No offense but I see some chinks in your logic there bud. Joseph in Genesis in the Old Testament never has a sin attributed to him. Does that make him perfect? Why no, because we aren’t told every detail of his life. Was he a godly man? Yes, clearly he was, but that doesn’t equal sinlessness. Actually, the same can be said for dozens of persons named in the bible—whose sins are not explicitly identified... (Several of Jesus’ 12 disciples too have none of their sins identified...Why? Well, the gospel accounts tell us nothing about them other than their names. The same principle goes, absence of evidence doesn’t amount to evidence.)
Absence of evidence doesn’t refute the statement: “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) Last I checked all includes ALL, unless, like Jesus they are specifically excepted. Nowhere in scripture is Mary, or anyone else (but Jesus) identified as uniquely sinless—just like there is not a scintilla of evidence in the bible, or in the earliest traditions, that she was born immaculately, that is uniquely without sin. This was dreamed up by pious churchmen who just could not imagine how Jesus could have been born to a normal woman. (I can’t imagine either, but God in his revealed Word chose not to say...)
Besides, I do believe that thinking Jesus may have been “out of his mind” (Mark 3:31) shows some serious doubt, and can definitely called sin.
And about the word “Savior.” Jesus is our savior from what? The devil? Yes. Death? Yes. Hell? Yes. But why? Due to our sin. If Mary truly were the one woman of all history sinless, than, she needed no savior, and her good deeds would merit her heaven. Mary alone of all humanity would be independent of the merits of the life and death of the Lord Jesus. The bible never comes close to even a hint of such things... Mary, like all of fallen humanity who trust God, was and is utterly dependent on and in union with the grace of God given in Jesus Christ.
Jesus before His passion repeatedly predicted He would rise again. In Saint John’s incredibly moving account of himself and Mary at the foot of the cross—there is no indication whatsoever that either he or Mary believed that in 3 days Jesus would be risen, alive and well...
Jesus resurrection caught everyone BY SURPRISE. Why? Because Jesus hadn’t told them? NO. Because none of them had the faith to believe Jesus about it.... EVEN John, His beloved disciple, and Mary, His mother...failed in faith, on at least that one point.
But God’s grace is bigger than all our sins, because this statement applies to EVERY saint, past, present and future: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)
So I have given you 2 examples, one implicit, the other explicit, where Mary (in understandable, and un-willful) ways sinned, straight from Holy Scripture. Does this make her a “bad person?” NO! Certainly she was, one of, if not THE most godly of women in history....but, like ALL of humanity, Mary too depends on the grace of God in Christ to cleanse her from sin, and make her fit to live with God, her human son, Jesus, in Heaven.
One more point for you to chew on: If God could make a person sinless in their normal conception (like you say He did with Mary), why in the world would He then send His Son to die for our sins? He could just make everyone have an immaculate conception, and the sin problem would be solved, in one generation, saving God the Son an eternal amount of pain and sorrow...
I read your whole post and I am quite amazed that you seem not to have realized that your “absence of evidence” in the earlier paragraphs, to prove a point, only proceeded to validate the Catholic acceptance of Mary from the same “absence of evidence”. (i.e., that she had no other children after Jesus, that God chose to make her freee from sin, etc.)
That same “absence of evidence” has led you to believe that Mary did not believe in the Resurrection? The fact that she was at the foot of the Cross fulfilled the prophecy of Simeon that a sword would pierce her heart (as it did in actuality to Jesus). Having suffered with HIm in spirit at the foot of the Cross doesn’t mean that she did not believe that He would rise again. The “absence of evidence” that you have proposed would be the best argument in her favor that she had the faith to believe that He would resurrect.
I could go on, but my work is calling me now and I have no more time. I wish I did.
I only explained what the scripture, that you made reference to, says: the fact that Mary had the Savior, from which presence of sin does not follow. The Catohlic Church explains that Mary was made sinless since conception through the superabundant mercy of Christ and not in any other way.
Roman 3:23 is not a prooftext for any individual sinning. In Romans 3 St. Paul talks about the human condition prior and without the sanctifying presence of Christ in general terms. As you yourself mention, the Bible speaks of several people as "perfect in every way" (Noah) or righteous, as Patriarch Joseph. If we take "all" in Roman 3:23 literally, we have to take "righteous" and "perfect in every way" literally also, and have a contradiction. But if we examine the ocntext of romans 3 we find horrifying epithets like "full of cursing and bitterness", with "feet swift to shed blood", bent on "destruction and misery". That cannot apply to everyone, not to Christ Himself, or, for example, the children slaughtered by Herod, or to anyone who the scripture describes as saintly people. We must conclude that "all" in Romans 3:23 is a literary device of generalization and not a prooftext for Mary's sin.
thinking Jesus may have been “out of his mind” (Mark 3:31) shows some serious doubt, and can definitely called sin.
But, significantly, Mary is not among them, -- she shows up later.
Mary, like all of fallen humanity who trust God, was and is utterly dependent on and in union with the grace of God given in Jesus Christ.
Yes, of course. This is what Catholic Mariology teaches. there is no indication whatsoever that either he or Mary believed that in 3 days Jesus would be risen, alive and well
Like you said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One can also argue that the weakness of faith that the Apostles have is just that, weakness, but not sin. More importantly, the gospels record the moment when the women went to the tomb to take care of Jesus's body, and Mary was not among them. Why? She was with the apostles following the resurrection. This is an indication that she of all people did not expect the body to be there -- she believed in the resurrection.
If God could make a person sinless in their normal conception (like you say He did with Mary), why in the world would He then send His Son to die for our sins? He could just make everyone have an immaculate conception, and the sin problem would be solved, in one generation
Yes -- this is a deep question. There is no doubt that in terms of ability God could have redeemed everyone at any given time, starting for example, with Noah. But he decided to become incarnate with Mary and not sooner. This points to her beign a high point of the preparation of the Jewish race that the Old Testament tells us about, and to the fundamental reason of her veneration as co-Redeemer.
Man, wouldn’t that have been nice? And God could have held reign over a bunch of boring robots.