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

[Rolltide]

And just for good measure, let’s see what one of the great Reformers said about the sinlessness of Mary:

Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Works, vol 52, pg 39
"God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, "

Here’s another quote from Luther:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…”

So, it seems that even Luther found this relatively clear when he interpreted the Bible…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First off, “His Word” is Jesus Christ, the Logos.

Now, why “surely”? What leads you to believe that every important thing that God wanted to tell us would be recorded in Scripture? Why, further, isn’t it enough that he recorded the fact of Mary’s sinlessness in the deposit of faith that he gave to His Church, which has guarded it and passed it down without error throughout the generations?

**Is that meant to be a convincing argument ? Why is any argument, no matter how weak, thought to be good enough for non-Catholics ? And what does this say about the quality of Catholic apologetic ? If the reasoning is that weak, maybe the rest of the structure, imposing as it looks, is equally rotten. But if it is - what happens when it collapses ? If people are fed pabulum to get them into the Church, only to find out in due course that the whole thing is no more solid than a castle in a fairy-tale, that is a terrible thing to do, even to one’s worst enemy. **​

You need to examine your assumptions, because they are not part of the Christian faith given to the apostles.

**That’s like saying that Jack Nicklaus is the one true golfer, & that it is wrong to designate anyone else who plays a round of nine or 18 holes by the same word. The best or the best known instance of a class is not the only instance; others are really in that class as it is. That Jesus is the Word, does not for one moment show or hint or suggest or imply or prove that the Bible is not the Word. **​

**Why shouldn’t the important things be in the Bible ? What else would be ? To hear Catholics go on, one might be forgiven for supposing that for Catholics to bother with the Bible was a waste of time that could have been far more usefully spent reading the latest encyclical. But can a Church that despises the Bible as the CC appears to - if what Catholics say is any index of its attitude to it - be called Christian ? **

**The books of the NT quote most of the OT books. This is true even if one thinks the 27 books are no more than human productions, & even if Jesus said not a word ascribed to Him in the texts. So it is false to say the Apostles (or maybe the first-century Church) did not both use at least the major part of the OT, & think that Jesus too had been familiar with it. **

**Even *if *Paul is no more than a deluded fanatic, the fact remains that he believed, however mistakenly, that the OT was “written for our learning” (1 Cor. 15.3), & that the Jews had received the Books as one of their privileges (see Romans). Since the CC has a very estimate of St.Paul, & claims a very high status for his writings, & also that the Bible which includes them is totally inerrant, it can hardly deny that the very books it claims to honour give a very high status to at least the greater part of the OT. **

**A better answer to the OP’s question is that for the authors of the NT, Mary was important only in relation to Christ - He is the centre of interest; part of the NT writing is very eager to show that the OT points to & is about Him. Mary had to wait to become an object of interest in herself: Christ apart, she was probably far less important than the martyrs, if the NT texts are any guide. IOW - Mariology had to wait: Christ is more important, & is the Foundation of Christian faith: she isn’t. That, or something like it, is part of the answer. **

 

[emeraldisle]

Please reread the quote that I provided above as to why both “highly favored one” AND “full of grace” are insufficient translations of kecharitomene, the original Greek word.

Well, that’s because of the translation issue. Amazing what a difference a single word can make. In the original Greek, it is far more clear. In any case, the Catholic Church doesn’t rely just on the Bible, but also on Sacred Tradition. (The basic issue here is really Sola Scriptura, because Catholics are allowed to accept things that have been handed down through tradition that do not conflict with the Bible. Protestants would not accept that.)

Again, I would argue that it does. By your OWN definition of Sola Scriptura, I can interpret the Bible however I want. I clearly see this in the Bible. You do not. (Thus, you begin to see the flaw in Sola Scriptura…)

The issue is interpretation not translation, your comments re Luke 1:28 are about making this verse fit the idea that Mary is sinless.

Also what about the following info re IC;

There is no Scriptural proof for the IC;

The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading, Proof from Scripture, states, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”

I agree with other posters that the issue is about just believing what the Catholic Church says about Mary being sinless because there is no Biblical evidence for this teaching.

Personally I would believe what God says and He has chosen in His wisdom to reveal His truth in His written Word. Also please note that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of Gods Word.

 

[adstrinity]

The issue is interpretation not translation, your comments re Luke 1:28 are about making this verse fit the idea that Mary is sinless.

Also what about the following info re IC;

There is no Scriptural proof for the IC;

The Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading, Proof from Scripture, states, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”

I agree with other posters that the issue is about just believing what the Catholic Church says about Mary being sinless because there is no Biblical evidence for this teaching.

Personally I would believe what God says and He has chosen in His wisdom to reveal His truth in His written Word. Also please note that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of Gods Word.

No, it has been pointed out that it is translation and not interpretation. Why don’t you accept what the Bible says? Why is your heart hardened to this? How proud are you to start a thread and give us your interpretation of how you see things and are doing it in a way where you come across as uncharitable? You say you were personally believe what God says, and, the irony is, you don’t. Why? WHY?!!! For what greater purpose has God allowed you to come here? How will this eventually lead you to Catholocism? Inevitably, it will, but, for what greater good is God allowing you to be obstinant now?

 

[VociMike]

Is that meant to be a convincing argument ?

No, it was just my sneaky way of baiting you to provide a better answer.

 

[Debra_C]

He did…

“Hail, Full of grace”.

grace is the oppostite of sin. To be full of grace is to be without sin.

Yes, exactly… and aside from this quote being in the Bible, known to be the infallible and inspired Word of God, it is a direct quote form the Archangel Gabriel, who could not tell any falsehood. If he call her full of grace, then that is what she is. He came to speak the very words of the Father.

Problem is that some English translations of the text are woefully inadequate calling her instead “highly favored one” or “favored lady.” These are not particularly faithful to the original Greek or the Latin translation of it by St. Jerome: “gratia plena” full of grace, or plenteous grace.

The original Greek term had a transcending character to it, which indicated she has been full, is full, and is being filled. Meaning she was from her conception so filled with grace. This is the source of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as well as a testament to her sinlessness.

 

[Franciscan]

Emerald isle(love the name BTW:thumbsup: ) ,

There is soooo much more in the Bible regarding Mary’s IC and her overall sinlessness. It would blow your mind. I’m not kidding. Whole books have been written by ex-protestant biblical scholars and cradle Catholics alike on this very topic!

I’m sad about this cause you do seem so closed off to even think the bible can only express a literal meaning…This is not how the early church Fathers saw the Scriptures. See below!

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree *. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. **Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210]. **

Pseudo-Melito

**“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]). **

Ephraim the Syrian

"You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

• all quotes above taken from catholic answers website.*

 

[maryj]

Its better if you give the Bible references and version so it’s possible to check if what your saying is correct.

Also your response proves the point that the Bible doesn’t say that Mary is sinless and so one has to try and make a vague interpretation of the Bible to support the view that Mary is sinless.

Also the Bible records all the major issues and the idea the Mary is sinless is a major issue and one which would definitely be mentioned in Gods Word if it were true.

Do you know what the deffinition of “enmity” is? Gen 3:15

try giving it a read, in context, and then answer the question: Who is the woman who’s offspring will crush the head of the serpent?

 

[Rolltide]

Not to hijack the thread, but f I might ask, Emeraldisle, where exactly did the Bible come from? By that, I mean by what process was it created? Mind you, I’m not talking about the divinely inspired scriptures themselves, I’m talking about the decisions about which documents to include and which to reject. At what point did a complete Bible in a single language actually become available, who compiled it, and what did people do before its compilation when there was still debate about what scriptures to include?

I think you’ll find that the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition played a substantial role during this period…

 

[Koopa]

Is that meant to be a convincing argument ? Why is any argument, no matter how weak, thought to be good enough for non-Catholics ? And what does this say about the quality of Catholic apologetic ? If the reasoning is that weak, maybe the rest of the structure, imposing as it looks, is equally rotten. But if it is - what happens when it collapses ? If people are fed pabulum to get them into the Church, only to find out in due course that the whole thing is no more solid than a castle in a fairy-tale, that is a terrible thing to do, even to one’s worst enemy.​

**That’s like saying that Jack Nicklaus is the one true golfer, & that it is wrong to designate anyone else who plays a round of nine or 18 holes by the same word. The best or the best known instance of a class is not the only instance; others are really in that class as it is. That Jesus is the Word, does not for one moment show or hint or suggest or imply or prove that the Bible is not the Word. **​

**Why shouldn’t the important things be in the Bible ? What else would be ? To hear Catholics go on, one might be forgiven for supposing that for Catholics to bother with the Bible was a waste of time that could have been far more usefully spent reading the latest encyclical. But can a Church that despises the Bible as the CC appears to - if what Catholics say is any index of its attitude to it - be called Christian ? **

**The books of the NT quote most of the OT books. This is true even if one thinks the 27 books are no more than human productions, & even if Jesus said not a word ascribed to Him in the texts. So it is false to say the Apostles (or maybe the first-century Church) did not both use at least the major part of the OT, & think that Jesus too had been familiar with it. **

**Even *if ***Paul is no more than a deluded fanatic, the fact remains that he believed, however mistakenly, that the OT was “written for our learning” (1 Cor. 15.3), & that the Jews had received the Books as one of their privileges (see Romans). Since the CC has a very estimate of St.Paul, & claims a very high status for his writings, & also that the Bible which includes them is totally inerrant, it can hardly deny that the very books it claims to honour give a very high status to at least the greater part of the OT.

**A better answer to the OP’s question is that for the authors of the NT, Mary was important only in relation to Christ - He is the centre of interest; part of the NT writing is very eager to show that the OT points to & is about Him. Mary had to wait to become an object of interest in herself: Christ apart, she was probably far less important than the martyrs, if the NT texts are any guide. IOW - Mariology had to wait: Christ is more important, & is the Foundation of Christian faith: she isn’t. That, or something like it, is part of the answer. **

It seems that your arguments come more from an established bias of the Catholic Church than actual knowledge of it. Your example of Jack Nicklaus (sorry, I’m too dumb to know how to break up quotes! ) does not make sense to me. We can call people who play golf golfers and people who believe in Christ Christians. The quote you were replying to did not deny that Protestants are Christians. And why was it necessary to comment that the Jesus being the Word does not deny the Bible being the Word? Of course it is. All Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

You think Catholics despise the Bible because it is not our only source of religious authority? Perhaps I despise pizza because it is not the only thing I eat.

You think we despise the Bible when our Masses are full of Scripture? A reading from the OT, a reading from the NT, a reading from the Gospel and a reading from the Lord’s Supper narrative? You think we despise the Bible when the Gospel is set on the center of the altar for half of Mass? You think we despise the Bible when we have 7 readings + Gospel + Lord’s Supper narrative on the Easter Vigil?

(continued…)

 

[Koopa]

(continued…)

The Catholic Church does indeed place a high status on the OT, as evidenced by it’s referral to Mary as the New Eve. Of course the NT is focused on Christ and the references to him in the OT. Christ is the only way of salvation, and the Apostles made it very clear in the Bible. Christ is indeed more important than Mary. If Mary existed without Christ’s Incarnation, then there would be no salvation. If Christ were somehow Incarnated without Mary, then there would still be salvation. So of course Christ was the focus of the Gospels. But therein lies the importance of Mary. Christ couldn’t have been Incarnated if there was no Mary. Someone had to bear Christ in their womb, or Christ wouldn’t have come. Of course Mary is important only in relation to Christ. Nothing is important to salvation if it isn’t in relation to Christ. But Mary was certainly not simply an earthly vessel that was to be thrown away. God doesn’t abandon people after they have served an important purpose.

The reason Mary is talked about so little in relation to the martyrs if because she, out of perfect humility, wished only to be invisible, unnoticed by all. The Word of God could not leave out so important a person, however, so it didn’t. That is why the Annunciation narrative is so important.

Kecharitomene means full of grace in the past, present, and future, hence the Immaculate Conception. The possibility that kecharitomene could mean something different does exist. The possibility is that it meant a less exalted meaning of the word kecharitomene. But in the context of the angel’s greeting, a less exalted definition would seem not to fit. Why would an angel, a being created superior to man, be hailing this woman? Because she is full of grace in the past, present, and future. This, I believe, is why the Catholic Encyclopedia states that there is no Scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception, but that does not mean that there is not substantial evidence.

Now, while I hate to delve into the issue of papal infallibility, Catholics believe this dogma to be infallibly true because it was taught infallibly by the Church that Christ established. Christ didn’t will that billions of people’s interpretations of the Bible be their only authority because… then there would be billions of authorities! That is why he established a Church, that is why Catholics accept the authority of that Church, and that is why the Catholic Church teaches the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[emeraldisle]

Problem is that some English translations of the text are woefully inadequate calling her instead “highly favored one” or “favored lady.” These are not particularly faithful to the original Greek or the Latin translation of it by St. Jerome: “gratia plena” full of grace, or plenteous grace.

With all due respect to you, your comments are just your opinion and not a fact. IMO the following translation of Luke 1:28 as a correct one and I believe the latin vulgate translation by Jerome to be in error.

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 (NKJV)​

 

[justinthemartyr]

First off, “His Word” is Jesus Christ, the Logos.

Now, why “surely”? What leads you to believe that every important thing that God wanted to tell us would be recorded in Scripture? Why, further, isn’t it enough that he recorded the fact of Mary’s sinlessness in the deposit of faith that he gave to His Church, which has guarded it and passed it down without error throughout the generations?

You need to examine your assumptions, because they are not part of the Christian faith given to the apostles.

Thank you for clarifying that God’s Word goes far beyond the written scrolls of the Old Covenant and the written letters of the New!

God’s Word, jesus Christ, speaks through His One Church adn through the canon of scripture which only this one Church canonized.

You are holding a catholic NT in your hands.

 

[emeraldisle]

Do you know what the deffinition of “enmity” is? Gen 3:15

try giving it a read, in context, and then answer the question: Who is the woman who’s offspring will crush the head of the serpent?

IMO you are missing the point of this passage of Scripture because it speaks of the then to come Messiah who would crush satan. How anyone can try to interpret that Mary is sinless from this passage is beyond me.​

 

[bookgirl32]

IMO you are missing the point of this passage of Scripture because it speaks of the then to come Messiah who would crush satan. How anyone can try to interpret that Mary is sinless from this passage is beyond me.​

But why don’t you try answering her question? She’s looking at the definition of enmity and what it means in the context of the passage. You’re ignoring that part of her question.

 

[bookgirl32]

With all due respect to you, your comments are just your opinion and not a fact. IMO the following translation of Luke 1:28 as a correct one and I believe the latin vulgate translation by Jerome to be in error.

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 (NKJV)​

Just what Christianity needs to be unified, a whole bunch of opinions interpreting scripture! Oh, wait, that’s Protestantism.

 

[Rolltide]

With all due respect to you, your comments are just your opinion and not a fact. IMO the following translation of Luke 1:28 as a correct one and I believe the latin vulgate translation by Jerome to be in error.

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 (NKJV)​

So, what you are indeed saying is that the translation issue IS important, since the rendering has a direct impact on the interpretation of the passage.

(Of course, that said, Luke 1:28 is simply one of the more important Biblical references to the Immaculate Conception. Even if it did not exist, sufficient evidence still exists for belief in the Immaculate Conception, both in and out of the Bible.)

 

[emeraldisle]

Not to hijack the thread, but f I might ask, Emeraldisle, where exactly did the Bible come from? By that, I mean by what process was it created? Mind you, I’m not talking about the divinely inspired scriptures themselves, I’m talking about the decisions about which documents to include and which to reject. At what point did a complete Bible in a single language actually become available, who compiled it, and what did people do before its compilation when there was still debate about what scriptures to include?

I think you’ll find that the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition played a substantial role during this period…

God gave us His Scriptures, period. 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.

Don’t try to put God in a box and don’t believe in a small God. Also what God has given us in His Word is all we need for teaching/instruction in the Christian life. I believe God didn’t make a mistake by not mentioning in His infallible Word that Mary is sinless. He didn’t mention this because the real truth is that Mary isn’t sinless according to Gods written infallible Word.

 

[Rolltide]

Btw, Emeraldisle, although you believe that the Vulgate is in error, what are your opinions as to how the original Greek should be translated?

As a professor of history at a private college in the South, I’d be happy to try and get some genuine experts on ancient and Biblical Greek to tell you what they think…

 

[Goth_Catholic]

With all due respect to you, your comments are just your opinion and not a fact.
Neither are yours.
IMO the following translation of Luke 1:28 as a correct one and I believe the latin vulgate translation by Jerome to be in error.
That’s just your opinion, not a fact. The fact is that Kecharitomene means “Has been and is continuously graced” in other words, Filled or full of grace.
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 (NKJV)​

Chaire doesn’t mean Rejoice ethier. It means “Hail (royality)” the next time it’s used in scripture is when the soldiers mock Jesus and say unto him “Hail King of the Jews”.