Immaculate Conception???

[☦Marius☦]

In what way was is this relevant? Did I deny anything Athanasius said?

That was actually a question. I was unsure if it was Athanasius of Alexandria or not.

 

[Athanasius377]

That was actually a question. I was unsure if it was Athanasius of Alexandria or not.

My apologies. I read into your post more than what was there. Forgive my hasty response.

I have several volumes of Athanasius in my library. I'll see if it is. I honestly don't recall. It does sound like him though. I'll get back to you as it is late for me.

 

[☦Marius☦]

My apologies. I read into your post more than what was there. Forgive my hasty response.

I have several volumes of Athanasius in my library. I'll see if it is. I honestly don't recall. It does sound like him though.

Thank you. I'm not very familiar with him, and the piece was simply labeled "Athanasius"

That's one problem with generations taking on generations of Saint's names. Like how many Saint John's have there been at this point.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Whatever you are reading is not what I am talking about.

Whew! That's a relief!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes. But neither of those have to do with what we are talking about do they? You have yet to explain how the clear imagry of Mary, Jesus, and Satan in that passage I quoted, is not in fact that.

This is end times in Revelation 12. I know we don't have the same eschatological beliefs as I do and a lot of other Protestants, but verse 6 of Rev. 12 says,

6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

That is one half of 7 years (one prophetic week) as prophesied in the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9.

Daniel 9:27Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

Continue reading the rest of chapter 12. The prophecy in Daniel 9 is about Israel. It is connected, both with Joseph's dream and Daniel's prophecy.

Those 7 years are the last years before the second coming.

As I said, you won't understand Revelation without knowing Old Testament prophecy.

Have a good night.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That's not actually answering the question I asked you. Back on post #57 you told TuxAme:

"Except you don't know the difference between a verse about an unsaved person without the Holy Spirit of Truth that needs the next verse to be saved and freed from all sin, and John's verses describing those in Christ that are already saved because they confessed their sin and were cleansed once and for all of their past sins."

And:

"Unfortunately you are not the only person that doesn't know how to understand scripture and uses 1 John 1:8 to justify their own sin!"

And:

"Do you understand what that means?"

And:

"For your information verse 7 is about a Christian."

Now to me, this sounds as if you are letting Tux know that "Your" understanding and interpretations of these passages (And scripture as a whole?) are superior to his and the Catholic Church when you stated:

"The ignorance in the Church is rampant! And it starts in the pulpit!"

And:

"Wake up people! If your priest doesn't know the word of God, study for yourself!"

For this reason I asked if you consider your "understanding" and "interpretation" of Scripture absolute and without error? (infallible) And if not, would you be willing to admit your "understanding" and "interpretation" of the passages you posted here could be in error?




As a member of the Catholic Church... Christ Himself is the source of the Catholic Church’s authority.



The source and guarantee of this Church authority is Christ’s continuing presence in his Church----“Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20).

The purpose of this authority is to give the Church the ability to teach without error about the essentials of salvation: “On this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).

The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ’s continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).

Attn: With help from .....beginningCatholic.com.


But as I have said, my main focus is on you and me. 1 John 3:5-9

5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

That is Father God, not Mother Nature. LOL


However, if your answer is you are fallible, one can only conclude your understanding and interpretation of these passages could be in error.....correct?

[Staff edit].

It is not MY understanding, it is the author's understanding. John was Hebrew, and it is obvious he used a Hebrew style of writing, rather than a Greek style when writing 1 John. That is why every other verse from verse 5 down are contrasting between light verse darkness. Verse 8 happens to be in the unsaved group of those in darkness. Where the odd numbers are of the light. (The numbers were added later, but it is the thoughts that are what is to be observed. There is also a portion of thoughts in chapter 3 that are contrasting also in the Hebrew style). Not understanding styles, Westerners just read what's there and come up with misunderstandings that contradict other scripture by the same author in the same book! Like 1 John 3:5-9 vs 1 John 1:5-10

5 - God is light
6 - those who walk in darkness
7 - those who walk in the light
8 - have no truth
9 - cleansing of all sin
10 - have no truth

The Greeks would have 6, 8 and 10 together, and 5, 7 and 9 together. It is just an obvious difference in style. But being educated in these difference biblical styles helps us understand what the apostle means.

I've got news for you too, Christ is the head of me and every true Christian in every denomination who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them in order they cannot sin. [Staff edit].
1 John 3:5-9
5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

 

[Invalidusername]

It is not MY understanding, it is the author's understanding. John was Hebrew, and it is obvious he used a Hebrew style of writing, rather than a Greek style when writing 1 John. That is why every other verse from verse 5 down are contrasting between light verse darkness. Verse 8 happens to be in the unsaved group of those in darkness. Where the odd numbers are of the light. (The numbers were added later, but it is the thoughts that are what is to be observed. There is also a portion of thoughts in chapter 3 that are contrasting also in the Hebrew style).

5 - God is light
6 - those who walk in darkness
7 - those who walk in the light
8 - have no truth
9 - cleansing of all sin
10 - have no truth

The Greeks would have 6, 8 and 10 together, and 5, 7 and 9 together. It is just an obvious difference in style. But being educated in these difference biblical styles helps us understand what the apostle means.

I've got news for you too, Christ is the head of me and every true Christian in every denomination who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them in order they cannot sin. [Staff edit].

1 John 3:5-9
5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

You are conveniently leaving out the passages that come before that you constantly quote. 1 John 1:8-10.

"8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

 

[1stcenturylady]

You are conveniently leaving out the passages that come before that you constantly quote. 1 John 1:8-10.

"8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

ROFL What I just posted that you are responding to is all about 1 John 1:8, in fact 1 John 1:5-10!

 

[1stcenturylady]

This is not saying that Christians never sin. It is saying that we cannot continue to sin habitually. You're changing the subject anyways.

No it isn't a change of subject. It's in the OP. John is saying we cannot WILLFULLY sin. Your desires have changed. That is, those who have the Holy Spirit do not have the desire to sin.

 

[Invalidusername]

ROFL What I just posted that you are responding to is all about 1 John 1:8, in fact 1 John 1:5-10!

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

No it isn't a change of subject. It's in the OP. John is saying we cannot WILLFULLY sin. Your desires have changed. That is, those who have the Holy Spirit do not have the desire to sin.

We do not have the desire to sin but we still struggle with it.

Romans 7:14-20 "14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

 

[1stcenturylady]

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."



We do not have the desire to sin but we still struggle with it.

Romans 7:14-20 "14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

Good grief, don't you know that Romans 7 is still about the LAW??? What you have here is life of the Jews under the law trying to keep it in our evil carnal flesh. [Staff edit]. But you are arguing with someone who knows the word, plus styles of writing to understand what the inspiration of God is actually saying.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Now read the first part of the next chapter that is a continuation.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. ... 9 But you are NOT in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Good night. [Staff edit].

 

[chevyontheriver]

There is no question that Mary and Joseph were very righteous, and blameless as far as the Law was concerned. But since they were human like us (and unlike Christ) they could not escape the inherent sin nature inherited from Adam (Rom 5:12).

But Jesus was human like us. You seem to say Jesus was not human like us, and that's how he avoided being sinful. Jesus was 100 % human. At least for an orthodox Christian. And 100% God.

What the RCC teaches is that Mary was an exception to all of humanity, and that is not what Scripture says. Mary herself acknowledged that she needed a Savior.

One can be saved in one of two ways.

One can be saved from a peril once one has fallen. An example would be how one falls through thin ice on a lake and is pulled out of the water. Happens all the time. But one can be saved from a peril by being guided away from that peril so one never falls through the ice in the first place. Happens all the time too. In both cases one is saved, while one appears more dramatic. The other is nonetheless real.

Mary did need to be saved. And she was saved. Catholics simply contend that she was saved early enough on that she never actually fell, but that without being saved first she would have fallen. So your clever idea to say that Mary herself knew that she needed a savior, and that somehow disproves the Immaculate Conception, well, it doesn't work because Catholics know Mary needed a savior too, and she was saved from falling. I don't expect you to believe it, but at least give up this particular straw man argument.

 

[Invalidusername]

But Jesus was human like us. You seem to say Jesus was not human like us, and that's how he avoided being sinful. Jesus was 100 % human. At least for an orthodox Christian. And 100% God.

One can be saved in one of two ways.

One can be saved from a peril once one has fallen. An example would be how one falls through thin ice on a lake and is pulled out of the water. Happens all the time. But one can be saved from a peril by being guided away from that peril so one never falls through the ice in the first place. Happens all the time too. In both cases one is saved, while one appears more dramatic. The other is nonetheless real.

Mary did need to be saved. And she was saved. Catholics simply contend that she was saved early enough on that she never actually fell, but that without being saved first she would have fallen. So your clever idea to say that Mary herself knew that she needed a savior, and that somehow disproves the Immaculate Conception, well, it doesn't work because Catholics know Mary needed a savior too, and she was saved from falling. I don't expect you to believe it, but at least give up this particular straw man argument.

That's the most amazing hogwash I've ever read.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So they just made up the story because it would be nice? Forgive me, but that is worse than I thought. "Let's not have one God who is sinless, let's have two!"

How many gods? Catholics have ONE God and Mary is not it.

Being sinless does not make a person a god. Being God is one way to be sinless. Another way is to be created sinless by God. Adam was made that way. Eve was made that way. See. God does know how to do it, how to create people that are sinless. And Catholics contend that God made Mary sinless as well. That's the whole idea of Luke 1.

You have decided that Mary being sinless is a made up idea. You had presumed that it was made up to allow for Jesus being born sinless, as some sort of requirement in the mind of Catholics. But I told you that was not considered by Catholics to be necessary. Only that it was considered 'fitting'. Now you understand that, maybe. The roots of it are not in theological necessity but in Luke 1 and in the living memory of a very holy woman and how to understand that. I maintain that the theological understanding of Mary as sinless that developed would never have been possible without Luke 1. It's Luke's fault.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In part, but small. My main focus in the OP is on the Father God and US. That when we are born again of God, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we are given that sinless nature He has.

We have the same human nature Jesus had, and all human beings have. I say this because the human nature Jesus had was a normal human nature, the human nature Adam had, the human nature Eve had. But Adam and Eve fell, and that human in them nature was bent, still the same human nature, but bent. And we have inherited that human nature and we are all bent in our human nature. We don't have a 'sin nature' but a human nature bent by sin.

In baptism our sins are forgiven, and we are both imputed righteousness and have an infused righteousness. We are at that moment sinless, made sinless. Our human nature is the same. We have a blank slate on our soul. We have the same habits and inclinations and predispositions and character flaws though, mostly the accumulated effects of our prior sins. we have to battle against those inclinations and predispositions and character flaws which still bother most of us.

Mary, Catholics believe, got the same human nature, but not a bent one. The same Human nature Adam had, that eve had, that Jesus had, that every other human being has. But she didn't have the burden of any sin in her life. She was free to be truly human in a way that we, because we are bent, cannot be, even after being saved and cleansed.

I refer to a 'bent human nature', but it can also be looked at as a 'heart of darkness', or in many other ways including Augustine's 'original sin' or the way the Orthodox do it without referring to Augustine at all. I don't mean to exclude any of the usual ways of looking at it, but I do insist that the idea of 'sin nature' is all wet.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That's the most amazing hogwash I've ever read.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Micah888]

Jesus was 100 % human. At least for an orthodox Christian. And 100% God.

Of course Jesus was 100% human. EXCEPT for one critical factor.

He did not have the inherited sin nature of all other human beings, and derived from Adam. And that is because (a) He was conceived supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit and (2) He was born of a virgin.

At the same time, Christ was 100% God. So fully God and fully sinless Man, without the taint of sin within His holy soul. He had no sin, He did not sin, and He could not sin -- hence "separate from sinners".

No one -- not even Mary -- can claim such sinlessness, and that claim for her should never have been made. Mary herself would have rejected it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace."

Does the Catholic Church believe her free assent was not required? Maybe we should start a #metoo movement for Mary.

One is not free except in God's grace. Otherwise we are captive to sin and not totally free. For each of us to freely decide we need to be in a grace filled moment. For Mary to consent to be the mother of God in freedom it makes sense that she needed a fullness of grace. But that is a way different thing than claiming that in order for Jesus to be sinless that Mary had to be sinless. Catholics do not claim that Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus could be born sinless. That's not our teaching. That is a sometimes Protestant presumption about what we teach, but not what we teach. The above quote you provided is a different issue.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Of course Jesus was 100% human. EXCEPT for one critical factor.

He did not have the inherited sin nature of all other human beings, and derived from Adam. And that is because (a) He was conceived supernaturally by the power of the Holy Spirit and (2) He was born of a virgin.

No. Jesus was 100 % human. He was like us in all things except sin. Same human nature as Adam and Eve had. Jesus was a human being with a normal human nature. No 'except' other than the one Scriptural one of 'except sin'. And there is no 'sin nature', but only human nature, in our cases human nature bent by sin. The whole 'sin nature' thing is a theological mess best abandoned. Just saying.

At the same time, Christ was 100% God. So fully God and fully sinless Man, without the taint of sin within His holy soul. He had no sin, He did not sin, and He could not sin -- hence "separate from sinners".

I can agree with that.

No one -- not even Mary -- can claim such sinlessness, and that claim for her should never have been made. Mary herself would have rejected it.

[/QUOTE]
Your opinion is noted.

 

[Phil 1:21]

But that is a way different thing than claiming that in order for Jesus to be sinless that Mary had to be sinless. Catholics do not claim that Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus could be born sinless.

Agreed, but that’s not exactly the claim I was responding to. The claim was that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus. According to the catechism, that is exactly what they teach.

I'm not debating the validity of that dogma, but rather the fact that it exists.