Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Mary Sinless?
The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7

............The Historical Evidence

The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]

However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).

When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,

Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]

Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]

Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,

If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,

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.[16]

However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:

His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]

This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:

His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]

As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.

Conclusion

As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Ecumenism; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicbashing; idolatry; marianobsession; mary; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 3,401-3,413 next last
To: Jvette

Amen, Well Put.

God Bless


51 posted on 12/05/2010 6:54:05 PM PST by jafojeffsurf ( Return to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant -- carrying Christ within her womb. Of course, she was pure and sinless. Why would anyone ever doubt that?

Because she was human.

The Ark of the Covenant was built by sinful human hands.

There is nothing in Scripture which supports that view of Mary anyway. The types found in Scripture that are mentioned in the New Testament as types are types of Christ or types of baptism.

Any made up outside of that do not have the legitimacy attached to them that the Scriptural types of Christ have.

52 posted on 12/05/2010 6:54:36 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Mary was simply an obedient human.
When God called, she obeyed. Thats all.

The Bible speaks of only one sinless person and that Jesus Christ. If Mary was sinless, then God would have said so. Since God did not say Mary was without sin in the Bible then she was a good person, but a sinner JUST LIKE US.

I know thew Catholic church likes to make stuff up. I used to be Catholic. But the point is this: If its not in the Bible, then its just a fairy tale. The RCC doesn’t get to add arbitrary things to the Word of God.

So the doctrine of Purgatory is fake. Not in the Bible? Toss it out!

Mary was not an eternal virgin. Not in the Bible? Toss it out! The Bible says Jesus had brothers. He was not an only child.

Prayer to saints? Not in the Bible? Toss it out!
Nowhere is there an example of people praying to the dead in the Bible. Zip. Nada. Nowhere!

The RCC likes to call these added heresies tradition. But is tradition mentioned in the Bible? Mary was simply an obedient human.
When God called, she obeyed. Thats all.

The Bible speaks of only one sinless person and that Jesus Christ. If Mary was sinless, then God would have said so. Since God did not say Mary was without sin in the Bible then she was a good person, but a sinner JUST LIKE US.

I know thew Catholic church likes to make stuff up. I used to be Catholic. But the point is this: If its not in the Bible, then its just a fairy tale. The RCC doesn’t get to add arbitrary things to the Word of God.

So the doctrine of Purgatory is fake. Not in the Bible? Toss it out!

Mary was not an eternal virgin. Not in the Bible? Toss it out! The Bible says Jesus had brothers. He was not an only child.

Prayer to saints? Not in the Bible? Toss it out!
Nowhere is there an example of people praying to the dead in the Bible. Zip. Nada. Nowhere!

The RCC likes to call these added heresies tradition. But is tradition mentioned in the Bible? NO! Toss it out!
There is NO authority granted to the Catholic church to just make up crap and add it to the Holy Word of God, but thats just what they do.

Wiser people like me who believe in Jesus, are eventually forced to leave the RCC by their own inability to understand the very things of God.


53 posted on 12/05/2010 6:54:38 PM PST by Cyclops08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

No, she wasn’t. God said, “all have sinned” and that included Mary.


54 posted on 12/05/2010 6:54:52 PM PST by MamaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; RnMomof7

RnMomof7 suggested that she might have been and that such would mean nothing. Or words to that effect. All meant with the greatest respect, no doubt, right RnMomof7?

Hey RnMomof7 what does your splinter of the Presbyterian schism say about Mary? Is it the claims about her sex life you posted, or was that just you?


55 posted on 12/05/2010 6:55:06 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

No, she was not. Christs line goes through Rahab, I mean come on folks, only a Catholic could believe such a thing, this is why the ascension of Mary came about (and very recently) since they think she was without sin they had to have her acend and never die, I feel sorry for those that believe such things.


56 posted on 12/05/2010 6:55:10 PM PST by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant -- carrying Christ within her womb. Of course, she was pure and sinless.

Using that logic, it would be logical to conclude that Mary's mother was sinless as well. We couldn't have the sinless "Ark of the Covenant" be carried in the womb of a sinful human, could we?
57 posted on 12/05/2010 6:55:23 PM PST by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MamaB

Who ya gonna believe? God’s Word (which you are not qualified to read) or the RCC?

/sarc, by the way


58 posted on 12/05/2010 6:55:52 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: mountn man; Salvation
The Temple with the Ark was still in Jerusalem and the temple sacrifices were still being performed. The Old Covenant had not passed until Christs death and the veil torn. Christ himself went to the temple and observed the law.

Good theology friend.. What we call the Gospels were actually Old Testament , Jesus lived under the law and kept it perfectly for us !! The New Testament began at the Resurrection ...

60 posted on 12/05/2010 6:56:55 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin...”

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works


61 posted on 12/05/2010 6:57:09 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: armydoc

Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of “All”?


62 posted on 12/05/2010 6:57:35 PM PST by jafojeffsurf ( Return to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Mary, Joseph, all the “saints” do nothing for me. Jesus is the ONLY one who forgives and saves. Worshiping or praying to any other “relation” is idolatry.


63 posted on 12/05/2010 6:58:09 PM PST by Dallas59 (President Robert Gibbs 2009-2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaB
No, she wasn’t. God said, “all have sinned” and that included Mary.

So God didn't have the power to absolve her as has been described in Catholic canons? Wow, omnipotence is so limiting...

64 posted on 12/05/2010 6:58:16 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Lt. Drebin: Like a blind man at an orgy, I was going to have to feel my way through.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom; RnMomof7

Ask RnMomof7, it was her suggestion about the Mother of God.


66 posted on 12/05/2010 6:58:43 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MrB; MamaB

Why is Mamab unqualified to read the Word of God? Can you tell me where I can find that in scripture - that man is unqualified to read the Word of God? I thought faith came from hearing...and hearing from the Word of God.


67 posted on 12/05/2010 6:58:55 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

In fairness he may have meant that she too inherited original sin not that she committed sins.


68 posted on 12/05/2010 6:59:31 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception say otherwise? No it does not.


69 posted on 12/05/2010 7:00:28 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: narses
WHERE? IN WHAT POST ???

You sir have TICKED ME OFF

(yes I know I'm screaming.)

70 posted on 12/05/2010 7:01:29 PM PST by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant -- carrying Christ within her womb. Of course, she was pure and sinless. Why would anyone ever doubt that?

The OT is all about CHRIST, not His mother..the ark was a type of CHRIST..Unless sins are forgiven by Mary on the mercy seat, unless Mary led the Jews in the desert, unless Mary led the Jews in battle..

That is just bad Mariology theology

The ark of the covenant

71 posted on 12/05/2010 7:01:48 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

Thanks - that’s what I thought.


72 posted on 12/05/2010 7:02:09 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception say Mary is a goddess? Nope.


73 posted on 12/05/2010 7:02:09 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

blessed - as in Luke 1:48

http://biblos.com/luke/1-48.htm
makariousin - Greek

The Greek from Strong’s.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3106.htm

call blessed, count happy.

From makarios; to beatify, i.e. Pronounce (or esteem) fortunate — call blessed, count happy.

makarios
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3107.htm

blessed, happy.

A prolonged form of the poetical makar (meaning the same); supremely blest; by extension, fortunate, well off — blessed, happy(X -ier).


74 posted on 12/05/2010 7:02:14 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jafojeffsurf

Um, Jesus is the “glory of God” part.


75 posted on 12/05/2010 7:02:32 PM PST by Politicalmom (America-The Land of the Sheep, the Home of the Caved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mountn man; narses; metmom

I demand to see it, too. This is an outrage.


76 posted on 12/05/2010 7:02:55 PM PST by smvoice (Defending the Indefensible: The Pride of a Pawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

Right you are!


77 posted on 12/05/2010 7:03:21 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Yes, Mary was blessed. She was fortunate and happy and well off.

But she was not sinless and not always a virgin.


78 posted on 12/05/2010 7:03:21 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jafojeffsurf
Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of “All”?

Paul didn't think it necessary to point out the exception of Jesus in this Romans passage. Probably had something to do with the multiplicity of other passages that explicitly claimed Jesus' sinlessness. It would be redundant. However, if Mary was indeed sinless, it would have been very logical to claim her as an exception here, as there are no explicit (or even valid implicit) claims to her sinlessness elsewhere in scripture.
79 posted on 12/05/2010 7:03:40 PM PST by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Posting who Mary is - a handmaiden of The Lord, who needed a Savior like every human, and who fulfilled the destiny on her life is not bashing. How many go through life not only not fulfilling their destiny they were called to - but don’t even know it what it is.

Mary heard The Word and she obeyed it. How many do you know who do that? “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down..” Mark 7:13
Do you know anyone that has done that, nullified God’s Word. Mary didn’t.

So you see, Christians are not bashing Mary in any way, shape or form.

Catholics are bashing God’s Word by their tradition of Mary and all their accolades the RCC bestows on her which are not in Scripture. Their tradition clearly opposes God’s Word regarding Mary.

So Catholics should learn from Mary but they don’t - seems nullifying God’s Word is paramount.


80 posted on 12/05/2010 7:03:40 PM PST by presently no screen name ("Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.." Mark 7:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; mountn man; Salvation

Question where are Jesus word written? NT or OT? My Bible has them all in the NT.


81 posted on 12/05/2010 7:04:09 PM PST by jafojeffsurf ( Return to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Cyclops08

**I used to be Catholic. **

I’ve got news for you. If you are a baptized Catholic you are still a Catholic even though you may not presently be a practicing one. Sit down with a priest and find out the answers to why you think the Catholic Church makes things up and doesn’t believe in the Bible.

The Catholic Church gave the Bible to all other churches. Ponder it.

You are welcome to come back.....just sit down and talk with a priest.


82 posted on 12/05/2010 7:04:22 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jafojeffsurf

He existed before “all” that He created.


83 posted on 12/05/2010 7:05:17 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Where have I trashed her?

If you’re going to accuse me of something, back it up.


84 posted on 12/05/2010 7:05:23 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Salvation

>>So you see, Christians are not bashing Mary in any way, shape or form.

Catholics are bashing God’s Word by their tradition of Mary and all their accolades the RCC bestows on her which are not in Scripture. <<

Well, at least you are honest in your Catholic bashing. I am sure Salvation and a few others at least can see you coming.


85 posted on 12/05/2010 7:05:29 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Lt. Drebin: Like a blind man at an orgy, I was going to have to feel my way through.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: RnMomof7

But meanwhile, Mary carried the Christ Child and was, indeed, the Ark of the New Covenant.


87 posted on 12/05/2010 7:05:36 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: jafojeffsurf

The sin nature passed through man, the seed. Jesus Father was God himself.


89 posted on 12/05/2010 7:06:03 PM PST by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: narses
Kind mother of our Redeemer,
  the way to heaven for us, now and always,
  come to our help as we fall and strive to rise.
All nature stood still in wonder
  when you gave flesh
  to your own flesh’s Creator.
Virgin at Gabriel’s greeting,
  Virgin now and always –
  take pity on us sinners.

90 posted on 12/05/2010 7:06:36 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

I specifically included a sarcasm tag in case you missed it...


91 posted on 12/05/2010 7:06:48 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: Jvette

I’m not sure anyone here has said Catholics are damned to hell either.


93 posted on 12/05/2010 7:07:57 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: narses; anniegetyourgun; RnMomof7
RnMomof7 suggested that she might have been and that such would mean nothing. Or words to that effect. All meant with the greatest respect, no doubt, right RnMomof7?

Provide the link to where she suggested that.

For once, back something you say up with some documentation.

95 posted on 12/05/2010 7:08:32 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MrB

sorry


96 posted on 12/05/2010 7:08:40 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: narses; mountn man

an honest question about salvation is not a lie..it is a question.. I know Catholics are never allowed to have questions, but as a protestant i am


97 posted on 12/05/2010 7:09:00 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: metmom

>>If you’re going to accuse me of something, back it up.<<

res ipsa loquater:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2637924/posts?page=31#31

“Mary was a virgin Jewish girl who happened to be of the correct lineage, who lived in the right time and place where circumstances would enable all the prophecy about Jesus birth and childhood to be fulfilled.

Making up stories about her being sinless, immaculately conceived, perpetually virgin, assumed and whatever else their fancy conjures up, and passing them off as truth does no one any favors, especially those duped into praying to her for favors as if she can do anything for them.”


98 posted on 12/05/2010 7:09:04 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Lt. Drebin: Like a blind man at an orgy, I was going to have to feel my way through.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

There was no “seed” involved in the conception of Jesus.


99 posted on 12/05/2010 7:09:48 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“But she was not sinless and not always a virgin.”

So you say.

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan
Volume 11, 319-320


100 posted on 12/05/2010 7:09:51 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 3,401-3,413 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson