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......
You have differentiated between ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’.
So, what do you Believe stuart?
Do you believe in God?
If yes, then what do you believe His characteristics to be?
If yes, is He relevant in and to your life?
What do you believe the Bible to be?
Do you believe it has relevance for your life? If yes, what relevance do you believe it has?
You have no burden of knowledge here, what you Know has no bearing, I only ask what you believe.
MHGinTN wrote:
“Ask a more cogent question regarding the tpoic of discussion (the IC).”
My question is far more cogent than, apparently, you think. First, let me say that what you said in brackets after the above sentence, I have no problem with. Second, I too, do not consider the “immaculate conception” to be Scriptural doctrine. It is not taught in the Scriptures clearly, plainly, and unambiguously. Therefore, it cannot be taken as Christian doctrine. Third, I find the reasons that you cite for not accepting the doctrine of the immaculate conception not only to be different than my reasons, but actually more problematic, and less faithful to the Scriptures than that you are trying to refute.
The best compilation on the aspects of the Trinity from Bible passages that I have read at FR was posted by freeper Diamond, years ago on a MormonISM discussion thread where one mormonism apologist, Delphi User, deigned to accuse that there was not proof for the Trinity in the Bible. I have pinged Diamond, if that freeper so desires to post the lengthy file again for you.
Yes I have.
Yes, I believe in God.
He is the creator and thus, can do anything.
Yes, He is relevant in and to my life.
A book, with historical relevance and many good life lessons.
It has relevance in that it affects people’s lives, and in turn mine.
I'll give something to start the discussion:
God conceived Adam with, as far as Biblical inforamtion we have, with no mother so no womb to gestate Adam, biologically speaking. Does this mean that God created Adam fully already a young man, or does it mean that the particulars of Adam's biology are not the significant part of the data God wants us to focus upon? We do not know based upon Biblical 'proofs', so some speculate that 'formed Adam from the dust of the ground' means soemthing other than over eons of evolutionary processes.Is it possible that God selected Adam from the race of humankind and Adam had no spirit component but was biologically gestated and born in the biological sense and at some time later God breathed a spirit into Adam and he became a living soul (a soul with a spirit and thus spiritual life)? Jesus gave us clues regarding this distinction of alive and spiritually dead. Ought we apply these lessons to the scene offered in Genesis?
How is He relevant stuart?
Do you believe in heaven and/or hell? IF yes, then what do you believe is the criteria for entry to either or both?
Do you believe, since He can do anything, that God sent His Son here in the person of Jesus Christ? IF yes, why do you believe He did that?
1. Heck if I know. You'd have to ask the scholars on this site. What I learned (beyond Catholic grammar and high school) I learned from homilies, adult cathechism classes, Catholic Answers, EWTN discussions and presentations, etc. THEY quoted chapter and verse but I did NOT take notes. I DO remember that the angel Gabriel addressed Mary, as Mary, full of grace. If she were not full, I ponder, then perhaps there would be sin to fill in the lack of fullness. But, since she was full...dot, dot, dot.
2. We'd be "sitting" on our bellies. It WOULDN'T be pretty.
He’s relevant because He is the creator.
I do not believe in hell. I believe in heaven, because I am a romantic and very optimistic.
No
So, you believe there is a great place to go after this life. But you do not believe in a corresponding place of anguish.
You have bought a fatal lie.
And there was no divine Jesus? You have bought THE fatal lie.
Do you believe that Jesus was a real historical person? If so, short of ‘the Son of God’, what is it, as completely as you could, that you believe about him?
In the entire history of Christianity, nobody ever came forward with what he claimed was a relic of the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What this means is that even the fraudsters knew that no Christian would believe that a relic of the body of the Virgin was possible. That is, EVERYONE believed in the Assumption.
But the Assumption is not in Scripture.
Therefore, the Assumption was universally believed by Christians, even though it is not in Scripture.
Therefore, not every dogma of the Christian Faith is to be found explicitly taught in Scripture.
Therefore, the fact that the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture is not a conclusive argument that it is not a dogma of the Christian Faith.
He was a very good and influential man.
A very good man.
Good enough.
Do you believe that a very good man would lie? Not just little lies, but tell huge whoppers of lies, designed to mislead, possibly even disillusion or harm those that he lies to?
Every example of Muslim “apologetics” I’ve ever seen has been completely circular.
Supposedly, only by a miracle could we have the text of the Koran, preserved in its current form. And what’s the proof that this miracle has occurred? Why—Here’s the Koran!
Everyone lies, especially if they are trying to get an idea across or to help people.
Lies are not good, stuart, nor do harmful lies come from someone that one might call a ‘very good man’. Actually by your statement, you confirm what the Bible says;
There is not one good, not not one; all have fallen short of the Glory of God.
Jesus’ disciples, with the exception of John, were KILLED because of these ‘lies’ that you accept that Jesus told. How does a ‘very good man’ allow friends to be killed for his sake, because of his own lies?
Pius IX did more to harm the cause of Christian unity than any Pope in history.
I’m a Melkite Catholic who believes in papal primacy, but I stand with my Church in its rejection of Vatican I’s distortion of the role of the papacy in the Church.
Patriarch Gregory II refused to accept the council’s teaching and sent back a reservation to Rome saying the Melkite Catholic Church reserved all of its rights and privileges.
In antiquity, it took ALL five patriarchates to make a council infallible because it signaled the assent of the entire Church, not just the Church of the West.
My bishop was appointed by Benedict XVI, yet our diocesan website teaches that Vatican I was NOT an ecumenical council. So we simply do not teach papal supremacy in our eparchy.
The East says Mary is all-holy, and since we do not have an Augustinian semi-Manichaean understanding original sin. The immaculate conception is something we neither deny.
Even if Mary was conceived in holiness, she inherited the physical consequences of Adam’s sin, namely mortality.
Luther protested against the excesses of Marian devotion, but he retained a more of less Catholic understanding of Mary’s sinlessness.
I don’t think the ‘very good man’ had any control over what happened. I believe things happen the way God wants them to. I do not know why, nor do I question Him.
I do hope you realise that if I were asking these questions, you and many others would be righteously upset. Seems like you’re doing a lot like what I do, asking questions about how someone believes. Please continue.
Doesn't grace mean "unearned favor"? If Mary was full of grace ("unearned favor" or "a favor or blessings bestowed as a gift") does that mean she was sinless? It doesn't seem like a logical conclusion to me.
MHGinTN wrote:
“So post your biblical reasons and we’ll discuss them.”
Let me preface this discussion with your original statement, which I quoted (and to which I now append three more of your words): “Jesus was not genetically a child of Mary or of Joseph.” Jesus is clearly not the son of Joseph in any biological sense. That is the clear testimony of Scripture. To be sure, He is Jesus’ father in the sense that any adoptive or step-father is, but is not the biological father. However, in the case of Mary it is far different. She gives birth to Jesus, as is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Her giving birth is in fulfillment of the promise made to all mankind and witnessed by Adam and Eve, that is, that the Seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s (Satan’s) head, Genesis 3:15). You seem to be saying that Jesus was not the “Seed of the woman,” but rather a human ovum, genetically unconnected to any other human person, divinely implanted in the womb of this woman named Mary. She then served as a surrogate mother to this divinely implanted ovum as it gestated to birth maturity, and then proceeded to eject the now matured ovum. Now, please understand I am not saying at any point that that within her womb is not a child, as if I were somehow intellectually inclined to a pro-abortion viewpoint - I AM NOT! However, if this is what you are saying, then in what sense is Mary called Jesus’ mother in the Holy Scriptures?
That very good man had control over what he said. And regardless of ‘intent’ the events happened. See stuart, IF Jesus was a ‘very good man’ only, then one could make the case that he was also a lunatic. I mean, who goes around, as a ‘very good man’ telling people that he is the Son of God, that he is the only way to God, that he’s going to be killed and arise again?
It is only if you take the whole picture of Him in the Gospel, written I might add by eye-witnesses, that you can see that He was mjore than just a ‘very good man’ who told some whoppers of lies. Once He had been crucified and buried, if he was just a ‘very good man’, would not his followers have given up? I mean why fight the battle and be stoned, hanged, crucified and such for a ‘very good man’? Instead, those followers continued and echoed, based on their own observations, what Jesus said while He was here.
I too would not ask God the “Why’s” of things, but I do ask, “What am I to learn from this?”
It is OK to ask, I do not get upset. I have asked that I not be a stumbling block to others in what I say here. I do want to say to all, Jesus is, He IS, the Son of God, and IS the only way back to God after this life. That is my Rock, Jesus, the man and the Son of God.
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.