Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

Here's what I took the time to set the table with earlier with multiple scriptures mentioned.

Then we did further discussion of how Mary is talked of being "full of grace" much differently in the Greek than St Stephen was in Acts in subsequent posts as that is a common Protestant argument in this topic.

---

Stephen isn't the only example. It isn't the only argument against that ridiculous "verb tense" argument. I wanted you to pick one of those arguments so we could delve into it deeper. You said "3", which I wasn't sure what that was. But you never answered. Would you like to start with the "full of grace" argument?

---

We done. Nobody calls me a liar and a blasphemer (they said Jesus was too) and wastes 2 hours of nonsense posting and then walks back into the convo

Btw as you should know the conversation really started with engagement with oldbear and I talking on those specifics I was mentioning after quoting your post. You then twisted it into "tell me something Jesus and apostles blah blah but not in the Bible". I never told you I was doing requests and was talking with old
Bear

That wasn't even the topic but something you were trying to engage me in. Didn't realize you'd dork up the whole topic which was from me "biblical support Mary was sinless" as you see from my original post.

Literally. The. First. Sentence. I. Typed. On the topic lol

Anyway.

We done.

---

Like I said - all on record.

Here's how it went - literally. You posted this: "Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?"

..to which I answered: "Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?"

You were trying to make an argument against sola scriptura. My question was entirely relevant as it was challenging you on that. What followed was you answering by giving three examples that you were arguing were IN the bible. You didn't answer the question correctly. I called you out on it, and you doubled down, tripled down. That indicated to me that you weren't being intellectually honest. But I gave you an opportunity to correct yourself. But you never did. You exited the conversation. I think you just know that you can't answer the question. Because there isn't a tradition that is NOT in the bible, but we know came from Jesus or his apostles. It supported my argument for sola scriptura. You know, what we were discussing at the very beginning with YOUR comment.

Again - all on record.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

Here's what I took the time to set the table with earlier with multiple scriptures mentioned.

Then we did further discussion of how Mary is talked of being "full of grace" much differently in the Greek than St Stephen was in Acts in subsequent posts as that is a common Protestant argument in this topic.

---

Stephen isn't the only example. It isn't the only argument against that ridiculous "verb tense" argument. I wanted you to pick one of those arguments so we could delve into it deeper. You said "3", which I wasn't sure what that was. But you never answered. Would you like to start with the "full of grace" argument?

---

We done. Nobody calls me a liar and a blasphemer (they said Jesus was too) and wastes 2 hours of nonsense posting and then walks back into the convo

Btw as you should know the conversation really started with engagement with oldbear and I talking on those specifics I was mentioning after quoting your post. You then twisted it into "tell me something Jesus and apostles blah blah but not in the Bible". I never told you I was doing requests and was talking with old
Bear

That wasn't even the topic but something you were trying to engage me in. Didn't realize you'd dork up the whole topic which was from me "biblical support Mary was sinless" as you see from my original post.

Literally. The. First. Sentence. I. Typed. On the topic lol

Anyway.

We done.

---

Like I said - all on record.

Here's how it went - literally. You posted this: "Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?"

..to which I answered: "Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?"

You were trying to make an argument against sola scriptura. My question was entirely relevant as it was challenging you on that. What followed was you answering by giving three examples that you were arguing were IN the bible. You didn't answer the question correctly. I called you out on it, and you doubled down, tripled down. That indicated to me that you weren't being intellectually honest. But I gave you an opportunity to correct yourself. But you never did. You exited the conversation. I think you just know that you can't answer the question. Because there isn't a tradition that is NOT in the bible, but we know came from Jesus or his apostles. It supported my argument for sola scriptura. You know, what we were discussing at the very beginning with YOUR comment.

Again - all on record.

---

Bro just tap out. I was never making the case Mary being sinless wasn't in scripture. Are you that dense? I even just again posted the verses I used from my early discussion.

Just show yourself the door. Move on. Dang you dense

Fre3dombear said:

---

Luke 1:28

Genesis 3;15.

Listed in the post or several Posts today if you're not seeing them. With a concept like this I would fully expect you'll read those two verses and say well….but start there. Let's build it up.

---

OK, so starting with Luke 1:28

"The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you"

Yes, that's a great thing to hear from an Angel of the Lord, but I don't see how you get to 'sinless' from that.

Consider Daniel 10:11, for example. Being 'highly esteemed' by God seems a lot like being 'highly favored', but no one ever claimed Daniel was sinless, or asked him to speak to Christ on our behalf.

Consider Galatians 2:2 and 2:9, where Paul refers to James, Peter and John as 'highly esteemed', yet again no one claimed those were sinless men, nor asked them to speak to Christ on our behalf, as Roman Catholics do with Mary.

In Exodus 33:17, the Lord tells Moses " I am pleased with you and I know you by name", yet again no one considered Moses sinless or prays to him as some do to Mary.

In Genesis 24:1 we are assured that "the Lord had blessed him in every way", but again no one considered even Abraham, whose friendship with God led to the covenants we celebrate today, to be sinless. And again, no one asks Abraham to mediate with Christ or God on our behalf.

So why is it said that God's favor somehow means Mary was sinless?

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Luke 1:28

Genesis 3;15.

Listed in the post or several Posts today if you're not seeing them. With a concept like this I would fully expect you'll read those two verses and say well….but start there. Let's build it up.

---

OK, so starting with Luke 1:28

"The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you"

Yes, that's a great thing to hear from an Angel of the Lord, but I don't see how you get to 'sinless' from that.

Consider Daniel 10:11, for example. Being 'highly esteemed' by God seems a lot like being 'highly favored', but no one ever claimed Daniel was sinless, or asked him to speak to Christ on our behalf.

Consider Galatians 2:2 and 2:9, where Paul refers to James, Peter and John as 'highly esteemed', yet again no one claimed those were sinless men, nor asked them to speak to Christ on our behalf, as Roman Catholics do with Mary.

In Exodus 33:17, the Lord tells Moses " I am pleased with you and I know you by name", yet again no one considered Moses sinless or prays to him as some do to Mary.

In Genesis 24:1 we are assured that "the Lord had blessed him in every way", but again no one considered even Abraham, whose friendship with God led to the covenants we celebrate today, to be sinless. And again, no one asks Abraham to mediate with Christ or God on our behalf.

So why is it said that God's favor somehow means Mary was sinless?

---

So then for that thread of a many pronged development of this topic, you need to dive i to the Greek. I already did it in this thread yiu just have to wade thru tarp's bloviating about his not Germaine question and now he won't quit stalking me so about to have to block him her they

But even before you look at the Greek you could ask just some common sense working assumption type questions. Was Jesus DNA and blood from
Mary (at least in part)? Was Jesus sinless including original sin? Wouldn't the creation of Jesus likely be done in the most pure way possible? Wouldn't that logically lead to he was created in the flesh from flesh not Bound by original sin and sinless? Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

Then dig into the Greek a bit compared to the other places the english is translated similar to what was said to Mary (but completely different in the Greek)

For those who aren't familiar with the Catholic "biblical" argument for Mary's sinlessness in Luke 1:28 -

This is a PRIME example of starting with the conclusion you want, and then forcing the evidence to fit the conclusion. The argument is based on the angel's greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28:

Quote:

---

"And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" - English Standard Version.

---

Catholics say that the angel said, "Hail Mary, full of grace.." instead. But most translations don't have it that way. Regardless, you're likely asking yourself "How does that greeting show that Mary was sinless?". The Catholic's answer is this - because of the perfect passive participle of the verb "to be full of grace" (in Greek, kecharitomene). The perfect passive participle of verbs is not used in the English language, it's mostly used in Latin and Greek. Basically, it means that something has already been done or completed in the past. In other words, the action of "gracing" Mary was already completed in the past. She was already in the state of having been graced, even before the angel appeared to her.

To Catholics, for some inexplicable reason, this state of having been graced necessarily means that she has been in this state not just since yesterday, or since last week, or last year, or 10 years ago..... it necessarily means that she's been in this state since conception. The reasoning why this is necessarily so, is elusive to say the least. Now, on top of THAT, they argue that being "graced" necessarily means being made "free of sin". But "graced" (in the perfect passive participle tense) just means "honored" or "favored". HOW Catholics derive "free of sin" from that is as about as big of a reach as there ever was. Like I said, it is completely contrived, in order to get to the conclusion they already want.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Luke 1:28

Genesis 3;15.

Listed in the post or several Posts today if you're not seeing them. With a concept like this I would fully expect you'll read those two verses and say well….but start there. Let's build it up.

---

OK, so starting with Luke 1:28

"The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you"

Yes, that's a great thing to hear from an Angel of the Lord, but I don't see how you get to 'sinless' from that.

**it is critical to look at the greek words in the original text and what they mean specifically**

Consider Daniel 10:11, for example. Being 'highly esteemed' by God seems a lot like being 'highly favored', but no one ever claimed Daniel was sinless, or asked him to speak to Christ on our behalf.

**again the Greek and even here in English it's not the same salutation - we could use many different english greetings or descriptions for example
To show varying degrees of things **

Consider Galatians 2:2 and 2:9, where Paul refers to James, Peter and John as 'highly esteemed', yet again no one claimed those were sinless men, nor asked them to speak to Christ on our behalf, as Roman Catholics do with Mary.

**you've never asked another lowly himan, much less clearly not the Mother of God, to oray to God for you or your child or parent?**

In Exodus 33:17, the Lord tells Moses " I am pleased with you and I know you by name", yet again no one considered Moses sinless or prays to him as some do to Mary.

** again completely different words so not relevant in my mind

In Genesis 24:1 we are assured that "the Lord had blessed him in every way", but again no one considered even Abraham, whose friendship with God led to the covenants we celebrate today, to be sinless. And again, no one asks Abraham to mediate with Christ or God on our behalf.

**yes Abraham important. Different words again. And even then he's still not the literal Mother of God **

So why is it said that God's favor somehow means Mary was sinless?

**it's not those words but the Greek words and their english translation that are the cornerstone of this portion of the defense **

---

Posted responses in **

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Luke 1:28

Genesis 3;15.

Listed in the post or several Posts today if you're not seeing them. With a concept like this I would fully expect you'll read those two verses and say well….but start there. Let's build it up.

---

So why is it said that God's favor somehow means Mary was sinless?

**it's not those words but the Greek words and their english translation that are the cornerstone of this portion of the defense **

---

Posted responses in **

---

As my explanation shows, this argument is absolutely bonkers.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Luke 1:28

Genesis 3;15.

Listed in the post or several Posts today if you're not seeing them. With a concept like this I would fully expect you'll read those two verses and say well….but start there. Let's build it up.

---

OK, so starting with Luke 1:28

"The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you"

Yes, that's a great thing to hear from an Angel of the Lord, but I don't see how you get to 'sinless' from that.

Consider Daniel 10:11, for example. Being 'highly esteemed' by God seems a lot like being 'highly favored', but no one ever claimed Daniel was sinless, or asked him to speak to Christ on our behalf.

Consider Galatians 2:2 and 2:9, where Paul refers to James, Peter and John as 'highly esteemed', yet again no one claimed those were sinless men, nor asked them to speak to Christ on our behalf, as Roman Catholics do with Mary.

In Exodus 33:17, the Lord tells Moses " I am pleased with you and I know you by name", yet again no one considered Moses sinless or prays to him as some do to Mary.

In Genesis 24:1 we are assured that "the Lord had blessed him in every way", but again no one considered even Abraham, whose friendship with God led to the covenants we celebrate today, to be sinless. And again, no one asks Abraham to mediate with Christ or God on our behalf.

So why is it said that God's favor somehow means Mary was sinless?

---

But even before you look at the Greek you could ask just some common sense working assumption type questions. Was Jesus DNA and blood from
Mary (at least in part)? Was Jesus sinless including original sin? Wouldn't the creation of Jesus likely be done in the most pure way possible? Wouldn't that logically lead to he was created in the flesh from flesh not Bound by original sin and sinless? Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

---

If Mary had to be completely free from original sin and sinless in order to birth Jesus, then Mary's mother also had to be completely free from original sin and sinless in order to birth Mary.

And so on, and so on, and so on...... all the way back to Eve. But we know Eve wasn't sinless.

Your logic fails.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For those who aren't familiar with the Catholic "biblical" argument for Mary's sinlessness in Luke 1:28 -

This is a PRIME example of starting with the conclusion you want, and then forcing the evidence to fit the conclusion. The argument is based on the angel's greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28:

Quote:

---

"And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" - English Standard Version.

---

Catholics say that the angel said, "Hail Mary, full of grace.." instead. But most translations don't have it that way. Regardless, you're likely asking yourself "How does that greeting show that Mary was sinless?". The Catholic's answer is this - because of the perfect passive participle of the verb "to be full of grace" (in Greek, kecharitomene). The perfect passive participle of verbs is not used in the English language, it's mostly used in Latin and Greek. Basically, it means that something has already been done or completed in the past. In other words, the action of "gracing" Mary was already completed in the past. She was already in the state of having been graced, even before the angel appeared to her.

To Catholics, for some inexplicable reason, this state of having been graced necessarily means that she has been in this state not just since yesterday, or since last week, or last year, or 10 years ago..... it necessarily means that she's been in this state since conception. The reasoning why this is necessarily so, is elusive to say the least. Now, on top of THAT, they argue that being "graced" necessarily means being made "free of sin". But "graced" (in the perfect passive participle tense) just means "honored" or "favored". HOW Catholics derive "free of sin" from that is as about as big of a reach as there ever was. Like I said, it is completely contrived, in order to get to the conclusion they already want.

---

Thoughts, anyone?

Okay.....now consider this: If the perfect passive participle of verbs necessarily means it applies all the way back to a person's conception, then what about these other perfect passive participles in Scripture?:

Matthew 25:34 - "'Come, you who are blessed (perfect passive participle) by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Does this mean that we've been "blessed" since conception, and that being "blessed" necessarily means we've been free from sin, thus we're immaculately conceived too?

1 Thessalonians 1:4 - "For we know, brothers loved by God (perfect passive participle) that he has chosen you..." Does this mean that we, being loved by God since conception, have been sinless since our conception? I mean, if being "graced" means you're sinless, why wouldn't being "loved" by God also mean the same?

2 Thessalonians 2:13 - "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord (perfect passive participle)". Does this mean that all of us Christian brothers are immaculately conceived?

I think you all get the point. This reasoning is complete nonsense.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Luke 1:28

Genesis 3;15.

Listed in the post or several Posts today if you're not seeing them. With a concept like this I would fully expect you'll read those two verses and say well….but start there. Let's build it up.

---

OK, so starting with Luke 1:28

"The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you"

Yes, that's a great thing to hear from an Angel of the Lord, but I don't see how you get to 'sinless' from that.

Consider Daniel 10:11, for example. Being 'highly esteemed' by God seems a lot like being 'highly favored', but no one ever claimed Daniel was sinless, or asked him to speak to Christ on our behalf.

Consider Galatians 2:2 and 2:9, where Paul refers to James, Peter and John as 'highly esteemed', yet again no one claimed those were sinless men, nor asked them to speak to Christ on our behalf, as Roman Catholics do with Mary.

In Exodus 33:17, the Lord tells Moses " I am pleased with you and I know you by name", yet again no one considered Moses sinless or prays to him as some do to Mary.

In Genesis 24:1 we are assured that "the Lord had blessed him in every way", but again no one considered even Abraham, whose friendship with God led to the covenants we celebrate today, to be sinless. And again, no one asks Abraham to mediate with Christ or God on our behalf.

So why is it said that God's favor somehow means Mary was sinless?

---

So then for that thread of a many pronged development of this topic, you need to dive i to the Greek. I already did it in this thread yiu just have to wade thru tarp's bloviating about his not Germaine question and now he won't quit stalking me so about to have to block him her they

But even before you look at the Greek you could ask just some common sense working assumption type questions. Was Jesus DNA and blood from
Mary (at least in part)? Was Jesus sinless including original sin? Wouldn't the creation of Jesus likely be done in the most pure way possible? Wouldn't that logically lead to he was created in the flesh from flesh not Bound by original sin and sinless? Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

Then dig into the Greek a bit compared to the other places the english is translated similar to what was said to Mary (but completely different in the Greek)

---

Sorry but here our paths diverge. I am not a Biblical scholar, but I have taken courses enough to know those verses in no way said Mary was sinless.

But to your questions:

Was Jesus DNA and blood from Mary (at least in part)?

That's a tricky question, because as Christians we know God is Jesus' Father, and while there is no telling what that means for DNA, I do recall that it's likely God's DNA would dominate, however the biology works out.


Was Jesus sinless including original sin?

Yes, and on that point BusyTarpDuster had a good point, including multiple references in Scripture pointing out that the sin nature comes down through the male line. This not only explains the need for Jesus to be born of a virgin, but also explains why Mary's blood line is useful for Genealogy but does not impair His Divinity.


Wouldn't the creation of Jesus likely be done in the most pure way possible?

I'm not sure what you are getting at there, since one thing we have been told very clearly, is that Christ was 'fully God and fully Man'. It is therefore just as important to confirm Christ's Humanity as it is to affirm His Immaculate Nature.


Wouldn't that logically lead to he was created in the flesh from flesh not Bound by original sin and sinless?

No, not the way you are suggesting. As I noted in a prior post, part of the mission was not only to free Humanity from our Sin, but also connect us to each other in Love and common purpose. Consider that there are several passages where Satan tried to tempt Christ, which we know he would never have tried with the Father. Jesus' resistance to sin matters precisely because it was possible for Him to sin, which is vital to Christ's compassion for us sinners; He knows what it is like to be afraid, angry, doubtful, and so on, even though He never gave in to sin, Jesus had the ability to understand the struggle every human faces in making moral decisions and in their relationship with God. This is why we see such pity and compassion for sinners Jesus met, especially those who wanted to make things right.

What I am getting at, is that while Christ was sinless this was made possible by the Holy Spirit, not Mary. Her contribution was the humanity which drove so much of Christ's love for us.


Was Mary the mother of God as a human flesh form?

Absolutely not, and frankly that phrase is deeply offensive and very, very dangerous, as some have already been led to believe Mary is some superbeing with merit relative to God Himself. Catastrophic damage has been done in that sort of blasphemy.

This is why I depend on Scripture, whenever an extraordinary claim is made. It's right to accord respect and honor to God's servants, and there is no question Scripture says Mary was both 'favored' and 'blessed'. But those words in no way imply, much less state, a condition of sinlessness, which belongs to God alone since Adam and Eve brought Humanity into the fallen condition we know so painfully.

And as I observed, if it were possible for God to arrange things so that one person could be sinless and Adam/Eve's action irrelevant to their personal condition, then God becomes a tyrant who chooses to allow exemption for His chosen people while denying countless people the same gift.

It would make a mockery of Christ's suffering in poverty and His torment from the arrest to the trials to the scourging and His death on the cross.

I should mention that I treat Sunday as a day for worship, and so will not respond to this thread until after then.

Thanks for the conversation and I hope it continues productively.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

Does anyone have any New Year resolutions?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

---

You point to where you didn't. We're done. Quit stalking me.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

---

You point to where you didn't. We're done. Quit stalking me.

---

Once again, I call you out, and you fail to deliver. Maybe you should stop posting false things so that you don't keep looking dishonest.

And you keep saying "we're done", but then you engage me. So I respond. How is that "stalking"??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

---

You point to where you didn't. We're done. Quit stalking me.

---

Once again, I call you out, and you fail to deliver. Maybe you should stop posting false things so that you don't keep looking dishonest.

And you keep saying "we're done", but then you engage me. So I respond. How is that "stalking"??

---

I'm done talking with you yet you keep posting me. You called me a liar just for one. You can't quit me. Move along. That's what's known as stalking someone. I am not posting to you at all yet you keep following me around and posting at me. Stop it. I have not engaged you at all. Anything said was in response to you lying about me or being wrong. Then I post and prove it and you disappear and then you can't quit and again post wrong info.

You are a very weak poster clearly. Funny to watch you continue to try to engage me though but yes. We're done on any of the topics we've discussed which as. Can see I haven't responded to you in at all since I said we're done

Quit posting to me. Not interested in engaging with someone dishonest like you.

Take care. Keep it civil for the others. Quit calling people liars and then being proven wrong repeatedly.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

---

You point to where you didn't. We're done. Quit stalking me.

---

Once again, I call you out, and you fail to deliver. Maybe you should stop posting false things so that you don't keep looking dishonest.

And you keep saying "we're done", but then you engage me. So I respond. How is that "stalking"??

---

I'm done talking with you yet you keep posting me. You called me a liar just for one. You can't quit me. Move along. That's what's known as stalking someone. I am not posting to you at all yet you keep following me around and posting at me. Stop it. I have not engaged you at all. Anything said was in response to you lying about me or being wrong. Then I post and prove it and you disappear and then you can't quit and again post wrong info.

You are a very weak poster clearly. Funny to watch you continue to try to engage me though but yes. We're done on any of the topics we've discussed which as. Can see I haven't responded to you in at all since I said we're done

Quit posting to me. Not interested in engaging with someone dishonest like you.

Take care. Keep it civil for the others. Quit calling people liars and then being proven wrong repeatedly.

---

I thought you were "done"??

You lied. That's why I called you a liar. Telling it like it is isn't name calling.

You're not making your case that I "can't quit you" by how many times you keep engaging me. Do you know what the meaning of the word "engage" is?

You "proved it"???? I keep calling you out, and you bail!! You've not proved anything about you being right. Your point about the greek tense of the verb "to be graced" was shown to be complete nonsense. Did you read my post about it? What's your rebuttal?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

---

You point to where you didn't. We're done. Quit stalking me.

---

Once again, I call you out, and you fail to deliver. Maybe you should stop posting false things so that you don't keep looking dishonest.

And you keep saying "we're done", but then you engage me. So I respond. How is that "stalking"??

---

I'm done talking with you yet you keep posting me. You called me a liar just for one. You can't quit me. Move along. That's what's known as stalking someone. I am not posting to you at all yet you keep following me around and posting at me. Stop it. I have not engaged you at all. Anything said was in response to you lying about me or being wrong. Then I post and prove it and you disappear and then you can't quit and again post wrong info.

You are a very weak poster clearly. Funny to watch you continue to try to engage me though but yes. We're done on any of the topics we've discussed which as. Can see I haven't responded to you in at all since I said we're done

Quit posting to me. Not interested in engaging with someone dishonest like you.

Take care. Keep it civil for the others. Quit calling people liars and then being proven wrong repeatedly.

---

I thought you were "done"??

You lied. That's why I called you a liar. Telling it like it is isn't name calling.

You're not making your case that I "can't quit you" by how many times you keep engaging me. Do you know what the meaning of the word "engage" is?

You "proved it"???? I keep calling you out, and you bail!! You've not proved anything about you being right. Your point about the greek tense of the verb "to be graced" was shown to be complete nonsense. Did you read my post about it? What's your rebuttal?

---

Annnnddddd youre blocked. You can't point to a single post since I told you were done where I've initiated engaging you. You are either a liar or incompetent. You pick. And of course yes I proved exactly when and how you were wrong. It's there for all to read.

All the best. Get bent.

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

For the dolt that won't let it go. Just read the first sentence.

I tried to let you bow out but…

---

Wouldn't the "dolt" be the guy who said I believed in transsubstantiation, when he knew I was arguing against Catholic beliefs?

---

Can we all please keep the discussion as respectful as possible though?

Romans 12:18

it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

---

Yes please. The name calling that must be answered to should never start.

---

Like "dolt"?

---

You started the name calling. It was responded to. Now we've moved along. Keep it professional please.

---

Point to where.

---

You point to where you didn't. We're done. Quit stalking me.

---

Once again, I call you out, and you fail to deliver. Maybe you should stop posting false things so that you don't keep looking dishonest.

And you keep saying "we're done", but then you engage me. So I respond. How is that "stalking"??

---

I'm done talking with you yet you keep posting me. You called me a liar just for one. You can't quit me. Move along. That's what's known as stalking someone. I am not posting to you at all yet you keep following me around and posting at me. Stop it. I have not engaged you at all. Anything said was in response to you lying about me or being wrong. Then I post and prove it and you disappear and then you can't quit and again post wrong info.

You are a very weak poster clearly. Funny to watch you continue to try to engage me though but yes. We're done on any of the topics we've discussed which as. Can see I haven't responded to you in at all since I said we're done

Quit posting to me. Not interested in engaging with someone dishonest like you.

Take care. Keep it civil for the others. Quit calling people liars and then being proven wrong repeatedly.

---

I thought you were "done"??

You lied. That's why I called you a liar. Telling it like it is isn't name calling.

You're not making your case that I "can't quit you" by how many times you keep engaging me. Do you know what the meaning of the word "engage" is?

You "proved it"???? I keep calling you out, and you bail!! You've not proved anything about you being right. Your point about the greek tense of the verb "to be graced" was shown to be complete nonsense. Did you read my post about it? What's your rebuttal?

---

Annnnddddd youre blocked. You can't point to a single post since I told you were done where I've initiated engaging you. You are either a liar or incompetent. You pick. And of course yes I proved exactly when and how you were wrong. It's there for all to read.

All the best. Get bent.

---

Of course you're blocking me. That's what emotionally immature people who can't handle being wrong usually do. You are afraid to engage people who can expose your poor facts and reasoning. You can't handle being wrong about Mary, because your beliefs about her have been ingrained for so long. So you've been lashing out at those who are making sense.

Look, I get it, it's not easy to realize that what you've believed in for so long is wrong. Your foundation is shaken. But it's the best thing for you, because you built your foundation on sand, and it will fail. Your beliefs about Mary are heretical and idolatrous. Mary can't save you. You need to remove your dependence on her and put it solely on Jesus. I'm not doing all this arguing against Roman Catholicism just to be a jerk. I truly believe it is leading people to Hell. You may hate me, but what I'm doing here is something you probably NEVER will get from those people around you whom you love. You need to be challenged, and you need to be able to handle getting challenged with more maturity.

So keep reading this thread. There's uncomfortable stuff, but it's important stuff. People get emotional, but it comes with the territory. Engage me anytime you want. I block no one. I'm still going to answer all your questions, as I promised, whether you read them or not.

Lmao. It took 5 minutes. Happy to talk with any Protestants in our differing views. Anyone that wants to be a mature adult.

As a Catholic apologist I always find it fun and engaging. Some get super emotional and can't handle it but if you want to be open minded I will talk with anyone other than the guy or girl that literally posted at me again. He can't quit. No clue why. Can't debate on the merits. Just name calls.

I don't want to get dragged down into that level. So will continue to happily discuss civilly with anyone Catholic or not that would like to discuss. I doubt we change any minds. Most Protestants as I understand it think Catholics will go to hell for being Catholic. I guess we'll all find out.

But regardless I never will avoid a civil non name calling discussion that people devolve to when they can't discuss civilly and intelligently on the data and beliefs. Maybe we'll learn something we didn't know.

Highly unlikely any of us converts anyone though.

I've enjoyed all the banter here except for the one odd individual that I guess continues to stalk me.

So, if I'm understanding the new rules in this thread correctly:

If someone replies to my comment and I reply back, then I'm "stalking" them, and I "can't quit" them.

Is that correct?

So, can someone address my argument about the Catholic "full of grace" argument that supposedly shows that Mary was sinless? I challenged Freedom on it, who said that I "can't debate on the merits, just name calls" and then he proceeded to duck the debate and tell me to "get bent".

Anyone else?

Okay, first off, I just came into this thread so I apologize for my simplicity. No argument here and apparently there isn't one in the Bible. Nothing indicates Mary was anything but human and from human parents. The only person who was sinless was the one we killed because He was conceived by the Spirit not human DNA.
I am curious as to why that is up for discussion, but I would like to hear it. Additionally, I don't think that my tone will be as toxic or abrasive, although I can at times.

BUDOS said:

---

Okay, first off, I just came into this thread so I apologize for my simplicity. No argument here and apparently there isn't one in the Bible. Nothing indicates Mary was anything but human and from human parents. The only person who was sinless was the one we killed because He was conceived by the Spirit not human DNA.
I am curious as to why that is up for discussion, but I would like to hear it. Additionally, I don't think that my tone will be as toxic or abrasive, although I can at times.

---

You seem to have a very high threshold for what you'll consider as relevant for discussion. Do you really not see the importance?

And by the way, why am I still the only one you lectured to about "stripping people of their humanity"?

IMO, at the time I came in on that thread, your tone was unacceptable as one who was sincerely interested in discussing or debating the issue. It is my perception that you were more interested in serving as a brutal assassin.
In reviewing the entries since that time it seems that your technique has produced the expected results, which is getting responses fired back at you, at partially in self defense. IMO, Christ is saddened by the conduct of both sides.
Bottom line is that you are now not the only one trying to obliterate the opposition, normally called the opposing view.
My mistake is that I thought the purpose of this topic was to share information and viewpoints as adults.
(Not that I have much to offer due to my theological and philosophical knowledge.)

BUDOS said:

---

Okay, first off, I just came into this thread so I apologize for my simplicity. No argument here and apparently there isn't one in the Bible. Nothing indicates Mary was anything but human and from human parents. The only person who was sinless was the one we killed because He was conceived by the Spirit not human DNA.
I am curious as to why that is up for discussion, but I would like to hear it. Additionally, I don't think that my tone will be as toxic or abrasive, although I can at times.

---

If you can wade through the morass and noise I was laying those points out point by point. It's apparently a very hot button issue for some. But there is a very logical explanation.

It's also not dissimilar from John 6:53 which is the foundation of the Catholic Church and speaks clearly to the notion of transubstanciacion and leads some Protestants to call Catholics cannibals.

These are concepts that go back to 1) the direct Greek that forms the Bible and 2) the early church fathers writings of the understandings of those that walked with Jesus, were at the last supper for example, and continued the weekly tradition Catholics across the globe perform at Jesus' direction

Of course anyone can say "that's nonsense" or "what rubbish" but my intention in even engaging in this discourse here was to discuss why these are the beliefs

One can still say "hmmm yeah I don't believe that" but it doesn't change the fact those are the reasons they are the beliefs and then kne has to decide for their eternal soul what they consider on various topics, some of which may or may not have direct implications thereof.

So if one says for example, communion is just bread, well that's not what the Greek says about the holy ceremony Jesus performed and what he asked us to do. So it would suggest one doesn't believe in transubtanciation, which could be a problem for those that don't.

I think someone also said Mary isn't the mother of God which is also an interesting perspective as Jesus is God and Mary is Jesus' mother and presumably his genetic mother (although if someone says the words DNY or chromosomes aren't in the Bible, I'll concede to my knowledge that is true but then I'd ask it to be proven she is not his genetic mother which to me would be harder than proving she is.

So yes the posts I've made have been concentrated on 2/3 specific topics thus far which I'm much more interested in discussing intellectually here and mainly elsewhere anyway vs playing legalistic gotcha attempts which I'm not going to engage in at all even if they don't even make any logical sense, which I've already completely bowed out of.

I said I would revisit the thread after Sunday.

However, my sister collapsed at work Friday and we are waiting on news from the Cardiologist, so I am going to be out for a time.

It may not matter, but I did not want anyone to think I was ignoring the thread, just in case someone wondered.

Thank you.

BUDOS said:

---

IMO, at the time I came in on that thread, your tone was unacceptable as one who was sincerely interested in discussing or debating the issue. It is my perception that you were more interested in serving as a brutal assassin.
In reviewing the entries since that time it seems that your technique has produced the expected results, which is getting responses fired back at you, at partially in self defense. IMO, Christ is saddened by the conduct of both sides.
Bottom line is that you are now not the only one trying to obliterate the opposition, normally called the opposing view.
My mistake is that I thought the purpose of this topic was to share information and viewpoints as adults.
(Not that I have much to offer due to my theological and philosophical knowledge.)

---

We're veering off topic here, but i think this is an important aside. Because we need to hash out what's going on here, so we can get back to the vital discussion.

My issues with what you are saying are twofold: 1) you are sensitive to my "unacceptable" tone, but you are strangely silent on the tone of others, and 2) whatever it is you think is unacceptable about my tone, I think it's fair game, even warranted. I think you are more likely to criticize the tone of the person who's making an argument that you don't like. That happens on here a lot. I think people just don't like the truth being told to them bluntly, especially if it goes against their beliefs. So I do not apologize for my tone. As we talked about earlier, even Jesus and John the Baptist took on a harsh tone when it was called for. I believe I've done the same thing.

If you disagree, then please show me where you think I went out of bounds. Please cite the specific instance. Then we can decide if what you're saying has merit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I said I would revisit the thread after Sunday.

However, my sister collapsed at work Friday and we are waiting on news from the Cardiologist, so I am going to be out for a time.

It may not matter, but I did not want anyone to think I was ignoring the thread, just in case someone wondered.

Thank you.

---

Sorry about your sister, I hope for good news and a quick recovery. Obviously you should focus on her, not this thread.