Have at it, folks...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
truly a convoluted tour de force of scripture.
Two questions should be foremost on a person’s mind when presented with a particular interpretation of scripture:
1) Is belief in this doctrine required for salvation?
2) Is belief in this doctrine required to prevent sin?
I personally would answer no to both questions with regards to either interpretation of Mary’s conception. As such, I will not waste time or creating division over something that is trivial by comparison.
posted on 04/27/2008 6:51:26 PM PDT
(Have you hugged your kids today? Have you thanked someone in the Military today?)
like the truths of the Trinity and Jesus hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures, divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in other words or only indirectly.
Bad analogy. All those concepts of trinity are clearly stated, it is just the word trinity is not used to tie them together. Much different than the Immaculate Conception, which has zero biblical support.
Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state.
Being highly favored does not imply sinless state.
posted on 04/27/2008 6:52:15 PM PDT
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
On the Immaculate Conception:
1) Pelagius and Celestius used Mary, the mother of Jesus, as an example of one born free of original sin. Vincent of Lerins points out the origin of the teaching of the immaculate conception with these words: "Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before the profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards every good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Celestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?"
Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Volume XI, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 24.2, pp. 149-150
2) The Roman Catholic patristic scholar, Walter Burghardt, confirms the patristic and papal rejection of this doctrine historically: 'Post-Augustinian patristic thought on the perfection of Mary reveals two conflicting currents. There is a negative, unfavorable trend rooted in Augustine's anti-Pelagianism; it accentuates the universality of original sin and articulates the connection between inherited sin and any conception consequent upon sinful concupiscence. The root idea is summed up by Leo the Great: 'Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence.' The same concept is discoverable in St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe in Africa (d. 533), the most significant theologian of his time; in Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) at the end of the sixth century; and a century later in Venerable Bede, a scholar renowned throughout England' (Juniper Carol, Ed., Mariology (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Volume One, p. 146).
3) "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - Romans 3:23
4) "There is none righteous, not even one" - Romans 3:10
"Not even one."
posted on 04/27/2008 7:01:14 PM PDT
(Remember how you felt on September 11?)
Well there is NO doubt that Mary was chosen for the role and purpose of bringing forth our Savior into this flesh world. The Heavenly Father says He is not a respecter of persons and look what He allowed Job to go through at the behest of the devil. One thing about it can be said our Heavenly Father was in control of birth .... remember Sarah she was nearly 100 before she had Isaac...
posted on 04/27/2008 7:05:51 PM PDT
by Just mythoughts
(Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
The only creature ever addressed as
FULL OF GRACE!
If something is full, there is no room for anything else; a soul full of grace has no room for even original sin you see.
God is specific about many things. In the Old Testament, we can see all the details as to the Ark of the Covenant which carried manna and the Torah and commandments. Well Our Lady, Mary, carried the very Son of God!
Do we suppose that God is less careful in the womb that would bear the Incarnate Word?
COULD God make Mary sinless from the first moment of her conception?
Would it seem fitting for Him to do so?
Then it is not a stretch to believe that this is exactly what He did!
posted on 04/27/2008 7:10:36 PM PDT
"The problem with you Roman Catholics," he said, thin forefinger stabbing the air a few inches from my face
So we know the author of this is really pi$$ed off....
Besides, Mary couldnt have been sinless, only God is sinless. If she were without sin she would be God!" Mary admitted she was a sinner. She called her Son Yeshua a Savior. How could she have done that if she was not a sinner?
46"And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord 47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."
I didn't read any more of this article beyond that.
Can you tell me, I am supposed to disagree with this part of what he said.........why?
posted on 04/27/2008 7:11:52 PM PDT
("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")
Patrick Madrid is so organized. I love his articles.
posted on 04/27/2008 7:15:04 PM PDT
(Como estrella en claro cielo, de fulgente resplandor, escogida fue Maria por designo del Senor.)
How’s Sally? [/obscure SNL reference]
posted on 04/27/2008 7:16:41 PM PDT
(Has anyone seen my cornballer?)
Ummm...I've investigated it, and I find no support
for the "Marian doctrines", especially the Immaculate Conception.
The Evangelical minister was exactly right in what he said about the Immaculate Conception. Exactly right.
posted on 04/27/2008 7:19:37 PM PDT
(I'm your huckleberry, that's just my game.)
How do you read :
NAsbU Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband,
being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her,
planned to send her away secretly.
posted on 04/27/2008 7:20:20 PM PDT
(you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
Still not convinced. The Scriptual “support” seems very strained to me.
Guess we’ll find out when we get there. :)
posted on 04/27/2008 7:23:35 PM PDT
(Where's the omelet? -- Orwell)
This doctrine is merely one piece of the puzzle that shows the RCC to be encouraging people to worship a human being. Why contrive extra-Biblical dogmas unless ye be idolaters?
Why would claiming that Jesus's conception was immaculate automatically mean that Mary was without sin? Sex is not the only form of sin - there are nine other commandments. Mary could have been guilty of coveting in her wild youth and have needed saving for that.
Also, assuming that she only had it with her husband, why would sex on her part be evidence of sin at all? It is not a sin to have sex within marriage. Even if Mary and Joseph had 10 children after Jesus, that is still not sin, and even though I am pretty ignorant of Catholic doctrine, I would not believe that Catholic doctrine would fail to take that into account. It is only claimed that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and that needed to be emphasized because if Joseph was not the father, then sin would be assumed, except that God sent His angel to assure Joseph that no other man had been the father either.
It seems to me, that in the desperate rush to condemn the Catholic Church, many Protestants zoom in on the whole Mary thing and exaggerate and distort the teachings in order to confirm the entire basis for Protestantism, which is that the Catholic Church is false. For that reason, Protestants seem to need to believe in the most ridiculous exaggerations of Catholic teaching.
posted on 04/27/2008 8:20:25 PM PDT
(So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)
posted on 04/27/2008 8:47:44 PM PDT
(Driving an Operation Chaos Hybrid that burns both gas AND rubber.)
Pauls statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Pauls statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn'tt mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.
Aborted infants can be excluded from your examples as they are not yet born to this world and subject to the prince of the air. Young children who have not reach the age of accountability still can sin but are not subject to the pain of spiritual death (separation from Jesus in Heaven if they die physically) And you are totally wrong about severely retarded people they must except Jesus and be baptized in Jesus name, unless this person is always childlike which would leave them in the bracket of children who did not reach the age of accountability.
The Bible is 100% literal or it is wrong 100%
Mary was a sinner whether she committed a sin or not from the original sin of Adam and Eve.
One is to worship and pray to God whose name is Jesus only. We are to pray for one another but not to another.
We have a number of Vietnamese women in the parish who converted from Buddhism during the time that they fled Vietnam in unseaworthy, little, overcrowded boats. They all did the same thing — they prayed to Mary and promised that they would convert to Catholicism if they would safely arrive at their destination.
I asked them why they did not pray to Buddha to save them. Their response was that Buddha could not help them. I then asked why they didn’t pray to God because He could certainly save them. Their answer was that He was “way too high” to address their prayers to.
Then why Mary, I asked. Because she is human and she is like a mother, was the response.
posted on 04/27/2008 9:51:29 PM PDT
(Don't make the mistake to think that Government is a Friend of the People)
To alleviate such suspicions, one must understand what the Church means (and doesnt mean) by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX, in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus (issued December 8, 1854), taught that Mary, "from the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." The doctrine includes the assertion that Mary was perpetually free from all actual sin (willful disobedience of God, either venial or mortal).
Since when does sin have to willful.
Lev.4: 2] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
posted on 04/28/2008 4:50:54 AM PDT
("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson