If Mary was born without original sin and did not sin during her life, does that mean that she did not need to be saved by Jesus?

By November 28, 2014 37 Comments

Full Question

If Mary was born without original sin and did not sin during her life, does that mean that she did not need to be saved by Jesus?


Christ’s death on the cross was an eternal event; as such, its graces could reach back in time, as well as forward. This means that the grace that Christ would win on Calvary could be applied to Mary in anticipation of Calvary. This was how she was saved from any stain of sin, both original and actual. Medieval theologians created the analogy of two people approaching a pit. If the first falls in and is rescued from the pit, and the second is prevented from falling into the pit, both are saved, and it even could be said that the one whose fall was prevented is saved far more completely than the one who was raised from the pit


  • sarah cutter says:

    Mary was cocived in her mothers womb without the stain of original sin because jesus was god she was 2 be his tabernacle and higher than the angels bcause the lord god had her in his mind as soon as eve fell from grace . Mary is the second eve and the spritual mother of all mankind.

    • Mark Jonczy says:

      Utterly ridiculous, there is no Biblical reference for this. None, unless it was rewritten by an Adversary of truth. When Judgement Day finally arrives, the Catholic church will be called to account for changing the Word of God. I’m glad it isn’t ne, that will be receiving self judgement. God will judge me, but those evil men, who knowingly, and willingly align themselves with the Evil One, will judge themselves. They know what the truth is.

  • doctoropie says:

    Mary was a sinner like everyone else that has ever been born, except Jesus. Mary was not born without the sin nature, that is not biblical. She was not perfect and the bible never claims she was. She was human and not a god. She had to believe in Jesus as the messiah like everyone else or she would not have been saved/born again. Those who make Mary out to be perfect and worship her and pray to her are breaking the first 2 of the 10 commandments. How can one believe that Jesus is the son of God , our messiah, our passover lamb and put Mary on the same pedestal ? that is wrong and unbiblical. Mary was a sinner, she actually had relations with her husband and had children later on after the birth of Christ. But she is not our Messiah or our atonement for our sins, neither was Moses, Abraham, King David, Peter, John, or any other human. This is one of the biggest lies in religion. Very, Very unbiblical.

    • will says:

      Doctoropie: Virgin Mary had no other children but only our Lord Jesus Christ. A cousin, they called it also a brother which was mistakenly understood by somebody that Jesus had other siblings.

    • doctorpie, I can understand what you are saying. Claiming Mary to be sinless, though, does not make her equal to Jesus: He is the Son of God, whereas she is a human woman and not God at all. However, as the original post tries to say, Mary was born free of sin because the Son of God saved her at the moment of her conception. She, like any devout Jew in her time, eagerly awaited the Messiah; hence her surprise when Gabriel informed her that she would be the mother of God’s Anointed One!
      Some have asked me, “Why start with Mary? Why not believe that Jesus was conceived without sin?” Good question. However, any Biblical Christian believes that it is the Son of God who saves mankind from sin, yes? Who redeems our fallen nature, which we inherit from our parents (since humans come from humans, after all). If the Son of God was to become a human being, He would have to inherit a human nature from His mother; if His mother was a sinner (all mothers would be) then He, in His humanity, would be as well. Thus He would have to save Himself from sin since, again, it is the Son of God that redeems fallen humanity, and no other.
      Would the Son of God save Himself, though? Did He come to serve Himself, or to serve everyone else? Is He the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, starting with Himself? Perhaps He could, but if we look to the Cross we may get a better sense of whether or not Jesus would save Himself:
      “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, and come down from the cross!” Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” (Matthew 27:40-43)
      Could Jesus have saved Himself? Yes, but He did not: for He did not come to save Himself, but to save us. He could, however, redeem His mother–as He intended to redeem all who would believe in Him–and because the Son of God knew the role she would play in His life He blessed her with the unique privilege of being the first saved, from the very first moment of her existence in this world. The First Eve was the first to Fall; the New Eve was the first to be saved. While Scripture isn’t *explicit* regarding Mary being conceived free from sin, it is certainly not contrary to Scripture.
      Catholics do not hold Mary as being equal to God: that would indeed violate God’s commandments! She is sinless, yes, but not of her own doing–as God is sinless–but by the work of God in her, from the very moment of her creation. If you read Gabriel’s greeting in the Greek, you can receive a hint of this, though: when he says, “Hail, full of grace!” the Greek for “full of grace” is “kecharitomene”, a word that appears in the perfect past tense. Literally, it means “having been graced,” alluding to a past–rather than a present or future–event.
      Everything that Catholics believe about Mary comes first and foremost from what we believe about Jesus. We believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God, the spotless Lamb who takes away our sins. Given this, and given what we believe regarding sin, we realized that if Jesus was conceived and born as we all are, then everything He inherited in His humanity was taken from His mother, which means by Christ we can know certain things about her of which Scripture is silent. The Church did not make these up, adapt them from pagan beliefs, or anything of the sort: all we believe about Mary originates first and foremost in our beliefs regarding Jesus Christ, the Son of God because, as Catherine posts below, it is indeed all about Him.
      I hope this was helpful and perhaps interesting for you.

      • John Hallman says:

        Jacob, after reading your comment, I felt I had to respond. You make a number of errors that are somewhat common, but still errors and unBiblical.
        You ask “Why not believe that Jesus was conceived without sin?” Well, as God, He of course was, as is accepted by all Christians, and in fact noted by you later in your comment (“the spotless Lamb”). I believe that there is a fundamental difference between God and man, and of course you would agree. So the comparison itself between the salvation of Mary and that of Jesus is incorrect.
        You also admit “While Scripture isn’t *explicit* regarding Mary being conceived free from sin, it is certainly not contrary to Scripture.” Well, it isn’t explicit, and it isn’t really even implicit, but was a concept that was created by the Catholic Church some years later in 1854 by Pius IX.
        And finally, the concept that Jesus inherited his humanity from his mother. There is no biblical basis for saying this, as that would imply that God somehow had to acquire all human characteristics, which is of course false. Are you saying that Jesus then had original sin as God? That would imply that God had contained sin, which of course would to most people be considered at least false teaching, and at most heresy.
        Perhaps a more dedicated attention to the Bible, which is the sole Word of God for the church that Jesus Christ started (Christianity, not Catholicism, which is an offshoot), would be warranted.

        • Jacob says:

          Hello John,
          Thank you for your reply. I of course believe, as do all Christians, that God is without sin; “a house divided against itself cannot stand!” But in putting forward the question “Why not believe that Jesus was conceived without sin?” I am not proceeding to say that God has sin, but rather I am pointing out that God was conceived as a human being, taking upon Himself (rather than creating ex nihilo) the human nature of whomever He was being conceived within. If Jesus is both fully God and fully man, as the early Church defined quite clearly against the heresies of the day, then Jesus obtained His human nature from Mary, all human beings receive their human nature from their human parents. The connection I made between Mary’s salvation and Jesus was that Mary needed to be saved from sin in order to prevent Jesus from inherited a sinful nature from her later on, rather than Jesus “saving Himself” from sin at the moment of His own conception.If God created, in the instant of the Incarnation, an unfallen, sinless human nature for His Son to assume, this flirts quite precariously with Arianism.
          I also was not saying that Scripture was implicit regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary; I was pointing out that Scripture was not explicit in saying that she was, nor is Scripture explicit (or implicit, for that matter), that she was not. Have you read Pius IX’s document on the Immaculate Conception?
          He does a nice job of summarizing the history of the Christian belief and teaching; for example, Christians in Syria have celebrated the conception of Mary since at least the 5th century. The year 1854 is significant only because the Church defined and dogmatized it, in essence spelling out clearly what Christians had believed and taught already for a very, very long time. It was hardly “created”, as you say, in the 19th century. Did the Council of Chalcedon “create” the essential Christian belief that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, as though true Christians before 451 taught and believed to the contrary? Of course not; but because of the debates and confusion of the time the Church settled the matter by defining it clearly and authoritatively. This is what Pius IX did in 1854 regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
          Regarding Jesus inheriting His humanity from His mother: what, then, is Paul speaking of when he writes to the Galatians regarding Jesus, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman…” (Gal .4:4) Or what is the angel referring to when he says to Mary, “Behold, you will conceive in our womb and bear a son…” and a little later, “Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:31, 35) Scripture does not seem to suggest that the Son of God appeared as a full-term baby within Mary, or that Mary was simply a vessel, a formality through which Jesus had to pass in order to appear fully human, as a car passes through a tunnel to get past a mountain. If Mary was a sinner, just as we, are you saying then that Jesus was nourished nine months in her womb on the blood of a sinner; in essence, the Son of God was sustained in His humanity by sin? “The life is in the blood” Scripture teaches us; if the same mechanics of pregnancy that apply to us apply to Jesus, as Scripture suggests in its talk of His conception, bearing and birth–even being nursed at the breast (Luke 11:27)–then if Mary was a sinner, Jesus has sinful life coursing through His veins. You say earlier in your comments that God and man are two different things–though, of course, in Christ they become one and the same–yet near the end of your comment you are suggesting that God already had all the characteristics of a human being and therefore did not need to acquire them from elsewhere.
          I am saying that Jesus inherited His humanity from His mother, because He did not have a human father from whom to inherit it. Where else would His human nature come from, unless we are to take up an Arian position? I have pointed out Scripture that tells us He was conceived, He was carried to term and He was born, all indications that He endured the same processes of conception, implantation and maturation we all do, save that He was conceived by God’s power and not by human seed. Scripture says that He was like us in all ways except sin (Hebrews 4:15); if Jesus did inherit His human nature from His mother, and if He came not to redeem–save–Himself but to save us, how is it that He, too, does not have sin? I am absolutely not saying that Jesus had original sin as God, and I do not recall saying such a thing in my previous statement as that would, indeed, be a heresy. I am saying that the Immaculate Conception explains how Jesus received an unfallen, sinless human nature from His mother in a way that is not contrary to Scripture, which tells us clearly that He a)came to save not Himself, but all mankind b)that He was without sin c)that He was conceived and born as any other person d) that He was fully human and fully God. The Church’s long held belief and teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception not only demonstrates how all this is possible, but also further glorifies the greatness and wisdom of God.
          As for your closing comment regarding the history of Christianity, let’s not derail the conversation; if there is a question elsewhere on this website regarding such a topic, please raise it there and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

    • Lea Leger says:

      Read my comment to Catherine. Is this unbiblical to you?? Mary is revealed to be” Full of Grace” Luke 1 v 28 Mary is not just called “Blessed among women” but more blessed than all women (including Eve ) Luke 1 v 42 Mary is revealed to be free from pangs of labor in fullfilment in Isaiah 66 v 7-8 Can you give me a reference that Mary is a sinner? What is meant “Full of Grace or Blessed state??? Mary is revealed to be the beginning of new creation in fulfillment of the prophecy of jeremiah 31-22. Read all the passages of the bible and you will find tthe truth.

      • In Mary’s own Magnificat (Luke 1:46-47) she says :: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. ” What is she being saved from, if she was sinless? And then in Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous, no, not one.” …and then again in Romans 3:23 “…for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” As you say, the truth of the Bible can only be found by reading ALL of it.

        • Luke says:

          Even though Mary was conceived without sin, she was still subject to the redemption won for us all on the Cross. She still needed the sacrifice of Christ, and her sinless nature was in anticipation of this event.
          As for reading all of Scripture, what say you to Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps even Moses, as far as “righteous ones” who (in 2 of 3 cases) were clearly taken up to God?

    • eleanor says:

      Fine ,all have sin say d bible but Mary was chosen among all sinners,that’s a honour from GOD .For God to to born by her another honour.Then consider your wife disrespecting your mother,the woman that brought you to dis world,y do we celebrate women’s day or what is women’s day?Please let’s give honour to whom it is due..

    • you have no original thought sir. just more protestant heresy. to say the Mother of God, Christ and Savior is just like anyone else.. Same a Jesus no, but full of Grace, as said to her by Gabriel, yes.. is saying most of what you said from biblical reference. No! you’re making thing up and/or passing along regurgitated false truths that malign the best human being ever born, Our Lady..

    • Robert says:

      Mary was never a sinner … She was in God’s mind to be used as the mother of Jesus…You CANNOT send a savior through a. SINNER…Read the Bible again and see if there’s a verse.saying she’s a.sinner…non of those would say that .. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG

  • matt says:

    The Virgin Mary was the reason for the creation of the universe!!! as she was the first being God thought about before time & space, the perfect vessal in which God himself would be carried!!! at the moment of her conception the Virgin Mary was saved from original sin by the merits of God’s heart ( the Son Jesus) this meant this logically meant that the Virgin Mary would be souly created and born of God’s grace!!! the Virgin Mary is the most perfect being to ever be created by God both spiritually and physically

    • Catherine says:

      OHHH MY GOSH!!!…who in tarnation told you this horse hockey???? Do you even READ your bible Matt & Sarah??…or just stand like a sheep and nod at everything the Catholic church tells you??
      Please read the comment above yours by doctoropie…and then read your bible. Start a relationship with Jesus…our Lord…the living God…and believe what He teaches…
      It’s all about Him…NOBODY else!!!…including Mary!!!
      Lord bless you!

      • Dear Catherine,
        I hope my response to doctorpie is helpful for you, too. God bless.

      • Lea Leger says:

        Mary is holy child without sin, pure and pre destined to become the mother of God. Galatians 4 v 4 But God willed that his work of salvation be accomplished through the cooperation of a Woman while respecting her free will. Mary is vulnerable treasure of he whole world. Mary was preserved by God from sin, since her conception which is why Angel Gabriel call her “Kecharitone’ (Greek) Luke Gospel meaning -She Who is perfected in Grace. Mary is the reflection of God’s beauty and Glory. And Mary said, “My soul glorifies the Lord……..Luke 1 v 46-48 Wisdom 7 v 26 “For she is the reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God and an image of his goodness. You are the one who must read the Bible and find the truth. The Catholic Church is the author of the Bible. Who complied the Bible?? Who were the first christians ???? Mary is our Spiritual mother, wether you like it or not, since Jesus gave her to us at the foot of the cross. since she is the mother of christ, she is also the mother of Christ’s body, the Chucrch. “Behold your mothe” (John 19 v 22-26 ) You are not using your brain. Mary is not Messiah or God. We Pray to Mary or the Saints to intercede our prayer to God. Intercession among members of the body of christ is pleasing to God. (1 Tim. 2 v 1-4) Those in heaven are part of the mystical body of Christ and have not been separated from us by death.but sorround us a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12 v 1 ).The saints are not among the dead. In Luke 20 v 38 that holy men and women who have died are as alive today as they were on earth. James 5 v 8 the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful You are very ignorant about the teachings of the Church.All the doctrine and teaching of the Church is biblical and apostolic. Read all the passages of the Bible and you will find the truth.

  • Bill says:

    It amazes me how Catholics would rather hold onto their churches unbiblical teaching rather than read the Bible. Mary, in her magnificant, called God “Her Savior.” And you can’t call God Savior unless He has forgiven you from your sins.

    • Hello Bill,
      I hope my response to doctorpie proves helpful for you; Mary called God “her Savior” because, indeed, He was, and Catholics believe this. God bless.

    • SaiaMara says:

      Hi Bill,
      I believe God knows, and i hope you acknowledge it too, that we humans can have different opinions and interpretations on certain things. And the Bible is one of that. Since the scripture is God’s word, and very sacred and important, it is but right to have someone to tell us the correct message behind each verse. It is one of the reasons why Jesus appointed Peter. And from then on it has been passed to our very pope today, to the church. The bible has been written many many many years ago, and we cannot deny that several people do not know any background of it. We cant just interpret it the way we want to. Because if we do, it will cause division in church, until such time that an agreement will almost be impossible. There has to be someone, who will tell us what the correct meaning is especially when it involves God himself.We are prone to mistakes and we cannot risk misinterpretations. It is God’s word we are talking about.
      It’s easy to just be convinced by your arguments, if the person has no idea of the doctrine of the catholic church.
      If you really want to know, try putting aside your insults and attacks and biases on us. Search thru catholic sites such as catholic answers, and in youtube they have lots of videos too, im sure it will be able to provide you with aswers.
      God bless you. 🙂

      • William says:

        SaiaMara……Like many Catholics, you would rather believe what the RCC tells you than taking what the Bible says. In the passage concerning Simon’s name being changed to Peter, there are two Greek words for rock. The first word means a “tiny peppble” which is what Peter means. The second word means “A gigantic rock.” The “Gigantic Rock” is Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. The Church IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT built upon Peter. I don’t need to search unbiblical sites like “Catholic Answers.” And Jacob, you’re “Mary” defense is just as weak.

        • Luke says:

          Your use of the “petros/petra” distinction doesn’t really hold water, and here’s why:
          First off, let’s go ahead and use the (unlikely) assumption that Jesus (of Nazareth), when speaking alone with his Apostles (from Galilee) used conversational Greek. You are correct in pointing out that there are two different Greek words for “rock.” We have “petra,” the gigantic rock, the boulder, etc. And we have “petros,” the tiny pebble, a small rock.”
          Something else we also have in Greek is gender endings, which don’t exist in English, but are extant in many languages throughout the history of the world (Spanish is a good example). So we have Simon, son of Jonah, receiving a new name, which is Peter, the Rock, Petros in the Greek. In the next part of the sentence we have the word petra, which contains a feminine ending, whereas petros is masculine. Now when giving someone a name in that language, the ending of the word has to reflect the gender of the name-bearer rather than the noun it might reference. So, because we’re dealing with the rules on how a specific language works there’s not a whole lot we should infer from this one sentence based on the words used without the context of the rest of the passage.
          Secondly, let’s consider the far more likely scenario that Jesus and his disciples probably spoke Aramaic amongst themselves, since that was more or less the “common tongue” of the land at that time. In that language, Peter, the Rock, becomes Kepha (or Kephas, as Paul uses a bit), which means “rock” in almost the same way that you can say “rock” in English and it means everything from the pebbles in your aquarium to Ayers Rock in Australia.
          And William, the final thing against your argument is that many Protestant and Evangelical scholars have come to the conclusion that the rock on which Christ would build his church is not Himself, nor His own teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The scriptural and historical evidence disagrees with your position. And Jacob’s defense of Mary is pretty good.

          • William says:

            Typical Catholic responses from you Luke. You’d, like millions upon millions of other Catholics would rather believe what you’ve brainwashed into believing by the RCC over what the Bible says. Everything I posted IS 100 Percent Biblical whereas everything you posted is what Catholics have been brainwashed into believing. I feel sorry for you.

          • Luke says:

            I appreciate the passion with which you defend your position, but I resent your opinion that my beliefs can only be followed by brainwashed masses unable to think for themselves. I feel like I presented a pretty good refutation of your stance, which you based on the biblical Greek (good for you, by the way, for knowing that), by providing you an explanation of the rules of Koine Greek –which cannot allow a man to have a name with a feminine ending– and that’s true, whether the author is Matthew or Plutarch.
            That’s also why I presented the same passage in Aramaic, which many scholars (and Church Fathers (Irenaeus (supported by Origen)) believe to have been the original language in which Matthew wrote his Gospel. In that language, there’s no issue with Kepha being the kepha on which Christ would build His Church.
            I’m not sure how you can say my answer isn’t any less biblical than yours. Mine is just more linguistically correct. There is no reason that the “petra” of the Church cannot be Petros, Simon bar Jonah.

          • Jacob says:

            William, I think that Luke’s efforts at pointing out the unique characteristics of the Greek language and the clever use of it in the Evangelist’s work demonstrate a thought process far more complicated than brainwashing. You can’t crack open the Catechism to find this note regarding petra/petros, and you certainly don’t get it in Sunday school. The Gospels were not written in English, after all. It is true, William, that taken literally petra and petros mean different things, but considering that the latter is the name by which Simon is known throughout the rest of that particular Gospel, don’t you think the Evangelist means something more?
            In Greek, Matthew 16:18 reads “Kago de soi lego hoti su ei petros kai epi taute te petra oikodomedo mou ten ekklesian kai pulai hadou ou katischusousin autes.”
            “petros” refers to Peter and is used as a proper noun in the nominative, singular, masculine sense. In this sense it can, when not being used as a person’s name, also mean “stone.” The “rock” on which Christ says He will build His Church, “petra”, is a noun in the dative, singular feminine, indicating a small stone or pebble. So, while what you said was Biblical in that you took it from Scripture, you actually got your words a bit mixed up. Peter is the “large rock” and it is the “tiny pebble” on which Jesus is claiming to build His Church.
            I appreciate your criticism of my defense of Mary, which I tried to base as much on Scripture as possible. However, you did not criticize anything specifically. If you care to elaborate on anything in particular, I would be happy to try and clarify anything that was not clear, or further address any points you found wanting. God bless you, and do remember that Christ said that the world will know that we are His disciples by how we love one another. (John 13:35)

          • williamrussolesi@yahoo.com says:

            Luke, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Peter IS NOT the rock on whom the Church is built. But you Catholics don’t/won’t listen to the truth. Please don’t bother replying. You don’t want to listen. And I’m done arguing with you Catholics. You know your wrong. I know your wrong. But you, like so many Catholics, simply refuse to listen.

          • Luke says:

            William, I don’t know how you can keep arguing against the rules of a written language. And the only non-biblical sources that I have used to prove my point come from the near-universally accepted writing of 2nd and 3rd century A.D. Church Fathers… I would enjoy seeing any sort of proof that you can provide, besides just repeating that I am in the wrong. Give me any other bit of evidence, sir, and I would gladly listen to your arguments.

  • It seems the problem here is an attempt to prevent sinless God from contacting sinful flesh, but it is that THAT VERY THING that must occur at some point, otherwise Mary’s mother would also need to be sinless… and so on back to Eden, I suppose. BUT what a glorious office Mary has among all women to have ever lived on this planet. She provided the egg… the flesh of all mankind which the Holy Spirit quickened in her providing a place where the fulness of God could be conceived within her! That is enough for her to be greatly honored by all mankind for eternity. SHE DOES NOT NEED TO BE SINLESS! She was one of us, the one human that God chose to be His ‘touchpoint’ among all flesh. For that alone I give her great honor.

    • Luke says:

      I would like to give you one point that I always found interesting, you may like it too, I don’t know.
      You are correct in stating that Mary does not NEED to be sinless in order to be the Mother of God. He can work around that problem any way He wishes. But I believe that He chose Mary to be conceived w/o sin b/c of her role as the “new Eve” (among other reasons).
      As Christ was the New Adam, so was Mary the “new Eve” and just as sin entered the world through her who was made without sin, so was the redeemer brought into the world by she who was without sin.
      You can notice in scripture that God has this way of bringing things full circle, and this might be useful as a way into believing in the Immaculate Conception.

  • Andre Oqueli says:

    It always amazes me how many ill-informed Protestants come onto a Catholic site to vent their non-biblical Scripture alone rubbish doctrine and then accuse us Catholics of being the Satan worshippers, and without a relationship with Jesus Our Lord and God Almighty. You Protestants make me laugh, but pity you at the same time, and I will be praying for you all to come home to Christ and His Church.

    • John Hallman says:

      Andre, in your diatribe, you failed to contradict any of the comments made above. Feel free to use Scripture to prove the commenters wrong on anything. Rational responses instead of attacks are most appreciated to fellow Christians.

      • Andre Oqueli says:

        Hmmm well if you would like to debate with me, I’m certainly welcome to let God use me to tell the Truth, since I have nothing to be ashamed of in doing so. Still time and again Non-Catholic Christians such as yourselves who claim to know Scripture misunderstand it very easily since you have no central teaching authority guided by the Holy Spirit as we are fortunate to have. This I know from personal experience that far TOO many Non-Catholic Christians unintentionally teach false doctrine and such and then claim that we do that when we actually don’t. If you would like to know what I’m referring to specifically I will do my best by the Holy Spirit to state them but I think Jacob for example and others are doing a marvellous job. It would be nice for you to reciprocate, as you and others use only a smattering of Scripture when whole books of the Holy Bible can be used to counter your arguments, but most of all what I sometimes fin disappointing is when many Protestants simply refuse to see reason and instead repeat the same old diatribes against the Church of Christ The Lord Our God

  • It is quite tiring to see the amount of Catholic bashing that so called Christians do.. so much ego and angst against the Institution that is the only True and Original Church started by Our Blessed Lord.. where did you all get the Bible’s you supposedly study.. brought through a bloody history to hand it to wanna be scholars who bash true believers over the head with it..

    • Crystal Berry says:

      JESUS never had Mary’s Blood. Because, Mary was born into sin just like everyone else. JESUS had His Fathers Blood. Mary was chosen as the vessel to carry Our Lord.

      • Lu says:

        You are woefully ignorant of how biology and physiology work.
        For Jesus to have been born as man (which he was), he would need a human mother (which he did) and that mother would have to give of herself (which she did) in order to carry and nourish the child. Indeed, the most recent research actually indicates that when a child is born, he or she leaves traces behind in their mother, such as stem cells (which may help to explain why women live longer than men, the studies I’ve seen are very cool: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/12/fetal-cells-repair-strokes/5412383/ (also, look at the line where research proves that mothers and children exchange blood during pregnancy and childbirth).
        We believe, as the early Church also believed, that Mary, through God’s intervention at her conception, was preserved from the state of sin in order that the Son might have a perfect vessel into which to enter his creation.
        Also, the other part of your statement doesn’t make sense either. Jesus could not have the Father’s blood, as the Father is incorporeal, and the Son and the Father are not the same person within the Trinity.

  • Oribariho Emmanuel. says:

    i love Mother Mary coz she is ever merciful n anyone that offers her/himself completly to her in orderto do the will of God will never fail to archieve her/his goal.

  • Willan says:

    Matthew 1:24 , 25
    When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
    But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
    Mark 3:31 -314
    Then Jesus mother and brother’s arrived. Standing outside. they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, ” Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you. ”
    Who are my mother and my brothers? “? he asked.
    Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Who -ever does God’s will is my brother and my sister and mother. ”
    You guys have to read the bible and debate on facts.
    Mary was a Virgin but after the birth of Jesus, she had a normal healthy relationship to her husband. They had 4 sons together and also daughters .
    The Apostles were horrified when human were worshipping them, as Jesus said when tempted in the desert “worship God only “.
    Mary did not died for humanity and the Apostles not too. They died for Christ only.
    So Mary and Apostel worship is a sin and should never be . As well, only Jesus can forgive sins, as there’s no higher Name.
    It is the blood of Jesus that cleansing us from sin, nothing else. If a prist requires you to confess to him and he could forgive you, he sins against God and you. Read the Bible, good one is new international version, king James bible, living translation.

Leave a Reply Brethren !