I don't think you place close attention to what you read. I am speaking specifically to sin and man's condition of sin.
There are only two things one needs to know here.
1. We are sinners by birth (the depravity of man). We sin by nature.
2. We sin because we want to sin, and are therefore responsible for our sin.
Mary was guilty on both counts.
Where I think you are off is the assumption that the only way someone to be "saved" from sin is "saved out of their sin". My suggestion is that you can be "saved" in two manners. Preventatively, or before entering into sin. Catholics believe that Mary is saved from sin not out of sin. Humanity in General is saved out of sin.
Then the Catholics are wrong. It is that simple.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That statement, (and the word "all") includes Mary. Mary was a sinner at birth. There is no such Biblical teaching as the Immaculate Conception. She was not a sinless person, but a sinful person, as her admission of her need of a Savior is duly noted. So also her action of a sin offering. Both of these show that even she recognized she was a sinner, both by birth and by action.
That is the reason she needed to be saved.
God did not save her before she sinned. She was saved because she had sinned. A judge pronounces me guilty after I commit a crime, not before a crime is ever committed. It is only then that the penalty for the crime can be paid (atonement), not before.
Seriously? I used an observation by someone in a specified field who commented on the nature of "saving someone". The application can be made to things beyond alcoholism or mental health. And since it wasn't I who made that observation but someone else I gave credit to them by quoting them. Again I'm not making a statement about "physical salvation" as I believe salvation from God to be whole and entire. I'm am using the same principle and applying it to Salvation from our state of sin so as to explain in a way you can understand.
Saved from drug addiction is physical salvation, not spiritual.
Yes Mary need salvation from sin. But Jesus Christ did it pre-emptively.
This is simply a vain man's opinion. It has no ground in the Scripture. Give chapter and verse.
Yes, whether it be pre-emptive ie by intervention, or out of ie by rehabilitation.
I give you Scripture; you give me philosophy. I take the revelation of God over a vain man's philosophy.
Now your feigning begins. Of course you understand my point unless you haven't even really read what I have posted.
There is only one kind of salvation in the Bible--spiritual. It is a salvation from sin, death, hell--that which Jesus conquered on the cross. There is no need to bring salvation from drug addiction and mental health into this discussion at all as you did.
By both parents. If we are ever to the point of cloning the clone would be in sin nature. Thus if you cloned the woman and only used her genetic material the clone would be in sin. The human condition entire both men and women are in sin and twisted away from God. We are not ordered properly both men and women. Thus I disagree.
Not even Augustine agrees with your position.
In Genesis 3:15 the promise was to Eve that the Messiah would come from "the seed of a woman." Women do not have "the seed." The virgin birth was promised as far back as in the Garden of Eden.
Now look at the promise to Abraham:
Genesis 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said,
Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
--The seed is always of the man. It is through the seed that the sin nature passes.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
--It was not through Eve, but through Adam that sin entered the world.
It was not through Eve, but through Adam that death came by sin.
It was not through Eve, but through Adam
that death passed upon all men. That sentence of death is the result of the sin nature that is passed on through the Adamic seed. It has nothing to do with Eve or with Mary.
Mary was not conceived by Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit, thereby passing the sin nature of man. If Mary had a sin nature (and she did) it would make no difference, for she conceived through the Holy Spirit.
God prepared her from the begining as a ark of the incarnation.
She was simply a vessel used by God.
Not true. God can seperate her from sin apart from a heretage line.
How ironic! God is not great enough to separate Christ from sin, but great enough to break the heritage line and separate Mary from sin!! That is strange theology indeed! It seems as if you believe in a weakened god.
Not at all it give the dignity back to women that Eve lost.
Nothing was given back to Mary. All creation, including Mary, was (and is now) under the curse. Mary grew old and died. Her body was buried. There is no empty tomb for Mary. She is a dead person like the rest of the dead awaiting the resurrection. She succumbed to the second law of Thermodynamics just like everyone else. We are all under the Curse, because of Adam.
Funny but it was the bible that let me back to Catholicism.
Because of bad experiences, and ultimately, unbelief.
Nope.
"Hear O' Israel the Lord thy God is one" There is no other God. Honoring someone because of a role they played is not the same as the worship of God. Kings, Queens in the bible are often venerated but they are not thought of as God.
"Give honor where honor is due." the Bible says.
Respect them that are over you, it also says.
But it never says to venerate them. Thus you are in the wrong.
Venerate:
Synonyms: adore,
deify,
glorify,
revere,
reverence,
worship
(From Merriam-Webster)
It seems clear to me that when one venerates another they worship him.
The veneration you give to Mary is clearly worship.
Amen! I agree!
luke 1:27
We don't give Glory to Mary. Honor certainly.
If you truly believed Revelation 4:11 you would not be giving glory and honor to Mary. For that glory and honor is due only to God. All glory and honor is his. He alone is worthy as Rev.4:11. He will not tolerate the worship that the RCC gives to another.
just let him produce it scripturally.