The obvious problem with this argument is that there isn't a single passage of scripture that is quoted to support this belief.
The problem with your argument is two-fold. First, none of the quotes contradict scripture. Second, nowhere does scripture teach that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicit in scripture to be valid. That is your man made tradition. It's nowhere to be found in scripture. Thus we reject "sola scriptura".
These quotes are nothing more than the theological ramblings of men who were trying to pass their own traditions/beliefs off as Christian dogma in the same way the Pharisees tried to pass their own doctrines off as scriptural. That's not how it works.
Wrong. You have no concept of
doctrinal development. Theologically speaking, you have divorced yourself from the early church whose language and culture was much closer to the Apostles than your 21st century opinions.
The words of uninspired men aren't more authoritative than the words of those that were written by divinely inspired men, no matter how well they dress their pagan theology up with righteous-sounding language.
Nobody is claiming the ante-Nicene Fathers were inspired, but they are authoritive. You don't like them because they show no evidence of Protestantism. Not only that, Marian theology is rooted in Judaism, which you are also divorced from.
The Bible disagrees with you:
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," - Rom. 3:23
That includes Mary.
"And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." - Luk. 1:47
Mary was preserved from Original Sin by the power of God, so your man made traditions insult God's power. None of the reformers denied the PVM or her sinlessness which proves your assertions are man made, going back a mere 200 years.
Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.
Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.
Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”
1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).
Rom. 5:12 – Paul says that death spread to all (“pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).
Rom. 5:19 – here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.
Rom. 3:10-11 – Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.
Psalm 14 – this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful.(Calvinism) It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.
Psalm 53:1-3 – “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”
Luke 18:19 – Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure…” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.
Rom. 9:11 – God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.
Luke 1:47 – Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.
Luke 1:48 – Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.
Your near-sighted argument of Rom. 3:23 fails.
"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman under the law," - Gal. 4:4
The second and third passages are certainly of extreme import to this thread. A logical person would ask themselves how Mary could have possibly been sinless when she addressed Jesus as such. Jesus can only be somebody's Savior if they acknowledge a) the fact that they have sinned and b)they needed Him to save them from sin.
Luke 1:47 and Galatians 4:4 does not prove Mary sinned.
The third passage shows Christ was born to a woman who "was under the law". In other words, Mary has committed sin prior to giving birth to Jesus.
Yes, according to early church heretics and 18th century modernists.
There are prophecies that says the Messiah was supposed to be born of a virgin woman, but there isn't a single one of them that says the virgin woman would be sinless.
That is not what prophecies are for. At the same time, you reject the foreshadowing of Mary's sinlessness by rejecting the sanctity of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and has been explained repeatedly in this board. It's unfortunate you don't know your Bible.
was no different than any other human being around her other than the fact she was chosen to be the woman who would give birth to Christ.
the woman who would give birth to Christ is not that important???
Christ certainly didn't look at her as being important enough to be treated like a deity.
You couldn't resist a stupid anti-Catholic dig.