What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

[chevyontheriver]

She says explicitly that SHE herself has or needs a Savior.

Yes. This isn't a shocking revelation to anyone.

A sinless person would not need one.

Untrue. I might fall victim to Covid, and require medical intervention to save me. I might even not be saved and die from it. But I might also be saved by quarantine or by vaccination and be saved from Covid without falling sick. I would truly be saved from Covid, but not having been saved after getting Covid. I hope you can see the distinction.

However, you could contend that she only assumed (and wrongly) that she had erred.

Not terribly material. But tell me more.

But Mary was a mortal like all of us, ...

Mortality is not relevant. Jesus was mortal in his human body and in fact died.

... so in the absence of any indication that she was alone among humanity in being sinless at all times, she must be understood to have sinned as we all do.

But there ARE indications that Mary was sinless. Central to that is what Gabriel said to her. The key word is 'kecharitomene', which I suppose means to you that Mary was mildly favored. Mary was not alone among humanity to have been sinless. There is, of course, Jesus. But, for a time there was Adam and Eve. I point them out to illustrate that God can create sinless ordinary humans, and has in fact done so, even though it didn't last for them.

 

[lordjeff]

Which Mary are you speaking of there are so many? Mary the Mother of Our Lord was conceived w/o sin. Mary Magdalene as portrayed in the gospels was fallible but it showed one of Christ's greatest accomplishements of redemption that she was even canonized. There is Mary the sister of Martha & Lazarus but I don't know too much about her.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

By who's or what authority do you go to make this claim?




Again, to who's or what authority did you go to before making this claim? Maybe your own? Also, do you claim that your interpretation and or understanding of that Scripture passage absolute and without error?


Have a Blessed Day!

answered already

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your actual stance. Are you saying I am wrong that Mary was saved by God in terms of the prevention argument or were you in agreement?

I am saying you friend are using an invalid argument that's all.

When we use faulty arguments, we discredit our case.

I am the type of person who wants to hear all sides of an issue.

I also, read books from all sides.

"8. False assumptions about technical meaning In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning— a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter's personal systematic theology."
https://gracebibleinstitutefrederick.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/d-a-carson-word-study-fallacies.pdf

 

[chevyontheriver]

Which Mary are you speaking of there are so many? Mary the Mother of Our Lord was conceived w/o sin. Mary Magdalene as portrayed in the gospels was fallible but it showed one of Christ's greatest accomplishements of redemption that she was even canonized. There is Mary the sister of Martha & Lazarus but I don't know too much about her.

There are a lot of Marys. It was a very common name at the time. I presumed we were talking about Mary the mother of the Messiah. Notice I didn't say Mary the mother of Jesus, because even that name, rendered in English as Jesus, was a very common name as well. There would have been many Marys with a son named Josh. Only this one with a son who was the Eternal Son of the Father, God from God, the one who saves, the Messiah. That's the one I think we are all talking about. At least I think so.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The woman giving birth in Rev 12 had pain, was that really Mary?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

She says explicitly that SHE herself has or needs a Savior. A sinless person would not need one.

However, you could contend that she only assumed (and wrongly) that she had erred.

But Mary was a mortal like all of us, so in the absence of any indication that she was alone among humanity in being sinless at all times, she must be understood to have sinned as we all do.

I forget, what text is about her sacrifice after giving birth?

 

[Albion]

We both believe there is something or some place before Heaven and Hell.

Okay, but Purgatory is not a belief of Orthodox Eastern Christianity.

 

[Albion]

Yes. This isn't a shocking revelation to anyone..

Meaning, I take it, that you believe her to have been wrong about that.

 

[Albion]

I forget, what text is about her sacrifice after giving birth?

Her sacrifice?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Friend, you are committing a well know word study fallacy. Reading a meaning into the text that is not there. Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing by reading the meaning of one from John 17 into John 10 --- thus denying they are one in nature.

Context is King.

Can we simply agree that there is nothing in Mary thanking God for a savior, specifically in verse 47 (or 48 or 49 for that matter) that demands she be a sinner? Can we do that without claiming that since nothing from either of these verses demands she is a sinner that these three verses do not demand she not be a sinner either? That the text in this limited area states a true claim that Mary had a savior, which EVERYONE agrees with? That the text in this limited area (three verses at most) says nothing one way or the other about the sinlessness of Mary? That such a conclusion needs to be found elsewhere in Luke 1 or otherwise?

It is a recent Protestant over-reach to conclude Mary had to be a sinner because she had a savior. Luther would not have made that mistake, nor is that mistake found in the Smalcald Articles nor in the Book of Concord.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Meaning, I take it, that you believe her to have been wrong about that.

Not at all. Mary had a savior. That does not require her to have sinned, or even to have been wrong in this case.

 

[Cis.jd]

I am saying you friend are using an invalid argument that's all.

When we use faulty arguments, we discredit our case.

I am the type of person who wants to hear all sides of an issue.

I also, read books from all sides.

"8. False assumptions about technical meaning In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning— a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter's personal systematic theology."
https://gracebibleinstitutefrederick.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/d-a-carson-word-study-fallacies.pdf

What is invalid about my argument? What you wrote in number 8 can also be argued against you.

Christianity always had this view of Mary, it's only Christian denominations that not only just appeared more than a thousand years after the NT was canonized but also decades after the first reformers (because Luther himself also believed Mary was sinless) that deny it being biblical.

 

[Cis.jd]

Okay, but Purgatory is not a belief of Orthodox Eastern Christianity.

Not Purgatory per say but we do believe that we go somewhere (or go into a state) before heaven and hell. Our views of what this is like is different, but we are not to far apart in the concept.

 

[Albion]

Not Purgatory per say but we do believe that we go somewhere (or go into a state) before heaven and hell.

Well, yes. But that's a far cry from saying "Purgatory," which has a particular meaning as far as who goes there, why they do, etc. etc.
I don't think there's any reason for any of us to argue about this, but there's quite a difference between some sort of an intermediate state and...the one that's been defined as Purgatory has been defined (by the Roman Catholic Church).

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Her sacrifice?

Luke 2

Jesus Is Presented in the Temple
22 The time came for Mary and Joseph to do the things the Law of Moses taught about being made pure. They brought Jesus to Jerusalem so that they could present him to the Lord. 23 It is written in the law of the Lord: “When a mother’s first baby is a boy, he shall be called ‘special for the Lord.’” 24 The law of the Lord also says that people must give a sacrifice: “You must sacrifice two doves or two young pigeons.” So Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem to do this.

Lev. 12:2-8
Ex. 13:2, 12

I remember reading this text as a proof text against Mary, the Mother of our Lord.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Can we simply agree that there is nothing in Mary thanking God for a savior, specifically in verse 47 (or 48 or 49 for that matter) that demands she be a sinner? Can we do that without claiming that since nothing from either of these verses demands she is a sinner that these three verses do not demand she not be a sinner either? That the text in this limited area states a true claim that Mary had a savior, which EVERYONE agrees with? That the text in this limited area (three verses at most) says nothing one way or the other about the sinlessness of Mary? That such a conclusion needs to be found elsewhere in Luke 1 or otherwise?

It is a recent Protestant over-reach to conclude Mary had to be a sinner because she had a savior. Luther would not have made that mistake, nor is that mistake found in the Smalcald Articles nor in the Book of Concord.

It is possible she was born with the stain of Adam and God cleansed her. I was not back then so, I have no reason to claim that she sinned. I do not believe that Jesus had the stain of Adam because that would disqualify him as being an acceptable sacrifice to his Father. A Lamb without stain or blemish.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Not at all. Mary had a savior. That does not require her to have sinned, or even to have been wrong in this case.

When she was cleansed from Adams sin that would make God her Saviour. Also, we know that the Holy Family was saved by a dream from God to go to Egypt.

 

[Albion]

Not at all. Mary had a savior. That does not require her to have sinned, or even to have been wrong in this case.

She referred to that Savior as "my" Savior, however.

 

[Cis.jd]

Well, yes. But that's a far cry from saying "Purgatory," which has a particular meaning as far as who goes there, why they do, etc. etc.
I don't think there's any reason for any of us to argue about this, but there's quite a difference between some sort of an intermediate state and...the one that's been defined as Purgatory has been defined (by the Roman Catholic Church).

The differences isn't as big of a deal as to what you are making it out to be. We believe or hold different theories with in the characteristics of the experience but the point of both sides is what matters.