If Mary was born without original sin, why then did Jesus say?

(Matthew 11:11) “I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.”

It seems to me if a person were so special that they were born without sin he or she would be greater than someone who was.

Another thought, Jesus must not have thought of Himself as a child born of woman.

[quote=Giver](Matthew 11:11) “I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.”

It seems to me if a person were so special that they were born without sin he or she would be greater than someone who was.

Another thought, Jesus must not have thought of Himself as a child born of woman.
[/quote]

Jesus was born of a woman.

[quote=Giver](Matthew 11:11) “I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.”

It seems to me if a person were so special that they were born without sin he or she would be greater than someone who was.

Another thought, Jesus must not have thought of Himself as a child born of woman.
[/quote]

wow… first the priesthood, and now Mary.

I wish you had a copy of the Catechism so you could read what the True Church teaches on these subjects.

Only Mary will be called Blessed by ALL generations. That includes me and you. John introduced the Lamb of God publicly, but Mary bore Him, raised Him, and suffered with Him (thy heart too, a sword shall pierce).

You need not try to make the two compete… both are holy works of God.

And John perhaps heard his mother declare “How is it that the Mother of my Lord…” Yes, Jesus, Who is God, knew forever that He would be born of a woman.

[quote=jimmy]Jesus was born of a woman.
[/quote]

Can you name someone who was not?

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]Can you name someone who was not?
[/quote]

curious… why are you no longer Catholic. Giver has not said, but perhaps you will share with us…

The following quote is from another thread. Hurst is just great with his Scripture references! I hope he doesn’t mind this being copied here…:o

He said that it was possible that John the Baptist and other prophets were also immaculately conceived (although I don’t believe it is dogma). The response below was to someone asking if that claim was scriptural:

So, if John the Baptist was also immaculately conceived, then Mary’s Immaculate Conception does not by necessity make her “greater” than John. I’m not saying that she’s not greater than John, though, just that her I.C. does not make her so.

But really, would it be so strange that Jesus was using a hyperbole to make a point, and that He didn’t literally mean every person? Since, as you pointed out, Jesus himself was born of a woman, and we know John the Baptist was not greater than Jesus, we can certainly conclude that Jesus was not speaking absolutely, but figuratively, to solemnly describe how great the kingdom of heaven and its members are.

Peace,
javelin

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]Can you name someone who was not?
[/quote]

Adam… Eve…

:slight_smile:

[quote=MrS]…I wish you had a copy of the Catechism so you could read what the True Church teaches on these subjects…
[/quote]

it is available online here if he wants to make the effort

[quote=johnshelby]Adam… Eve…

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

If concupicence - the tendacy to sin - is part of mankind… and it appears that both had the tendacy to sin (or else they would not have),

perhaps they did have a “form” or original sin.

just thoughts prompted by your response…:hmmm:

[quote=johnshelby]Adam… Eve…

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

let’s not go off on an evolution tangent

[quote=Richard_Hurtz]Can you name someone who was not?
[/quote]

As someone mentioned above, Adam and Eve. But the point is that Christ is better than John the baptist and Christ was born of a woman, yet He still calls John better than all those born of a woman.

[quote=javelin]The following quote is from another thread. Hurst is just great with his Scripture references! I hope he doesn’t mind this being copied here…:o

He said that it was possible that John the Baptist and other prophets were also immaculately conceived (although I don’t believe it is dogma). The response below was to someone asking if that claim was scriptural:

So, if John the Baptist was also immaculately conceived, then Mary’s Immaculate Conception does not by necessity make her “greater” than John. I’m not saying that she’s not greater than John, though, just that her I.C. does not make her so.

But really, would it be so strange that Jesus was using a hyperbole to make a point, and that He didn’t literally mean every person? Since, as you pointed out, Jesus himself was born of a woman, and we know John the Baptist was not greater than Jesus, we can certainly conclude that Jesus was not speaking absolutely, but figuratively, to solemnly describe how great the kingdom of heaven and its members are.

Peace,
javelin
[/quote]

John the Baptist wasn’t immaculately conceived but he was born without the stain of original sin on his soul, which is what the Scripture verses cited in your post mean. The Church celebrates only 3 birthdays: Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist because Jesus, being of divine origin cannot have original sin on his soul, Mary, having been immaculately conceived was born without sin, and John the Baptist, who did not have the stain of original sin although he was not immaculately conceived.

Also, Jesus was referring to this fact and to the fact that John was “Elijah” the “herald of the Son of God.” He was not commenting on Mary in this context but on why John, as the last of the prophets before himself, and born without the stain of original sin, was the greatest of the prophets as juxtaposed against John’s seeming lack of faith for sending his disciples to ask Jesus, earlier in the chapter (cf. Mt. 11:2), if he was truly the one for whom Israel had been waiting so long.

When studying Scripture context and the intent of the author trumps any other possible interpretation, as well as the ongoing teaching of the Church of which the Bible is the prime witness.

[quote=jimmy]As someone mentioned above, Adam and Eve. But the point is that Christ is better than John the baptist and Christ was born of a woman, yet He still calls John better than all those born of a woman.
[/quote]

Christ did not require a Savior

John the Baptist did… and of those who did… he was termed the best (who was redeemed perhaps in the womb).

[quote=Della]John the Baptist wasn’t immaculately conceived but he was born without the stain of original sin on his soul, which is what the Scripture verses cited in your post mean. The Church celebrates only 3 birthdays: Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist because Jesus, being of divine origin cannot have original sin on his soul, Mary, having been immaculately conceived was born without sin, and John the Baptist, who did not have the stain of original sin although he was not immaculately conceived.

Also, Jesus was referring to this fact and to the fact that John was “Elijah” the “herald of the Son of God.” He was not commenting on Mary in this context but on why John, as the last of the prophets before himself, and born without the stain of original sin, was the greatest of the prophets as juxtaposed against John’s seeming lack of faith for sending his disciples to ask Jesus if he was truly the one for whom Israel had been waiting so long earlier in the chapter (cf. Mt. 11:2).

When studying Scripture context and the intent of the author trumps any other possible interpretation, as well as the ongoing teaching of the Church of which the Bible is the prime witness.
[/quote]

Although I agree with what you say, it certainly is possible that John was concieved without Original Sin. He is atleast sanctified from the womb, which does not disqualify it being all the way back to his conception. It is certainly possible that God sanctified others other than Mary at conception.

[quote=MrS]Christ did not require a Savior

John the Baptist did… and of those who did… he was termed the best (who was redeemed perhaps in the womb).
[/quote]

That is not the point. It does not matter whether Christ needed a savior, He was still born of a woman. So, He is not disqualified from being included in ALL born of a woman.

[quote=MrS]If concupicence - the tendacy to sin - is part of mankind… and it appears that both had the tendacy to sin (or else they would not have),

perhaps they did have a “form” or original sin.

just thoughts prompted by your response…:hmmm:
[/quote]

They were promted by an outside source to sin. Nothing inside them said they should sin.

[quote=jimmy]They were promted by an outside source to sin. Nothing inside them said they should sin.
[/quote]

agreed… but was there anything in them that said they could sin?

[quote=MrS]If concupicence - the tendacy to sin - is part of mankind… and it appears that both had the tendacy to sin (or else they would not have),

perhaps they did have a “form” or original sin.

just thoughts prompted by your response…:hmmm:
[/quote]

I think this is wrong, but these are my own thoughts and may be wrong, too. :o

Adam and Eve were not born with Original Sin, as their actual sin was was started Original Sin.

AFAIK, they were also free from concupicence, which I believe is more than just “the tendency to sin”. Concupicence may be a result of Original Sin, not the cause. The sin of Adam and Eve removed from them the Sanctifying Grace which God had blessed them with from birth. Because of that sin, all their descendants were not able to receive that Grace through propagation, as God had initially desired. Lost, also, was the freedom from concupiscence that God had blessed them with. Concupiscence is defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia as:

[quote=Catholic Encyclopedia]a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason…The object of [the lower appetite] is the gratification of the senses…the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties.
[/quote]

We can see from the Genesis account that a change came in Adam and Eve after the Fall – namely, their desire to hide themselves because they were naked. So although the sexual appetite is probably the most powerful of the lower appetites, Adam and Eve did not seem influenced by it until after the fall. It can be concluded, then, that they were free of concupiscence prior to the fall, but not afterwards. Since it appears to be an aspect of human nature (even Jesus was tempted by Satan using food - a base appetite), I think God must have specifically given Adam and Eve the gift of freedom from concupiscence, which they lost when they fell from Grace.

I’m certainly willing to entertain others’ thoughts on this, though. I am no expert…

Peace,
javelin

[quote=MrS]agreed… but was there anything in them that said they could sin?
[/quote]

I don’t think. I think they were focused solely on God at the time. Then the serpent suggested something and they were like “ah ha, I could be like God”.

[quote=steveandersen]let’s not go off on an evolution tangent
[/quote]

not going on an evolution tangent… the poster asked
to name someone not born of woman, in a discussion
of immaculate conception… biblical concept… biblical
response…

:slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.