Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Divide]

Then don't challenge those who say "there is no need" to prove that Mary was Immaculately conceived.

Brilliant repose!

 

[Samson2021]

So good so far.

Jesus was a person, with two inseparable natures, not mixed, mingled or confused.

Yes, Jesus took on Mary's flesh.

That would be God creating God.

Really! you bought that line.

Seems the problem is you really don't understand the carnal nature of man nor where it comes from.
Simply put, it passes from Father to child thus all mankind cannot escape the curse for all have a genetic father period.
In Jesus' case His Father did not, for God cannot be at odds with Himself, thus Jesus was born without a carnal mind or He would have been a sinner from the womb like the rest of us.
The good tree that bore fruit was not Mary it was God.
And your comment about God creating God, that's actually what did happen but not at Jesus' birth. It was through the sufferings God put Him
through that He became a "LIFE GIVING SPIRIT" just like His Father, thus He was pronounced to be a God as He had been developed into the
very image of His Father, this was His destiny and it is also ours as other sons of God that are perfected and will eventually have life within ourselves and as Jesus says at that time "NOTHING SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO YOU" For at that time our faith will have been perfected!
Now with God (Luke 1:37) nothing shall be impossible. With Jesus nothing shall be impossible. With us once perfection has come
nothing shall be impossible. Can you see the pattern?

If you will reread the Gethsemane account you will notice that Jesus rebukes Peter for not desiring the things of God meaning Jesus' own
crucifixion. Then just a few hrs later Jesus is praying for the Father to remove the cup (crucifixion) from Him. What changed? During that
short period the sin of the world had been placed on Him just like the sacrificial lamb in the OT, that included the carnal mind which
loves itself and is all about self preservation. Jesus delighted to do the will of His Father UNTIL the carnal mind of man was placed
on Him then He desired it not but still bent to the will of His Father because He understood the reward. Even Jesus had a difficult, to say the least, moment dealing with the carnal mind.

Romans 11:32
John 5:26
Matt 17:20
1 Co 15:45
Heb 5:8-9
Heb 1:8
Matthew 26

 

[BBAS 64]

Your unwillingness to address the issue head on speaks volumes.

Then don't challenge those who say "there is no need" to prove that Mary was Immaculately conceived.

Good day,

I never ask for that to be proven... I member of the Roman Catholic Church accepts this as true based on the subjective declaration of their Church, which asserts and assumes their own authority in teaching it' own dogma for it's members. So it is ok there is no proof or evidence in that members mind.

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.


I have no issue with that ( I think it a error to do) but to each his own... I think they are teaching falsehood and the name it claim it appeal to their own insights and application is nothing more than a fallacy that people subjectively believe because they are told too.

In Him

Bill

 

[concretecamper]

I member of the Roman Catholic Church accepts this as true based on the subjective declaration of their Church, which asserts and assumes their own authority in teaching it' own dogma for it's members. So it is ok there is no proof or evidence in that members mind.

Just Roman Catholics accept that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired text based on the declaration of the Church since there is nothing in Scripture that say Matthew is inspired text.

Btw, Raymond Brown makes some false claims, but that doesn't matter for this discussion.

 

[BBAS 64]

Just Roman Catholics accept that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired text based on the declaration of the Church since there is nothing in Scripture that say Matthew is inspired text.

Btw, Raymond Brown makes some false claims, but that doesn't matter for this discussion.

Good day,

I understand you need the declaration of your Church (because they tell you that you do) .... but not every one does.

No body is perfect I understand and you may assert he has made false claims, but I would say what he writes is clear and understandable with in the mind set of a member of the Roman Catholic Church which he clearly is:

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."


In Him,

Bill

 

[Samson2021]

I'd say that if Mary were sinless then were would never have been a need for Jesus, as she could have been the sacrifice for sin. But since
she was not and was born according to the flesh in the line of David, there was need for another. Jesus was born from the genetics of God,
not a man, although his mother was in the line of David to fulfill prophecy.


Rom 11:32 "God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief so that He might have mercy upon ALL." That included Mary. Is unbelief a sin??

 

[BobRyan]

That sounds incorrect to me. Mary didn't have the Adamic nature

wouldn't it be great to have an actual Bible text for something like that?
Think of how much easier it would be to provide evidence for such a suggestion - if the Bible actually said it.
I think you would agree - that getting support for that from the actual Bible would be very useful.

 

[concretecamper]

I understand you need the declaration of your Church (because they tell you that you do) .... but not every one does.

There is no other way to determine whether Matthew is inspired text.

You can of course prove me wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

I'd say that if Mary were sinless then were would never have been a need for Jesus, as she could have been the sacrifice for sin.

well she herself would not have needed a savior in that case (were it actually true) -- but that would leave the rest of us stuck.

Rom 11:32 "God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief so that He might have mercy upon ALL." That included Mary. Is unbelief a sin??

yep - that is what the Bible actually says.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no other way to determine whether Matthew is inspired text.

We both know that is not true.

Catholics and non-Catholics freely admit that Matthew was written long before there was a pope in Rome. The NT saints read the book of Matthew as an inspired book IN the first century -- all Christians agree on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

Just Roman Catholics accept that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired text

Well that part is not correct.

And we all know that NT saints were reading the book of Matthew as an inspired ext in the first century - they did not wait a few hundred years to figure that out.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin

nor did they teach it in any text of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Was the fruit of Mary's womb one which had the adamic nature? Certainly not! So something happened to Mary's bloodline that didn't make it into print, lol.

Many Catholics say the same thing about Mary's mother and then that same logic by extension goes to Mary's grandmother and then by that same logic Mary's great grandmother - until you get to Eve the mother of us all.

 

[BobRyan]

Then don't challenge those who say "there is no need" to prove that Mary was Immaculately conceived.

that logic rolls all the way back to Eve - mother of us all

 

[BobRyan]

In brief, you believe the Gospel of Matthew is inspired because that is what you were taught, and you choose to believe it.

The first century saints were not born "with the book of Matthew". Rather it was written in their day and read in their day as an inspired text

The Western Church has had the same canon since the late 4th Century

A good example of something that the saints in the first, second and third centuries had no access to - as saints in all those centuries accepted Matthew as an inspired text.

The same criteria used in the 4th century for accepting Matthew was available to the saints in all previous centuries. That detail did not suddenly "appear" in the 4th century.

Since there is no dispute here about the book of Matthew being read and accepted in the first century - maybe we can focus on the topic more directly.

 

[concretecamper]

@BobRyan

Instead of responding to all your posts, maybe you would like to prove to us all the Matthew is inspired text.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan

Instead of responding to all your posts, maybe you would like to prove to us all the Matthew is inspired text.

Since we all know that in the first century (long before any 4th century Catholic group came along) - the saints already read and accepted Mathew as inspired and that they already had the criteria used in the 4th century about Matthew - to reach that conclusion -- the burden of proof is on the one that doubts that first century fact.

And of course - Matthew says nothing about an immaculate conception by Mary's Mother - of Mary.

I guess we all agree with that as well.

 

[Samson2021]

Well since Matthew agrees with Mark Luke and John you'd have to throw them all out as inspired. Then what would you have?

NOTHING!!!

 

[concretecamper]

Since we all know that in the first century (long before any 4th century Catholic group came along) - the saints already read and accepted Mathew as inspired and that they already had the criteria used in the 4th century about Matthew - to reach that conclusion -- the burden of proof is on the one that doubts that first century fact.

And of course - Matthew says nothing about an immaculate conception by Mary's Mother - of Mary.

I guess we all agree with that as well.

In other words, Tradition. Thank you.

 

[BBAS 64]

nor did they teach it in any text of scripture.

Good day, Bob

In the same way I do not ask members of the Roman Catholic Church to prove objectively their own churches teaching.

I do not expect that they are able to prove some of theirs beliefs from Scripture.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.


Consider:

Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

Sort of like garbage in garbage out....

In Him

Bill