Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[William1213]

I suggest you need to read through all the uses of the term and see how they are used to understand the meaning. You can't just take those words at face value.

I can when they are meant to be taken that way.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I can when they are meant to be taken that way.

I disagree but tell me how our sin nature is passed through the flesh. Is there a "sin gene?"

 

[William1213]

I disagree but tell me how our sin nature is passed through the flesh. Is

I suggest you need to read through all the uses of the term and see how they are used to understand the meaning. You can't just take those words at face value.

And I would also.point out, it is our BIOLOGY that we get from other humans. We get our spirits from God. Are you suggesting sin comes from God? God creates our souls tainted by sin?

I suggest you read the Bible more then pray to God as to why. If the spirit is what is sinful and not the flesh, why do we get new BODIES and not new spirits?? Also, I already pointed out where Paul speaks of this which you decided to throw away. You may throw away ONE place where it says something you disagree with, but when it says it multiple times or there are plenty of verses to actually back it up, you shouldn't dismiss them so quickly.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I suggest you read the Bible more then pray to God as to why. If the spirit is what is sinful and not the flesh, why do we get new BODIES and not new spirits?? Also, I already pointed out where Paul speaks of this which you decided to throw away. You may throw away ONE place where it says something you disagree with, but when it says it multiple times or there are plenty of verses to actually back it up, you shouldn't dismiss them so quickly.

I will respond later in the week as I am off on a 3 day business trip...

 

[Jan001]

Adam and Eve's DNA may have changed to allow for death and disease but our sin nature is not found or passed by DNA. It is not a genetic trait. Our spiritual nature is not contained in our DNA.

When Adam fell from grace, he fell spiritually. Concupiscence was passed down to us because of Adam's sin. Humans are spiritual and physical beings. Both our spiritual and physical natures were damaged by Adam's sin. Both will be restored to perfection at the resurrection. Mary and therefore Jesus were not subjected to concupiscence.

concupiscence​

/kŏn-kyoo͞′pĭ-səns/​

noun​

1. Improper or illicit desire; sensual appetite; especially, lustful desire or feeling; sensuality; lust.
2. Strong desire in general; appetite.

 

[Jan001]

That doesn't make any sense. Mary didn't have sinless parents. Jesus as Son of God had a sinless Father, so what need was there for Mary to be sinless in order for Jesus to be so? You say that God caused her to be born sinless, despite having two parents who were not sinless. Why could God not cause His own Son to be born sinless, even if His mother wasn't? Anyway, sin isn't passed on via DNA.

Because Mary could not have any sin within her at any time of her existence in order to have a pure physical nature (DNA) and a pure spiritual nature (full of grace) for Jesus to inherit.

Concupiscence was passed down from Adam. Adam's sin had spiritual consequences (he fell from grace) and physical consequences (he became subject to illness and death).

I have no idea why God does things the way he does.

 

[Jan001]

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

This is not a command but the Bereans were complimented on their practice of not accepting Paul's words at face value but "examining the Scriptures daily to whether these things were so." Do you examine the Scriptures regularly to examine if the teachings of the Catholic church are correct? Why didn't Luke write of Paul scolding them and saying they should trust him as an Apostle and not put their own private interpretations ahead of his authoritative teaching? That is what I hear from Catholics. I am told I am putting my private interpretation ahead of the Catholic church's authoritative teaching. If the Bereans were "noble-minded" for testing Paul against Scripture, we would do well to do the same.

We all believe the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. We know God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. Therefore, any teaching that comes along must be tested against Scripture. That is a very logical conclusion that does not require a direct command.

The Bereans were complimented for their initiative in studying the OT Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching about Jesus as their long-awaited Jewish Messiah was true.

Jesus founded a Church to teach his gospel. Matthew 16:13-18, Matthew 18:15-18, Ephesians 2:19-21 Jesus did not write a book and tell people to interpret it for themselves. 2 Peter 3:14-17

Jesus' Gospel was taught by both word of mouth and by letters. The Church's leaders wrote the NT Scriptures. The Church's leaders are authorized to interpret their own Scriptures. Matthew 28:18-20

This is a direct command:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Also, Church worship practices were taught in person to the apostles' successors. This included the laying of hands upon the men chosen for the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek with Jesus as their High Priest. Romans 15:15-16 There is also a priesthood of the laity. 1 Peter 2:9

2 Timothy 2:1-3 You then, my child, (Bishop Timothy) be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; 2 and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. 3 Share in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

[Jan001]

You misreference the verse, and the passage only shows Solomon choosing to have Bathsheba sit beside him. That does not prove it was a divine mandate for the king's mother to sit beside him. That was his decision. David did not have his mother sit beside him nor did he instruct Solomon to do so. It was already the practice of many pagan nations. None of that makes it a divine mandate so I don't see what your point was.

In the pagan nations, it seems the favored wife of the king was queen. I think only the Judaic kingdom honored the king's mother as the queen of the kingdom.

1 Kings 15:13 He (King Asa of Judah) also removed his mother Maacah from being queen mother, because she had made an abominable image for Asherah; Asa cut down her image and burned it at the Wadi Kidron.

Esther 2:17 the king (pagan Ahasuerus) loved Esther more than all the other women; of all the virgins she won his favor and devotion, so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I suggest you read the Bible more then pray to God as to why. If the spirit is what is sinful and not the flesh, why do we get new BODIES and not new spirits?? Also, I already pointed out where Paul speaks of this which you decided to throw away. You may throw away ONE place where it says something you disagree with, but when it says it multiple times or there are plenty of verses to actually back it up, you shouldn't dismiss them so quickly.

We are being given new bodies because these bodies decay and die. By the end of our earthly lives, many of us will be living in aged bodies that are severely restricted in what they can do. Our new bodies will not age, will not get sick, will not die. They will last for eternity.

Our souls are already eternal. They survive death.

Consider that one-third of the angels rebelled with Satan and were cast out of heaven. Angels are spirit beings. They have no flesh yet were capable of great sin. Their sin nature was not rooted in the flesh. Consider the two-thirds of the angles who did not rebel. Originally, all the angels had the ability to obey or rebel. Since God cast Satan and the demons out of heaven, He has changed the spiritual nature of the remaining angels such that they can never sin. In the same way, He will change our spiritual nature in heaven such that we will never sin again.

Thus, in the angels, we see sin not rooted in the flesh, and we see God changing that nature in the case of those angels who did not sin. Paul repeatedly uses the "flesh" as a symbol for our sin nature to contrast it to the "spirit," by which he means "walking in the spirit." Most of the Biblical references to "the flesh" are from Paul, so it makes sense he would still use the same analogy and use it many times. There is no "sin gene". We are born sinners under the curse of Adam. We all fell in him, which is why we need the "Second Adam", Christ, to free us from our sins. Adam's sin tainted our spiritual nature and brought us all under condemnation. Christ's obedience redeems our spiritual nature and brings us all redemption (if we believe).

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Because Mary could not have any sin within her at any time of her existence in order to have a pure physical nature (DNA) and a pure spiritual nature (full of grace) for Jesus to inherit.

Concupiscence was passed down from Adam. Adam's sin had spiritual consequences (he fell from grace) and physical consequences (he became subject to illness and death).

I have no idea why God does things the way he does.

Yet Mary's physical body was subject to illness and death. While we are not explicitly told of her being sick or told of her death, there is nothing to suggest she was any different than the rest of us physically. As I have argued elsewhere, our sin nature does not come through the DNA nor do we inherit our parent's spiritual nature. All humanity is born in sin - Mary included. Only Jesus was not as he was given a divine spirit which cannot sin.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The Bereans were complimented for their initiative in studying the OT Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching about Jesus as their long-awaited Jewish Messiah was true.

Jesus founded a Church to teach his gospel. Matthew 16:13-18, Matthew 18:15-18, Ephesians 2:19-21 Jesus did not write a book and tell people to interpret it for themselves. 2 Peter 3:14-17

Jesus' Gospel was taught by both word of mouth and by letters. The Church's leaders wrote the NT Scriptures. The Church's leaders are authorized to interpret their own Scriptures. Matthew 28:18-20

This is a direct command:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Also, Church worship practices were taught in person to the apostles' successors. This included the laying of hands upon the men chosen for the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek with Jesus as their High Priest. Romans 15:15-16 There is also a priesthood of the laity. 1 Peter 2:9

2 Timothy 2:1-3 You then, my child, (Bishop Timothy) be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; 2 and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. 3 Share in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

That is a old Catholic excuse to say that not all that Jesus taught was written down therefore the RCC can teach anything they want and claim it was one of those things Jesus taught that wasn't written down.

The men who wrote the NT were not Catholics. They were Christians. The Catholic church developed centuries later and departed from Scripture. Nothing in Scripture says Peter would have successors (not that I believe Peter was made "pope"). These men were part of the church universal as are all Christians but what they started was not the RCC.

The Melchizedek priesthood only had one priest. Melchidek was the lone priest and a type of Christ. That priesthood would never have other priests. There is only the priesthood of all believers now.

God never contradicts Himself and many RC teachings contradict Scripture and defy any logical interpretation. RC claims to have the exclusive right to interpretation are incorrect. They were to pass on the Apostles teachings while the Scriptures were being written. Once the Scriptures were complete then all oral teaching had to agree with the written Word or be rejected.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

In the pagan nations, it seems the favored wife of the king was queen. I think only the Judaic kingdom honored the king's mother as the queen of the kingdom.

1 Kings 15:13 He (King Asa of Judah) also removed his mother Maacah from being queen mother, because she had made an abominable image for Asherah; Asa cut down her image and burned it at the Wadi Kidron.

Esther 2:17 the king (pagan Ahasuerus) loved Esther more than all the other women; of all the virgins she won his favor and devotion, so that he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti.

I would have to look, and maybe so, but that still does not make Mary the Queen of Heaven. It was never a command from God for the Davidic kings to name their mothers queen. David didn't do it and he did not instruct Solomon to do it. In a human kingdom, it made sense. The king's mother could advise him in the ways of the court since presumably his father would be dead and not around to advise him. She would have some knowledge of the court, the people, the politics, etc. Jesus does not need an advisor. He is God. He knows everything. There is nothing Mary could point out to Him He doesn't already know. There is no need she could bring to His attention He doesn't already know about. He is God and does not change His mind. He would know of a need before Mary even brought to His attention (should she be able to know our needs which I don't believe she can). God has no queen. There is no need of a queen in heaven and the fact that earthly kindoms had queens has no bearing on the heavenly kingdom. We are never told there will be a queen in heaven and the woman in Revelation 12 represents Israel and the church, not Mary.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I would have to look, and maybe so, but that still does not make Mary the Queen of Heaven. It was never a command from God for the Davidic kings to name their mothers queen. David didn't do it and he did not instruct Solomon to do it. In a human kingdom, it made sense. The king's mother could advise him in the ways of the court since presumably his father would be dead and not around to advise him. She would have some knowledge of the court, the people, the politics, etc. Jesus does not need an advisor. He is God. He knows everything. There is nothing Mary could point out to Him He doesn't already know. There is no need she could bring to His attention He doesn't already know about. He is God and does not change His mind. He would know of a need before Mary even brought to His attention (should she be able to know our needs which I don't believe she can). God has no queen. There is no need of a queen in heaven and the fact that earthly kindoms had queens has no bearing on the heavenly kingdom. We are never told there will be a queen in heaven and the woman in Revelation 12 represents Israel and the church, not Mary.

Mary was a simple maiden, a virgin picked by Father God to give birth to Jesus without the cursed Adam's seed. No male human involved. That act of God was far above human invitro fertilization or any other possible human effort. All we might conclude fairly is that she experienced a placement of Jesus' embryo by work of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her womb. She was declared greatly blessed by the angel delivering her news from Heaven. She submitted. She couldn't have earned that honor by being sinless according to scriptures we are bound to. Once Jesus shed His holy blood 3 decades later she, a sinner not forgiven by the Law, would have been saved by that required confession, repentance, faith we all must obey of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit came alongside or upon blessing people selectively, but not within any until Jesus sent the Spirit from Heaven to indwell believers obedient to Jesus' commandments.
Romans 3:23-27 (KJV)
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

No pre-resurrection human like the woman in the crowd proclaiming Mary's blessedness had enough authority to establish Mary as sinless by simple proclamation of blessedness. Blessed? Yes, like many other people in scriptures and probably many more even some gentiles had God's blessings like Abraham and David had among many others, even Samson. Jesus told a few disciples they were no longer servants, but friends, Peter and Judas among them later sinning against Jesus, Peter living out his blessedness. The Greater blesses the lessers.

 

[Valletta]

I would have to look, and maybe so, but that still does not make Mary the Queen of Heaven. It was never a command from God for the Davidic kings to name their mothers queen. David didn't do it and he did not instruct Solomon to do it. In a human kingdom, it made sense. The king's mother could advise him in the ways of the court since presumably his father would be dead and not around to advise him. She would have some knowledge of the court, the people, the politics, etc. Jesus does not need an advisor. He is God. He knows everything. There is nothing Mary could point out to Him He doesn't already know. There is no need she could bring to His attention He doesn't already know about. He is God and does not change His mind. He would know of a need before Mary even brought to His attention (should she be able to know our needs which I don't believe she can). God has no queen. There is no need of a queen in heaven and the fact that earthly kindoms had queens has no bearing on the heavenly kingdom.

I've mentioned before that you explain away portions of the Word of God by saying God did not "need" it. You use this selectively on that which does not agree with your personal beliefs. Understand God's ways are far above our ways and it can be great folly to think you know what God needs or does not. In trying to explain away the queenship in the Davidic kingdom, which is right there in the Bible, you extend your arguments by now saying God did not "command" it. Catholics believe that all of the Word of God is important, that would include the queen mother, starting with Solomon, in the Davidic kingdom. By using your own logic that God did not explicitly "command" something, the Bible itself, those books of the Bible chosen by Catholics (that you maintain weren't really Catholics, whether they called themselves that or not) could be trivialized, just like you do with Davidic queenship. Indeed, not only is there is no record of Jesus "commanding" the Apostles or anyone else to come up with a list of New Testament books and put those together with the OT into a Bible, and proclaim that "Bible" has authority over all, I think, upon reflection you will have to admit God did not even "need" a Bible. Nor did God "need" any of his disciples, in the first century or today, to go out and hand out Bibles. God is ALL POWERFUL and was and is perfectly capable of communicating to all of us without Bibles.

That is a old Catholic excuse to say that not all that Jesus taught was written down therefore the RCC can teach anything they want and claim it was one of those things Jesus taught that wasn't written down

Just the opposite is true. Catholics take great pains to prayerfully discern the deposit of the faith handed down through the Apostles. While basic truths were evident early on, some theological debates went on for centuries, sometimes through numerous Catholic Church councils. For example, as I previously pointed out we don't explain away the Bible by saying God did not explicitly "command" a New Testament list. Instead Catholics were involved in a prayeful process spanning centuries, with Saint Athanasius credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon list in 367 A.D. Whoever those involved were, Christians as you like to say, again there is no recorded "command from God" to compile or accept that list. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.

 

[Valletta]

Mary was a simple maiden, a virgin picked by Father God to give birth to Jesus without the cursed Adam's seed. No male human involved. That act of God was far above human invitro fertilization or any other possible human effort. All we might conclude fairly is that she experienced a placement of Jesus' embryo by work of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her womb. She was declared greatly blessed by the angel delivering her news from Heaven. She submitted. She couldn't have earned that honor by being sinless according to scriptures we are bound to. Once Jesus shed His holy blood 3 decades later she, a sinner not forgiven by the Law, would have been saved by that required confession, repentance, faith we all must obey of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit came alongside or upon blessing people selectively, but not within any until Jesus sent the Spirit from Heaven to indwell believers obedient to Jesus' commandments.
Romans 3:23-27 (KJV)
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

No pre-resurrection human like the woman in the crowd proclaiming Mary's blessedness had enough authority to establish Mary as sinless by simple proclamation of blessedness. Blessed? Yes, like many other people in scriptures and probably many more even some gentiles had God's blessings like Abraham and David had among many others, even Samson. Jesus told a few disciples they were no longer servants, but friends, Peter and Judas among them later sinning against Jesus, Peter living out his blessedness. The Greater blesses the lessers.

Of course someone created without sin did not "earn" it, neither Eve nor Mary "earned" it. Jesus never sinned, nor Mary nor infants.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The last recorded words of Mary in the Gospel are “Do whatever He tells you” I don’t think that is controversial?

She asked Our Lord to begin revealing His glory. Once Jesus started, there was no longer any need for Mary to speak. The two primary Christian virtues which are very closely linked are humility and obedience. Our Lord also says, whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Mary took the most humble path by keeping silence and letting Our Lord speak.

Even the Gospel I believe in Luke 11, which some believe has Our Lord disavowing Mary, actually praises her virtue.
Who is my mother? He who hears the word of God and keeps it. Did not Mary hear the word of God and keep it? Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word.

Other places in the Gospel, we read “and Mary kept all these things in her heart” how would the writer know that unless Mary herself told him?

We know Mary went to live with John after the Crucifixion. Would she not have spoke with him about all she knew of Jesus? Many things in John’s gospel were such that he could not have known unless he spoke directly with Mary

The first Christian virtue being humility, there is no need for Mary to put her name on it, but her motherly influence can be seen throughout for all that are willing to see

The Gospel says of Mary, all generations will call me blessed. If we accept the Protestant definition of Mary as incidental and insignificant, how would this scripture be fulfilled? As Protestant generations go by, she seems to lose her unique role in salvation. If, as you say, she is no different from other Christians, why would the Gospel even say all generations will call her blessed? It would seem redundant and unnecessary.

God created Eve sinless, is not the fullness of His grace able to keep Mary pure? If not, how can any of us be saved? The word translated “full of grace” is Kecharitomene, in regards to Mary. That is not the same word applied to Stephen although in English it appears they are both full of grace.

 

[Jim Campbell]

The last recorded words of Mary in the Gospel are “Do whatever He tells you” I don’t think that is controversial?

She asked Our Lord to begin revealing His glory. Once Jesus started, there was no longer any need for Mary to speak. The two primary Christian virtues which are very closely linked are humility and obedience. Our Lord also says, whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Mary took the most humble path by keeping silence and letting Our Lord speak.

Even the Gospel I believe in Luke 11, which some believe has Our Lord disavowing Mary, actually praises her virtue.
Who is my mother? He who hears the word of God and keeps it. Did not Mary hear the word of God and keep it? Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word.

Other places in the Gospel, we read “and Mary kept all these things in her heart” how would the writer know that unless Mary herself told him?

We know Mary went to live with John after the Crucifixion. Would she not have spoke with him about all she knew of Jesus? Many things in John’s gospel were such that he could not have known unless he spoke directly with Mary

The first Christian virtue being humility, there is no need for Mary to put her name on it, but her motherly influence can be seen throughout for all that are willing to see

The Gospel says of Mary, all generations will call me blessed. If we accept the Protestant definition of Mary as incidental and insignificant, how would this scripture be fulfilled? As Protestant generations go by, she seems to lose her unique role in salvation. If, as you say, she is no different from other Christians, why would the Gospel even say all generations will call her blessed? It would seem redundant and unnecessary.

God created Eve sinless, is not the fullness of His grace able to keep Mary pure? If not, how can any of us be saved? The word translated “full of grace” is Kecharitomene, in regards to Mary. That is not the same word applied to Stephen although in English it appears they are both full of grace.

Again, for you to decide what to believe about what Apostle Paul wrote: Romans 3:23-24 (KJV) 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

My take is only Jesus is excluded from being a sinner lest he be disqualified like a lamb with a spot and unfit for sacrifice. What scripture declares Mary as sinless as Jesus? He obeyed Father God to allow all the sins of the world to be upon him, all washed in His blood through faith in Him and the blood provision. Please supply 2 or 3 scriptures indicating Mary was sinless like Jesus and therefore eligible to do what Jesus did on the cross. Her bloodline reports sinners down to Adam. If she somehow was sinless then why would she not have taken Jesus' place as LAMB of God as a pure mother would have for her firstborn son? I detect infection by a false religion about this matter! Her redemption could only be supplied this side of his cross.

 

[Valletta]

Again, for you to decide what to believe about what Apostle Paul wrote: Romans 3:23-24 (KJV) 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

My take is only Jesus is excluded from being a sinner lest he be disqualified like a lamb with a spot and unfit for sacrifice. What scripture declares Mary as sinless as Jesus? He obeyed Father God to allow all the sins of the world to be upon him, all washed in His blood through faith in Him and the blood provision. Please supply 2 or 3 scriptures indicating Mary was sinless like Jesus and therefore eligible to do what Jesus did on the cross. Her bloodline reports sinners down to Adam. If she somehow was sinless then why would she not have taken Jesus' place as LAMB of God as a pure mother would have for her firstborn son? I detect infection by a false religion about this matter! Her redemption could only be supplied this side of his cross.

Jesus did not sin, the 'all" in Koine Greek can be and here was used as a generalization. Infants have not sinned either, and they do not take the place of our Lord as savior.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Again, for you to decide what to believe about what Apostle Paul wrote: Romans 3:23-24 (KJV) 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

My take is only Jesus is excluded from being a sinner lest he be disqualified like a lamb with a spot and unfit for sacrifice. What scripture declares Mary as sinless as Jesus? He obeyed Father God to allow all the sins of the world to be upon him, all washed in His blood through faith in Him and the blood provision. Please supply 2 or 3 scriptures indicating Mary was sinless like Jesus and therefore eligible to do what Jesus did on the cross. Her bloodline reports sinners down to Adam. If she somehow was sinless then why would she not have taken Jesus' place as LAMB of God as a pure mother would have for her firstborn son? I detect infection by a false religion about this matter! Her redemption could only be supplied this side of his cross.

Mary is human, a creature and cannot have done what Jesus did on the cross. She is sinless by grace, not by nature. There is only one good, the Lord God. There is no scripture that says Mary was capable of redeeming the world as Christ did, and the Catholic Church does not teach that she had that power.

There are two ways to be saved. It’s only an analogy not scripture, but it shows a perspective.
There is a deep well. You see a maiden about to fall in, but you stop her. She says you saved me.
After you save her, you see many others in the well, covered in mud. You throw them a rope, pull them up and have them washed clean. They say you saved us.

We see Mary as the maiden stopped from falling. She is still helpless, as she had not the power to stop herself from falling but was prevented from doing so.

There is no scripture that explicitly says that Mary was sinless, but there is no scripture that says she was a sinner either. We can see God’s handiwork by reading all of scripture.

When Adam and Eve fell, God told us how He was to bring about redemption in the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15. He spoke to the serpent and said I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed… this is already telling us that Mary will be sanctified for God and an enemy of Satan. Scripture says whoever commits sin is a slave to sin. Satan uses our fallen nature against us and tries to drag us down with him. He bewilders us with twisted logic that seems to make sense and get us to rebel against God. We are his playthings but not his enemy, but for the grace of God, we would whole heartedly join his rebellion.
Mary did not, she is his enemy, not his slave, not by her own merit, but by the grace of God because He told us it would be that way.

Mary was in the mind of God thousands of years before she was ever born, and if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, you can see she was in the mind of God before the foundation of the world.

Proverbs 8 describes wisdom as a woman and she plays before God. God knows all things and knows His own mind before He acts or creates. Would He let His delightful wisdom fall into sin?

Gabriel says Hail full of grace the lord is with you, and Elizabeth says blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. John leaps at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth says how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Mary was created by God Himself, so she is daughter of the Father. She bore the savior, so she is mother of the Son, and the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed her to have her conceive Jesus in her womb, so she is spouse to the Holy Spirit. Mary is not God, but she is with each person of the Holy Trinity in a very real and intimate way. No other human or any creature could get as close to God as Mary is. The infant Jesus suckled at her breasts. You can read the Song of Solomon as a love story between Jesus and Mary

Psalm 45 has Mary the Queen at the right hand of Jesus in gold of Ophir.

Biblical typology shows that she is the Ark of the New Covenant. Read Samuel where the Ark came to David and read the Gospel of Luke to see the similarities. The Ark contained the stone tablets, some manah, and Aaron’s rod that budded. It signifies the law, the bread and priestly authority. Inside Mary was the Word of God Himself, the Bread of Life, and our great High priest. The book of revelation was not written with chapter and verse divisions. Read Revelation 11 then 12:1. Revelation mentions the Ark, and immediately after says I saw a great portent in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

We do not make Mary an idol, as an idol is made with human hands from the mind of a human creature and made to be worshipped as God

Mary was in the mind of God, created at His command and we do not worship her as God because she is not, but just as the Ark was not God, but was built at the command of God and contained the glory of God, and David danced before it, we too delight in marveling at God’s great redemptive work by contemplating Mary and singing for joy to delight in her. Our savior came through her, by His own handiwork, at His command not ours. Is it not marvelous in our eyes?

 

[David Lamb]

The Gospel says of Mary, all generations will call me blessed. If we accept the Protestant definition of Mary as incidental and insignificant, how would this scripture be fulfilled? As Protestant generations go by, she seems to lose her unique role in salvation. If, as you say, she is no different from other Christians, why would the Gospel even say all generations will call her blessed? It would seem redundant and unnecessary.

The Protestants I know or know of certainly don't define Mary as "incidental and insignificant." Just because they don't give her titles such as "Queen of heaven" or have statues of her, they believe what the bible teaches about her, for example that the Lord was with her, and that she was blessed among women.