What sin did Mary do?

[MoreCoffee]

In post 34 you said this: "Blessed Mary is and always was without the disfiguring mark of sin. "

Could you explain the difference of your two statements then?

Yes, the disfiguring mark of sin (both original sin and actual sins) is the mark left on the soul that sins make - the mark is expressed by words like rebelliousness, a spirit of disobedience, and so forth - it is a change in character that makes the soul become essentially an enemy of God.

 

[Sword7]

Saint John Chrysostom said that Mary was guilty of the sin of vanity at the miracle of Cana.

for "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God " . what difference does it make discussing what each one may be .

 

[MoreCoffee]

for "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God " . what difference does it make discussing what each one may be .

It's important to note that "all have sinned ..." is in the past tense at the time that saint Paul wrote it. He is referring to original sin and that is a sin in which all natural descendants of Adam & Eve are implicated. Yet Blessed Mary was given redeeming grace from the instant of her conception so the "stain of original sin" was not applied to her.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do you make of these statements - they are not about Blessed Mary.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

Can you reconcile them?

Of course you can and as one who seems to know scripture well you know the answer. Perfect does not mean sinless

Your reply indicates that you did not reconcile the passages. Your post ignores what the passages say. Instead of dealing with what the passages say your post leaps to an issue that is not under discussion - namely sinlessness. Blessed Mary did not sin, nor did Job sin in the story related in the book of Job and Enoch did not sin so God took him. If these things are outside the limits of the theology that you embrace okay. That would explain why you didn't deal with the passages.

 

[psalms 91]

You want to make it fit therefore ignoring the real meaning

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee,


1. Job HIMSELF disagrees with your absurd spin. See Job 42:6 Why would Job "despise" himself and "repent in dust and ashes" if he was sinless, perfect as God, holy as God? OBVIOUSLY, Job himself disagrees with your spin on Job 1:1. IF you need to delete Job 42:6, you still have Job 6:24, 7:21.

2. Even IF you were right here (and Job wrong), that has NOTHING to do with Mary being sinless. If I were to say that my Dad is tall, that has nothing to do with proving that Marco Rubio is tall. Your whole argument is absurd.

3. As I understand it, the Hebrew word found in English TRANSLATIONS as "blameless" has nothing whatsoever to do with sin. It means to be proper. Usually not applied to people, when it is - it means the person has integrity and trustworthiness. One of the few places where it's applied to a person, see Judges 9:16 (the ESV here translates it as "integrity").


You seem persistent in disagreeing with Job's insistence that he is sinful.... you insist on twisting a Hebrew word to mean what it does not.... all to support your premise that Job being like God morally proves that Mary was. Friend, it's silly. As has been pointed out to you, Scripture clearly says that ALL have sinned. Yes - it does STATE there is an exception (although He is not only human - as Mary was): Jesus. God specifically STATES that Jesus was without sin. Now, if you could find a Scripture were God says, "Oh, by the way, Mary was sinless too - just like I am and Jesus as the Incarnate God is" then you'd have a point. But this twisting of Job 1:1 (while ignoring so many other verses in Job) does nothing to support this very new, divisive de fide DOGMA of your singular, individual denomination.



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

You want to make it fit therefore ignoring the real meaning

Thank you Josiah, exactly right

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do you make of these statements - they are not about Blessed Mary.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

Can you reconcile them?

The spin you complained about, Josiah, is a quote from the book of Job. It is Jehovah God who calls Job a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil. You call it spin because you deny what God said. Your post accuses God of deceit by calling it spin to say that Job was a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil

 

[psalms 91]

The spin you complained about, Josiah, is a quote from the book of Job. It is Jehovah God who calls Job a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil. You call it spin because you deny what God said. Your post accuses God of deceit by calling it spin to say that Job was a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil

Nope just your interpretation

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope just your interpretation

was Job a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

 

[Josiah]

was Job a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

See post 46




.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #36 on Page 4:

What do you make of these statements - they are not about Blessed Mary.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

Can you reconcile them?

It would seem that the Poster has clearly demonstrated that there is more directly stated Scriptural evidence for Job’s being sinless, than there is for Mary’s being sinless.

And then he shows Scripture demonstrating that no human (of Adam’s direct male lineage, including females) can be considered sinless.

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

In Post #43 on Page 5, we see:

It's important to note that "all have sinned ..." is in the past tense at the time that saint Paul wrote it. He is referring to original sin and that is a sin in which all natural descendants of Adam & Eve are implicated.

If Paul was referring to original sin only, would that not mean that he considered some people to have actually committed no sin? What a perfect opportunity that would have been for him to proclaim and let everyone know that Mary had committed no sin, and that “Blessed Mary was given redeeming grace from the instant of her conception so the "stain of original sin" was not applied to her ”.

But he didn't, did he?

Might Paul have ended up in hot water for the oversight?

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

And in Post #44 on Page 5 replying to psalms 91, MoreCoffee stated: “Your reply indicates that you did not reconcile the passages.”

Perhaps it is time for us to request that MoreCoffee either reconcile the passages for us, or state definitively that he considers the Bible to not be the Inspired Word of God, and therefore unreliable regarding matters of faith, doctrine and religious practice.

Of course, if the latter, Readers could wonder why he chooses to quote from that Document when it suits him.

Lämmchen’s Post #40 on Page 4 and Josiah’s Post #46 on Page 5, among others, are worthy of note.

 

[JSales]

My buddy belongs to a RCC and he says that Mary is compared to the ark of the covenant where there were strict laws in regards to whoever could get near it because it was so holy and if Mary was carrying God in her pregnancy than she too had to be holy since God couldn't be near sin. I don't see that written down even though it makes sense and yet after his birth it doesn't make sense at all for her to not have sinned then since she's just a woman like any other and made in the same way we were. Adam and Eve were at one time sinless and we don't have icons of them on the wall or bow down to them to pray.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My buddy belongs to a RCC and he says that Mary is compared to the ark of the covenant where there were strict laws in regards to whoever could get near it because it was so holy and if Mary was carrying God in her pregnancy than she too had to be holy since God couldn't be near sin. I don't see that written down even though it makes sense and yet after his birth it doesn't make sense at all for her to not have sinned then since she's just a woman like any other and made in the same way we were. Adam and Eve were at one time sinless and we don't have icons of them on the wall or bow down to them to pray.

"It doesn't make sense" elevates human reasoning above the mystery of God's grace. The same argument might be applied by somebody else to say "it doesn't make sense that one man could pay for the sins of the whole world"

 

[psalms 91]

was Job a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Yup, just not sinless as we have already been over

 

[psalms 91]

"It doesn't make sense" elevates human reasoning above the mystery of God's grace. The same argument might be applied by somebody else to say "it doesn't make sense that one man could pay for the sins of the whole world"

However to claim she was sinless is unscripural as you well know

 

[Josiah]

Yup, just not sinless as we have already been over

MoreCoffee has ignored post # 46 by necessity.


The UNIQUE and very new (1854) De Fide Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is entirely baseless. Modern Catholics just swallow it whole because that's what makes them Catholics - a Catholic is one who just swallows whole WHATEVER the individual RC Denomination officially tells them BECAUSE it itself individually currently does (truth not being the issue), thus for Catholics the issue is that the modern, individual RC Denomination alone currently says this (parroting such). Bill, YOUR issue of whether it's true or not.... whether it's respectful to Mary to SHOUT stuff about her regardless of whether it's true or not.... well, that's just not on their "radar". Obedience to the individual RC Denomination.... docilic submission to the unmitigated/unaccountable POWER of the individual RC Denomination.... parrotting whatever it itself now currently says..... that's the issue.




- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The faithful make room for mystery in their faith because when they are confronted by God's grace in Christ they are confronted with things for which reason has no analogy and no adequate explanation. If everything must be subject to one's understanding of the bible then where is the room for mystery? If everything is to be evaluated by one's understanding of what's in the bible then hasn't one's understanding taken the place of God as judge of all things?

If one answers that it is not God's justice and goodness nor his word in the holy scriptures that is judged by reason but human traditions and human interpretations that are thus judged then is it not also true that in reasoning thus one's own interpretations are made judge over other people's interpretations? Isn't the rejection of other people's interpretation because they are human also a reason to question one's own interpretations which have led one into rejecting all other interpretations? Yes, that is so. Nobody can accuse others of interpreting as if it were a fault without acknowledging that their own interpretations are also condemned with the condemnation made of others. And this is the core of the matter, how can one stand before God offering this as justification "I only rejected the opinions of men and never the word of God" when in truth one rejected other men's opinions because one's own opinion differed from theirs and God played no role in the matter.

 

[psalms 91]

I can use the same argumnet for the things you refurte, what I will tell you is that scripture will back up truth in some way, show us that concerning this claim, you have been asked to before and you cant because it isnt there

 

[MoreCoffee]

I can use the same argumnet for the things you refurte, what I will tell you is that scripture will back up truth in some way, show us that concerning this claim, you have been asked to before and you cant because it isnt there

You cannot use the same argument because no claim is made about reasoning one's way to such and such a doctrine. Catholic teaching is not drawn from reasoning about private personal individual interpretations.