Was Mary a surrogate or did she contribute her seed to Jesus??

[mrtumnus]

3. Unless you are implying that the Holy Spirit is a sinner there is no way that Christ inherited a sin nature and thus the Immaculate Conception is a needless doctrine, and a sinless Mary likewise a needless doctrine and contrary to Scripture.

If that was the actual basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception it would indeed be needless.

If Mary had to be sinless then so did her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and all the way back to Adam. It is a false doctrine that makes no logical sense.

It certainly would make no logical sense if its basis was the way you folks seem to be intent on re-defining it.

:tonofbricks:

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes
DHK says the blood carried the sinful nature, but didn't pass it onto Christ. IT was impossible to pass onto Christ because the sin nature is only passed in Adam (men )-amongst other reasons not applicable to this discussion at the moment) because he is responsible for Eve, his helpmate. He was rebellious against God, knew better, but Eve was deceived and he listened to her instead of taking charge.
This is what DHK says

There is a difference what you represented and what DHK actually said.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Except for that the IC doctrine has nothing to do with concern about Mary passing on a 'sin nature' to Jesus.

How could it? You would then have the same issue with Mary, requiring an IC of her parents, and then with their parents....

The RCC’s dogma of the IC is to say that Mary was born w/o Original Sin. Mary at her conception was saved from the stain of sin, thus Mary was prepared to carry God in her womb, b/c she herself was free from sin.

The Orthodox Church says that man inherits the consequence of Adam’s sin and that is death. You and I aren’t held responsible for Adam’s sin, we are responsible for our own sin.

Jesus took flesh from Mary, thus Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Jesus also inherited the consequence of Adam’s sin and thus Christ died a physical death. Jesus being fully human, also identifies with us, He showed emotion, He hungered, thirst and bleed and was tempted, only Christ’s human nature submitted fully and totally to His divine nature, thus Jesus remained sinless.

So here’s what we have here…

1) SFIC and Eliyahu believes that Mary’s egg wasn’t used, b/c Christ has to be free from sin passed on from Adam. This is their response to Original Sin.

2) The Catholic Church believed that Mary’s egg was used, but there was no Original Sin to be passed on from Adam, b/c Mary was saved from Original Sin at her conception.

So 1 and 2 are a result from Augustine’s theology regarding the Original Sin, both examples are to prevent Christ from inheriting sin.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Genesis 3 clearly shows the woman sinned first, so the Adam mentioned in Romas 5 had to be speaking of the one representing Adam... his wife Eve.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The RCC’s dogma of the IC is to say that Mary was born w/o Original Sin. Mary at her conception was saved from the stain of sin, thus Mary was prepared to carry God in her womb, b/c she herself was free from sin.

The Orthodox Church says that man inherits the consequence of Adam’s sin and that is death. You and I aren’t held responsible for Adam’s sin, we are responsible for our own sin.

Jesus took flesh from Mary, thus Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Jesus also inherited the consequence of Adam’s sin and thus Christ died a physical death. Jesus being fully human, also identifies with us, He showed emotion, He hungered, thirst and bleed and was tempted, only Christ’s human nature submitted fully and totally to His divine nature, thus Jesus remained sinless.

So here’s what we have here…

1) SFIC and Eliyahu believes that Mary’s egg wasn’t used, b/c Christ has to be free from sin passed on from Adam. This is their response to Original Sin.

2) The Catholic Church believed that Mary’s egg was used, but there was no Original Sin to be passed on from Adam, b/c Mary was saved from Original Sin at her conception.

So 1 and 2 are a result from Augustine’s theology regarding the Original Sin, both examples are to prevent Christ from inheriting sin.

ICXC NIKA
-

Mary was not free from sin. If she were, she would not have said:

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

If she was sinless, she would not have needed a Saviour.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think Agnus made a quite accurate representation for all the parties in general, even though I absolutely disagree with many of the dogmas and doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Eliyahu]

The main problem with Immaculate Conception is this.

If God can protect anyone from sin even without the Blood of Jesus, why didn't He apply such Technique to all other human beings without the need for His Beloved Son to die the terrible death?

Jesus showed the Successful Model for Adam, that the Same Adam can live the world as a human without committing sins despite the temptations. He was a good model for the whole Adam's race.

 

[mrtumnus]

The RCC’s dogma of the IC is to say that Mary was born w/o Original Sin. Mary at her conception was saved from the stain of sin, thus Mary was prepared to carry God in her womb, b/c she herself was free from sin.

The Orthodox Church says that man inherits the consequence of Adam’s sin and that is death. You and I aren’t held responsible for Adam’s sin, we are responsible for our own sin.

Jesus took flesh from Mary, thus Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Jesus also inherited the consequence of Adam’s sin and thus Christ died a physical death. Jesus being fully human, also identifies with us, He showed emotion, He hungered, thirst and bleed and was tempted, only Christ’s human nature submitted fully and totally to His divine nature, thus Jesus remained sinless.

So here’s what we have here…

1) SFIC and Eliyahu believes that Mary’s egg wasn’t used, b/c Christ has to be free from sin passed on from Adam. This is their response to Original Sin.

2) The Catholic Church believed that Mary’s egg was used, but there was no Original Sin to be passed on from Adam, b/c Mary was saved from Original Sin at her conception.

So 1 and 2 are a result from Augustine’s theology regarding the Original Sin, both examples are to prevent Christ from inheriting sin.

ICXC NIKA
-

The RC position on the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with concern of passing sin to Jesus.

It has everything to do with an understanding of the nature of God who granted salvation to Mary through the merits of Christ at the moment of her creation in order to sanctify the vessel in which He would dwell. Just as every dwelling place of God Almighty has become sanctified, holy ground.

So, one can either believe that

a) God was powerless to apply the merits of Christ to Mary at the time of her creation or
b) God could do so but chose not to and instead opted to dwell in a vessel of sin or
c) God did in fact sanctify Mary at the time of her creation as His dwelling place

Catholic theology would be that neither a) nor b) is consistent with the nature of God.

But it has nothing to do with not passing a sin nature on to Jesus. It is certainly understandable that someone may disagree with the doctrine. But it really isn't understandable to continue to portray it incorrectly.

 

[mrtumnus]

The main problem with Immaculate Conception is this.

If God can protect anyone from sin even without the Blood of Jesus, why didn't He apply such Technique to all other human beings without the need for His Beloved Son to die the terrible death?

Jesus showed the Successful Model for Adam, that the Same Adam can live the world as a human without committing sins despite the temptations. He was a good model for the whole Adam's race.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is based on the belief that Mary's salvation was indeed obtained by the Blood of Jesus on the cross.

 

[mrtumnus]

Mary was not free from sin. If she were, she would not have said:

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

If she was sinless, she would not have needed a Saviour.

Mary absolutely required a Savior and she absolutely recognized this.

That does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that she sinned however.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Christ came to save mankind from sin. If Mary never sinned, she would not need a Saviour.

 

[DHK]

Is it a sin if she was deceived by the Serpent?
Is it a sin if she disobeyed God who prohibited the eating of Fruit?

You may speculate all you want. The sin was imputed to Adam. That is what the Bible teaches. There is a point at which one comes to the clear teaching of the Bible and he either receives it or rejects it. You have come to that point. Either you receive it by faith without question. Or you reject it. Continuous speculation is fruitless.

I told you that Romans 5:12-19 doesn't say any Adres brought the sin to the world, but Anthorpow brought the sin, and therefore there is NO word that Adam brought the sin and Eve was sinless until Adam sinned even though she disobeyed God.

And your interpretation is grossly wrong.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. No matter what Scripture I give you, you will not believe. At least that seems to be the case. I have specifically showed you that Adam refers to the first man, Adam, a specific individual. Why did you not believe. Christ was made in the likeness of the first man, Adam. That can only refer to one man, now, can't it?

You misunderstand greatly here because you don't accept the woman can sin. The reason why Adam was mentioned all the time is because Adam represented the his race ( family) at that time.

Let's not speak foolishness. I never said any such thing.
All have sinned. Everyone (man and woman) sins.
It is Adam that had to take responsibility for the first sin. Go back and study the events in Genesis 3 that surround the fall of man.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

God did not address Eve because she was deceived and sinned first. The responsibility was on Adam. The first sin was Adam's sin. He was the one that God held responsible. He is the one that God specifically addresses here. The sin nature is from Adam. The sin is Adam's because he hearkened to his wife. He is not simply a representative of mankind but an actual man who fathered children such as Cain and Abel.

Eve was a sinner as soon as she disobeyed God and ate the Fruit, even before Adam ate the fruit.

Genesis 3:6-7 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Read the above two verses. You are wrong. Eve ate of the fruit because she was tempted. She gave of the fruit to her husband, Adam. When he ate, their eyes were opened. That is when the consequences of sin kicked in--after Adam sinned. It was Adam's sin that brought the consequence of sin to the human race. There was no consequence when Eve partook of the fruit.

That Eve was sinless until Adam ate the fruit is groundless in the Bible because Ro 5:12 doesn't say Andre ( man).

Your interpretation is absurd at this point since the passage is clearly comparing two people

1. Is it impossible for God to create another Adam ? Yes or No please>

1. Your question is ambiguous. (I have a friend named Adam).
2. God is finished with his creation.

2. If God create another Adam, the second Adam, can he not be another Human? Is the Word "Man " not from Adam?

If you are referring to Christ you are bordering on heresy, and in fact it is heresy. Christ is not a created being. He is God, always was and always is. Get past the first verse of John 1:1. He created all things. He is the Creator. Christ existed before His own incarnation.
The word "andre" and "adam" are related.

So, you are saying that the Blood shed at the Cross was Mary's Blood, aren't you?

The Bible says that Christ was born of Mary. Do you have a problem with what the Bible says?

Was Mary not a sinner?

Of course. We all are.

Could she shed the sinless blood?

No, and she didn't. Why speculate about silly things.

Could a Sinner inherit the sinless Blood?

Where does it say any such thing happened? Where is this going? The Bible commands to avoid such endless questions.

Didn't Jesus offer the blemish, sinless body and Blood at the Cross?

Yes, definitely.

How could a sinful person inherit the Sinless body to the Embryo?

Are you calling the Holy Spirit by which Christ was conceived, a sinner, sinful??? The sin nature is inherited through the male not the female, thus the reason for being born of a virgin.

Why wasn't the Blood of Abel so good as the Blood of Abel if the Blood itself is sin-neutral?

non sequitor. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[D28guy]

mrtumnus,

"Mary absolutely required a Savior and she absolutely recognized this.

That does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that she sinned however."

I'm afraid it does. Christs salvation of His people was accomplished on the cross, where He took upon Himself the sins of His people, paid the "death penalty" that was required for them, and "set the captives free", so to speak.

Mary confessed she needed a savior because she knew she was a sinner and needed to be saved.

Mike

 

[mrtumnus]

Christ came to save mankind from sin. If Mary never sinned, she would not need a Saviour.

You do not believe it is possible for God to apply the merits of Christ and sanctify Mary at the time of her creation?

I'm not asking if you believe this happened. I'm just asking if you believe that's not possible, and if so, why?

And if you believe it's possible, why do you believe He would not have done so and instead opted to dwell in a vessel of sin? Would that be consistent with His nature in your view?

 

[mrtumnus]

mrtumnus,



I'm afraid it does. Christs salvation of His people was accomplished on the cross, where He took upon Himself the sins of His people, paid the "death penalty" that was required for them, and "set the captives free", so to speak.

Mary confessed she needed a savior because she knew she was a sinner and needed to be saved.

Mike

Mary confessed that God was indeed her Savior.

But I will ask you the same questions I asked SFIC:

You do not believe it is possible for God to apply the merits of Christ and sanctify Mary at the time of her creation?

I'm not asking if you believe this happened. I'm just asking if you believe that's not possible, and if so, why?

And if you believe it's possible, why do you believe He would not have done so and instead opted to dwell in a vessel of sin? Would that be consistent with His nature in your view?

 

[D28guy]

mrtumnus,

You asked me...

"You do not believe it is possible for God to apply the merits of Christ and sanctify Mary at the time of her creation?

I'm not asking if you believe this happened. I'm just asking if you believe that's not possible, and if so, why?"

Again, as I said before God *theoretically* can do anything He pleases.

But God would not do that, and He did not do that.

If God had done that, than this humble Jewish teenager would not be a normal human being. She would be a super human. Sinless. Perfect. Without flaw.

She would in fact be a Goddess

Which brings us to ANOTHER reason why the Catholic Church so vigorously promotes these lies concerning Mary.

They have millions of Goddess worshipers who must continue being fed.

Thats for another thread however, but I felt compelled to answer your question.

In spite of the fact that by all accounts Mary was a fine, honorable Jewish girl and woman, she knew she needed a savior because she...knew...she...was...a...sinner...just like the rest of us.

Mike

 

[mrtumnus]

mrtumnus,

You asked me...



Again, as I said before God *theoretically* can do anything He pleases.

But God would not do that, and He did not do that.

If God had done that, than this humble Jewish teenager would not be a normal human being. She would be a super human. Sinless. Perfect. Without flaw.

She would in fact be a Goddess

Which brings us to ANOTHER reason why the Catholic Church so vigorously promotes these lies concerning Mary.

They have millions of Goddess worshipers who must continue being fed.

Thats for another thread however, but I felt compelled to answer your question.

In spite of the fact that by all accounts Mary was a fine, honorable Jewish girl and woman, she knew she needed a savior because she...knew...she...was...a...sinner...just like the rest of us.

Mike

I find it interesting that you believe that a sanctified, perfected Christian translates to goddess. Do you not believe that you too are being sanctified and perfected by grace in your walk as a Christian? Will this ultimately make you a god?

The problem with a definitive declaration that Mary sinned from a sola-scriptura POV is that scripture in no way states this. To go from her recognition that God is indeed her savior to that she actively committed sin is a leap without merit.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I find it interesting that you believe that a sanctified, perfected Christian translates to goddess. Do you not believe that you too are being sanctified and perfected by grace in your walk as a Christian? Will this ultimately make you a god?

The problem with a definitive declaration that Mary sinned from a sola-scriptura POV is that scripture in no way states this. To go from her recognition that God is indeed her savior to that she actively committed sin is a leap without merit.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

How do you come to the conclusion that Mary was not included in the 'all have sinned' statement?

Your theology that she never sinned is contrary to Scripture.

 

[Joe]

mrtumnus

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.


Why is Mary is rejoicing in this verse?

What is God saving her from?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

mrtumnus

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.


Why is Mary is rejoicing in this verse?

What is God saving her from?

That's what I'd like to know if it wasn't from sin.