A Controversial Review of the Immaculate

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Clarification: the New Testament was canonized at Carthage, which is what my post referenced.
Your post, here, references the canonization of the Old Testament. The Greek Septuagint was produced by Jamnia and was quoted from by Jesus and the Apostles. The Greek Septuagint and said quotes, include quotes from Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. They were canon to Jesus and the Apostles. You are right, modern scholars criticize the traditional view - modern scholars also claim that Paul did not write his epistles. They also claim that Jesus did not say everything attributed to Him, so on and so forth: modern scholarship is a product of German Liberal Protestantism (which, for the record, included "scholarship" used to carry out the Holocaust).

No the LXX was not produced by Jamnia. It was written in Egypt centuries before Jamnia...

 

[Geralt]

looks like these recent discussions has gone too far away from the original thread question.

 

[FaeryChild]

Note to self: have my morning tea before responding to posts at CF!

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I'm not sure if the issue is who wrote what? Or who compiled what? CC compiled the Canon but that didn't mean it came before the Cannon, just deserving the accolade of being the first Christians to have the complete BIBLE. More honors for having it in the distribution. OKAY!!!

Now back to MY POST:

1. Did God deliver man from the law of sin and death? Adam and Eve were never created with any sin but as a result of law, sin came to be. Supposedly, the first law was not to eat of the fruit in the middle of the garden. Therefore, when Eve and Adam broke the law they became subject to sin. In other words, the spirit of man was not strong enough to overcome the law of sin or rather weak to temptation. In other words, the LORD came to restore mankind from the law of sin so that "he" would be strong enough to overcome it and more so, redeemed from eternal damnation.

2. What does it mean that Mary was born from IC? It wouldn't make sense that she was born sinless because man is generally not born with sin but with a weakness to the law of sin.

"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.a 2For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh,4 so that the righteous standard of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

So it's either she was born without any flaws or she was born with a free to ticket that guaranteed freedom from eternal damnation. In other words, her spirit was that of "man" meaning susceptible sin but by God's Grace she was able to overcome. On the other hand, I don't think she would be the first righteous woman. Otherwise, Jesus would not be the word that came in the flesh, "God did by sending His own Son in likeness of sinful man" meaning he bore the weakness that came with human nature but his Spirit being God's he was able to overcome it all. Therefore, Christ was without sin and crucified it on the cross.

3. What does it take to be fully restored to God's image and inheritance to eternal life?

• Believing in God and in His Son
• Blood of Christ
• The Gift of the Holy Spirit

4. What did it take Mary to be fully restored to God's image and inheritance to eternal life?

• She believed in her Son/Jesus
• The Blood of Christ
• She went to receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:14

If Mary was Holy how comes she followed her son's instruction to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Albion]

2. What does it mean that Mary was born from IC? It wouldn't make sense that she was born sinless because man is generally not born with sin but with a weakness to the law of sin.

You've raised an interesting point here. What really is the purpose for this speculation and for making it a dogma?

It doesn't make the Virgin Birth possible. It doesn't make God becoming Man possible. No, it's nothing more than "gilding the lily" in men's attempts to glorify Mary. So also have we been given the other "Marian" claims dealing with her bodily Assumption, her ever-virginity, her being the dispenser of all graces, her being (with Christ) the co-redeemer of mankind, etc. etc.

 

[Thursday]

mysticism at its best in imagination, zero in truth.

That's a lame exposition of your position. Care to elaborate?

 

[Albion]

• She went to receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:14

If Mary was Holy how comes she followed her son's instruction to wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

In some of this, you are editorializing rather than citing Scripture, though. You can't really say that she "went to (the upper room)" with the intention of receiving the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" or that receiving the Holy Spirit makes one "holy," i.e. sinless.

 

[JacksBratt]

If Yeshua had any blood brothers from Mary and Joseph, He would have given her care to one of them, but He didn't. He gave it to John. Mary and John lived together from then on.

That is pure assumption. John was the "disciple that Jesus loved". Why would He not leave His mother in this disciples care?

 

[JacksBratt]

You're kind of forced into that conjecture if you need Mary to be the eternal virgin...
You have to make Jesus' siblings older than Him too.

Believing that Mary never had any children, other than Jesus, makes for a tough job to twist and spin the scripture into a pretzel.

 

[Thursday]

Yes, of course we are all children of God. This would group us with Mary. Not set her apart as some "daughter" specifically.

Yes, Joseph was instructed not to divorce Mary and explained the situation. However, do you think, then, that he just carried on as a celibate husband of Mary and Step father to Christ? I doubt it. They had a normal family and life, with Jesus as the eldest child.

Mary's role as a child of God is no different than anyone else. However, her role as the Mother of God the Son and her role of spouse of the Holy Spirit are unique in human history.

Yes, Joseph lived as celibate spouse. That's why today such marriages are called Josephite marriages.

 

[Thursday]

That is pure assumption. John was the "disciple that Jesus loved". Why would He not leave His mother in this disciples care?

That would not be done if Mary had other children.

 

[JacksBratt]

Look, this is not my opinion. When I was studying the Catholic faith and our covenant relationship with God as a dedicated Protestant, I did NOT want this to be true. But as they say, facts is facts.

FACT: Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45). Since Jesus cannot be Adam (we do not believe in reincarnation) then there must be some sort of meaning to this. Last Adam has to do with the federal head of the human race. Leadership. Covenant headship. And if this is so, then we have to draw some conclusions.

FACT: Jesus did everything that Adam failed to do. It is not an accident that immediately after His baptism, the Last Adam is driven into the wilderness to pick up where Adam failed, i.e., to be temped of the devil. Adam failed. The Last Adam succeeds in overcoming the temptation.

FACT: The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ means that He has succeeded in reversing the damage done in the Fall. No one talks much about the Fall, yet everything that Christ did circles around the need to restore that which was lost in the Fall. Adam, as human man, is restored in Jesus, the man from Galilee. The kingship of mankind over Creation is re-established in Christ. Everything that Christ Jesus has as man Adam could have had. We know this because we also will share in these blessings ("...for he hath made us kings and priests unto God") There is no way we become kings and priests and the Last Adam gets less. He gets far more, and if you knew and understood Middle East Suzerainty kingships, you would get what is happening here.

FACT: The entire damage from the Fall will be undone. Scripture says that Creation groans as it awaits the restoration of all things. Everything that was damaged and destroyed in the Fall will be repaired. And this includes the restoration of one who is the "Mother of Us All" You simply cannot leave Eve out of the restoration of all things because you don't like where it takes you. Father and Mother. Head and helpmeet. Jesus and Mary. Why would you wish to leave half the work of restoring mankind undone?

Yes, these things are not spelled out word for word in the Scripture. You must put them together from the clues you are given, such as Jesus being called "the Last Adam." That is not just a nice title. It has great meaning in the nature of redemption.

I agree, right up to the point where Mary is the new "Eve". The new Eve will be the church or body of Christ, the Bride of Christ will be the representative of Eve.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You've raised an interesting point here. What really is the purpose for this speculation and for making it a dogma?

It doesn't make the Virgin Birth possible. It doesn't make God becoming Man possible. No, it's nothing more than "gilding the lily" in men's attempts to glorify Mary. So also have we been given the other "Marian" claims dealing with her bodily Assumption, her ever-virginity, her being the dispenser of all graces, her being (with Christ) the co-redeemer of mankind, etc. etc.

It is the result of the Roman church's incorrect teaching and doctrine of "Original Sin"...

 

[FaeryChild]

The doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" is made necessary if one follows Augustine's conceptualization of "original sin".

If one were to understand sin differently, the "Immaculate Conception" would be unnecessary.
If one retains an Augustinian view of "original sin" without the "Immaculate Conception" then it compromises the Incarnation.

 

[Hieronymus]

That is pure assumption. John was the "disciple that Jesus loved".

This is also an assumption, isn't it?
And was John the only Appostle He loved?

Why would He not leave His mother in this disciples care?

Because she had more offspring than Jesus alone?

 

[JacksBratt]

That would not be done if Mary had other children.

I found this in an article and believe it explains it quite well:

The answer is found in John 7. In verse 5 we read “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.” The gospels make it clear that Jesus’ siblings did not believe in Him until after the resurrection. We know that Jesus appeared to James, for 1 Corinthians 15:7 says “After that He was seen by James.” It is probable that this event is what finally inspired James to believe in His brother as the Son of God.

At the time Jesus hung on the cross, His siblings did not believe in Him. It stands to reason, then, that He would ask one of His followers to care for His mother. He selected John, his closest friend who is consistently referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved,” to take on this responsibility. We can assume that if James had believed in Jesus at this time, He would have received this responsibility.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

We shall retain the Biblical view and the Epistle's view of that!!!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That is pure assumption. John was the "disciple that Jesus loved". Why would He not leave His mother in this disciples care?

Because John was not related by blood to Yeshua. If Yeshua had other brothers by blood He would by Law have given them care of Mary.

 

[FaeryChild]

It is the result of the Roman church's incorrect teaching and doctrine of "Original Sin"...

Please say more about this. I've studied from Roman Catholics, Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants - but not from Orthodoxy. I've heard that a lot of theological differences really stem from what one does with Augustine's theology. Please help me to understand...

 

[Albion]

Maybe you're brainwashed.

I won't comment on that, but I do think that nothing is served when anyone comes onto an inter-denominational discussion forum simply to recite the articles of his own denomination's statement of faith and give its own version of history.

Whenever I read a post like the one you responded to I think that that person must be combatting their own doubts by reciting it--not explaining or justifying it, note--for the whole world to read.