Was Mary sinless?

Grip Docility said:

I'm not seeing any credulous behavior, error or flaw in @tonychanyt 's stance... as it is actually, merely facilitation... to achieve discussion.

Click to expand...

I didn't think you would find flaw.

Grip Docility said:

I do note that he took an extra biblical writing and compared it to the bible... to show a sort of Berean reverence to what scripture has to say on a matter... which suggests that Tony is challenging us in a purposeful or unintentional way to measure all matters against scripture.

Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with beans in China or the city of Berea? I'm not bound to bible alone, I used the Early Church Fathers to help explain and to show the Catholic view of Romans 3:23.

Grip Docility said:

I'm not trying to be a pain or anything, but wasn't the New Testament finished well before 202 AD, in the sense that it was all recorded long before that... with the exception of Canonization which happened for the Catholic 73 and the Protestant 66 at differing times that involved much discussion and such, yet doesn't override the fact the books contained within were finished long before 202 AD?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the complaint, seeking truth one gets a close to the time and culture of the writer as possible to understand what he meant. The Early Church Fathers do that for us. All of the Sacred Scriptures were written prior to 100 A.D., works of St. Peter and St. Paul were written prior to 64–68 A.D. when they were martyred. That leaves nearly 100 years for St. Irenaeus to study Scripture and to give us his insight. You know words, language, and cultures change over long periods of time. I remember when a thing was said to 'bad' it was a negative comment.

Grip Docility said:

I mean, thank goodness for those bishops and their chain of custody... but also, thank goodness they didn't directly insert their opinions (AKA volumes of commentary) into scripture, am I right?

Click to expand...

Thank the Holy Spirit.

JoeT

JoeT said:

The verse Romans 3:23, if taken as inclusive of every person, "all", it must by definition include Christ, He is man, albeit a type of Adam prior to the fall, man nevertheless. "All" is not the thrust of Romans 3:23 rather those present, both gentile and Jew, all.

To be "just" the will is rectified to the will of God. Thus, a just man is without voluntary immoral act, word or thought, and without original sin. But, we find many "just men" in Scripture, e.g., Tobias, Noah, Moses, Joseph to name but a few. Also, Christ tells us to be "perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect". [Matthew 5:48]. How do you square that a man can in fact be just or justified, thus not falling short of the glory of God?


JoeT

Click to expand...

That is a false interpretation. As you note, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Sin, by definition, is against God. God cannot sin against Himself. While Jesus was a man, he is not part of the "all" since he is also fully God. The "all" is everyone but Jesus since He is the lone exception.

No, a just man is a man whose sins have been washed by the blood of Christ and who receive the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. None of us can live a truly just life as well all sin. We can be just in Christ despite our sins including original sin. Only Christ was truly just on His own. The rest of us can be made just by faith and the grace of God. Thus we all (save Christ) do fall short of the glory of God. Praise be to God though as in Christ we can be made just by His righteousness.