What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private


To be honest, being this was a very lengthy copy and paste, I skimmed through it focusing on certain verses. And as for the author of these writings, (Archibald T. Robertson) would you agree everything he has to say in this article, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which he (and/or his assistant's) have vested in themselves? I ask this because of what I read, he rests some crucial points, not on the Word of God, but on his fallible, non-authoritative opinion and personal interpretation of Scripture, which could be in error. Do you agree?


The question is does all mean all in each use in this chapter?

And, your belief is? Is "all" an absolute in Rom. verse 23?

or Can all have different meanings in each verse it is used.

Well?



Have a Blessed day!
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Probably beause of people like you, eastern orthodox, catholics and similar, who are trying to make Mary to be somebody supernatural.

That leads to reactions like "is there something in the Bible that disproves that?".

Bingo
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was referring to kecharitomene, which occurs once in Scripture. You reference three English translations that use 'favored' but I have provided a link indicating that 'favored' is far too weak a word to use for kecharitomene.

Ephesians 1:6
To the praise (ei epainon). Note the prepositions in this sentence. Which (h). Genitive case of the relative hn (cognate accusative with ecaritwsen (he freely bestowed), late verb caritow (from cari, grace), in N.T. attracted to case of antecedent carito only here and Luke 1:28 . In the Beloved (en twi hgaphmenwi). Perfect passive participle of agapaw. This phrase nowhere else in the N.T. though in the Apostolic Fathers.

Ephesians 1:6 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To be honest, being this was a very lengthy copy and paste, I skimmed through it focusing on certain verses. And as for the author of these writings, (Archibald T. Robertson) would you agree everything he has to say in this article, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which he (and/or his assistant's) have vested in themselves? I ask this because of what I read, he rests some crucial points, not on the Word of God, but on his fallible, non-authoritative opinion and personal interpretation of Scripture, which could be in error. Do you agree?




And, your belief is? Is "all" an absolute in Rom. verse 23?



Well?



Have a Blessed day!

Robertson was a well known expert in Greek. You should read his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research sometime. Archibald Thomas Robertson - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To be honest, being this was a very lengthy copy and paste, I skimmed through it focusing on certain verses. And as for the author of these writings, (Archibald T. Robertson) would you agree everything he has to say in this article, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which he (and/or his assistant's) have vested in themselves? I ask this because of what I read, he rests some crucial points, not on the Word of God, but on his fallible, non-authoritative opinion and personal interpretation of Scripture, which could be in error. Do you agree?




And, your belief is? Is "all" an absolute in Rom. verse 23?



Well?



Have a Blessed day!

Thanks, you too.

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Volume 1. Front Cover · Max Zerwick, Mary Grosvenor. Biblical Institute Press, 1974 - Bible - 793 pages. agrees with Robertson on both texts.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture is what Sola Scriptura refers to.

Where Tradition and Scripture agrees there is no problem. Where something is added to Tradition that does not exist in Apostolic tradition and does not seem to line up with scripture is a problem.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To be honest, being this was a very lengthy copy and paste, I skimmed through it focusing on certain verses. And as for the author of these writings, (Archibald T. Robertson) would you agree everything he has to say in this article, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which he (and/or his assistant's) have vested in themselves? I ask this because of what I read, he rests some crucial points, not on the Word of God, but on his fallible, non-authoritative opinion and personal interpretation of Scripture, which could be in error. Do you agree?




And, your belief is? Is "all" an absolute in Rom. verse 23?



Well?



Have a Blessed day!

It is context that lets us know if "all" has exceptions. One needs to study the subject in all of Scripture and the early church.

Since, we know that Jesus is without sin there is at least that one exception.

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Where Tradition and Scripture agrees there is no problem. Where something is added to Tradition that does not exist in Apostolic tradition and does not seem to line up with scripture is a problem.
I know what you mean, but there is still a problem when any church so much as asserts that there is something else that's the equal of God's revelation given in Scripture.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Translation of Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28
Even Catholic Answers agrees it is the same greek work used in both texts.
No. It's the same Greek root but the word itself differs. And thus the meaning, though similar, is not at all identical.

From your link:
If I understand right, critics are saying that the Latin Vulgate translation of the original Greek is wrong and therefore Mary is referenced as “highly favored” and not “full of grace” when approached by the angel.

My question is, in looking at the original Greek words. Is the same word used in Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28 or a different word?
Thanks.

No. The word in Eph. 1:6 is the Greek noun charis, translated “grace.” The word in Luke is the feminine perfect passive participle of the Greek verb charitoo (confusing, but those two final o’s are actually two different letters), translated “to grace, i.e. indue with special honor.”
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Robertson was a well known expert in Greek. You should read his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research sometime. Archibald Thomas Robertson - Wikipedia

Thanks D.M. Robertson very well may be a well known expert on Greek, but you didn't answer my question in regards to him. I'll re-post it.

"would you agree everything he has to say in this article, outside of quoting Scripture, are the words of a fallible man who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which he (and/or his assistant's) have vested in themselves? I ask this because of what I read, he rests some crucial points, not on the Word of God, but on his fallible, non-authoritative opinion and personal interpretation of Scripture, which could be in error. Do you agree?"





Have a Blessed day!
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
It is context that lets us know if "all" has exceptions. One needs to study the subject in all of Scripture and the early church.

Since, we know that Jesus is without sin there is at least that one exception.

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


Again, you failed to answer my question. I will ask again.

Is it your belief that in Romans 3:23 where it says "all" have sinned, that all means all as an absolute?

And, with that in mind, one other question, which is pertinent to my latter question...... Do you seek God?

Have a Blessed day!
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Again, you failed to answer my question. I will ask again.

Is it your belief that in Romans 3:23 where it says "all" have sinned, that all means all as an absolute?

And, with that in mind, one other question, which is pertinent to my latter question...... Do you seek God?

Have a Blessed day!

If you like, I will toss in my two cents' worth. Feel free to stop reading now if you consider this an unwarranted intrusion.

One thing I find curious is that Psalms 14 and 53 are identical, word for word. It seems quite peculiar that nobody at any time either perceived such redundancy much less decided to eliminate one of the two. By contrast, Paul's letter to the Laodiceans was not included in the New Testament because it so closely resembles his letter to the Ephesians.

Thus, it would seem that the two psalms in question must carry more significance than others. In fact, it is so significant that Paul decided to quote the first verses of the Psalm, word for word, in Romans 3. His point there is that every human being (all) has sinned, without exception, and none seek for God, no not even one, which includes himself, myself, and yourself.

Mary did not go out seeking the angel in Luke 1. God sought her and sent His angel. Her reaction was perfectly normal - total shock and awe.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
If you like, I will toss in my two cents' worth. Feel free to stop reading now if you consider this an unwarranted intrusion.

One thing I find curious is that Psalms 14 and 53 are identical, word for word. It seems quite peculiar that nobody at any time either perceived such redundancy much less decided to eliminate one of the two. By contrast, Paul's letter to the Laodiceans was not included in the New Testament because it so closely resembles his letter to the Ephesians.

Thus, it would seem that the two psalms in question must carry more significance than others. In fact, it is so significant that Paul decided to quote the first verses of the Psalm, word for word, in Romans 3. His point there is that every human being (all) has sinned, without exception, and none seek for God, no not even one, which includes himself, myself, and yourself.

Mary did not go out seeking the angel in Luke 1. God sought her and sent His angel. Her reaction was perfectly normal - total shock and awe.
Psalms 14 and 53 are not identical. They are very close. Different though. So your point is diminished about this psalm being more important. It appears that one psalm was modified in tune and wording and meaning to get the other one.

Why are Psalms 14 and 53 nearly identical? | GotQuestions.org
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Psalms 14 and 53 are not identical. They are very close. Different though. So your point is diminished about this psalm being more important. It appears that one psalm was modified in tune and wording and meaning to get the other one.

Why are Psalms 14 and 53 nearly identical? | GotQuestions.org

Technically you are correct. However, in the context of the discussion regarding the sinfulness of humans, the texts are identical and are quoted verbatim by Paul in Roman 3 to advance his argument for the complete inability of sinful humans to seek and to please a holy and righteous God.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Technically you are correct. However, in the context of the discussion regarding the sinfulness of humans, the texts are identical and are quoted verbatim by Paul in Roman 3 to advance his argument for the complete inability of sinful humans to seek and to please a holy and righteous God.
Are BOTH texts quoted by Paul, or only one, or only art of one? I think your case that this is some sort of a supercanonical text falls flat. Sorry. Whatever you think Paul means by quoting a psalm it is not a supercanonical text more important than any other Scriptural text. The two psalms are not identical. Technically. And really. It's not some sort of secret Bible code. Sorry.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Are BOTH texts quoted by Paul, or only one, or only art of one? I think your case that this is some sort of a supercanonical text falls flat. Sorry. Whatever you think Paul means by quoting a psalm it is not a supercanonical text more important than any other Scriptural text. The two psalms are not identical. Technically. And really. It's not some sort of secret Bible code. Sorry.

Paul did not cite which of the two texts he used, nor did it matter in the least. He was definitely referring to passages which were well-known to the Jews of his day.

If Paul was not quoting the various scriptural passages throughout his epistles to make his argument, why did he even bother. It appears quite evident that Paul held a very high view of the Old Testament.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Paul did not cite which of the two texts he used, nor did it matter in the least. He was definitely referring to passages which were well-known to the Jews of his day.

If Paul was not quoting the various scriptural passages throughout his epistles to make his argument, why did he even bother. It appears quite evident that Paul held a very high view of the Old Testament.
A 'high view' of the OT is fine, even good, even great. Cooking up an argument that two psalms are identical so there is a supercanonicity thing going on is something I'm not buying. Sorry. The reality is Paul quoted a psalm. Which is a good thing in and of itself. The question then is what he means in doing so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
A 'high view' of the OT is fine. Cooking up an argument that two psalms are identical so there is a supercanonicity thing going on when part of one is quoted is quite another.

The simple reality, of course is that the relevant portion (i.e. over 90%) of them is identical, both in the Old Testament and in Romans 3.

If the universal sinfulness of humanity is a matter of idle theological speculation then one, I suppose, must develop some clever means of eliminating these troubling passages. By the way, lest you wonder, there are a host of theological arguments which have been advanced concerning the innate goodness of humanity. Just ask our EO friends and they will gladly inform you as to why original sin has never existed.
 
Upvote 0