What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

[Cis.jd]

You do mean 1500's (or in some cases much later) I trust.

I heard most where late 1400's.. but many denominations came out of those anyway so 1500's isn't wrong either way.

 

[Andrewn]

You do mean 1500's (or in some cases much later) I trust.

Although the successful and glorious Reformation is usually dated from the 16th century, earlier Reform movements did take place and were brutally crushed by the papacy.

One of these is the Waldensian movement in France and northern Italy in the 12th century. This might have been the true start of the Reformation.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

And what happens next? Mary says to them to do whatever he says. He tells them to fill the jugs with water and then to take a bit to the steward. The first sign performed by Jesus. He did what she asked him to do. One can wonder about 'attitude' all you want, but it was the setting for the first public miracle of Jesus. Might it not be about 'attitude'?

Of course He did it but not on her authority. In the Father's authority.

 

[April_Rose]

I'm sorry but your reply is just unbiblical. It takes more than a merely sinless person to die on the cross for us. It takes God's own Son, eternally begotten of the Father, true God. Anything else is just a good person who died. Which is why Mary didn't die for us even though she was sinless. Being sinless doesn't make one God. God on the cross is the only way of salvation. Besides, you are wrong again about Jesus being the only sinless person that ever existed period! Adam was sinless for a while. Eve was sinless for a while.

Although I still mostly disagree with you at least I see where you're getting your views from now. I will give you one thing. You're definitely right on the last part.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I heard most where late 1400's.. but many denominations came out of those anyway so 1500's isn't wrong either way.

Luther started up in 1517. Most followed after him.

There were people like Hus in the early 1400's. If that is what you were thinking of.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Of course He did it but not on her authority. In the Father's authority.

He did it at her request. Of course he did it on the authority of the Father. But Mary asked. And he followed through.

 

[Cis.jd]

Luther started up in 1517. Most followed after him.

There were people like Hus in the early 1400's. If that is what you were thinking of.

yes, you're right. I should have put 1500's and 1600's because that is when a few of the neo-protestants came about.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Although I still mostly disagree with you at least I see where you're getting your views from now. I will give you one thing. You're definitely right on the last part.

So many times I see people who think that any old sinless person is the equivalent of our Savior. Not even close. To be a savior one needs to be so much more than sinless. You've got to be God and man at the same time. Only one guy qualifies for that, and it's not Adam, not Eve, not Enoch, not John the Baptist, and not even Mary. God can make sinless people. He knows how to do that when he wants to. But it was the particular only Son of the Father, God from God, one in being with the Father, who gets to be savior. A sinless immaculate Mary, special as that is, doesn't even come close. She needed a savior to protect her from sin just as we need a savior to rescue us from sin.

 

[thecolorsblend]

“What have I to do with you, woman? "
Sounds like he is not pleased to me.

Of course it does. Because you're an American and you're speaking from a perspective that when a man addresses a woman by calling her "woman", he's probably not being very nice to her.

The American perspective, however, is quite limited. And recent. His words in context, specifically calling her "woman", take on an entirely different meaning with the Catholic perspective. Which, for the record, is far more ancient than the American perspective.

 

[April_Rose]

Of course it does. Because you're an American and you're speaking from a perspective that when a man addresses a woman by calling her "woman", he's probably not being very nice to her.

The American perspective, however, is quite limited. And recent. His words in context, specifically calling her "woman", take on an entirely different meaning with the Catholic perspective. Which, for the record, is far more ancient than the American perspective.

In the words of the legendary Mark Lowry,.. maybe in Israel calling your mother woman was a sign of respect, but in Texas (or wherever you're from) if you call your mother woman then you're going to wind up wearing your teeth around your neck.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

He did it at her request. Of course he did it on the authority of the Father. But Mary asked. And he followed through.

She may have asked however, she overstepped ,thus received Her Son's disappointment. Jesus Christ of Nazareth only does the "will of the Father".

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Of course it does. Because you're an American and you're speaking from a perspective that when a man addresses a woman by calling her "woman", he's probably not being very nice to her.

The American perspective, however, is quite limited. And recent. His words in context, specifically calling her "woman", take on an entirely different meaning with the Catholic perspective. Which, for the record, is far more ancient than the American perspective.

Ah, no. Ancient vocabulary does not use the address of "woman" as a pejorative, it is actually respectful, that is not what I am pointing out. The entire message needs to be in context to understand that Mary overstepped her place. Jesus Christ of Nazareth only does "the will of the Father.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Ah, no. Ancient vocabulary does not use the address of "woman" as a pejorative, it is actually respectful, that is not what I am pointing out. The entire message needs to be in context to understand that Mary overstepped her place. Jesus Christ of Nazareth only does "the will of the Father.

Are you suggesting Our Lady acted against God's will in some way by asking Our Lord to help?

 

[chevyontheriver]

She may have asked however, she overstepped ,

A presumption on your part, and not found in the text.

thus received Her Son's disappointment.

Another presumption based on American cultural usage of the term 'woman' as a put down not reflective of Middle Eastern cultures.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth only does the "will of the Father".

Did he do the will of the centurion who came to see him? Or the man born blind? Or of any other person who asked of him? You would also have to say 'no'. But it's possible for Jesus to be in the will of His Father AND at the same time do something for someone who asked. In this case His own mother. I think you feel you have to put Mary down wherever you can to somehow 'protect' Jesus.

 

[prodromos]

God knew before the foundation of the world that His mother would make the request of Him at the wedding, and He didn't simply honour her request but blessed her request above and beyond. Why would He do that if her act was sinful?

 

[chevyontheriver]

God knew before the foundation of the world that His mother would make the request of Him at the wedding, and He didn't simply honour her request but blessed her request above and beyond. Why would He do that if her act was sinful?

He honored her request with his first public miracle. Impressive.

 

[concretecamper]

"Woman", Mary is the new Eve.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Are you suggesting Our Lady acted against God's will in some way by asking Our Lord to perform that miracle?

Jesus Christ only did the "will of the Father". Mary is human just like us. She has the same capability to sin as we do. And yes, she acted against her Son's will and in turn the will of the Father. Sorry , I know you are Catholic and see things differently than I do. So lets not get into an tangle that has no agreed upon conclusion. This is my last comment. Be blessed.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Myself, I can only think of "all have sinned" text. Jesus was the only exception that I know of.

From a western/Latin stand point of Original Sin, that would probably be the case. That would also fit other kinds of Eastern / Oriental conceptions that are less official which would recognize that she like humanity would need a savior. But of course this gets into some things that are antithetical to her being "the ark". Because that vessel was set apart and holy by its very nature as being a kind of sacramental of sacramentals. And any kind of potential proof text of the OP sort of undermines that.

The Bible passage of the Annunciation sort of goes in the opposite direction. By calling her highly favored, and noting her virginity etc. While not exactly sinless, it would at least show her to be a tzedek aka "righteous one", akin to the other Old Testament believers like Abraham.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Jesus Christ only did the "will of the Father". Mary is human just like us. She has the same capability to sin as we do. And yes, she acted against her Son's will and in turn the will of the Father. Sorry , I know you are Catholic and see things differently than I do. So lets not get into an tangle that has no agreed upon conclusion. This is my last comment. Be blessed.

There's a sort of logical problem that you're building there.

If Our Lady did something wrong by asking for a miracle then, by your own logic, Our Lord must've necessarily done something even more wrong by complying with her request.

If Our Lady did wrong in the wedding celebration, so did He. If He did nothing wrong at the wedding celebration, she didn't either. Pick one.