“She had a father who was a sinner, she inherited the sin nature from him- just like you. She was born a sinner and sinned because she was a sinner - just like you.”
So you have proof of the sinning? Just your personal opinion.
Christ gave His Apostles the command to Preach and Baptize and to bind and loose, and the Holy spirit would be the protector of the Catholic church until the end of time.
Such a shame that many men formed their own religions and beliefs, yet still claim to be partial followers of Christ.
Such a shame that many men formed their own religions and beliefs, yet still claim to be partial followers of Christ.
***
You mean like Roman Catholics?
“Jesus answered him, ‘If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.”
Considering how full of unrepentant sinners the Vatican is, and how the pedo priests were shuffled around, and the homosexual cocaine orgy participants, and how the current Pope are still accepted within that organization, I really doubt that Roman Catholicism as an organization as a whole has any real claim on loving Jesus.
And of course, your own church laws compelling the laity to obey those wicked men in the Vatican.
How’s that for the Holy Spirit protecting the Roman Catholic Church?
Lol.
Mary’s own words that God is her Savior.
Only sinners need saviors. If she were sinless, she wouldn’t need a savior, nor would she have been able to receive God’s grace.
Grace only kicks in where sin is.
Also, Mary was worried about Jesus when He was twelve and stayed behind in the Temple.
Worry is a sin.
Nice try to flip the argument.
It is ROME that has NO PROOF of Mary EVER being sinless.
It did; however; produce a book that contains the phase, "...ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD."
By claiming an exceptional exception to the norm, the burden of proof is upon you to prove she did not sin. It is simply incongruous that the Holy Spirit would not state that Mary was one of the only persons besides Christ that was sinless, or record perpetual Marian virginity (PMV), seeing that He characteristically records notable exceptions to the norm by even great to lesser characters, from extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), barrenness (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, birth by a virgin (Mary), to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.
Christ gave His Apostles the command to Preach and Baptize and to bind and loose, and the Holy spirit would be the protector of the Catholic church until the end of time.
Where is the promise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome. Promising the church will prevail against the gates of Hell and to lead into all Truth does not mean the church can never teach error, while to the degree that a church retains and preaches the convicting gospel of grace, of salvation by grave thru heart-purifying, justifying faith, then they are part of the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell, that being the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) which uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
Is your RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God? It seems that is what RCs basically argue.
She sinned. I don’t need to prove that! I don’t need to prove you’ve sinned. God says so.
Could Mary have paid the price for your sin? Could she have been your redeemer? Her alleged sinlessness wouldn’t even require a co-redeeming partner. She could have been the perfect lamb of God - all by her sinless self.
I guess your baseless belief would have to buy that lie, too.
The depth of dark deception is beyond imagination.
Your position is so untenable and twisted that I think we’re done.
Goodbye.
So you have proof of the sinning? Just your personal opinion.
Depends on whether you want to accept Roman Catholic tradition and the statements of some of the ECFs who say she was a sinner.
What proof do you have of her not sinning?
You are stating she's an exception to the rule.
Romans 3:21-25 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
Now, since you are claiming an exception to the rule, then you need to prove it.
Show us plain and clear Scripture that says "Mary, without sin".