Did Mary have a savior?

[HARK!]

Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

The Concordant Literal Version makes it more clear.

(CLV) Isa 43:11
I, I am Yahweh, And there is no Saviour apart from Me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Adam was created sinless. Eve was created sinless. They fell. They didn't have to, but chose it. Mary was preserved from sin at her birth and did not sin. She likely had the freedom to sin, just as Adam and Eve did.

Jesus was sinless. Humanly speaking he could have sinned as he was fully human, but being fully God as well, that wasn't going to happen. He was tempted, and it was a real temptation.

His situation was of a different order than Mary's, as he was God and she was not.

Impeccability is not the defining attribute of Jesus. It is sonship which defines him, being the Eternal Son of the Father. That's who he is. Impeccability is small potatoes compared to that. If impeccability was so important then Adam and Eve would have been gods.

Adam and Eve were not impeccable. They were created innocent of sin, but not incapable of sin. God cannot sin. He is impeccable. This is a major aspect of God's being and should not be lightly dismissed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Adam and Eve were not impeccable.

You are correct. I mistakenly conflated impeccability with sinlessness for Adam and Eve. They were created sinless but fully able to sin. As you correctly replied to me.

They were created innocent of sin, but not incapable of sin. God cannot sin. He is impeccable.

Where I was going with this, trying to say before I got it all backwards, was that sinlessness does not define deity. I think some believe it does. Impeccability doesn't even define deity. A rock is impeccable. So is a turtle. Maybe even a dog. The human nature of Jesus was temptable, and presumably capable of sin. The nature was there, a fully human nature just like Adam and Eve were created with. Not a fallen nature yet a true human nature. But the person, not the nature but the person, was impeccable. That because the person was the Eternal Son of the Father, his true identity in his two natures.

This is a major aspect of God's being and should not be lightly dismissed.

It is an attribute just like omniscience and omnipotence, important but not the actual identity. I think we more or less agree.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are correct. I mistakenly conflated impeccability with sinlessness for Adam and Eve. They were created sinless but fully able to sin. As you correctly replied to me.
Where I was going with this, trying to say before I got it all backwards, was that sinlessness does not define deity. I think some believe it does. Impeccability doesn't even define deity. A rock is impeccable. So is a turtle. Maybe even a dog. The human nature of Jesus was temptable, and presumably capable of sin. The nature was there, a fully human nature just like Adam and Eve were created with. Not a fallen nature yet a true human nature. But the person, not the nature but the person, was impeccable. That because the person was the Eternal Son of the Father, his true identity in his two natures.
It is an attribute just like omniscience and omnipotence, important but not the actual identity. I think we more or less agree.

Yes, I think we are in agreement. Thank you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is an interesting notion but most Protestants would understand the woman to be Israel as the most obvious meaning of the sign. However, Mary also represents the faithful remnant of Israel, as well.

I know what most Protestants would understand. I'm explaining what Catholics believe. Very simple. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just stating what we believe.
Regarding your last statement, we believe that interpretation of scripture happens on several levels, so your statement that Mary represents the faithful remnant of Israel does not preclude my statement.