What texts prove that Mary was a sinner?

[chevyontheriver]

Well, it is what Catholics normally quote when arguing for the Immaculate Conception or the sinlessness of Mary.

I did mention that doing so seems odd for the very reason you are referring to now.

Quote the KJV? Maybe all the Catholics you know, but I am not in the habit of quoting from that one at all. Nor do I know many who use the KJV.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Please show me one single verse, in context, in God's Holy Word which clearly and directly supports your opinion that Jesus' mother "becomes our mother in the faith." To make such a statement equates Jesus' human, sinful, mother to God the sinless, Holy Father; our Father whereby we may also name Abba, Daddy. The idea that Jesus' mother is also our mother in the faith, a goddess so to speak-someone to pray to and worship, is merely a conjecture, opinion, erroneously and widely embraced and sub-sequentially humanly indoctrinated and established. But you and yours are free, by the grace of God, to believe whatever you want to believe. Just remember that Jesus said that there is ONLY ONE WAY to the father in heaven in John 14:6, NOT through our "good" works/sacraments, NOT through ANY human being including his mother or the President, Pope, or Indian Chief; but only and exclusively through HIM, Jesus, the Messiah, God the Son, the one and only Scriptural Mediator between God and man, Creator and Sustainer of all.

John 19: 26-27. As for the beloved disciple so too for us all.

Your whole 'goddess' thing is a red herring. As is your whole 'Indian Chief' thing.

 

[Albion]

Quote the KJV? Maybe all the Catholics you know, but I am not in the habit of quoting from that one at all.

Good for you, but then what is your Scriptural evidence for believing in Mary as sinless at the time of the Annunication?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Good for you, but then what is your Scriptural evidence for believing in Mary as sinless at the time of the Annunication?

The Greek text of Luke 1:28.

 

[Albion]

κεχαριτωμένη,

Being "favored" by God for some assignment or honor means that you are sinless???

If so, there are actually a lot of people in Scripture who we would have to declare to be sinless.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Being "favored" by God for some assignment or honor means that you are sinless???

If so, there are actually a lot of people in Scripture who we would have to declare to be sinless.

You have your reading of Luke 1:28 that says Mary is nothing special. You haven't bothered with the link I provided earlier on Luke 1:28 so I leave you to your interpretation. For other people who wonder how I get more than 'favored' out of Luke 1:28 please see: What Do We Mean By Full of Grace?

 

[Albion]

You have your reading of Luke 1:28 that says Mary is nothing special.

No one has said that. She was favored or singled out. That's not to be "nothing special." It is, in fact, the exact opposite.

However, it's also not to be sinless, in either the Greek or the English.

 

[Monksailor]

John 19: 26-27. As for the beloved disciple so too for us all.

Your whole 'goddess' thing is a red herring. As is your whole 'Indian Chief' thing.

You are terribly mistaken, sir. I looked up the quote you gave and in fact, the verse you gave and several other translations ALL tell us that Jesus was talking exclusively to a single-out disciple (his brother, John, most believe), "27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home]."

There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE in what you claim Holy Scripture says and what it REALLY says. This is exactly the erroneous nature of what I was describing. Thank you for pointing it out. No red herring here.

Jesus spoke to THE disciple and THE disciple took her home.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You are terribly mistaken, sir. I looked up the quote you gave and in fact, the verse you gave and several other translations ALL tell us that Jesus was talking exclusively to a single-out disciple (his brother, John, most believe), " 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home].

There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE in what you claim Holy Scripture says and what it REALLY says. This is exactly the erroneous nature of what I was describing. Thank you for pointing it out.

Thank you so much for telling me I'm terribly mistaken.

Note that I did say that as for the beloved disciple so too for us all. That's how something specific to John becomes generalized in a spiritual sense for the rest of us. Which is why the gospel didn't up and say 'John' but left it as the 'beloved disciple'. We are all, in a manner of speaking, beloved disciples according to the way the gospel of John was written. But you disagree and say I am terribly mistaken. And your understanding of Scripture is infallible or something.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Everything you posted above is just your fallible, non-authoritative, opinion which is subject to error,

SO reject it all!!! Believe whatever your "Tradition" forces you to. The only really important thing is Eph 2:8,9

 

[Fidelibus]

SO reject it all!!! Believe whatever your "Tradition" forces you to. The only really important thing is Eph 2:8,9

I will, and with that being said, I am guessing you cannot back up your talking points with Scripture.

 

[Fidelibus]

Of course it's a "gotcha" question to request a verse from the Bible that DISproves something that isn't taught by the Bible and should not, therefore, be made into a doctrine by any church.

Doing that is no different from asking the proverbial "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.

Again, thanks for your opinion that is subject to error. However, if one is going to be a adherent to the sola scriptural doctrine, you need to be able to backup your beliefs with Scripture. If not, one would be going out side of Scripture would seem the the doctrine of the Bible alone moot.

 

[Albion]

However, if one is going to be a adherent to the sola scriptural doctrine, you need to be able to backup your beliefs with Scripture.

Yes. Sola Scriptura does not describe a belief that everything that can be known is in the Bible somewhere. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone contains what is necessary for our salvation.

If understood correctly then, unless the Bible describes something that must be believed, no church is at liberty to impose that idea upon anyone.

In this case, there IS NO verse which teaches that Mary was sinless, so it cannot be made into a doctrine.

Scripture does not, in other words, allow anyone to invent a doctrine simply by saying that the Bible didn't rule it out, so therefore it's okay.

That in fact is exactly what the term literally means (Scripture Alone=No unScriptural dogmas attributed to traditions, theological opinions, legends, customs, folklore, or etc.)

 

[Monksailor]

κεχαριτωμένη,

Being "favored" by God for some assignment or honor means that you are sinless???

If so, there are actually a lot of people in Scripture who we would have to declare to be sinless.

Yeah, right from the top of my head I think of Job. God, when challenged by satan himself, looked over the whole world and cited Job as an extremely righteous man and handed Job over to satan to be tested. Now that is a Shinning example!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Yeah, right from the top of my head I think of Job. God, when challenged by satan himself, looked over the whole world and cited Job as an extremely righteous man and handed Job over to satan to be tested. Now that is a Shinning example!

But remember the OUTCOME of the "job Exercise" was to bring Job to REPENTANCE - apparently for "Behemoth" - the tendency trust the FLESH, and "Leviathan" - Personal PRIDE.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I will, and with that being said, I am guessing you cannot back up your talking points with Scripture.

Certainly not with any Scripture that your "Tradition" wouldn't just explain away. I've played this game before, and I know how it always comes out.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes. Sola Scriptura does not describe a belief that everything that can be known is in the Bible somewhere. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone contains what is necessary for our salvation.

If understood correctly then, unless the Bible describes something that must be believed, no church is at liberty to impose that idea upon anyone.

In this case, there IS NO verse which teaches that Mary was sinless, so it cannot be made into a doctrine.

Scripture does not, in other words, allow anyone to invent a doctrine simply by saying that the Bible didn't rule it out, so therefore it's okay.

That in fact is exactly what the term literally means (Scripture Alone=No unScriptural dogmas attributed to traditions, theological opinions, legends, customs, folklore, or etc.)

Nobody cares, but the inventer of Sola Scriptura also believed Mary to be sinless. Lutheran Mariology - Wikipedia

 

[Albion]

Nobody cares, but the inventer of Sola Scriptura also believed Mary to be sinless. Lutheran Mariology - Wikipedia

As you say, it doesn't matter. Not to the topic here, anyway. That's because what you are referring to is not about the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture.

Obviously, there are different Protestant churches which hold contrasting views on any number of doctrines, and they are all Sola Scriptura churches.

What that means is that you are pointing to different interpretations of Scripture, but it's still Scripture that is looked to rather than something else, such as the traditions, theories, folk customs, and etc. which are part of the Catholic approach.

This also does not guarantee that all these Catholic churches will, by following their alternate system of doctrine-setting ('Sacred Tradition'), come up with the same set of dogmas. As said before, no two of them have the same set of such doctrines although they all claim to be following the same Tradition.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Of course you don't. It would upset a large apple cart in your theology if you interpreted Luke 1:28 as something beyond 'favored'. I think the word 'kecharitōmenē' demands a more expansive meaning. That is not a 'hint' but to me it is clear and Biblical. She was so graced that there was no room for sin in her life. And it was fitting to have that sort of mother to raise the Son of Man. She was not blessed merely for being a biological mother. She was blessed before she became a biological mother according to the text.

Strong's Greek: 5487. χαριτόω (charitoó) — 2 Occurrences

Luke 1:28 V-RPM/P-NFS
GRK: εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος
NAS: to her, Greetings, favored one! The Lord
KJV: Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord
INT: said Greetings [you] favored one the Lord [is]

Ephesians 1:6 V-AIA-3S
GRK: αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν
NAS: which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
KJV: us accepted in
INT: of him which he made objects of grace us in

 

[Daniel Marsh]

We Catholics, of course would agree with you totally. But there are folks out there who say that Jesus only became God later, or maybe hold to some more Arian interpretation. People for whom Mary bore a human son but did not bear God incarnate, people who deny that Mary was the mother of God, the theotokos. There are a jumble of different beliefs out there.

For those of us who are traditional Christians we understand that Mary is theotokos because Jesus was God from the moment of conception, that Jesus didn't pick up divinity later. You are preaching to the choir on that one. At least with the Catholics and the Orthodox in this discussion.

Council of Ephesus

Eight canons were passed:

Canon 1–5 condemned Nestorius and Caelestius and their followers as heretics
Canon 6 decreed deposition from clerical office or excommunication for those who did not accept the Council's decrees
Canon 7 condemned any departure from the creed established by the First Council of Nicaea (325), in particular an exposition by the priest Charisius.
Canon 8 condemned interference by the Bishop of Antioch in affairs of the Church in Cyprus and decreed generally, that no bishop was to "assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors […] lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed".[2]
The Council denounced Nestorius' teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person (hypostasis), and not two separate persons, yet possessing both a human and divine nature. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos a Greek word that means "God-bearer" (the one who gave birth to God).

Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia