Share on
Apologetics for the Masses #332 - Debate on the Sinlessness of Mary (Cont'd)
Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...
Topic
A Debate, with Anti-Catholic Steve Fitz, on: The Sinlessness of Mary (Finale)
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Introduction
Okay, folks, this is the finale with Steve Fitz on "The Sinlessness of Mary." It's a little longer than normal, but I think the extra time spent will be well worth it...at least, I hope you feel it is.
His arguments get ripped to shreds. And, I'm willing to bet that there are some arguments for Mary's sinlessness in here that many of you may have never heard before.
I will post each of his objections/arguments and respond to them individually. His comments are in italics. For the 1st part of my response, where you can see my comments that he is responding to, click here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/419-apologetics-for-the-masses-327-the-sinlessness-of-mary-cont-d
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Steve Fitz
CCC 100 states "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Tell me John, how many times have you tried to interpret the Bible knowing you had no authority to do so? In fact, I just had a conversation with a Catholic in your group who stated that the Catholic Church has interpreted very few passages from the Bible. Thats sad knowing that 2 Timothy 3:16 states " All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." John how are Catholics going to get training in righteousness when your church forbids them to interpret the Bible? "John can you give me the official list of Bible verses that have been interpreted by the magisterium and under what pope particular verses were interpreted?
John Martignoni
Ignorance, especially when presented as superior intelligence, is never a pretty thing. Steve thinks he has a really good argument here, when, in fact, he is simply showing how little he actually knows about the Catholic Church. When the Catechism states that the Magisterium is the "authentic" interpreter of the Word of God, it nowhere states that "only" the Magisterium is allowed to inerpret the Word of God. The word "authentic" does not mean "sole." What CCC #100 is saying, is that we, as Catholics, are free to interpret the Word of God, but for any interpretation to be "authentic" - or true - it has to be within the parameters, or boundaries, of the teachings of the Church as given to us by the Magisterium. So, I, as well as every Catholic, has the authority to interpret Scripture. But, our interpretations are "authentic" only if they do not contradict the teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Any interpretation outside the boundaries of magisterial teaching is not authentic.
Steve's misunderstanding of Catholic teaching renders his arguments here null and void, as they are based on false assumptions. You have to wonder, if he can't properly interpret the words of men, why would we want to believe his interpretations of the Word of God?
Steve Fitz
Although interpreting the Bible according to your church is up to the Magisterium, Catholics interpret it all the time. The problem is they take Bible verses out of context in order to justify the false doctrine of the Catholic church. There are two ways to interpret the bible. These two ways are exegesis and eisegesis.
The word exegesis means to "To lead out of" In other words, the interpreter is lead to conclusions by the text itself. Eisegesis on the other hand means "to lead into". In other words, the interpreter of the Bible injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. This is what you and other catholics do all the time. You go to the Bible to find verses that will uphold the doctrine of your church even though they were taken out of context. This way of study leads to false doctrine such has Purgatory which Catholics claim is taught in 1 Corinthians Chapter 3 and the conclusion that Mary was sinless. Which leads me back to the debate topic.
John Martignoni
It was oh so nice of him to explain the proper way to interpret the Bible. What a wonderful guy. But, what he says here, is why my questions to him - the ones he was too afraid to answer - were particularly relevant to the debate. He claims that Catholics are taking Bible passages out of context and that we are engaging in "eisegesis" when we interpret the Bible and that that leads to our false doctrines. Well, what he is actually claiming, is not that Catholics misunderstand the Word of God, but that Catholic understanding of Scripture is at odds with his fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretation of the Word of God. So, Catholics are not necessarily contradicting the Word of God, they are actually contradicting the Word of Steve. Big difference! Again, this is why he did not want to answer my questions about everything he was saying being his private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of Scripture, as well as the questions asking him by what authority he declared Catholics to be wrong on anything.
Steve, I reject your fallible, man-made interpretations of Scripture, and I do not recognize you to have any authority, whatsoever, to tell me, or any Catholic - or anyone else for that matter - that our interpretations of Scripture are wrong.
Steve Fitz
2) Jesus was uniquely qualified to die on the cross because he was sinless!! It just so happens that only God is without sin!! Again, the animal sacrifices being without defect is a foreshadow of Christ's sacrifice.
John you tried to use the example of Passover in which the Israelites eat the flesh of the lamb and tie it to Catholic communion. The verse that you and other Catholics sight in the New Testament is John 6:54. The verse states "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." John, do you see what is missing from the passover feast? The blood of course!!! Were the Jews drinking blood along with eating the flesh of the Lamb John? Of course not, eating blood was forbidden by the law. Leviticus 17:10-12 states "I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”
John what saved the Jews from death the night of passover? It was the blood again!! It was not the flesh of the Lamb that spared them, it was was the blood around the door frames of their houses. So John, comparing your Catholic communion with the Passover is comparing apples to oranges
John Martignoni
Sorry, Steve, but Jesus was not uniquely qualified to die on the Cross just because He was sinless, but because He was, and is, God. Do you notice how he did not respond at all to the Scripture verse I used to back up my claim: 2 Cor 5:18-19, “All this is from God, Who through Christ reconciled us to Himself...that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself..." God was "in Christ" reconciling the world to Himself. If God was not "in Christ" then the world would not have been reconciled to God. Steve has no answer to that, because he simply does not want to accept this fact.
Now, regarding the Passover as a prefiguring, or type, of the Eucharist, a few points: 1) As Steve knows, any type (or prefiguring) from the Old Testament will not be an exact match to the New Testament fulfillment of that type. For example, the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament are a type, or prefiguring, of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross. So, does the fact that Jesus isn't a dumb animal mean the type is invalid? Of course not. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, is a type of the Father being willing to sacrifice His Son. Does the fact that Abraham never actually sacrificed Isaac make the type null and void? Of course not. Just so with the Passover meal. It is not a perfect one-to-one match with its New Testament fulfillment. That does not invalidate the comparison.
2) It was indeed the blood that saved the Israelites. But, where did the blood come from? The body. In addition to putting the blood around their doors, the Israelites were also commanded to eat the lamb. As 1 Cor 10:18 tells us: "Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" And verse 16 before that: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" They eat the bread and drink the blood of the sacrifice which is a participation in the blood - and the body - of the Lamb of God, whose bones were not broken. And this "cup of blessing" being spoken of...what is that? It's the cup of blessing from the Passover meal they celebrate each year. The Passover meal which used the blood of the lamb whose bones were not broken. Hmmm...sound familiar? Well, Scripture tells us the bones of Jesus were not broken. Why? In order that Scripture might be fulfilled (John 19:36). What Scripture is John 19:36 referring to? Exodus 12:46 - "...and you shall not break a bone of [the lamb]." What is Exodus 12:46 talking about? The Passover meal. And what is the main focus in this passage from Exodus of the ongoing remembrance of the Passover meal for the Israelites? Is it the blood? Nope. It's eating the flesh of the lamb.
3) Steve makes a big deal about how eating blood was forbidden by the law - most Protestant apologists do when they are arguing against the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Well, indeed it was. But, don't you think the Lawgiver can change the law? Also, Steve recognizes highlights the passage (Lev 17:10-12) which states that the life of the creature is in the blood. Exactly! Which is why John 6 states, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no LIFE in you." Steve is, essentially, making my point for me.
Also, in regard to the law forbidding the eating of blood, think about this: Would Jesus ever tell us to symbolically sin? Would He ever tell us to symbolically do something that was wrong? Would He ever tell us to symbolically break the law? For example, would Jesus ever tell us to symbolically murder someone? Or to symbolically rape someone? Of course not? Yet, that is Steve's argument, and the argument of Protestant apologists everywhere. They are essentially arguing that Jesus, in John 6, is telling us to symbolically do something that is wrong. Steve's argument is that since the law says it is wrong to eat blood (so I guess he's never had prime rib), then Jesus cannot be telling us to drink His literal blood, because that was forbidden by the law. So, he concludes, Jesus is telling us to symbolically drink His blood. In other words, Steve is arguing that Jesus is symbolically (according to Protestant theology) telling us to break the law...to sin...to do something that is wrong. Again, would Jesus ever do such a thing? Of course not. So, there is a huge huge problem with Steve's argument here. I wish I could ask him about that. But, he probably wouldn't answer.
Steve Fitz
John you stated "The reason Mary was sinless is because God saved her from sin". I asked you to give me verses that Mary was sinless. I gave you plenty of verses that stated Jesus was sinless. So in your next post, list those verses for me!!!! Or is this just your opinion coming from a fallible man???
John Martignoni
There is no verse in all of Scripture that states: "Mary was sinless." There is also no verse in Scripture that states: "Mary committed a sin." But, no, Mary being sinless is not "just" the opinion of a fallible man, it is the teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. That is what separates my beliefs from Steve Fitz's beliefs. I admit that my beliefs are not based on my fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretations of Scripture, rather they are based on the infallible teaching of the Church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. Steve Fitz admits that his beliefs are indeed based on his private interpretations of Scripture which he refuses to admit are fallible and non-authoritative. I'll go with the Church over my private opinions.
Steve Fitz
3) John, You stated that Mary being "Full of grace" actually means that the cup is "filled with grace" and there is no room for sin. So using your fallible opinion, I want to compare it to the Catholic "Morning Consecration prayer to Mary" The prayer goes like this "My Queen and my Mother, I give myself entirely to you; and to show my devotion to you, I consecrate to you this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am your own, keep me, guard me, as your property and possession. Amen." John in the same way the cup is full of grace and no room for sin, is it the same when a catholic, as the prayer says "I give myself entirely to you" no longer has room for Jesus because they have given themselves "entirely" to Mary?
John Martignoni
Steve's "logic" here leaves a whole lot to be desired and, once again, his ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice is ever so apparent. First of all, Steve apparently is not married and has no children. I would assume that Steve would say he gives himself completely to God. All that he is and all that he has. And, if doesn't, there are many Christians who would say such a thing. Well, then, does that mean he (or whoever says such a thing) would no longer have room for his wife and children - if he is married - because he has given himself completely to God? What a ridiculous thing to say. Or, if he says he loves his wife with all of his heart, does that mean he cannot love his children? Again, ridiculoua. So, his analogy to a cup being full is a non-sequitur - his conclusion does not logically flow from his argument.
Secondly, he is using a prayer that I, for one, have never heard of. I'm not saying it's a bad prayer, but it is not a prayer that one could say is part of the doctrine of the Catholic Faith. So often Protestant apologists will use things that are indeed of a Catholic nature, but which are not taught as doctrine or dogma by the Church, and present them as essentially being part of the Deposit of Faith that Catholics are required to believe and practice. Steve does that here. Again, that is nothing more than a display of ignorance on his part. Don't argue against the doctrinal teachings of the Church by arguing against things that are not the doctrinal teaching of the Church. That's called a straw man argument.
Steve Fitz
John while we are on the topic of Mary being "full of grace", can you explain why Catholic bibles such as the New American Bible (NAB) nor the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) do not use the term "full of grace" in Luke 1:48. Only two people in the Bible are called "full of grace". Jesus in John 1:14 and Stephen i ACTS 6:8.
Here are two Catholic sources that explain the term "full of grace" used in your church.
1. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Immaculate Conception”)
2. The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, [kecharitomen however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term ?e?a??t?µ??? e] is not nearly so explicit as the translation full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378)
John Martignoni
More mistakes by Steve. First, let's look at what I actually said in regard to Luke 1:28 and Mary being "full of grace": Luke 1:28 points to Mary being sinless..because Mary is said to be “full” of grace. Filled with grace. The cup is full of grace, so there is no room for sin. That’s why we believe that verse is evidence of Mary’s sinlessness." I never said that Luke 1:28 was "proof" that Mary was sinless. So, his first Catholic source that he cites actually agrees with me. The 2nd source he cites, is also basically in agreement with me, although to a weaker degree. The problem I have with what the 2nd source says, is that the translation (full of grace) does not "overlook" anything. What it does it comes as close as possible in the English to the meaning of the Greek word which is found here, and only here, in all of Greek literature (not just the Bible). A unique word for a unique person - Mary.
So, in response to that 2nd source, I would offer this from a Catholic source - the EWTN website:
chaire kecharitomene (Greek word translated as: "Hail, full of grace."
“chaire” - Means "hail” or “rejoice”
"charis" – The root word of ke-chari-to-mene, means “grace”
"charitoo" – Greek verb ending in omicron omega (“oo”) means to put the person or thing into the state indicated by the root. The root being "charis" or “grace,” "charitoo" means “to put into a state of "grace.”
"ke" – Greek perfect tense prefix indicates a perfected, completed present state as a result of past action. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or “grace,” as a result of past action.
"mene" – Greek passive participle suffix indicates action performed on subject by another. Thus, a perfected, completed present state of "charis," or “grace,” as a result of the past action of another. As the speaker is the angel Gabriel, the "other" is God.
Therefore, "chaire kecharitomene" means: “Hail, who has been perfectly and completely graced by God.” The common Catholic rendering, "full of grace," while good, may actually fall short!
Steve Fitz
4) John you asked me if babies or mentally disabled persons have sinned. Again, instead of you using your fallible emotions or opinion, Lets look at the Bible. Psalms 58:3 states "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the WOMB they are wayward speaking lies" John, we are more sinful then we can imagine. If you don't believe me, lets see what Paul again wrote on this matter. Romans 3:9-12 states "What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” John do you see that? It says "Not even one". If you still not convinced, Ecclesiastes 7:20 states "Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins." That verse makes it even clearer that only God is sinless and that is what Jesus said in Mark 10:18.
John Martignoni
Here Steve makes it ever so easy to show how badly he interprets the Word of God. Let's start with Psalm 58:3. It does indeed say "the wicked go astray from the womb." So, he concludes that means all men go astray even from the womb. Yet, later on in Psalm 58, in verses 10-11 it speaks of the righteous. So, there are obviously two classes of people here - the wicked, and the righteous. The wicked go astray from the womb, but it says nothing about the righteous doing so. Steve apparently didn't read the entire Psalm. Also, he quotes Ecclesiastes 7:20 and interprets that, along with Rom 3:9-12, to mean that there is no one rightieous in all the earth, which means Mary was not righteous which means Mary sinned. Yet, as already mentioned, in Psalm 58, which he himself references, it speaks of "the righteous." Uhmmm...
And, in Luke 1:6, the Word of God tells us the Elizabeth and Zechariah were both righteous before God. Well, according to Steve, that just can't be. And, "there is no one righteous, no not one," is an absolute, then who is James 5 talking about when it says "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much?" And, why does the Bible in many places in the Old and New Testaments refer to righteous men, and names some of them by name - Noah, Abraham, Lot and his family, and so on? Apparently, Steve Fitz's scriptural wires are on the fritz.
Finally, he never really gave a direct answer to my questions about babies and the mentally handicapped, did he? I'm not asking if they were born in a state of sin, which is what he is apparently suggesting, I am asking if they have sinned. He won't answer that question.
Steve Fitz
John there are lots of people who were called "Good" in the Bible. John you mentioned Elizabeth and Zechariah in Luke 1:6. The verse states "Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly." Do you notice the phrase "In the sight of God"? That's how they were righteous intrinsically, they were righteous because kept Gods law blamelessly. Blameless is not the same as sinless. In fact, Paul calls himself blameless in Philippians 3:6 and the "worst of sinners" in 1 Timothy 1:15. In fact John do you know that the Bible says that the Christian is perfect? Hebrews 10:14 states "For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." How long has the Christian been made perfect? FOREVER!!!!"
John Martignoni
Oh my, how many times can one person contradict themselves in just a few sentences and be completely oblivious to it? He apparently has forgotten that "no one is righteous, no not one." I love it when people don't remember what they wrote one paragraph up. It doesn't matter, for this particular argument, why or how Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous, the fact is that they were righteous. Yet, he just stated that no one is righteous! Contradiction. Also, he states that they were righteous "intrinsically". That means they were naturally, or basically, righteous. Yet, he just argued that all men are evil from the womb. Contradiction.
I think, what he meant to say, is that they are forensically righteous. In other words, they weren't really righteous, but the had been "declared" righteous in the "sight of God". Like being declared innocent in a courtroom even though you really are guilty. That's why he focused on the phrase, "in the sight of God." Regarding Paul calling himself "blameless" and then calling himself a "sinner," once again he exhibits poor judgment in his interpretation of Scripture. When Paul says he was "blameless," he was essentially speaking as he would as a Pharisee, saying he was blameless under the law - the Old Testament law. He was putting up his Jewish street cred, as it were, against that of any Jew. When he says he is a sinner, he is speaking as a Christian. Two different contexts. Besides, once again, the passage that Steve quotes, proves my point, not his. In Phil 3:6, Paul equates being blameless with being righteous. Steve says blameless is not the same as sinless. Paul begs to differ. Besides, anyone who commits a sin can indeed be blamed for that sin. So, how can you be blameless yet be a sinner, worthy of blame? Contradiction. Makes no sense.
And then, he states that Christians have been made perfect forever. Well, if they are perfect, then they are righteous. Yet, no one is righteous, no not one. Contradiction. He cannot keep his arguments straight, he cannot avoid contradictions, so how can his fallible interpretation of anything be trusted? It can't.
Steve Fitz
John, you posted "If a person falls into a deep hole and gets hurt, and someone pulls them out...that person saved them - after the fact. However, if that person is stopped from before they actually fall in the hole, then the person that stopped them from falling in...also saved them - before the fact. Just so Jesus saved Mary from sin - before the fact, before she ever sinned." John can you prove this from the bible or is this your fallible opinion?
Here is more specific evidence from the Bible that Mary was a sinner. What is it? Mary went to the Temple with two doves or two young pigeons according to Luke 2:21-24 and why she did so according to Leviticus 12. She did so in order to made atonement for her sin thru the Sin Offering and Burnt Offering. However, Roman Catholics continue to claim that Mary did so because it was part of Jewish culture and not because she sinned and keeping the Law was required by all Jews. John, did you ever think that maybe all the Jews did these offerings because all Jews were guilty of sin? Did that ever cross your mind?
John Martignoni
Do you see why he wouldn't answer my question about being saved before the fact? He didn't want to admit that it is possible to be saved from something - like sin - before you fall into it. Simple logic causes Mr. Fitz all kinds of problem. Now, I don't ever try to "prove" anything from the Bible as Mr. Fitz demands that I do. I simply offer evidence. And I use logic. Again, he's not too keen on that logic thing. And I can offer evidence from the Bible that Mary never sinned: Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, 46, 48, 49, and Rev 12:13-16. But, he will not accept it because it does not fit with his fallible interpretation of the Bible, which he claims is THE one and only correct interpretation of the Bible.
Now, regarding Mary making a "sin offering" in accord with the law as written in Leviticus 12, which means she must have sinned or else she would not have had to make a sin offering, right? A few thoughts about that: 1) Mary, being an obedient daughter of God, would indeed keep the law, not because she somehow sinned, but because she was obedient and to avoid scandal, if nothing else. 2) Is Steve Fitz claiming that Mary giving birth to the Savior of the world was an occasion of sin? I mean, that's what he is implying. That Mary somehow sinned by giving birth to Jesus. Really? That means that Jesus indirectly, and the Holy Spirit - by Whom Mary was made to be with child - directly, caused Mary to sin. Steve Fitz apparently believes that God caused Mary to sin. Wow! 3) Did Jesus need to be circumcised in order to enter into covenant with God (Genesis 17:10)? Apparently Steve Fitz thinks so since Jesus was indeed circumcised. 4) Would Steve argue that Jesus being baptized by John meant that Jesus had sin to repent of? I mean, John's baptism was a baptism of repentance the Bible tells us. So, I guess, since Mary offered a sin offering that means she sinned, then Jesus receiving a baptism of repentance means that Jesus had sin that He needed to repent of. Same logic. 5) Did Jesus have to pay the temple tax? No, but he did anyway. Does that mean, Mr. Fitz, that Jesus was obligated to pay the temple tax, since he did indeed pay it? By the Word of Steve, it does. All in all, this is a very weak argument by Mr. Fitz.
Steve Fitz
John did you ever read the book of Leviticus, specifically chapter 4 and 5 to see when the Sin offering was actually offered? Maybe if you did, you would learn something and not just continue to believe everything your church teaches you!!
One you thing you will notice in Leviticus 4, the Sin offering was done when the person bringing it is "made ware of sin " This phrase may be different depending on what Bible translation you are using. I'm using the NIV translation. This phrase is in Leviticus 4;14, 23, and 28.
Leviticus 5:2-3 talks about being unclean. Now where in the Bible do I remember "being unclean" being discussed? I remember!! In Leviticus 12. According to Luke 2:21-24, Mary brought two doves or two young pigeons to the Temple and Leviticus 12 explains why. Mary was unclean after giving birth.
John Martignoni
My response to this is simply: So, Steve Fitz is claiming that giving birth to the Savior of the world is a sin? (Also, see response above.)
Steve Fitz
Roman Catholics claim that being unclean is not sinful. Leviticus 5:2-3 states that being unclean is sinful. Leviticus 5:5-6 states "when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.
Mary and Joseph were poor and could not afford a Lamb. Leviticus 5:7 states that if one could not afford a Lamb they could use "two doves or two young pigeons" instead. Wow!!! That's exactly what Mary and Joseph did. That why we read in Luke 2:21-24 that Mary brought two doves or two young pigeons. Also, Leviticus 12 states the same thing, if they could not afford a lamb they could use two doves or two young pigeons instead!!!
John, you have to either be blind to believe that Mary was sinless, or have not read your Bible. In my next post, I will show from the Old and New Testament that being "unclean" was sinful and -Mary was indeed "unclean"
John Martignoni
Where is it that Roman Catholics claim "unclean" does not mean "sinful" according to the law? Do you claim that is the Church's teaching? If so, state your source. Do you see what Fitz does? He makes claims about Catholics with absolutely no documentation whatsoever. Nice.
Now, regarding Mary being unclean and, therefore, being a sinner, I would refer back to my previous two responses. I would also add that I find it pretty unbelievable that anyone would think that giving birth to Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit, is somehow a sin, as Mr. Fitz apparently does. Mind boggling.
Closing Comments
I hope all of you have a great weekend!
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Social Media - Please Share...
Share this newsletter on:
