Why Did Jesus Have To Be Born Of A Virgin ?

Oh brother, I don't "imply" anything, it's too much like lying. I say what I mean and mean what I say, I may not just articulate it enough. Obviously Mary and Jesus were connected because her body fed Him. Jesus was 100% man and, pay super duper uber close attention here: He was 100% God, but He left that part at "home". He lived 100% as an obedient man so we could literally follow in His steps. He didn't know things. He needed things. He obeyed those in authority over Him. All these things are signs of His humanity, not His Lordship. He was only given ALL after He rose from the dead because of His obedience.

See the problem people have living the real life of Christ (and I'm speaking of myself) is that we think Jesus did all He did because He was God, not as an obedient man. He did all He did by the power of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father, not Jesus' will, not Jesus' power. This is why the Holy Spirit was sent to Him, poured out on Him, guided Him, ministered to Him, told Him things He didn't know. The Spirit allowed Him to see, hear and feel the Father's will and be obedient. When Jesus was raised from the dead, He breathed on His followers under the authority of His mission - having succeeded - and then He left them with a command to wait in Jerusalem. When He was glorified He sent the Holy Spirit to them 10 days later, and when we believe, to us all also, and then we have our own mission and authority and power. Everything on earth that comes from heaven comes via the Holy Spirit. He is the conduit between the spiritual and the physical. And when we too are obedient to the Spirit as Jesus was, we learn more and are trusted with more and more and more.

People lift Jesus up to a level where they theologize away the very promises of God to us as unattainable because it was for Jesus alone as God instead of for us to follow the man Jesus, and that's wrong. This is why the church is so weak and has so little faith. Too many hold the historical Jesus as God when He was actually a man! He had ALL authority as God on earth, He chose to set it aside so He could become our great Intercessor, our High Priest.



Brother Abdicate,
Very, Very Well said once again.
People seem to work hard to not except Jesus for who He was and How He was and the big one.......WHY HE OPERATED in the way he did.

Jesus was our example of how each and every one of us should be living each and every day of our lives. Every miracle that Jesus did He did through Faith in God. Everything He taught us was an example of not only how we are to operate here in this earth but how He operated as well. He was obedient unto the Father and His word. Catch this if you can....How many times did He say in one way or anther.....I only say what my Father says and I only do what my Father does ?

Jesus was telling us over and over if we do what His Father, our Father our God has written in His word we would be victorious in this world. Jesus taught us not only how to talk but how not to talk. Jesus taught us how to beleive in such a way we would see results. He told us the works He has done we can or SHOULD be doing and even greater then those He did.

Jesus lived here in this earth exactly how we should be living. It was His total Faith and trust and Love in the Father that ENABLED Him to do what he did.......
Blessings
Jim
 
These are MY thoughts as I discerned from the scriptures. Eve ate and nothing happened, Adam ate and they fell. If you read the narrative, you’ll see that Adam was with Eve when she ate. It was like seeing if something would happen, and since nothing did when Eve ate, she convinced him to eat. This is why Adam said the “woman deceived me”. The genetic code for sin is passed down via the father in the code part governing the blood, since Adam was head of all. The genetic code in the fruit changed Adam and Eve. I actually believe that their spirit housed their bodies, but after they fell, their bodies housed their spirit. This is why they were “found” naked. They were before the fall, literally images of light, after the fall, they were as we are now.

The scriptures state that the life is in the blood. Science has proven that the mother's blood is not shared or passed to the fetus at all. This is how sinful Mary could have a sinless Child. It is the ultimate example of the spiritual affecting the physical; proof of God’s promises, and the sole advantage Jesus had over us in this life. But by it, He paved the way and freed us all from sin. Just my two cents.


Well Brother your Two Cents is worth MUCH..........
Correctly stated The Baby gets NO BLOOD from the mother. The mother feeds the baby proteins and such but in no way has any given result in the blood of the child.
Now then the father of the child through his deposit has a huge factor in the babies blood type. So it is His blood that is in the child........This is why Joseph had NOTHING to do with Mary being with child. Jesus BLOOD HAD TO BE PURE AND WITH OUT SIN.

Now Jesus had to be a man in order to do what His mission entitled. Going to the cross for man. The Holy Ghost or Spirit could not go to the Cross for several HUGE FACTORS.
One the Holy Ghost could NOT EVER Take on Sin nor could the Holy Ghost die either.
So God made Mary with child ( Jesus ) with NO HELP FROM A HUMAN MAN. Once again this proves that God does not need man BUT RATHER HE LOVES MAN ! This way Jesus could be born with PURE UN SIN TAINTED BLOOD that every human being ever born after the fall of man is born with. ( SIN TAINTED BLOOD )

Now this one really angers the religious folk..rofl.....
Jesus did not get the spirit of God in Him until He was baptised by John. Just like you or me we must be born of flesh and spirit. When we get born again and God places His spirit in us....well it is the same spirit and the same way for us as it was for Jesus. The one thing Jesus had going for Him that we don't.....( this is me here....not written in stone )) Jesus did not have all these different doctrines and denominations twisting the written word of God and preaching religion into His mind.......Then again you have to admit there is some truth to in this at that.... :)

All this was done so Jesus could take upon Him self all our past and present and future sins upon Him self and give us His righteousness. Him with our sin and us with His righteousness.
Good Day for man don't ya think !!

Now being the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of God could NOT go into hell in mans place there had to be something else to this son of man/ son of God. (Note if God's spirit would have showed up at hells door step, the demons and principalities and satan him self would have left town in a hurrrrry !!

So Jesus being a man just like us and born of flesh and the spirit could face that all unwanted most devastating death ever...The Second Death the word of God speaks of. This is when man is separated from God for eternity. Just mans spirit and his soul is left and that is what departs into hell for eternity....

Now This is where Gods awesome sneak attack plan gets good !! You like High End action movies ?? Well God pulled off the most awesome sneak attack ever to be done. Now in this plan of His He knew His spirit could not go into hell with out alarming hell of His arrival.
So Jesus had to believe His Father more then any of us will ever have to, for Jesus had to be willing to be separated from thee Father in order to pull off this great and wonderful plan of God. So as we know even the great centurion saw this begin to unfold.. This centurion had seen so many men be crucified and he NEVER EVER SAW anything like he saw that day.

It is written that Jesus did not even resemble a human man at this point. He was so twisted and deformed NOT from being separated from God BUT BECAUSE OF ALL THE SIN Jesus had taken upon Himself. Now you got to remember NO man will ever be able to have that much sin on him. He cant. It is impossible for any man to sin that much in one life time little know if he had a thousands life times.

Now picture this......there he laid, all twisted and deformed in a corner in the deepest part of hell. Jesus did not just slip into hell, understand but He ended up in the bowels of hell. Now watch this.........This is how Gods most awesome plan of a sneak attack works.....It is written that all the principalities, evil spirits and demons and satan him self were there hunched over Jesus in full belief that they had won and were inflicting some serious pain on Jesus.

Now comes time to employ the finish......Picture it as this........God speaking ENOUGH......
and all of a sudden this lifeless twisted deformed thing of a man begins to move and straighten up. Life begins to flow through the Spirit filled Holy Veins of Jesus. His eyes are like fire as this new man and new creature a Born Again Man with the GLORY OF GOD manifested back into the Son of Man / Thee Son Of God.

Brother Jesus began some Holy Ghost butt kicking and He took the keys of death back and he defeated every single evil being there and then the word tells us that He paraded them through the streets of hell as a cloud of witnesses watched which were the saints and prophets of old. Then Jesus ushered them all into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So this is why Jesus had to be born through a virgin birth...
I know it is a little long for a reply but it all just seems to fit together and I held back and my back space got a lot of use.
Blessings and remember ... 1John 4:17
....Because as He is,....so are we in this world.
Jim
 
Last edited:
Brother Abdicate,
Very, Very Well said once again.
People seem to work hard to not except Jesus for who He was and How He was and the big one.......WHY HE OPERATED in the way he did.

Jesus was our example of how each and every one of us should be living each and every day of our lives. Every miracle that Jesus did He did through Faith in God. Everything He taught us was an example of not only how we are to operate here in this earth but how He operated as well. He was obedient unto the Father and His word. Catch this if you can....How many times did He say in one way or anther.....I only say what my Father says and I only do what my Father does ?

Jesus was telling us over and over if we do what His Father, our Father our God has written in His word we would be victorious in this world. Jesus taught us not only how to talk but how not to talk. Jesus taught us how to beleive in such a way we would see results. He told us the works He has done we can or SHOULD be doing and even greater then those He did.

Jesus lived here in this earth exactly how we should be living. It was His total Faith and trust and Love in the Father that ENABLED Him to do what he did.......
Blessings
Jim
Thanks again and AMEN and Glory to God!!!
 
Well Brother your Two Cents is worth MUCH..........
Correctly stated The Baby gets NO BLOOD from the mother. The mother feeds the baby proteins and such but in no way has any given result in the blood of the child.
Now then the father of the child through his deposit has a huge factor in the babies blood type. So it is His blood that is in the child........This is why Joseph had NOTHING to do with Mary being with child. Jesus BLOOD HAD TO BE PURE AND WITH OUT SIN.

Now Jesus had to be a man in order to do what His mission entitled. Going to the cross for man. The Holy Ghost or Spirit could not go to the Cross for several HUGE FACTORS.
One the Holy Ghost could NOT EVER Take on Sin nor could the Holy Ghost die either.
So God made Mary with child ( Jesus ) with NO HELP FROM A HUMAN MAN. Once again this proves that God does not need man BUT RATHER HE LOVES MAN ! This way Jesus could be born with PURE UN SIN TAINTED BLOOD that every human being ever born after the fall of man is born with. ( SIN TAINTED BLOOD )

Now this one really angers the religious folk..rofl.....
Jesus did not get the spirit of God in Him until He was baptised by John. Just like you or me we must be born of flesh and spirit. When we get born again and God places His spirit in us....well it is the same spirit and the same way for us as it was for Jesus. The one thing Jesus had going for Him that we don't.....( this is me here....not written in stone )) Jesus did not have all these different doctrines and denominations twisting the written word of God and preaching religion into His mind.......Then again you have to admit there is some truth to in this at that.... :)

All this was done so Jesus could take upon Him self all our past and present and future sins upon Him self and give us His righteousness. Him with our sin and us with His righteousness.
Good Day for man don't ya think !!

Now being the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of God could NOT go into hell in mans place there had to be something else to this son of man/ son of God. (Note if God's spirit would have showed up at hells door step, the demons and principalities and satan him self would have left town in a hurrrrry !!

So Jesus being a man just like us and born of flesh and the spirit could face that all unwanted most devastating death ever...The Second Death the word of God speaks of. This is when man is separated from God for eternity. Just mans spirit and his soul is left and that is what departs into hell for eternity....

Now This is where Gods awesome sneak attack plan gets good !! You like High End action movies ?? Well God pulled off the most awesome sneak attack ever to be done. Now in this plan of His He knew His spirit could not go into hell with out alarming hell of His arrival.
So Jesus had to believe His Father more then any of us will ever have to, for Jesus had to be willing to be separated from thee Father in order to pull off this great and wonderful plan of God. So as we know even the great centurion saw this begin to unfold.. This centurion had seen so many men be crucified and he NEVER EVER SAW anything like he saw that day.

It is written that Jesus did not even resemble a human man at this point. He was so twisted and deformed NOT from being separated from God BUT BECAUSE OF ALL THE SIN Jesus had taken upon Himself. Now you got to remember NO man will ever be able to have that much sin on him. He cant. It is impossible for any man to sin that much in one life time little know if he had a thousands life times.

Now picture this......there he laid, all twisted and deformed in a corner in the deepest part of hell. Jesus did not just slip into hell, understand but He ended up in the bowels of hell. Now watch this.........This is how Gods most awesome plan of a sneak attack works.....It is written that all the principalities, evil spirits and demons and satan him self were there hunched over Jesus in full belief that they had won and were inflicting some serious pain on Jesus.

Now comes time to employ the finish......Picture it as this........God speaking ENOUGH......
and all of a sudden this lifeless twisted deformed thing of a man begins to move and straighten up. Life begins to flow through the Spirit filled Holy Veins of Jesus. His eyes are like fire as this new man and new creature a Born Again Man with the GLORY OF GOD manifested back into the Son of Man / Thee Son Of God.

Brother Jesus began some Holy Ghost butt kicking and He took the keys of death back and he defeated every single evil being there and then the word tells us that He paraded them through the streets of hell as a cloud of witnesses watched which were the saints and prophets of old. Then Jesus ushered them all into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So this is why Jesus had to be born through a virgin birth...
I know it is a little long for a reply but it all just seems to fit together and I held back and my back space got a lot of use.
Blessings and remember ... 1John 4:17
....Because as He is,....so are we in this world.
Jim
Amen!!! And because He didn't get His blood from humans, he didn't have the genetic code of sin, nor all the experiences of what-would-have-been His earthly father. Our experiences are passed down to our children. If we have unresolved sin in us, some weakness towards a specific sin, that weakness is genetically passed down. This is why salvation is so important. It frees us from the bondage of sin. Thanks brother!! You're very blessed!
 
Amen!!! And because He didn't get His blood from humans, he didn't have the genetic code of sin, nor all the experiences of what-would-have-been His earthly father. Our experiences are passed down to our children. If we have unresolved sin in us, some weakness towards a specific sin, that weakness is genetically passed down. This is why salvation is so important. It frees us from the bondage of sin. Thanks brother!! You're very blessed!


Brother I guess that is why He is thy Great REDEEMER !! There is nothing to big for Him to set us free from or to destroy and to remember NO MORE.

Once more of the body of Christ actually grasp that what the second adam ( Jesus ) did for us is so much bigger then what the first adam released into man.....Well they might begin to act like ( Righteousness of God through Christ Jesus ) and walk in this earth with the authority and power that has been given unto us.
1John 4:17 ...last half....But as He is ( Jesus ) so are we IN THIS EARTH...Seems to many of the body of Christ see Jesus as defeated and pour and sickly.....Uggg :cry:

OBTW it is not me but God in me or what He is teaching me.
I learned something.....all through out the written word of God there is talk about
stirring your self up in God and getting a true hunger for Him and His ways.

What He has shown me through others and His word is this....make the choice to want this hunger for Him, it does not matter if you do not feel it or see it just make the choice for this hunger and give it to Him...........He will FEED YOU MORE THEN YOU COULD EVEN DREAM UP. .....Thats me Brother.......I am starven for Him and His ways.........How about YOU ?
Thank You again Brother,
Blessings and Love In Christ
Jim
 
Oh brother, I don't "imply" anything, it's too much like lying. I say what I mean and mean what I say, I may not just articulate it enough. Obviously Mary and Jesus were connected because her body fed Him. Jesus was 100% man and, pay super duper uber close attention here: He was 100% God, but He left that part at "home". He lived 100% as an obedient man so we could literally follow in His steps. He didn't know things. He needed things. He obeyed those in authority over Him. All these things are signs of His humanity, not His Lordship. He was only given ALL after He rose from the dead because of His obedience.

See the problem people have living the real life of Christ (and I'm speaking of myself) is that we think Jesus did all He did because He was God, not as an obedient man. He did all He did by the power of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father, not Jesus' will, not Jesus' power. This is why the Holy Spirit was sent to Him, poured out on Him, guided Him, ministered to Him, told Him things He didn't know. The Spirit allowed Him to see, hear and feel the Father's will and be obedient. When Jesus was raised from the dead, He breathed on His followers under the authority of His mission - having succeeded - and then He left them with a command to wait in Jerusalem. When He was glorified He sent the Holy Spirit to them 10 days later, and when we believe, to us all also, and then we have our own mission and authority and power. Everything on earth that comes from heaven comes via the Holy Spirit. He is the conduit between the spiritual and the physical. And when we too are obedient to the Spirit as Jesus was, we learn more and are trusted with more and more and more.

People lift Jesus up to a level where they theologize away the very promises of God to us as unattainable because it was for Jesus alone as God instead of for us to follow the man Jesus, and that's wrong. This is why the church is so weak and has so little faith. Too many hold the historical Jesus as God when He was actually a man! He had ALL authority as God on earth, He chose to set it aside so He could become our great Intercessor, our High Priest.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was supporting your comment 100% my brother. I know you said what you meant to say and I was not inferring that you didn't. I was agreeing with you and offering support. I am sorry you did not understand it as that.
 
When a person becomes "born again" is that not the same thing as receiving the Word of God into our hearts, and then Holy Spirit coming upon us to give that birth? We to are born of the Word of God. We to are born of the Holy Spirit, and that Holy thing in us is the Son of God, and yet we are sinners!

Agreed! And at the same time we are baptized with the WATER which is IMO THE WORD OF GOD!
 
Sorry brother. We'll differ on this point. Mary was indeed full of grace, just as we are. Grace is unmerited favor and doesn't mean she was sinless. She was born in sin and she needed a savior too. We're talking the physical genetic passing. She had her father's genes and her mothers all the way back to Adam and Eve as spelled out in the Gospels. God bless.

Agreed!
 
Brother, every thing we talk about on this forum has already been talked about before, no matter what the topic. Is this one of the banned topics that we are not allowed to talk about? After all you are the one that brought it up.

Yep! Not only that, it is one of those topics that is easily proven by the Scriptures, and there in lies the concern IMO.
 
Brother, every thing we talk about on this forum has already been talked about before, no matter what the topic. Is this one of the banned topics that we are not allowed to talk about? After all you are the one that brought it up.

I didn't bring it up as a point of debate, I brought it up because the purpose of the thread was to share our beliefs. I'm not suggesting a ban, but I didn't have a knee-jerk reaction when someone said "Mary is sinful." I already knew going in that this was a belief that people held.

I'm curious as to what will be different this time around in discussing this from the last three times we've discussed it.
 
Yep! Not only that, it is one of those topics that is easily proven by the Scriptures, and there in lies the concern IMO.

The gate really does swing both ways here, Major. One argues opposite that Scripture easily proves the other way.

But really, we've done this before.
 
Before we continue, while I understand that people are going to believe as they wish, and it is their right -- whether it is theirs to go right or wrong.

I don't say this as a way to shut anyone up, but if my demeanor comes off a little more aggressive, it could be. To say to a Protestant that Mary was no holier than any one of us and simply a vessel, that would seem perfectly reasonable. To a Catholic like myself, depending on how it is said, it can be a great insult, like insulting someone's mother. In fact, that's precisely what it is, even if it is unintended.

So far, I see no reason for any kind of ban or official warning, but perhaps it is necessary to mention this in case this was never understood.
 
Before we continue, while I understand that people are going to believe as they wish, and it is their right -- whether it is theirs to go right or wrong.

I don't say this as a way to shut anyone up, but if my demeanor comes off a little more aggressive, it could be. To say to a Protestant that Mary was no holier than any one of us and simply a vessel, that would seem perfectly reasonable. To a Catholic like myself, depending on how it is said, it can be a great insult, like insulting someone's mother. In fact, that's precisely what it is, even if it is unintended.

So far, I see no reason for any kind of ban or official warning, but perhaps it is necessary to mention this in case this was never understood.
Brother if you don't believe what scripture clearly teaches than how about what other"Popes" have said since they are suppose to be the "spokes person for God on earth.

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.

The fact this doctrine is fairly new not an apostolic tradition. It was in 1547, at the council of Trent that the Catholic Church announced the sinlessness of Mary enabling her to avoid venial sins. In 1620 Pope Paul the 5thforbade anything contrary to the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception to be said publicly under threat of excommunication.

There has been "seven" Popes who have said Mary was not sinless.
 
Brother if you don't believe what scripture clearly teaches than how about what other"Popes" have said since they are suppose to be the "spokes person for God on earth.

I apologize, but if you don't accept what Scripture clearly teaches us and what sacred tradition has said in complimentary to it, then either you are cherry picking without researching the full encyclicals (whether in or out of original Latin), or you are doing simple searches online and finding quotes, again without doing the research. I don't say that facetiously, but that is my sincere response to your sincere point.

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).

I'm not sure if you had a chance to read all of Nativ. Dom., but Pope Leo 1 made it clear that he was addressing the sons and not the daughters of Zion.

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.

Do you have the full version of this one? This one I have never seen before. I'd love to read it all in context -- ideally both the Latin and English translations. How can I address it as valid if I don't even know it is valid?

The fact this doctrine is fairly new not an apostolic tradition. It was in 1547, at the council of Trent that the Catholic Church announced the sinlessness of Mary enabling her to avoid venial sins. In 1620 Pope Paul the 5thforbade anything contrary to the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception to be said publicly under threat of excommunication.

There has been "seven" Popes who have said Mary was not sinless.

No, CCW. It was much LATER that the Church announced the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be dogmatic. I wasn't until Pope Pius X. That's how much later it was. However, prior to this official announcement, it had ALWAYS been understood doctrinally (not dogmatically) of Mary's sinnlessness. The first council that addressed it was in the 5th century at the Council of Ephesus.

You said "seven" popes (not sure why seven was in quotations) taught Mary's not being without sin. Personally, I though it was about ten actually who expressed this consideration. However, not one of them taught this as official dogma or even doctrine. It wasn't presented so until so much later. It was only brought to discussion, which is precisely why it was brought up at multiple councils, not just one, to get to the bottom of it. But it was widely understood by the majority of clergy, laity, and of course popes, that Mary was without sin.

Before that, Augustine wrote in the 4th century: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful...We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."

In the 200s, Hippolytus wrote about Mary in Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me: "He (Jesus) was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."

Justin Martyr in 155 AD wrote in Dialogue with Trypho: "[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word (Luke 1:38)"

Origen in 244 AD wrote in his homily: "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one"

Theodotus of Ancrya wrote in the 400's in his homily 6 "A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns"

Gregory Nazianzen in 390 AD wrote: "He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor"

What about the reformers? What did they have to say about Mary?

Martin Luther wrote: "[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures [...] No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity [...] She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil."

John Calvin: "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."15 "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son [...] Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God"

Zwingli: "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother [...] I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary. Christ was born of a most undefiled Virgin."

Even the reformers couldn't deny apostolic succession in regards to Mary's unstained soul. It wasn't until around the 1700's that you began to see more mainline thought of Mary being conceived with sin -- this came from the Unitarian school of thought.

Again, I don't mean this in a harsh way, so if I offend you, forgive me...but just wondering if it is only convenient that you found four quotes of the seven (I still think it was 10) popes and took what they said as true but disregarded all the other hundreds of popes, even earlier in fact, who spoke in favor of this concept of Mary's sinlessness?

Shouldn't we have equal consideration of those who would be for or against each of our positions in order to figure out what is what? Even the disciples of the original Apostles of Jesus suggested Mary's sinlessness. This has always been regarded as ancient Christian material.
 
Sorry for the long response. I know you won't believe me, but unless I was mistaken, your comment seemed to have underlying impertinence. I did my best to respond with charity, clarity, and as much detail as possible without being too text-heavy.

If your comment wasn't intended to be impertinent, then I would absolutely believe you. I hope I haven't misjudged you on that.
 
The gate really does swing both ways here, Major. One argues opposite that Scripture easily proves the other way.

But really, we've done this before.

My thinking brother is that you as a Catholic place as much or more in "Traditions" than you do the Scriptures. In that sense the door only swings in one way IMO and that is exactly what you stated in comment #35.............
"I apologize, but if you don't accept what Scripture clearly teaches us and what sacred tradition has said in complimentary to it, then either you are cherry picking without researching the full encyclicals".
 
I apologize, but if you don't accept what Scripture clearly teaches us and what sacred tradition has said in complimentary to it, then either you are cherry picking without researching the full encyclicals (whether in or out of original Latin), or you are doing simple searches online and finding quotes, again without doing the research. I don't say that facetiously, but that is my sincere response to your sincere point.



I'm not sure if you had a chance to read all of Nativ. Dom., but Pope Leo 1 made it clear that he was addressing the sons and not the daughters of Zion.



Do you have the full version of this one? This one I have never seen before. I'd love to read it all in context -- ideally both the Latin and English translations. How can I address it as valid if I don't even know it is valid?



No, CCW. It was much LATER that the Church announced the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be dogmatic. I wasn't until Pope Pius X. That's how much later it was. However, prior to this official announcement, it had ALWAYS been understood doctrinally (not dogmatically) of Mary's sinnlessness. The first council that addressed it was in the 5th century at the Council of Ephesus.

You said "seven" popes (not sure why seven was in quotations) taught Mary's not being without sin. Personally, I though it was about ten actually who expressed this consideration. However, not one of them taught this as official dogma or even doctrine. It wasn't presented so until so much later. It was only brought to discussion, which is precisely why it was brought up at multiple councils, not just one, to get to the bottom of it. But it was widely understood by the majority of clergy, laity, and of course popes, that Mary was without sin.

Before that, Augustine wrote in the 4th century: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful...We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."

In the 200s, Hippolytus wrote about Mary in Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me: "He (Jesus) was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."

Justin Martyr in 155 AD wrote in Dialogue with Trypho: "[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word (Luke 1:38)"

Origen in 244 AD wrote in his homily: "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one"

Theodotus of Ancrya wrote in the 400's in his homily 6 "A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns"

Gregory Nazianzen in 390 AD wrote: "He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor"

What about the reformers? What did they have to say about Mary?

Martin Luther wrote: "[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures [...] No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity [...] She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil."

John Calvin: "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."15 "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son [...] Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God"

Zwingli: "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother [...] I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary. Christ was born of a most undefiled Virgin."

Even the reformers couldn't deny apostolic succession in regards to Mary's unstained soul. It wasn't until around the 1700's that you began to see more mainline thought of Mary being conceived with sin -- this came from the Unitarian school of thought.

Again, I don't mean this in a harsh way, so if I offend you, forgive me...but just wondering if it is only convenient that you found four quotes of the seven (I still think it was 10) popes and took what they said as true but disregarded all the other hundreds of popes, even earlier in fact, who spoke in favor of this concept of Mary's sinlessness?

Shouldn't we have equal consideration of those who would be for or against each of our positions in order to figure out what is what? Even the disciples of the original Apostles of Jesus suggested Mary's sinlessness. This has always been regarded as ancient Christian material.

My dear brother. You posted this comment...........
"Even the disciples of the original Apostles of Jesus suggested Mary's sinlessness. This has always been regarded as ancient Christian material."

You will need to post those Scriptures for us.....Please.

Even with the best intention's one cannot prove Mary is sinless from the Bible. The Word of God gives a different story than the traditions the Roman Catholic church uses to validate their dogma of the Immaculate conception. Eve was the only sinless woman who ever existed, until she sinned.But Eve was not born but created from Adam.

Consider, Luke 1:34 when the angel Gabriel first appeared to her and announced the savior would be conceived in her womb, she responded, “ how can this be since I do not know a man.” Mary asked the angel what manner of greeting is this. If she was sinless certainly she would have known and understood the things of God, butMary could not understand why she had been selected for this honor.

Then in Luke 2:49-50 when Mary and Joseph after a day's journey found out that Jesus was missing from their company they went back to find Him. After two more days they found Him teaching in the temple teaching. Mary then asks Jesus why he did not leave with them, they looked high and low for him? His response is, why did you look all over for me? Did you not know that I must be about my fathers business ?”

Lk.2:50: ........
“But they (both Mary and Joseph) did not understand the words he spoke to them.” Notice in both accounts Mary does not understand the things of God. Someone who is sinless would know God’s ways and not need a explanation. It is sin that corrupts ones understanding of spiritual things. What did they not understand? That Jesus would be about His Fathers business. In this account we see Mary equal with Joseph in not understanding.

Nowhere does the Bible says Mary was sinless or the exception to sin passed on from each generation. For such a miraculous event the Bible surely would have spoken to this issue. IMO, and I am not arguing but simple stating what I understand the facts to be, Catholics do not find this doctrine from the context of Scripture but from making a pretext out of the Scripture from their Church tradition.

But again it is not apostolic tradition, neither is there any Apostles making that statement that I am aware us. If Mary was conceived without sin then her parents would have certainly known and would have assumed she was to bare the Messiah. The Catholics say she became sinless later in life. This would mean God took someone who has the nature of sin and completely change them to be sinless like Jesus Christ--without a virgin birth. Certainly such a miracle would be mentioned in the Scripture, but it is not! The Bible has no hint of such a thing to occur and actually says the very opposite in no uncertain terms in Romans 3:23------ Accusing ALL of humanity to be under sin except for one, the God/man with the virgin birth, the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is not one Scripture given in context to show Mary is without sin. However, there is much to show the opposite. In Luke 1:46-47: After she visits Elizabeth and she is blessed she exalts the Lord saying “ My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.' Here Mary is saying that God is her personal savior, only sinners need a savior.
 
My thinking brother is that you as a Catholic place as much or more in "Traditions" than you do the Scriptures. In that sense the door only swings in one way IMO and that is exactly what you stated in comment #35.............
"I apologize, but if you don't accept what Scripture clearly teaches us and what sacred tradition has said in complimentary to it, then either you are cherry picking without researching the full encyclicals".

When I said the gate swings both ways, I meant that one might say that Scripture easily goes against what you were saying. I can't choose EITHER Tradition OR Scripture. It isn't an either/or scenario, it's a both/and scenario. I recognize both Scripture and Tradition as they are complimentary to one another. Traditions that contradict Scripture is no tradition I will ever hold.

In fact, accepting Scripture as God-breathed (which it is) is also accepting sacred tradition since it is sacred tradition that teaches us the validity of the Bible.
 
I would say threatening to "excommunicate" a person from the Church unless they believe a "tradition" is all about holding people in fear.
 
Back
Top