Bible verses Pope. Who is wrong?

[polonius]

Is the Bible or the Pope in error here?

Romans 3:23 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
" since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

OR

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)
“Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.�

[Divine Insight]

Jesus being born of a virgin woman is an oxymoron itself. It doesn't really matter how it is interpreted.

If Mary was not sin free, then Jesus was born of an unclean vessel of sin. That itself is theologically problematic. On the other hand if Mary, being a mortal woman, was free of all sin, then this flies in the very face of the need for Jesus. Mary could have served as the sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of man.

So it's an internal contradiction within the Bible itself.

Also, I would suggest that you are wrong to say that this is the "Bible verses Pope".

This would be more like Paul versus the Pope. After all Paul is the only one who claimed that no man is without sin. Jesus himself never made any such claim. In fact, Jesus is actually quoted in at least four places (possibly more) in the Gospels suggesting otherwise.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

In Mark 2 Jesus is at least implying that righteous people must exist. Otherwise why would he have suggested that he came only to call sinners to repentance? If that's all that existed then why didn't he just say that he came to call everyone to repentance?

Luke.15
[4] What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[7] I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Here in Luke 15 Jesus is saying that 99% of the people who make it into heaven are just persons who need no repentance.

So Paul is actually the one who is in disagreement with Jesus when Paul says that all men are sinners.

Matthew 25:46 And these (the unrighteous) shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

In Matthew 25 Jesus makes it clear that the unrighteous shall go the way of everlasting punishment and the righteous into life eternal. There's nothing here about unrighteous people who have repented. He actually says that the righteous shall go into eternal life.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

It was the law of God according to the jots and tittles of the Old Testament that adulterous women should be stoned to death. Jesus proclaimed that he did not come to change the laws of the Old Testament. But here in John 8 Jesus is directing only those who are without sin to carry out this law. Obviously there must be sin-free people otherwise this law would not make any sense. So here again Jesus is makes it clear that he believes that sin-free people exist.

So Jesus not only never proclaimed that all men are sinners, but he clearly believed that sin free people do indeed exist.

Paul is the one who is out of step with the teachings of Jesus.

So if you consider the writings of Paul to be a valid part of the Biblical scriptures then you have a Bible that is self-contradictory. Never mind what any Popes might have thought.

Also as Pope Pius IX points out, we can't have Jesus being born of a sinner. So there's the problem of Mary being anything less than perfectly righteous as well.

[marco]

" since all have sinned[/b] and fall short of the glory of God"

Your quarrel is with the interpretation of the word "all." It clearly means that mankind sins; it is not referring to the status of angels or those whose status exceeds angelic, as the Church regards Mary (Dulia and hyperdulia honour.) Nor does the all refer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

In Scots we are all Jock Tamson's bairns, metaphorically, but we don't quarrel with the quantifier. If we mark iniquities in grammatical constructions, who shall endure it as we say in the de profundis?

[Divine Insight]

" since all have sinned[/b] and fall short of the glory of God"

Your quarrel is with the interpretation of the word "all." It clearly means that mankind sins; it is not referring to the status of angels or those whose status exceeds angelic, as the Church regards Mary (Dulia and hyperdulia honour.) Nor does the all refer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

I would think that theologians would take Paul's "all" to include all mortal humans.

The question then becomes whether or not Mary was a mortal human? There's nothing in the Gospel story that suggests she was anything other than a mortal human. In fact, don't the authors of the Gospels argue for a mortal human genealogy of Mary that traces her back to David? That being the case, then Mary can hardly be seen as anything other than a mortal human.

[marco]

I would think that theologians would take Paul's "all" to include all mortal humans.

Yes, but theologians change their hats every hour. Of course Mary was a simple Arab woman. But if we pretend to subscribe to Biblical lore, she was the Mother of God, which elevates her to something of divine status. I don't personally know what God's mum should be, but if she is defined as sinless, that's okay with me. Basically she's a bit different from Marco and if it is decreed she was conceived without that damnable stain that Adam gave us, I'm okay with that too. It fits the story. God could have written it all down but even in his autobiography, the Koran, he forgot this important detail.

[paarsurrey1]

I would think that theologians would take Paul's "all" to include all mortal humans.

Yes, but theologians change their hats every hour. Of course Mary was a simple Arab woman. But if we pretend to subscribe to Biblical lore, she was the Mother of God, which elevates her to something of divine status. I don't personally know what God's mum should be, but if she is defined as sinless, that's okay with me. Basically she's a bit different from Marco and if it is decreed she was conceived without that damnable stain that Adam gave us, I'm okay with that too. It fits the story. God could have written it all down but even in his autobiography, the Koran, he forgot this important detail.

God could have written it all down but even in his autobiography, the Koran, he forgot this important detail.

Sorry, I don't get one exactly, please elaborate.
Regards

[marco]

[quote="marco"

God could have written it all down but even in his autobiography, the Koran, he forgot this important detail.

Sorry, I don't get one exactly, please elaborate.
Regards

I was not entirely serious, paarsurrey. Mary does not enjoy among Mulsims the near-divine status she has among Christians. One wonders whether she was born without stain of Adam's sin. Or did she live a sinless life, hence her favour with God?

Christians treat her with great respect, just as Muslims treat Muhammad with great respect. If Mary was the Mother of God, then that would place her above Muhammad, but that is arguable. There is no way of knowing.

[Divine Insight]

But if we pretend to subscribe to Biblical lore, she was the Mother of God.

That's impossible. God already existed prior to Mary giving birth to Jesus.

Remember, angels appeared to Mary telling her that she was carrying the child of God.

Therefore Mary would definitely not be the "Mother of God". At best all she could be is God's wife.

Jesus also could not then be God. At best all Jesus could be is a demigod born of a virgin mortal woman who had been impregnated by God.

Christianity then becomes polytheism where Jesus is merely a demigod. Jesus wouildn't even be a full-fledged God then. At best he could only be half God and half human. A demigod.

Keep in mind that in Greek Mythology Apollo was the Son of God. God in this case being Zeus. But Apollo was not a demigod. Apollo was a full-fledged God because Apollo's mother was not a mortal. Leto was a Goddess. So Apollo was born of the union between a God and a Goddess, not a God and a mortal woman.

So in Christianity Jesus is clearly a demigod, not a full-blown God.

So Mary would not be the "Mother of God", she would have simply been the mother of a demigod. Big difference.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Jesus's linage is full of sinners. Mary being sinless isn't required.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

That looks clear cut to me. I wonder why there was ever thought to be a need to venerate Mary?