Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

This was rather verbose honestly so not succinct but I'll roll with it.

Reminder, you're the one that believes there's not biblical Support for purgatory or a sinless queen mother Mary mother of God. You're the one that believes there's not biblical support.

I've already provided the biblical support.

I'm gathering Somehow to you tradition = not in the Bible. That's not my definition so I'd find it hard to answer your non sequitur.

---

Okay, so..... you realize you haven't answered the question, right??

---

Try again to state clearly and succinctly which question you believe I haven't answered? I'll then restate what I've already stated to try to get you there. Otherwise this just gets boring and only makes anyone reading dumber and football becomes more interesting.

You not liking an answer is not me not answering

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

This was rather verbose honestly so not succinct but I'll roll with it.

Reminder, you're the one that believes there's not biblical Support for purgatory or a sinless queen mother Mary mother of God. You're the one that believes there's not biblical support.

I've already provided the biblical support.

I'm gathering Somehow to you tradition = not in the Bible. That's not my definition so I'd find it hard to answer your non sequitur.

---

Okay, so..... you realize you haven't answered the question, right??

---

Try again to state clearly and succinctly which question you believe I haven't answered? I'll then restate what I've already stated to try to get you there. Otherwise this just gets boring and only makes anyone reading dumber and football becomes more interesting.

You not liking an answer is not me not answering

---

My question was clear, if you're willing to calm down and actually read what I wrote. **Review**: to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" you answered "sinlessness of Mary". Now I'm asking you this: show me how this belief, the sinlessness of Mary, is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. This is STRAIGHT from my post that you just replied to. This isn't hard.

Okay, now go.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

This was rather verbose honestly so not succinct but I'll roll with it.

Reminder, you're the one that believes there's not biblical Support for purgatory or a sinless queen mother Mary mother of God. You're the one that believes there's not biblical support.

I've already provided the biblical support.

I'm gathering Somehow to you tradition = not in the Bible. That's not my definition so I'd find it hard to answer your non sequitur.

---

Okay, so..... you realize you haven't answered the question, right??

---

Try again to state clearly and succinctly which question you believe I haven't answered? I'll then restate what I've already stated to try to get you there. Otherwise this just gets boring and only makes anyone reading dumber and football becomes more interesting.

You not liking an answer is not me not answering

---

My question was clear, if you're willing to calm down and actually read what I wrote. **Review**: to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" you answered "sinlessness of Mary". Now I'm asking you this: show me how this belief, the sinlessness of Mary, is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. This is STRAIGHT from my post that you just replied to. This isn't hard.

Okay, now go.

---

Again, you're confusing the meaning of English words. You were making the point that sola scriptura and the explicitness of words written in the Bible. Under that generally agreed upon use of your made up definition we entered into this in depth discussion of Mary and her sunless nature

Point being the Bible does not state this explicitly to your liking. It is your rule, not mine, for this conversation that it be proven outside of the Bible. You even along the way demanded specific verses which I also supplied.

So if you want to discuss the merits of that, I'm fine with it and happy to do so

If you disqualify that topic since I am using specific Bible verses as part of the defense, then I guess it doesn't fit your rules for this discourse and we should move on to other topics.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Peter was the first pope of course. And yes priests not marrying is derived straight from sacred text as tradition.

Who said tradition didn't come from the Bible? That's never been the argument. Most if not all is derived from actual verses in the Bible, same as the tradition of priests not letting. You asked for examples. I provided. Then you veer off into Lala land on an emotional rant.

Be succinct. Focus. Be calm.

---

So wait a minute....how is priests not marrying "derived from sacred text as tradition"? What on earth does that mean? You mean it's derived from the Bible? I just told you that Peter had a wife.

"Who said tradition didn't come from the bible? That's never been the argument." - then why are you arguing against sola scriptura?? Please look back at what I asked. I specifically asked for a tradition that is NOT from the bible, but is a tradition that came from Jesus or his apostles. You're now making the argument FOR sola scriptura. Good grief.....

You provided your examples, and they were shot down. I'm inviting you to pick your strongest argument so we can go from there. You seemed to have picked "3". So telll me what that is, and let's go. If that isn't succinct, focused, and calm enough for you, then please just have enough courtesty to tell me that you're chickening out.

---

You lost on all 3. Wrong on all 3. If you choose to not agree that's fine. But it's logic. It is sound. It is indisputable.

What is a "tradition not from the Bible"? I already answered that like 3 times. The foundation is biblical and then the disagreement from the original church and founding church is then what non Catholics from more recent creations of Christianity want to claim is invalid because the Bible doesn't state something explicitly.

Then I take a tradition and point to the scriptures that defend it. Spell it all out and you say no

I can teach it to ya but I can't learn it for you. It's hard to duacuss a topic with someone that then says no I mean a tradition not in the Bible and you go on a completely separate tangent after I point out example after example of sacred traditions and then give you scriptures they are derived from and you go back in your self confused circle. Must be exhausting for you. .

---

You're just saying I'm wrong, you haven't argued why.

**FOCUS**: I didn't ask for a "tradition not from the bible". I asked for a "tradition not from the bible that we know came from Jesus and the apostles". The three you gave for answers were: 1) sinlessness of Mary; 2) purgatory, and; 3) priests not marrying. Correct?

You argued that purgatory and priests not marrying is from the bible. I disagree that they are, but whatever, I'm only interested in what YOU think is a tradition NOT in the bible but came from Jesus or his apostles. Therefore, these are not what I'm asking for. That leaves the "sinlessness of Mary". With me so far?

So, with the "sinlessness of Mary", now show me how this belief is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. **Let me remind you: you are saying this is NOT in scripture, so don't give what you think is scriptural support. I'm asking for NON-scriptural support that it traces this belief back to Jesus or his apostles.

Is this calm, succint, and focused enough for you? Okay..now go.

---

This was rather verbose honestly so not succinct but I'll roll with it.

Reminder, you're the one that believes there's not biblical Support for purgatory or a sinless queen mother Mary mother of God. You're the one that believes there's not biblical support.

I've already provided the biblical support.

I'm gathering Somehow to you tradition = not in the Bible. That's not my definition so I'd find it hard to answer your non sequitur.

---

Okay, so..... you realize you haven't answered the question, right??

---

Try again to state clearly and succinctly which question you believe I haven't answered? I'll then restate what I've already stated to try to get you there. Otherwise this just gets boring and only makes anyone reading dumber and football becomes more interesting.

You not liking an answer is not me not answering

---

My question was clear, if you're willing to calm down and actually read what I wrote. **Review**: to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" you answered "sinlessness of Mary". Now I'm asking you this: show me how this belief, the sinlessness of Mary, is traced back to Jesus or his apostles. This is STRAIGHT from my post that you just replied to. This isn't hard.

Okay, now go.

---

Again, you're confusing the meaning of English words. You were making the point that sola scriptura and the explicitness of words written in the Bible. Under that generally agreed upon use of your made up definition we entered into this in depth discussion of Mary and her sunless nature

Point being the Bible does not state this explicitly to your liking. It is your rule, not mine, for this conversation that it be proven outside of the Bible. You even along the way demanded specific verses which I also supplied.

So if you want to discuss the merits of that, I'm fine with it and happy to do so

If you disqualify that topic since I am using specific Bible verses as part of the defense, then I guess it doesn't fit your rules for this discourse and we should move on to other topics.

---

So....you realize that you aren't answering the question, right?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

Quote:

---

This is now attempt 5 or 6 to help you.

How do you want to proceed? You're question is a non sequitur in the context of the Mary discussion yet you want to keep discussing it.

I've given you multiple options to proceed. It's a choose your own adventure and I find your Confusion quite amusing to behold so I continue to indulge. .

You've still never even attempted to answer my 2ish questions (official request 5, but I know why you won't so it's ok)

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Man you are weird. Could care less. Won't concede a dumb twisted straw man that has no point in the discussion. I thought you were honestly attempting to discuss the merits of an idea and cancer not did a question you some how lobbed in in the middle of a broader discourse get answered based on how you've redefined it.

Who cares? Moving on.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Man you are weird. Could care less. Won't concede a dumb twisted straw man that has no point in the discussion. I thought you were honestly attempting to discuss the merits of an idea and cancer not did a question you some how lobbed in in the middle of a broader discourse get answered based on how you've redefined it.

Who cares? Moving on.

---

Okay, I'll accept that as an implicit concession. For the sake of the discussion, I'll be gracious and just let you try to answer the original question again, this time correctly, so we can start over. Here is the question again:

What tradition (or belief) is NOT in the Bible, but we know comes from Jesus or his apostles?

This is an open question to anyone, by the way. But you get priority.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Man you are weird. Could care less. Won't concede a dumb twisted straw man that has no point in the discussion. I thought you were honestly attempting to discuss the merits of an idea and answers, not did a question you some how lobbed in in the middle of a broader discourse get answered based on how you've redefined it.

Who cares? Moving on.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Man you are weird. Could care less. Won't concede a dumb twisted straw man that has no point in the discussion. I thought you were honestly attempting to discuss the merits of an idea and answers, not did a question you some how lobbed in in the middle of a broader discourse get answered based on how you've redefined it.

Who cares? Moving on.

---

For the record, I'm not "weird" for insisting on clarity and focus when we're making our arguments. It's a necessity. There's a tendency for very poor arguments to be purposefully obfuscated in complete nonsense verbage and misdirects and redirects. I try to see to it that it doesn't happen.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Man you are weird. Could care less. Won't concede a dumb twisted straw man that has no point in the discussion. I thought you were honestly attempting to discuss the merits of an idea and answers, not did a question you some how lobbed in in the middle of a broader discourse get answered based on how you've redefined it.

Who cares? Moving on.

---

For the record, I'm not "weird" for insisting on clarity and focus when we're making our arguments. It's a necessity. There's a tendency for very poor arguments to be purposefully obfuscated in complete nonsense verbage and misdirects and redirects. I try to see to it that it doesn't happen.

---

And yet that is exactly what you did. Oh well. Could have been intelectually and religiously interesting. Maybe someone else aligned with you will take up the mantle.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Ok so if we've now gotten you all untangled, since the sinless nature of Mary is in part supported by Bible verse, and you are asking for things from Jesus and the apostles not In the Bible, would you prefer to move on to Those topics?

There are several obvious ones that Catholics ascribe to.

---

So, you're admitting you didn't understand the questoin to begin with, right? And so you gave a flawed answer, right?

---

I'm not admitting that at all. But if you're saying freedom i only want to discuss traditions with no explicit biblical backing as defense (whether in whole or in part) then yes sinless Mary does not fall into that category and we can move on.

Seems super pedantic but you do you. Shall we do your desired topic now?

Lol man you're wasting time and being silly. Of
Course "sinless mary" is not in the Bible as you are describing it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. It is you in fact that are saying "well that's not in the Bible" but what you meant to be silly internet dude is "which verse says "behold Mary without sin"? I want the chapter and verse! And then you change the meaning of your definition

Let's not waste time. Absurd. Can't believe I've even responded to that drivel. Didn't think we were there with that type of ignorance.

I thought, wrongly, you were smart enough to know by my answers I conceded those words don't exist in that format in the Bible but set about hand holding you to the verses that lead ipso facto to that conclusion

---

If you're not conceding that you answered my questions incorrectly, then it necessarily means you believe you answered them correctly. That means that to my question "what tradition is NOT in the Bible but we know it comes from Jesus or his apostles" your answer of "sinlessness of Mary" is something you believe is NOT in the bible. Correct?

You see the problem here, don't you? If you're not going to concede this, then you are an outright liar. And we can't continue a productive discussion if you're just gonna resort to lying like this.

Just concede it, and we can move on.

---

Man you are weird. Could care less. Won't concede a dumb twisted straw man that has no point in the discussion. I thought you were honestly attempting to discuss the merits of an idea and answers, not did a question you some how lobbed in in the middle of a broader discourse get answered based on how you've redefined it.

Who cares? Moving on.

---

For the record, I'm not "weird" for insisting on clarity and focus when we're making our arguments. It's a necessity. There's a tendency for very poor arguments to be purposefully obfuscated in complete nonsense verbage and misdirects and redirects. I try to see to it that it doesn't happen.

---

And yet that is exactly what you did. Oh well. Could have been intelectually and religiously interesting. Maybe someone else aligned with you will take up the mantle.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God could simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God could simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

Exactly correct, but I already know the Catholic "rebuttal" to that. They argue that God made Mary sinless by applying Jesus' sacrifice to Mary in the past, when Mary was conceived. That is, Mary was kept sinless right at conception by Jesus' sacrifice that was to happen in the future.

And the gymnastics continue......

Problem is, though, if that is the case, then God could have applied Jesus' sacrifice to EVERYONE in the past so that everyone in the past could have been made sinless. Could have avoided the Flood, the plagues, the wandering in the desert, the Jewish capture and exile.....everything!

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God could simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

Exactly correct, but I already know the Catholic "rebuttal" to that. They argue that God made Mary sinless by applying Jesus' sacrifice to Mary in the past, when Mary was conceived. That is, Mary was kept sinless right at conception by Jesus' sacrifice that was to happen in the future.

And the gymnastics continue......

Problem is, though, if that is the case, then God could have applied Jesus' sacrifice to EVERYONE in the past so that everyone in the past could have been made sinless. Could have avoided the Flood, the plagues, the wandering in the desert, the Jewish capture and exile.....everything!

---

That theory also makes Christ's suffering on our behalf meaningless, which to me is essentially blasphemous, that God would be callous to His Son's suffering when another option was available.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God could simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

Exactly correct, but I already know the Catholic "rebuttal" to that. They argue that God made Mary sinless by applying Jesus' sacrifice to Mary in the past, when Mary was conceived. That is, Mary was kept sinless right at conception by Jesus' sacrifice that was to happen in the future.

And the gymnastics continue......

Problem is, though, if that is the case, then God could have applied Jesus' sacrifice to EVERYONE in the past so that everyone in the past could have been made sinless. Could have avoided the Flood, the plagues, the wandering in the desert, the Jewish capture and exile.....everything!

---

That theory also makes Christ's suffering on our behalf meaningless, which to me is essentially blasphemous, that God would be callous to His Son's suffering when another option was available.

---

Well, no, in that theory it means that the sacrifice still had to happen, because without it you can't apply the sin payment to all the people in the past. So it'll be like this: Adam and Eve in Eden never sin, thus we are all still in Paradise, until one day Jesus has to suffer and die, then Paradise continues..... It's just that one bad event, and that's it.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God would simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God would simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

And this is the problem. He then said no I want something with no scripture nullifying the whole topic. Happy to discuss it further. But not interested in some goofball pedantic gotcha type conversation with whatever tarp was doing. He was only interested in non scripture traditions. That ended the sinless Mary topic

I have several Non-scripture traditions that are commonly discussed. Not my first time through this and the circuitous mess tarp was displaying

And yes I provided scriptures and even discussed the various greek etymologies and specifics and contexts but maybe you didn't see those.

That's why tarp kept saying "you're not listening. Give me something with no verses" but that's not what I was discussing so I tried to indulge him.

Then he called me a liar. No clue why. It's all there in writing for anyone that wants to take the time.

Just try to skip through the idiocy of the circle jerk tarp
Kept going through about his question not about the Mary sinless topic I was discussing and the biblical and traditional defense thereof from my perspective.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God would simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God would simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

And this is the problem. He then said no I want something with no scripture nullifying the whole topic. Happy to discuss it further. But not interested in some goofball pedantic gotcha type conversation with whatever tarp was doing. He was only interested in non scripture traditions. That ended the sinless Mary topic

I have several Non-scripture traditions that are commonly discussed. Not my first time through this and the circuitous mess tarp was displaying

And yes I provided scriptures and even discussed the various greek etymologies and specifics and contexts but maybe you didn't see those.

That's why tarp kept saying "you're not listening. Give me something with no verses" but that's not what I was discussing so I tried to indulge him.

Then he called me a liar. No clue why. It's all there in writing for anyone that wants to take the time.

Just try to skip through the idiocy of the circle jerk tarp
Kept going through about his question not about the Mary sinless topic I was discussing and the biblical and traditional defense thereof from my perspective.

---

Good evening Freedombear;

I think this may be an opportunity to step back and revisit the topic from a fresh, nonaggressive POV. The condition of Mary has been debated, often hotly, between Roman Catholics and Protestants for a very long time, so I doubt we are going to resolve that argument here.

But I do think the topic is worth discussion, in part to understand the way each group thinks, and to address the deeper question of what is and is not allowable in Christian thought. For example, I don't think that either Roman Catholics or mainstream Protestant Christians would consider the Mormons to be genuinely Christian in their doctrines, but I have known some Mormons who I believe live in ways that please God, so I think we would do well to be slow to condemn individuals even as we challenge doctrines which are not in line with Christ's example and teaching. I also think it's important for us not to get too proud in assuming our own congregation is perfect in their doctrines and practices.

So I hope we may approach this discussion with goodwill appropriate to the season, and minds open to valid points and efforts to improve understanding of who Christ wants us to be.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God would simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

And this is the problem. He then said no I want something with no scripture nullifying the whole topic. Happy to discuss it further. But not interested in some goofball pedantic gotcha type conversation with whatever tarp was doing. He was only interested in non scripture traditions. That ended the sinless Mary topic

I have several Non-scripture traditions that are commonly discussed. Not my first time through this and the circuitous mess tarp was displaying

And yes I provided scriptures and even discussed the various greek etymologies and specifics and contexts but maybe you didn't see those.

That's why tarp kept saying "you're not listening. Give me something with no verses" but that's not what I was discussing so I tried to indulge him.

Then he called me a liar. No clue why. It's all there in writing for anyone that wants to take the time.

Just try to skip through the idiocy of the circle jerk tarp
Kept going through about his question not about the Mary sinless topic I was discussing and the biblical and traditional defense thereof from my perspective.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

Here's what I took the time to set the table with earlier with multiple scriptures mentioned.

Then we did further discussion of how Mary is talked of being "full of grace" much differently in the Greek than St Stephen was in Acts in subsequent posts as that is a common Protestant argument in this topic.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible."

Please show the Scripture saying Mary was without sin. I looked but what I found indicates something else.

---

This article summarizes much of the logic Catholics would use for this belief with various scripture chapter and verses in support thereof. Other sources may prevail but I share this for simplicity and further debate / argument.

This topic is an interesting one but not one that would necessarily have an impact on one's eternal salvation.

Much like, for example, the apparition and tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If one has studied it it would likely be near impossible to not believe it's validity, but if one chooses not to or suggests nah that's just a bunch if mularkey, it likely in and of itself will not result in one's eternal damnation. Though one may question one's logic and reasoning abilities and maybe rightfully so.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

---

If someone believes in Jesus, but then worships an idol like Baal on the side, would that have an impact on eternal salvation?

The apparitions of Mary have promoted a VERY anti-Christian message. The Devil can perform these kinds of fakes. You are being deceived.

Tell us which of those "biblical" arguments you feel best makes the case that Mary is sinless.

---

So you are sola scriptura? If so, Where is that in the Bible? Was everything that Jesus said to the apostles documented in the Bible? He said nothing else? Nothing codified in tradition?

---

Can you cite a tradition that we know came from Jesus or his apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Using your definition, which I think is something like meaning an example that is not explicitly mentioned in the words you'd prefer, I mean aren't we discussing one in these last several Posts? The sinless nature of Mary. That's 1.

How about purgatory. While the word itself isn't in the Bible it's a clear concept. That's 2.

Priests not marrying also started as a biblical concept that grew more into a tradition. 3.

Just off the top of my head.

None of these things came out of thin air of course and hundreds of books and papers have been written in each

But there ya go. 3 examples.

---

Okay, so the sinlessness of Mary - you are saying this isn't from scripture, so thanks for admitting that. Now, show how this tradition traces back to Jesus or his apostles. How do we know it came from them?

Purgatory is something you are arguing comes from the bible. I'm asking for traditions that do NOT come from the bible but that we know came from Jesus or his apostles. This is an argument about sola scriptura, remember?

Priests not marrying - again, you are arguing this comes from the bible, so this is not what I'm asking for. For the record though, you're wrong, it's not in the bible. Peter, who you say is a pope, had a wife.

---

Are you dense? I just pointed Out several scriptures that are used as the defense sinless Mary

---

Ummm, no, you have still not cited even one specific Scripture in support of the 'sinless' Mary theory.

Frankly, all I am seeing is a circular argument, and one which ignores the very big problem that if God would simply make someone sinless, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement. That's a big red flag for me that says your theory is not only wrong. but runs against the Gospel.

---

And this is the problem. He then said no I want something with no scripture nullifying the whole topic. Happy to discuss it further. But not interested in some goofball pedantic gotcha type conversation with whatever tarp was doing. He was only interested in non scripture traditions. That ended the sinless Mary topic

I have several Non-scripture traditions that are commonly discussed. Not my first time through this and the circuitous mess tarp was displaying

And yes I provided scriptures and even discussed the various greek etymologies and specifics and contexts but maybe you didn't see those.

That's why tarp kept saying "you're not listening. Give me something with no verses" but that's not what I was discussing so I tried to indulge him.

Then he called me a liar. No clue why. It's all there in writing for anyone that wants to take the time.

Just try to skip through the idiocy of the circle jerk tarp
Kept going through about his question not about the Mary sinless topic I was discussing and the biblical and traditional defense thereof from my perspective.

---

Unfortunately for you, it's all on the record now. You were a confused mess. You didn't understand the questions, answered them wrong, and started accusing me of not being consistent with sola scriptura which didn't make sense, and then said I believed in transsubstantiation, which also didn't make any sense. You were just all over the place.

So I had to focus your argument so we could make sense of the vomit argument you spewed out. I focused you on one particular question, and definitively showed that you didn't answer it correctly. There just isn't an argument against this, it's all on the record. People can easily look back and see for themselves.

So I offered you a chance to answer the question correctly, but instead of answering my challenge, you wimped out. This is pretty much what happened. We couldn't get to the other topics, because you just wanted to pretend none of it happened. This showed me that you were not interested in an honest discussion. But I'm still willing to give you the chance to answer the question correctly. I'm still waiting. What tradition or belief is NOT in the bible, but we know it is from Jesus or the apostles? If you can't answer it, it's only proving my point - there is none. If you are willing to concede this, we can move on to your other questions. The ball's in your court.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

---

Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her existence. This grace was unique and permanent, ensuring she was in a state of sanctifying grace throughout her life.

Are you saying that God cannot give that gift?

By your "line of original sin logic", Jesus would have to have original sin because he was in the same line.

---

This is a completely made up belief. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture or in the early church to support such nonsense. The argument that "if God could do it, then it's true" is so mind-numbingly irresponsible and ignorant that it defies comment. You seriously don't think it's a good idea to build an entire system of belief and worship on such ridiculous logic, do you?

No, Jesus would NOT have to have original sin, because he did not only come from the seed of Adam and Eve - he also came from the seed of divinity. It's a NEW line. That's why he's the "new Adam".

---

There's actually plenty of support that Mary was without original sin in the Bible. Especially if you study the Greek and the words used to describe her.

Additionally, Are you saying Mary was basically just like your mom but God just really liked her and asked if she would birth God - the Word made flesh?

Mary of course plays a prominent role in Revelation as well.

---

The idea that the tense of certain Greek words shows that Mary was sinless is a completely ridiculous reach. It's a prime example of starting with the conclusion you want, and forcing the evidence to match the conclusion. But for the sake of the discussion, please cite what you think the strongest evidence from the bible is for Mary's sinlessness. Let's put that up for analysis.

Mary was highly favored by God. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she HAD to be sinless. In fact, if you understood anything about God's plan of salvation of mankind, which started in Genesis, you'd see that Mary absolutely HAD to be a sinner. Your insistence that being the birth mother of Jesus necessitates that she be sinless is a complete non sequitur, and apparently unbeknownst to you, it would also void Jesus as the Savior. The belief that Mary was sinless is straight from the Devil.

And Mary isn't in Revelation. Even if you reasoned that she was, still, you are taking a very symbolic book with very symbolic language and imagery, and trying to extract concrete ideas and beliefs from them. This makes it very shaky. And it STILL does NOT show that Mary and the saints are to be prayed to.

---

I already did. It's summarized well in the link I posted. Feel free to dispute other than just "that's a ridiculous reach". If that's all you got, move along.

---

Why don't you just cite the strongest argument from that link, and we can go from there?

---

Dang you lazy and stubborn, which ain't surprising Here ya go. Made it simple for ya

**Key Points:**

1. **Immaculate Conception**: Mary was conceived without original sin.
2. **Mary's Need for a Savior**: Despite her sinlessness, Mary still needed salvation through Christ.
3. **Mary as the New Eve**: Parallels between Mary and Eve, with Mary as the sinless counterpart.

**Reasons to Substantiate Claims:**

- **Full of Grace**: The article cites Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary as "full of grace," suggesting a unique state of grace from conception.

- **Scriptural Interpretation**: It interprets Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) where enmity is placed between the serpent and the woman, indicating Mary's role in the defeat of sin.

- **Salvation Through Christ**: The doctrine is defended by stating that Mary was saved by Christ's grace at the moment of her conception, not after committing sin, thus pre-emptively saved.

- **New Eve Concept**: Mary is likened to Eve before the fall, but with the distinction that Mary remained sinless, fulfilling the role of a new, sinless mother of all the living in Christ.

- **Historical Church Teaching**: The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has roots in early Church tradition, further solidified by the dogma declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.

- **Theological Necessity**: The sinlessness of Mary is seen as necessary for her to bear the sinless Christ, maintaining the purity of the incarnation.

---

Here's what I took the time to set the table with earlier with multiple scriptures mentioned.

Then we did further discussion of how Mary is talked of being "full of grace" much differently in the Greek than St Stephen was in Acts in subsequent posts as that is a common Protestant argument in this topic.

---

Stephen isn't the only example. It isn't the only argument against that ridiculous "verb tense" argument. I wanted you to pick one of those arguments so we could delve into it deeper. You said "3", which I wasn't sure what that was. But you never answered. Would you like to start with the "full of grace" argument?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry but I really would like the specific verses cited.

I want to see the wording in scripture, not the commentary and opinion built around it.

Start with the foundation, you know?

---