The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[concretecamper]

You mean like the catholic church does...oh sure, maybe not it's prelates, but the body of the Church does.

Or are you as out of the loop there as well?

I know you are, but what am I.....reverting to 2nd grade tactics I see. Oh goodness.

 

[Targaryen]

I know you are, but what am I.....reverting to 2nd grade tactics I see. Oh goodness.

No, just pointing out there as many organizations within the Catholic church that have a viewpoints that would be considered "reforming" as other bodies do.

You are the one that chooses to resort to the 2nd grade level stuff.

What's the matter? Don't like your "theological" studies questioned? If so, you're in the wrong place.

 

[Albion]

You mean like the catholic church does...oh sure, maybe not it's prelates, but the body of the Church does.

Or are you as out of the loop there as well?

Short on the theology, perhaps, but quite current on its preferred name calling. Well, almost. "The Church" prefers to call other denominations "ecclesial communities," not "ecclesiastical communities." It probably takes time to memorize all these details just perfectly.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In RC Marian theology, it is impossible for Rev. 12:1-2 to be a picture of Mary.

RC theology: Mary did not experience the curse of pain in childbirth
Rev. 12:1-2: this woman travailed in birth and was pained to be delivered

However, if you want Rev 12:1-2 to be about Mary, then you'd have to agree she pained in birth (no more ever-virgin).

Revelation is not speaking of the original birth of Jesus, therefore you'd be wrong. See the problem is that you believe there's only one meaning of Revelation, or any Scripture, for that matter. The woman (signified by being 'woman', as Eve was 'woman')gives birth to the male child, she's not only Mary, she's Daughter Zion as in Isaiah 66:7 and Isaiah 26:17.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That would mean the church also gave birth the man child which is Jesus.

The answer to this question is "yes".

Watch the video below to hear why the woman cannot be the church.

That's your own belief, but is an innovation, not taught for a very long time.

So which one is it? Did the church give birth to messiah or did messiah give birth to the church. It can't be both.

Yes. Really can't have one without the other.

Defer: To put off; postpone. Synonyms: defer, postpone, shelve, stay, suspend. (Thefreedictionary.com)

Sorry but you can't do that. You can't "defer" what a verse is stating to make it fit your narrative. These verses are in reference to a woman having birth pangs and giving birth to a man child. (Rev 12:2-5) Jesus was no longer a child when he was on the cross at Calvary.



Firstly, this is a logical non sequitur. Secondly, Mary probably did suffer but she certainly did not share her son's suffering. She was not lashed, humiliated and hung on a cross. Neither was she made to be sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in her (2 Corinthians 5:21)



So Jesus came down from heaven only to be swept up to heaven again right after his birth? ...Yeah, that sounds very unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cu0LkglQgw

Don'tcha just love youtube/Wikipedia theology?

 

[Defensor Christi]

... if he was not going to be born in the way that all other humans are born?

But He wasnt born like all other humans, He was born without the stain of original sin...that is the point.

 

[MrMoe]

The answer to this question is "yes".

ok

That's your own belief, but is an innovation, not taught for a very long time.

What's you're point? Are you saying it's the newest so by that alone it must be wrong?

Yes. Really can't have one without the other.

This wasn't a yes or no question. I was asking who gave birth to who first. Because what Defensor Christi and you are saying seems to create a paradox. First Defensor said the church was created at Calvary:

Mary is also the Mother of the Church that was born on Calvary, clearly in Mary’s pain (cf. Luke 2:34-35; Catechism, no. 766).

And you're saying the church gave birth to Christ.

That would mean the church also gave birth the man child which is Jesus.

The answer to this question is "yes".

See the problem here.

So my question again is: who gave birth to who first?

Don'tcha just love youtube/Wikipedia theology?

LOL YouTube didn't make that video. John Ankerberg who is a church historian and Christian philosopher made that video and uploaded it to YouTube.
John Ackerman's interpretation of Rev 12 is what I believe too, so its much easier to post a video than typing it all out just to have a catholic completely ignore my entire theological argument in one sentence as you just have and as I have seen many times on this forum.
And not once did I use Wikipedia. I stated all my sources in brackets (Which were only a dictionary and the bible BTW).

 

[Defensor Christi]

This wasn't a yes or no question. I was asking who gave birth to who first. Because what Defensor Christi and you are saying seems to create a paradox. First Defensor said the church was created at Calvary:



And you're saying the church gave birth to Christ.



See the problem here.

So my question again is: who gave birth to who first?

I think you missed this part, "Scripture is traditionally interpreted in four senses (please see our Faith Fact, Scripture Sense): literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. God not only teaches through words (literally), but also through the things, people, and events mentioned in scripture (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-19). " #55

You cannot interpret this passage (or most, in Revelation, for that matter) literally...once you understand that their are layered meanings, things become much more clear.

 

[Targaryen]

I think you missed this part, "Scripture is traditionally interpreted in four senses (please see our Faith Fact, Scripture Sense): literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. God not only teaches through words (literally), but also through the things, people, and events mentioned in scripture (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-19). " #55

You cannot interpret this passage (or most, in Revelation, for that matter) literally...once you understand that their are layered meanings, things become much more clear.

True...but still there is a paradox in the argument, if Jesus gave birth to the Church, how can the church give birth to Jesus.

 

[Defensor Christi]

True...but still there is a paradox in the argument, if Jesus gave birth to the Church, how can the church give birth to Jesus.

It isnt a paradox...I see it as going hand in hand...the the Blessed Virgin gave birth to the Savior, the Church gives us the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist.

Christ gave us the Church the Church gives us Christ...the meanings are layered, not one dimensional.

 

[Targaryen]

But it's not hand in hand...Jesus created the Church, if the Church gave birth to him, then we'd still be following letter for letter the OT ways. But we don't cause Jesus gave birth to a new idea of Israel, one rooted in Him.

 

[Standing Up]

Revelation is not speaking of the original birth of Jesus, therefore you'd be wrong. See the problem is that you believe there's only one meaning of Revelation, or any Scripture, for that matter. The woman (signified by being 'woman', as Eve was 'woman')gives birth to the male child, she's not only Mary, she's Daughter Zion as in Isaiah 66:7 and Isaiah 26:17.

So, did "the woman" give birth to Jesus or not? If yes, then you'd agree "the woman" pained at birth. If no, what's your point that "the woman" is not Mary?

 

[Standing Up]

But He wasnt born like all other humans, He was born without the stain of original sin...that is the point.

As pointed out many times, if He was born without the stain of original sin, it had nothing to do with Mary.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, did "the woman" give birth to Jesus or not? If yes, then you'd agree "the woman" pained at birth. If no, what's your point that "the woman" is not Mary?

In one sense, yes, she did. In another sense, no, she didn't. In one sense, the woman is Mary, in another sense the woman is daughter Zion. You guys really need to learn about the senses of Scripture, and that the answer to questions that go either/or is usually both/and. So you can say that Christ was speaking literally in John 6, but you can also see three other senses-allegorical, anagogical. and moral.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why isn't this thread on the Maridolatry board?



.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As pointed out many times, if He was born without the stain of original sin, it had nothing to do with Mary.

Did DC say it had something to do with Mary??? Even Mary's sinlessness had nothing to do with anything she did.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Why isn't this thread on the Maridolatry board?



.

You'll need to ask the OP. He started another thread on Origins and placed it here as well. I asked him three times about the other but he won't answer.

PSSST. It's Mariology.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

As pointed out many times, if He was born without the stain of original sin, it had nothing to do with Mary.
​

Did DC say it had something to do with Mary???
Even Mary's sinlessness had nothing to do with anything she did.

Were the parents of John the Baptist sinless? John was born filled with the Holy Spirit upon birth, just as Jesus was it seems......

Luke 1:
5 In the days of Herod, King of Judea,* there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
6 Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.
7 But they had no child,* because Elizabeth was barren and both were advanced in years.d
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid,* Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John.f
14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth,
15 for he will be great in the sight of [the] Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink.*
He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb,g



.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Were the parents of John the Baptist sinless? John was born filled with the Holy Spirit upon birth, just as Jesus was it seems......

Luke 1:
5 In the days of Herod, King of Judea,* there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
6 Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.
7 But they had no child,* because Elizabeth was barren and both were advanced in years.d
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid,* Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John.f
14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth,
15 for he will be great in the sight of [the] Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink.*
He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb,g



.

The difference is that John the Baptist was filled by God, and Jesus is God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The difference is that John the Baptist was filled by God, and Jesus is God.

Ahhhh... I see.

No wonder the apostate religions of Judaism and Islam are confused about that, as they have no concept of the Christian Trinity.


.