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

[Franciscan]

I have adjusted my signature. Inspired by Emeraldisle…

 

[jmcrae]

The Latin given to us by St. Jerome in the world’s first Bible says, “Ave, gratia plena” - Hail, she who is without sin.

It was good enough for St. Jerome, and it’s good enough for me.

 

[LilyM]

I could have agreed with what you wrote if the Bible was a work of man. However the Bible is Gods masterpiece and He has so wisely chosen to give us His truth in written form. It seems some people get all worked up about how God gave us His infallible written Word but for me it doesn’t matter how God did it but the fact is that He has given us His infallible written Word.

We thankfully have the complete infallible written Word of God and in His written Word we don’t have a single reference to Mary being sinless. That settles the issue for me, I believe what God says in His infallible written Word.

.

How He gave us the Bible matters enormously, because He used the exact same method to show us which books are inspired and which not, that He used to reveal to us that Mary was sinless - and many many other non-Biblical truths that you believe in. Where in the Bible, for example, is Sunday worship revealed as opposed to the Saturday Sabbath of the OT? It isn’t, yet I’d be willing to make a substantial bet that you believe in it anyway.

Stop the hypocrisy and stupidity of pretending that everything you know and believe about your faith is contained in the Bible. Sheesh … we get accused of worshipping Mary but when it comes to idolatry some of you non-Catholics have us beat, only it’s the Bible you worship instead of the Living God who sent us only one Word - Jesus Himself, whose self, whose truth and whose teachings aren’t and cannot possibly be confined merely within the pages of the Bible, or any other book, as John himself says in its very pages.

The only reason we even HAVE, let alone believe in the Bible is because the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, in the 300s, took time to sifted through hundreds of apocryphal writings, many claiming to be written by the Apostles just as much as anything in the NT, as well as those writings that ARE currently part of the Old and New Testaments.

Having examined them carefully, it determined, under guidance of the Holy Spirit AND as a result of this careful research into them, which books were scriptural and which were not, and made a dogmatic declaration to that effect. That’s the reason you don’t have the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache or the Letters of Clement (Peter’s successor as Pope) in your Bible right now.

And believe you me, all three of those were being read out in churches all over the known world right alongside the Gospels and Pauls letters - sometimes instead of! So don’t give me this bull about scriptures just self-evidently being scriptural - they ain’t, and several generations of early Christians, every bit as faithful and spirit-filled as you or anyone else, attest to that fact.

And the same way the Bible was produced was the same way God chose to reveal that we worship on Sundays - the Catholic Church (for there was no other at the time), after careful examination of the recorded beliefs of the earliest Christians (who were taught by the Apostles themselves to worship on Sundays), and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed His truth. And that’s the same method they have used to reveal that Mary was sinless.

 

[clmowry]

I’ll refer you to the statement made by your fellow Catholic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregoryPalamas
One cannot argue convincingly from silence.

That’s what you’re doing.

That is not in any way what I am doing.

I am not arguing that scripture says that Mary has not sinned.

Nor am I arguing that scripture says that Mary has sinned.

I am arguing that it says nothing explicitly on the subject.

So looking for “proof” from scripture is a moot point.

Nothing on this subject can be “proven” one way or the other from scripture because nothing is explicitly said on the subject.

You can however try to demonstrate that one position or another is more likely based on what is implied in scripture.

Of course folks will disagree and the debate will rage on.

My only objection is that some folks continue to claim that they have “proven” their case from scripture.

Can’t be done.

If it could the issue would have been settled long ago.

Chuck

 

[jmcrae]

Hol’ up, hol’ up, hol’ up



Who told you that the WRITTEN WORD is infallible?

And when you say ‘Written Word’, could you point me to a translation, and publish date?

(Who publishes ‘infallible words’, anyway???)

Good point. The Bible is inerrant. The Pope is infallible.

 

[Apryl]

Good point. The Bible is inerrant. The Pope is infallible.

…and the POPE is the head of the CHURCH which is the PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH.

Now, talk about your irresistable force meeting an immovable object: the Pope (by way of the church) said…

and that in no way CONFLICTS with what is written in the Bible.

What I’m not getting is: why are some folx so hell-bent on Mary being sinful? And if she’s sinful, what sin was she guilty of? And how does that make you any close to God by making His Mother sinful???

(I think I require chocolate)

 

[LilyM]

…and the POPE is the head of the CHURCH which is the PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH.

Now, talk about your irresistable force meeting an immovable object: the Pope (by way of the church) said…

and that in no way CONFLICTS with what is written in the Bible.

What I’m not getting is: why are some folx so hell-bent on Mary being sinful? And if she’s sinful, what sin was she guilty of? And how does that make you any close to God by making His Mother sinful???

(I think I require chocolate)

and - I think I need some chocolate-coated headache pills, to be more accurate.

 

[emeraldisle]

How He gave us the Bible matters enormously, because He used the exact same method to show us which books are inspired and which not, that He used to reveal to us that Mary was sinless - and many many other non-Biblical truths that you believe in. Where in the Bible, for example, is Sunday worship revealed as opposed to the Saturday Sabbath of the OT? It isn’t, yet I’d be willing to make a substantial bet that you believe in it anyway.

Stop the hypocrisy and stupidity of pretending that everything you know and believe about your faith is contained in the Bible. Sheesh … we get accused of worshipping Mary but when it comes to idolatry some of you non-Catholics have us beat, only it’s the Bible you worship instead of the Living God who sent us only one Word - Jesus Himself, whose self, whose truth and whose teachings aren’t and cannot possibly be confined merely within the pages of the Bible, or any other book, as John himself says in its very pages.

The only reason we even HAVE, let alone believe in the Bible is because the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, in the 300s, took time to sifted through hundreds of apocryphal writings, many claiming to be written by the Apostles just as much as anything in the NT, as well as those writings that ARE currently part of the Old and New Testaments.

Having examined them carefully, it determined, under guidance of the Holy Spirit AND as a result of this careful research into them, which books were scriptural and which were not, and made a dogmatic declaration to that effect. That’s the reason you don’t have the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache or the Letters of Clement (Peter’s successor as Pope) in your Bible right now.

And believe you me, all three of those were being read out in churches all over the known world right alongside the Gospels and Pauls letters - sometimes instead of! So don’t give me this bull about scriptures just self-evidently being scriptural - they ain’t, and several generations of early Christians, every bit as faithful and spirit-filled as you or anyone else, attest to that fact.

And the same way the Bible was produced was the same way God chose to reveal that we worship on Sundays - the Catholic Church (for there was no other at the time), after careful examination of the recorded beliefs of the earliest Christians (who were taught by the Apostles themselves to worship on Sundays), and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed His truth. And that’s the same method they have used to reveal that Mary was sinless.

And still you have failed along with all the other posters to give valid biblical evidence for the teaching that Mary was sinless. No wonder you need to go mans ideas to try and promote the teaching that Mary was sinless.

Again I say I’m very content with Gods written Word and His truth revealed to us that Mary was not sinless. Mary most certainly is blessed but most definitely was not sinless.

.

 

[LilyM]

And still you have failed along with all the other posters to give and valid biblical evidence for the teaching that Mary was sinless. No wonder you need to go mans ideas to try and promote the teaching that Mary was sinless.

Again I say I’m very content with Gods written Word and His truth revealed to us that Mary was not sinless. Mary most certainly is blessed but most definitely was not sinless.

.

If you worship on Sundays then you’re NOT AT ALL content with God’s written word, but you in fact go well beyond it, as most Christians do. The Bible doesn’t provide any basis for Sunday worship. Do you worship on Sundays?

Having said that, I’m out of here, obviously you think God just dropped a nice leather-bound red-letter KJV straight from heaven into someone’s lap mid-300s or something and that that was the beginning and end of it. If you want to persist in that mistaken belief, as well as the mistaken notion that nothing you believe goes outside of the scope of that book, then I’ve nothing more to say to you.

‘Blind! Blind! Blind!’ - Charles Dickens.

 

[bookgirl32]

And still you have failed along with all the other posters to give valid biblical evidence for the teaching that Mary was sinless. No wonder you need to go mans ideas to try and promote the teaching that Mary was sinless.

Again I say I’m very content with Gods written Word and His truth revealed to us that Mary was not sinless. Mary most certainly is blessed but most definitely was not sinless.

.

And you have still failed to show me what I asked for.

 

[jmcrae]

Again I say I’m very content with Gods written Word and His truth revealed to us that Mary was not sinless.

Where does the Bible say this? (And how do you reconcile it with Luke 1:28, which states that she was kecharitomene - translated by St. Jerome in the world’s first Bible as “gratia plena” - she who is without sin?)

 

[ChrisWRIT]

But this topic is scripturally referenced in Rom 3:23; 3:9; Gal 3:22; that’s the OP’s point, IMO.

**Rom. 3:9
**“What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.”

Infallibility is not the same thing as impeccability.

Rom. 3:23
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”

1. Again, infallibility is not the same thing as impeccability.
2. The attempt to imply that this verse means that every man has sinned means either:

• a) Jesus sinned, or
• b) Jesus was not human (Docetism), or
• c) Paul wasn’t talking about every person on earth.

The Bible supports c).

Gal 3:22
“But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.”

And again - Infallibility is not the same thing as impeccability.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Where does it say in the Bible about such a person as a Pope being infallible?

Luke 10:16 – “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
**Matt. 18:18 **– “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
John 21:15–17 – “Feed my sheep…”
Luke 22:32 – “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
Matt. 28:20 – “…And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

… etc.

Are you equating the issue of Mary’s supposed sinlessness to computers, cars & tv’s?

Chuck pointed out that scripture does not explicitly state whether Mary sinned or not. It does imply she did not, as the Catholic Church has noted.

I believe what Apryl pointed out is that by your apparent standard, that for anything to be true it must be stated in the Bible, then you must logically also be opposed to the fact that computers, cars & tv’s exist. (Is that about it Apryl?)

By emeraldisle
Again I say I’m very content with Gods written Word and His truth revealed to us that Mary was not sinless. Mary most certainly is blessed but most definitely was not sinless.

If you are unable to accept that your view of “Scripture alone” refutes itself, then I certainly hope you might learn that someday.

God Bless,

Chris

 

[maryj]

And still you have failed along with all the other posters to give valid biblical evidence for the teaching that Mary was sinless. No wonder you need to go mans ideas to try and promote the teaching that Mary was sinless.

Again I say I’m very content with Gods written Word and His truth revealed to us that Mary was not sinless. Mary most certainly is blessed but most definitely was not sinless.

.

If you worship on Sundays then you’re NOT AT ALL content with God’s written word, but you in fact go well beyond it, as most Christians do. The Bible doesn’t provide any basis for Sunday worship. Do you worship on Sundays?

Having said that, I’m out of here, obviously you think God just dropped a nice leather-bound red-letter KJV straight from heaven into someone’s lap mid-300s or something and that that was the beginning and end of it. If you want to persist in that mistaken belief, as well as the mistaken notion that nothing you believe goes outside of the scope of that book, then I’ve nothing more to say to you.

‘Blind! Blind! Blind!’ - Charles Dickens.

And you have still failed to show me what I asked for.

I’ve still no answer or definition either, that silence speaks volumes. I shall declare enmity between I and emeraldisle. Gotta go watch EWTN , (in secret catholic language,) The dove has landed at Andrews airforce base. I think I will gain more from him than from this standstill of a discussion. God Bless one and all and God bless the Pope.

 

[justasking4]

Where does the Bible say this? (And how do you reconcile it with Luke 1:28, which states that she was kecharitomene - translated by St. Jerome in the world’s first Bible as “gratia plena” - she who is without sin?)

Jerome must have been mistaken in this. Here is what this word --“highly favored” one means from NT Greek Lexicon:
To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitóō there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai (5483), to give grace, to remit, forgive.

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)

Notice in this defintion that there is mention of sin either in the past, present or future.

 

[jmcrae]

Jerome must have been mistaken in this.

Don’t you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? We are talking here about the original Bible - the template from which all other Bibles are made - you’re saying that the original Bible has an error in it?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3563259]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Jerome must have been mistaken in this.

jmcrae
Don’t you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Yes.

We are talking here about the original Bible - the template from which all other Bibles are made - you’re saying that the original Bible has an error in it?

Not necessarily. Translations of the scriptures have improved over time due to more knowledgeable translators, more manuscripts and a better understanding to the biblical languages than Jerome. Jerome was a great translator but he did not have access to all the tools of today.

 

[brandymmiller]

Our non-Catholic friend is still avoiding the Canon point

Let us not fall into pride, friends. We are setting examples by our behavior. Don’t goad him and laugh at him if he can’t answer right away. This won’t encourage him to change his mind but may encourage him to bury himself deeper out of shame. Be gentle, and love him. We have all sinned. We have all doubted. We have all made mistakes. Nobody likes to have a mistake lorded over them.

 

[justasking4]

The Bible doesn’t record everything that is contained in the church, Catholic or Protestant. Sacred tradition shows that the early Fathers and the Church as such believed that Mary was sinless.

There were fathers who thought Mary had sinned:Irenaeus,Tertullian, Origen and Chrysistom to name a few.

 

[Philthy]

We thankfully have the complete infallible written Word of God

Would you please share your faith with us? How do you know this? Who said Scripture has ended? Where is the list of "the complete written Word of God’?

I believe what God says in His infallible written Word

If you come away with nothing else, at least remember this:]
Scripture is INERRANT, not infallible.

I could have agreed with what you wrote if the Bible was a work of man.

Oh stop. The Bible is a work of man… and God. Men cooperating with God’s grace to write it. This attempt to separate what men accomplish while alive in the Spirit with what God accomplishes is simply ridiculous.

However the Bible is Gods masterpiece and He has so wisely chosen to give us His truth in written form. It seems some people get all worked up about how God gave us His infallible written Word but for me it doesn’t matter how God did it but the fact is that He has given us His infallible written Word.

The fact is that you dont have a very good answer for why you trust so much in the books you call the bible. That’s the only fact I see here. Like I said way back on page 4 - you have a big problem with how God gave us Scripture - you simply won’t admit it.
You apparently havent a clue how the bible came together. That means that you prefer to ignore how GOD CHOSE to bring us the bible. Why would you ever want to do such a thing? I find your attempt to reconcile your laziness as somehow “trusting in God’s sovereignty” disingenuous. As I said before I can’t help but believe you hold something dearer than the truth. I can only say that I speak from experience and am not judging you. I owe you truth and I have given you what I beleive it to be.