“You heard it here first: Jesus was a sinner. / Unless, of course, “all” doesn’t exactly mean “all.””
Silliness.
9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
But while Jesus obviously is not a sinner, the context doesn’t exclude Mary, does it?
So the burden of proof for the Immaculate Conception is on those who want to add it, not those who reject it.
Paul said, “26Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” What part did he leave out?
Jude said, “I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” If a faith has been once for all delivered, how can it be revised?
John said, “9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” How does one abide in what one does not have?
So naturally we said, Okay,shoot.
And somebody shot.
And we said "You missed."
The verse wasn't offered with a, "Hey, let's take a look at this together, MAYBE it contradicts blah blah." It was offered as a triumphant, obvious, indisputable refutation. It is none of those things, and I don't even have to defend the dogma itself to show that that verse, as presented, doesn't refute it.
So the burden of proof for the Immaculate Conception is on those who want to add it, not those who reject it.
That MAY be so, in general. But that isn't what was under contention. We were being given the usual ration about how nobody could really read Scripture the right way and still think what we think.
Again, even without defending what we think, it's clear that that is a stupid, ignorant, and unimaginative statement. (It's a legitimate QUESTION, however ...) But we do not suddenly have the burden of defending whatever anybody wants us to defend just because somebody turned that statement loose on an unsuspecting world.
If somebody is going to say, "Romans 3:23! Hah! So there!" which is essentially what happened, I don't think I have any obligation whatsoever, except to say, "Missed." BUT I did more than I was obliged to do and pointed out that "all" could not be taken simply.
And the response has been to say I'm patting myself on the back and being silly. That would be bad enough, but then, while saying that I'm being silly, people start constructing arguments to show that THOUGH my point is right, the quote still can (or must?) be interpreted to include Mary. So I'm being silly, but my silly point requires an argumentative response.
Fine.
Personally I think I have done the work necessary to show that we can't really play this kind of forensic game with that passage, and should avoid it with Scripture generally. I readily concede that that does not establish the Dogma, but I say again, that is not my burden.
It's kind of frustrating. You guys say we don't read the Bible as you do. We agree. Then you insist that we defend our dogmas as if we DID read the Bible as you do.
What sense does it make to say that we try to PROVE the Immaculate conception from 'full of grace' when we have already conceded that we do things differently?
What it may come down to is the provincialism of American Protestantism. It is just inconceivable to some that anyone could do things differently and have recourse to an intellectual, spiritual, and theological tradition of incredible richness and depth and yet almost entirely unknown to many in the modern United States.
People mock the question of angels on the head of a pin and think that NOT the actual question but their ignorant idea of it captures the essence of scholasticism, just as ignoramuses simply cannot believe that some of the first legal work on natural rights of the individual in anything approaching the modern understanding was done by Spanish Dominicans or that the Inquisitors (GENERALLY and with dreadful exceptions) were known for an emphasis on due process unmatched by the secular courts.
So sometimes I get a little impatient. Forgive me.
Whom did Mary murder?