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

[Divide]

wouldn't it be great to have an actual Bible text for something like that?
Think of how much easier it would be to provide evidence for such a suggestion - if the Bible actually said it.
I think you would agree - that getting support for that from the actual Bible would be very useful.

So is God not allowed to interfere at all with man? That's not what the tale of the parting of the red sea demonstrates for us. If God had not stepped in I think that all of them would have been the subjects of genocide. The looted Egypt on their way out! Pharoh wasn't chasing them in a nice way, to cut a deal, lol! He was mad! So rather than them all being killed, God stepped in and made the waters part to give them an avenue of escape. That was a big thing! Right?!

So how big was the thing where...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us? A Saviour will be born! That's an even bigger thing if you ask me.

Can a bad tree bear good fruit? Yes or no.

The adamic nature is the sin nature, right? ok then,

2nd Corinthians 5:21
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.../KJV

When we are born of woman on earth we receive the adamic nature (sin nature) at that time. That would make Mary a bad tree. A bad tree can not bring forth good fruit.

I think if you believe all of the bible then God would have had to do something to purify Mary for...He has not known sin! Jesus did not receive the adamic nature from Mary. Doesn't that make sense to you?

 

[concretecamper]

wouldn't it be great to have an actual Bible text for something like that?

such as which books should be in the Bible?

 

[Samson2021]

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
2Tim 3:16

If someone chooses to omit certain text that is obviously their choice. I find Macabees about as lifeless as a rock and admittedly omit it.
But if you truly do have the Spirit of God residing in you He will use Matthew at times to teach you doctrine.
However, if you will reread the text in Matthew 24 as it relates to the return of the Lord you will find it matches pretty much exactly what
John in the Revelation wrote in Rev 6, Thus to exclude Matthew as Inspired would require you to toss out Revelation as well.
The Bible will always give testimony to itself by other witnesses, thereby establishing its authenticity!

 

[Divide]

Many Catholics say the same thing about Mary's mother and then that same logic by extension goes to Mary's grandmother and then by that same logic Mary's great grandmother - until you get to Eve the mother of us all.

Oh, come on. Is anything too hard for God?

So maybe the purification of the blood line started generations before Mary? As we know, some things are a process and take time. Like Sanctification. Maybe purifying a blood line takes time also.

Why would GOD have to go back all the way to Eve? Just because we do not understand His ways or abilities does not make Him subject to man's fancies, lol. Maybe He is more powerful and more smart than you can comprehend?

It hadda be in His plan to do that with Mary since before the foundation of the world so it sounds like He knew what He was doing.

I noticed that about Catholics. They don't have everything wrong! They are on the right track in some ways.

 

[JulieB67]

n brief, you believe the Gospel of Matthew is inspired because that is what you were taught, and you choose to believe it.

That's not true. I was taught the "pretrib rapture" and I don't believe that doctrine among others as well. God will either open the eyes to something or he won't. It's him. He gives the increase.

I see alot of stuff on the media and I don't simply believe that because it's portrayed as truth either.

The Western Church has had the same canon since the late 4th Century (when the canon was first put together). So I'm not sure what you are trying to advance on your last paragraph.

But it doesn't follow what it's put forth as canon. Example if one even wants to even join the CC one has to go through a process that sometimes can even take years. And according the early church the Lord (not man) added to the church daily. He's the heart knower, not man. One does not have to go through any initiation process. He knows. The CC decides who joins their church. That tells you right there who is the leader of the true church. God, not man is the "only one" that can add to the church.

If you're talking books/canon, it's still up for debate if some books were left out that were inspired or not.

And this is just one example how the CC has branched off and doesn't follow the early churches. There's many more.

We won't agree on this but hopefully some lurkers will take notice.....

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Many Catholics say the same thing about Mary's mother and then that same logic by extension goes to Mary's grandmother and then by that same logic Mary's great grandmother - until you get to Eve the mother of us all.

Oh, come on. Is anything too hard for God?

Well in this case - we pretty much all agree that in fact we are NOT - all born without sin - so it is not true that Eve gave birth to sinless children.

And in fact once you claim that Mary's mother gave birth to a sinless child - you have already shot your own argument in the foot which argues that only by being born sinless could Mary give birth to a sinless child.

It seems like you have ended your own argument there.

Why would GOD have to go back all the way to Eve?

In fact God did not have to go back to Mary either as if Mary needed to be born sinless first - in order for her to give birth to a sinless child.

God did it all right up front - so that the immaculate conception is in fact the conception of Christ by HIS mother. Coming up with arguments about why that can't work so then Mary had to be born sinless sets up a domino chain going all the way back to Eve.

There is no need for it as your own argument shows.

 

[Samson2021]

1 John 2:26
But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth IN YOU, and YE NEED NOT THAT A MAN SHOULD TEACH YOU,
but as the same ANOINTING TEACHETH YOU OF ALL THINGS, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as IT HATH TAUGHT YOU, ye shall abide
in Him.

The Spirit of Truth= the Holy Ghost. either you have it or you don't in which case if you kept to your birth right and have been taught by
the Holy Ghost you know the truth, if not then you fell prey to the sleight of men and their organizational doctrines or are still waiting on it.
"MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN"

Paul makes this case in Gal 1:11-12 "But I certify you, brethren, that the GOSPEL which was preached of me, was NOT AFTER MAN. For I
NEITHER RECEIVED IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST."

Simplified version: NO MAN TAUGHT ME WHAT I SPEAK BUT THE HOLY GHOST TAUGHT IT TO ME ACCORDING TO WHAT THE LORD TOLD HIM TO TEACH ME!
John 16:13

MY SHEEP KNOW MY VOICE. CAN YOU HEAR HIM OR NOT!!! If so then why is there argument? Is there confusion with the Lord? No!!
Then where does the confusion come from? Unregenerate men that know not of what they speak! But regurgitate the lies they have been
taught by men as the truths of God!

 

[Divide]

Well in this case - we pretty much all agree that in fact we are NOT - all born without sin - so it is not true that Eve gave birth to sinless children.

So are you saying that Jesus was born with the sin nature?

That can't be because Jesus is He who knew no sin.

And in fact once you claim that Mary's mother gave birth to a sinless child - you have already shot your own argument in the foot which argues that only by being born sinless could Mary give birth to a sinless child.

Go read my post again, that isn't what I was saying at all.

Mary probably was not born sinless. I didn't say that. I spoke of a purification of her blood line by the almighty God. Then she could give birth to a sinless child.

In fact God did not have to go back to Mary either as if Mary needed to be born sinless first - in order for her to give birth to a sinless child.

I don't know if Mary was born sinless or not. I don't know if God only purified Mary and not her ancestors.

I was going on, if Jesus has never known sin, then He did not get the sin nature at all let alone through Mary. And in other scripture it says that man is born into sin.

Can a bad tree bear good fruit?

Scripture says no.

There is no need for it as your own argument shows.

I think you seriously misunderstood my posts. I think we're dealing with some biblical principles here.
Mankind is born into the sin nature.
The sin nature was not passed on to Jesus

So how could Mary give birth to Jesus as sinless if she had the sin nature? It makes sense to me that it was a purification process done to Mary.

WHat have I said that is wrong? Bring those scriptures too!

 

[Divide]

Can a bad tree bear good fruit?

Please answer this question.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Well in this case - we pretty much all agree that in fact we are NOT - all born without sin - so it is not true that Eve gave birth to sinless children.

So are you saying that Jesus was born with the sin nature?

Jesus was the result of incarnation , not simply procreation. And the Bible does say he was sinless.

By contrast Mary was the result of procreation not incarnation - and she herself calls Jesus "her Savior".

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

 

[concretecamper]

BobRyan said:

Well in this case - we pretty much all agree that in fact we are NOT - all born without sin - so it is not true that Eve gave birth to sinless children.


Jesus was the result of incarnation , not simply procreation. And the Bible does say he was sinless.

By contrast Mary was the result of procreation not incarnation - and she herself calls Jesus "her Savior".

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

Just one of many are of theology of which you come to odd conclusions.

 

[concretecamper]

We won't agree on this but hopefully some lurkers will take notice.....

I hope they do and see how a simple question about scripture was not answered or could not be answered through the lense of SS.

 

[Divide]

BobRyan said:

Well in this case - we pretty much all agree that in fact we are NOT - all born without sin - so it is not true that Eve gave birth to sinless children.


Jesus was the result of incarnation , not simply procreation. And the Bible does say he was sinless.

By contrast Mary was the result of procreation not incarnation - and she herself calls Jesus "her Savior".

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

If what you say is true, then how could sin nature Mary give birth to a child that has no sin nature?

It prolly was an incarnation but what would stop Mary from passing on the sin nature to Jesus? Because that's how it works, we lnow that and agree.

 

[concretecamper]

I'm going to Mass tomorrow since it is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I will pray for everyone on this thread

 

[BobRyan]

Just one of many are of theology of which you come to odd conclusions.

The idea that it is an "odd conclusion" to notice that Mary's birth was procreation and not incarnation -- is not logical IMHO
The suggestion that we ignore the distinction between the result of incarnation and the result of procreation -- is not logical IMHO
The suggestion that we ignore the Bible teaching in Rom 3 that all have sinned -- as long as we admit the the procreation process results in a sinless birth in the case of Christ -- -- is not logical IMHO

It appears I am merely stating the obvious.

 

[JulieB67]

hope they do and see how a simple question about scripture

Here's another simple scripture that perfectly states she was just a woman like everyone else. This was a perfect time for Paul to raise Mary up and he doesn't.

Galatians 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

He calls her "a woman" not Blessed Mary, queen of Heaven, etc.

Would you call Mary "a woman" made under the law? Probably not. But Paul did.

 

[concretecamper]

Here's another simple scripture that perfectly states she was just a woman like everyone else. This was a perfect time for Paul to raise Mary up and he doesn't.

Galatians 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

He calls her "a woman" not Blessed Mary, queen of Heaven, etc.

Would you call Mary "a woman" made under the law? Probably not. But Paul did.

"Made under the law" refers to Jesus.

He calls her "a woman" not Blessed Mary, queen of Heaven, etc.

and you will notice, that at Cana, Jesus refers to her as Woman. At the moment Jesus begins His ministry (at the request of His Mother), she is Woman, the new Eve.

 

[Divide]

The idea that it is an "odd conclusion" to notice that Mary's birth was procreation and not incarnation -- is not logical IMHO
The suggestion that we ignore the distinction between the result of incarnation and the result of procreation -- is not logical IMHO
The suggestion that we ignore the Bible teaching in Rom 3 that all have sinned -- as long as we admit the the procreation process results in a sinless birth in the case of Christ -- -- is not logical IMHO

It appears I am merely stating the obvious.

So are you saying that Mary was not immaculate when she conceived Jesus? Then how could Jesus be holy and without sin?

 

[BBAS 64]

So are you saying that Mary was not immaculate when she conceived Jesus? Then how could Jesus be holy and without sin?

Good Day,

I think that was answered long ago...

Ambrose
"He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized, so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David: 'For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.'" (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)

 

[JulieB67]

Made under the law" refers to Jesus.

Both were made under the law.

and you will notice, that at Cana, Jesus refers to her as Woman. At the moment Jesus begins His ministry (at the request of His Mother), she is Woman, the new Eve.

John 2:4 "Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come."

He was starting a sentence, plus not raising her up at all, quite the opposite. Christ never raised her up over anyone else that was a believer.