Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[JulieB67]

“Behold: My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

I'm just quoting from the KJV. I still think the meaning is clear with or without the word "same". Even stating "is" makes it more clear that he did not put his family over anyone that does the will of the Father. Anyone that does the will of the Father are his brother, sister and mother.

”The "same is" in verse 35 refers to Whosoever. It does not mean they are the same as His Mother. No matter how much you twist the words, it just doesn't add up to what you are trying to demonstrate.

There's no twisting. It's just as I said above. I am quoting from the KJV. The meaning is still clear that Christ did not put his own family over anyone else that does the will of the Father. The context is clear when we take the earlier verses especially. Christ is connecting his true family to the Father in Heaven. Not his earthly family. Although some will eventually become part of his ministry as well.

 

[JoeT]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

Stephen "being full of grace"
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human.

This is not a slam against Mary, or Stephen or Jesus. It is just what the Bible teaches.

Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?

Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.

Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

================================

BTW - It is not very helpful to claim that anyone who differs with this post is attacking Mary, or Jesus or Stephen. That kind of statement proves nothing.

Punishment and guilt are inherited from Adam and Eve's original sin. We also say Christ has a divine nature and a human nature. And we know from Scripture that Christ is like us in every way except sin. We know that His Divine nature is without sin and from Hebrews we know His human nature is without sin. To be like us in every way and not inherit either guilt or punishment of the original sin His Mother must be a human who has never contacted original sin. Consequently as indicated by Gabriel the mother of Christ must be “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace," “kecharitomene” (full of grace). But, not just any ol' grace, the grace but specifically the grace of justification and righteousness. This contradicts your presumption that Mary had "sin nature" which would have included original sin. How do you resolve this conflict?

What is sin nature, anyway? Did your God make you sinful? If He did then how is justice served and punishment warranted for God making you unjust?

JoeT

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 3:32 "And the multitude sat about Him, and they said unto Him, "Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren without seek for Thee."
Mark 3:33 "And He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brethren?"

Mark 3:34 "And He looked round about on them which sat about Him, and said, "Behold My mother and My brethren!" "

Mark 3:35 "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is My brother, and My sister, and mother."

The words "the same is My brother, My sister and mother." means exactly that. He or she, they, these, such as, etc if we want to be specific from the Greek word. But whoever does the will of God are his brother, sister and mother. Meaning there is no difference when it comes to Christ. We are all part of the many membered body. And if Christ isn't raising his mother over anyone else that does the will of God, again we should follow that example.

agreed.

It does not say "They are the same person as my mother" but it says "the same person that does the will of God - IS My sister and mother" - as in -- they hold that special relationship to Me as my family such that telling me that my mother is outside this room waiting on Me - is saying that someone more important to me than these people takes precedence"

The "same is" in verse 35 refers to Whosoever. It does not mean they are the same as His Mother.

It does not mean they are the same person - certainly. But Jesus gives that response to the idea that he needs to stop and go see what His mother wants since presumably she has rank over the people He is speaking to - and Jesus apparently flat out denies that idea.

in fact when someone says "Blessed is your mother" - Jesus responds "On the CONTRARY blessed are those who hear my words and do them".

In some groups the idea of responding to "blessed be Mary.." style statements with something that begins with "on the contrary..." would not be acceptable.

 

[BobRyan]

Punishment and guilt are inherited from Adam and Eve's original sin. We also say Christ has a divine nature and a human nature. And we know from Scripture that Christ is like us in every way except sin. We know that His Divine nature is without sin and from Hebrews we know His human nature is without sin. To be like us in every way and not inherit either guilt or punishment of the original sin His Mother must be a human who has never contacted original sin. Consequently as indicated by Gabriel the mother of Christ must be “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace," “kecharitomene” (full of grace).

That is a lot of inference that is not actually in the text. Hence we don't use it there, and also don't use it in Acts with "Stephen FULL OF GRACE - and - power"

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

 

[JoeT]

That is a lot of inference that is not actually in the text. Hence we don't use it there, and also don't use it in Acts with "Stephen FULL OF GRACE - and - power"

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

Even the phrase, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace," doesn't quite cover all the bases.

The phrase “pleres charitos” was used to describe St. Stephen’s martyrdom in Acts 6:8 and also used to describe the word made flesh, “plenum gratiae et veritatis”. But, none of these fit the tenses, voices, and senses found in kecharitomene. Most highly favored falls short and in some ways, so does “full of grace.” Kecharitomene is a verb describing something that happened to a noun, in the past tense (past perfect participle of charitoo). The 'perfect' action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker and having an effect today which is an accomplished fact in the future. Hence when we could change the translation of the phrase “Hail, Mary full of grace” to "highly favored in the present we would need to add, “Always”. The Salvific grace was given to Mary prior to the annunciation remains at the annunciation and its radiance remains to this very day today.

But, let’s add one more thing, the use of “Hail” as an address was the type of formal language used in the courts of kings and queens. The address to Mary by a member of God's heavenly court was formal by all accounts; the angle was honoring Mary in his speech. Now, you must ask, why an angle from God honor a simple rural present woman, in a day and age when women are not honored among men; women were viewed little more than servants and due no special honor.

kecharitomene can only be ignored in your bible only at the risk of error.

It remains then, “Hail, Mary full of Grace”, while not perfect, still best describes the words spoken by the archangel best. While Mary was born immaculate having know sin from her conception, original or actual sin, Stephen was not immaculate from conception but was 'justified' as a sinner.

JoeT

 

[concretecamper]

in fact when someone says "Blessed is your mother" - Jesus responds "On the CONTRARY blessed are those who hear my words and do them".

Jesus is showing us that His Mother is more Blessed for hearing His words and doing them rather than for the fact she is His Mother.

As usual, twisting something positive about His Mother into something negative.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Punishment and guilt are inherited from Adam and Eve's original sin. We also say Christ has a divine nature and a human nature. And we know from Scripture that Christ is like us in every way except sin. We know that His Divine nature is without sin and from Hebrews we know His human nature is without sin. To be like us in every way and not inherit either guilt or punishment of the original sin His Mother must be a human who has never contacted original sin. Consequently as indicated by Gabriel the mother of Christ must be “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace," “kecharitomene” (full of grace). But, not just any ol' grace, the grace but specifically the grace of justification and righteousness. This contradicts your presumption that Mary had "sin nature" which would have included original sin. How do you resolve this conflict?

What is sin nature, anyway? Did your God make you sinful? If He did then how is justice served and punishment warranted for God making you unjust?

JoeT

If God could create Mary without original sin (since her parents were sinners) then why couldn't he do the same with Jesus? Mary did not need a mother without original sin for her to be born without original sin (according to the RC church), then why did Mary have to be without original sin for Jesus to be born without it? Why could God not do for Jesus what He did for Mary? Jesus being born without original sin did not require Mary to be without original sin any more than Mary being born without original sin did not require her mother to be born without it. You want to put Mary in a special class that Scripture does not put her in and that is not required.

Saying kecharitomene means "completely, perfect, enduringly endowed with grace" is not valid. The word itself and the grammar do not lead to that conclusion. You will find many explanations of that verse and only the RC church gives it that meaning. To add to it the ideal of "completely, perfectly, enduringly" goes beyond the grammar of the text. It simply means Mary has found favor with God and graced to bear His Son. It says nothing about her being sinless. The grace in view is the grace given to her to bear the Son of God. It is not a statement on her personal state of sin. Nowhere else in Scripture is Mary ever referred to as being sinless or born without original sin. None of the NT epistles teach that. How could Peter, who Catholics say was the head of the church, not mention such an important doctrine?

You can read the following if you want:

Response #2
In Greek, any given verb can potentially have hundreds of different forms (depending upon how one counts these). Therefore in any highly inflected language – like Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and virtually all of the ancient languages – trying to carry this concept which rightly belongs to core words over to individual forms is ludicrous. The word charitoo is not a true "hapax" in the Bible because it occurs more than 'once' (which is what hapax means), and because of the wide variety of forms any verb or substantive in Greek can manifest it makes no sense to apply this term to an individual form of a word and call it a "hapax"
...
1) "all possible grace" - there is nothing in the root of the verb to introduce the idea of "all possible", and the perfect tense most assuredly does not lend to the base meaning of a verb the idea of perfection implied in the words "all possible".

2) "past present and future" - the perfect tense doesn't say anything about the future; it expresses a present result based upon past action, that is all; the past action does not have to begin at 'the earliest possible time', just prior to the point in question, and, indeed, there is nothing in the verb form to indicate the time of commencement (just as in English, "I have been studying Greek" could mean a week or a decade – but certainly doesn't necessitate one to understand "from conception");

3) "The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing" – there is quite a difference between "highly favored" and "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." No version, no dictionary, no serious scholar would ever dream of even interpreting kecharitomene in this way, let alone translating it that way. To do so would be to place one's only speculation in place of what the Greek actually says.

Response #5
Paragraph 1: charitoo is not an "intensified form". When a root is turned into a verb using the omicron contract suffix, it makes the root factitive (i.e., to "make/cause" the idea in the root), not "intensive"; e.g., a mastinx in Greek is a "whip"; mastigoo means "to whip". Hence, since charis means "favor", charitoo means "to bestow favor". In the passive voice as we have in Luke 1:28, it means "having been the recipient of favored bestowed"; as this is an infelicitous phrase in English, the various versions both ancient and modern have attempted smooth out the expression in various ways but, sadly, have often contributed to the misunderstanding of the passage. What this participle means is that Mary "has been the recipient of divine favor". Now it is beyond question a wonderful compliment to be addressed as someone characterized by God's grace/favor, but 1) the passive voice and perfect tense make clear that this is a gift coming from God, not some inherent quality for which she is being recognized; and 2) doesn't have anything to do with sin whatsoever, either the presence or the lack of it – that concept is just not present at all as anyone with a dictionary can easily determine.
...
Paragraph 3: ... there are hundreds upon hundreds of perfect tense forms in the NT alone, and none of them does anything similar to what correspondent is claiming for this one. To use correspondent's specious analogy, saying a building "has been built" does not mean that the building is "perfect and free from fault in any way" (the structural equivalent of being immaculate) – not to mention the fact that a building is a unit of which we have a certain expectation of completeness which is not true of most other things so that any idea of completeness comes from your correspondent's clever choice of vocabulary and not from the verb form. If I "have been loved" by someone, for example, that in no way would even suggest to any rational person that I had been the recipient of "perfect love". Likewise, the Greek perfect merely indicates a present state: "You, Mary, who are the current beneficiary of God's grace". This is a wonderful thing, but does not make Mary singularly unique (and certainly not sinlessly perfect).

Paragraph 4:.. There is and remains not the slightest indication from word kecharitomene of any trace of sinlessness, at least not in text of Luke 1:28. That issue is simply not to be found anywhere in the context, the word, the root, the tense, the voice or the form of the verb in question – or anywhere else in the Bible.

Mary 'Full of Grace'?

Mary was an exceptional believer and had found grace in God's eyes; This is the reason for the salutation

ichthys.com

 

[JoeT]

If God could create Mary without original sin (since her parents were sinners) then why couldn't he do the same with Jesus? Mary did not need a mother without original sin for her to be born without original sin (according to the RC church), then why did Mary have to be without original sin for Jesus to be born without it? Why could God not do for Jesus what He did for Mary? Jesus being born without original sin did not require Mary to be without original sin any more than Mary being born without original sin did not require her mother to be born without it. You want to put Mary in a special class that Scripture does not put her in and that is not required.

God would be creating God, an absurdity. And God didn't create Mary any different from anyone else, except that she justified at her conception. Adam and Eve were justified when they were conceived.

Unless Jesus was born of a New Eve then to be human He too would inherit original sin as every man; another absurdity.

Saying kecharitomene means "completely, perfect, enduringly endowed with grace" is not valid. The word itself and the grammar do not lead to that conclusion. You will find many explanations of that verse and only the RC church gives it that meaning. To add to it the ideal of "completely, perfectly, enduringly" goes beyond the grammar of the text. It simply means Mary has found favor with God and graced to bear His Son. It says nothing about her being sinless. The grace in view is the grace given to her to bear the Son of God. It is not a statement on her personal state of sin. Nowhere else in Scripture is Mary ever referred to as being sinless or born without original sin. None of the NT epistles teach that. How could Peter, who Catholics say was the head of the church, not mention such an important doctrine?

Ok, fully favored or full of grace; what difference does that make?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

God would be creating God, an absurdity. And God didn't create Mary any different from anyone else, except that she justified at her conception. Adam and Eve were justified when they were conceived.

We are talking about the birth of Jesus who is fully God and fully man. God did not create God. God was creating the human man Jesus. That was done through Mary. God creating Jesus without original sin would not change anything. I believe the sin nature is passed through the father which is why Jesus was born without original sin despite Mary having original sin. Mary was not the "New Eve." This is a Catholic attempt to make Mary a coredemtrix. Since Jesus is the "second Adam" they are attempting to parallel with Mary being the "New Eve." Scripture explicitly calls Jesus the "second Adam." It makes no statement about Mary being the "New Eve." That is Catholic fiction.

Unless Jesus was born of a New Eve then to be human He too would inherit original sin as every man; another absurdity.

Ok, fully favored or full of grace; what difference does that make?

Being fully favored does not mean being graced to remain sinless. Mary was fully favored to be the mother of Jesus. It makes no statement about her future or her being sinless. There is nothing in the Greek wording or grammar that suggests that. That is a Catholic belief they are trying to force on the text rather than finding it in the text. Isogesis vs exogesis.

 

[JoeT]

We are talking about the birth of Jesus who is fully God and fully man. God did not create God.

So good so far.

God was creating the human man Jesus.

Jesus was a person, with two inseparable natures, not mixed, mingled or confused.

That was done through Mary.

Yes, Jesus took on Mary's flesh.

God creating Jesus without original sin would not change anything.

That would be God creating God.

I believe the sin nature is passed through the father which is why Jesus was born without original sin despite Mary having original sin.

Really! you bought that line?

Sin is a voluntary immoral act either of word, thought or deed. The simple concept acknowledges men can 'work' in concert with God's will for Sanctification. The effect of Adam’s transgression is a deprivation of God’s presence; He removes Himself and His justice. The Thomistic view of this removed justice is called ‘original justice’. Since all life emanates from God the punishment is death, both spiritual and physical. There is no “remaking” of Adam’s nature, nor is there a “remaking” of Adam suggested in Scripture. God does not re-make His creation into sin itself; rather he deprives us of His face; such a God would be a perverse being. In ‘re-making’ our nature into sin would suggest that God punishes mankind for His own act of creation - an absurdity.

The problem with "headship," (more properly described as “Federal Headship), is it makes men the actual thing we call sin, which we aren't. It is built on the concept of “once saved always saved which necessitates the removal of Mary from God's plan for our redemption. With your concept of "headship" Mary can bear a man who is sin yet remain the Personification of the Word. This concept has sin hanging on a cross as the Personification of God's Breath produces reparations for the sins of man is an absurdity. The Theoandros is completely lost. The reformer cannot abide in Mary (a human) becoming an instrument of God’s plan of salvation.

Mary was not the "New Eve." This is a Catholic attempt to make Mary a coredemtrix. Since Jesus is the "second Adam" they are attempting to parallel with Mary being the "New Eve." Scripture explicitly calls Jesus the "second Adam." It makes no statement about Mary being the "New Eve." That is Catholic fiction.

Federal Headship and sin nature implies that God judges us by our father. That is God ‘inputs’ sin the children simply because they are prodigy. If this were the case then we wouldn’t owe our salvation to Jesus Christ but to our fathers. We could wipe out sin through DNA alterations. It also implies that God does not love; instead he creates us evil then allows our fathers to pass on this evil through his flesh. The small problem with this is that we receive our flesh from our mothers and we receive blood through the quickening of life, not from the father who only provides the ‘spark’ of life. Jesus Christ then is left with the unenviable task of simply covering our putrid sins by lottery so that the stench does not offend heaven. Federal Headship means we are condemned by proxy for the sins of our fathers, and by proxy we save our children by being just.

Being fully favored does not mean being graced to remain sinless.

Then you have the perfect Lamb of God is begotten of corruption. That might suit a particular being, but not Catholics.

Mary was fully favored to be the mother of Jesus. It makes no statement about her future or her being sinless. There is nothing in the Greek wording or grammar that suggests that. That is a Catholic belief they are trying to force on the text rather than finding it in the text. Isogesis vs exogesis.

Do words not mean anything in Protestantism? An emissary of God formally hales Mary and tell her is, in your words 'fully favored' holds no special significance to you. The grammar holds, “completely, perfectly, endearingly endowed with grace." But then you need to contend with Mary's words in Luke 1:34.
“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).

Manuel Miguen notices that the expression has obvious Hebrew idiomatic roots. “It is well known that the biblical language a paraphrase to describe a virgin stricto sensu [om the stroct semse] is this: “a woman who did not know man” (Gen 19:8; Jude 11:39, see verse 37; 21:12; basically the same are Num 31:10, 35; Jude 21:11 cfr. Wisdom 3:13) – which, incidentally, shows that the same expression in Luke 1:34 points to virginity proper. These are all passages where the Bible refers to women who “did not know man.” Miguen continues to point out how interesting the present tense is never used with regard to virginity. Miguen further suggests that the Greek translation makes the best of the Aramaic it can by using the Greek aorist tense. [source The virgin birth : an evaluation of scriptural evidence : Miguéns, M. (Manuel) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]

Consequently, we hear Mary say to Gabriel, (in my words), ‘How can this be when I did not know a man, do not now know a man, and will never know man. ‘ Thus, Mary vows virginity in the presence of a Divine Messenger as well as expressing her own astonishment.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

So good so far.

Jesus was a person, with two inseparable natures, not mixed, mingled or confused.

Yes, Jesus took on Mary's flesh.

That would be God creating God.

Really! you bought that line?

Sin is a voluntary immoral act either of word, thought or deed. The simple concept acknowledges men can 'work' in concert with God's will for Sanctification. The effect of Adam’s transgression is a deprivation of God’s presence; He removes Himself and His justice. The Thomistic view of this removed justice is called ‘original justice’. Since all life emanates from God the punishment is death, both spiritual and physical. There is no “remaking” of Adam’s nature, nor is there a “remaking” of Adam suggested in Scripture. God does not re-make His creation into sin itself; rather he deprives us of His face; such a God would be a perverse being. In ‘re-making’ our nature into sin would suggest that God punishes mankind for His own act of creation - an absurdity.

The problem with "headship," (more properly described as “Federal Headship), is it makes men the actual thing we call sin, which we aren't. It is built on the concept of “once saved always saved which necessitates the removal of Mary from God's plan for our redemption. With your concept of "headship" Mary can bear a man who is sin yet remain the Personification of the Word. This concept has sin hanging on a cross as the Personification of God's Breath produces reparations for the sins of man is an absurdity. The Theoandros is completely lost. The reformer cannot abide in Mary (a human) becoming an instrument of God’s plan of salvation.


Federal Headship and sin nature implies that God judges us by our father. That is God ‘inputs’ sin the children simply because they are prodigy. If this were the case then we wouldn’t owe our salvation to Jesus Christ but to our fathers. We could wipe out sin through DNA alterations. It also implies that God does not love; instead he creates us evil then allows our fathers to pass on this evil through his flesh. The small problem with this is that we receive our flesh from our mothers and we receive blood through the quickening of life, not from the father who only provides the ‘spark’ of life. Jesus Christ then is left with the unenviable task of simply covering our putrid sins by lottery so that the stench does not offend heaven. Federal Headship means we are condemned by proxy for the sins of our fathers, and by proxy we save our children by being just.

Then you have the perfect Lamb of God is begotten of corruption. That might suit a particular being, but not Catholics.

Do words not mean anything in Protestantism? An emissary of God formally hales Mary and tell her is, in your words 'fully favored' holds no special significance to you. The grammar holds, “completely, perfectly, endearingly endowed with grace." But then you need to contend with Mary's words in Luke 1:34.
“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).

Manuel Miguen notices that the expression has obvious Hebrew idiomatic roots. “It is well known that the biblical language a paraphrase to describe a virgin stricto sensu [om the stroct semse] is this: “a woman who did not know man” (Gen 19:8; Jude 11:39, see verse 37; 21:12; basically the same are Num 31:10, 35; Jude 21:11 cfr. Wisdom 3:13) – which, incidentally, shows that the same expression in Luke 1:34 points to virginity proper. These are all passages where the Bible refers to women who “did not know man.” Miguen continues to point out how interesting the present tense is never used with regard to virginity. Miguen further suggests that the Greek translation makes the best of the Aramaic it can by using the Greek aorist tense. [source The virgin birth : an evaluation of scriptural evidence : Miguéns, M. (Manuel) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]

Consequently, we hear Mary say to Gabriel, (in my words), ‘How can this be when I did not know a man, do not now know a man, and will never know man. ‘ Thus, Mary vows virginity in the presence of a Divine Messenger as well as expressing her own astonishment.

JoeT

You have mostly repeated things you have said in the past. Jesus being born without original sin is no more "God creating God" than Adam and Eve being created without original sin.

We don't have Mary's words in Aramaic. Luke's gospel was written in Greek therefore the words in Greek are what is inspired. What Luke wrote does not suggest or carry the meaning of a permanent state of virginity. Speculating on the Aramaic words Mary may have used is pointless as the account was given to us in Greek and Luke could have used more words to make clear that Mary was claiming perpetual virginity but did not. Any of the other NT writers could have written of her perpetual virginity but did not. Your whole argument is based on the tense of one word and based on what you speculate was spoken in Aramaic. What Mary said, in the inspired Greek, is "How can this be since I did not know a man?"

Our sin nature is not based on DNA. It is spiritual. DNA manipulations cannot wipe it out. It is not passed to us by DNA. You are confusing what sin is. Having original sin does not make men sin. Sin is a spiritual condition from disobeying God. It is not in our DNA. Once saved always saved does not remove Mary from God's plan of redemption. Her role, however, was bearing the Christ child. Beyond that, she plays no role in our redemption. All your original justice writings are not Biblical. The Bible says nothing about original justice.

I am going to stick to what the inspired text says.

 

[JoeT]

You have mostly repeated things you have said in the past. Jesus being born without original sin is no more "God creating God" than Adam and Eve being created without original sin.

What you seem to miss is that the definition of original sin being the privation of original justice. Adam's creation imparted graces that inexplicably joined the cardinal virtues having rights to honorable prudence, temperance, and fortitude in all moral acts. These gifts were to passed down to his progeny had Adam not sinned; we would have enjoyed the same honors given to Adam.

Because of the fist sin we bear both guilt and punishment as a people because of this original sin. We inherit the punishment and guilt in our birth being the progeny of Adam. Prior to Adam’s rebellion, it could be said Adam 'abided' in God as we are invited to abide in Christ in the Eucharist after Baptism [Cf. John 6:57]. The punishment of original sin is not an imputation, or something that re-creates us into sin, rather a withdrawal of God's graces of original justice that once belonged to the patriarch of all men. Justice then was a grace we would have rightly inherited as his progeny had it not been Adam’s sin. Prior to the fall, Adam stood before God as a just man. The original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and perfectly united with the will of God. The deprivation of justice finds its origin in Adam’s sin through his act of revolutionary disobedience; it is our heritage.

We don't have Mary's words in Aramaic. Luke's gospel was written in Greek therefore the words in Greek are what is inspired. What Luke wrote does not suggest or carry the meaning of a permanent state of virginity. Speculating on the Aramaic words Mary may have used is pointless as the account was given to us in Greek and Luke could have used more words to make clear that Mary was claiming perpetual virginity but did not. Any of the other NT writers could have written of her perpetual virginity but did not. Your whole argument is based on the tense of one word and based on what you speculate was spoken in Aramaic. What Mary said, in the inspired Greek, is "How can this be since I did not know a man?"

Our sin nature is not based on DNA. It is spiritual. DNA manipulations cannot wipe it out. It is not passed to us by DNA. You are confusing what sin is. Having original sin does not make men sin. Sin is a spiritual condition from disobeying God. It is not in our DNA. Once saved always saved does not remove Mary from God's plan of redemption. Her role, however, was bearing the Christ child. Beyond that, she plays no role in our redemption. All your original justice writings are not Biblical. The Bible says nothing about original justice.

I am going to stick to what the inspired text says.

I under stand "sin nature" to be “sin itself dwelling in his flesh” otherwise known as total depravity. Human nature consists of those common and normal physical and spiritual attributes that cause us to be human. If Adam was created totally depraved then our God is an evil creator, and Adam's sin was God's fault; which we deny. Likewise, the depraved sin we commit would be God's fault as sin is a voluntary immoral act of thought, word or deed. Thus, being made depraved then acting in our human nature isn't voluntary assuming you believed there are immoral acts.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

What you seem to miss is that the definition of original sin being the privation of original justice. Adam's creation imparted graces that inexplicably joined the cardinal virtues having rights to honorable prudence, temperance, and fortitude in all moral acts. These gifts were to passed down to his progeny had Adam not sinned; we would have enjoyed the same honors given to Adam.

Because of the fist sin we bear both guilt and punishment as a people because of this original sin. We inherit the punishment and guilt in our birth being the progeny of Adam. Prior to Adam’s rebellion, it could be said Adam 'abided' in God as we are invited to abide in Christ in the Eucharist after Baptism [Cf. John 6:57]. The punishment of original sin is not an imputation, or something that re-creates us into sin, rather a withdrawal of God's graces of original justice that once belonged to the patriarch of all men. Justice then was a grace we would have rightly inherited as his progeny had it not been Adam’s sin. Prior to the fall, Adam stood before God as a just man. The original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and perfectly united with the will of God. The deprivation of justice finds its origin in Adam’s sin through his act of revolutionary disobedience; it is our heritage.


I under stand "sin nature" to be “sin itself dwelling in his flesh” otherwise known as total depravity. Human nature consists of those common and normal physical and spiritual attributes that cause us to be human. If Adam was created totally depraved then our God is an evil creator, and Adam's sin was God's fault; which we deny. Likewise, the depraved sin we commit would be God's fault as sin is a voluntary immoral act of thought, word or deed. Thus, being made depraved then acting in our human nature isn't voluntary assuming you believed there are immoral acts.

JoeT

First, the Bible says nothing of "original justice." Adam and Eve were created with a moral nature not yet tainted by sin. Through their sin, they lost that state of moral pureness. Their minds were darkened and their sin enslaved them affecting every part of their being. Sin affects our bodies, or flesh, in that as a consequence of sin we will physically get ill, have diseases, and ultimately die. When Paul contrasts our flesh with our spirit he is not talking about our literal flesh. He is talking about walking according to our sin nature versus walking according to the grace we now have as those redeemed in Christ. Total depravity simply means sin has affected every part of us. We see the consequences of sin in our bodies as well as in our souls. As a result of sin, our bodies will die and we are spiritually dead. Separated from God.

Through Christ, we are forgiven and our sins are no longer held against us. We will still physically die but we are no longer slaves to sin. Our nature has been restored. God does not force us to sin. We had the ability in our nature as evidenced by Adam and Eve's sin. They choose to sin. God did not force them to sin. Same with us. Their sin caused all of mankind to inherit a nature no longer as free as what Adam and Eve had. God has given us over to our sin. We chose that path.

Sin is not in our flesh. We sin in our flesh as a result of giving in to our sin nature. Adam and Eve had a greater capacity to resist sin than sinful man does yet they still sinned. Through them our moral nature has been further weakened and only through Christ can we regain a true moral nature though still, like Adam and Eve's, capable of sin.

Do we blame God for sin because He gave Adam and Eve a nature that could disobey? Do we blame God because He created the angels with the ability to disobey and rebel? Do we blame God because He allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve? NO! God did not force them to sin! He does not force us to sin.

 

[anetazo]

We're all sinners, in the flesh, we must repent. Mark chapter 3:35. .its those who do will of God. Jesus left His family waiting outside. Jesus pointed to His disciples, these are My mother, sisters and brothers. Luke 9:23. .if any man will take up his cross daily and follow me. How many people Sincerely will committ to following Jesus? How many people will make sacrifice to serve God?. Many people are following ways of the world. Some people going to churches, its lip service. James chapter 1, Be Doers Of The Word.

 

[concretecamper]

We're all sinners, in the flesh, we must repent. Mark chapter 3:35. .its those who do will of God.

Exactly! Jesus exalted Mary because she perfectly did the will of God.

 

[Zachm531]

"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us." - the same could be said of Stephen.

Stephen "being full of grace"
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

And in Stephen's case it is not just "full of grace" but "full of grace AND power"!

And what is true of Christ is that He was incarnated -- not procreated. Which is true of Christ alone - not any other human.

This is not a slam against Mary, or Stephen or Jesus. It is just what the Bible teaches.

Those who suggest that Christ could not be sinless unless His mother was born sinless - somehow grant His mother to be sinless without her mother having to also be sinless. Have they thought that through? Is something missing from their proposal?

Good thing we have Mary calling Christ her Savior. It is sinful humanity that needs a Savior - and praise God we have one.

Christ's response to being confronted with "blessed be Mary" was... "on the contrary"
Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”

================================

BTW - It is not very helpful to claim that anyone who differs with this post is attacking Mary, or Jesus or Stephen. That kind of statement proves nothing.

Picture this:
you get to Heaven and stand before Christ and He says “what do you say of my mother? The woman who gave me my flesh?”

And you say “oh Mary? She was a good woman but she was a wicked dog like all of us, and until you died on the cross(including the time that you were in her womb and the time that she was raising you) she was under the dominion of satan and was a child of wrath”

 

[BobRyan]

Picture this:
you get to Heaven and stand before Christ and He says “what do you say of my mother?

I would say -- "there was a day when someone said to you - blessed be your mother who gave you birth" and I remember what your response to that person was "ON THE CONTRARY - blessed are those who hear the Word of God AND observe it" -- did you mean to add "and blessed be Mary - Mother of God"??

Luke 11:27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

And you say “oh Mary? She was a good woman but she was a wicked dog

Nope. I would say

Rom 3:23 "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Rom 3:9 "there is NONE righteous not even ONE"

I would join with Mary who said - "my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior" Luke 1:47 . -- we are redeemed from the curse of condemnation under the law.

 

[Frank Sophia]

I mean, she was pure enough in devotion to God that she was chosen to provide him physicality...

We spend too much time putting down our Mother but Galatians 4:19-31 tells us about Sarah.

She is our Mother but Mary is the Lords.

 

[BobRyan]

I mean, she was pure enough in devotion to God that she was chosen to provide him physicality...

Jesus' birth was not procreation... it was incarnation.

That gets glossed over a lot.

But I do agree that it was a special honor to be chosen to give birth to the Messiah.

 

[Frank Sophia]

Jesus' birth was not procreation... it was incarnation.

That gets glossed over a lot.

But I do agree that it was a special honor to be chosen to give birth to the Messiah.

She has provided his humanity.