Don't be pattin' yourself on the back yet...Jesus committed no sin...Was Jesus born into a fallen, fleshly body???
Was Jesus saying, 'all of us have sinned'??? Or was it, 'all of you have sinned'??? You have to dig a little deeper before you can attribute sinlessness to Mary...
When God tells me that everyone is a sinner, I can't imagine he is including himself in the accusation...When God say that none are righteous, I know he's not speaking of Himself...
You pick a verse and find a word (all) to play with and you think you can build a religion out of Mary by pretending God did not mean what he said...
There's a fly in your ointment...
I know that my refuting ONE argument that you propose does not mean that I have established MY contention. I know that. I am not claiming to have established the Immaculate conception. So all this talk about my patting myself on the back is just silly.
Consequently everything in this post about the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant to me at this point.
Consequently, to me this paragraph is bizarre:
Was Jesus saying, 'all of us have sinned'??? Or was it, 'all of you have sinned'??? You have to dig a little deeper before you can attribute sinlessness to Mary...Would you insist that the roof of a house be shingled while the foundations were being poured? Don't you get the idea of doing things in steps?
When God tells me that everyone is a sinner, I can't imagine he is including himself in the accusation...When God say that none are righteous, I know he's not speaking of Himself...
Exactly. "All" does not mean "all" in the strict sense. That's what I wanted to establish. You are agreeing. All does not mean all.
You pick a verse and find a word (all) to play with and you think you can build a religion out of Mary by pretending God did not mean what he said...
You offered some words from Romans, where Paul quotes the Psalms. I looked NOT elsewhere but at the words themselves. You agreed with me that "all" did not mean "all." Now you say I am pretending God did not mean what he said? It makes no sense. YOU say I am building the dogma of the Immaculate conception out of "all"? That's crazy!
YOU offered the verse to show the dogma was wrong. All I did was get you to agree that the verse can't do what you sent it to do. That doesn't mean I'm right. It just means you haven't shown I'm wrong.
It's like somebody saying, "You're wrong, I'm going to prove it to you." And the other guy says, "Okay, go ahead." But the first guy just keeps on saying, "I'm going to prove it to you! You are going to lose so BADly, I am SO going to prove it to you."
So go ahead. The first "proof" didn't do it, as you concede. Fine, let's look at another.