in the mustard trying to ketchup.

What I meant was the unregenerate person... which can be referred to as a soul. For all he is would be soul and body in his function.

 

[sawdust]

Genesis 14:18 notes that Melchizedek was a High Priest of the Most High God. Hebrews 7:3 notes he was "without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God", it also references, just before this quote, that he had neither mother or father. But of course, that cannot be true, thus the statements of scripture must be interpreted to fit with what tradition teaches. Adjusting the meaning of scripture to accommodate what is desired is "proper interpretation". Of course, if the proposed adjustment are not consistent with what is desired to be expressed, it is not proper.

And if the scripture is to be taken literally then it would mean Melchizedek was the Lord God for only God is without beginning or end. Or it could simply mean his life wasn't recorded.

As for what parthenogenesis produces, tumors are the most common, but there is also a full set of chromosomes, the same case as a fertilized egg, and without genetic testing on every female born, the birth of a clone of the mother cannot be ruled out. Just because the mother was sexually active, and thus there is a potential father, does not mean that successful parthenogenesis has not occurred, just that it is not proven.

Until it is proven it remains theory.

What isn't theory is the scripture states that what was in Mary was of the Holy Spirit and not a natural phenomenon no matter how rare.

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Genez]

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

"Conceived." Not implanted.
Conception requires an ovum to happen.

 

[Needevidence]

Mary referred to God as her "Savior."

All of mankind became sinners in Adam, according to Paul.

Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

A number of saints had their defects covered up by God in the Scriptures. Daniel had little said about him in this respect. And Mary was one of them. On the other hand, Moses' sins were outlined clearly, and the flawed character of Jeremiah was plain for all to see. Jonah, as well.

However, you can see in the Gospels that Mary was irritated with Jesus when he stayed behind at the Temple as a young man/child. She presumed to have access to Jesus because she was his Mother, though Jesus said she must be doing the will of God to have access to him.

That Jesus was the exclusive atonement for our sins is all through Scriptures. I can be more detailed if you need that?

Thanks & noted. Yes generally agreed - but nothing specific - for example what about - Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” - how would you understand this/

Atonement I need to learn more about this - any specific passages Jesus died as an atonement would be great!

 

[TruthDefender]

Genesis 14:18 notes that Melchizedek was a High Priest of the Most High God. Hebrews 7:3 notes he was "without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God", it also references, just before this quote, that he had neither mother or father.

This is all true.

But of course, that cannot be true, thus the statements of scripture must be interpreted to fit with what tradition teaches.

So you are disbelieving what God said for the sake of man-made traditions?

Adjusting the meaning of scripture to accommodate what is desired is "proper interpretation". Of course, if the proposed adjustment are not consistent with what is desired to be expressed, it is not proper.

Wow, this is not at all ok!
This is what some versions do which we should steer clear from.
Knowingly, changing the word of God brings on dire consequences, according to God in Rev. 22.

“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Genez]

Genesis 14:18 notes that Melchizedek was a High Priest of the Most High God. Hebrews 7:3 notes he was "without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God", it also references, just before this quote, that he had neither mother or father. But of course, that cannot be true, thus the statements of scripture must be interpreted to fit with what tradition teaches. Adjusting the meaning of scripture to accommodate what is desired is "proper interpretation". Of course, if the proposed adjustment are not consistent with what is desired to be expressed, it is not proper.

As for what parthenogenesis produces, tumors are the most common, but there is also a full set of chromosomes, the same case as a fertilized egg, and without genetic testing on every female born, the birth of a clone of the mother cannot be ruled out. Just because the mother was sexually active, and thus there is a potential father, does not mean that successful parthenogenesis has not occurred, just that it is not proven.

Melchizedek was a High Priest = he was a man.

They have no record of his lineage.
Nor any death certificate... (without beginning nor end)

But, having been caused to resemble the Son of God,
Who {Jesus} remains a priest perpetually.

Melchizedek was a "type" of Jesus.
Not, Jesus.
Jesus who is remaining a High Priest forever.

 

[Genez]

Atonement I need to learn more about this - any specific passages Jesus died as an atonement would be great!

May I offer this one for you?

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for
ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2​

Note:

He also atoned for the sins of everyone who will refuse to believe in Him!

Because sins are not the cause for going to the Lake of Fire.
Unbelief in Jesus dying for our sins will be!

........