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

  • Thread starter Thread starter emeraldisle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
In the same way that the people of Jeremiah’s time knew that Jeremiah’s prophecies were from God - because he holds the office that God has appointed for this very purpose.
Click to expand...
We know Jeremiah is a prophet and consider his writings Scripture. Do you consider such things from the popes to be scripture?
 
justasking4 said:
The point is that the church has not always held that she was without sin. The mere fact that a lot of people had different views about this is not evidence. The only evidence that can be found if true would be in the Scriptures and the Scriptures don’t support such a view.

Secondly, no man-woman is a “worthless sinner” for whom Christ died.
Click to expand...
Of course the views of people about scripture is evidence about how to rightly interpret it. Especially the early Christians who were taught it from the Apostles themselves - aren’t they especially likely to get it right? If the majority of them thought, for example, that Jesus was both true God and true Man (as they did) isn’t that evidence that this is in fact the correct interpretation, in spite of your Ariuses and Nestoriuses who believed otherwise?

Just because the Church didn’t make a dogmatic pronouncement on it in the early centuries doesn’t mean it’s untrue - would the Bible be any less truly the inspired word of God if its Canon was only finally settled in 1950? (In fact, given that we argue the status of the Deuterocanonicals to this day, one could say it still isn’t settled).

And all humans are worthless in and of themselves - Christ died for us, of His goodness and love for us, sure, and that gives us value, but it doesn’t mean we’re worth anything in and of ourselves, least of all if we are sinners who reject His saving sacrifice.
 
justasking4 said:
The point is that the church has not always held that she was without sin. The mere fact that a lot of people had different views about this is not evidence. The only evidence that can be found if true would be in the Scriptures and the Scriptures don’t support such a view.

Secondly, no man-woman is a “worthless sinner” for whom Christ died.
Click to expand...
No, while a few of the early Christians held that she was with sin, the Church has always held that she was without it.

Heck, even some of the fathers you note as doubters actually held her to be completely obedient, like tertullian & Irenaeus.

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

The usual issue is not evidence, but a lack of an explicit sentence in the Bible that states it the way you want it to for belief.

Chris
 
justasking4 said:
We know Jeremiah is a prophet and consider his writings Scripture.
Click to expand...
Because the Council of Hippo told us so. But they got to be that way because people understood that Jeremiah was a Prophet, and how they understood that he was a Prophet was that he had been anointed with oil by the King in a ceremony that recognized his status as such.
Do you consider such things from the popes to be scripture?
Click to expand...
No; I consider them Magisterial pronouncements.
 
jmcrae;3563613]
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by justasking4
We know Jeremiah is a prophet and consider his writings Scripture.
Click to expand...
jmcrae;
Because the Council of Hippo told us so. But they got to be that way because people understood that Jeremiah was a Prophet, and how they understood that he was a Prophet was that he had been anointed with oil by the King in a ceremony that recognized his status as such.
Click to expand...
The writings of Jeremiah were considered scripture before this council. The Jews before the time of Christ considered them as such before the church came into being.
No; I consider them Magisterial pronouncements.
Click to expand...
They may be important but they are not inspired-inerrant Word of God.
 
bookgirl32 said:
I’d like to ask you to show me, in God’s written word, where it says that God’s written word is His *only *revelation 🙂 .
Click to expand...
The issue is one of Authority. Protestants see the scripture alone and Catholics scripture as seen through the lens of Sacred Tradition. The Church is the bulwark of the Faith as stated in scripture and it is necessary to have both to understand God’s will for us.😉
 
justasking4 said:
The writings of Jeremiah were considered scripture before this council. The Jews before the time of Christ considered them as such before the church came into being.
Click to expand...
The Jews of the time of Jesus didn’t have a settled canon of Scripture, and there were many Jews (in particular, the Saducees) who didn’t consider the writings of Jeremiah, or anything else outside of the Torah, to be Scripture.
 
justasking4 said:
The writings of Jeremiah were considered scripture before this council. The Jews before the time of Christ considered them as such before the church came into being.

They may be important but they are not inspired-inerrant Word of God.
Click to expand...
They are the products of oral tradition, which the inspired-inerrant word tells us to follow alongside the written. And not Word, please, there’s only one capital-W Word, and that’s Jesus Himself, He is not to be equated with something so inferior to Himself as the Bible. To do so verges on idolatry.
 
ChrisWRIT;3563612]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The point is that the church has not always held that she was without sin. The mere fact that a lot of people had different views about this is not evidence. The only evidence that can be found if true would be in the Scriptures and the Scriptures don’t support such a view.
Click to expand...
Secondly, no man-woman is a “worthless sinner” for whom Christ died.
Click to expand...
ChrisWRIT
No, while a few of the early Christians held that she was with sin, the Church has always held that she was without it.
Click to expand...
Heck, even some of the fathers you note as doubters actually held her to be completely obedient, like tertullian & Irenaeus.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that there is no such thing on this issue that there was unaminous support since the begining?
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
Click to expand...
The usual issue is not evidence, but a lack of an explicit sentence in the Bible that states it the way you want it to for belief.
Click to expand...
Not only that but its not even hinted at by those who knew her best. Is this not a major doctrine that must be believed by all catholics?
Chris
Click to expand...
 
LilyM said:
They are the products of oral tradition, which the inspired-inerrant word tells us to follow alongside the written. And not Word, please, there’s only one capital-W Word, and that’s Jesus Himself, He is not to be equated with something so inferior to Himself as the Bible. To do so verges on idolatry.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the catholic church consider the Bible i.e. the book to be inspired-inspired? Are not the Scriptures God’s revelation of Himself to man? Doesn’t the great apostle Paul say that the writings of the OT are the “oracles of God”? see Romans 3:2.
 
jmcrae said:
The Jews of the time of Jesus didn’t have a settled canon of Scripture, and there were many Jews (in particular, the Saducees) who didn’t consider the writings of Jeremiah, or anything else outside of the Torah, to be Scripture.
Click to expand...
Did Jesus consider the book of Jeremiah to be Scripture?
 
emeraldisle said:
If the Trinity was presented in a Biblical court of law it would get a unanimous decision to say its true. There is plently of Biblical evidence for the Trinity. BTW JW’s don’t have the Holy Spirit so its hardly suprising that they don’t know the truth of the Trinity.

Now if the issue of Mary being sinless was presented in a Biblical court of law it would be dismissed on the grounds that there is no biblical evidence for this idea.

Its not a question of rights but “Truth”.

.
Click to expand...
I support your right to read scripture but private interpretation as the correct one without squaring it with God’s holy Church is incorrect. God established his Church to help guide believers into all truth, not all manner of private paranoid interpretations.
 
justasking4 said:
Doesn’t the catholic church consider the Bible i.e. the book to be inspired-inspired? Are not the Scriptures God’s revelation of Himself to man? Doesn’t the great apostle Paul say that the writings of the OT are the “oracles of God”? see Romans 3:2.
Click to expand...
Inspired-inerrant oracles of God, yes, God’s true written word. My written word (or any of my words) is not myself. God’s revelation of Himself, but again my revelation of myself to you in my spoken and written word is not the same thing as my actual self. Jesus Christ is God’s own actual self and His one Word, containing all words within and outside of scripture.

Neither my words nor my revelation of myself to you (nor God’s) are worthy of nearly the same respect as my own (or God’s own) self is.
 
LilyM said:
Well it doesn’t say in the Bible, the inspired-inerrant word, that He did … :whistle: :eek: 😃
Click to expand...
Jesus did believe that the OT Scriptures were the Word of God which would include all the books of the prophets of the OT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top