Was Mary Sinless?

[Mem]

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.

Scripture says that the law was introduced because of transgressions, and that Eve, being deceived, was in transgression and that Adam was not deceived and that death entered through him. So, in summary, eve believed wrongly and acted on that, and this was her transgression while Adam believed rightly but acted, fully and knowingly, against that right belief, wrongly. The bible also tells us that the power of death is fear so, I don't think Eve was compelled by fear, but Adam probably did so that death seized its power at first opportunity. Knowing the power of death, then it becomes clearer why the law came in "so that the trespass would increase (Ro 5:20)." and "grace increased all the more." And, "so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 5:21)."

Death did not come in through Eve, so it seems that ignorance was an excuse but, "Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22)." For, "Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)."

With that said, I think your characterization of 'the need for sacrifice' comes short to characterize it as pivotal on whatever whim God might be inclined toward at any moment. God is the definition of righteous and just and not by any means is He any sort of will imposing 'bully' sort of ruler. "For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed
(Acts 17:31)."

Scripture doesn't tell us what Adam feared that compelled him to sin against God, so we can only speculate, but whatever it was, Adam was wrong in fearing it rather than fearing his separation from God and the life which comes solely from Him,

So, if sin is to rightly be equated with fearing anything other than separation from the existence of God and all the (correctly understood) characterization and attributes that accompany Him (and I don't believe death is anywhere among those unless anyone can direct me to scripture which might correct me) then evidently Mary at least displayed a possession of worry when she approached Jesus at the wedding in Cana in Galilee. However quickly she might've recovered from it, Jesus intimated His crucifixion, for her specifically, when He said, "Woman, .... My hour has not yet come (John 2:4)."

 

[rewriter]

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.

Actually, with regards to the question about a link between 1 John 5:8 and Galatians 3:1, RCC tradition could be helpful. The Greek in 1 John 5:8 implies that it is referring to some object, a "thing". Now blood and water are easy to understand, but spirit gets harder. For help there, Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" implies that when we see the spirit realm in the physical world, it is inverted, much like a photographic negative. Now RCC tradition recognizes one object that has blood, water and a photographic negative image, and the photographic negative could be referenced in Galatians 3:1.

Further, both Justin Martyr and Tertullian make references to Tiberius wanting to make Jesus part of the Roman pantheon, which would fit with his acceptance of the claim that Jesus was resurrected. These claims you might already be aware of. But also, there is Moses of Chorene who wrote "A History of Armenia", in which he claims to have based his work on what he found in the archives at Edessa. The issue is that he included what is called "the Legend of Thaddeus" which is clearly a made-up story. However, should the legend be omitted, the rest of the history plausibly fits with known history, barring one strange comment that might actually indicate that he really did work from the actual archives. Moses translates one supposed letter from Tiberius to Agbar the Black in which he mentions rebellious Spaniards. There was no rebellion in Spain under Tiberius.

However, Tiberius did hire Eastern Iberian mercenaries to do some tasks for him, and after completing their assignment they reportedly caused trouble for Roman client kingdoms. Western Iberians were in Spain, Eastern Iberians were north of Parthia, but if Moses was unaware of the eastern ones, and just read Iberians, he would translate that as "Spaniards". In that same letter Tiberius reportedly made a comment about attempting to get Jesus recognized and into the Roman pantheon but also wanting to travel to Jerusalem to see the evidence of the resurrection for himself, and to deal with three individuals, Antipas, Caiaphas and Pilate. Caiaphas and Pilate were removed from office at the same time, Antipas accompanied Syrian governor Vitellius to the Euphrates for peace talks with Parthia and returned to Jerusalem after the death of Tiberius. One of the first acts of Gaius Caligula was to issue political pardons to many people. Two years later when he revoked the pardons, Antipas was arrested and exiled to France. Now was that just a coincidence or is Moses reporting actual facts, and if he was, there was some object that confirmed the resurrection and thus again, something potentially referenced in Galatians 3:1.

 

[rewriter]

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.


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.

You make a very good point regarding scripture, but one issue is that Paul likely recognized more than just the Torah as scripture. How much more is open to question, but generally the "law and the prophets" were the minimum, possibly also including the writings, and maybe even holy works from other religions, at least insofar and they revealed God to his mind.

 

[randyk]

Actually, with regards to the question about a link between 1 John 5:8 and Galatians 3:1, RCC tradition could be helpful. The Greek in 1 John 5:8 implies that it is referring to some object, a "thing". Now blood and water are easy to understand, but spirit gets harder. For help there, Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" implies that when we see the spirit realm in the physical world, it is inverted, much like a photographic negative. Now RCC tradition recognizes one object that has blood, water and a photographic negative image, and the photographic negative could be referenced in Galatians 3:1.

Further, both Justin Martyr and Tertullian make references to Tiberius wanting to make Jesus part of the Roman pantheon, which would fit with his acceptance of the claim that Jesus was resurrected. These claims you might already be aware of. But also, there is Moses of Chorene who wrote "A History of Armenia", in which he claims to have based his work on what he found in the archives at Edessa. The issue is that he included what is called "the Legend of Thaddeus" which is clearly a made-up story. However, should the legend be omitted, the rest of the history plausibly fits with known history, barring one strange comment that might actually indicate that he really did work from the actual archives. Moses translates one supposed letter from Tiberius to Agbar the Black in which he mentions rebellious Spaniards. There was no rebellion in Spain under Tiberius.

However, Tiberius did hire Eastern Iberian mercenaries to do some tasks for him, and after completing their assignment they reportedly caused trouble for Roman client kingdoms. Western Iberians were in Spain, Eastern Iberians were north of Parthia, but if Moses was unaware of the eastern ones, and just read Iberians, he would translate that as "Spaniards". In that same letter Tiberius reportedly made a comment about attempting to get Jesus recognized and into the Roman pantheon but also wanting to travel to Jerusalem to see the evidence of the resurrection for himself, and to deal with three individuals, Antipas, Caiaphas and Pilate. Caiaphas and Pilate were removed from office at the same time, Antipas accompanied Syrian governor Vitellius to the Euphrates for peace talks with Parthia and returned to Jerusalem after the death of Tiberius. One of the first acts of Gaius Caligula was to issue political pardons to many people. Two years later when he revoked the pardons, Antipas was arrested and exiled to France. Now was that just a coincidence or is Moses reporting actual facts, and if he was, there was some object that confirmed the resurrection and thus again, something potentially referenced in Galatians 3:1.

This sounds a little like conpiracy theory but like so many of them it is shrouded in the darkness of ancient history. And I'm not sure we should put a lot of weight on things so difficult to discern. It is perhaps very interesting, digging into some of the details concerned with how much the Roman Government was concerned with Jesus' resurrection? I wish you the best on it.

As for the connection between Gal 3.1 and 1 John 5.8, I don't know any more than I've told you. There was, apparently, a concern with John in writing against Gnostic beliefs, which apparently denied the relevance of a physical body and a physical resurrection. That in itself can be held to without all of the background concerns of the Roman Government.

There was little need to have Tiberius interested. The Roman Government ultimately converted to Christianity.

Providing more physical evidence of the Resurrection will not persuade people regardless. What provides the greatest weight of evidence is in our conscience, which all men have. And that conscience readily recognizes the words and life story of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, if we are so inclined to accept the spirituality that underlies it.

 

[Bible_Locket]

You make a very good point regarding scripture, but one issue is that Paul likely recognized more than just the Torah as scripture. How much more is open to question, but generally the "law and the prophets" were the minimum, possibly also including the writings, and maybe even holy works from other religions, at least insofar and they revealed God to his mind.

Saul was a Pharisee. As he reiterated as a Disciple.
That identity remained a core foundation in his faith system.
Sails writings indicate he adapted Hellenistic philosophy in his teachings.
And reiterated Roman civic concepts. He also utilized languages from other mystery religions.
And he spread his writings and message across the Greco-Roman world.

 

[rewriter]

Saul was a Pharisee. As he reiterated as a Disciple.
That identity remained a core foundation in his faith system.
Sails writings indicate he adapted Hellenistic philosophy in his teachings.
And reiterated Roman civic concepts. He also utilized languages from other mystery religions.
And he spread his writings and message across the Greco-Roman world.

All of which reinforces that we simply do not know with certainty what he meant in 2 Tim 3:16. He cited the OT which we accept as scripture, but also other writings that various peoples accepted as scripure

 

[Bible_Locket]

All of which reinforces that we simply do not know with certainty what he meant in 2 Tim 3:16.

Sure we do.
He intended people to accept whatever he said wasn't him saying it. It was only and always God.
Which his own writings disprove.

Saul cursed the Apostles coming to a town after Saul had been there by telling the people,if anyone brings a different Gospel than what he taught,let them be accursed.

Saul refered to His Gospel nearly 11 times.
It was never his Gospel.

He cited the OT which we accept as scripture,

Yes. He was a Pharisee. He knew the Tanakh by heart.

but also other writings that various peoples accepted as scripure

Later identified as Apocrypha when the New Testament was canonized.

 

[rewriter]

Sure we do.
He intended people to accept whatever he said wasn't him saying it. It was only and always God.
Which his own writings disprove.

Saul cursed the Apostles coming to a town after Saul had been there by telling the people,if anyone brings a different Gospel than what he taught,let them be accursed.

Saul refered to His Gospel nearly 11 times.
It was never his Gospel.

Yes. He was a Pharisee. He knew the Tanakh by heart.

Later identified as Apocrypha when the New Testament was canonized.

Given his use of Greek philosophy, which was accepted as scripture by some Greeks, that might also be included. He also seems to have cited Jewish works that are not considered apocryphal.

 

[rewriter]

This sounds a little like conpiracy theory but like so many of them it is shrouded in the darkness of ancient history. And I'm not sure we should put a lot of weight on things so difficult to discern. It is perhaps very interesting, digging into some of the details concerned with how much the Roman Government was concerned with Jesus' resurrection? I wish you the best on it.

As for the connection between Gal 3.1 and 1 John 5.8, I don't know any more than I've told you. There was, apparently, a concern with John in writing against Gnostic beliefs, which apparently denied the relevance of a physical body and a physical resurrection. That in itself can be held to without all of the background concerns of the Roman Government.

There was little need to have Tiberius interested. The Roman Government ultimately converted to Christianity.

Providing more physical evidence of the Resurrection will not persuade people regardless. What provides the greatest weight of evidence is in our conscience, which all men have. And that conscience readily recognizes the words and life story of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, if we are so inclined to accept the spirituality that underlies it.

It might well qualify as a conspiracy theory, but you are reading far less than a 1000 words, sort of an abstract rather than a full article. The full argument takes over a hundred 8 1/2x11 pages and quotes many scriptures, refers to much archeological evidence and ignored history as well as comments made in Christian writers up into the 4th century. It explains many problem passages in the NT, shows errors in Christian logic regarding the OT and remains consistent with far fewer assumptions than most theologies make according to those scholars who have seen enough of it. To date, the only scholars who challenge it are ones, who like you, have seen only a very few words about what it says.

One question back at you though, just for fun. The OT laws regarding sacrifices for sin required the person seeking forgiveness for THEIR sins, not the sins of another, to own the animal being sacrificed. This applied even to the high priest offering a sacrifice for his own sins in order to prepare to sacrifice for the entire people. Further the person on whose behalf the sacrifice was being made, or their representative in the case of a sacrifice for all, had to be in physical contact with the animal right before and at the moment of death. Now, who owned Jesus and, if you say God, how do you explain the comment "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" immediately before Jesus's death, when God would have had to be in direct contact with Him under the law?

 

[randyk]

It might well qualify as a conspiracy theory, but you are reading far less than a 1000 words, sort of an abstract rather than a full article. The full argument takes over a hundred 8 1/2x11 pages and quotes many scriptures, refers to much archeological evidence and ignored history as well as comments made in Christian writers up into the 4th century. It explains many problem passages in the NT, shows errors in Christian logic regarding the OT and remains consistent with far fewer assumptions than most theologies make according to those scholars who have seen enough of it. To date, the only scholars who challenge it are ones, who like you, have seen only a very few words about what it says.

One question back at you though, just for fun. The OT laws regarding sacrifices for sin required the person seeking forgiveness for THEIR sins, not the sins of another, to own the animal being sacrificed. This applied even to the high priest offering a sacrifice for his own sins in order to prepare to sacrifice for the entire people. Further the person on whose behalf the sacrifice was being made, or their representative in the case of a sacrifice for all, had to be in physical contact with the animal right before and at the moment of death. Now, who owned Jesus and, if you say God, how do you explain the comment "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" immediately before Jesus's death, when God would have had to be in direct contact with Him under the law?

I don't see the problem. Under the Law, sinners had to make restitution with God on their own behalf. Jesus had no such need. When Jesus quoted the Psalmist, "Why have you forsaken me," I think he was identifying with a Messianic prophecy indicating he would allow God to abandon him to death. Asking "Why" is just recognition that the prophecy calls for something that to man seems irrational, even though it wasn't.

I'm not challenging you on the matter of what Tiberius knew or didn't know. I haven't invested enough time into the subject, as you suggest. As I said, I wish you well on your studies--I just can't say one way or the other. It isn't my focus.

 

[Bible_Locket]

This sounds a little like conpiracy theory but like so many of them it is shrouded in the darkness of ancient history. And I'm not sure we should put a lot of weight on things so difficult to discern. It is perhaps very interesting, digging into some of the details concerned with how much the Roman Government was concerned with Jesus' resurrection? I wish you the best on it.

As for the connection between Gal 3.1 and 1 John 5.8, I don't know any more than I've told you. There was, apparently, a concern with John in writing against Gnostic beliefs, which apparently denied the relevance of a physical body and a physical resurrection. That in itself can be held to without all of the background concerns of the Roman Government.

There was little need to have Tiberius interested. The Roman Government ultimately converted to Christianity.

Providing more physical evidence of the Resurrection will not persuade people regardless. What provides the greatest weight of evidence is in our conscience, which all men have. And that conscience readily recognizes the words and life story of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, if we are so inclined to accept the spirituality that underlies it.

Consider too that everything available in writing for public consumption doesn't necessarily mean that is all that was recorded.

 

[bytheblood]

Just can't stay on topic can you. We were talking about how animals are made. If you have no breath you are dead, be you man or beast.

You have no answer when shown animals are made living souls from the earth. So be it. Stay ignorant.

As for Is.42:5. You must be born again for what purpose? To be alive in this world or to see the Kingdom of God? Notice how there is a separation between God giving breath and God giving spirit. Two different operations for two different reasons. Not all are given a spirit to made alive spiritually, but all are given breath to be made alive physically in this world. Only believers are born from above.

You can keep on ignoring the reason a man is given a spirit but it won't help. And once again he is to be born spiritually, not have a deadened spirit resuscitated.

You obviously have no new arguments, just the same old errors.

Have a nice Day.

" To have soul is to have breath" #2167 So animals have souls also but no spirit, okay right. By scripture, I disagree, they have souls and spirits. Man is born with a spirit, the Holy Spirit draws us spiritually, not through our souls. I don't ignore the reason man has a spirit, man has to have a spirit to live on earth, " For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26 That word spirit isn't capitalized so it's not talking about the Holy Spirit. " Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even UNTO death: tarry ye here, and watch with Me." Matt. 26:38 " And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, He said, Father, into thine hands I commend My SPIRIT: and having said this, He gave up the ghost(spirit)." Luke 23:46. Every mans spirit is the life force of the body, not just those born again. Abraham, Gen.25:8, Ishmael, Gen 25:17 and Isaac, Gen 35:29 all gave up the ghost(spirit) and died. Was Ishmael born again? Tell me Sawdust, when did he get born again? You said only those born again have spirits, P.S. I don't believe Abraham or Isaac were either, yet.

 

[bytheblood]

Your two statements placed side by side imply the second is a result of the first.
1. “… we are born in trespass and sin."
2. "We sin because we are sinners by nature”.

I was conceived in a hotel room and I was born in a hospital. That in no way implies that I have a hotel room and a hospital IN me. And either does it imply, in any way, that I have a hotel room nature or a hospital nature.

We are born IN trespasses and sin, does not imply in any way that we sin because we have a sin nature, or are sinners by nature.

You don't have to teach a child to do wrong.

 

[bytheblood]

She wasn't dead in her sins, I said as much. She was born again, spiritually alive, just like every believer is but that does not mean she was without a sin nature or had not committed any personal sins.

To be "dead in ones sin" means to be spiritually dead, it does not mean to be without sin. We all have sinned because we all are born spiritually dead and with a sin nature in the body.

Any woman could have carried the Saviour. God chose Mary because that was His choice, had nothing to with the type of person Mary was or wasn't, just as His choosing Abraham or David or any of the prophets or even the creation of the nation of Israel itself, had nothing to with people but was solely God's sovereign choice.

What's the difference between being " spiritually dead " and not having a spirit at all, as you profess?

 

[PaulThomson]

You don't have to teach a child to do wrong.

There are some wrongs a child would never think of and do without being taught them. There are some right things a child will do without being taught them. Why do pedophiles need grooming gangs, if children do not need to be taught to do wrong?

You have evaded my actual argument, and have responded with merely a piece of bumper-sticker theological folklore.

 

[Bible_Locket]

What's the difference between being " spiritually dead " and not having a spirit at all, as you profess?

You're alive when spiritually dead.

 

[bytheblood]

There are some wrongs a child would never think of and do without being taught them. There are some right things a child will do without being taught them. Why do pedophiles need grooming gangs, if children do not need to be taught to do wrong?

You have evaded my actual argument, and have responded with merely a piece of bumper-sticker theological folklore.

If you let a child grow up without being taught right from wrong there is no telling what lengths of sin that child would grow to. You have to teach them right, wrong comes, by nature, naturally. We were ALL born with rebellious and sinful natures. " The heart is deceitful above ALL THINGS and DESPERATELY WICKED: who can know it?" Jeremiah17:10. Unchecked, wrong behavior grows worse. No bumper sticker theology folklore here. I have heard that some of the coldest of killers, even Al Capone, who fed 2-3,000 at his soup kitchen daily, have done some things right in their lives. Nobody does 100% right or wrong and ,of course, there are some things a child's mind wouldn't conceive of. As far as the grooming gangs are concerned, those being groomed are innocent and are being taken advantage of, so that wrongdoing is not on them.

 

[bytheblood]

You're alive when spiritually dead.

But do you HAVE a spirit when you're spiritually dead?

 

[Bible_Locket]

But do you HAVE a spirit when you're spiritually dead?

Of course. But it is alienated from God. Hardened and unable to understand the things of God.

 

[PaulThomson]

If you let a child grow up without being taught right from wrong there is no telling what lengths of sin that child would grow to. You have to teach them right, wrong comes, by nature, naturally. We were ALL born with rebellious and sinful natures. " The heart is deceitful above ALL THINGS and DESPERATELY WICKED: who can know it?" Jeremiah17:10. Unchecked, wrong behavior grows worse. No bumper sticker theology folklore here. I have heard that some of the coldest of killers, even Al Capone, who fed 2-3,000 at his soup kitchen daily, have done some things right in their lives. Nobody does 100% right or wrong and ,of course, there are some things a child's mind wouldn't conceive of. As far as the grooming gangs are concerned, those being groomed are innocent and are being taken advantage of, so that wrongdoing is not on them.

Do you have any case studies that show that children cannot do good without being taught to do good?

Humans learn through pattern recognition, and trial and error. Absent of any adult instruction, if doing a good thing achieves discernible benefits, a child will repeat the efficient good behaviour until it proves statistically less beneficial than doing something bad instead. If doing something evil benefits a child, they will repeat the evil strategy to get the same benefit, until it proves non-beneficial. But without instruction, a child does not construe their own behaviour morally. The child’s society overlays a subjective moral framework over a child and defines what society regards as good and bad. But often, what society dedesignates as good is not good from God’s perspective. And what society designates as bad is not bad as far as God is concerned.

I taught my children the golden rule: Do to others what you want others to do to you. When their behaviour was not according to that rule, I pointed it out by asking them to tell me what they just did. And then I would ask, “Would you want someone to do that to you? What did Jesus teach?” In other words, I taught my kids how to discern between good and evil by applying the subjective golden rule. Once they know how to discern between good and evil, they don’t need to be taught a complex set of sub-rules. They can reason their own way to what specific behaviour is appropriate for any particular situation.

But knowing the right thing to do does not empower one to do it in all cases, as Romans 7 explains. The gospel provides the scaffolding we need to follow through on the golden rule in all cases, because it defangs death, as Roman 8 explains.

I don't have any reason to accept your premise that children need to be taught to do good and don’t need to be taught toi do evil. I thing children need to be taught how to discern between good and evil via the golden rule. And they need to be taught how to consistently apply and practise the golden rule by living yoked to Jesus Christ.