Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Mary Was Sinless -- Part VIII

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 1, 2012 10:49:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 6:26:41 PM PST
Kevin Bold says:
In our last episode, I gave some of the arguments against Mary's sinlessness:

1) Romans 3:23 -- doesn't apply to Mary

2) Infinite Regress of Sinless Grannies -- patently silly.

3) "It's not in the Bible" -- doesn't have to be, although God's holiness, sinners' inability to withstand God's glory, and OT Marian typology, all of which are in Scripture, point to it.

4) "Only Catholics believe it." -- That's an argument?

5) "Catholics didn't believe it until 1854." -- History proves otherwise.

Then I found some more:

6) Luke 1:47 -- God saved Mary from sin by keeping sin from entering her when she was conceived. Mary then continued, eventually saying, "(F)or he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name" (Luke 1:49).

7) Luke 2:22-24: Mary and Joseph offered two turtledoves because a woman who'd had a baby was RITUALLY UNCLEAN. Having a baby is NOT a sin (aborting one is).

8) The Church Fathers weren't in unanimity on the matter, or didn't think so: Oh, puh-LEEZ give me a break!

Did I leave anything out this time?

ADDENDA: Yes, someone came up with something not included above:

"(I)f you knew how a female body nourishes a baby, you'd know that no blood is mingled."

Sin enters the child at the moment of conception (Ps 51:5), inside the mother's womb. "No intermingling of blood" doesn't matter. God wouldn't want to be inside a sinner anymore than the _shekinah_ would remain inside a defiled temple (as if a placenta would stop sin, anyway).

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 11:04:08 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
This is the authentic "Mary was Sinless -- Part VIII"

Beware of cheap imitations... ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 11:58:01 AM PST
Lily says:
I was wondering how long it was going to take for VIII to come up. :D Glad to see it. Now I have to go look at the last one in case I have unanswered posts.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 12:05:45 PM PST
Lily says:
From Part VII

J Hampton says:
"I do believe most of the RCC teachings are outright lies, and therefore demonic.
I do believe the RCC left the truth of God long ago.
I do not believe someone has to leave the RCC to be saved."

Then why do you keep trying to get Raul to leave?

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 12:07:24 PM PST
Lily says:
From VII

J Hampton says,
"If you were being able to be honest you would admit it also."

Admit what? I've already forgotten what we were talking about.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 12:13:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2012 12:18:32 PM PST
Lily says:
Bruce E Wade says,
"Lily,

I asked you for proof from God that He "felt" it was "important" Mary be of an "Immaculate Conception."

You gave me human rationalization.

May I take it there is no proof?"

*Sigh* If God's being repulsed by sin isn't proof, if the Bible saying that no sin shall enter His Kingdom isn't proof, if the Bible saying that God and sin cannot dwell together isn't proof, then yes, Bruce, you may take it as me not having any proof.

Now, show me and everyone else where it SPECIFICALLY says, "Mary was a sinner just like everyone else."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 12:54:43 PM PST
Kevin Bold says:
Knowing Bruce, you probably showed him something solid, but he dismissed it anyway because it didn't fit his "template."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 1:02:34 PM PST
Lily says:
Obviously, using Biblical reasoning doesn't work with Bruce. So in his eyes, I have no proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 1:07:06 PM PST
Kevin Bold says:
Bruce will, if he thinks necessary, prefer commentaries to Scripture.

Remember his "Paul called Peter on the carpet at Jerusalem" nonsense?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 1:11:47 PM PST
Lily says:
Yep, I remember. I got a headache from it.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 3:20:38 PM PST
Thank you Kitties for sending me here. How did we end up with two?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 3:39:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2012 3:48:12 PM PST
Kevin Bold says:
I didn't know Jim created his version until after I started this thread.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 4:17:12 PM PST
Kevin Bold says:
J Hampton says: There is nothing authenic in posting that Mary was sinless.

Do you know what "authentic" means, Jim?

Mary's sinlessness is in the NT the same way the Trinity is: not explicit, but hinted at.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:12:10 PM PST
1. Yet it applied to EVERY other person to ever lived, who was not God in the Flesh.
2. "patently silly". Yet it applies to EVERY other person to ever lived.
3. Yet everything else about Christ Jesus says is needed for salvation is in there.
4. Everyone else knows it is a demonic lie.
5. Mary was never taught to be, never was claimed to be, or was believed to be sinless by the first church.
6. Luke 1 proves nothing about sinlessness. Nothing.
7. Mary's sacrifice is for blood, not birth. And, ....if you want to claim Mary in Rev. 12 as the woman, she is in birth pains, the judgment on sinners.
8. The Fathers, who you put so much stock in, don't agree. You can "puh-leez" all you want.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:13:24 PM PST
"Did I leave anything out this time?"
Yeah ya did. This is why no one believes it, your crazy answers that hold no truth and are laughable.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 5:15:18 PM PST
jpl says:
Mary Was Sinless -- Part VIII

jpl: When?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:16:10 PM PST
Nothing about the Trinity is "hinted at" in the NT. It is clearly there.

Nothing about Mary is even remotely "hinted at".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:19:52 PM PST
Yeah, authenic means real, not fake.
There is nothing real about Mary being sinless.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:37:29 PM PST
Saint Karen says:
1. Where does God tell you this
2. What is silly is that Mary would have to be immaculately conceived
3. Everything needed is in Scripture. You don't know whether Mary was immaculately conceived or not, since it ISN'T in Scripture.
4. It is when they claim to be true what they have no proof of.
6. He had done great things for her, like selecting her "among women," to be the mother and to raise His Son.
7. A sin offering

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 5:41:39 PM PST
Saint Karen says:
In reply to your post on Dec 1, 2012 5:27:54 AM PST
Owned by Kitties is Keepin' The Faith Alive says:
You are free to believe as you wish. That doesn't make what you think true. Many protestants know that the Catholic Church was the first Christian church and that we are not a denomination. You, a non committal protestant choose to believe we are.

Which Protestants claim that the catholic church is not a denomination? Why is it so offensive to you to be a denomination of Christ's church, which the catholic church is? Why do you insist on claiming that I am something I am not? What the heck is a "non committal protestant?"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 9:57:40 PM PST
Dr. Bold,

RE: "Remember his 'Paul called Peter on the carpet at Jerusalem' nonsense?"

I realize proper exegesis of Scripture is so often damaging to your notion that Peter was "infallible," but you do remember that I ponted you to dozens of sources which support this as the proper interpretation?

And just so you can understand, all cometaries are only interpretations of Scripture. You can not "prefer" a commentary to Scripture. Suggesting such is only one more of your patented absurdities...

Grace and Peace, Brother,

S.D.G.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 10:01:17 PM PST
Lily,

RE: "Yep, I remember. I got a headache from it."

I apologize for the unfortunate fact that virtually all modern Biblical experts interpret Acts 15 is a way which dismisses the notion that Simon bar-Jonah was "infallible." I do realize this is a "tough pill to swallow"...

Grace and Peace, Sister,

S.D.G.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 10:06:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 3:31:54 AM PST
Lily,

RE: "Obviously, using Biblical reasoning doesn't work with Bruce. So in his eyes, I have no proof."

You did not use "Biblical reasoning." Which is exactly the point.

You strung together a few "premises" you stated were in Scripture, but provided no citations. Then, absent any direct proof, you used human reasoning to draw a conclusion which places severe limitations on what God can and can not do.

I reject the notion that your rationalization implies, that God has limitations and things He cannot do.

Simple as that...

Grace and Peace,

S.D.G.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 2:56:43 AM PST
Lily says:
I prefer this one.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 3:00:29 AM PST
Lily says:
J Hampton says,
"Yeah ya did. This is why no one believes it, your crazy answers that hold no truth and are laughable."

You mean "This is why no PROTESTANT believes it..."
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  48
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Dec 1, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 8, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions