What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,879.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
it is would have been made an awfully lot clearer in scripture so that it didn't hinge on subtle linguistic analysis?
whenever God speaks, we should listen, and not listen with our silly biases.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
whenever God speaks, we should listen, and not listen with our silly biases.

No need to get personal. It's a judgement call. Your bias tells you that Mariology can be deduced from pretty much a single word whereas mine tells me that that is not a rational position.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,879.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No need to get personal
no one is getting personal.
It's a judgement call
scripture is not a judgement call. To believe that is to believe a lie.
Your bias tells you that Mariology can be deduced from pretty much a single word
not at all. It can be deduced from the teachings of the Church (which Jesus have authority to teach).
whereas mine tells me that that is not a rational position.
thank you for your non Authoritative opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
no one is getting personal.

Calling someone silly is not personal lol?

scripture is not a judgement call. To believe that is to believe a lie.

We are supposed to use discernment when we interpret scripture.

not at all. It can be deduced from the teachings of the Church (which Jesus have authority to teach).

We were talking about scripture and know you throw the viewpoint of your church into it as if that clinches the matter?

thank you for your non Authoritative opinion.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as an authoritative opinion about God. We can only try to understand things the best we can.

This is getting very silly indeed tbh.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Jesus did not have a human father, so he did not have original sin. That is the difference with Jesus. No other person has been born without the seed of a man. It is the father who passes on sin to the children not the mother.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--


Mary on the other hand did have a human father.
Where is this theory found in Scripture that original sin is passed down biologically from the father? Is it a DNA thing? Is it a gene? You speak as if it is a fact somehow that a mother does not pass sin on to her children. Do you really think Romans 5 is scientifically verifiable through the science of genetics?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'm sure it is interesting and worth the trouble but my point was simply that if Mary was saved in a different way than anyone else, i.e. from ever having sinned and from death itself rather than being saved from the consequences of sin, and if this is an important component of faith as it appears it is to the RCC then I would expect it to be made a lot clearer and amplified more than it is, even in translations. I'm not disputing the points you're making, just saying that if what you are saying is true then it is important and I'm surpt that the Bible isn't clearer. I take your point about translations but it doesn't sound like the theological point would be particularly clear even in the original Koine Greek.
Considering Protestants argue all sorts of things, like how and when to baptize, and on and on, it's obvious that Scripture isn't crystal clear. You would think if baptism was important it would be a lot clearer than it is in Scripture. Let that settle for a few seconds.

Which is why we rely on the cumulative experience of the faithful over the centuries. We have engaged with the faith once delivered to the apostles and some of it actually gets clearer over time. For example, it took the contemplations of Duns Scotus to get to the point of seeing how Mary could be immaculate from the moment of her conception. We had always, in every generation, called her blessed, but we didn't have it figured out in all of the details. We mulled that over a few more centuries and then the pope polled all of the bishops and there was agreement. Theology is not just some guy who picks up a Bible and it all makes sense to him. Cause the guy next to him does the same thing and comes up with different answers. Theology is done on one's knees, and ever so slowly, always retaining the original teaching of the apostles and rarely ever going an inch beyond, cautiously.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus did not have a human father, so he did not have original sin. That is the difference with Jesus. No other person has been born without the seed of a man. It is the father who passes on sin to the children not the mother.
Where on earth did this silly idea come from, that our fallen nature is only passed on from the male?
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

You do understand that it was actually Eve who sinned first, don't you?
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Considering Protestants argue all sorts of things, like how and when to baptize, and on and on, it's obvious that Scripture isn't crystal clear. You would think if baptism was important it would be a lot clearer than it is in Scripture. Let that settle for a few seconds.

Which is why we rely on the cumulative experience of the faithful over the centuries. We have engaged with the faith once delivered to the apostles and some of it actually gets clearer over time. For example, it took the contemplations of Duns Scotus to get to the point of seeing how Mary could be immaculate from the moment of her conception. We had always, in every generation, called her blessed, but we didn't have it figured out in all of the details. We mulled that over a few more centuries and then the pope polled all of the bishops and there was agreement. Theology is not just some guy who picks up a Bible and it all makes sense to him. Cause the guy next to him does the same thing and comes up with different answers. Theology is done on one's knees, and ever so slowly, always retaining the original teaching of the apostles and rarely ever going an inch beyond, cautiously.

Well, if you're going to make it a Protestant vs Catholic matter there's no debate to be had is there? It can only be debated on its merits.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,879.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Calling someone silly is not personal lol?
I said "our", not "yours"
We are supposed to use discernment when we interpret scripture.
no,.you said judgement call, like it isnt clear. Now you use "discernment". Please make up your mind.
We were talking about scripture and know you throw the viewpoint of your church into it as if that clinches the matter?
I threw in the opinion of Christ's Church. That should clinch it, but as you have stated, people use their fallible, non authoritative judgement to interpret scripture in many different ways.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as an authoritative opinion about God. We can only try to understand things the best we can.
I believe scripture, "He who hears you hear Me" There is an authority, I know protestantism doesnt allow for it.
This is getting very silly indeed tbh.
you are free to turn the conversation from silly.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That is the difference with Jesus. No other person has been born without the seed of a man.

And he had two complete natures, human and divine. That is true of no other human.

Because God cannot know sin, Jesus Christ could not have inherited sin any more than he could commit sin.

Mary on the other hand did have a human father.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
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
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Well, if you're going to make it a Protestant vs Catholic matter there's no debate to be had is there? It can only be debated on its merits.
No. I'm not making it into a Protestant vs Catholic thing. I pointed out that we would like Scripture to be clear on things that even people using the Bible alone cannot agree on. And that is because the Bible often does not have the clarity we would all want. So it works better to be very conservative in our approach, contemplating over generations, and only very slowly making advances in our cumulative understanding. We want to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and we can maybe see a tiny bit farther than they did.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
We want to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, and we can maybe see a tiny bit farther than they did.

I agree. Isaac Newton put it like this in 1675: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

So it works better to be very conservative in our approach, contemplating over generations, and only very slowly making advances in our cumulative understanding.

While that sounds like it should be true I don't think it always is. Sometimes we have to abandon an idea or way of thinking if a better one comes along. This happens in science all the time. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, for example, did not cumulatively build on Newton's laws of gravity, it completely overthrew it. This doesn't mean that Newton's laws are wrong but just that they are limited to objects of everyday size and speed such as aeroplanes or rockets.

I think churches should learn from this humiliy of science and sometimes be prepared to take a second look at something and admit that it got it wrong. Otherwise a whole body of dogma can only grow over time and become more unwieldy and wrong in places. Religion isn't science but it is still subject to learning from scholarship and discerned revelation.

I pointed out that we would like Scripture to be clear on things that even people using the Bible alone cannot agree on. And that is because the Bible often does not have the clarity we would all want.

i agree with this. There seems to be different views on almost every issue you can think of even, or especially, on the fundamental questions such as Do we have free will? or What is salvation? It's hard to see the different denominations/churches ever finding agreement on these big questions unfortunately.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,010
Flyoverland
✟1,224,091.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
While that sounds like it should be true I don't think it always is. Sometimes we have to abandon an idea or way of thinking if a better one comes along. This happens in science all the time. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, for example, did not cumulatively build on Newton's laws of gravity, it completely overthrew it. This doesn't mean that Newton's laws are wrong but just that they are limited to objects of everyday size and speed such as aeroplanes or rockets.

I think churches should learn from this humiliy of science and sometimes be prepared to take a second look at something and admit that it got it wrong. Otherwise a whole body of dogma can only grow over time and become more unwieldy and wrong in places. Religion isn't science but it is still subject to learning from scholarship and discerned revelation.
On this I half agree. If we stand on the shoulders of giants we still need to be looking in the right direction. It is unhelpful to stand on the shoulders of giants and be looking in the wrong direction. What we need is a long faithfulness in the right direction.

You may be surprised that I am a proponent of 'ecclesia semper reformanda'. And that the Catholic Church is actually for it too. The issue for me is whether changes are made with a hermenutic of rupture or one of continuity. Any reform contains a bit of rupture. That is inherent. But it should be a reform that points us back to a particular trajectory we were already on. And this is how it has to differ from Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. For in science we delve into unknowns at every turn and we operate on guesses until better guesses come along. The faith differs in that we have Jesus teaching his disciples, choosing apostles who would teach their successors who would teach their successors. While not everything is figured out, everything that the apostles knew was golden. Everything their early successors knew was argent. So we want to see where they stood and see who stood on their shoulders and where they stood. The term for that is 'ressourcement' and it is a going back to sources in the Bible and the Church Fathers. It can be done with a hermeneutic of continuity allowing the Church to reform, to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to look around but point in the right direction again.

The contemporary best well known example of this way of thinking is pope emeritus Benedict XVI. He didn't dump the past. But he wasn't static either. He went back to earlier sources, and we know those sources were on track because we know Jesus was on track. Not everything, especially the newest things, are on track. Particularly it is the newest things where time has not tested them, where we will need to change, to get back on track. It's only after a few hundred years that things even begin to clarify.

What does this have to do with Mary? The idea that Mary was a sinner is actually a new idea. We should look carefully at the Fathers to see what they thought of it. In that we might see how we got to where we are. The Orthodox have similar ideas about Mary though they would be unhappy to actually agree with Catholics. What is the common ground? What are their sources? Does that all make sense? What is the entire history? Are current ideas in concert with the older ones, the oldest ones, or a rupture?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,136
7,245
Dallas
✟874,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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?".

The Eastern Orthodox do not teach that Mary never sinned. They don’t actually have a definitive doctrine as to how Mary was without sin when Jesus was incarnated. They believe that it is possible that her sins were cleansed before Jesus’ incarnation.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Orthodox have similar ideas about Mary though they would be unhappy to actually agree with Catholics.
We are happy that you agree with us, yet you always push a negative view of the Orthodox Church. You want to present us as haters of Catholicism when in fact we are lovers of truth.
 
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

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Thanks Brother, I gave a definition of the error committed and an example of JW's reading the meaning of one from John 17 into John 10:30

I realize that you gave web sites for definitions of "exegetial fallacies" and "word-study fallacies" from fallible, non-authoritative people, but that's not what I asked for. You stated on post #409 that the posters understanding of Lk.1:46-55 was in error:

Reading a meaning into the text that is not there.

What I did ask, and the question still stands, is...... By what authority do you have to say that this posters understanding, meaning or belief of this Scripture passage, or any other Scripture passage is in error?

What else did you want?

Well, let's see. Say another poster and yourself were having a discussion about a certain Scripture passage, and were in disagreement on what the meaning of this passage is, but both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit in your beliefs of said passage meaning. Would you stand by your belief that your interpretation/belief of this passage is true and without error, and the other posters interpretation/belief is in error? If so, by who's or what authority would you make this determination?

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,229
4,189
37
US
✟910,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Did Adam ever walk the earth? Eve? Neither was born with a 'sin nature'. Both were sinless at least for a while.

That's a mangling of the Catholic position. Mary would not have gone to heaven on her own because on her own she would have fallen and sinned and deserved hell. She was saved from that, through no merit of her own, so that she didn't fall and didn't sin. Her Son needed to die for her too. And Catholics know that. Every priest, bishop, cardinal, and pope, along with a chunk of the laity recite Luke 1 every day. So they know Mary had and needed a savior. It's not a surprise to us, as you may think.

For the most part you have presumed your conclusion. Of the many ways Mary could have been saved by Jesus you presume the one way that requires her to be a sinner while ignoring that she could have been saved from ever sinning.

It's Augustine. Augustus was a Roman Emperor. And nobody pretends Augustine was sinless. In fact his sinful life is well documented.

Yes, but Adam and Eve weren't completely sinless and were not created with a sin nature. Nobody knows exactly why they sinned and the answer would differ between Christian to Christian, it was either a freewill choice that Adam and Eve made or a freewill choice that God foreordained to happen. Either or you cannot make the argument that Mary was sinless off of Adam and Eve because Adam and Eve were created they weren't born. They were created without a sin nature yet sinned. Every human being born after them aside from Christ sinned.

Christ still could have sinned, it probably was possible. But if he did he would have lost his status as God and all of humanity would have been without hope.
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

This includes every single human ever born since Cain and includes Mary. if she didn't sin then you are claiming that she wasn't of human decent and wasn't human.

So what you are saying then, that it is your belief, the word "all" here to mean absolutely everyone who has ever lived or ever will live, with exception of Jesus? Right? And is it also your belief when Scripture say's 'all'....... that it absolutely means "all?"


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
I think someone wrote that Jesus was the only exception. Luke 1:25


Yes, you are correct. With that being said, Could I ask you the same thong I asked Coffee4u?

Is it your belief, the word "all" here to mean absolutely everyone who has ever lived or ever will live, with exception of Jesus? Right? And is it also your belief when Scripture say's 'all'....... that it absolutely means "all?"


Have a Blessed Day!
 
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

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
On this I half agree. If we stand on the shoulders of giants we still need to be looking in the right direction. It is unhelpful to stand on the shoulders of giants and be looking in the wrong direction. What we need is a long faithfulness in the right direction.

You may be surprised that I am a proponent of 'ecclesia semper reformanda'. And that the Catholic Church is actually for it too. The issue for me is whether changes are made with a hermenutic of rupture or one of continuity. Any reform contains a bit of rupture. That is inherent. But it should be a reform that points us back to a particular trajectory we were already on. And this is how it has to differ from Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. For in science we delve into unknowns at every turn and we operate on guesses until better guesses come along. The faith differs in that we have Jesus teaching his disciples, choosing apostles who would teach their successors who would teach their successors. While not everything is figured out, everything that the apostles knew was golden. Everything their early successors knew was argent. So we want to see where they stood and see who stood on their shoulders and where they stood. The term for that is 'ressourcement' and it is a going back to sources in the Bible and the Church Fathers. It can be done with a hermeneutic of continuity allowing the Church to reform, to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to look around but point in the right direction again.

The contemporary best well known example of this way of thinking is pope emeritus Benedict XVI. He didn't dump the past. But he wasn't static either. He went back to earlier sources, and we know those sources were on track because we know Jesus was on track. Not everything, especially the newest things, are on track. Particularly it is the newest things where time has not tested them, where we will need to change, to get back on track. It's only after a few hundred years that things even begin to clarify.

What does this have to do with Mary? The idea that Mary was a sinner is actually a new idea. We should look carefully at the Fathers to see what they thought of it. In that we might see how we got to where we are. The Orthodox have similar ideas about Mary though they would be unhappy to actually agree with Catholics. What is the common ground? What are their sources? Does that all make sense? What is the entire history? Are current ideas in concert with the older ones, the oldest ones, or a rupture?

Yes, that does make sense. You explained the value of tradition very well. There's always going to be discussion about what constitutes a "rupture" I guess. For example, I regard the concept of an "elect" a rupture too far but some people seem to take to it - they can't help it I suppose!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0