Mother mary without sin?

[IndigoChild5559]

From what I see the Bible affirms that since Adam, and Eve with him, all have sinned, some more and some less in their lives. Some very few live quite blameless, while there is yet some sin, and all need a Savior. Jesus alone was an exception to that. Being incarnate from God, even while struggling with some temptation to not sin, Jesus never did, and Jesus is the Savior all others need. His mother Mary needed that Savior too.

I'll give you that the New Testament teaches this. But it's really not there in the Tanakh (OT).

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, she never consented to sin of her own free will but she wasn't perfect because she paid the same wages of sin that we all do. Spiritually she was sinless, physically she inherited the same corruptible body we all do. After her death, her body was made perfect and she taken up. But many Catholics believe that she was taken up without dying. I don't and neither did John Paul II

After her death

friend @Absolutely Frank
When and where Mary died, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

friend @Absolutely Frank
When and where Mary died, please, right?

Regards

You seem to be disputing that Mary didn't die, based solely on our not knowing when and where she died. That doesn't really make sense. We don't know when and where Pythagoras died, but he certainly did die.

 

[Balthazzar]

Is mother Mary without sin?

Maybe now, but likely not then. There's a growing process we go through in life and few ever truly hit the mark. I aim, and it's hit and miss sometimes, but that's life. I learn as a go and try to increase my ability to hit the target as aimed.

1 John 3:6 suggests when we're born of God we no longer sin.
1 John 1:8-10 suggests that if we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and make God a liar.

I'll suggest the same was true for Mary. It's a process of becoming right in what we do.

 

[Soulx3]

Is mother Mary without sin?

Yes. A savior is someone who saves another from danger or destruction. God is Mary of Joseph's Savior because He preserved Her soul from becoming subject to the law of the first parents: inheriting original sin (disobedience), and thus it remained immaculate, allowing Her to be full of His Grace. That, coupled with Her being born of just parents, and having natural good will, resulted in Her never actively committing sins. Only someone so perfect as to be second to God could be the Mother of God Incarnate, the most Holy, Pure, and Perfect One.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is mother Mary without sin?

Doesn't the answer depend on whom you ask?

 

[paarsurrey]

Mother mary without sin?
Starlight said:
Is mother Mary without sin?

"Yes. A savior is someone who saves another from danger or destruction. God is Mary of Joseph's Savior because He preserved Her soul from becoming subject to the law of the first parents: inheriting original sin (disobedience), and thus it remained immaculate, allowing Her to be full of His Grace. That, coupled with Her being born of just parents, and having natural good will, resulted in Her never actively committing sins. Only someone so perfect as to be second to God could be the Mother of God Incarnate, the most Holy, Pure, and Perfect One."

Friend @Soulx3 , is one's above expression (#125 ) from (Jesus)Yeshua (/son of Mary)- the truthful Israelite Messiah*, please, right?? Or is one fabricating/forging/inventing a new religion in (Jesus's)Yeshua's name, please, right??

** Who was neither a Christian ( as he never claimed to be) nor a Zealot nor from the stock of Juda aka a Jew, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Who was neither a Christian ( as he never claimed to be) nor a Zionist nor from the stock of Juda aka a Jew, please, right?

Regards

Zionism didn't exsit then, since Jews already were situated in our homeland at that time.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mother mary without sin?

Yes, she never consented to sin of her own free will but she wasn't perfect because she paid the same wages of sin that we all do. Spiritually she was sinless, physically she inherited the same corruptible body we all do. After her death, her body was made perfect and she taken up. But many Catholics believe that she was taken up without dying. I don't and neither did John Paul II

After her death

friend @Absolutely Frank
When and where Mary died, please, right?

Friend @Absolutely Frank , Mary mother of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah joined his son later while he was on his way from Galilee to the East where the Diaspora of Israelites lived, Mary died in Murree and is buried in a grave there (a town "named" after her name) a hilly resort of Pakistan near Islamabad, right, please?
Will one kindly get corrected about one's superstition, please, right?:

23:51 And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them refuge on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water. Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
Right?

Regards
__________________
Original narration/text from Muhammad's time is below:- friend @John D. Brey
23:51 وَجَعَلۡنَا ابۡنَ مَرۡیَمَ وَاُمَّہٗۤ اٰیَۃً وَّاٰوَیۡنٰہُمَاۤ اِلٰی رَبۡوَۃٍ ذَاتِ قَرَارٍ وَّمَعِیۡنٍ ﴿٪۵۱

 

[RabbiO]

Zionism didn't exsit then, since Jews already were situated in our homeland at that time.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew.

If you’re going to slam your head into a brick wall I can loan you a cushioned kippah.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you’re going to slam your head into a brick wall I can loan you a cushioned kippah.

I will also.

Regards
_______________

About Rabbi O

Rabbi Olitzky serves as rabbi and spiritual leader of Congregation Beth El in South Orange, NJ. A native of New Jersey and graduate of the local Golda Och Academy (previously the Solomon Schechter …

rabbiolitzky.wordpress.com

 

[Betho_br]

I do not believe that Mary was without sin, nor do I believe Jesus was either.

If we look at the human condition, you are right in your statement.

However, for those who accept the Christian Bible ("New Testament") as a rule of faith for their religion, the text of Luke 1:28 makes sense, so much so that it is poorly translated in many bibles.

This is the literal translation of the Greek text according to grammatical rules:

Luke 1:28
And approaching her, the angel said: — Hail, she who was made full of grace! The YHVH is with you.

1) " χαιρε " Hail, is found in Matthew 26:49; 27:29; Mark 15:18; John 19:3. Always like a greeting to a King, even if ironic. In Latin we have for example: AVE CESAR! What does this mean? Precisely that the angel considered Mary as superior to him.

2) Let us put the dots in their proper words. The Greek word “κεχαριτωμένη” (was made full of grace! ''plenus gratis" in latin) is a “vocative”, but it is also a verb that expresses the past. The angel does not call the virgin Mary, but rather uses the Greek term to indicate the reason for the choice and how important her participation in the history of salvation would be through her divine motherhood. It is as if at the moment of the annunciation, Mary had changed her name, so that she would be called by that which represented her spiritually.

— in Sir. 18, 17, the person may have «grace», «holiness» or «salvation»,
— in Lk. 1, 18, the person is «grace», «holiness» is «salvation».

The Book of Sirach, also known as the Wisdom of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, is one of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, composed by Joshua son of Sirach (Joshua Ben Sirach or Ben Sirah, or, in Greek Sirach).

3) YHVH was with Mary in the purpose of both her birth and the birth of Jesus.

The many Protestant and even Catholic translations diminish the grammatical richness of these sentences and terms.

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew strangely mentions four women, since the genealogies were only for men, as the book of Matthew was directed to the Jews, and they know that the four matriarchs were of "dubious" reputation... What does the gospel want to tell them? If you believe not in the virgin birth of Mary, you should respect her as a Jewish mother. And note that this is exactly what the Quran does, even more so, because the sacred text says that Jesus is "the Word". In short, the Quran attests that Jesus (A.S.) was born as the Word (Word of God) breathed into Mary (A.S.), let us note that the term Word is also used for the Quran itself with the meaning of the word of God.

 

[John D. Brey]

IF you claim "God created all" THEN belittling others equals belittling God equals absurdity.

If you claim "God created all" THEN belittling absurdity (which would be part of God's creation) equals belittling God equals blasphemy.



John

 

[Muffled]

Is mother Mary without sin?

Absolutely no possibility.

 

[Muffled]

I never think in terms of "sin", because God does not judge I read, and God told us to not judge

If the question was "did mother Mary act always Dharmic", I would be surprised. It's possible of course, but not many humans were born fully enlightened. Even Jesus went through different stages of realization (according to Sai Baba, and some of His the quotes found in the Bible), so I guess mother Mary too

i believe there is sin and God is judge through me.

 

[Muffled]

Our actions do have consequences . God created the law of karma. Divine justice is part of God's love. If God was not just, then God is not love. To be loving you have to be just.

But hell and reincarnation is only temporary, because of God's love for us. In the end all is in heaven

I agree with you. Mother mary followed dharmic, and most likely was fully enlightened

This is a bit cloudy. It is His end game that all be without sin but Heaven was never listed a final destination. I am not even sure there is one. I think we just keep going.

 

[John D. Brey]

Is mother Mary without sin?

No. But ritually speaking, she represents אדם הראשון (Adam prior to the first sin) since prior to Genesis 2:21 ----where a new gender was formed according to the Hebrew phrase ויסגר בשר ("closed up the flesh," hint: penile-raphe) ----Adam was able to give birth him or herself rather than through the original sin of phallic-sex. Mary is a latter-day ha-adam.

Mary only ritually represents the first Adam אדם הראשון since she was herself conceived by means of the evil smelling drop of semen (Avot 3:1) making her a born-sinner like everyone else save one, her son, who is the saver, or savior.

So how can the daughter of sinners (Mary is herself a born-sinner) birth someone without spot or blemish (who's abel to be a korban קרבן offering to God) if she is herself a sinner? . . . Glad you asked.

The Messiah would need to be born of a virgin pregnancy to escape the contamination of Adam’s sin nature passed down through the male seed in procreation (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12). Although the sin nature is passed down through the man’s seed (sperm) in copulation (thus the figurative removal of the phallus to block the spread to the Messiah), one could rightly ask why the female reproductive cell wouldn’t carry sin nature, since it (sin nature) contaminates the entire cell structure of the body? In other words, how does cutting off the sperm guarantee that a virgin birth will provide a body uncontaminated by the sin nature? In R.B. Thieme, Jr.’s book, The Integrity of God, he describes how the seed of the woman is cleansed from the stain of Adam’s sin, and is therefore free (if fertilized apart from Adam’s progeny) to give birth to a Child uncontaminated by Adam’s sin nature.​

​

Human cells are repaired and replenished though a process called mitosis. In mitosis one cell splits and becomes two identical cells; but a more specialized (two-stage) process called meiosis produces the reproductive cells. After the process of meiosis, each cell contains only half the original forty-six chromosomes - twenty-three chromosomes. In this way the child gets his characteristics from both parents as the twenty-three chromosomes of the two reproductive cells combine to reconstitute the needed forty-six chromosomes.​

​

If the male and female process of meiosis were identical - the one immature female reproductive cell would produce four mature reproductive cells. But the female reproductive cell undergoes a unique additional process called oogenesis. Each immature male reproductive cell creates four mature reproductive cells (sperm). But, because of oogenesis, the immature female reproductive cell produces only one mature reproductive cell (ovum). During both stages of meiosis, the female reproductive cell throws off (through oogenesis) unneeded cell matter including the contamination of `original sin,’ into small non-functional polar bodies that soon disintegrate. All contamination related to Adam’s sin nature passes over into the polar bodies leaving one large uncontaminated ovum ready to be re-contaminated by the sperm. It’s the injection of the twenty-three contaminated male chromosomes that re-contaminates the ovum – causing all non-virgin pregnancies to deliver up a contaminated biological body.​

​

It’s an amazing fact that every biologist considers `meiosis' one of the most paradoxical activities in the biological process. There seems to be no explanation whatsoever for the `cross-over’ of the chromosomes into the polar bodies that disintegrate. The cost of meiosis has even worried many of the top evolutionary biologists. To quote Richard Dawkins: `Two of our foremost modern evolutionists have failed to explain to their own satisfaction the advantage of this extraordinary procedure [meiosis] for the individual organism. . .’ii Dawkins continues:​

​

When we try to solve the paradox of the cost of meiosis, perhaps instead of worrying about how sex helps the organism we should search for replicating `engineers’ of meiosis, intracellular agents which actually cause meiosis to happen . . . Although at present it is just a joke to picture chromosomes being dragged kicking and screaming into the second anaphase by ruthlessly selfish centrioles or other miniature genetic engineers, stranger ideas have become common place in the past. And, after all, orthodox theorizing has so far failed to dent the paradox of the cost of meiosis.iii​

​

The paradox of meiosis is solved when we realize that meiosis is necessary to undo original sin by producing an ovum uncontaminated by the very disease infecting every cell of the body. Meiosis is a miracle indeed, and thus Dawkins’ amazement at a picture of genetic engineers (during both anaphases) pulling the contamination of sin nature over from the twenty-three contaminated chromosomes into the twenty-three that are thrown-off through polar body. Dawkins and Maynard Smith concede that there seems to be no explanation (outside Thieme’s teaching) for why this process occurs.​

​

Biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan agree with Dawkins that `meiotic sex’ is a major paradox as far as standard biological reasoning is concerned. In their book, Microcosmos, they dedicate an entire chapter to the “Riddle of [meiotic] Sex.” In chapter 10 they say:​

​

At first—even second—glance, this kind of sex [meiotic] seems a superfluous and unnecessary bother. It has none of the virtues of the free bacterial genetic transfer associated with the world-wide microcosm. In the economic terms that biologists have used to describe it, the `cost’ of this kind of sex—producing special sex cells with half the usual number of chromosomes, finding mates, and timing and performing the act of fertilization—seems all out of proportion to any possible advantage.iv​

​

Margulis and Sagan state that two parent sex was never maintained by natural selection, and that if evolutionary processes can ever bypass biparental sex—through parthenogenesis (like that in beetles, or cloning of humans, or any other way) while still preserving complex multicellularity—then according to Margulis and Sagan, there is no doubt that meiotic sex will go the way of the dinosaurs. They respond to the claim that meiotic sex persists because it increases variety and newness of offspring, which supposedly allows sexual organisms faster adaptation to changing environments, by stating that there, ` . . . is absolutely no evidence that this is true. When the idea was tested by comparing animals that can reproduce either asexually or sexually, such as rotifers and asexually reproducing lizards, scientists found that as the environment varied, the asexual forms were as common as or even more common than their sexual counterparts.’v​

​

In John Maynard Smiths latest work, The Origins of Life, he too goes into some detail to suggest (what every biologist knows) that sex itself appears to be inexplicable as far as evolution is concerned. Sex appears to exist for the express purpose of `meiosis’ and yet from a Darwinistic biologists’ perspective, what is the purpose of `meiosis’? Smith says:​

​

To ensure proper distribution of chromosomes, the production of gametes is a complicated process, as anyone familiar with the accounts of meiosis in biology textbooks will be aware. Because of these complications, and the obvious disadvantages associated with them, it is not surprising that the origin and maintenance of sex continues to be a matter of controversy among biologists.vi​

​

Sexual reproduction is said (in the Scriptures) to have begun at the fall of Adam. Sex is actually an allegory for the rising entropy of the universe. Sex causes the human race to expand (like the universe) as rising entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) brings about the death of the universe. Rising entropy in the human race (which rising entropy is a result of original sin, and sin nature, spread through sex) causes the expansion and rising entropy of the race. The biologist William Clark says in his recent book, Sex and the Origins of Death:​

​

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.vii​

​

Circumcision Allegory.​

Now don't you wish you'd never asked?

---

i R.B. Thieme, Jr., The Integrity of God, p. 59-63.
ii Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, (Oxford University Press, 1982),p. 160.
iii Op. Cit.. p. 161.
iv Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, Microcosmos, (University of California Press, 1997), p. 155, 156. See Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Waters of Eden, where, among other things, Rabbi Kaplan says: "Actually, there is no biological or medical reason why the uteral lining must be expelled and restored each month. There is no reason why the ovum has to `die' only to be replaced by another egg. Most biologists look upon this as an example of unexplained inefficiency in the human reproductive system."
v Op. Cit., p. 163.
vi John Maynard Smith, The Origins of Life, p. 81.
vii William Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death, (Oxford University Press, 1996), prologue XI.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you’re going to slam your head into a brick wall I can loan you a cushioned kippah.

ROTFL, yeah, a cushioned kippah would help. Not slamming my head into a brick wall would help more. I think the only reason I upload such replies is not for the benefit of the person I'm replying to, but for those lurkers which may be fooled by them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Mary died in Murree and is buried in a grave there (a town "named" after her name) a hilly resort of Pakistan near Islamabad, right, please?

Right. Just like King Arthur's body was taken to the isle of Avalon.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mother mary without sin?

Yes, she never consented to sin of her own free will but she wasn't perfect because she paid the same wages of sin that we all do. Spiritually she was sinless, physically she inherited the same corruptible body we all do. After her death, her body was made perfect and she taken up. But many Catholics believe that she was taken up without dying. I don't and neither did John Paul II

After her death

friend @Absolutely Frank
When and where Mary died, please, right?

Friend @Absolutely Frank , Mary mother of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah joined his son later while he was on his way from Galilee to the East where the Diaspora of Israelites lived, Mary died in Murree and is buried in a grave there (a town "named" after her name) a hilly resort of Pakistan near Islamabad, right, please?
Will one kindly get corrected about one's superstition, please, right?:

23:51 And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them refuge on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water. Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
Right?

Regards
__________________
Original narration/text from Muhammad's time is below:-
23:51 وَجَعَلۡنَا ابۡنَ مَرۡیَمَ وَاُمَّہٗۤ اٰیَۃً وَّاٰوَیۡنٰہُمَاۤ اِلٰی رَبۡوَۃٍ ذَاتِ قَرَارٍ وَّمَعِیۡنٍ ﴿٪۵۱

friend @John D. Brey ^ the above.

"Mary died in Murree and is buried in a grave there (a town "named" after her name) a hilly resort of Pakistan near Islamabad, right, please?"
paarsurrey once visited her grave long time ago and prayed for her to Allah/One G-d (not the Christian-god Jesus)
, right, please?

Regards