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

[guanophore]

The Church stands on 20 of those apparitions, giving hearty approval as to their authenticity being what?

Perhaps I don’t understand your meaning. Can you elaborate on what “The Church stands on” means? It is true that the Church does investigate and take a stand on many private revelations. If they are considered authentic, and approved, then they are permitted. However, the Teaching of the Church is that there was no new public revelation after the death of the Apostles, so these types of mystical experiences are not considered part of the Divine deposit of faith, but a reflection of it. In other words, our faith is based upon the Teaching of Christ, not the mystical experiences of individual believers.

 

[guanophore]

By definition the “oral tradition” of Catholicism is to find its origin in the teachings of the Apostles.

Can you please show where you found this definition? I have not found any such thing in the Church teachings.

But that which was preserved for us in holy writ proves that the Catholic “tradition” of Mary’s sinlessness was never an Apostolic teaching. And it becomes painfully obvious that those men who eventfully fabricated such a doctrine erred by not understanding the Scriptures and Pauline theology.

News flash **** that which is preserved for in the Holy Writ IS Catholic Tradition. It does not, however, contain all of what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Furthermore, unlike Protestants, Catholics derive their doctrines from Jesus, not from “Pauline Theology”. That means, we do not excise verses from the epistles of Paul, and take them apart from the other writings in the NT to create doctrines. This includes the doctrine of original sin. Mary was saved from orignial sin by the blood of Jesus, just as we all are.

 

[sandusky]

CentralFLJames:

I am glad you signed your comment IHMO - “in my humble opinion”. But its clear that you are either utterly disingenuous or in possession of an infantile understanding of scripture to take Colossians to be a universal condemnation of apparitions.

If you understood the social context of Colossians you would know that Colossians was written as a warning against certain false Jewish teachers whom St. Paul had probably heard from Epaphras, his “fellow-prisoner” and the founder of the Church of the Colossians. Under the false pretence of humility some Jews inculcated the worship (threskeia) of angels, whom they regarded as equal or superior to Christ. The best modern commentators, Catholic and non-Catholic agree with St. Jerome that all these errors were of Jewish origin. Angels played an important part in most of early apocryphal books of the Jews, e.g. the Book of the Secrets of Henoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.

The words of the Epistle against the superstitious worship of angels cannot be taken as condemning the Catholic invocation of angels. Dr. T.K. Abbott, a candid non-Catholic scholar, has a very pertinent passage which bears on this point (Eph. and Coloss. p. 268): “Zonaras . . . says there was an ancient heresy of some who said that we should not call on Christ for help or access to God, but on the angels. . . . This latter view, however, would place Christ high above the angels, and therefore cannot have been that of Colossians, who required to be taught the superiority of Christ.” The objection sometimes brought from a passage of Theodoret on the Council of Laodicea, is clearly and completely refuted by Estius (Comm. in Coloss., II, 18).

If you want to get to a more mature and holistic understanding of scriptural context read here: Epistle to the Colossians. But if you want to remain staunchly anti-Catholic in your narrow minded views of scripture just be careful that you don’t become obdurate and go to your grave in that condition or you will get to meet some angles who shared your belief in God but simply refused to serve God.

Thank you for your humble opinion, James.

I do understand the context of Colossians, but if, as you seem to be insisting, the only valid use of the passage is anachronistic, that would relegate the scriptures to the stature of “just another book.”

In my mind, and IMHO, my application of the passage is valid.

Also, you should consider your warnings well.

There will be neither Catholics, nor Protestants, nor anyone else in heaven on that day, but only **“hō pisteuōn”—“the **believing ones” (Jn 3:16)—chosen by God before the foundation of the world, and drawn to Christ by the Father, and those will come to the Son, and He will raise them (Eph1; Jn 6).

 

[kaycee]

The only person ever born into this world apart from sin was Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:15). And Scripture reveals Him to be the “second man,” He Himself being another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). Not separately created but grafted on to the old through the virgin birth. He, like Adam, is a progenitor of another humanity, made righteous “in Him.” Paul, through divine insight, explains it this way:Rom 5:19 "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."Paul’s sweeping statements in Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 should satisfy the O.P.'s question. It is impossible for the Bible to say that Mary was sinless, or support such doctrines as her immaculate conception and perpetual sinlessness without contradicting itself.

By definition the “oral tradition” of Catholicism is to find its origin in the teachings of the Apostles. But that which was preserved for us in holy writ proves that the Catholic “tradition” of Mary’s sinlessness was never an Apostolic teaching. And it becomes painfully obvious that those men who eventfully fabricated such a doctrine erred by not understanding the Scriptures and Pauline theology.

Excellent post

**Augustine (**354-430): This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.

Guess the Marian oral tradition hadn’t made its way to Augustine yet.

 

[sandusky]

Perhaps I don’t understand your meaning. Can you elaborate on what “The Church stands on” means? It is true that the Church does investigate and take a stand on many private revelations. If they are considered authentic, and approved, then they are permitted.

That’s the question—permitted for what?

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Bible doesn’t say that Mary was sinless because the Bible is God’s Word and God cannot lie. If the Bible explicitly, or even implicitly, stated Mary was sinless then God Himself would be a liar. But the truth is God cannot lie.

True. But human minds, especially those who have been taught a lie like Protestantism’s unbiblical solas (5 solas all “alone” in stark contradiction to each other ) can be deceived by their own doctrinal biases. At least we can agree that God promised that His Church would never error since He sent the HS to guide it and no evil would ever prevail against it. We Catholics take confidence that eventually Protestants will come to realize their fundamental errors and that they can’t fight God’s truth with with the lies and errors of Luther and the reformers.

James

 

[sandusky]

The Bible doesn’t say that Mary was sinless because the Bible is God’s Word and God cannot lie. If the Bible explicitly, or even implicitly, stated Mary was sinless then God Himself would be a liar. But the truth is God cannot lie, hence, the Bible cannot state that Mary was sinless. But instead it states:Rom. 3:23-24 "…for all sinned (Gr. hemarton, aroist tense) and (continually) fall short (present tense) of the glory of God, being justified (how?) as a gift (by what means?) by His grace (through what means?) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (the cross)"That passage is not stating that all “have” sinned, i.e., that all have personally committed sins, but that all humanity at a point in time, collectively, “sinned.”

So the fact that ALL humanity historically sinned is explicitly revealed to us in Rom. 3:23. When this historical event occurred is revealed to us in Rom. 5:12:“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (why?), because all sinned (aorist tense)…” The aorist is a statement of a past fact. “All sinned” (past fact) in Adam.

This is called “federal theology,” and the only way we can know of this fact is by divine revelation. God had to reveal it. It’s how God views humanity. Another example of it is in Heb. 7:9-10:"And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."And so when Adam sinned Mary sinned, along with all of Adam’s posterity. It’s the reason the Bible cannot ever say that Mary was sinless. Long before Mary was born, nay, even conceived, she sinned with all of humanity “in Adam.” The only way Mary could have been separated from sin is to not have been connected to Adam at all. In other words, she would have to have been uniquely created by God - not born of human parents. And we know based on the Biblical genealogies that this was not true of Mary.

The only person ever born into this world apart from sin was Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:15). And Scripture reveals Him to be the “second man,” He Himself being another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). Not separately created but grafted on to the old through the virgin birth. He, like Adam, is a progenitor of another humanity, made righteous “in Him.” Paul, through divine insight, explains it this way:Rom 5:19 "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."Paul’s sweeping statements in Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 should satisfy the O.P.'s question. It is impossible for the Bible to say that Mary was sinless, or support such doctrines as her immaculate conception and perpetual sinlessness without contradicting itself.

By definition the “oral tradition” of Catholicism is to find its origin in the teachings of the Apostles. But that which was preserved for us in holy writ proves that the Catholic “tradition” of Mary’s sinlessness was never an Apostolic teaching. And it becomes painfully obvious that those men who eventfully fabricated such a doctrine erred by not understanding the Scriptures and Pauline theology.

An excellent summation of the entire thread. :tiphat:

 

[kaycee]

Augustine (354-430 AD): Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he * says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin.*

 

[kaycee]

Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.” NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.

 

[kaycee]

**Ambrose **(c. 339-97): Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that none is without sin except God alone, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin. NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §134.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Thank you for your humble opinion, James.

I do understand the context of Colossians, but if, as you seem to be insisting, the only valid use of the passage is anachronistic, that would relegate the scriptures to the stature of “just another book.”

In my mind, and IMHO, my application of the passage is valid.

Also, you should consider your warnings well.

There will be neither Catholics, nor Protestants, nor anyone else in heaven on that day, but only "hō pisteuōn"—"the believing ones" (Jn 3:16)—chosen by God before the foundation of the world, and drawn to Christ by the Father, and those will come to the Son, and He will raise them (Eph1; Jn 6).

I am sure that in your mind you felt justified persecuting Jesus’ Church just like Paul did until God knocked him off his high horse and enlightened him. But since you are a person who admits that he is fallible there is still a chance that your mind can be changed. Just don’t be surprised if its not a woman, Mary, who does so. If Jesus is the new Adam it makes perfect sense that Mary is the new Eve. Who else would you suggest fits that role?

[Luke 10:16] “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” “In that day” none that reject God or Jesus or His Church will be found in heaven.

James

 

[kaycee]

Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532): **For the flesh of Mary, which had been conceived in iniquities in the usual manner, was the flesh of sin **which begot the Son of God in the likeness of the flesh of sin…For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), pp. 180-181.

 

[guanophore]

That’s the question—permitted for what?

For private and personal devotion. It means that embracing the event will not lead the devoted away from the Teachings of Jesus.

 

[JoeyWarren]

**

**Sandusky pointed out: **

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
**

This would seem to contradict your personal interpretation of pre-destination.

How can God desire every single man to be saved if he has already predestined those to heaven and predestined those to hell especially when God already knows who will be saved and who will not be saved.

---

**Here are the KJV and DR translations. ****

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

**It really harms and contradicts your Pre-destined theology if “WILL” means that it is a guarantee that every single man is to be saved. **

In light of what God has already ordained that us sheep will be separated out from the goats, then that “all” is contextually ‘MOST’ or “On the whole”**

---

 

[sandusky]

CentralFLJames:

I am sure that in your mind you felt justified persecuting Jesus’ Church just like Paul did until God knocked him off his high horse and enlightened him. But since you are a person who admits that he is fallible there is still a chance that your mind can be changed. Just don’t be surprised if its not a woman, Mary, who does so. If Jesus is the new Adam it makes perfect sense that Mary is the new Eve. Who else would you suggest fits that role?

[Luke 10:16] “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” “In that day” none that reject God or Jesus or His Church will be found in heaven.

Everything you say, James, begs the question; IMHO.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Thank you for your humble opinion, James.

I do understand the context of Colossians, but if, as you seem to be insisting, the only valid use of the passage is anachronistic, that would relegate the scriptures to the stature of “just another book.”

In my mind, and IMHO, my application of the passage is valid.

Also, you should consider your warnings well.

There will be neither Catholics, nor Protestants, nor anyone else in heaven on that day, but only "hō pisteuōn"—"the believing ones" (Jn 3:16)—chosen by God before the foundation of the world, and drawn to Christ by the Father, and those will come to the Son, and He will raise them (Eph1; Jn 6).

But you Protestants seem to want to turn scripture into a book of persecution to pluck out bits and pieces to mosaic an absurd collage of nonsense devoid of any scholarship to make it bear false witness against The Catholic Church - Jesus’ Church. God will severely punish anyone who uses His word out of context to persecute His Church by bearing false witness against it. The Catholic Church never assembled the scriptures for the purpose of dicing it and shredding it into microscopic passages of mini-truths like you Protestants do. The Bible must be read holistically as an entire work to comprehend its proper meaning. ONLY The Church has the insights and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture.

What you Protestants do to scripture the Jews did to Jesus. God I would not want to be in any bible-only Christian’s shoes on their day of judgement. I can’t imagine anything more provoking to God than putting words in His mouth that are utter falsehoods.

James

 

[sandusky]

JoeyWarren:

This would seem to contradict your personal interpretation of pre-destination.

How can God desire every single man to be saved if he has already predestined those to heaven and predestined those to hell especially when God already knows who will be saved and who will not be saved.

It really harms and contradicts your Pre-destined theology if “WILL” means that it is a guarantee that every single man is to be saved.

In light of what God has already ordained that us sheep will be separated out from the goats, then that “all” is contextually ‘MOST’ or “On the whole”

”Seem” is the operative word.

My point in citing the verse to you, is that every Catholic who’s employed this verse with me, has done so to “prove” that God gives to all men “prevenient” grace which enables each man to either choose to receive the grace, or choose to reject the grace, and be saved, or not (which I’ve always found contradictory in light of the notion of “invincible ignorance”)

Therefore, back to your inconsistency, if you are to be consistent in your use of pas, you must argue that God really doesn’t want all men to be saved.

Which is it Joey?

 

[sandusky]

For private and personal devotion. It means that embracing the event will not lead the devoted away from the Teachings of Jesus.

 

[sandusky]

But you Protestants seem to want to turn scripture into a book of persecution to pluck out bits and pieces to mosaic an absurd collage of nonsense devoid of any scholarship to make it bear false witness against The Catholic Church - Jesus’ Church. God will severely punish anyone who uses His word out of context to persecute His Church by bearing false witness against it. The Catholic Church never assembled the scriptures for the purpose of dicing it and shredding it into microscopic passages of mini-truths like you Protestants do. The Bible must be read holistically as an entire work to comprehend its proper meaning. ONLY The Church has the insights and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture.

What you Protestants do to scripture the Jews did to Jesus. God I would not want to be in any bible-only Christian’s shoes on their day of judgement. I can’t imagine anything more provoking to God than putting words in His mouth that are utter falsehoods.

James

FYI, and in all humility, James, I think identical thoughts toward you, and yours, but, for the most part, I endeavor to keep them to myself because of the nature of this forum, and its rules, and when I don’t keep them to myself, I always state them as “my opinion.”

Perhaps you should start another thread where you can discuss your opinion of the wicked and evil blindness of scripture-twisting protestants.

Just a suggestion.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Bible doesn’t say that Mary was sinless because the Bible is God’s Word and God cannot lie. If the Bible explicitly, or even implicitly, stated Mary was sinless then God Himself would be a liar. But the truth is God cannot lie, hence, the Bible cannot state that Mary was sinless. But instead it states:Rom. 3:23-24 "…for all sinned (Gr. hemarton, aroist tense) and (continually) fall short (present tense) of the glory of God, being justified (how?) as a gift (by what means?) by His grace (through what means?) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (the cross)"That passage is not stating that all “have” sinned, i.e., that all have personally committed sins, but that all humanity at a point in time, collectively, “sinned.”

God can not lie. But lack of explicit statement does not mean that something is not true. The Bible is not ALL truth. Jesus is ALL Truth and He has given access to His Truth to His Church and no matter how much you don’t like the Truth His Church is the Catholic Church. Ergo, not all truth is written and not all people have the truth and not all people are God’s people. The rest of your pithy logic here falls on its face and is unworthy of further comment.

So the fact that ALL humanity historically sinned is explicitly revealed to us in Rom. 3:23. When this historical event occurred is revealed to us in Rom. 5:12:“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (why?), because all sinned (aorist tense)…” The aorist is a statement of a past fact. “All sinned” (past fact) in Adam.

Faulty logic - you would make children not of age of consent and mentally ill all capable of sin with that logic. These passages talk about original sin.

This is called “federal theology,” and the only way we can know of this fact is by divine revelation. God had to reveal it. It’s how God views humanity. Another example of it is in Heb. 7:9-10:"And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."And so when Adam sinned Mary sinned, along with all of Adam’s posterity. It’s the reason the Bible cannot ever say that Mary was sinless. Long before Mary was born, nay, even conceived, she sinned with all of humanity “in Adam.” The only way Mary could have been separated from sin is to not have been connected to Adam at all. In other words, she would have to have been uniquely created by God - not born of human parents. And we know based on the Biblical genealogies that this was not true of Mary.

You accept that Jesus, the divine, could be born sinless from a human and divine parent but you can’t concede that God has the power to create Mary sinless? You are judging by the standards of man and make what is impossible for humans to comprehend an impossibility for God. Ergo, you create God in your own image rather than let God do the creating. We call this counterfeit theology and humanistic theology.

The only person ever born into this world apart from sin was Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:15). And Scripture reveals Him to be the “second man,” He Himself being another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). Not separately created but grafted on to the old through the virgin birth. He, like Adam, is a progenitor of another humanity, made righteous “in Him.” Paul, through divine insight, explains it this way:Rom 5:19 "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."Paul’s sweeping statements in Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 should satisfy the O.P.'s question. It is impossible for the Bible to say that Mary was sinless, or support such doctrines as her immaculate conception and perpetual sinlessness without contradicting itself.

You pontificate a matter that derives from faith as an absolute as if you are worthy of infallible status. You reject this quality in the Pope who is much more scholarly than you and has an apostolic succession that you do not claim but fail to present your pedigree to convince us that you are infallible. Therefor you offer nothing more than personal opinion that Catholics see as heretical and unenlightened. Catholics do not respect more than a very few Protestant theologians as having any scholarly insights. What is your pedigree that anyone should listen to your theories? Or are you plagiarising some of F W Grant’s confused and contradictory works in "The Second Man” here by cutting and pasting without reference and acknowledgement? :tsktsk:

By definition the “oral tradition” of Catholicism is to find its origin in the teachings of the Apostles. But that which was preserved for us in holy writ proves that the Catholic “tradition” of Mary’s sinlessness (sp) was never an Apostolic teaching. And it becomes painfully obvious that those men who eventfully fabricated such a doctrine erred by not understanding the Scriptures and Pauline theology.

By this absurd logic it becomes painfully obvious that the men who fabricated Protestantism erred by not understanding or believe the holistic OT/NT Scriptures and prophecy nor Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.

James