The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel

Multiple spotless lambs also brings up other theological issues.

rick357 said:

One issue I have not seen delt with in this thread is the sidebar issues of as is my understanding that this theology includes Mary remaining a virgin which scripture refutes by telling us Joseph did.not know his wife UNTILL the child Jesus was born and also that his brothers were of another woman wich seems complete fabrication to support the previous view. If I am wrong in my understanding of what is taught please let me know

Click to expand...

The Greek word 'until' (eos) doesn't have quite the same semantic field as the English word. Whereas the English word usually denotes action that is the case until it is no longer the case while connoting that the reverse situation while prevail at the end of that period, the Greek word doesn't operate in quite the same way. Rather it specifically denotes that a given action is true for a given period of time, without any corollary denotation. Thus, the LXX (Greek version) of 2 Sam 6:33 states, "Saul’s daughter Michal had no child until the day of her death." It certainly isn't the case that she then had children after she died!

I'm not tied to the perpetual virginity of Mary like I once was, but the word "until" certainly isn't the place to go to argue against it.

On the other hand, I'd agree with you that the fiction of Joseph having had Jesus' 'brothers' by a prior marriage is just that: a fiction. I would argue, however, that Jesus' 'brothers' are in fact close kinsmen, since the Greek term adelphoi covers the semantic field of both brothers and close cousins and other relations at one remove, without stretching into the realm of the metaphorical.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

I'm really not saying that having flesh is necessarily sinful, but Paul's explicitly argues that even before the fall the whole reasons humans- who were without sin- had a capacity to sin is because the flesh is open to corruption. Not naturally corrupt, not naturally evil, but open or prone to corruption.

Click to expand...

Were the mind and heart not involved with sin that would be a point, but of course...

That's not Gnosticism; that's not even Platonism. That's simply a recognition that while we sin in our entire beings (and as a Lutheran, I strongly agree with the Reformational protest against the medieval view that problem with humanity was a disordering of the faculties rather than a corruption of mind and will as well as soul and body), our flesh is the particular agent of our sinning.

Click to expand...

I think most recognize that sin is not the flesh itself. It is a spiritual matter in the anti-spiritual sense, not a flesh matter. It just happens to transpire where we stand when eventually recognized on the outside in 'actions.'

Our most primal desires that drive us away from God are goals of the flesh: lust, greed, sloth, gluttony. That's not to say our souls and spirits aren't evil from birth, nor that our flesh was evil before the again. Again, it is simply to recognize that our flesh is particularly corrupt and has always been open to that corruption. And that's exactly how Paul talks about the flesh in Gal 5, Rom 7 and 8, 1 Cor 15, and many other places.

Allow me to elaborate by following up on your next point:

Any serious theology of the incarnation and of human sin has to take into account the facts that 1. Christ was fully and totally embodied in human flesh, and therefore flesh cannot be evil in-itself, and 2. the flesh of the incarnate Christ died, and therefore even the flesh of a sinless person is open, prone, and subject to the dominion of Death.

Click to expand...

Bolded to highlight total agreement. Those are sound well thought out scriptural facts in the eyes of most believers who have pondered and studied the matters, I would think.

Obviously, in one sense, Christ opened himself up to that dominion; but noticeably, he didn't do so by going to the cross without flesh, as Gnosticism would have it, but going to the cross with flesh. It was precisely as a creature in the flesh that Christ could die.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Subject to death, even to destroy death by that dying sacrifice. It is highly mystical to say the least. As so suitably pointed to by the writer of Hebrews:

Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

And thus, I hope my point is clarified: the openness of our fleshly existence to Death is not a Gnostic concept at all, but is actually a protest against the Gnosticism wherein the theoanthropos could not die because he could not become enfleshed. Flesh is not necessarily evil, nor necessarily sinful, but is subject to corruption and death simply because of the contingency of the fall. And indeed, it is even subject to death when the creator wills it voluntarily, without becoming infected with sin, because even before the fall the flesh was precisely that element of humanity that opened us to sin (which, yes, infected our whole being, spirit and soul as well) and subjected us to Death (which, yes, ultimately subjects our whole being, spirit and soul as well, to his dominion).

Click to expand...

Like us in every way, save for the massive distinction of being without sin. And I don't say massive in the diminutive sense, obviously. That is just one huge difference. God apparently considered His Image important enough to OCCUPY same.

Never ceases to amaze me, just thinking about that.

Final note: In all of this, I'm specifically using Paul's language of flesh. Sarx, flesh, nor soma, body. I'm not talking about physicality in-itself, embodiedness, which certainly would be Gnostic. I'm talking about the fact that humans are particularly embodied in sarx, which we conventionally translate as 'flesh' but which I think better gets across but saying meat. A big part of Paul's point in 1 Cor 15 is that being physically embodied is good, and that Christ is still physically embodied, but his physicality is no longer simply dying meat enlivened by a soul, but a resurrected body enlivened by the Spirit.

Click to expand...

I believe Paul represented flesh material as that. Material. Even material formed in Gods Image. It is not in itself inherently anything.

Concepts of good and evil transcend meat. In many ways they are the ghosts that operate within the meat machines.

s

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

The Greek word 'until' (eos) doesn't have quite the same semantic field as the English word. Whereas the English word usually denotes action that is the case until it is no longer the case while connoting that the reverse situation while prevail at the end of that period, the Greek word doesn't operate in quite the same way. Rather it specifically denotes that a given action is true for a given period of time, without any corollary denotation. Thus, the LXX (Greek version) of 2 Sam 6:33 states, "Saul’s daughter Michal had no child until the day of her death." It certainly isn't the case that she then had children after she died!

I'm not tied to the perpetual virginity of Mary like I once was, but the word "until" certainly isn't the place to go to argue against it.

On the other hand, I'd agree with you that the fiction of Joseph having had Jesus' 'brothers' by a prior marriage is just that: a fiction. I would argue, however, that Jesus' 'brothers' are in fact close kinsmen, since the Greek term adelphoi covers the semantic field of both brothers and close cousins and other relations at one remove, without stretching into the realm of the metaphorical.

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time.to.respond to my post . I had no real reason to ask other than to understand how these conclusions were arrivd at wich you have done well enough. I personaly dont believe in Mary as.sinless but see it as a.nonissue to the gospel...on the level of what was Jesus skin color...I have my opinion but no point of contention with other believers who disagree.

squint said:

Multiple spotless lambs also brings up other theological issues.

Click to expand...

When was Mary sacrificed? Talk about a red herring. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Mama Kidogo said:

When was Mary sacrificed? Talk about a red herring. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Click to expand...

I have sometimes wondered about that when I see RCC churches such as the Sacred Heart of Mary.

Mama Kidogo said:

When was Mary sacrificed? Talk about a red herring. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Click to expand...

I don't think your sect presents a sinless perfect Mary do they?

I think the RCC does, therefore there are multiple spotless lambs, Jesus and Mary, 2.

bbbbbbb said:

I have sometimes wondered about that when I see RCC churches such as the Sacred Heart of Mary.

Click to expand...

Oh she sacrificed much but was not a sacrifice.

bbbbbbb said:

I have sometimes wondered about that when I see RCC churches such as the Sacred Heart of Mary.

Click to expand...

There's no Sacred Heart of Mary. Jesus is the Sacred Heart. Mary is the Immaculate Heart. FYI.

squint said:

I don't think your sect presents a sinless perfect Mary do they?

I think the RCC does, therefore there are multiple spotless lambs, Jesus and Mary, 2.

Click to expand...

We don't, either, at least not as I think you mean it. Mary is a creature, she did nothing for herself, but say yes to the gift. God made her without stain of sin. Jesus was sinless by his own nature, Mary's sinlessness was a gift.

squint said:

I don't think your sect presents a sinless perfect Mary do they?

I think the RCC does, therefore there are multiple spotless lambs, Jesus and Mary, 2.

Click to expand...

We see her as blameless. Righteous. Blessed. If we read our scriptures we'll see there were some righteous and blameless folks. I do not see EC as impossible.
When we are cleansed of all our sins, what state are we in? I don't fear the word sinless except when it's applied to me, a sinner.

Mama Kidogo said:

We see her as blameless. Righteous. Blessed. If we read our scriptures we'll see there were some righteous and blameless folks. I do not see EC as impossible.
When we are cleansed of all our sins, what state are we in? I don't fear the word sinless except when it's applied to me, a sinner.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the E.O. conveys temporary sinlessness to their congregants.

And that wasn't the point of the observation in any case.

I'm not aware how IC differs from the theological presentation of Jesus Himself, hence twin spotless lambs would appear as a possibility in that sight.

Root of Jesse said:

We don't, either, at least not as I think you mean it. Mary is a creature, she did nothing for herself, but say yes to the gift. God made her without stain of sin. Jesus was sinless by his own nature, Mary's sinlessness was a gift.

Click to expand...

A difference in sinlessness then?

squint said:

A difference in sinlessness then?

Click to expand...

An example that's often used...

There's more than one way to be saved from a disaster. For example, if I'm starting to walk across the street, and an oncoming car is headed right for me, if someone jumps at me, and pushes me out of the way, I've been saved. If the car screeches to a halt, I've been saved, as well. If I run across on my own, I've been saved as well. Jesus was sinless on his own-he's God. Mary had help from God. So God shielded her, and she obeyed Him.

Root of Jesse said:

An example that's often used...

There's more than one way to be saved from a disaster. For example, if I'm starting to walk across the street, and an oncoming car is headed right for me, if someone jumps at me, and pushes me out of the way, I've been saved. If the car screeches to a halt, I've been saved, as well. If I run across on my own, I've been saved as well. Jesus was sinless on his own-he's God. Mary had help from God. So God shielded her, and she obeyed Him.

Click to expand...

That would be presuming that she had something to be saved from to begin with?

squint said:

That would be presuming that she had something to be saved from to begin with?

Click to expand...

Of course! She is human, after all.

squint said:

I wasn't aware that the E.O. conveys temporary sinlessness to their congregants.

And that wasn't the point of the observation in any case.

I'm not aware how IC differs from the theological presentation of Jesus Himself, hence twin spotless lambs would appear as a possibility in that sight.

Click to expand...

Did I say the EO coveys temporary sinlessness?
I believe we can achieve the state without sin, lest sin not means nothing. I have not achieved it.

Setyoufree said:

Verse?

Click to expand...

Show me the verse that says she sinned.