Of course, but there are biblical figures of whose sinlessness were are specifically told. Zacharias and Anna are described "without blame" (Zacharias sins later). Their son John is described "filled with the Holy Spirit", and Mary is described "fill of grace". In the Old Testament Noah is described as "just and perfect". So, the notion that everyone has committed a personal sin of which we are not told is just not scriptural. Jesus tells us specifically that the centurion's faith was greater than any He had seen in Israel. That includes Mary
At Cana, Mary had seen no miracles, yet she asked for one. The Centurion has asked for one after he had seen or at least heard of miracles. As to the literal "no one in Isreal", we have to discount the immediate family, and especially Mary simply because she had a revelation form God the centurion or anyone else did not have. Her journey of faith had happened before anyone else even heard of Jesus.
I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense
And I do. I am aware that the faith of the disciples was tested severely and failed them at times, but this does not discount the fact that the first deposit of faith, however infirm, was seeded after the intercession of Mary.
Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around
John took Mary "to his own" ("home" is a Protestant obfuscation). But John is called her son, as well as Mary is called his mother, so the adoption was two-way. You adopt when you call someone a son, not when you figure out who lives where.
You make Christ a dependent of Mary in the spiritual sense
The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense, plus there are other scriptures, Cana and the mutual adoption foremostly, that outline her role as intercessor. Certainly Mary is not the central point of the gospel, but neither is she a divine incubator without a role. I gave you specifically what you have robbed yourselves of, becasue of mariophobia.
The "woman" in Revelation 12 is Israel, not Mary
This is this flight of mariophobic fancy that is plain comical. That woman is described giving birth to Christ right in that chapter, in graphic and physiological terms. This is like you womb=water from John 3:5. Are we reading the scripture or are we writing our own?
she was not perfect
Adressed in the beginning of the post.
“The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense....”
Indeed!
“Rejoice, O seer of the ineffable Will. Rejoice, O surety of those praying in silence.
Rejoice, you the Preface of Christ’s miracles. Rejoice, you the Pinnacle of His commandments.
Rejoice, O heavenly Ladder, by which God descended. Rejoice, O Bridge leading those from earth to Heaven.
Rejoice, O Miracle, much marveled of Angels. Rejoice, O trauma, much dirged of demons.
Rejoice, you who ineffably gave birth to the Light. Rejoice, you who revealed the mystery to none.
Rejoice, O knowledge superseding the wise. Rejoice, You who enlighten the minds of the faithful.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride”
It has often seemed to me, in Scripture that
God, tends, when describing someone as perfect
to be speaking to the attitude of their heart vs every detail of their behavior.
Well, we also know that Noah knew the effects of wine (Matt. 24:38) and yet became drunk (Gen. 9:20, et seq.), thus shaming himself. Therefore, "just and perfect" does not describe a lifelong state (as Quix aptly noted). Rather, it applies to how they were seen by other men. As far as anyone knew, some may have appeared as blameless as against other people, but no one is blameless before God. This is true of Noah, Job, Mary, and everyone else. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Besides, I doubt you are making a case that Mary's lifelong sinless club is joined by all the people you mention above. :) Or are you?
At Cana, Mary had seen no miracles, yet she asked for one.
Really? From birth to 30 years old, Mary had NEVER seen her son commit the slightest sin in all His life. You don't call that a noteworthy miracle? :) She certainly had "seen" miracle, but at that time it may not have been God's choice to let her SEE miracle. It is simply unknowable what the state of her faith was at Cana. But if we agree that Cana was before the centurion, then the text leads us to think that Mary's faith was not yet fully developed at Cana. Therefore, we cannot conclude that she asked for a miracle.
As to the literal "no one in Israel", we have to discount the immediate family, and especially Mary simply because she had a revelation from God the centurion or anyone else did not have. Her journey of faith had happened before anyone else even heard of Jesus.
That doesn't follow logically. How is there any connection between a special revelation to Mary and what Jesus said? Who among the listeners could have possibly understood the distinction? No one. It just doesn't follow. We also know that Mary's revelation was incomplete AT LEAST until Christ was 12, since she did not recognize Him as God. We are (arguably) not told when the same revelation that you and I have was made full in Mary. If any inference can be made from the text, it would have been after the scene with the centurion.
FK: "I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense."
And I do. I am aware that the faith of the disciples was tested severely and failed them at times, but this does not discount the fact that the first deposit of faith, however infirm, was seeded after the intercession of Mary. [at Cana] (emphasis added)
SO, when all the disciples dropped their entire lives to follow Christ BEFORE the wedding in Cana (end of John 1 vs. beg. of John 2), that counted for nothing in the faith department ("first deposit")? :) We see no presence or participation by Mary when Jesus gathered His disciples for the first time.
FK: "Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around."
John took Mary "to his own" ("home" is a Protestant obfuscation). But John is called her son, as well as Mary is called his mother, so the adoption was two-way. You adopt when you call someone a son, not when you figure out who lives where.
But who was responsible? Of course at that time it was unequivocal that the man was to take care of the woman. We are led in no other direction here. We know that John was a strong young man and Mary was pushing 50. We both presume Joseph is gone by this point, so the only answer is that Jesus was handing Mary over to John in order to take care of her. No shame on Mary, but also no grand pronouncement that Mary was now the mother of the Church. That would make Mary the person of power here, and the text just doesn't support that at all.
The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense, plus there are other scriptures, Cana and the mutual adoption foremostly, that outline her role as intercessor.
This presumes that Mary could have somehow stopped the Incarnation as God had planned it, ostensibly by saying "No", or something. If that actually WAS possible, then I would venerate Mary every bit as much, probably more so, as you all do today. I would "owe" my salvation to her in great part because of her decision. Of course, I would have to share my gratitude with the Roman goddess "Fortuna", the goddess of luck. If Mary DID have the full power to thwart God's plan for the salvation of mankind in His elect, then it was very fortunate for us that she made the choice she did. I mean, the Bible is full of stories about humans going ANYWHERE with "yes" or "no" choices, even among the best, like Moses. He blew an easy one, and it cost him a lot. Thank Mary in Heaven and Fortuna that the same didn't happen to her. (?) :)