Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
Because Roman Catholicism wrongly teaches it does.
But, how do you know the good "thief" was not>/i> Baptized?
"in sin did my Mother conceive me"
?
And yes Jesus did not sin in his life...
But, how does scripture say Jesus avoided the stain of Adam's sin?
I simply pointed out Jesus was baptized-
for whatever reason he wanted to be.
He believed in Baptism,
The first thing he told St. Paul on the road there
was to "get up, and go get baptized"...
He instructed his Apostles to " baptize ALL nations"
as part of their ministry...
So Baptism IS important to Jesus.
But you should know though,
And I don't want to be accused of
going off the Mary topic of sinlessness...
But you should know you contradict God- Breathed scripture
by saying "Baptism doesn't save...
Because 1 Peter 3 says it does:
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this,
now saves you,...
But that's for another day...
I want to learn about Jesus and exactly how
he avoided original sin in his humanity.
"The Kingdom of Heaven is life a mustard seed..."
That is also the Church- growing from the small seed or acorn
and the Church would gsve been given provision from Christ
to allow for that growth.
It's just that we see in the 16th century A.D.,
a limb just popped out of nowhere on that tree-
without a shoot or smaller growth beginning-
defying the natural growth process.
That what I was pointing to.
And yes, the New is concealed in the Old.
Like branches waiting to sprout slowly, and naturally, from that tree.
Christ’s Father was God via the Holy Spirit. Christ was the Word made flesh. Mary had an earthly Father and sin transmits thru the seed of the fathers...not the mothers. Adam sinned too. The Father of Christ was God who knows no sin. What ever sin Mary had would not transmit to Christ no matter her own intrinsic sinfulness.
The soul that sins shall die say the prophets and they negated the notion that just because a father sins, that such blood guilt would be passed onto the children.(the active sinning...not JUST the Adamic sin curse which is on all of us) Every person is accountable for their own sins before God...not the sins of their fathers. Thus...Mary need not have been without sin for Christ to have been born sinless and without blemish. After all...per Christ...”It’s not what goes into a man but what comes out of him that defiles him!”. Joseph’s countenancing of Mary’s pregnancy thru marriage protected Mary from severe ostracizing and perhaps stoning. Joseph was a good man of faith! The marriage bed is undefiled. Mary refers to the Lord as being the “God of her Salvation”! She was a sinner but her faith in God and her obedience to his will was counted as righteousness for her sake! Praise God!
When they used to sacrifice cows and bulls...they had to be without blemish but there was no guarantee that the sacrificed bull did not come from a cow and bull who were blemished. Each cow or bull was chosen, not because its parents were blemish free, but because upon examination, the bull itself was free of blemish.
Thus Mary need not have been free of sin’s taint in order to have had Jesus, virgin though she was. Jesus himself was free of sin’s taint and that was all that mattered so that his sacrifice for us was lasting and beneficial to us all.
You mention David and Psalm 51. I would point out that David was a last born son, and not birthed by a virgin. Even if he had been first born, his mother would not have been a virgin “having never known a man” as Mary was. Mary was a virgin, made “incente” by the Holy Ghost. She had never known a man. Thus Psalm 51 doesn’t support your doctrine of sinless Mary very well...does it?
Mary’s faith was accounted as righteousness, and her sins forgiven by God. By her faith, righteousness was imputed to her and thus did the Godhead see her as innocent and sin cleansed. The future spilling of Christ’s blood worked backward(especially for Mary’s sake and the patriarchs before her), and in the present, and in the future for all men and women who sought, who are seeking and who will seek the cleansing of their sins! Their faith in God and in his Christ justifies them and is actively justified by the Holy Ghost, in them!***
***(men make the assumption that an ovum of Mary’s was used by the Spirit since Genesis speaks of the “Seed of Eve” who would destroy the serpent and his seed. I don’t know if we can fully support that notion as the reference may be one of a spiritual order of “seed”. The seed of Adam vs the seed of Eve. Still, I’m open to both notions)
“how do you know the good “thief” was not Baptized?”
Because he accepted Christ while on his cross. If he had (1) accepted Christ, then (2) jumped down from the cross, then (3) got baptized, then (4) died, it isn’t documented in Scripture.
It isn’t possible, except in fantasy, to be TRULY baptized (believer’s baptism) before making a conscious decision to accept Christ as Savior. I get that there’s a lot of fantasy happening in certain denominations.
In Scripture, baptism occurred ONLY after salvation. It never happened to babies. Baptism is a statement to the world that a person has made the decision for Christ — a profession of faith.
You're seriously not asking this question....are you??
Or perhaps, the weeds were pruned back and the flowers were again growing.
Perhaps...
Simple....Jesus was not conceived in the normal way us created beings were.
As noted elsewhere the stain of sin passes through the father...not the mother. Hence, no need for Mary to be "sinless".
Which, as previously noted, would contradict both the Old and New Testament on the issue of sin.
Also consider...Rome claims Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would be in a perfect womb to avoid contracting sin (which ignores how sin is passed). Yet, the Holy Spirit, is given to each believer and abides in each believer with no degradation to the Holy Spirit or worry of the Holy Spirit contracting sin.
Hence, if follows as this is the case there is no need for Mary to be "sinless".
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart,
and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles,
“Brethren, what shall WE DO?”
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent,
and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins;
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN
and to all that are far off, every one
whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them,
saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41 So those who received his word were baptized,
and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
You can have your "Believers Baptism-
or believe in that non-scriptural tradition of
"Personal Lord and Savior saving thing...
But you can stop trying to push
your belief against those who hold beliefs truly found in the Bible,
and those that the early Church began with.
What the heck is “Protestant Scripture”? I’m not a protestant, so maybe I’m not in the loop.
“Baptism is always the initiation into Christ’s death, and necessary for the forgiveness of sin, for the new Christian.”
Oh right. Now I remember studying that in Cult Class in seminary.
Everything “necessary for the forgiveness of sin” was done by Christ on the cross.
Anyone then, who cannot know these details, and yet says-
"I don't know how it happened-
But it certainly didn't happen this way-
Even though I have no idea how it happened"
Is not being objective or truthful.
Now as God intended to, and did create Adam and Eve sinless -
The he could have done so with Jesus human mature and with the Woman he chose to Birth his sinlessness.
Now we cannot say explicitly how this occurred-
but we can believe this was necessary for God to dwell in her Womb.
Many can decide NOT to believe this as they need-
And that's fine...
but one cannot say absolutely this was not possible.
God HAS provided this possibility ftom the very Beginning.
As noted elsewhere the stain of sin passes through the
father...not the mother. Hence, no need for Mary to be "sinless".
Yes - ancient Jewish belief in scripture was Fatherly...
And that is why Psalm 51 is problematic for you.
The Greek clearly states David is saying:
he was "brought forth in sin-
of HIS MOTHER when he was conceived."
There is no ambiguity there.
You gave a Trileptal here:
He is correct, that the woman contributes to
passing on sin to her offspring;
He is wrong about his Mother's role in an errant way:
Or it is contradicting scripture we breeze over
and pay no attention to it.
Now as much as you don't want to hear this -
and I have been trying to get back to mdmathis on this-
but modern medical science has proven Psalm 51 to be correct-
And to call into question your belief of a Father seed sin line.
And to add BOTH Adam and Eve sinned to contributetothefall.
So what DNA research has proven
is that our human nature comes into existence through chromosomes
supplied by BOTH father and Mother
and are paired to make up the human genome
with the instructions for the development or our human nature.
I can hear you dismissing this already,
but check this out.
(And God help us if they start doing this.)
But through Genetic Cloning- molecular science can
theoretically clone a pure women... taking the necessary chromosome pairs of two females- and splicing together to make a new human nature.
Not sure what the end result is in this.
Another problem with the ancient Father/seed/sin belief you hold to
is that if this type of "cloning" ever become reality-
theoretically this new pure woman would have no male seed- no male chromosomes-
and in your situation - no sin nature -period
conceived totally sinless in a test tube.
Wild stuff I know... but God also gave us science,
not as an enemy,
but as a friend.
There is also similar reasoning on BOTH parents why he rebuffed Moses on the matter of Divorce.
And why the Catholic Church held fast to the
No Divorce teaching up until the modern time.
When two are married in the Sacrament with God-
The become one, one flesh.
In the greek is means a new organism develops.
On that if broken apart through divorce is skin to
amputating parts of a body after joined in marriage (CS Lewis).
The offspring brought forth from this new one flesh, organic marriage,
Are brought forth EQUALLY then from both Father and Mother.
Genius in scripture.
Also consider...Rome claims Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would be in a perfect womb to avoid
contracting sin (which ignores how sin is passed). Yet, the Holy Spirit, is given to each believer and abides in each believer with no degradation
to the Holy Spirit or worry of the Holy Spirit contracting sin.
To this why we say- the Angel greeted The Blessed Virgin-
"Hail, FULL of Grace"...
a fullness that would probably not exist with Grace...
However the Holy Spirit was involved there-
exactly what the process was...
Being Full of Grace was the adequate protection for God, Baby Jesus,
and the Holy Spirit as well as Mary.
As the Third Person of the Ttinity- I don't think it's possible for the Holy Spirit
To contract sin.
Nope. The stain of sin is passed on from the father...not the mother.
And Ps 51 is way more problematic for the Roman Catholic in it is another passage that confirms all have sinned....including Mary and her parents.
Now as God intended to, and did create Adam and Eve sinless - The he could have done so with Jesus human mature and with the Woman he chose to Birth his sinlessness.
Could, yet in Scripture He didn't do so regarding Mary.
Same can be said for the resurrection and any of the miracles performed by Jesus in that we cannot explain them.
However, we do know for certain Jesus was not conceived in the normal way we were. That's crystal clear.
As to the process we don't have need to know.
However, it doesn't require a sinless Mary for this to happen as noted previously.
5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee:
and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee,
and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah was not sinless.
However the difference in this passage and Luke 1 is we have a clear record of God setting apart Jeremiah.
. We don’t have this for Many.
. We don’t have this for Many.
I was asking why would God sanctify Jeremiah in the Womb of his Mother?
Why not after he was born? Why this difference?
Why John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother Elizabeth's womb?
And above all of course, for the Blessed Virgin, and God in her Womb?
Why was this necessary for this Womb intervention, pre-Birth?
And can the Holy Spirit then
exist alongside a sinful nature in the Womb?
Focus just on the Womb for a minute.
However, it doesn't require a sinless Mary
for this to happen as noted previously.
You can't believe God would form Mary in her Mother's womb,
with a privileged saving grace-
because you walk by only the sight of a book.
I believe my Almighty God- who only Breathed scripture out
in such a Holy infallible way -
yet would choose to break into his created world,
to live and grow in a fallible, sinful vessel that you require IS implausible.
As God chose Mary from the beginning,
there is no doubt in my mind
that God would consecrate and sanctify her Womb,
in the same exact way he consecrated
the Most Holy Ark of the Covenant-
with the Law, the Priesthood, and the Manna.
All these items were present in God, in Mary's Womb-
and in such a way as to be totally devoid of sin,
as it is in our fallen human nature.
The Holy of Holies.
While you may feel that exalts Mary above God,
and is heresy...
I'll take my chances with desiring God to be formed
in the most sacred, hallowed place possible.
God chose this for Mary...
Mary did not choose this for herself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.