Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Alfred Persson]

21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:
23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:
24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:
(Luk 2:21-24 DRA)

One of the turtledoves is a sin offering

`And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean. " -Lev 12:8 NKJ

If Mary were sinless, then a turtledove offering is vanity, hypocritical.


If immaculately conceived, that is "sinless," why mention it prayer to God:

46 And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
(Luk 1:46-47 NKJ)

 

[BobRyan]

21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:
23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:
24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:
(Luk 2:21-24 DRA)

One of the turtledoves is a sin offering

`And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean. " -Lev 12:8 NKJ

If Mary were sinless, then a turtledove offering is vanity, hypocritical.


If immaculately conceived, that is "sinless," why mention it prayer to God:

46 And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
(Luk 1:46-47 NKJ)

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3.

Mary was a sinner in need of 'God my Savior".

Someone says to Christ "Blessed be your mother" Jesus responds "ON the Contrary - blessed are those who hear my words and do them".

Stephen "being full of grace" is someone else who was also a sinner.

The real story here is why are they making up a story about Mary being born sinless as if they think that only a sinless person can give birth to a sinless person... when by definition they know that Mary's mother is not sinless?

The dark ages were indeed - strange times.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

Thread moved from General Theology to Mariology & Hagiography

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Rhamiel]

Jesus paid the temple tax even though He was not obliged to
He did this so that others could would not be scandalized against Him
I see Mary having a sin offering as the same thing

also, God is the savior of Mary
He saved her by keeping her from sin
just like if someone pushes you out of the way of a bullet that person "saves your life" even though you did not die
saving can be either restorative, or preventative

 

[Albion]

Jesus paid the temple tax even though He was not obliged to
He did this so that others could would not be scandalized against Him
I see Mary having a sin offering as the same thing

That would mean that Mary considered herself to be sinless. The Biblical evidence is to the exact opposite.

also, God is the savior of Mary
He saved her by keeping her from sin

That's not what we mean when we say anyone is being saved, has been saved, or might be saved, however.

 

[Rhamiel]

That would mean that Mary considered herself to be sinless. The Biblical evidence is to the exact opposite.


That's not what we mean when we say anyone is being saved, has been saved, or might be saved, however.

I do not know if Mary would have considered herself sinless

what Biblical evidence is the exact opposite?
no where in the Bible does it say that Mary sinned?

that is not what we normally mean when we say that you are being saved
Catholics would say that Mary is the exception to the rule

 

[Alfred Persson]

Jesus paid the temple tax even though He was not obliged to
He did this so that others could would not be scandalized against Him
I see Mary having a sin offering as the same thing

also, God is the savior of Mary
He saved her by keeping her from sin
just like if someone pushes you out of the way of a bullet that person "saves your life" even though you did not die
saving can be either restorative, or preventative

Occam's razor, oft cited by fictional Sherlock Holmes, is correct nonetheless: "the simplest explanation is most likely correct." This follows because the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions has fewer places where error can hide.

Sherlock Holmes would discount your hypothesis, it assumes "Mary knew she was sinless." Nothing in the context indicates she did. The simplest explanation for Mary's sin offering, is she had sin preventing atonement, at-one-ment with God.

Moreover, your theory presents an insurmountable dilemma, if we judge what sinless people do by the revelation of Jesus' impeccable character. Sinless folk do not deceive others. If Mary knew she was sinless, then she deceived the priest into offering a bloody sacrifice for sin that doesn't exist, a sacrifice the Law of Moses didn't command, and in effect made him a sinner.

Its antithetical a "sinless" person deceive others, and cause them to sin, and that a priest of the Most High God.

Another dissimilarity between Christ paying the temple tax, and Mary's sacrifice for sin, by custom Christ owed the Temple Tax (Neh 10:32 cp Ex 30:13-15), but it was the Law of Moses Mary owed the sacrifice for sin.

While Christ chose to pay what was required by custom, to further the Kingdom and not "stumble", Mary's action had no effect on those seeking God. It all was a private matter, no one would be stumbled from obeying God, they would only be angry at her. Whereas Christ's motive is "selfless," your hypothesis makes Mary guilty of "selfish" motives. Judging by the sinless person of Christ, that is hardly the character one expects to see in a "sinless person."

So your first argument should be impossible for you to make, given your high regard for Mary.

Relevant to your argument is other scripture indicating Mary was not sinless:

34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:34-35 NKJ)

If Mary were sinless, then there was no need for the power of the Highest to overshadow her, so what was born would be "Holy", that is, separate from the sinfulness of man.

As for your second argument, it begs the question why Paul never cited Mary as the exception to the rule. If she were immaculately conceived like Adam and Eve, then she was not under the penalty of death for sin:

Gen 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Wouldn't the apostle John list Mary as the exception to this rule?

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


Your second argument also violates parsimony, occam's razor. Because it adds the unique and hitherto unknown entity of a person born sinless before Christ, who died for everyone's sins.

Before Christ, before His instructing the masses, you have the entity of a fully knowledgeable Mary knowing God saved her, before time. Unlike everyone else around her and in history, God is her saviour differently, pre-conception.

Nothing in the scripture indicates Mary believed in pre-existence of souls, let alone being saved even before she was conceived. And there certainly isn't anything in her declaration God is her savior, that the saving act was something that happened in the past, before she was conceived. Parsimonously, its just like the statement any sinner makes of a God who continually saves from sin, expressing the confidence He who began saving, will do so even unto death.

To sum up, your arguments contradict scripture, and have consequences someone with your high regard for Mary, must surely reject.

If what you argue is true, then Mary is a deceiver involving a priest of God into offering "strange fire" to the Most High God. It is "strange fire" because the law of Moses never commands blood be shed in sacrifice for sinlessness.

No doubt it was God's merciful grace that kept the fire from going forth, to consume the priest:

1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. (Lev 10:1-2 KJV)

 

[Rhamiel]

you said that if Mary did not offer the temple sacrifice it would not cause others to stumble?

it would create gossip, it would create judgmental attitudes, it could have even led to people rejecting Jesus because He had a "questionable" mother who did not offer sacrifice in the Temple

that is not selfish, that is practical

also, you seem to be working under the assumption that Mary understood that she was the Immaculate Conception

working up some kind of scenario where it is selfish
rather then seeing a young Jewish girl following the law as it was taught to her

 

[Alfred Persson]

you said that if Mary did not offer the temple sacrifice it would not cause others to stumble?

it would create gossip, it would create judgmental attitudes, it could have even led to people rejecting Jesus because He had a "questionable" mother who did not offer sacrifice in the Temple

that is not selfish, that is practical

also, you seem to be working under the assumption that Mary understood that she was the Immaculate Conception

working up some kind of scenario where it is selfish
rather then seeing a young Jewish girl following the law as it was taught to her

You argued she offered sacrifice knowing she was sinless, just as Christ paid the tax, knowing He didn't owe it.

Its your argument, your premise, don't run from it now.

It is selfish to keep truth from others, for one's own personal gain----what you call "practical", is known as "a good" Mary hoped to obtain when she withheld the truth.

That is unlike Christ, who paid the tax He didn't owe, because He didn't want to stumble others from the kingdom. As it was a 'custom' and not legally required by the Law, Christ's action was the opposite of selfish.

So you now reject your own premise and claim Mary calls God "my Savior" just like everyone else who doesn't believe they were immaculately conceived.

Well then, you proved immaculate conception is untrue, according to Mary's own testimony. She knew she was a sinner, and therefore offered the turtledoves. Also she calls God "my savior", just like all sinners do, which disproves she believed in immaculate conception. And if anyone knows if Mary was a sinner or not, it was Mary herself, and clearly she believed she was.

 

[narnia59]

You argued she offered sacrifice knowing she was sinless, just as Christ paid the tax, knowing He didn't owe it.

Its your argument, your premise, don't run from it now.

It is selfish to keep truth from others, for one's own personal gain----what you call "practical", is known as "a good" Mary hoped to obtain when she withheld the truth.

That is unlike Christ, who paid the tax He didn't owe, because He didn't want to stumble others from the kingdom. As it was a 'custom' and not legally required by the Law, Christ's action was the opposite of selfish.

So you now reject your own premise and claim Mary calls God "my Savior" just like everyone else who doesn't believe they were immaculately conceived.

Well then, you proved immaculate conception is untrue, according to Mary's own testimony. She knew she was a sinner, and therefore offered the turtledoves. Also she calls God "my savior", just like all sinners do, which disproves she believed in immaculate conception. And if anyone knows if Mary was a sinner or not, it was Mary herself, and clearly she believed she was.

The temple tax was legally required by law and its purpose was to make "atonement for yourselves" (Exodus 30:15). This is the tax Christ paid in order not to offend, but according to your logic it must prove him to be a sinner since he paid a tax whose sole purpose was to make atonement for himself.

The turtledoves were a communal sin offering, not an individual sin offering. There is a difference. Communal sin offerings are not related to individual sin. The offering of the turtledoves was required after a woman gave birth. That is the act that Mary did that you're saying required her to make a sin offering, so therefore she must have sinned. Unless you want to argue that Mary sinned by giving birth to Christ, your argument has no merit.

 

[Albion]

The temple tax was legally required by law and its purpose was to make "atonement for yourselves" (Exodus 30:15). This is the tax Christ paid in order not to offend, but according to your logic it must prove him to be a sinner since he paid a tax whose sole purpose was to make atonement for himself.

Not so. He effectively showed why Jesus doing this and Mary doing this is not the same thing.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

I have deleted a tag from this thread that was flaming another member. This is an official reminder that tags must conform to all other sitewide rules. This is also a reminder that staff can see who posted thread tags. Violations of the sitewide rules in the tags could result in staff actions for the offending posters.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[narnia59]

Not so. He effectively showed why Jesus doing this and Mary doing this is not the same thing.

No, he said the temple tax was custom and not required by law, which is false. And he made no mention of the fact that not only was it required by law, its purpose was to atone for sins.

Are you of the opinion that Mary sinned because she gave birth to Christ? That's what her "sin offering" is for -- purification after childbirth. Required by the law for all women who give birth. So is giving birth to a child a sin? Especially a child conceived by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Albion]

No, he said the temple tax was custom and not required by law, which is false. And he made no mention of the fact that not only was it required by law, its purpose was to atone for sins.

You've missed the point there IMO. Jesus did not have to do any of this...because he was God.

In most instances, he did continue to observe the Jewish customs, but not always. If he did so in this case, it was not because he felt any obligation. But Mary's situation is different. She was only mortal. We can be comfortable in the knowledge that she behaved obediently in this case like any normal Jewish person would.

The difference is important.

Are you of the opinion that Mary sinned because she gave birth to Christ?

No. But that isn't the point either.

That's what her "sin offering" is for -- purification after childbirth. Required by the law for all women who give birth. So is giving birth to a child a sin? Especially a child conceived by the Holy Spirit?

You're still missing the point. We don't believe that giving birth is sinful, but Mary--like the Jews in general--adhered to the traditions and requirements of their faith. So she did. Jesus' situation was not analogous to hers, and I should think we'd all realize that immediately.

 

[narnia59]

You've missed the point there IMO. Jesus did not have to do any of this...because he was God.

In most instances, he did continue to observe the Jewish customs, but not always. If he did so in this case, it was not because he felt any obligation. But Mary's situation is different. She was only mortal. We can be comfortable in the knowledge that she behaved obediently in this case like any normal Jewish person would.

The difference is important.


No. But that isn't the point either.



You're still missing the point. We don't believe that giving birth is sinful, but Mary--like the Jews in general--adhered to the traditions and requirements of their faith. So she did. Jesus' situation was not analogous to hers, and I should think we'd all realize that immediately.

The point is that the argument is trying to be advanced that because Mary came to the temple after giving birth to Christ in order to make the offering as prescribed by the law for her purification, this proves that she was a sinner.

The only action that Mary did which required that offering is give birth to Christ. If she had not given birth, she would not have been making that offering at all. If one wants to insist that by doing so it proves she was a sinner, the only logical conclusion is that by giving birth to Christ, she sinned.

It is analogous to the situation with Christ because taken at face value, he too did things by which using the same logic, one could say he sinned. One was paying the half shekel temple tax, which was specifically prescribed by the law for "atonement". Another was accepting John's baptism, the purpose of which according to Scripture was for "repentance of sins". None of us would think of using these things to "prove" Christ was a sinner, because we accept that he was not. But logically you cannot use the same type of action to "prove" Mary was a sinner simply because you believe that she was. Especially when the action tied to her offering, the action that was the direct cause of her being at the temple with that offering, was giving birth to Christ, which we agree was not a sin at all.

 

[Albion]

The point is that the argument is trying to be advanced that because Mary came to the temple after giving birth to Christ in order to make the offering as prescribed by the law for her purification, this proves that she was a sinner.

I am not making that argument but I am rejecting your theory for other reasons. I hope that helps straighten something out.

It is analogous to the situation with Christ because taken at face value, he too did things by which using the same logic,

But it cannot be taken at value.

As it was explained earlier, Christ felt no obligation to adhere to the Jewish religious regulations and customs. He sometimes did anyway, and sometimes he did not, but it's clear that he felt (logically enough, considering who he was and that he was aware of it) no obligation to do these ritualistic things. Mary was not in that situation.

 

[narnia59]

I am not making that argument but I am rejecting your theory for other reasons. I hope that helps straighten something out.



But it cannot be taken at value.

As it was explained earlier, Christ felt no obligation to adhere to the Jewish religious regulations and customs. He sometimes did anyway, and sometimes he did not, but it's clear that he felt (logically enough, considering who he was and that he was aware of it) no obligation to do these ritualistic things. Mary was not in that situation.

My only theory is that you cannot prove that Mary sinned because she made that offering, which appears to be the position of the OP of the thread. Do you reject that?

 

[narnia59]

21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:
23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:
24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:
(Luk 2:21-24 DRA)

One of the turtledoves is a sin offering

`And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean. " -Lev 12:8 NKJ

If Mary were sinless, then a turtledove offering is vanity, hypocritical.

Again, this offering is for purification after childbirth. It has nothing to do with actual, personal sin. And she is not hypocritical for following the law of her people.

If immaculately conceived, that is "sinless," why mention it prayer to God:

46 And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
(Luk 1:46-47 NKJ)

Believing that God has to wait until after someone has sinned in order to save them is absurd.

And yes, her soul "magnifies" the Lord. How can someone whose soul is sinful do that?

 

[Albion]

My only theory is that you cannot prove that Mary sinned because she made that offering

I know. But then again, I never said otherwise.

The fact that she was a sinner and knew herself to be a sinner doesn't rest upon this event.

 

[narnia59]

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3.

"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).


Particular Redemption

Blueletter Bible Lexicon (not Catholic) on "all"
individually: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
collectively: some of all types
Greek Lexicon :: G3956 (KJV)


This is the context in which Paul is writing. "All", "some of all types" -- both the Gentiles and Jews need God's grace for they have sinned.

2 chapters later, Paul says in Romans 5:12 "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—

Again, a "collective" use of the word "all" because certain individuals indeed have not died (Elijah and Enoch). Note, he did not say all "will" die which ends the absurd notion that these two will somebody day so yes, it means every individual. Said in that context it will be utterly false and contradict the understanding that there will be a group of Christians at the end, even though sinners, who will never die at all.

And then he write in Romans 5:19 that "many" (not "all") were made sinners by Adam's disobedience. That is only consistent if you understand he is using "all" collectively, not individually.

Using "all have sinned" as a singular proof text that Mary said does not stand up to review.

[/QUOTE]