Why doesn't the Bible say that Mary was sinless?

[Franciscan]

Is it me or is this a frustrating, futile effort? This is why i could never be an official apologist.:banghead:

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

What else can be said? Mary was full of Grace. There was no room for sin.

 

[emeraldisle]

What part of ‘just because it’s not spelled out in words of two syllables or less in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not true or unnecessary’ do you not understand?

Where in the Bible is the canon spelled out? Where in the bible does it say how to determine which scriptures are inspired and which aren’t? Where in, say, Song of Songs or Jude’s epistle does it say ‘this book (I mean the individual book, not scripture as a whole) is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is God’s own word, and necessary for your salvation, and must be included alongside the other books of Holy Scripture’? Yet you believe they are, do you not?

You would readily concede, I hope, that it is certainly necessary for our faith to believe that the canon of the New Testament as passed down to us contains the correct, inspired writings, all the ones that were meant to be included and none of the ones that aren’t. But we don’t get THAT belief from the Bible itself, rather we get it entirely from extra-biblical sources.

Gods infallible written Word is a divine masterpiece. It’s Gods written Word and it’s awesome that God has given us His infallible written Word and how He did it is just wonderful but then it is Gods masterpiece.

Now back to the question of this thread, where in Gods infallible written Word does it say that Mary was sinless?

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Hey EI, you still haven’t showed me the evidence from scripture that I asked you for.

Yes I’m sure you have already been told to read 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Remember the Scriptures is Gods infallible written Word, now if you want to say Gods Word isn’t sufficient for all we need in the Christian life then you must believe in a very small God.

.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Yes I’m sure you have already been told to read 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Remember the Scriptures is Gods infallible written Word, now if you want to say Gods Word isn’t sufficient for all we need in the Christian life then you must believe in a very small God.

.

We seem to have many infallible twisters of scripture on the board just now. We will pray for you and your conversion to the Church that Christ established just as we do the rest.

CDL

 

[bookgirl32]

Gods infallible written Word is a divine masterpiece. It’s Gods written Word and it’s awesome that God has given us His infallible written Word and how He did it is just wonderful but then it is Gods masterpiece.

Now back to the question of this thread, where in Gods infallible written Word does it say that Mary was sinless?

.

She’s not going to argue with you that the Bible is one of God’s masterpieces. I don’t even know why typing that is relevant to her thread.

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes I’m sure you have already been told to read 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Remember the Scriptures is Gods infallible written Word, now if you want to say Gods Word isn’t sufficient for all we need in the Christian life then you must believe in a very small God.

.

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This isn’t the scripture that I asked you for. I asked you for scripture stating that the written word is God’s ONLY divinely inspired revelation, or word. This does not say that.

What’s frustrating to me is that you’re demanding a scripture verse that says something about Mary very specifically, and if we can’t provide it b/c it’s not there it must not be true. But I’m asking you for a scripture verse that says something very specifically, and by your definition of “proof from scripture” then it must not be true, just like Mary being sinless. If you’re going to argue it then it has to apply all the way around, not just to the issues you don’t like. You’re putting yourself in this situation, b/c we believe that God’s written word is divinely inspired, but it’s the Church that told us this, not the Bible. The criteria you’re using to disprove Mary’s sinlessness is disproving the Bible, not our criteria.

 

[LilyM]

Gods infallible written Word is a divine masterpiece. It’s Gods written Word and it’s awesome that God has given us His infallible written Word and how He did it is just wonderful but then it is Gods masterpiece.

Now back to the question of this thread, where in Gods infallible written Word does it say that Mary was sinless?

.

HOW did He give us His infallible word, though? How exactly?

And more importantly, since you claim not to believe anything that isn’t in the Bible, how do you dare believe that any of its books, other than those that directly claim so for themselves, are inspired? How exactly do you KNOW that each and every book IS His infallible word and that there aren’t other equally infallible books that have been left out?

And the question of the thread is actually WHY the Bible doesn’t say Mary was sinless, not where it says she was. You can’t even get that much straight. The simple answer - because it doesn’t have to. It doesn’t say a lot of things, as John the Evangelist states in his gospel. Doesn’t even say which particular books should be included in the Bible itself.

The fact that it doesn’t say these things doesn’t make the facts untrue or unnecessary for faith. That’s because they (including the canon of the Bible itself) are part of God’s infallible ORAL word, passed down from the Apostles to their followers and to us. The same infallible oral word teaches us that Mary was sinless.

 

[emeraldisle]

HOW did He give us His infallible word, though? How exactly?

And more importantly, since you claim not to believe anything that isn’t in the Bible, how do you dare believe that any of its books, other than those that directly claim so for themselves, are inspired? How exactly do you KNOW that each and every book IS His infallible word and that there aren’t other equally infallible books that have been left out?

And the question of the thread is actually WHY the Bible doesn’t say Mary was sinless, not where it says she was. You can’t even get that much straight. The simple answer - because it doesn’t have to. It doesn’t say a lot of things, as John the Evangelist states in his gospel. Doesn’t even say which particular books should be included in the Bible itself.

The fact that it doesn’t say these things doesn’t make the facts untrue or unnecessary for faith. That’s because they (including the canon of the Bible itself) are part of God’s infallible ORAL word, passed down from the Apostles to their followers and to us. The same infallible oral word teaches us that Mary was sinless.

Thanks for pointing out my error re my op question.

Why did God inspire Paul to write letters, Luke to write the Acts of the Apostles and the Evangelists to write the gospels? It’s obvious God wants us to have His Word in writing, God of course knows that satan will do his very best to try and distort His written Word. Now God of course is far more powerful than satan and so He has and always will preserve His written Word. So we can be totally sure of knowing Gods truth by searching His written Word.

But oral words, well there are a lot of people saying all sorts of things and claiming their words are from God. However only what agrees with whats in Gods infallible written Word is true.

Now I hear people saying Mary is sinless but when I check this out with Gods infallible written Word it’s proved to be false.

.

 

[Tom]

Thanks for pointing out my error re my op question.
Why did God inspire Paul to write letters, Luke to write the Acts of the Apostles and the Evangelists to write the gospels?

God has inspired me to write a book of Scripture, when may I expect to see it in the Bible?

It’s obvious God wants us to have His Word in writing, God of course knows that satan will do his very best to try and distort His written Word. Now God of course is far more powerful than satan and so He has and always will preserve His written Word. So we can be totally sure of knowing Gods truth by searching His written Word.

You can be equally sure when following His unwritten Word, which He leaves to the leadership of His Church. Or are you saying He “can’t” preserve His Word?

But oral words, well there are a lot of people saying all sorts of things and claiming their words are from God. However only what agrees with whats in Gods infallible written Word is true.

No. To believe this is to deny His written word, because in His written Word He guarantees the leadership of His Church, the Catholic Church, will be led to all truth.

Now I hear people saying Mary is sinless but when I check this out with Gods infallible written Word it’s proved to be false.

Verse which says Mary sinned? Prove it to me. Show me where.
You are evading the question, Since there is no table of contents of Sacred Scripture, why do you believe the book of Matthew is part of Scripture but the Protoevangelum of James (or the Book which I just wrote) is not? There is only one answer to this question, and it deals with the authority Jesus gave to the leaders of His Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for pointing out my error re my op question.

Why did God inspire Paul to write letters, Luke to write the Acts of the Apostles and the Evangelists to write the gospels? It’s obvious God wants us to have His Word in writing, God of course knows that satan will do his very best to try and distort His written Word. Now God of course is far more powerful than satan and so He has and always will preserve His written Word. So we can be totally sure of knowing Gods truth by searching His written Word.

But oral words, well there are a lot of people saying all sorts of things and claiming their words are from God. However only what agrees with whats in Gods infallible written Word is true.

Now I hear people saying Mary is sinless but when I check this out with Gods infallible written Word it’s proved to be false.

.

You’re totally missing the point of what I’m saying. I’m asking you to think a bit about exactly how the Bible was both compiled and gathered together AS scripture, who determined what was scripture and what wasn’t, and importantly, WHEN. Do a bit of study into how the Bible came about.

‘It’s obvious that God wants us to have His word in writing’??? Ummm … no it isn’t. At least not from the Bible itself. That’s your assumption, and a wrong one.

There’s nothing at all in the Bible that commands the putting together of those particular books into one definitive volume and excluding all others. Nothing in the Bible where God or anyone else even commands a single word of it to be written, apart from some of Moses and some of the OT prophets.

If it was so self-evident that God wanted to give us purely a written word how is it that it wasn’t until decades after Christ that any of it was written? How is it that it took nearly 400 years to come up with the final definitive list of which books are inspired? How is it that God left all those Christians in the darkness for all those decades and centuries so totally bereft of His infallible word?

More importantly, how is it that today we still argue about some books if all are so self-evidently inspired? :ehh:

See, if it was so bleeding obvious as you wrongly presume, Jesus would either have directly commanded the writing of his words down, or better still would’ve just written them Himself. many prophets did before Him. Then we would’ve had his definitive word, and no need for the further writings or interpretations of the Apostles afterwards.

It occurs to me that the only evidence we have of the infallibility of the Bible is in fact … people’s oral teachings that it is so So why are those particular oral teachings correct and no others?

 

[Philthy]

HOW did He give us His infallible word, though? How exactly?

Uhhh nice try Lily, but you may wish to save your carpal tunnels.
I dont wish to mention any names, but someone does not wish to truly think about this issue. I brought it up 4 pages ago in this exchange:

emeraldisle:

I don’t have a problem with accepting the fact that God was able to move men with regards to what the full cannon of Scriptures were to be. God is sovereign over all, He is well able to give us His complete Word and He has.

Philthy:

You dont have a problem with it? Oh I think you have a very big problem with it. So big that you dont even want to fully come to grips with it. But perhaps Im wrong. Why dont you tell us EXACTLY WHEN AND EXACTLY HOW God “moved men with regards to the full canon” and finish by telling us what the canon is. Then we will be able to see whether there is “a problem” or not.

Needless to say, I was ignored. Such a question is the single most fundamental issue for a sola scripturist to articulate carefully before committing to SS. Unless, of course, there is something that they hold (usually without realizing it) dearer than the truth itself. Then it simply becomes an issue of defending at all costs - denial, irrational attacks, etc - the belief which upholds
their rationalized attachment. On the bright side, any question which is ignored is one that they recognize they cannot comfortably answer and it is the Holy Spirits job to convert that from a seed into life.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

I have already explained a number of times that the following verse is the correct translation and it says absolutely nothing about Mary being sinless;

And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
Luke 1:28

And I’ve already explained to you a number of time that your translation is wrong especially because “rejoice” is NOT part of the original Greek passage. But you of course are dodging that fact.

 

[sandusky]

Goth_Catholic:

And I’ve already explained to you a number of time that your translation is wrong especially because “rejoice” is NOT part of the original Greek passage. But you of course are dodging that fact.

That’s not a fact.

The Greek word in question, chiro, is translated in the NT, variously, as rejoice, rejoicing about 42 times (cf Mt 2:10; 5:12; 18:13; Lk 1:14; 10:20; 13:17; 15:5; 15:32; Jn 3:29; 4:36; 14:28: 16:20, 22; Acts 5:41; 8:39; 11:23; Rom 12:12, 15, to list a few).

You can check those passages against your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible; they should be translated the same—rejoice.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

That’s not a fact.

The Greek word in question, chiro, is translated in the NT, variously, as rejoice, rejoicing about 42 times (cf Mt 2:10; 5:12; 18:13; Lk 1:14; 10:20; 13:17; 15:5; 15:32; Jn 3:29; 4:36; 14:28: 16:20, 22; Acts 5:41; 8:39; 11:23; Rom 12:12, 15, to list a few).

You can check those passages against your own Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible; they should be translated the same—rejoice.

Your wrong my friend. This is Luke 1:28 “kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen chaire kecharitōmenē o kurios meta sou”

Chaire is the word used NOT chiro. Chaire is used again in John 19:3

"kai ērchonto pros auton kai elegon chaire o basileus tōn ioudaiōn kai edidosan autō rapismata "

This is the passage where Christ is being mocked by the soldiers, they say unto him “Hail the king of the jews”

Gabriel said unto Mary “Hail full of grace”

 

[sandusky]

emeraldisle:

Why did God inspire Paul to write letters, Luke to write the Acts of the Apostles and the Evangelists to write the gospels? It’s obvious God wants us to have His Word in writing, God of course knows that satan will do his very best to try and distort His written Word. Now God of course is far more powerful than satan and so He has and always will preserve His written Word. So we can be totally sure of knowing Gods truth by searching His written Word.

As Augustine wrote:You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read."

(In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2)

 

[sandusky]

Goth_Catholic:

Your wrong my friend. This is Luke 1:28 “kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen chaire kecharitōmenē o kurios meta sou”

Chaire is the word used NOT chiro. Chaire is used again in John 19:3

"kai ērchonto pros auton kai elegon chaire o basileus tōn ioudaiōn kai edidosan autō rapismata "

This is the passage where Christ is being mocked by the soldiers, they say unto him “Hail the king of the jews”

Gabriel said unto Mary “Hail full of grace”

Forgive me; you are very much mistaken.

As I said in my last post, the word in question is the Greek word, chīrō.

Chīre, is the present, active, imperative, second person singular form of *** chīrō.***

It’s a question of verb conjugation.

Greek verbs have conjugated forms, as English verbs have conjugated forms: I AM

You **ARE **

He, she, it IS***Am, Are, ***and Is, are conjugated forms of the verb, To Be.

Chīre, is nothing more than a conjugated form of the verb *** chīrō.*** :tiphat:

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Forgive me; you are very much mistaken.

As I said in my last post, the word in question is the Greek word, chīrō.

Chīre, is the present, active, imperative, second person singular form of *** chīrō.***

It’s a question of verb conjugation.

Greek verbs have conjugated forms, as Englilsh verbs have conjugated forms: I AM

You **ARE **

He, she, it IS***Am, Are, ***and Is, are conjugated forms of the verb, To Be.

Chīre, is nothing more than a conjugated form of *** chīrō.*** :tiphat:

:banghead: You know, I understand verb conjugation. I’m fluent in Spanish and Latin.

True as it may be, I highly doubt the soldiers said “Rejoice the King of the Jews” the same word is used in both verses.

 

[maryj]

and for the second time I’m explaining to you that Gen 3:15 refers to the then promised Messiah who was going to crush satan. So the idea that Gen 3:15 says Mary is sinless is ridiculous.

ri·dic·u·lous )adj. Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly.

[From Latin rīdiculus, *laughable, from rīdēre, to laugh.]

See how easy. Please define “enmity”

 

[sandusky]

:banghead: You know, I understand verb conjugation. I’m fluent in Spanish and Latin.

But you don’t know Greek verb conjugation and tensing; that’s why you insisted that Chīre, and Chīrō were different words, correct?

Goth_Catholic:

True as it may be, I highly doubt the soldiers said “Rejoice the King of the Jews” the same word is used in both verses.

That’s not the issue.

The issue, for me, is that you said that, “rejoice is NOT part of the original Greek passage.”

Chīrō is variously translated in the NT as, rejoice, greetings, glad, hail.