Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"?
AO Ministries ^ | 1991 | James White

Posted on 12/08/2011 8:03:11 AM PST by fishtank

A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"?

A Review and Rebuttal of Patrick Madrid's Article "Ark of the New Covenant" in "This Rock" magazine, December 1991.

by James White

Catholic Answers has some interesting ways of grabbing your attention. By placing the beginning paragraph or two of the lead article of their monthly magazine, This Rock, on the very cover of the work, they draw your attention into reading the rest of the article. True to form, the December, 1991 edition sported Pat Madrid's article, "Ark of the New Covenant" with the interesting lead in, "His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he `shared the gospel' with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed." Using a "real-life" backdrop for the presentation of some particular topic is another fine writing tool used by the folks at Catholic Answers. As you continue to read about this encounter, you discover that our author, Pat Madrid, is going to provide Biblical support for his belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He writes of his encounter with the Protestant pastor,

More at link......


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: immaculate; jameswhite; mary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last
For December 8th.

P.S. I grew up going to Mass on this day, without fail.

P.P.S. The Scriptural texts against the idea of the I.C. were compelling. About two years after getting saved, I left the RCC.

1 posted on 12/08/2011 8:03:17 AM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

James White

2 posted on 12/08/2011 8:03:57 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
The Story of St. Bernadette at Lourdes

AD DIEM ILLUM LAETISSIMUM: Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 2, 1904.

3 posted on 12/08/2011 8:15:38 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Using the author's standards, there is not enough evidence in the Bible to justify the teacing of the Trinity, yet for some reason he clings to that. I'd ask the author why the Immaculate Conception is unbiblical yet the doctrine of the Trinity is.

And, yes, early Christians did believe the Immaculate Conception in antiquity.

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God." - St. Augustine

"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain." - St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

Even Martin Luther did:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527). - Martin Luther

HAPPY FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION!
4 posted on 12/08/2011 8:18:11 AM PST by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Did the Protestant Pastor explain why their faith seemed to originate on a former Catholic national leader breaking away to get a divorce?
Kind of sounds the same as the gays making their own Gay churches to me.


5 posted on 12/08/2011 8:20:11 AM PST by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Did the Protestant Pastor explain why their faith seemed to originate on a former Catholic national leader breaking away to get a divorce?
Kind of sounds the same as the gays making their own Gay churches to me.


6 posted on 12/08/2011 8:20:13 AM PST by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

What I believe is based on Scripture, on the teachings of Christ.

I don’t follow Luther, Calvin or Henry.


7 posted on 12/08/2011 8:24:58 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Saw a show on Saudi TV “debunking” the IC. Their reasons were that such a thing has never happened before or after but their most damming evidence was that they said it couldn't happen. It was basically a “so there” on those points. My guess is that they don't win many debates outside of the country.
8 posted on 12/08/2011 8:28:26 AM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Those who trade land for peace will end up with neither one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
I think (yup...just my thoughts) the 'Immaculate Conception' was an incredible theological solution to the problems that the 'sacrificial lambs' blood had to be pure, perfect, sinless, spotless. For the blood of Jesus to be effective when shed, he couldn't be stained by sin. Enter the Immaculate Conception - the blood of Mary, then of Jesus, was perfect. Problem solved!

What wasn't understood at the time was the the blood from the mother did not pass to the child. Interesting point that, in this case, the truth of science didn't catch up to the bible until I don't know when.

9 posted on 12/08/2011 8:37:33 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant

Specifically, there are only a few passages relating to the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity. He dodges the issue by simply saying “well, there’s PLENTY of evidence for that!”. Show me.


10 posted on 12/08/2011 8:38:07 AM PST by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

So what books are in your bible?


11 posted on 12/08/2011 8:38:07 AM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Christ gave not only the Word but the leaders to follow through the first choosen one Peter.

The break aways from the original due to divorce, wanting gay whatever, pick and choose this or that are kind of messed up; but if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior for their Salvation they have the main part down IMO.


12 posted on 12/08/2011 8:38:24 AM PST by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes
What wasn't understood at the time was the the blood from the mother did not pass to the child. Interesting point that, in this case, the truth of science didn't catch up to the bible until I don't know when.

Huh? Jesus did not have Mary's genes(and mitochondria)? Adam was not Mary's ancestor?
13 posted on 12/08/2011 8:43:56 AM PST by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

And you are still a Catholic. So come back to Mass and hear the Scripture that tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary was. indeed, Immaculate, so that she could carry the Son of God, Jesus, in her womb.

You wouldn’t have wanted Jesus to be born with original sin, would you?

For all things are possible with God.


14 posted on 12/08/2011 8:45:45 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes
I think (yup...just my thoughts) the 'Immaculate Conception' was an incredible theological solution to the problems that the 'sacrificial lambs' blood had to be pure, perfect, sinless, spotless. For the blood of Jesus to be effective when shed, he couldn't be stained by sin. Enter the Immaculate Conception - the blood of Mary, then of Jesus, was perfect.

That may be the theological rationale you advance, but it isn't the rationale the Catholic Church uses.

The argument is really pretty simple:

  1. The fourth commandment of the Decalogue (using the Protestant numbering) says, "Honor thy father and thy mother".
  2. Jesus fulfilled this commandment perfectly.
  3. Jesus, uniquely among sons, also created his own mother.
  4. Creating someone with original sin isn't "honoring" them; neither original sin nor actual sin ever honors anyone.
  5. Therefore, Jesus honored his mother by creating her free from original sin, thus fulfilling the commandment ... perfectly.
The Scriptures bear this out. Luke's Gospel has the angel greeting Mary as "kecharitomene", as though it were her name. That's the perfect passive participle of charitoo, "to grace". It means that Mary was completely graced as an already completed action, hence Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, or "full of grace".
15 posted on 12/08/2011 8:48:19 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What if there really is no original sin?


16 posted on 12/08/2011 8:48:51 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
You wouldn’t have wanted Jesus to be born with original sin, would you?

Jesus couldn't have been born with original sin in any case; he's God.

17 posted on 12/08/2011 8:49:16 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
The Scriptural texts against the idea of the I.C. were compelling.

The only "Scriptural texts against the idea of the I.C." I've ever heard fell flat on their face, because they assume the idea that the I.C. means Mary saved herself, when the dogma itself flatly states the opposite.

18 posted on 12/08/2011 8:52:12 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

And that’s exactly why the Blessed Virgin Mary was saved from Original Sin so that she could carry him in her womb.


19 posted on 12/08/2011 8:56:37 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Mary needed Jesus as Savior as much anyone else.

There is NONE good, no not one, ALL have fallen short of the Glory of God.

Mary was favored AMONG women, not ABOVE.


20 posted on 12/08/2011 8:58:42 AM PST by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

What if there is? What are you then? Where will you go without the Salvation Christ offers?


21 posted on 12/08/2011 8:59:58 AM PST by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
The Scripture Text

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father  David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (Lk 1:26-38 RSV) 

22 posted on 12/08/2011 9:00:19 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes

What wasn’t understood at the time was the the blood from the mother did not pass to the child. Interesting point that, in this case, the truth of science didn’t catch up to the bible until I don’t know when.


Sounds like you are using a Greek view of ‘blood.’ In Hebraic scripture blood is ‘life.’ Not plasma etc. The life indeed passes to the child from the mother so the theological issue remains. However, the idea that sin is ‘inherited’ is a common problem for both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Two peas in a pod really.


23 posted on 12/08/2011 9:00:47 AM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

I imagine things would be the same as they are now.


24 posted on 12/08/2011 9:03:44 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant
Huh? Jesus did not have Mary's genes(and mitochondria)? Adam was not Mary's ancestor?

I specifically mentioned 'blood'. We call it a 'blood line', but that is just an old and accepted term. Yes, Jesus' was related to Adam/Mary thru the 'blood line'. But he didn't have 'their blood in his veins' - another old term we use that science has now provided answers for.

25 posted on 12/08/2011 9:04:40 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Much applause... for the vaguness and twist away from answering.

So, then to answer Your question, ‘what if there were no original sin’

I imagine things would be somewhat different than they are now.


26 posted on 12/08/2011 9:06:09 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Campion
That may be the theological rationale you advance, but it isn't the rationale the Catholic Church uses.

I can barely represent my views, not going to try to represent the rationale the Catholic Church uses. I just wanted to point out the Immaculate Conception was an incredible solution to a theological problem. But later, thru science, the theological problem was non-existent. Jesus' blood could be a perfect/sinless sacrifice even if His mother wasn't sinless - He didn't have her blood in His body.

27 posted on 12/08/2011 9:10:31 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes

Then from whom did Jesus become man?

The flesh came through the Blessed Virgin Mary. That’s why she was sinless — so that she could carry that flesh in her womb.


28 posted on 12/08/2011 9:12:53 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Whether original sin exists or not, nothing changes, does it? If there wasn’t original sin, then the whole Immaculate Conception wouldn’t matter, would it? It’s all relative to what one believes.


29 posted on 12/08/2011 9:13:14 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rippin

I may not be following all of that...not a scholar by any stretch. I do know the ‘life is in the blood’, and that His blood was shed, a perfect sacrifice, for my sins. The OT gives a good picture of blood sacrifices, even though those sacrifices of blood were not sufficient, just a picture of the one to come (Jesus, not Obama...).


30 posted on 12/08/2011 9:17:33 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

If original sin doesn’t exist exist, then sin is still absent and all things are good and there is no evil. Wait, that isn’t the case is it?

So sin is here, and renders us hell bound without redemption. So, yes the IC and Jesus DO matter. There is no relativism to it.


31 posted on 12/08/2011 9:18:38 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

So how was Mary born immaculate if her mother had sin? Wouldn’t the stain of sin pass to Mary from her sinful mother?

If its possible for Mary to be miraculously born without original sin, then why not Jesus?


32 posted on 12/08/2011 9:19:58 AM PST by Tramonto (9 9 9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

How do you know that isn’t the case? Perhaps a sense of good and evil is something God instills in each of us, in order for humans to create societies and function together. Maybe there is no good or evil to God?


33 posted on 12/08/2011 9:24:12 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Then from whom did Jesus become man?

I think we agree that Mary was his mother. My point is that His spotless, unstained blood was not hers. In addition to not being a scholar, I am also not a doctor. My understanding is that their blood types could have also been deadly to one another.

34 posted on 12/08/2011 9:34:37 AM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Yes, I am happy to see you. But that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

In Him there is no darkness. (i.e. evil)

Per Jesus :

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he (being Jesus) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

It was original sin that allows us to know evil, to sense it, and that unleashed it.

And unleashed, it wreaks havoc on the societies that we try to build. Unleashed, it makes You question the very goodness of the Lord. Unleaashed, it makes You decide that maybe You know a bit more than the Lord about your very existence.


35 posted on 12/08/2011 9:36:22 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto

You aren’t doubting the power of God or the power of the Bible, now, are you?

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you...”


36 posted on 12/08/2011 9:41:47 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Isn’t what you just wrote, relative to your belief? Would you have written that, if you didn’t believe it?


37 posted on 12/08/2011 9:42:38 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

What I wrote is belief. Belief in the knowledge that Jesus lived, died, rose again and came to be the Savior for the world. Jesus said “You believe in the Father, also believe in me.”

Having said that, what is the point of the question that points out the obvious?

You like the ‘what-if’ style questions.....

IF you haven’t accepted Jesus as Your Savior, what will your thoughts be when you close your eyes in death, here and open them in hell there?


38 posted on 12/08/2011 9:50:51 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Yes, although not really knowledge...in that there’s no way you can prove any of it, which is relative to your belief.

Obviously I like them, or I wouldn’t ask so much. There’s lots of ‘what-if’ questions on FR. It’s a forum.

I have no idea what thoughts the future will bring, how could I?


39 posted on 12/08/2011 9:58:08 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant
Using the author's standards, there is not enough evidence in the Bible to justify the teacing of the Trinity, yet for some reason he clings to that. I'd ask the author why the Immaculate Conception is unbiblical yet the doctrine of the Trinity is.

If you are the typical Catholic, you don't even know enough scripture to debate the subject...

But being a bible believer, if I couldn't find sufficient evidence of the Trinity in scripture, I wouldn't believe in the Trinity...Somebody's pullin' your leg...

40 posted on 12/08/2011 10:02:49 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
From Dr. White's article:

Mr. Madrid speaks of "anti-Marianism" in the above quotation. From the Roman position, the Protestant's refusal to accept the Roman Catholic teachings on Mary is "anti-Marianism." Yet, is this a valid statement on Mr. Madrid's part? I certainly do not believe so. Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary." Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc. I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge.
(*sigh*) This is why so few discussions between Catholics and anti-Catholics (especially "professional" anti-Catholics) go anywhere but downhill, degenerating into mere quarrels: how can one, supposedly in contrast to one's opponent, present oneself as "the adult in the room (i.e. the one who's going by reason, God's Word, and common sense)"--while turning around only a few words later and spraying raw opinions, assertions, begged questions, and a host of other fallacies, willy-nilly? To wit:

Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary."

Two answers to that:

1) It's really not sporting of Dr. White to "move the goal-posts" like that; "Marianism" (by which is commonly understood the fulness of Marian Devotion, found richly in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) is hardly the same as "Mary", and "anti-Marianism" is hardly the same as being "anti-Mary" (whatever that might mean!). I certainly trust that Dr. White is not "anti-Mary" (and that his desire to protect her dignity is sincere), but he is most certainly a staunch opponent of "Marianism" (as defined above).

2) If one assumes the non-Biblical and anti-Biblical teaching of "sola Scriptura", then Dr. White's conclusion might follow; but if one is content not to add to Scripture in that way (or to reject the Church Who discerned the contents of that Scripture, and whose early bishops wrote the entire New Testament), then he's on very shaky ground, indeed.

Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she [sic] who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc.

Safeguarding the truth about the Blessed Virgin would certainly include safeguarding her (and those who woudl practise it) against idolatrous worship. I confess to being a bit more cautious, however, about agreeing with Dr. White's inclusion of the tiny qualifier, "etc.", since it may contain many things which, though good and wholesome, might do no more than run counter to Dr. White's personal tastes.

I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge.

(*sigh*) This is where the typical faithful, well-informed Catholic starts to shake his/her head, and despair of any meeting of the minds. A clearer example of utter, raw opinion and appeal to emotion/the gallery, unfounded by any Biblical mandate whatsoever, I have not seen in quite some time.

After this, Dr. White goes on to lambaste the poetic "language of love" used in some of the more sentimental prayers and songs regarding the Blessed Virgin, suggesting that they most certainly violate the distinction between "veneration" and "adoration" (which he would call "worship"--which is rather a different thing, etymologically). To that, I can only say that he--who looks with extreme disfavour at the Catholic Inquisitions--is not putting himself in the curious position of denouncing any hyperbolic love poetry whatsoever; and I don't relish the idea of saying to my wife, "I am yours, completely!" only to turn and face the righteous scowl of Dr. White, who would admonish me about belonging primarily to God, first and foremost! (Would he really doubt that I *know* that?)


41 posted on 12/08/2011 10:05:01 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

My possessing knowledge does not in any way require me to Prove it to you or any other. AND, whether or not I can Prove that knowledge does not impact whether or not I should share it as Truth.

The way that you dodge questions that would require something of You to be revealed is pretty good, almost as good as Holder in F&F.

You claim that you ‘want to know others beliefs’ yet, when asked to reciprocate, you dodge. Why? It is that dodging that implies ‘mocking’. There is no sharing of view[points, only more questions form you and vague answers that amount to fluff.

Well I may not KNOW what exactly your thoughts might be, but Jesus gave us a pretty good eye witness account of a man in hell begging to have an angel go tell his relatives to get right with God, and begging for water, able to see and never get to, paradise. You may even recall all these exchanges and wish you had listened.

IF you have not received the Savior.


42 posted on 12/08/2011 10:06:18 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
You wouldn’t have wanted Jesus to be born with original sin, would you?

What was the penalty for original sin??? Without original sin, would Adam have died???

Did Jesus die???

43 posted on 12/08/2011 10:07:19 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Campion
The fourth commandment of the Decalogue (using the Protestant numbering) says, "Honor thy father and thy mother".

Jesus fulfilled this commandment perfectly.

And Jesus only called his mother, woman??? Never Mother, or Mom...Just woman??? And he rebukes her at the wedding in Cana???

44 posted on 12/08/2011 10:11:01 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Jesus couldn't have been born with original sin in any case; he's God.

Would Jesus have died of old age had he not been killed on the Cross???

45 posted on 12/08/2011 10:13:09 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rippin
Sounds like you are using a Greek view of ‘blood.’ In Hebraic scripture blood is ‘life.’

Is not...Besides the blood of Jesus was written in Greek, not Hebrew...

46 posted on 12/08/2011 10:19:02 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
However, if we look at Mr. Keating's presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the "Greek indicates a perfection of grace." He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek "indicates a perfection of grace."

That is wrong Dr. Wright.

There is *every* reason to make the logical jump. The verb, as was said, means "to grace". It is in the perfect tense. That means it's completed. Done. Finished. The word literally translates as "she who has been graced". That's where the "full of grace" comes in--if the gracing is completed, there can be room for no more.

And might I also add I find it not a little insulting and even patronizing that Dr. White states "as anyone trained in Greek is aware....".

Trained in Greek? TRAINED in Greek? You mean 21st century English-speakers who, at best, study New Testament Greek academically? WHo learn it from books written by other English speakers? That kind of training?

Many of the Church Fathers *spoke New Testament Greek natively*. If anyone's Greek is going to be relied on, it's not modern Catholic scholars or modern Protestant scholars, but native speakers of Greek, particularly those closest in time to the New Testament period. I.e. the Church Fathers. And this is PRECISELY why we don't sweep all that writing under the rug and call it "useless tradition"...the Fathers are not some useless adjunct. They are literally KEY to interpreting the Biblical Text as written.

Does the Greek Orthodox Church today teach the Immaculate Conception? No. The Greek Orthodox don't like the Western formulation of it, chiefly because of our ideas of original sin. But they DO regard Mary as Panagia = the all-holy. ALL holy. Say what you want about what that means--but it sure doesn't sound like they think Mary was a sinner like everyone else.

You'd think if Dr. White and other exegetes were so-spot on on their analysis of kecharitomene, the Greeks would have known it long before he did.

47 posted on 12/08/2011 10:22:38 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The flesh came through the Blessed Virgin Mary. That’s why she was sinless — so that she could carry that flesh in her womb.

Jesus didn't require a sinless womb to pop out of...

Jesus appeared many times in the OT in the form of a man...Just as Angels do...

If all God wanted to do was to be God in the form of a man, Mary's presence wasn't required...God chose to become a real man, just like us...In every way...

If Jesus was not exactly like us, he could not have been tempted...

48 posted on 12/08/2011 10:26:10 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby

Of course you’re not required to prove it to anyone, it’s your belief.

What specifically, would you like me to answer?


49 posted on 12/08/2011 10:28:52 AM PST by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Specifically, return the to initial questions on post #21

“What if there is? (Original sin) What are you then? Where will you go without the Salvation Christ offers?”

Those, specifically, would be a good place to start (restart).


50 posted on 12/08/2011 10:32:40 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-194 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson