AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and even the reformers including Martin Luther were and are in agreement that Mary was without personal sin.

---

You build your entire claim about Luther off a Thaddeus quote from a roman catholic website.

Very little he posts is ever particularly credible.

---

Thank you for your charitable contributions to this discussion. Always nice to have you assuming the worst in others and insulting those who offer a different perspective.


Do you deny the following quote from Martin Luther?

"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."

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

No way the Second Person of the Trinity can be hypostatically united to a human nature that is afflicted with original sin or actual sin.

---

Why not?

Would it be impossible for God to make that happen?

---

Jesus could not assume a human nature subject to original sin because original sin wounds human nature, and if that would mean Jesus's human nature would be in a state deprived of original justice, holiness, and inclined to sin. Jesus was sinless, both in actual sin and in original sin, because he is the sinless "new Adam" who came to redeem humanity from sin and its effects. If Jesus had assumed a sinful nature, even by inheritance, he could not have been the perfect sacrifice and mediator between God and man.

---

Why not?

If Jesus had inherited original sin, could he have lived a perfect life and been a perfect sacrifice and perfect mediator anyways? Could God not have created a universe where this would be possible? That seems implausible to me.

BusterAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

No way the Second Person of the Trinity can be hypostatically united to a human nature that is afflicted with original sin or actual sin.

---

Why not?

Would it be impossible for God to make that happen?

---

Jesus could not assume a human nature subject to original sin because original sin wounds human nature, and if that would mean Jesus's human nature would be in a state deprived of original justice, holiness, and inclined to sin. Jesus was sinless, both in actual sin and in original sin, because he is the sinless "new Adam" who came to redeem humanity from sin and its effects. If Jesus had assumed a sinful nature, even by inheritance, he could not have been the perfect sacrifice and mediator between God and man.

---

Why not?

If Jesus had inherited original sin, could he have lived a perfect life and been a perfect sacrifice and perfect mediator anyways? Could God not have created a universe where this would be possible? That seems implausible to me.

---

The answer is in what I shared above.

Purity and holiness are real things. They're not passing trends or evanescent concepts. They are attributes of divinity.

Do you believe that a soul stained by sin can be in heaven?

I don't know why it has to be this complicated since Matthew 1:18 says...
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was sinless because He was from the Holy Spirit. Where in Matthew's gospel is there anything beyond that?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know why it has to be this complicated since Matthew 1:18 says...
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was sinless because He was from the Holy Spirit. Where in Matthew's gospel is there anything beyond that?

---

That belies a sketchy understanding of the Incarnation.

I guess take it up with Matthew then.

BusterAg said:

---

Why not?

If Jesus had inherited original sin, could he have lived a perfect life and been a perfect sacrifice and perfect mediator anyways? Could God not have created a universe where this would be possible? That seems implausible to me.

---

How could God inherit original sin? Jesus is God. I can understand the question with regards to Mary and original sin, but absolutely not when it comes to God himself.

This is an example of how poor understanding about Mary leads to poor understanding of Christ.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess take it up with Matthew then.

---

Are you comfortable with Mary being called the Mother of God?

Since Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, are you comfortable calling Mary the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

Since Mary was overshadowed and filled by the Holy Spirit, and she formed and nourished God in her womb, do you think it might be possible that God blessed her in a special way and gave her the grace to remain free from sin?

no i do not

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess take it up with Matthew then.

---

I don't know what to make of that. So I will just go past it.

Jesus was fully God and fully human, without mixing or confusion, with those two natures being united by the hypostatic union. While that's a mystery, we can also say that what wasn't assumed wasn't redeemed. For humanity to be fully redeemed, Christ must have assumed human nature entirely, including body and soul, except sin. In other words, salvation restores and frees what Christ unites himself with in the Incarnation.

The reason why Christ's human nature was assumed without original sin is deeply tied to the salvific work He undertakes. Original sin is understood as a fallen state affecting human nature, a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but not a total corruption. Christ, being truly human but sinless, is the spotless lamb, perfect and unblemished, capable of redeeming humanity. If Jesus had assumed human nature corrupted by original sin, this would have compromised His sinless nature and the efficacy of His redemptive sacrifice. Therefore, the human nature He assumed was "sinless" in moral and spiritual terms devoid of actual sin and original sin's stain.

Moreover, the virginal conception is the means by which this sinless nature was assumed. It ensured sole paternity by God the Father, avoiding any human genetic contribution that could obscure or complicate this unique personhood. The virginal conception symbolized and actualized that Jesus' human nature was directly created by God, free from original sin, and perfectly united with the divine Person of the Son. The Church Fathers and the early Church clearly recognized the necessity of this unblemished human nature, both to uphold Christ's divinity and to accomplish redemption for fallen humanity.

You might ask "Why wouldn't it be necessary for Jesus to assume a fallen human nature so that is what gets redeemed?" It was not necessary for Jesus to assume a human nature with original sin in order to redeem fallen human nature because original sin is actually a "state" of deprivation of original holiness and justice, rather than a personal sin committed by Jesus Himself. Human nature wounded by original sin suffers from concupiscence, an inclination to sin and weakness in powers but it is not totally corrupted or incapable of redemption.

Jesus, as the incarnate Son of God, assumed human nature "in the likeness of men" without sharing in the deprived state of original sin. His human nature was attained entirely through his mother, the new Eve, in an unblemished and sinless state, making His sacrificial death a perfect "sin offering" as the unblemished lamb who bore the sins of many/all for universal redemption.

You do not what?

1. Do you affirm Mary as the Mother of God?

2. Do you affirm Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit?

3. You reject the idea that Mary was pure and holy and without sin?

Quote:

---

Moreover, the virginal conception is the means by which this sinless nature was assumed. It ensured sole paternity by God the Father, avoiding any human genetic contribution that could obscure or complicate this unique personhood. The virginal conception symbolized and actualized that Jesus' human nature was directly created by God, free from original sin, and perfectly united with the divine Person of the Son. The Church Fathers and the early Church clearly recognized the necessity of this unblemished human nature, both to uphold Christ's divinity and to accomplish redemption for fallen humanity.

---

I don't have much issue with the early Church and their fight to ensure a proper understanding of who Christ was. This was likely THE most important battle the Church took on and successfully persevered through. I understand the significance of this.

Even at the Council of Ephesus, I believe the phrasing "Mother of God" was at least codified at that point (I am sure used before). My understanding is that phrase really was used to further solidify a proper view of Christology, which in that vein I think is okay, albeit it may have been something that was something of a hindrance and stumbling block of sorts since it was fought over and perhaps unnecessary. It was not meant to revere Mary, but I am not going to say that with certainty what the intent was.

In the paragraph I included of your response, you even include phrasing such as "sole paternity by God the Father, avoiding any human genetic contribution"

If this is true, that Christ avoided human genetics, that would have mean Jesus avoided Mary's genetics and there is no need to create the idea that she was sinless. Now, I have no idea the mysteries of biology and how it relates to Christ's creation, but as you said, Jesus "was directly created by God."

Faithful Ag said:

---

You do not what?

1. Do you affirm Mary as the Mother of God?

2. Do you affirm Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit?

3. You reject the idea that Mary was pure and holy and without sin?

---

Sorry I misread some of this, thanks for asking again.

In a human/practical sense, Jesus did have a mother and it was Mary. But I do not believe in the idea of "Mother of God" as proposed by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and the implications therewithin. That phrasing is found zero times in the Bible.

Yes, Mary was with Child from the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I reject Mary was without sin. Again the Bible affirms this zero times and Mary even says in the first chapter of Luke, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary was sinless she doesn't need a Savior. (I believe Aquinas writes on this??)

whoops

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

You do not what?

1. Do you affirm Mary as the Mother of God?

2. Do you affirm Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit?

3. You reject the idea that Mary was pure and holy and without sin?

---

Sorry I misread some of this, thanks for asking again.

In a human/practical sense, Jesus did have a mother and it was Mary. But I do not believe in the idea of "Mother of God" as proposed by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and the implications therewithin. That phrasing is found zero times in the Bible.

Yes, Mary was with Child from the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I reject Mary was without sin. Again the Bible affirms this zero times and Mary even says in the first chapter of Luke, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary was sinless she doesn't need a Savior.

---

Are you familiar with the Nestorian Heresy? Because your answer to the first question sounds very much like the heresy that was condemned at the council of Ephesus in the early 400s.

Remember, everything we believe about Mary is because of what it reveals about Jesus. It's not about Mary. It's about God.

Here is one time Mary was Called the Mother of God…

From the Gospel of Luke:

Quote:

---

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

You do not what?

1. Do you affirm Mary as the Mother of God?

2. Do you affirm Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit?

3. You reject the idea that Mary was pure and holy and without sin?

---

Sorry I misread some of this, thanks for asking again.

In a human/practical sense, Jesus did have a mother and it was Mary. But I do not believe in the idea of "Mother of God" as proposed by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and the implications therewithin. That phrasing is found zero times in the Bible.

Yes, Mary was with Child from the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I reject Mary was without sin. Again the Bible affirms this zero times and Mary even says in the first chapter of Luke, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary was sinless she doesn't need a Savior.

---

Are you familiar with the Nestorian Heresy? Because your answer to the first question sounds very much like the heresy that was condemned at the council of Ephesus in the early 400s.

---

I do not believe Jesus was two separate persons.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

You do not what?

1. Do you affirm Mary as the Mother of God?

2. Do you affirm Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit?

3. You reject the idea that Mary was pure and holy and without sin?

---

Sorry I misread some of this, thanks for asking again.

In a human/practical sense, Jesus did have a mother and it was Mary. But I do not believe in the idea of "Mother of God" as proposed by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and the implications therewithin. That phrasing is found zero times in the Bible.

Yes, Mary was with Child from the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I reject Mary was without sin. Again the Bible affirms this zero times and Mary even says in the first chapter of Luke, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary was sinless she doesn't need a Savior.

---

Are you familiar with the Nestorian Heresy? Because your answer to the first question sounds very much like the heresy that was condemned at the council of Ephesus in the early 400s.

---

I do not believe Jesus was two separate persons.

---

Yet you reject the "implications there within" of calling Mary the mother of God which is exactly what Nestorius was teaching and propagating. Mary was not the cause of God, but Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate.

You do not believe Jesus was two separate persons yet you claim Mary was only Mother to part of Jesus?

My son is fully my son, and he is fully my wife's son. Not partially. The same is true for Jesus and for Mary.

Mary was the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

You cannot separate Jesus' humanity from his divinity. The second person of the Holy Trinity is fully man and fully God. Mary is his mother. Period.



Edit to add link:
https://www.logos.com/grow/theotokos-nestorianism/

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

Moreover, the virginal conception is the means by which this sinless nature was assumed. It ensured sole paternity by God the Father, avoiding any human genetic contribution that could obscure or complicate this unique personhood. The virginal conception symbolized and actualized that Jesus' human nature was directly created by God, free from original sin, and perfectly united with the divine Person of the Son. The Church Fathers and the early Church clearly recognized the necessity of this unblemished human nature, both to uphold Christ's divinity and to accomplish redemption for fallen humanity.

---

I don't have much issue with the early Church and their fight to ensure a proper understanding of who Christ was. This was likely THE most important battle the Church took on and successfully persevered through. I understand the significance of this.

Even at the Council of Ephesus, I believe the phrasing "Mother of God" was at least codified at that point (I am sure used before). My understanding is that phrase really was used to further solidify a proper view of Christology, which in that vein I think is okay, albeit it may have been something that was something of a hindrance and stumbling block of sorts since it was fought over and perhaps unnecessary. It was not meant to revere Mary, but I am not going to say that with certainty what the intent was.

In the paragraph I included of your response, you even include phrasing such as "sole paternity by God the Father, avoiding any human genetic contribution"

If this is true, that Christ avoided human genetics, that would have mean Jesus avoided Mary's genetics and there is no need to create the idea that she was sinless. Now, I have no idea the mysteries of biology and how it relates to Christ's creation, but as you said, Jesus "was directly created by God."

---

It says to insure sole PATERNITY.

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

You do not what?

1. Do you affirm Mary as the Mother of God?

2. Do you affirm Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit?

3. You reject the idea that Mary was pure and holy and without sin?

---

Sorry I misread some of this, thanks for asking again.

In a human/practical sense, Jesus did have a mother and it was Mary. But I do not believe in the idea of "Mother of God" as proposed by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and the implications therewithin. That phrasing is found zero times in the Bible.

Yes, Mary was with Child from the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I reject Mary was without sin. Again the Bible affirms this zero times and Mary even says in the first chapter of Luke, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary was sinless she doesn't need a Savior.

---

Are you familiar with the Nestorian Heresy? Because your answer to the first question sounds very much like the heresy that was condemned at the council of Ephesus in the early 400s.

---

I do not believe Jesus was two separate persons.

---

Yet you reject the "implications there within" of calling Mary the mother of God which is exactly what Nestorius was teaching and propagating. Mary was not the cause of God, but Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate.

You do not believe Jesus was two separate persons yet you claim Mary was only Mother to part of Jesus?

My son is fully my son, and he is fully my wife's son. Not partially. The same is true for Jesus and for Mary.

Mary was the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

You cannot separate Jesus' humanity from his divinity. The second person of the Holy Trinity is fully man and fully God. Mary is his mother. Period.



Edit to add link:
https://www.logos.com/grow/theotokos-nestorianism/

---

Harrumph!

The refusal to embrace the title "Mother of God" as being entirely appropriate and true is indicative of at best a weak Christology and at worst a potentially flawed Christology.

So you pour the finest wine into both containers, one very dirty with sin, and one immaculate. The wine is the same; the container is not. Which container is suitable for the finest wine? Surely not the one stained with sin.

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and even the reformers including Martin Luther were and are in agreement that Mary was without personal sin.

---

You build your entire claim about Luther off a Thaddeus quote from a roman catholic website.

Very little he posts is ever particularly credible.

---

Thank you for your charitable contributions to this discussion. Always nice to have you assuming the worst in others and insulting those who offer a different perspective.


Do you deny the following quote from Martin Luther?

"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."

---

Charitable contribution? I wrote a long post detailing that the historical fathers don't agree with Rome on either issue, and your response amounted to "yeah, but Thaddeus has a single unsourced quote."

In was more than charitable, but Thaddeus spams this forum with random quotes all the time that are less than accurate with little ability to respond when challenged. So forgive me for not taking anything his says with any real seriousness.

--------
To your quote. I don't know? maybe? You didn't source it, and Thaddeus quoted a catholic site, so what do you want me to say?

Google points everything to Taylor Marshall, so what would you like me to do?

----------
Likewise, I have a bunch of quotes from Luther where he explicitly points to the sins/errors of Mary.

Example:

Quote:

---

18. Therefore we should reply to this from the Gospel, as I said: Even if Mary, the Holy Virgin, had done this, it would not be surprising if she had erred. She was the mother of God, and yet she did not know where to find Christ; she sought him among her kinsfolk and acquaintance and failed to find him. Now if she did not succeed in finding Christ among her kinsfolk, but had finally to come to the temple, how shall we expect to find him outside of the Word of God in human doctrines, in the decrees of the councils or the teachings of the scholastics? Bishops and councils have undoubtedly not possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit in as large a measure as Mary. If she erred, why should not they also be mistaken who fancy to find Christ elsewhere but in his Father's house, that is in the Word of God? [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.25]

---

I'll point out that this is one of the most common historical takes about Mary. That she sinned in this instance.

----------------

So where do I land on Luther? He loved Mary and saw a need to elevate her because she is the Mother of God. Was it of top priority for him to examine his view of Mary and make correction. Absolutely not. His would come to the conclusion that she sinned as all humanity born of man does.

But was he a pope? Was what he said infallible? No. Neither he nor any Lutheran Reformer demanded uniformity on this question, and the Confessions are silent on it.

----------------
Finally, where do I actually think Luther stood? He may have initially held to the immaculate conception. He was, after all, a roman catholic for a time. However, I think it's most likely that at the end of his time, he held that Mary was purified at the moment she said yes to the Angel and that she was free from sin only while pregnant with Jesus. This is most consistent with ALL his quotes and not cherrypicked stuff.

For the education of agliving06 in truth...

Martin Luther quotes...

If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone' Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom (J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants quelle a produits. (E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138).
A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone (On The Babylonian Captivity of the Church).
No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day ( Smtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).
Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes (J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu'elle a produits. (E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248).
Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: Whatever has He been doing with her? Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107).

AgLiving06 said:

---

Charitable contribution? I wrote a long post detailing that the historical fathers don't agree with Rome on either issue, and your response amounted to "yeah, but Thaddeus has a single unsourced quote."

---

No, my "entire claim and response" are not based on Thaddeus in any way whatsoever, but rather I am capable of thinking and speaking for myself. I have not engaged with anything Thaddeus has posted directly or indirectly save the fact that he started the thread. Twice in this thread you have flippantly dismissed my view using Thaddeus as your rationale stating he is my source. He is not. It's a dishonest tactic, insulting to my intelligence, and not charitable. Unfortunately, you do this with regularity and especially anytime someone invokes your precious Luther.

Example below:

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

You build your entire claim about Luther off a Thaddeus quote from a roman catholic website.

Very little he posts is ever particularly credible.

---

Thank you for your charitable contributions to this discussion. Always nice to have you assuming the worst in others and insulting those who offer a different perspective.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

In was more than charitable, but Thaddeus spams this forum with random quotes all the time that are less than accurate with little ability to respond when challenged. So forgive me for not taking anything his says with any real seriousness.

---

First, I am not Thaddeus. And in responses to ME you continue to ignore what I have said in your zeal to bring down Thad. That is why your post failed to be charitable.

To your "long, charitable post" you essentially stated an opinion as fact because YOU studied it first 6 months and so we should all just accept you're right. We don't And we think your view is flawed. You offered no specifics and no sources other than "trust me that the Catholics are wrong."

The visible and Apostolic Church has held and taught that Mary was without personal sin with high confidence and strong consensus including both East and West up to and including the reformers in the mid 1500s. To claim Mary was an ordinary sinner is a novel, modern, Protestant belief that was foreign to the church until well after the time of the Reformation.

But I guess you pretty much admit that fact here:

AgLiving06 said:

---

Finally, where do I actually think Luther stood? He may have initially held to the immaculate conception. He was, after all, a roman catholic for a time. However, I think it's most likely that at the end of his time, he held that Mary was purified at the moment she said yes to the Angel and that she was free from sin only while pregnant with Jesus. This is most consistent with ALL his quotes and not cherrypicked stuff.

---

Is this AI sourced list accurate enough as to the main concepts written about by these early fathers? Ephrem (c. 350) seems to be the earliest I saw that actually began using that "no stain" language.

Justin Martyr
New Eve typology

Irenaeus
Obedience undoing Eve

Hippolytus
Mary's holiness

Ephrem
Explicit "no stain" language

Ambrose
Free from every stain of sin

Augustine
Explicit exemption from sin discussion

If any quote I have put up on this board is erroneous, I apologize.

But until someone proves that to me, instead of using the woke liberal ad-hominem attack on me personally, I stand by them all.

Mary Christmas y'all

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Mary Christmas y'all

---

I knew it, Catholics put Mary before Christ.

Christ chose to come to save us through Mary; We choose to go to Christ in the same way he came to us. Mary is a conduit, not a savior....And she is the only person in the entire bible other than God who says that we all shall call her blessed. So we do...

Faithful Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Why not?

If Jesus had inherited original sin, could he have lived a perfect life and been a perfect sacrifice and perfect mediator anyways? Could God not have created a universe where this would be possible? That seems implausible to me.

---

How could God inherit original sin? Jesus is God. I can understand the question with regards to Mary and original sin, but absolutely not when it comes to God himself.

This is an example of how poor understanding about Mary leads to poor understanding of Christ.

---

Why would Jesus inherit original sin just because he was born of a mother that had sinned? Im not accountable for the sins that MY mom committed prior to my birth, why would Jesus be accountable for Mary's sin?

Why would it be impossible for Jesus to be born of a sinful woman without inheriting original sin?

Did Mary inherit original sin from her Mom? If so, how was she without sin?

Eve was the very first immaculately created woman. She threw hers away with disobedience to God.
Mary, the new Eve, was the second immaculately created woman. She kept hers forevermore through obedience to God...

BusterAg said:

---

Why would Jesus inherit original sin just because he was born of a mother that had sinned? Im not accountable for the sins that MY mom committed prior to my birth, why would Jesus be accountable for Mary's sin?

---

Are you considering the original sin of Adam and Eve?

BusterAg said:

---

Why would it be impossible for Jesus to be born of a sinful woman without inheriting original sin?

Did Mary inherit original sin from her Mom? If so, how was she without sin?

---

Respectfully, I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. It's not about Mary. It's about Jesus and what is fitting for God. The OT arc was pure and holy inside and out because it was the dwelling place of God on earth. Likewise the NT arc, Mary, was pure and holy and without sin or stain because she was the literal dwelling place of God Incarnate. This is the primary reason we believe Mary was without sin.

A secondary reason is because we know Jesus, being God, is without sin and that Jesus obeyed and fulfilled all of the OT, including the commandment to honor your mother and father. God is not bound by space and time and therefore He can do anything - including saving Mary from sin from the very beginning of her creation. Surely Jesus honored his mother and loved her so perfectly that he provided her with all the graces needed to keep her free from the evil of sin.

To your question about inheriting original sin…Adam and Eve were created without original sin and chose to eat from the tree of knowledge instead of the tree of life. Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve. They chose the will of God and tree of life. We believe that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception and that she never committed a single personal sin because God provided her with super-abundant graces and as "the Woman" from Genesis Mary was always against the devil (enmity).

Nothing is impossible with God and God was not required to do anything. God chose the how, where, and when he would enter our sinful world and he wrote his story in the stars from the beginning of creation…and he chose who among all women would be his mother and through whom he would enter our world. Mary was uniquely set apart for the Holy Spirit to overshadow, and to give humanity - flesh and blood - to our savior in the miracle of life, and to deliver Jesus her son to the world. Mary literally had the blood of Jesus running through her veins while Jesus was in her womb. His blood was her blood.

Jesus honored his mother as the law of God commands and saved her proactively from sin by applying his sacrifice on the cross to his mother before creating her. In the same way the Eucharist, the body and blood of our savior, comes to us today from the table of the last supper and his sacrifice on the cross. It's the same sacrifice offered by Jesus once for ALL. The issue in question is how and when is that sacrifice applied to each of us? It is our belief that Jesus applies his salvation to his mother at the moment of her conception.

Merry Christmas!

Quote:

---

Is this AI sourced list accurate enough as to the main concepts written about by these early fathers? Ephrem (c. 350) seems to be the earliest I saw that actually began using that "no stain" language.

---

Being a Christian was dangerous and Christians were persecuted heavily for the first 300 years until the edict of Milan was issued in 313 AD. I think sometimes we forget that when we wonder why the early Church functioned the way it did early on, or why the church didn't have more to say on certain issues. I'd say the list below is a good starting point on showing there has always been support for the beliefs on Mary going back to the earliest days. It's why St. Luke uses the language he uses in his Gospel making the Arc typology clear.

Quote:

---

Justin Martyr (~90-165 AD)
New Eve typology

Irenaeus (125-202 AD)
Obedience undoing Eve

Hippolytus (170-235 AD)
Mary's holiness

Ephrem (306-373 AD)
Explicit "no stain" language

Ambrose (340-397 AD)
Free from every stain of sin

Augustine (354-430 AD)
Explicit exemption from sin discussion

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Being a Christian was dangerous and Christians were persecuted heavily for the first 300 years until the edict of Milan was issued in 313 AD. I think sometimes we forget that when we wonder why the early Church functioned the way it did early on, or why the church didn't have more to say on certain issues.

---

Completely agree and this year as I have "studied" church history up until Charlemagne, I've really come to at least appreciate more than I did before the early saints that paved the way by ensuring we had the basic truths (like who Christ is).