As a matter of simple grammer, the word "inseparable" refers to the word "role" NOT "union."
Perhaps you might answer some of these questions:
If the Church's teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary are wrong, then why did Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwengli and Wesley not disavow them? Better yet, why did these same Reformers CONTINUE to teach them?
Does the phrase, "blessed art thou among women" leave open the possibility that ANY woman was more blessed? And if so whom?
Why is the instruction in Luke 1:48 EXCLUDED by you and others?
How does your concept of sola scriptura reconcile with 2 Peter 3:16
It can't be a verse of straw, since Luther didn't jettison it.
So when was it jettisoned . . . obliterated . . . nuked . . . whited-out . . .
Mine fits perfectly. Note that Peter is calling attention to scripture, not the faulty ideas of men.
15: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
And as a matter of simple grammer, it STILL says union with Christ. Spin it however you will.
If the Church's teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary are wrong, then why did Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwengli and Wesley not disavow them?
Who said they didn't???? In The Works of Luther, Vol. 22, "[...] since His mother, Mary, the virgin, was known to be a plain carpenter's wife, no more respect was shown to her than to any ordinary woman.....For the greater the men of God and the larger the measure of the Spirit in them, the greater the diligence and attention they devote to the Son rather than to the mother." - Martin Luther
Reformers and Protestants revere Mary, but we do not elevate her to sinless status, or equality with God or a co-Savior as the Roman Catholic church does. There are many statements by Reformers who spoke against Mary worship and idolatry. There are also many who couldn't quite let go of the old ideas of Mary's perpetual virginity which is contrary to Scripture. I don't really care about what men may or may not have said. I care about what Scripture says. And Scripture is clear Mary was not a perpetual virgin or any any way to be worshipped or became sinless.
Question for you....Was Joseph required to live in perpetual celibacy even though he had a wife after Christ was born????? Where is your Scriptural support for this??? Notice Matthew 1:25 "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." That verse does not say "kept her a virgin forever"....it says "until" she gave birth. The Greek word we translate until is ἕως or heōs. An adverb which means: until, as long as, marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action. There is nothing in this grammar that indicates anything less than TEMPORARY. Also note Matthew 13:55,56 where it is recorded Christ had brothers/sisters. If Mary were a perpetual virgin where did these other children come from? Was Joseph an adulterer? Were these children also sons of God like Christ Himself? OR, more likely, did Joseph know his wife in the traditional sense following Christ's birth and have children the same as any family does????? The only reason that view is rejected is because of the unbiblical view that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Does the phrase, "blessed art thou among women" leave open the possibility that ANY woman was more blessed?
Protestants don't reject the view that Mary was the most blessed of women. We believe she was unique in having been chosen by God to bear the Son of God. In that sense she was indeed a righteous woman. But Mary herself rejects the notion that she ever earned this position, or is deserving of worship. You forget the FIRST part of Luke 1:48 - ...."He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave". Note Mary referred to herself as being in a 'humble state'. Again the word for humble here is ταπείνωσιν or tapeinōsin which quite literally means a reference to one's own sinful condition. It conveys the idea of spiritual abasement and a recognition of one's own guilt before God. As regards to the word 'blessed' it is μακαριοῦσίν or makariousin. It literally means 'to be happy'. It does not mean to be exalted, nor does it mean to be revered, or worshipped. Makariousin is also found in James 5:11 "Behold we count them happy [Makariousin]...." which should illustrate the true meaning. [The NASV actually translates Makariousin as blessed, the KJV translates it happy in James 5:11]. So no, protestants don't EXCLUDE this verse, we translate it ACCURATELY.
And BTW: The above is EXACTLY how sola scriptura reconciles 2 Peter 3:16. There are many who 'distort' the Scriptures, a hem, and cough cough. And you left out v. 17 which says: "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,". And so I ask YOU a question again, how do you know who is distorting and who is not if you deviate away from sola scriptura????