Was Mary Sinless?

[randyk]

Neither Romans passage specifically excludes Jesus, so you are adding to scripture. The other option, which no one seems to want to consider is, what would a Jew of the 1st century understand by hearing that someone was without sin.

No, I quoted Scripture. Since Jesus is the redeemer from sin and is said to be sinless it goes without saying that the universal sinfulness of mankind would exclude Jesus. He stands over mankind as Deity. Mankind, apart from the Divine Jesus, can not excuse itself from the original indictment against Man as a sinner.

 

[rewriter]

No, I quoted Scripture. Since Jesus is the redeemer from sin and is said to be sinless it goes without saying that the universal sinfulness of mankind would exclude Jesus. He stands over mankind as Deity. Mankind, apart from the Divine Jesus, can not excuse itself from the original indictment against Man as a sinner.

But you ignore John 1:47, especially since the same term for deceit/guile appears in Revelation 14:5 as applying to those who are before the throne of God in heaven, that is sinless as they have been totally cleansed from sin. Lack of guile/deceit is linked with sinlessness.

 

[randyk]

But you ignore John 1:47, especially since the same term for deceit/guile appears in Revelation 14:5 as applying to those who are before the throne of God in heaven, that is sinless as they have been totally cleansed from sin. Lack of guile/deceit is linked with sinlessness.

Obviously John 1.47 has nothing to do with the notion of any human being thought to be sinless. Nathanael was as unworthy as any other human being descended from Adam.

And that is the biblical distinction--all descended from Adam, ie all of mankind, became unowrthy of God's Kingdom the instant Adam sinned. Every human being is therefore unworthy, biblically, of God's Kingdom apart from the Grace and Forgiveness of God.

Pointing out Jesus' exclusion from this "Sinful Humanity" is the whole point of the Gospel, that sinful humanity required redemption by a sinless, divine Christ. Christ, as Deity in the Flesh, came sinless precisely to rescue all those made unwrthy by Adam's Sin. This obviously includes Mary. And Mary recognized this by calling God her "Savior."

Mary's irrelevance in this issue is made even more apparent in the situation where Mary thought her relationship to Jesus as his Mother gave her special access to him. Jesus denied that, claiming that all who do God's will are equal to Mary, and Mary as unworthy of all others.

 

[rewriter]

Obviously John 1.47 has nothing to do with the notion of any human being thought to be sinless. Nathanael was as unworthy as any other human being descended from Adam.

And that is the biblical distinction--all descended from Adam, ie all of mankind, became unowrthy of God's Kingdom the instant Adam sinned. Every human being is therefore unworthy, biblically, of God's Kingdom apart from the Grace and Forgiveness of God.

Pointing out Jesus' exclusion from this "Sinful Humanity" is the whole point of the Gospel, that sinful humanity required redemption by a sinless, divine Christ. Christ, as Deity in the Flesh, came sinless precisely to rescue all those made unwrthy by Adam's Sin. This obviously includes Mary. And Mary recognized this by calling God her "Savior."

Mary's irrelevance in this issue is made even more apparent in the situation where Mary thought her relationship to Jesus as his Mother gave her special access to him. Jesus denied that, claiming that all who do God's will are equal to Mary, and Mary as unworthy of all others.

Unless there was a concept that could be presented as sinlessness present in 1st century Jewish thought that has been largely forgotten and/or dismissed in favor of a set theological position.

Nor given how many ancients were reportedly born of virgins, often via divine intervention, and often reported as having been resurrected after death, do you truly want to casually dismiss the possibility that something is being said that differs from what tradition claims? Or are you following the RCC in placing tradition along side scripture?

For instance, are 1 John 5:8 and Galatians 3:1 related? Under some understandings they clearly are, but not under tradition, so which understandings are correct. Is John 21 original to the gospel or was it added, what about Mark, does it end at 16:8 or did it always continue on through verse 20, and if it did, why do multiple ancient manuscripts end at verse 8?

I can answer all these questions, and many more, with ease and consistency. Can you?

 

[randyk]

Unless there was a concept that could be presented as sinlessness present in 1st century Jewish thought that has been largely forgotten and/or dismissed in favor of a set theological position.

Nor given how many ancients were reportedly born of virgins, often via divine intervention, and often reported as having been resurrected after death, do you truly want to casually dismiss the possibility that something is being said that differs from what tradition claims? Or are you following the RCC in placing tradition along side scripture?

For instance, are 1 John 5:8 and Galatians 3:1 related? Under some understandings they clearly are, but not under tradition, so which understandings are correct. Is John 21 original to the gospel or was it added, what about Mark, does it end at 16:8 or did it always continue on through verse 20, and if it did, why do multiple ancient manuscripts end at verse 8?

I can answer all these questions, and many more, with ease and consistency. Can you?

I tend to place greatest trust in the oldest documents, accepting Alexandrian text types. I've always had some questions interpreting 1 John 5 in the matter you're bringing up. I memorized 1 John entirely back in around 1972. I understand the entire letter with the exception of the part you're talking about. I don't know what Gal 3.1 has to do with this at all?

I find no need to look outside of Catholic Tradition to feel more "objective." I'm not a Catholic but I do recognize that the original Western Church was the Catholic Church, and give it a lot of credit both for its contributions and its limitations.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Your adoration of a flawed human being is highly suspect and ignores biblical statements on the universal sinfulness of mankind, including Mary.

Fascinating.
OK. Your disregard for God's authority and Sovereign will to bring Mary in and fill her with his grace is evidence you have no understanding of what that means.

I suspect you are influenced by Islam. Which teaches that Mary was a mere woman giving birth to a child who became yet another mere prophet of Allah. Because Allah,as the Quran states,has no sons.

Otherwise,your insistence that Mary being filled with God's grace means nothing,as you do in your observations above that discount that gift of God unto her,is evidence you dnt know what we're talking about.

 

[randyk]

Fascinating.
OK. Your disregard for God's authority and Sovereign will to bring Mary in and fill her with his grace is evidence you have no understanding of what that means.

I suspect you are influenced by Islam. Which teaches that Mary was a mere woman giving birth to a child who became yet another mere prophet of Allah. Because Allah,as the Quran states,has no sons.

Otherwise,your insistence that Mary being filled with God's grace means nothing,as you do in your observations above that discount that gift of God unto her,is evidence you dnt know what we're talking about.

What a strange response! No, I'm a Christian and certainly no Muslim. Being "filled with Grace" does not say or mean "Sinless."

 

[Bible_Locket]

Because Adam was held responsible for the original sin, whereas Eve was deceived.

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Ah,but that's Paul's epistle,letter,to Timothy. God himself did not state this.

As a Pharisee, Paul would see women as subordinates. And that could impact his perspective.

In point of fact the Genesis passage tells us Adam was with Eve when she encountered the serpent.
He too would then hear the leading of the serpent to disbelieve God's warning and eat of the tree.

Rather than exercise his authority as her husband,to lead her into righteousness by obeying God's command,which Adam received directly from God, and then later told Eve, Adam not only let Eve eat. But Adam ate of the fruit as well. After his wife ate.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Two reasons, first being cultural and the second because the story is not historical but rather based on an older one.

Please elaborate.
I think I know of what you speak but, I'd like to read your thoughts first.

 

[sawdust]

You are then linking sin to the physical DNA, which is a biological absurdity.

Why? You think there can't be something missing from the DNA that affects cell replication and repair or some other mechanism that would keep the body free from death? Scripture says there is "another law" at work in our bodies, a law God did not put there, a law we inherited from Adam down the male line, hence the virgin birth. It's why babies die even before they have committed any personal sin of their own.

Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Are you one of those who thinks the God, who "takes no pleasure in death", formed a body for Adam that would die apart from sin? That after giving him strict instructions of how death would result from disobedience that Adam would have died anyway regardless, obey, disobey, it's all irrelevant?

Science only has the flawed, corrupted body to work with in order to work out what is or is not happening and there is no way to obtain a body that is perfect as Christ's was or Adam's before the fall.

I know this is one of the hard questions, but I find that if one changes their assumptions, it resolves very easily. Another difficult point is that Jesus would not have qualified to be a sacrifice for sin under Jewish law due to His flogging, after that he was no longer unblemished, and only an unblemished sacrifice was acceptable.

You fail to recognise what the physical perfection of animals represented and was meant to teach the Jews regarding the perfect sacrifice. If all God needed was a perfect physical specimen, then any man of such a physique could qualify. It was the perfect spiritual candidate that was required, the only man without sin, who could qualify to be our substitute.

But please, keep placing your theology over inconvenient facts, such makes such as a powerful witness for truth

The only "inconvenient facts" I tend to witness in your posts is your ability to completely miss the spiritual meaning behind God's working.

 

[Bible_Locket]

What a strange response! No, I'm a Christian and certainly no Muslim. Being "filled with Grace" does not say or mean "Sinless."

Your perspective also ignores Sanctification.

When God entered in and filled Mary with his grace, that's God Sanctifying her with his power and presence of his Holy Spirit. That Holy presence purifies whatever it touches. Which is what it means to be Sanctified. Luke 1

This would be done by God's will so to insure,manifest in begetting Immanuel, Jesus,upon Mary, the sinless nature of
Immanuel ("God with us") . And ensuring He was not stained by human sin during Mary's pregnancy.

 

[sawdust]

Ah,but that's Paul's epistle,letter,to Timothy. God himself did not state this.

As a Pharisee, Paul would see women as subordinates. And that could impact his perspective.

In point of fact the Genesis passage tells us Adam was with Eve when she encountered the serpent.
He too would then hear the leading of the serpent to disbelieve God's warning and eat of the tree.

Rather than exercise his authority as her husband,to lead her into righteousness by obeying God's command,which Adam received directly from God, and then later told Eve, Adam not only let Eve eat. But Adam ate of the fruit as well. After his wife ate.

You think Paul's words are not scripture? Peter considered Paul's letters equivalent with scripture.

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

And

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul had many woman who helped him in his ministry and held them in high regard. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.


As for the rest of your post, I hardly seeing it saying anything different to what I said in that Adam was made responsible because he was the one given the command and knew the consequences. He should have ensured Eve understood as well so that she could not be deceived. She was deceived, Adam wasn't.

 

[rewriter]

Why? You think there can't be something missing from the DNA that affects cell replication and repair or some other mechanism that would keep the body free from death? Scripture says there is "another law" at work in our bodies, a law God did not put there, a law we inherited from Adam down the male line, hence the virgin birth. It's why babies die even before they have committed any personal sin of their own.

Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Are you one of those who thinks the God, who "takes no pleasure in death", formed a body for Adam that would die apart from sin? That after giving him strict instructions of how death would result from disobedience that Adam would have died anyway regardless, obey, disobey, it's all irrelevant?

Science only has the flawed, corrupted body to work with in order to work out what is or is not happening and there is no way to obtain a body that is perfect as Christ's was or Adam's before the fall.



You fail to recognise what the physical perfection of animals represented and was meant to teach the Jews regarding the perfect sacrifice. If all God needed was a perfect physical specimen, then any man of such a physique could qualify. It was the perfect spiritual candidate that was required, the only man without sin, who could qualify to be our substitute.



The only "inconvenient facts" I tend to witness in your posts is your ability to completely miss the spiritual meaning behind God's working.

One important thing I would remind you of is that the law, including the need for a sacrifice for sin, was created for the benefit of humanity, not humanity for the benefit of the law. God, assuming he was the one who needed a price for sin to be paid to Him, could set the price at whatever He chose, He did not need to demand a physical sacrifice. He could have demanded that humans stand on one foot while whistling Dixie and wearing a pink tutu with purple trim. The one harmed gets to decide what will satisfy their honor, not someone else. But if humanity sees sin as a huge problem, then they can easily justify the need for a comparable sacrifice to assuage the dishonor they have committed.

And as for fulfilling the law of the sin sacrifice, the purity/perfectness of the sacrifice was only one of the requirements. There were other requirements, many of which were clearly NOT fulfilled. Again, the Jews of the 1st century would have immediately seen those aspects which were not fulfilled, our ignorance and dependence on tradition blinds us to them though.

 

[sawdust]

One important thing I would remind you of is that the law, including the need for a sacrifice for sin, was created for the benefit of humanity, not humanity for the benefit of the law.

And this has what to do with anything I said?

God, assuming he was the one who needed a price for sin to be paid to Him, could set the price at whatever He chose, He did not need to demand a physical sacrifice. He could have demanded that humans stand on one foot while whistling Dixie and wearing a pink tutu with purple trim.

The Lord God said from the outset what the consequences of sin would be so no, there was only ever going to be one payment for sin. It's not a question of "needing" a price, it's a matter of creation working as intended and what happens when it doesn't.

And as for fulfilling the law of the sin sacrifice, the purity/perfectness of the sacrifice was only one of the requirements. There were other requirements, many of which were clearly NOT fulfilled. Again, the Jews of the 1st century would have immediately seen those aspects which were not fulfilled, our ignorance and dependence on tradition blinds us to them though.

I have found this to be typical of your posts. You make claims but give no evidence. You appeal to 1st century Jews yet they were constantly showed to be so far from understanding the truth.

If you have an actual argument that is worth something, set it forth for discussion instead of this constant oblique reference of which you are so fond to make.

 

[sawdust]

That Holy presence purifies whatever it touches

You are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Are you claiming you are without sin?

1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

 

[Bible_Locket]

You think Paul's words are not scripture? Peter considered Paul's letters equivalent with scripture.

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

And

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul had many woman who helped him in his ministry and held them in high regard. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

By definition of the word,Scripture, graphḗ γραφή,in Koine Greek, Scripture is merely referring to writing,or something written.

So yes,as I said, Paul's (Saul's) letters,Epistles,we're just that.

Whereas writing God ordained Scripture is, θεόπνευστος,
theopneustos, "God Breathed, is pheromenoi , " carried along by the Holy Spirit", when committing to recording the writings from that source.

Paul,Saul, writing in 2 Timothy 3:16, was referring to the Tanakh,the Hebrew Old Testament.

As for the rest of your post, I hardly seeing it saying anything different to what I said in that Adam was made responsible because he was the one given the command and knew the consequences. He should have ensured Eve understood as well so that she could not be deceived. She was deceived, Adam wasn't.

OK,that then makes Adam wilfully disobeying God.

Which would be why sin entered the world through him. He knew better than to let the serpent persuade him to eat,and he wilfully,knowing the consequences God revealed to him earlier,ate anyway.

Whereas Eve was innocent and as such,deceived. Because she did not possess the same knowledge,Gnosis,as Adam.

 

[rewriter]

Please elaborate.
I think I know of what you speak but, I'd like to read your thoughts first.

In most of the Roman Empire, including Judah, women were 2nd class citizen, Nabataea was a notable exception. There were many things that they could not do, which also restricted what they could be blamed for. The historic records in the Bible also support this notion, women were not considered to be a threat to life, unless they happened to have a tent peg close at hand, but even such would be a surprise. But hence, clearly a woman could not be responsible for such a grave violation as passing sin along, it had to be a man who was responsible. Paul correctly counters this by observing that in Christ there is no male or female. Gender seems to be relevant only in the physical realm.

But there are also other ancient Near Eastern tales of a special realm that existed until humans violated it. The exact details vary according to which tradition was presenting the tale, but all agree that it was special and that some human or small group of humans violated the realm and destroyed its purity.

As for sin in general, I view it far more in terms of the myth of Narcissus than in moral terms. That is that it is a relational problem before it is a moral problem. It is due to the misunderstanding/breaking of relationships that leads to the moral issues, not moral issues that break relationships.

 

[Bible_Locket]

In most of the Roman Empire, including Judah, women were 2nd class citizen, Nabataea was a notable exception. There were many things that they could not do, which also restricted what they could be blamed for. The historic records in the Bible also support this notion, women were not considered to be a threat to life, unless they happened to have a tent peg close at hand, but even such would be a surprise. But hence, clearly a woman could not be responsible for such a grave violation as passing sin along, it had to be a man who was responsible. Paul correctly counters this by observing that in Christ there is no male or female. Gender seems to be relevant only in the physical realm.

But there are also other ancient Near Eastern tales of a special realm that existed until humans violated it. The exact details vary according to which tradition was presenting the tale, but all agree that it was special and that some human or small group of humans violated the realm and destroyed its purity.

As for sin in general, I view it far more in terms of the myth of Narcissus than in moral terms. That is that it is a relational problem before it is a moral problem. It is due to the misunderstanding/breaking of relationships that leads to the moral issues, not moral issues that break relationships.

Thank you. Well said.

 

[dkontner]

1 Corinthians 1​

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

[rewriter]

And this has what to do with anything I said?



The Lord God said from the outset what the consequences of sin would be so no, there was only ever going to be one payment for sin. It's not a question of "needing" a price, it's a matter of creation working as intended and what happens when it doesn't.



I have found this to be typical of your posts. You make claims but give no evidence. You appeal to 1st century Jews yet they were constantly showed to be so far from understanding the truth.

If you have an actual argument that is worth something, set it forth for discussion instead of this constant oblique reference of which you are so fond to make.

=I am so sorry, I thought that you would be aware of scripture without needing to be spoon fed. Might I suggest that you look at the commandments regarding sin sacrifice? It spells out what is required, then look at the account of the crucifixion and see if the required steps are followed. I think you will find that some specific steps are totally missing in the crucifixion.