The Case for the Sinless Ever-Virgin Mary.

[Peterlag]

No, not in the words you are thinking necessary, but the Jews were perfectly clear about what He said, as they several times attempted to stone Him for making Himself to be God.

Just one place that you cannot overturn, "Before Abraham was, I am", which is to say, "before Abraham did exist, I do exist", which can only be spoken by an eternal being. Though you say He is not God.

Much love!

John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."

 

[marks]

John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."

Reread my post. You are not responding to what I wrote.

Figuratively existed? No. He said, before Abraham was, I am. That is, Before Abraham did exist, I do exist. To which you reply, No He didn't. Jesus gave a clear statement of eternal existance, and you deny it's true.

Much love!

 

[TheOneHeLoves]

Some people, those brainwashed by the catholic church will not accept truth.

Most Protestants’ experience of worship is really focused on praying, and reading the Bible, and singing. They don’t have the Mass. They don’t have the sacrifice, the sacrificial element. So when it comes to worship, they just assume if you’re praying to Mary, you’re worshiping her.

So they define prayer as worship, whereas we Catholics see the prayer is just the original meaning of it, which is to beseech, just to ask, is to converse with. And if you ask a friend for some help and moving from one house to another, you don’t say that you’re worshiping your friend by asking him to help you, do you? That’s a more of a conversation, and we see prayer to Mary as more of what we do with each other, with our parents, with our friends, with our family and not as somebody we’re worshiping. And Mary's prayers, by virtue of the fact that she's Jesus' mother, are far more effective than ours. Unless you believe Jesus broke one of the 10 Commandments (Honor thy Father AND Mother."?

100% wrong on everything you stated.

I believe praying is connecting with God, it may be silent or verbal. I know God knows my every thought, I still praise Him, thank Him, present my requests to Him, ask for forgiveness to Him and know I have access to Him because of the blood of Jesus.

Per John 2:4, Jesus referred to His mother as Woman, not as mother or holy mother, not as sinless, not as God or Lord but Woman. Why because this signified that He was starting His ministry.

And I guess you completely ignore Matthew 12:46-50.

You listen to Pope but not to the Word of God. You focus on labels and title and traditions but not on following Jesus.

Read the Bible in its entirety and humble yourself to be corrected.

 

[Peterlag]

Reread my post. You are not responding to what I wrote.

Figuratively existed? No. He said, before Abraham was, I am. That is, Before Abraham did exist, I do exist. To which you reply, No He didn't. Jesus gave a clear statement of eternal existance, and you deny it's true.

Much love!

You cannot be correct. Because Jesus was not around before Abraham. He was born many years later. And all sinned means all Jews and all Gentiles. Not Christians. Now what have I missed?

 

[marks]

You cannot be correct. Because Jesus was not around before Abraham. He was born many years later.

You say Jesus' words aren't true, I say they are.

Much love!

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Where in the bible does it actually say she was without sin?

I'll correct that. I should have not said without sin but with out that which would
have been frowned upon in that culture if a young lady was "playing around". When the Holy Spirit came upon her she WAS a virgin. NO ONE has any right to claim anything else.

I think we can all agree Mary was a godly and blessed woman, but she was not without sin. Jesus was the only human without sin, ever. (2 Cor 5:21)Jesus . “In him is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

That was never said of Mary or anyone else. While Jesus was fully human, He was also fully God (John 1:1). He is the Lamb of God, “without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19), a title and description no other person can claim

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Says who? By what authority? You have an entire new Testament based on the same authority that says Maccabees were part of the canon of Scripture. You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose according to your own wishes. You don't have that authority. Authority is given, not taken.

I did not pick the books of the Holy Bible.

I follow the 66 books that do not include all of the RCC ones.

How is it that you only follow the RCC bible?

From Wiki
The Bible has three major compositions. The word canon is used to identify the collection of sacred books that comprise the Bible. The canon of the Protestant Bible totals 66 books—39 Old Testament (OT) and 27 New Testament (NT); the Catholic Bible numbers 73 books (46 OT, 27 NT), and Greek and Russian Orthodox, 79 (52 OT, 27 NT) (Ethiopian Orthodox, 81—54 OT, 27 NT).

Why do yours differ from the Greek/Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox?

It is said the Ethiopian Bible is the oldest and complete bible on earth.

And it does contain The Book of Enoch: This book, distinct from 1 Enoch, is also part of the Ethiopian canon. It contains apocalyptic literature and visions attributed to Enoch. • The Rest of Esther: The Ethiopian canon includes additional content in the Book of Esther, which is not found in other versions of the Bible.

So why doesn't yours?

​

 

[marks]

And all sinned means all Jews and all Gentiles. Not Christians. Now what have I missed?

1 Kings 8:46 LITV
When they sin against You (for there is not a man who does not sin) and You have been angry with them, and have given them up before an enemy, and they have been led away into captivity to the land of the enemy, far off or near;

Solomon knew this.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But if you think Gentiles are the same as Christians then that's why you can't see it.

And if I don't? What then?

Much love!

 

[MonoBiblical]

You have an entire new Testament based on the same authority that says Maccabees were part of the canon of Scripture.

Maccabees is not history, and the New Testaement ignores it.

 

[Soulx3]

Maccabees is not history, and the New Testaement ignores it.

Not only were the 7 Deuterocanonical Books (Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Sirach and Maccabees 1 & 2) a part of the OPEN Jewish Canon before and during the life of Christ, they are referenced some 200 times in the New Testament. Here are a few examples:

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb. 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
1 Pet. 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wis. 3:5-6 and Sir. 2:5.
Matt. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tob. 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

As for WHEN the Deuterocanonicals were ejected from Scripture, that's an interesting bit of history...

The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) scholars about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
There were 7 Books that were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon (Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Sirach, Maccabees 1 & 2) along with portions of Daniel and Esther. This is the Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the NT writers studied from.

AFTER Jesus Died, Resurrected, and Ascended to Heaven, the Apostles started their mission. Around the year 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt, a rabbi named Akiva declared TWO things:

I. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon, and the canon CLOSED.
II. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. Of course, he turned out to be a false messiah, making Akiva a false prophet.

SO, Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba).

It's Protestants who have a much bigger problem than a simple rejection of these 7 Deuterocanonical Books. They have the task of trying to reason why God would have allowed these uninspired books to be considered Scripture for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That is A LOT of people who were duped for 15 centuries — or were they? Did Jesus tell the Apostle that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to SOME Truth or to ALL Truth? (John 16:12-15)

The fact is that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced the Septuagint, as I have illustrated, which included the 7 Deuterocanonical Books and portions of Daniel and Esther that were jettisoned from the Hebrew Bible. At Jabned, a new Septuagint was compiled sans those Books.

Eminent Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly observed: “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive...

It included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books.”

The fact is that the Deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint during Jesus's time. I have already provided examples from the NT with regard to this. The rabbis at Jabneh removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint, hence a "new" version was created.

There are 5 major Traditions in the first century:

• The Samaritan tradition
• The Sadducee tradition
• The Pharisee tradition
• The Essene tradition
• The Septuagint tradition

Only the Samaritan and Sadducee Traditions were fixed or closed. None of the others were considered “closed.”

 

[RedFan]

Why didn't you fact check all that you read?

Because it was unnecessary to my point, which was simply that the RCC rejects Maria's writings.

Neither of us are being disrespectful by stating the fact that you can't know for certain that I'm a female as I claim, just as I at this time can't know for certain that you've had a legal career.

You never said you didn't "know for certain." You called me "supposedly" a lawyer. Big difference!

I wrote that I have been a trial lawyer for 40+ years. I grant that you have no personal observations confirming my legal career. But if your personal observation of facts is your litmus test for "knowing for certain" that what you read is true, try applying that same litmus test to the writings of Maria Valtorta.

 

[Soulx3]

Because it was unnecessary to my point, which was simply that the RCC rejects Maria's writings.

I recommend you edit your post (#400) adding a disclaimer that you haven't fact checked the information in the articles you cited, so it doesn't look like you have when you haven't as you admitted. Additionally, again, your assertion that the Catholic Church rejects Maria Valtorta's writings is untrue, which you would've known had you fact checked that as well and researched more thoroughly.

I, however, have fact checked what I've read of those who reject and support Maria Valtorta. The Catholic Church has not yet declared outright that Maria Valtorta's writings are nor are not of supernatural origin, but on February 26, 1948 Pope Pius XII authorized Maria Valtorta's Work to be published saying, "Publish as it is, those who read will understand." Since 1998, acceptance of Maria Valtorta's The Gospel As It Was Revealed To Me, or The Poem of the Man-God, has spread widely with imprimatur granted by Bishop Roman Danylak in Rome for all the approved English translations. The follow is an excerpt of a testimony given by Bishop Roman Danylak:

"...Such a one will find an admirable guide and mentor in this monumental Work of Maria Valtorta. St. John wrote in his book: "There is much else that Jesus did. If all of it were put into writing, I do not think the world itself would contain all the books which would have been written" (Jn. 21:25). This major work of Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man-God (The Gospel As It Was Revealed To Me), is the gospel expanded, and with her other writings, is in perfect consonance with the Gospels, with the traditions, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Dated at Rome/Toronto, June 24, 2001
The Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist and Precursor

Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D."

Since 2019, the Catholic Church has begun the process of proclaiming Maria Valtorta a Venerable – the title given to a candidate for sainthood whose cause has not yet reached the beatification stage but whose heroic virtue has been declared by the pope.

You never said you didn't "know for certain." You called me "supposedly" a lawyer. Big difference!

I said "supposedly" because at this time I don't know for certain that you were one. Your comprehension is poor for a "40+ years lawyer."

But if your personal observation of facts is your litmus test for "knowing for certain" that what you read is true, try applying that same litmus test to the writings of Maria Valtorta.

Again, I know that Jesus and other heavenly persons are the sources behind Maria Valtorta's writings from a spiritual, historical, mathematical, astronomical, geographical, agricultural, and cartographical, standpoint, thanks to them, further validated by the professionals in the aforementioned fields who have analyzed and tested the credibility of Maria Valtorta personally and her literary works. Below are just a few. If you're unwilling to read the thousands of pages she's written, hopefully you're willing to read a handful of paragraphs:

(i) The results from the mathematical analysis of Maria Valtorta's Work by Professor Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro, where they concluded:

In conclusion, what do these findings mean? That Maria Valtorta is such a good writer to be able to modulate the linguistic parameters in so many different ways and as a function of character of the plot and type of literary text, so as to cover almost the entire range of the Italian literature? Or that visions and dictations really occurred and she was only a mystical, very intelligent and talented “writing tool”? Of course, no answer grounded in science can be given to the latter question.

(ii) The results from the astronomical and meteorological analysis of Maria Valtorta's Work by Professor Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro, where they concluded:

It seems that she has written down observations and facts that really happened at the time of Jesus’ life, as a real witness of them would have done. The question arises, unsolved from a point of view exclusively rational, how all this is possible because what Maria Valtorta writes down cannot, in any way, be traced back to her fantasy or to her astronomical and meteorological knowledge. In conclusion, if from one hand the scientific inquire has evidenced all the surprising and unexpected results reported and discussed in this paper, on the other hand our actual scientific knowledge cannot readily explain how these results are possible.

(iii) In David Webster, M.Div.'s chapter "Proof by Geography and Topography and Archaeology" of A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, he relates:

An additional line of incontrovertible evidence (which Valtorta was encouraged by Jesus to include for the benefit of “the difficult doctors” of the Church) deals with the vast amount of geographical, climatic, agricultural, historical, astronomical, and cartographical information given in her work. Authorities in these fields have verified the accuracy of what she has reported with appropriate astonishment. Valtorta accurately identifies this agricultural and climatic information that is often unique to Palestine with the appropriate calendar period which she often specifically identifies. Without any evidence of planning and with hardly any corrections, Valtorta ends up with a perfectly flowing 3½ year story line with Jesus appropriately in Jerusalem and Judea for Passover and Pentecost in all four spring seasons, and at the Tabernacles in all three fall seasons of His ministry. Valtorta shows Jesus to have traversed the land of Palestine from one end to another in at least six cycles (some 4,000 miles), ministering in some 350 named locations, including places in Palestine known only to specialized archaeologists. Not once, however, does she have Jesus (or any one of the other 500 characters) in a place inconsistent with either the story line or distance or timing necessities.

(iv) In professional engineer Jean-François Lavère's The Valtorta Enigma, he writes:

The work [The Poem of the Man-God] overflows with exact data from the viewpoint of history, topography, architecture, geography, ethnology, chronology, etc. Furthermore, Maria Valtorta often provides precise details known only by some scholars, and in certain cases, she even records details totally unknown at the time she recorded them, and which archeology, history, or science have later confirmed.

In and of itself, it doesn't.

While God became human and dwelt among sinners, He is still the Most Holy and Pure One, Who lives in the Kingdom of Purity where no one impure can enter, and through Scripture says that the virtues of holiness and purity are to be respected in Him and achieved within ourselves with His help. Additionally, God says those pure in heart (not impure in thought, word, and deed) will see Him (Matt. 5:8).

For these reasons and others, as well as the fact that God (Purity) Incarnating Himself in someone who is impure in and of itself doesn't save humanity, what would've been the purpose of God (Purity) entering and Incarnating Himself within one who is not completely Pure, when He could have done so, and had reason to do so, within someone who is completely Pure?

 

[Peterlag]

1 Kings 8:46 LITV
When they sin against You (for there is not a man who does not sin) and You have been angry with them, and have given them up before an enemy, and they have been led away into captivity to the land of the enemy, far off or near;

Solomon knew this.

Much love!

1 Kings is not written to Christians. I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

 

[Peterlag]

You say Jesus' words aren't true, I say they are.

Much love!

They are not Jesus's words saying he was here before Abraham. They are your words saying he was here before Abraham.

 

[Soulx3]

Could have? yep, he could have, but where is that written. Also, where is it written she was not allowed to ever fulfill her marriage vows?

Jesus and His Mother, Mary, Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, why She didn't commit sins, and why Joseph and Mary mutually decided to be chaste throughout their marriage. However, again, their explicit words (spoken in modern day) are found in books that aren't found in the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it, yes? Despite His apostle John mentioning that not everything Jesus said and did is written (Jn. 21:25)?

Maccabees.... Not canon.

Not only were the 7 Deuterocanonical Books (Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Sirach and Maccabees 1 & 2) a part of the OPEN Jewish Canon before and during the life of Christ, they are referenced some 200 times in the New Testament. Here are a few examples:

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb. 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
1 Pet. 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wis. 3:5-6 and Sir. 2:5.
Matt. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tob. 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

As for WHEN the Deuterocanonicals were ejected from Scripture, that's an interesting bit of history...

The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) scholars about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
There were 7 Books that were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon (Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Sirach, Maccabees 1 & 2) along with portions of Daniel and Esther. This is the Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the NT writers studied from.

AFTER Jesus Died, Resurrected, and Ascended to Heaven, the Apostles started their mission. Around the year 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt, a rabbi named Akiva declared TWO things:

I. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon, and the canon CLOSED.
II. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. Of course, he turned out to be a false messiah, making Akiva a false prophet.

SO, Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba).

It's Protestants who have a much bigger problem than a simple rejection of these 7 Deuterocanonical Books. They have the task of trying to reason why God would have allowed these uninspired books to be considered Scripture for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That is A LOT of people who were duped for 15 centuries — or were they? Did Jesus tell the Apostle that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to SOME Truth or to ALL Truth? (John 16:12-15)

The fact is that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced the Septuagint, as I have illustrated, which included the 7 Deuterocanonical Books and portions of Daniel and Esther that were jettisoned from the Hebrew Bible. At Jabned, a new Septuagint was compiled sans those Books.

Eminent Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly observed: “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive...

It included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books.”

The fact is that the Deuterocanonicals were part of the Septuagint during Jesus's time. I have already provided examples from the NT with regard to this. The rabbis at Jabneh removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint, hence a "new" version was created.

There are 5 major Traditions in the first century:

• The Samaritan tradition
• The Sadducee tradition
• The Pharisee tradition
• The Essene tradition
• The Septuagint tradition

Only the Samaritan and Sadducee Traditions were fixed or closed. None of the others were considered “closed.”

 

[Soulx3]

Believing that Mary was sinless doesn't make it true. That has yet to be proved irrefutably by scriptures from the books of the bible. Nobody has been able to show us where it says that. And God's word does not contradict itself so if it says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23 It includes Mary and isn't going to say somewhere else that all doesn't mean all so that Mary can be declared without sin.

Jesus and His Mother, Mary, Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, why She didn't commit sins, and why Joseph and Mary mutually decided to be chaste throughout their marriage. However, again, their explicit words (spoken in modern day) are found in books that aren't found in the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it. Unfortunately, you presently limit the knowledge of God to the books that make up the Bible (despite His apostle John mentioning that not everything Jesus said and did is written (Jn. 21:25)), but I don't because God can't and shouldn't be limited to any book(s). There is and will only ever be four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), but you can't forbid God from revealing information about His and His Mother's earthly life that isn't mentioned in the writings that make up the Bible, and they have/do.

You, like most Protestants, demand others to provide scriptural verses that explicitly appear in the Bible for what they believe in order to be true, but you don't abide by that standard yourself. If you did, then you wouldn't be stating as a fact that Mary of Joseph inherited the stain of original sin and committed sins, because nowhere in Scripture does it say "only Jesus was without sin," nor that "only Jesus never committed sins." Jesus, including, for example, children who have died without having committed sins, are exceptions to the "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:22). For these reasons, Rom. 3:22 isn't proof Mary sinned, nor that She can't also be an exception. Are you going to stop displaying a double standard?

 

[Athanasius377]

Rom. 3 is not to be taken as an absolute. This is easily proven by just pointing to one exception. Jesus. However, there are literally millions of exceptions. Infants and children before the age of reason, who cannot sin yet.

This statement stems from Rome's deficient anthropology specifically how it relates to the doctrine of original sin. Even a child who does not reach the age of reason, about seven in the Roman system, can and does sin. Sin is in every child's nature. The only sinless one is Jesus.

In Luke 1:28, in the original Greek, the angel addresses Mary as kecharitomene. This word, in the grammatical sense in which it was used implies that Mary was without sin from the very first moment of her existence (when she was conceived in her mother's womb), in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter.

This is false. Yes the verb is in the passive voice but show me a lexicon where κεχαριτωμένη means sinless from the first moment of existence. It simply means favored, and in this specific instance favored by God. Your explanation of the verb comes more from Jerome's goofy translation of κεχαριτωμένη in the Vulgate to "gratia plena" than by any reliable lexical sources.

Reading a loose English translation of the Bible doesn't render this nuance, so you probably missed it...like many who try to reinvent God's Word on their own. Why do you think there are so many differing, contradicting Protestant denominations, all based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture?

So tell me where I can find Rome's official interpretation of every verse of Scripture? I'm sure there is one, otherwise you would be basing all of this on your own personal interpretation and we certainly can't have any of that going on.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Not only were the 7 Deuterocanonical Books (Baruch, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, Sirach and Maccabees 1 & 2) a part of the OPEN Jewish Canon before and during the life of Christ, they are referenced some 200 times in the New Testament. Here are a few examples:

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb. 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
1 Pet. 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wis. 3:5-6 and Sir. 2:5.
Matt. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tob. 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Puhlease, you are sure it isn't the reverse. This proves nothing.

The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) scholars about 200 years before the birth of Christ.

The DSS are post Christ and the apocrypha including Ester is represented among them in many ways. Esther has an early form previously unknown.

SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews).

They are written in Greek after all.

I. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon, and the canon CLOSED.
II. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. Of course, he turned out to be a false messiah, making Akiva a false prophet.

SO, Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba).

Cow manure. You have none quotes from Jewish history, nor archeology to back it up.

The fact is that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced the Septuagint

I hope you are talking about the one which has God in the singular at all times.

There are 5 major Traditions in the first century:

• The Samaritan tradition

The [non-Jewish] idolaters who feared God but made statues of him.

• The Sadducee tradition

The Levite family who said there was not life after death, or perhaps believed in Greek reincarnation. Not really a tradition, and they are sad U see.

• The Pharisee tradition

The detainers and policemen of their time. Brutal as Antifa.

• The Essene tradition

Post 70 AD and after the New Testament. They don't get a mention at all.

• The Septuagint tradition

You mean when they were copying the LXX perfectly.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus and His Mother, Mary, Herself explicitly explain why God preserved Her from inheriting the stain of original sin, why She didn't commit sins, and why Joseph and Mary mutually decided to be chaste throughout their marriage. However, again, their explicit words (spoken in modern day) are found in books that aren't found in the books that make up the Bible, and thus you automatically reject it. Unfortunately, you presently limit the knowledge of God to the books that make up the Bible (despite His apostle John mentioning that not everything Jesus said and did is written (Jn. 21:25)), but I don't because God can't and shouldn't be limited to any book(s). There is and will only ever be four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), but you can't forbid God from revealing information about His and His Mother's earthly life that isn't mentioned in the writings that make up the Bible, and they have/do.

You, like most Protestants, demand others to provide scriptural verses that explicitly appear in the Bible for what they believe in order to be true, but you don't abide by that standard yourself. If you did, then you wouldn't be stating as a fact that Mary of Joseph inherited the stain of original sin and committed sins, because nowhere in Scripture does it say "only Jesus was without sin," nor that "only Jesus never committed sins." Jesus, including, for example, children who have died without having committed sins, are exceptions to the "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:22). For these reasons, Rom. 3:22 isn't proof Mary sinned, nor that She can't also be an exception. Are you going to stop displaying a double standard?

The Catholics had to make Mary sinless because they made Jesus God. Neither are true. Mary is not the mother of God and Jesus is not God.