Why even a Protestant reading of the Bible shows Mary to be sinless

In physics class we study energy. What does the energy in physics have to do with the energy in the sense that you're using? Are they related at all or are they just homonyms?

Fucking bullshit.

Romans 3:9 [ All Have Sinned ] What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

Romans 3:10 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one;

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Fuck off with your Mother Earth pagan bullshit. Mary was blessed/favored to be the one who God chose to bear His Son.

JESUS IS SINLESS.

NOT MARY.

Related. In physics is from the Greek word, in Orthodox theology it's a translation of the Greek word.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἐνέργεια

Fucking babbling bullshit.

You're really getting on my last nerve.

Your verse doesn't show Mary sin anymore than they show Jesus sinned, and you completely miss the point of them. When you read something in the Bible, the very first thing you start with in exegesis is, "Why is this being said?" All these verses have the same teleos: they are to let people know that they can't get to heaven purely by being good people, and it's especially to let Jews know that they aren't any more righteous than pagans. It's not saying people have no free will when it comes to sin: when you sin, do you choose to do? Every sin is a choice, and you *could* be sinless, you have the freedom to do that, but none of us do. Mary could but she had complete grace and was the New Eve.

I ask you, how couple someone have superlative favor from God if they sin?

Calm down and just listen
youtube.com/watch?v=bNqacP7qzTQ

ALL HAVE SINNED

NOT GOD

JESUS IS GOD

GOD HAS NOT FUCKING SINNED YOU FUCKING DOLT

MARY IS NOT GOD YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>I ask you, how couple someone have superlative favor from God if they sin?

Are you fucking kidding me?

FORGIVENESS OF SIN
GRACE
SALVATION

These are things YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

monophysite detected

So then you are saying it's grace here, and not favor, right?

>Every sin is a choice, and you *could* be sinless, you have the freedom to do that, but none of us do.

Found the heretic.
It's so cute that you think all of humanity is not in default reprobate status all the time from birth. Not even Arminius was as off base as you.

>It's so cute that you think all of humanity is not in default reprobate status all the time from birth
Kek, I don't (Ezekiel 18:20)

That idea of original sin is Catholic. We believe the world is contaminated from original sin and that causes death and suffering to those who are not responsible (hence even Mary faced dormition), but we don't believe simply existing makes you a criminal.

What is Romans 3, Alex?
Ezekiel states that the righteous man should live, sure. But no man is righteous. All have fallen short of God's glory. The Law wasn't given to bring people salvation, but to show the futility of the idea that human action can bring about salvation. Saying that we can choose not to sin is nonsensical, heretical garbage that supplants God's power and glory with the idol of "free will." The only way one becomes regenerate is the extension of grace, we're powerless. No one is righteous before God, no man could be, that's the whole point of Jesus' sacrifice.

>Only Jesus was sinless
what about when he rage quit in the temple?

Thinking divine wrath is sinful

>This\ means God's favor of her could not be any higher, it is full-grown, which indicates she is sinless.
No, it indicates she is fully favored. Which she is, as the mother of The Word's human body. The highest honor a human can receive, but nowhere does it say sinless.

Christians have believed in the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin from the earliest days of the Church, why do (most) Protestants reject this? I mean I can understand why someone might want to be a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc. but Protestantism just seems so disconnected from history to me, I just don't get it m8s

youtube.com/watch?v=tRTU1Evbxw0

No they didn't, it was definitely around, but it was never orthodox theology. No scripture supports immaculate conception, nor do any apostolic fathers affirm it.

thanks for this

>from the earliest days of the Church

sauce

>Protestantism just seems so disconnected from history
There may be a few people who believe in Christianity as an actual religion rather than as a tool for their LARP sessions.

Do you maintain that, somehow, "true" Christianity (that is Protestantism, according to Protestants) disappeared for a thousand years, from as early as the time of the church fathers, some of whom, like Iraeneus, were disciples of disciples of the very apostles, to the Late Renaissance, and only appeared again when Martin Luther came around?

Immaculate Conception isn't the same as Mary having never sinned. The Immaculate Conception is particular to the Roman Catholic Church, while the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics all maintain that Mary did not sin. Until Protestantism came along that was really the only position.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Ambrose of Milan, among others.

Owning a Bible was actually made a criminal offence by the Cathokic church. In 860, Pope Nicholas I, sitting high on a throne built specially for the occasion in the town square, pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by soldiers of the Church military (Diderots Encyclopedia, 1759). In 1229, the Council of Toulouse, to be spoken of with detestation, passed another Decree that strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue. By the 14th Century, possession of a Bible by the laity was a criminal offence and punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and burning at the stake.

>Which she is, as the mother of The Word's human body.
No, the tense is perfect participle, meaning something already complete. It's not pertaining to the future.

Grace was extended to her and she was a servant of God. Just because she's sanctified before God doesn't mean she never sinned. That's how salvation works. All saved people are counted blameless through grace.

Jesus was only adopted as god's son rather than produced from some pagan zeus like induction

To be completely graced means she was a sinless receptacle, because only a sinless receptacle could receive *complete* grace. You gain the capacity to receive more grace the more perfect you become (sometimes there are physical manifestations of this, as with light--halos and such--with Moses it was so strong he had to wear a veil. The ultimate goal of this is of course Theosis: to become one in Christ.But the point is., Mary was completely graced. Already. In fact, that is why she was chosen, it is used as a title of address by the angel ("thou that art" is a phrase added by translators, which the King James Version doesn't hide of course, it italicizes all words that are added by the translators).

He's the Word made flesh, the Word is the Son from before all ages.

Scripture EXPLICITLY states Jesus and ONLY Jesus is sinless.

>I don't know how to greentext

No, Protestantism is a post-Catholic attempted reconstruction of early Christianity, before the emergence or at least codification of the religions now referred to as Orthodoxy and Catholicism (yes, both of them believe themselves to be the true original church, so do many Protestants, and Alexander claimed he descended from Achillies.) Reconstructions are not necessarily accurate, but how historical something "feels" has no bearing on whether or not people believe in it.

By that logic, Jesus also sinned

Explain this

Calvinism debunked by based Chadwick

And she had already been selected. It was complete. Actually giving birth to Jesus was essentially a formality at that point.

Protestantism failed greatly. Protshits cannot explain this

What part of "inaccurate post-Catholic reconstruction" was unclear? I'm clearly not even Protestant, because they don't call themselves that, they call themselves whichever denomination they identify as.

It says he was without sin, it never says he was the only person who did not sin.

Just saying bruh

>Actually giving birth to Jesus was essentially a formality

In terms of being graced, yes.

Let's stop for a second.

Where are you getting all this from, exactly?

The bible.

From my shitty Calvinist theology which is in contradiction with all the Church Fathers and history

The Bible disagrees with you

No, I mean where are you getting this exegesis from. I know that the subject of the exegesis is the Bible

Doesn't look like a bible to me in that screenshot.

Did I say works were unimportant? They're incredibly important but not essential for salvation. The only thing essential for salvation is the extension of grace by God. You can't work your way into heaven, dingus.

That is top class Biblical scholarship in that screenshot, not your shitposting

>at Final Judgement
>"You did not feed me when I was hungry and--"
>"I assure you, My Lord, it wasn't necessary, now gimme my salvation."

We all know that "works" is simply a product of God doing his mind control magic in Sola Fide, not of the person himself. Works is there to show that God reprogrammed the person, without consideration of his free will. In fact, "faith" in Sola Fide is simply receiving Jesus the magical credit card's payment. That's all!

So not a Bible.

Can't change the rules halfway through the thread.

A person who is saved would do those things. It's a mark of salvation because it glorifies God, not a prerequisite to being saved.

>Can't change the rules halfway through the thread.
These aren't rules, I'm asking where you got your exegesis from. Mine is from Greek grammar, the Biblical meaning of grace, and the Church Fathers. What is your source for what the Bible means here, because the Bible certainly does not explicitly say what you are suggesting; what lead you to this conclusion, is what I'm asking. Did you just arrive at it just now, were you taught it, did you always find it quite evident, or what?

Stay mad loser

>not dying to yourself and being reborn

Dude, do you even New Testament?

Yah! God mind controls the person to do them according to your theology!

>A person who is saved would do those things
Where are you getting this from?

Yeah, that's called baptism.

Geez, I don't know, let's ask some Galatians.

The thread title is "even a Protestant reading..." thus, we play by Protestant rules. I don't have to do anything but poke holes in your explanation that what you are saying MUST be the case.

Sorry,
Was for

PROTESTANT exegesis is ahistorical

Protestants don't

I presume you can cite specific verses backing you up.

Let's ignore the part about Paul using Abraham as an example which includes Abraham struggling against having to choose God over his son or his own statement that he works out his own salvation in fear and trembling alongside all the statements about works and the Church Fathers! genius!!!

He's probably conflating those sorts of works with works of the *Law*, such as circumcision.

You mean like Galatians 5:22-26?

No, those don't back up what you're saying at all. Where does it say, "Those who are saved will do good works, those who aren't will not"?

So much for Sola Fide

Guess that faith is God altering the brains of those God gave it to

It's like PAUL is addressing puppets

It's like his language presupposes synergism

the only one without sin was Jesus Christ who came to bring grace and by grace we were forgiven of all our past,present and future sin

For those who have accepted jesus Christ as lord sin wont send us to hell but it will make life alot harder for us (it blocks our blessings)

>was mary without sin

no she was human like the rest of us so she was born a sinner like everybody else but when she accepted Jesus as lord she became free from it by grace

>Mary
>Sinless
I wish you Catholic heretics would fucking die

you're so assmad that you're going to hell

Catholics are not christian

i thought orthodox didn't believe mary was sinless

Are you saying Jesus sinned? fucking muslim

Says the one threatening me with eternal punishment when I desteoyed sola Fide with Scripture, logic, NT scholarship and the Church Fathers!

No user, it's God that's threatening you with eternal punishment

How are things on the broad path?

>all this shitposting over a kike on a stick
y'know, sometimes im glad to be a fedora

I am not the Calvinist here cuntbrain

The broad path is as big as my dick. How about that?

Neither am i, heretic

Your entire theology of course shows otherwise

Why do you reject Jesus Christ?