Immaculate conception of Mary?

justinangel · Mar 24, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
I am sorry that you have lost count. I assume that you no longer consider your own to be one of them.

I consider mine to be the only one founded by Christ, or else I wouldn't be Catholic.

PAX

justinangel · Mar 24, 2015

Standing Up said:
This is just more of the same commentary without proof. Like we found Josephus saying "they", not "she" or "it", contrary to some claims.

I provided three other translations than the criticized work you had. Or hadn't you noticed.

Mariology stuff existed far back, even to PoJames (not scripture), long before Vatican.

The Gospel of Luke is Scripture. And you can be sure it is, since the Catholic Church told you so as early as the late 4th century with the Decree of Damasus.

We're talking.

At least you can let me know which "apostolic" denomination of thousands you belong to.

PAX

Albion · Mar 24, 2015

justinangel said:
I consider mine to be the only one founded by Christ, or else I wouldn't be Catholic.

PAX

And that is your right. But on the other hand, it doesn't make for much of a discussion to have you do nothing more than state that fact again and again, does it? I mean, we already know the stance of the RCC on these issues and also that you have decided to believe them unquestioningly.

justinangel · Mar 25, 2015

Albion said:
And that is your right. But on the other hand, it doesn't make for much of a discussion to have you do nothing more than state that fact again and again, does it? I mean, we already know the stance of the RCC on these issues and also that you have decided to believe them unquestioningly.

That's only because Protestants keep raising the same objections over and over again. It makes little for a discussion for people to suggest what I assume. I only reply to what has been said to me by people who don't actually discuss anything but merely make pert quips. BTW, I thought you waved goodbye!

PAX

justinangel · Mar 25, 2015

Standing Up said:
" The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. "
-NewAdvent.org-

So, Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong you are saying.

The EC is neither right nor wrong. Catholic scholars haven't reached a consensus on this issue. And for your own interest, a translation of the Antiquities by Charles Clarke reads "Eve shall tread...". That's 3 to 1 for the good guys.

PAX

Standing Up · Mar 25, 2015

justinangel said:
I provided three other translations than the criticized work you had. Or hadn't you noticed. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Already commented on that. Josephus says "they". But we know he didn't see Christ as Messiah.

Bottom line is folks reiterated what they found on the internet. When pressed for quotes, none came forth.

Standing Up · Mar 25, 2015

justinangel said:
The EC is neither right nor wrong. Catholic scholars haven't reached a consensus on this issue. And for your own interest, a translation of the Antiquities by Charles Clarke reads "Eve shall tread...". That's 3 to 1 for the good guys.

PAX

Keep digging for the truth.

Albion · Mar 25, 2015

justinangel said:
That's only because Protestants keep raising the same objections over and over again.

If it seems that way, I'd love to have you respond to their arguments with factual or logical or historical information. Merely to say "I'm a Catholic. The Church tells me to believe this, so I do" doesn't add anything to the discussion or refute anything.

As I said, we already know all of that.

justinangel · Mar 25, 2015

Standing Up said:
Already commented on that. Josephus says "they". But we know he didn't see Christ as Messiah.

Whiston says "they".

Neither do the Jews see Isaiah 7,14 as a Messianic prophecy.

Bottom line is folks reiterated what they found on the internet. When pressed for quotes, none came forth.

I provided three translations of Josephus that have "she" or "Eve" instead of "they", which you'll find in Whiston's book. I got my information from a friend who has the books by L'estrange, Ebenezer, and Clarke. Must I give you the name of the publishers, the dates, and the page numbers? I also showed you a translation of Philo's actual work from Christian Library, which you chose to ignore as if I never had. So what's this about "none came forth"? I think you ought to scroll back.

PAX

justinangel · Mar 25, 2015

Albion said:
If it seems that way, I'd love to have you respond to their arguments with factual or logical or historical information. Merely to say "I'm a Catholic. The Church tells me to believe this, so I do" doesn't add anything to the discussion or refute anything.

First of all, you haven't provided any arguments. The best you can do is quibble, so there really hasn't been any "discussion" or anything to refute. I don't believe anyone can really have a genuine discussion with you. Moreover, I've provided sufficient historical information by citing the Church Fathers to show what the Church has believed since early time. Finally, I never said what you actually quote, so quit twisting the meaning of my actual words.

And, yes, the Church is "the pillar and the foundation of truth". In the words of Ireneaus, "where the Church is, there is the Spirit of truth." If you hope to settle the question of the Immaculate Conception by way of logical deduction, or the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ for that matter, I wish you luck. The next time you wave goodbye, I hope you mean it.

PAX

Albion · Mar 25, 2015

justinangel said:
First of all, you haven't provided any arguments.

Read my 50,000+ posts and then get back to me about that.

And, yes, the Church is "the pillar and the foundation of truth".

I know that that is something you and your friends are primed to say, but the verse doesn't read that way. Unfortunately for you, I am aware of that fact. I have explained what it actually says more times than I can count.

In the words of Ireneaus, "where the Church is, there is the Spirit of truth."

So whom do you want to go with--the Bible or Irenaeus?

And what happened to the topic of this thread--the allegedly immaculate conception of Mary?

bbbbbbb · Mar 25, 2015

Albion said:
Read my 50,000+ posts and then get back to me about that.

I know that that is something you and your friends are primed to say, but the verse doesn't read that way. Unfortunately for you, I am aware of that fact. I have explained what it actually says more times than I can count.

So whom do you want to go with--the Bible or Irenaeus?

And what happened to the topic of this thread--the allegedly immaculate conception of Mary?

Indeed, what ever happened to the topic? I am seeing a rather useless discussion going on concerning a relativelyly secondary issue.

The reality seems to be that we have yet to see any sources affirming this as being a dogma of the highest importance taught from "the beginning".

Standing Up · Mar 25, 2015

justinangel said:
Whiston says "they".

Neither do the Jews see Isaiah 7,14 as a Messianic prophecy.

I provided three translations of Josephus that have "she" or "Eve" instead of "they", which you'll find in Whiston's book. I got my information from a friend who has the books by L'estrange, Ebenezer, and Clarke. Must I give you the name of the publishers, the dates, and the page numbers? I also showed you a translation of Philo's actual work from Christian Library, which you chose to ignore as if I never had. So what's this about "none came forth"? I think you ought to scroll back.

PAX

NewAdvent.org disagrees. Same with other translations of Josephus.

As to Philo, he's on my side. He says "he", but he thinks it should be "she". He was a fan of Athena you know.

justinangel · Mar 26, 2015

Standing Up said:
NewAdvent.org disagrees. Same with other translations of Josephus.

As to Philo, he's on my side. He says "he", but he thinks it should be "she". He was a fan of Athena you know.

Philo is arguing with Hebrew parallel poetry in mind that the correct translation is "she". As I pointed out above, different Jewish texts have "he" or "she". Maimonides also regarded the female pronoun as more fitting. The first clause of the verse is clear, that antagonism exists between the woman and the serpent.

You can read NA however you want if it makes you feel vindicated. The opinion of one writer or editor means nothing, seeing there has been no consensus reached among Catholic scholars.

PAX

justinangel · Mar 26, 2015

Albion said:
Read my 50,000+ posts and then get back to me about that.

I prefer quality to quantity.

I know that that is something you and your friends are primed to say, but the verse doesn't read that way. Unfortunately for you, I am aware of that fact. I have explained what it actually says more times than I can count.

Naturally your interpretation would be different from the one that had existed in the early Church.

So whom do you want to go with--the Bible or Irenaeus?

I certainly wouldn't go with Albion or the Gnostics Irenaeus was contending with. So, yes, with the Bible.

And what happened to the topic of this thread--the allegedly immaculate conception of Mary?

As usual, you have derailed it, since you have no argument. I believe the derailment occurred at this point with your reply:

"Oh well, you've just read the response to that--the Bible is not to be trusted. What a surprise, huh.
But what some saint wrote hundreds of years after Christ...now, THAT you're supposed to take to the bank."

PAX

Albion · Mar 26, 2015

justinangel said:
I prefer quality to quantity.

That's something to say, I guess, if you need a reply. However, it's untrue that I don't speak to the issues, and that can be easily ascertained if you'd read some of my posts other than on this thread.

Naturally your interpretation would be different from the one that had existed in the early Church.

Why?

I certainly wouldn't go with Albion or the Gnostics Irenaeus was contending with. So, yes, with the Bible.

Excellent, so go with the Bible instead of Albion or the Gnostics or Irenaeus or any other human who might be coming up with new doctrines. Albion, of course, hasn't proposed any...but I'll let you have your little 'dig.'

So, if we've settled on the uniqueness of the Bible, that's quite a gain.

Standing Up · Mar 26, 2015

justinangel said:
Philo is arguing with Hebrew parallel poetry in mind that the correct translation is "she".-snip-

That's the point though. It was asserted that Philo and Josephus view Gen 3:15 as "she". The truth is neither one of them do. For Philo, the correct translation is "he" and for Josephus it is "they".

Why put Hebrew parallel poetry above the correct translation? For Philo, he resonated with Athena, ever-virgin.

justinangel · Mar 26, 2015

Standing Up said:
That's the point though. It was asserted that Philo and Josephus view Gen 3:15 as "she". The truth is neither one of them do. For Philo, the correct translation is "he" and for Josephus it is "they".

Why put Hebrew parallel poetry above the correct translation? For Philo, he resonated with Athena, ever-virgin.

If the passage is unsymmetrical it can't be the correct translation, and it would be bad poetry.

PAX

justinangel · Mar 26, 2015

Alfred Persson said:
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.

"The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of manthe Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 33, 12 [A.D.180-190]

And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Luke 2, 22-24

Joseph accompanies Mary to the temple to make the sin offering commanded for the woman who bears a child, so that she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood.

And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
Leviticus 12, 6-8

Mary faithfully observed this Mosaic law, not because she was morally culpable of having committed any personal sins in having conceived and borne Jesus, or unintentionally committed a personal sin, but because of ritual uncleanliness. According to Mosaic Law, the mother of a new born child was regarded as unclean. Hence, in the case of the birth of a son, the mother was banned from performing any religious obligations for a period of 41 days, that is 8 days prior to the circumcision and 33 days following the ritual. After the 41 days had elapsed, the mother was required to go to the temple to make a sin offering and a burnt offering for an atonement.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed."
Leviticus 12,1-4

In ancient Judaism, temple sin offerings such as this (ceremonial uncleanliness) did not presuppose personal sin and moral guilt, but were sacrifices made to expunge legal and ritual uncleanness. Ritual uncleanliness can be, among other things like touching a rotting corpse or animal carcass, the result of involuntary emissions, menstruation, and hemorrhaging that normally occurs during childbirth and renders the mother impure. Sexual intercourse also produces ritual uncleanliness.

Leviticus, in fact, draws a distinction between sin offerings, which do not imply any moral guilt, and guilt offerings which do imply actual sinfulness. .

It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my offerings by fire; it is a thing most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as decreed for ever throughout your generations, from the Lords offerings by fire; whoever touches them shall become holy. The Lord said to Moses, This is the offering which Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular cereal offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. It shall be made with oil on a griddle; you shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a cereal offering, and offer it for a pleasing odor to the Lord. The priest from among Aarons sons, who is anointed to succeed him, shall offer it to the Lord as decreed for ever; the whole of it shall be burned. Every cereal offering of a priest shall be wholly burned; it shall not be eaten.
Leviticus 6, 17-23

This is the law of the guilt offering. It is most holy; in the place where they kill the burnt offering they shall kill the guilt offering, and its blood shall be thrown on the altar round about. And all its fat shall be offered, the fat tail, the fat that covers the entrails, the two kidneys with the fat that is on them at the loins, and the appendage of the liver which he shall take away with the kidneys; the priest shall burn them on the altar as an offering by fire to the Lord; it is a guilt offering. Every male among the priests may eat of it; it shall be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy. The guilt offering is like the sin offering, there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it. And the priest who offers any mans burnt offering shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering which he has offered. And every cereal offering baked in the oven and all that is prepared on a pan or a griddle shall belong to the priest who offers it. And every cereal offering, mixed with oil or dry, shall be for all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another.
Leviticus 7, 1-10

And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives. Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, It is so; we must do as you have said. But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a work for one day or for two; for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let our officials stand for the whole assembly; let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, till the fierce wrath of our God over this matter be averted from us. Only Jonathan the son of As′ahel and Jahzei′ah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshul′lam and Shab′bethai the Levite supported them. Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of fathers houses, according to their fathers houses, each of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to examine the matter; and by the first day of the first month they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women. Of the sons of the priests who had married foreign women were found Ma-asei′ah, Elie′zer, Jarib, and Gedali′ah, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jo′zadak and his brethren. They pledged themselves to put away their wives, and their guilt offering was a ram of the flock for their guilt.
Ezra 10, 10-19

And in the vestibule of the gate were two tables on either side, on which the burnt offering and the sin offering and the guilt offering were to be slaughtered.
Ezekiel 39, 40

The guilt offering is for those who have committed a moral trespass against God or their neighbour, which Mary certainly never committed by conceiving and bearing Jesus. For her, although it was unnecessary, it was a matter of being cleansed of all ritual impurities associated with sexual intercourse and childbearing. The words "sin" and "atonement" may imply that Mary was morally culpable of committing transgressions against God and neighbour. But, believe it or not, the sin offering and atonement was also on occasion made on behalf of the altar.

And he said to me, Son of man, thus says the Lord God: These are the ordinances for the altar: On the day when it is erected for offering burnt offerings upon it and for throwing blood against it, you shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, says the Lord God, a bull for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood, and put it on the four horns of the altar, and on the four corners of the ledge, and upon the rim round about; thus you shall cleanse the altar and make atonement for it. You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burnt in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. And on the second day you shall offer a he-goat without blemish for a sin offering; and the altar shall be cleansed, as it was cleansed with the bull. When you have finished cleansing it, you shall offer a bull without blemish and a ram from the flock without blemish.You shall present them before the Lord, and the priests shall sprinkle salt upon them and offer them up as a burnt offering to the Lord. For seven days you shall provide daily a goat for a sin offering; also a bull and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall be provided. Seven days shall they make atonement for the altar and purify it, and so consecrate it. And when they have completed these days, then from the eighth day onward the priests shall offer upon the altar your burnt offerings and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, says the Lord God.
Ezekiel, 43, 18-27

Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sinsfor how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?"
St. Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42 [A.D. 415]

Nice try, Alfred, but no cigar. I'm afraid you haven't provided "biblical evidence" that Mary was in fact a sinner.

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1, 20-21

PAX

bbbbbbb · Mar 26, 2015

Was Mary human? Does God sin? Do humans sin? How many, if any, humans sin? Is Mary a goddess who cannot sin?

Immaculate conception of Mary?

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

On and on

Facilitator

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

bbbbbbb

Guest

On and on

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

On and on

Newbie

Newbie

bbbbbbb

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency