[Mrs. Don-o]

Yours is a long argument, but not a convincing one. The fact remains that the Angelic Salutation was to the "Grace-Filled One," not to the "Sinful One."

The whole spectrum of inferences from this may be debatable (and will be debated) but the idea that the Bible proves Mary's sinfulness, is dubious, to say the least. She was preserved from sin by the One whom she worshiped as "God, my Savior"--- her Savior and ours --- Who did great things for her.

[ealgeone]

You continue to flail away in the face of sound exegetical evidence that contradicts the Roman Catholic position.

[Elsie]

Then the Bible fails to prove my sin as well

[Mom MD]

If God could preserve Mary from sin without rescinding her free will
Then He could do so for all of us and the cross was not necessary. I doubt Christ went to the cross for the fun of it and along Mary sinless makes a mockery of His sacrifice.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The fact remains that the Angelic Salutation was to the “Grace-Filled One,” not to the “Sinful One.””

1. Grace-filled one is not the opposite of sinful one. That is a pointless assertion.
2. There was no reason to call Mary “sinful one” - this is true of every human other than Christ. Read Romans 3 - “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
3. Mary was a unique recipient of God’s grace *among* women, as she would bear Messiah.

“She was preserved from sin by the One whom she worshiped as “God, my Savior”

Another assertion apart from Scripture. Simple wishogesis.

Every human has the life of Adam inside. For this reason, all humans are born separated from God and in need of a Savior, and this apart from any individual act of sin committed.

Mary was born as any human, with the life of Adam, and separated from God. This is why she needed a Savior.

[daniel1212]

Yours is a long argument, but not a convincing one. The fact remains that the Angelic Salutation was to the "Grace-Filled One," not to the "Sinful One."

Which is both a false translation - for kecharitomene means "one who has been graced," not filled with grace due to perfect personal virtue - and a false dilemma, that either Mary could be highly graces or a sinner, versus both being the case, as it is with Stephen, "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.... full of faith and power, And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. (Acts 6)

Being filled with God does not mean one is sinless and kecharitomene does not mean a perpetual past to present sinless state of grace. .

but the idea that the Bible proves Mary's sinfulness, is dubious, to say the least.

Rather, we do not need to prove the exception to the norm, and it is the idea that the Bible proves Mary's sinlessness that is dubious. Aside from Christ, there are only statements that state that all men are sinners and a basic principle in Scripture is that the exceptions to the norm by its characters are mentioned, from extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), barrenness (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, birth by a virgin (Mary), to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.

Thus the norm is to be assumed unless the exception is stated, and which never manifestly stated is concerning Mary, and do you really think the Spirit of Christ (thus Christ Himself) would leave you to having to labor to extrapolate her sinless state out of a word which does not state this, and is open to so much contention as to what it could convey?

Nor do we ever see Catholic devotion to Mary in the inspired record of the NT church (Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels), including any inference to her being sinless, despite the cardinal importance in Catholicism.

Neither (for your sake() was belief in the sinless state of Mary something that even had the unanimous consent of the (so-called) fathers.

She was preserved from sin

Here we have the typical recourse of Catholics when their specious arguments fail, which is to simply engage in argument by assertion, repeating what they must believe because their autocratic elitist church deems it to be true, in contrast to trusting the God whom Mary worshiped to make manifest binding beliefs.

the One whom she worshiped as "God, my Savior"--- her Savior and ours --- Who did great things for her.

And which was to bless her to bear the incarnate Son of God who created her, and to whom she owes everything to, and to whom she only prayed to in Heaven, unlike Catholics who use her name in vain, for their own traditions of men.

[metmom]

She was preserved from sin by the One whom she worshiped as "God, my Savior"--- her Savior and ours --- Who did great things for her.

IOW, she had no free will.