A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"?

AO Ministries ^ | 1991 | James White

[aruanan]

It is true that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, the Immaculate Mis-Conception that Mary is the mother of God is wrong. She is and was human. Just because Jesus is God as part of the Trinity, does not make her the mother of God.

Poor, dear, bonker of donkeys, Mary was the only mother God ever had. Even Elizabeth recognized this when she, the wife of a Jewish priest of Yahweh, the God of Israel and the King of the Universe, was filled with the Holy Spirit and shouted, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Are you going to gainsay the Holy Spirit? That, not that Mary was the mother of the Lord God of Israel and the King of the Universe, is what sounds heretical. There are too many people who just do not bother to read the scriptures. Read Luke 1:39-45 and step back from your misconceptions.

[stuartcr]

I believe our feelings are the basis for what we believe to be right or wrong, ie our conscience. Since we are all different individuals, that is why things appear right or wrong, to some. I believe God instills in each of us our personal sense of what is right or wrong. So no, I do not believe there is a standard.

Mans laws are defined for groups of people derived from the current mores within the parameters of when and where in history he lives. They change with time and situations, they are relative. Each man still has their own sense of right or wrong. Since we are individuals, it stands to reason that any one law, is not going to be readily accepted by all. We work from there. We learn to live with each other, constantly tweaking and compromising.

If everyone agreed that what you say was declared by God, things would of course, be different. God did not, obviously, make us that way, as not everyone believes the same.

We base our lives on what God has instilled in us, but we live in the real world, with different individuals that have different moral codes. That is reality.

I believe our understanding comes from the Lord.

[Judith Anne]

>>>>It is true that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, the Immaculate Mis-Conception that Mary is the mother of God is wrong. She is and was human. Just because Jesus is God as part of the Trinity, does not make her the mother of God.

Silly person. Mother of God is not about Mary, it is about Christ. Is He not God?

[DonkeyBonker]

Kind sir, please remove the plank from your eye.

[DonkeyBonker]

So why do Catholics pray to Mary? She cannot answer prayer.

[RoadGumby]

Just wow. That whole ‘belief’ system you just articulated is wrong. It is wrong because it allows for for no standard beyond ‘what we feel’ which of course will change.

Today ‘we’ feel that homosexuality is ok, but have yet to ‘feel’ that pederasty is ok. But that will also change, given the course we are on. When it ‘feels’ right to do so, ‘we’ will give our children up to this perversion too.

This ‘belief system’ allows for lying, and cheating, any number of things, based on our ‘feelings’, no standard of ‘This Is Right’ or ‘This Is Wrong’.

How can you possibly believe that that system is in any way a positive thing? You invoke God as wanting it that way, that things are as they are because He wants it that way, and in the same breath, disallow the very Book, and His very Son both of which tell us what He wants and tell us what IS Right and Wrong.

Relativism IS the poison that leads us to believe we know better than God.

[Judith Anne]

How do you know that?

[stuartcr]

It is neither positive nor negative, it is just the way it is. I think the positive/negative concept is man-made, I don’t believe God has a sense of right or wrong, or at least not like we do.

[RoadGumby]

Why would you believe, what leads you to believe that God would not have a sense of Right or Wrong?

[RoadGumby]

Do you believe that God has a sense that sexually molesting a child is wrong?

That stealing wrong?

That adultery is wrong?

[stuartcr]

Why should He? He’s the creator of all.

[stuartcr]

No, but He has put that sense into most humans in order to keep things orderly.

[Rippin]

The question I would ask of you then is upon which chromosome is the original sin of Adam carried?

---

This is the problem. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants believe that ‘original sin’ is a stain carried in the nature. This is what creates the ‘need’ for the immaculate conception dogma.

I don’t believe that is true. I believe the human nature is ‘broken’ not guilty and the Christ accepted our broken nature and fixed it.

In the same way God made adam from the clay in Genesis he made the new adam from the Theotokos. In the same way He made Eve from the Old Adam, he made the new Adam from the daughter of the old Eve.

Chromosomes, blood, etc. are irrelevant. The biblical concept is ‘the life’ and it is the life of the children of the first Adam that the Lord accepted and redeemed.

[paladinan]

Good morning, good sir! All is well, thus far, thank you! :) You wrote: BUT, isn’t it true that Jesus Himself is the only human not to have sinned, who lived a ‘sinless’ life, and therefore was the perfect sacrificial ‘Lamb’?

Jesus was certainly sinless, and He is certainly the perfect Sacrificial Lamb; but He was not the only human Who lived a sinless life. More on that, below.

If mary was kept sinless, then SHE could have been that sacrifice, n’est pas?

No... because, while sinlessness was a necessary attribute of the Lamb of Sacrifice, it was not sufficient; much more was needed. To put it in a nut-shell: the gravity of an offense is related not only to the extent that the offender was free, fully aware of the evil, motivated by malice, etc., but it is also related to the dignity of the one offended. It would, for example, be a far greater evil for me to slap my mother than for me to slap a sun-flower... since my mother has much greater dignity (i.e. created in the Image and Likeness of God, in addition to being necessary for my existence at all!). As such: any offense against the infinite God is infinite in gravity... and no finite creature (as Mary certainly was) can possibly pay that debt. Only the infinite God could pay the debt... and Jesus was the infinite God. Thus, the Lamb of Sacrifice needed not only to be sinless (i.e. "without blemish"), but divine.

Unfortunately for us, English can be a poor language when compared to others, lacking nuances that can be Very Important to meaning. (Agape vs Phileo vs Eros, yet all translate as ‘love’ into English. Just for an example).

Absolutely true.

So, Job being ‘perfect’ does not necessarily mean ‘sinless’. But rather that he pursued God, folowed His word, which would include repenting of sin as it occurred. The same could be said of Noah.

I agree there, as well... but I'd add that the same difficulty shows itself when trying to interpret Romans 3:10! As an extra example, the Greek of Romans 3:10 says "Kathos gegraptai hoti ouk estin DIKAIOS oude heis"--literally, "as it has [already] been written: that not is JUST, not yet one". But compare that with the description of St. Joseph, the husband of the Blessed Virgin, in Matthew 1:19: "Ioseph de ho aner autes DIKAIOS on"--literally, "Joseph, yet the [husband] of her [being] JUST"... it's the exact word used by St. Paul to say "no one is 'dikaios' (just)"! Since we know that Scripture contains no errors, I assert that the prohibition declared by St. Paul cannot possibly be a literal, absolute prohibition... but was, rather, a general state of affairs, decorated with emphatic language (i.e. hyperbole) in order to illustrate a true and generally universal point (i.e. we are a fallen race). This does not prohibit God from going above and beyond that general truth, just as nothing prohibits God from going above and beyond the normal "universal rule" that water does not flow uphill (cf. the Red Sea, the Jordan, etc.).

The Apocrypha are included in the Catholic Bible, not in the King James, except as a reference.

That's mostly correct (though they're included in the Greek Orthodox Bibles, as well, and revered as Sacred Scripture by them), but it begs a question: which canon of Scripture (the 66-book canon, or the 73-book canon) is correct? The mere fact that the KJV is the KJV doesn't settle the matter, any more than the fact that "the Douay-Rheims translation is the Douay-Rheims translation" settles the matter in the other direction!

There are contradictions in them that rendered them not included.

(?) Such as...?

You may consider them scripture, I do not. No offense meant.

Oh, no worries on that account: I'm not offended in the least! (You've been the model of civility, and I hardly take differences in view as a personal affront!) But again, the question is begged: how does one settle one's mind on the matter? The two canons cannot both, at the same time, be the correct and complete canon of Scripture; at least one must be wrong.

Having said that, the most important common ground is Jesus.

I heartily agree! However, since Jesus inspired the OT as well as the NT, and since the contents of those Scriptures are critical to our eternal salvation, the contents of the canon of Scripture are a matter of great importance.

It is my belief they are welcomed by Jesus, still unstained by sin. Being unstained it would follow they would welcome and see Jesus as who He is, their Savior.

I (and the Catholic Church) also agree with that, actually! (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 1261) I mentioned the point only to show that Romans 3:10 isn't likely to be speaking of actual, personal sin... either in the case of children who die before birth, or in the case of the Blessed Virgin. That is: Romans 3:10 is no secure basis for saying that the Blessed Virgin ever had sin on her soul.

It seems there is desire to elevate Mary, or grant her special characteristics to explain the apparent conflict in the idea that something ‘pure’ could come from something ’sinful’. Well... to people who suggest that, I'd offer a slight correction: it is certainly more FITTING that the Blessed Virgin be utterly sinless, in order to become the Mother of Our Saviour... but I agree with you: that's hardly an air-tight proof, nor was it strictly necessary (and certainly it wasn't a prerequisite for the sinlessness of Christ, as you astutely point out). The full reasons for maintaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception involve the facts that: (a) the Church has always maintained the sinlessness of Mary; (b) Mary's sinlessness satisfies a whole HOST of biblical "types" (i.e. foreshadowings, or "situational prophecies") is fulfilled in Mary, the new Ark of the New Covenant (references available on request); (c) nothing in Scripture gainsays it in the least; and (d) Christ's church has declared it to be true dogma, beyond all shadow of a doubt. (I fully understand that (d) will not seem very convincing to you, at this point. :) ) On that point, I'd add: the doctrine is not true "because" the Church teaches it; rather, the Church teaches it because it is true!

[paladinan]

So why do Catholics pray to Mary? She cannot answer prayer.

As a back-ground note: the word "pray" can cause some confusion in modern times, especially for Americans (and especially American Protestants), since they use the word exclusively in reference to "adoration of, or petitioning, God alone"... but that is not the original meaning of the word. "Pray", in its original sense, means "to ask"... and you might recognise instances of this, even today:

"What, pray tell, do you mean?" (Translated: "What, I ask you to tell, do you mean?")

It is not at all wrong or heretical to "pray to" (i.e. to direct a request to) any of the Saints in Heaven, or to you, or to anyone else; a request is a request, and it does not at all imply "adoration owed to God alone".

Ironically enough, modern English (especially in the USA) has "morphed" to the point where several terms used in religion have gotten rather badly muddled. For instance: the word "adorable" has come to mean "that which is cute, darling, intensely pleasing"; but its original meaning was "that which is worthy of adoration--i.e. that which is due to God alone"... or, to put it bluntly: the only "adorable" thing is God! Ironically, another word is now confused with it: the word "worship" is currently taken to mean "giving that which is due to God alone", but that is not its original meaning; it used to refer to "the state of being worthy" (e.g. "authorship" = "condition of being the author of something", "hardship" = "condition of being/suffering that which is hard", and "worship" is a contraction of "worth-ship", or "the condition of being worthy"). Even in High Church Anglicanism, one may still hear the phrase at weddings, where the bride and groom say TO EACH OTHER [and not to God]: "with my body, I thee WORSHIP"! And yet, this hardly means that the couple is guilty of mutual idolatry!

In answer to your question: the Blessed Virgin can most certainly answer prayer, just as I can, and just as you can... but only in and through the grace of God (i.e. He empowers us to answer pleas to us, in our respective capacities). In fact, the Blessed Virgin is in a far better position to do so, since she is no longer encumbered with the limitations and burdens of this vale of tears, within time. She is also immeasurably closer to God than are we, and she still intercedes for us in the same way that she interceded for the couple at Cana.

[aruanan]

Kind sir, please remove the plank from your eye.

I'm glad I could point out to you the scriptural foundation for Mary being the mother of the Lord God of Israel, ie, God. Stop trying to shift the focus from your own faulty reading--well, probably lack of reading, since it's right there for anyone to see who also knows anything about Judeo-Christian theology; again, Luke 1. Look at it. Consider what is actually said. Review and then revise your remarks regarding Mary and heresy accordingly.

[paladinan]

stuarter wrote:

Why should [God have a sense of right and wrong]? He’s the creator of all.

One idea might help to clarify, here: God is the Creator of all that IS, not the Creator of all that is NOT. For instance: God can create heat and/or light, since it is "something"; but God cannot create cold or darkness, since they are mere words used to describe the ABSENCE of heat and light, respectively. It's the same with evil: evil is not a "thing", but a privation (i.e. an absence of a good that should, by nature, be there)... and God cannot create evil; it would be akin to God creating "nothing"--it's simply not possible.

That, by the way, is the answer to the attempted criticisms/paradoxes which seek to refute God's omnipotence. "Can God create a stone so heavy that not even He can lift it?" "Can God create a square circle?" "Can God create a married Bachelor"? The answer to all of those is "no"... because every last one of them is literally nothing--"no thing". All of these examples are a mere string of words which have no meaning in reality; they're all illogical, nonsensical jumbles. One might as well ask if God can create _____ (i.e. the blank = silence)!

[aruanan]

“My personal belief is that God brought to Mary’s womb the already formed embryo-aged Jesus for implantation.”

This is an echo of Henry Morris's attempt to solve a non-existent problem. In one of the Institute for Creation Research bulletins from the late 1970s, Morris reasoned himself into a corner by saying that since Jesus had to be the perfect lamb of God and since lambs for Passover in which there was any defect were rejected and since sin had had a corrupting effect on the human race and since Mary was part of the human race, then Jesus could not be the perfect lamb of God and have come from the sin-corrupted flesh of Mary and, so, must have been created ex nihilo within Mary's womb.

Aside from the problem of a divine in utero creation not being a conception, as was stated in the accounts, Morris fundamentally misunderstands the nature of sin as well as the nature of nature. According to Paul, the reason creation is subject to decay is not because it has been "invaded and corrupted" by sin, but because God subjected it temporarily to this "frustration" and "bondage of decay" until such time that "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Romans 8). Sin matters but sin is not matter. Matter is not evil. Matter is not sinful. Matter does not transmit sin. Sin is not inherited through DNA, genomic or mitochondrial. Morris, and others who come up with similar schemes, are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[stuartcr]

Yes, he did write that.

That is why he believes that there is no good or evil to God. The concept of it is what exists, and it only applies to man, it doesn’t really exist.

[paladinan]

Yes, he did write that. That is why he believes that there is no good or evil to God.

(!) It took me a moment to discover that you were speaking of yourself in the third person! Are you doing so because you were put out by my introduction? I hope not: I'd only wished to avoid confusion, since there are many comments on this thread, and since I'd addressed the comment to RoadGumby as well as to you (see the "To:" line); no offence was intended!

As to your point: it simply doesn't follow that "there is no good or evil, to God"; surely you are aware of the fact that God, in every instance of His self-revelation to us, has mentioned the difference between good and evil--and that He always urges (and commands) us to do the former, while urging (and commanding) us to AVOID the latter?

The concept of it is what exists, and it only applies to man, it doesn’t really exist.

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion, since our very ability to distinguish good from evil at all comes from God, Himself! Beyond that: if good and evil were truly such indistinguishable phantasms (without any true relation to objective reality), then we would have no capacity for knowing that any "evil" was in any way unusual, or to be avoided! I do not understand the experience of being "dry" without first having lost it by being "wet"; otherwise, I wouldn't be familiar with the concept at all! Just so, with good and evil: unless there is a true distinction, beyond our mere "labels and imaginary taxonomies", we would have no frame of reference for knowing that anything was wrong with, say, torturing someone to death, raping and pillaging, theft, and the like. And it's no help for anyone to say, "Oh, but avoidance of those things encourages a longer life with less suffering", since we'd need an awareness of "long life is better than short life (i.e. an untimely death is evil)" and "a lack of suffering is better than suffering (i.e. suffering is an evil)", all other things being equal, in order to say that. No... there is a true and real distinction between good and evil, and God is wholly good (and cannot create evil).

N.B. When I say that "suffering is evil", I do not yet refer to the fact that God can redeem and transform suffering into something glorious--not in and of itself, but because of what good can be achieved through "carrying the Cross of Christ, and following after Him"; it can benefit not only us, but the whole Church (cf. Colossians 1:24, etc.)!