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

[JoeyWarren]

I also have a question on what I see is an extreme over-dependence (in some) protestants on Paul. There are many things in the interpretation of Paul that could be seen to contradict the teachings of Jesus, yet I don’t think they do, and others would not claim to believe it.** But it seems that Jesus’ words are always “filtered” through interpretations of Paul in order to fit these intepretations, instead of the words of Jesus taking precedence, and Paul’s words being read in light of these.**

**Bingo! Give that girl a Teddy Bear! That has nearly always been the case. Patrick Madrid made this comment once during either a debate or a discussion. It is more of “The Bible According to Paul” then “The Bible According to Jesus”. **

---

---

---

---

 

[bookgirl32]

**Bingo! Give that girl a Teddy Bear! That has nearly always been the case. Patrick Madrid made this comment once during either a debate or a discussion. It is more of “The Bible According to Paul” then “The Bible According to Jesus”. **

---

---

---

---

You guys have done most of the persuading here, so the credit goes to you, but I’ll take the Teddy Bear !

 

[sandusky]

bookgirl32:

Yet we both agree on the infallibility of scripture, and there is FAR more disparity of opinion on that between all Christians than between a Catholic doctrine within the Church. If disparity of opinion makes something untrue, and complete agreement makes something true, then you just pretty much shot down Biblical infallibility.

You’ve jumped to a conclusion.

I said nothing about disparity of opinions making a doctrine untrue, or true.

My point is, if there’s disparity about the meaning of what has been written down, it makes the disparity over that which has allegedly been orally passed down all the more obvious, and the idea of oral transmission all the more dubious. At least it should, IMO.

Can you tell me which one, or ones of the apostles orally passed down the IC, and the exact wording of the information each orally passed down?

Also, please, name specific church fathers, who, when writing on the IC, refer to this, or that apostle and state specifically what each father said each apostle had to say on the subject of the IC, orally.

 

[sandusky]

Okay so there’s only two. Even so.

John 2:4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

John 19:26
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Thank you.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Originally Posted by Kay Cee
I’m especially interested in an answer to the last one because I don’t see any Biblical support whatsoever for emeraldisle’s criterea (that is, that something has to be spelled out in the Bible in order for it to be worthy of belief).

After all, what am I to think of his (her?) refusal to answer these questions, even though they’ve been asked more than once?

I’m especially interested in the fact that God clearly says in His written Word that all of humanity is sinful, which includes Mary, you and me and then the Catholic Church says that tradition teaches that Mary is sinless.

I believe what God says in His written Word that Mary because she was a human being was a sinner like all the rest of humanity.

This issue is about whether people believe what God says as apposed to what tradition says.

As for the Trinity issue well its a red herring re this discussion. However God clearly tells us in His written Word that the Trinity is a true fact. The following are the Lord Jesus’ words;

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that **I **said to you. John 14:26.

Sorry, I don’t see any answers to her questions, just dancing around the issue. You didn’t provide a verse that specifically says the Trinity is three Persons in one God. Isn’t that what you require when it comes to Mary being sinless? A verse that says that *specifically? *

Perhaps you don’t understand that bookgirl is asking you to defend your system of determining what to believe. You say you can’t find her claim of Mary’s sinlessness in the Bible. Well, neither she nor I can find in the Bible your system of how to determine what to believe.

If your own system is good enough for you to determine why you consider Mary to have sinned, why can’t we apply your system to other beliefs as well? If it’s valid for you, isn’t it valid for bookgirl as well?

Either answer her questions in post #782 or state why you can’t.

 

[bookgirl32]

You’ve jumped to a conclusion.

I said nothing about disparity of opinions making a doctrine untrue, or true.

My point is, if there’s disparity about the meaning of what has been written down, it makes the disparity over that which has allegedly been orally passed down all the more obvious, and the idea of oral transmission all the more dubious. At least it should, IMO.

Can you tell me which one, or ones of the apostles orally passed down the IC, and the exact wording of the information each orally passed down?

Also, please, name specific church fathers, who, when writing on the IC, refer to this, or that apostle and state specifically what each father said each apostle had to say on the subject of the IC, orally.

Sorry Sandusky, this one’s not mine to argue my way out of. You’re the one that said it.

 

[mercygate]

You’ve jumped to a conclusion.

I said nothing about disparity of opinions making a doctrine untrue, or true.

My point is, if there’s disparity about the meaning of what has been written down, it makes the disparity over that which has allegedly been orally passed down all the more obvious, and the idea of oral transmission all the more dubious. At least it should, IMO.

Can you tell me which one, or ones of the apostles orally passed down the IC, and the exact wording of the information each orally passed down?

Also, please, name specific church fathers, who, when writing on the IC, refer to this, or that apostle and state specifically what each father said each apostle had to say on the subject of the IC, orally.

Dogmatic definitions in the post-Apostolic age do NOT come down to us from the Eleven plus Paul. “Mother of God” – the first Marian Dogma – first appears in the year 250, though not defined in Council until a century later. All mainstream Protestant groups acknowledge Mary’s title as Theotokos. Nobody asks for the name of an Apostle.

One more time for the peanut gallery: a dogma may derive inexorably from the Deposit of Faith as our understanding matures. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger (emphasis mine):

There are the truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship, while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, no way diminishes their definitive character which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truths. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities of the words of the Deposit of Faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines also as dogmas of divine and Catholic faith, which is to say, being divinely revealed.

“The first group of truths, of course, would be the various Christological dogmas, the Marian dogmas, the doctrine of the Institution of the Sacraments by Christ, their efficacy in regard to grace, the doctrine of the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic celebration, the foundation of the Church by the will of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the doctrine on the existence of original sin, and on the immortality of the soul, and the immediate recompense after death, and so on.”
(Joseph Ratzinger. Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem)

 

[sandusky]

Sorry Sandusky, this one’s not mine to argue my way out of. You’re the one that said it.

I’m certain that you are sorry, but that’s what you get for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I take it, then, that you cannot supply the data I’ve requested.

 

[emeraldisle]

I’m not sure which post it was on, but I know someone noted that Adam & Eve were created without sin. Are you claiming that they were not human?

From Gods written Word we know that Adam & Eve were created by God and that they were without sin and we know from what God has said in His written Word that they then sinned and so became sinners.

Now we also know from Gods written Word that everyone, all human beings including Mary, came from Adam & Eve and have inherited their sin nature.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12*

Now we know from Gods written Word that Jesus was God & Man, born of the Holy Spirit and He was sinless.

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

Now God doesn’t say in His written Word that Mary was sinless but tradition is claiming that Mary is sinless. I’m definitely believing what God says in His written Word.

In claiming that the Bible “clearly says…that all of humanity is sinful”, are you saying that it is wrong when it states that there have

 

[bookgirl32]

I’m certain that you are sorry, but that’s what you get for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I take it, then, that you cannot supply the data I’ve requested.

No, I could, I just don’t feel the need to.

 

[sandusky]

Dogmatic definitions in the post-Apostolic age do NOT come down to us from the Eleven plus Paul. “Mother of God” – the first Marian Dogma – first appears in the year 250, though not defined in Council until a century later. All mainstream Protestant groups acknowledge Mary’s title as Theotokos. Nobody asks for the name of an Apostle.

One more time for the peanut gallery: a dogma may derive inexorably from the Deposit of Faith as our understanding matures. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger (emphasis mine):

There are the truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship, while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, no way diminishes their definitive character which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truths. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities of the words of the Deposit of Faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines also as dogmas of divine and Catholic faith, which is to say, being divinely revealed.

“The first group of truths, of course, would be the various Christological dogmas, the Marian dogmas, the doctrine of the Institution of the Sacraments by Christ, their efficacy in regard to grace, the doctrine of the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic celebration, the foundation of the Church by the will of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the doctrine on the existence of original sin, and on the immortality of the soul, and the immediate recompense after death, and so on.”
(Joseph Ratzinger. Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem)

That’s has nothing do to with the data I’ve requested.

If your church is telling the truth about oral tradition, then the data I’ve requested should be available for viewing by me, or by anyone else, somewhere in church documents, IMHO.

 

[sandusky]

No, I could, I just don’t feel the need to.

The Seinfeld excuse: “I choose not to.”

IMHO, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

 

[emeraldisle]

Sorry, I don’t see any answers to her questions, just dancing around the issue. You didn’t provide a verse that specifically says the Trinity is three Persons in one God. Isn’t that what you require when it comes to Mary being sinless? A verse that says that *specifically? *

Perhaps you don’t understand that bookgirl is asking you to defend your system of determining what to believe. You say you can’t find her claim of Mary’s sinlessness in the Bible. Well, neither she nor I can find in the Bible your system of how to determine what to believe.

If your own system is good enough for you to determine why you consider Mary to have sinned, why can’t we apply your system to other beliefs as well? If it’s valid for you, isn’t it valid for bookgirl as well?

Either answer her questions in post #782 or state why you can’t.

The issue of this tread is “Why doesn’t the Bible say that Mary was sinless?”. Now surely you can’t fault me for addressing this question?

The point I’m making is that the Bible doesn’t say Mary was sinless but it does say that Mary was a sinner due to the fact that she was born into sinful humanity.
*
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12*
.

 

[mercygate]

That’s has nothing do to with the data I’ve requested.

If your church is telling the truth about oral tradition, then the data I’ve requested should be available for viewing by me, or by anyone else, somewhere in church documents, IMHO.

Many Catholics have a strange view of oral tradition. They make it sound like the apostles were all in a smoky room, and Jesus shows up and tells 'em about the Immaculate Conception – but they keep it a secret, passing it along in similar back rooms for 2000 years.

It does not work that way. It is not “hidden”. It works as the paragraphs I quoted indicate. Tradition is a living thing that goes with Our Lord’s promise to send a paraclete to guide those Eleven guys “into all the truth”, and by extension, to guide those who follow them, whom He entrusted with His teaching “to the close of the age.”

 

[justasking4]

bookgirl32;3580217]
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is much that could be said about this passage. However, it says nothing about someone praying to a specific person in heaven and asking their requests to be added to theirs.

bookgirl32
But it would not be completely offbase to say that it could be interpreted this way, correct? Or that it could be interpreted completely different, correct?

One of the factors in correct interpretation would be context. Does the context support the claim? Are the writers speaking of praying to the dead in these passages?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3584214]
Originally Posted by Mach1Man
This is a ridicules argument, Christ is God, therefore not capable of sin, Mary and you and I are human and subject to sinning.

guanophore
Yes. A common misunderstanding is that Mary was “prevented” from sinning. On the contrary, the Church teaches that she was created just like Eve, without original sin, and chose not to sin, contrary to Eve, who chose to sin.

You are incorrect here in comparing Mary and Eve. Eve was formed out of the rib of Adam before the fall and did not inherit Adams sin. Mary on the other hand was born of human parents and conceived in the same way as all fallen humans are. Mary inherited the sin of Adam because of this.

 

[bookgirl32]

The Seinfeld excuse: “I choose not to.”

IMHO, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

In my opinion, you said something that seemed ridiculous to me, and I commented. I don’t FEEL like helping you make your comment make better sense.

 

[bookgirl32]

One of the factors in correct interpretation would be context. Does the context support the claim? Are the writers speaking of praying to the dead in these passages?

Well, first of all, I don’t think the writers ever said they were dead.

 

[justasking4]

garysibio;3581708]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then why do it at all if Christ alone is more than sufficent?
Secondly, the catholic church promotes the hail Mary more than than any other prayer in the church. I would bet that there are more prayers said to Mary than Christ or God by a long shot.

garysibio
While I doubt the veracity of your comments regarding the ‘‘Hail Mary,’’ why would promoting the prayer be a problem for you? Do you not realize that the first half of the prayer is taken directly from Scripture? Are we to avoid quoting Scripture now?
The remainder of the prayer consists of asking Mary to pray for us. Is it wrong to ask someone to pray for us?

Gary

Its what you are doing with the scriptures that is the problem. You are saying something about Mary even though the scriptures never speak of her like this. Take the phrase “pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death” is something that the scripture never implore us to do. All prayer is to be directed to God alone.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
One of the factors in correct interpretation would be context. Does the context support the claim? Are the writers speaking of praying to the dead in these passages?

bookgirl32
Well, first of all, I don’t think the writers ever said they were dead.

In any of the those passages is there any mention that we are to pray to the dead?