My take on immaculate conception

[tonychanyt]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize. More precisely, I know this. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I am not encouraging or stopping anyone from believing in this doctrine. It is not my place to do so.

 

[BPPLEE]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize. More precisely, I know this. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I am not encouraging or stopping anyone from believing in this doctrine. It is not my place to do so.

In the Catholic Church this term is used to describe Mary, her conception is claimed to have been immaculate so that she could be The Mother of God.
I disagree. If any conception was immaculate I believe it would be the conception of Jesus Christ

 

[Clare73]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize. More precisely, I know this. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I am not encouraging or stopping anyone from believing in this doctrine. It is not my place to do so.

Immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary (without sin) by Anne.

 

[KevinT]

In the Catholic Church this term is used to describe Mary, her conception is claimed to have been immaculate so that she could be The Mother of God.
I disagree. If any conception was immaculate I believe it would be the conception of Jesus Christ

I'm confused. Are you saying that Mary had normal human intercourse, and thus her child, Jesus, had a normal human father? Was that father Joseph? The result of an extra-marital affair?

EDIT: I misread when you said, "If any conception was immaculate I believe it would be the conception of Jesus Christ". I agree with this sentence. But what are you disagreeing with?

KT

 

[KevinT]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize. More precisely, I know this. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I am not encouraging or stopping anyone from believing in this doctrine. It is not my place to do so.

So you are against using the term "immaculate conception". That is reasonable. Are you against the understanding that Mary had not had sexual intercourse before she gave birth to Jesus?

KT

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm confused. Are you saying that Mary had normal human intercourse, and thus her child, Jesus, had a normal human father? Was that father Joseph? The result of an extra-marital affair?

EDIT: I misread when you said, "If any conception was immaculate I believe it would be the conception of Jesus Christ". I agree with this sentence. But what are you disagreeing with?

KT

Catholics teach that Mary, not Jesus, is the immaculate conception

 

[ozso]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize. More precisely, I know this. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I am not encouraging or stopping anyone from believing in this doctrine. It is not my place to do so.

The term just simply describes the doctrine. But the doctrine isn't scriptural. In defending Christology, the church went overboard in practically turning Mary into a demigod.

 

[tonychanyt]

Are you against the understanding that Mary had not had sexual intercourse before she gave birth to Jesus?

This question is fine since it contains no special term with a loaded definition. I believe she was a virgin until after she gave birth to Jesus.

 

[concretecamper]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to doctrines. I put little weight on it when others use it in an argument. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize. More precisely, I know this. I don't use the term in my argumentation. I am not encouraging or stopping anyone from believing in this doctrine. It is not my place to do so.

Why would you expect to find anything about Mary's conception in the NT when the Gospel writings begin right before Christ's birth?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Raymond Brown explains the origins of the Roman Catholic Church on this question:

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.


They are both are dependent on the name it claim it assertions of the Roman Catholic's Churches authority. The RCC claims for it's self insights and basis these teaches on their self assertion(s).

In Him,

Bill

 

[Clare73]

Good day,
Raymond Brown explains the origins of the Roman Catholic Church on this question:
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,

God is not limited to the theological box of man.

So how did a sinful Anne conceive a sinless Mary?

And if sinful Anne would conceive a sinless Mary, why could not a sinful Mary conceive a sinless Jesus?

Remember, Jesus came to take on our sins on the cross.

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.

The theology of Raymond E. Brown falls somewhat short of Biblical teaching (The Death of the Messiah) when he declares the Jews were not "guilty" of murdering their Messiah, they were only "responsible" for murdering him.

Jesus viewed it differently when he declared them not children of God, nor of Abraham, but children of the devil because they sought to kill him (Jn 8:38-47).

They are both are dependent on the name it claim it assertions of the Roman Catholic's Churches authority. The RCC claims for it's self insights and basis these teaches on their self assertion(s).

In Him,

Bill

 

[Paleouss]

The term immaculate conception is not in the Scripture.

Greetings Tony. Long time no talk.

I agree, not in the Bible.

Can someone give me the biblical logic that leads to this formulation? Or maybe some historic philosophy problem that the position overcame?


Peace brothers

 

[concretecamper]

Can someone give me the biblical logic that leads to this formulation? Or maybe some historic philosophy problem that the position overcame?

The same Church that said The Gospel of Matthew is Divinely inspired text says Mary was Immaculately conceived. It's is that simple.

 

[David Lamb]

The same Church that said The Gospel of Matthew is Divinely inspired text says Mary was Immaculately conceived. It's is that simple.

But the question asked was: "Can someone give me the biblical logic that leads to this formulation?" You answer that the church that said the Gospel of Matthew is Divinely inspired also says that Mary was immaculately conceived. I can think of many churches which stand firm on the divine inspiration of Scripture, including Matthew's gospel, but which do not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived. Besides, the question asked for biblical logic, not ecclesiastical logic.

 

[Clare73]

The same Church that said The Gospel of Matthew is Divinely inspired text says Mary was Immaculately conceived. It's is that simple.

The immaculate conception of Mary is not in the gospel of Matthew and
does not enjoy being "God-breathed" (theonuestos) Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), as does the gospel of Matthew.

 

[concretecamper]

I can think of many churches which stand firm on the divine inspiration of Scripture, including Matthew's gospel

But what I said was that the same Church that said Matthew is divinely inspired text said Mary was Immaculately conceived, which is true. There was only 1 Church at the time when Matthew was declared inspired text, it was the Catholic Church. These other churches you refer to who believe Matthew is inspired text are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church (seems odd but it is true) since there is no table of contents of Scripture in Scripture.

Besides, the question asked for biblical logic, not ecclesiastical logic.

The premise of the question is that there must be an explicit biblical reference to the Immaculate Conception. That is a false premise. Scripture never claims to be the complete sum total of everything a Christian should or needs to believe. If it were, it would say so.

 

[concretecamper]

The immaculate conception of Mary is not in the gospel of Matthew

what a surprise

does not enjoy being "God-breathed" (theonuestos) Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), as does the gospel of Matthew.

2Tim 3:16 refers to the Tanakh, not Matthew or any of the NT Books.

 

[Clare73]

what a surprise


2Tim 3:16 refers to the Tanakh, not Matthew or any of the NT Books.

Oh dear. . .

Seems Peter placed Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) writings of the OT (2 Pe 3:16).

 

[concretecamper]

Oh dear. . .

Seems Peter placed Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) writings of the OT (2 Pe 3:16).

good grief, just admit that 2 Tim 3:16 refers to the Tanakh. The Scripture Timothy knew from HIS YOUTH could not be any NT books. ugh

 

[Clare73]

good grief, just admit that 2 Tim 3:16 refers to the Tanakh. The Scripture Timothy knew from HIS YOUTH could not be any NT books. ugh

Good grief, just admit that Peter (2 Pe 3:16) placed Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) writings of the OT.

And the immaculate conception of Mary, not being in the gospel of Matthew, does not enjoy being "God-breathed" (theonuestos) Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), as does the gospel of Matthew.

Sorry you find 2 Pe 3:16 so objectionable.