Immaculate conception of Mary?

[concretecamper]

Right. That's true. It sounds to me like there is no evidence for your claim

There never is any evidence for his claims. All that is done is he counters your position and refuses to give evidence that supports HIS tradition. Very frustrating but on the other hand very telling.

 

[concretecamper]

It has been shown by comparing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant that Mary is:

1. The Arc of the the New Covenant.
2. The New Eve.

Pizza boxes aside, the case has been made for these 2 truths and these 2 truths have been held by the Church for close to 2,000 years. Then all of a sudden comes Henry VIII and who knows what other self proclaimed preacher/expert who says different.

It is really up to the non-believers to prove otherwise.

Unless you can accept these 2 truths, the Immaculate Conception is impossible to understand...IMO

 

[Albion]

Right. That's true. It sounds to me like there is no evidence for your claim. Is there a historic source of the N.T. Canon--which is never even mentioned in Scripture-- besides the Church which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

Yes. It is a matter of historic record that the councils that canonized the NT met and did that.

Anyone can point to you innumerable history books that describe the events. You don't have to take it from any particular denomination, and certainly not from any one that says it was their denomination that did all of this by itself.

It's a matter of historic fact that the councils were conducted before the church broke into the various divisions we came to know later--Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes. It is a matter of historic record that the councils that canonized the NT met and did that.

Anyone can point to you innumerable history books that describe the events. You don't have to take it from any particular denomination, and certainly not from any one that says it was their denomination that did all of this by itself.

It's a matter of historic fact that the councils were conducted before the church broke into the various divisions we came to know later--Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.

Using your logic, the United States can claim authorship of the Magna Carta

 

[Albion]

Using your logic, the United States can claim authorship of the Magna Carta

Not really. The government of England was a different and distinct entity that still exists. In the case of the Church, it no longer exists to claim ownership but it does have a number of successor denominations, including both yours and mine.

Both came from that common origin, just as many bishops of a number of different denominations descend, in Apostolic Succession, from Peter, not just one line. Your own local bishop probably does, but he's not going around claiming to be the Pope, is he?

 

[patricius79]

Yes. It is a matter of historic record that the councils that canonized the NT met and did that.

Anyone can point to you innumerable history books that describe the events. You don't have to take it from any particular denomination, and certainly not from any one that says it was their denomination that did all of this by itself.

It's a matter of historic fact that the councils were conducted before the church broke into the various divisions we came to know later--Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.

I'm looking for evidence. Can you provide a non-Catholic historic source of the N.T. Canon, besides the Catholic Church, which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

I know that the early Church was called the Catholic Church and believed that Mary is the Ever-Virgin, sinless New Eve and Mother of God, along with the other Catholic beliefs.

 

[concretecamper]

Not really.

Yep really

The government of England was a different and distinct entity that still exists.

As is/does the Catholic Church. The Anglican denomination has it's beginning with Henry the VIII, that is history.

it no longer exists to claim ownership

It still exists as it has always existed, which is a matter of historical fact....and the ownership claim is valid

but it does have a number of successor denominations, including both yours and mine.

I appreciate your flattery trying to claim Catholic history for your denomination, but again history says otherwise

Both came from that common origin, just as many bishops of a number of different denominations descend, in Apostolic Succession, from Peter, not just one line. Your own local bishop probably does, but he's not going around claiming to be the Pope, is he?

Anglicans do not have Apostolic succession, that has been determined. Even Anglican scholars who argue otherwise, when confronted with history, throw up their hands and say "it doesn't matter anyway"

 

[Albion]

I'm looking for evidence.

If so, it is all around you. You've said that you don't know church history and yet you act as though something's preventing you from learning. The local library or the internet or dozens of books on the subject by respected historians could help you, yet you talk as though I'm supposed to fill that gap with a post inline! And BTW, if I were to do that--as I've correctly done with other matters--what would your instant response be? We know. It would be to say I'm biased or didn't provide the evidence you approve of or something else like that.

If you want a recommendation, however, I'd suggest A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, a highly regarded, objective historian whose book is used in colleges.

 

[patricius79]

If so, it is all around you. You've said that you don't know church history and yet you act as though something's preventing you from learning. The local library or the internet or dozens of books on the subject by respected historians could help you, yet you talk as though I'm supposed to fill that gap with a post inline! And BTW, if I were to do that--as I've correctly done with other matters--what would your instant response be? We know. It would be to say I'm biased or didn't provide the evidence you approve of or something else like that.

If you want a recommendation, however, I'd suggest A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, a highly regarded, objective historian whose book is used in colleges.

Would you name a non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon?

I know that the Mother of God is the Immaculate Conception in the same why I know which books are in the New Testament: from Catholic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[Standing Up]

Thus we come to Rome.

 

[Albion]

Would you name a non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon?

See post #463, please.

 

[patricius79]

See post #463, please.

Post 463 didn't give any non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon.

The New Testament Canon is not even mentioned in Scripture, yet we accept it. Then why reject the Holy Spirit's teaching about the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Albion]

Post 463 didn't give any non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon.

The New Testament Canon is not even mentioned in Scripture, yet we accept it. Then why reject the Holy Spirit's teaching about the Immaculate Conception?

I'm not in favor of rejecting the Holy Spirit's guidance in this matter. I'd have thought you understood that after all the posts we've exchanged.

 

[patricius79]

I'm not in favor of rejecting the Holy Spirit's guidance in this matter..

I'm glad to hear that. The Immaculate Conception is such a beautiful doctrine, and such a holy Mother of all of us.

 

[Albion]

I'm glad to hear that. .

I'm sure you knew it all along. I can't very well refer to the importance of the word of God over and over again...and you NOT pick up the idea that I accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[patricius79]

I'm sure you knew it all along. I can't very well refer to the importance of the word of God over and over again...and you NOT pick up the idea that I accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I think we disagree on what the Word of God teaches about the Immaculate Conception.

We do agree that Mary is the Mother of God.

 

[justinangel]

I'm talking about the fact that that particular verse doesn't address our topic.

Kecharitomene does address our topic. Being sinless means being full of grace. Grace is the antidote to sin. Obviously you never opened the link I provided, which explains why you fail to see the connection between Luke 1:28 and the topic of this thread.

 

[justinangel]

Quoting a verse that doesn't refer to the Immaculate Conception isn't a way to convince me, no. It does show me that you'll believe anything, so long as your denomination says to believe it, and, of course, if the idea sounds glorious enough.

The Greek root verb charitoo and its tense and vocatve case certainly do point to the IC, though perhaps not conclusively, which is a doctrine that is represented by both Eastern and Western Church Fathers when there were still no Christian denominations, but only the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles. This Church is infallible in its teachings under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit (1 Timothy 3:15). Non-Catholic Christians who object to the IC and Assumption of Mary are not much different from the Jews and Muslims who reject the dogma of the Trinity, which itself isn't explicitly revealed in the Scriptures. You might argue through hindsight bias that "the concept or idea" is there, but the Jews and Muslims who have studied both the Old and New Testaments in academic circles aren't convinced. However, no Church dogma originates from gleaning God's written word. The divine truth initially comes from God's unwritten word: sacred Tradition. It is from Tradition that we receive knowledge of Christ's Virgin Birth, not Isaiah 7:14. This is not a Messianic prophecy in Judaism. So the Church believes in what the Holy Spirit has declared to it (John 16:12-13). The Magisterium (the College of Bishops in union with the Pope) defines and makes explicit what the Church has always believed with more or less a perfect understanding as it grows in the knowledge of the divine truth. How is it that the Catholic Church defined the two distinct wills in Christ - divine and human? Certainly not by appealling strictly to the NT and proof-texting God's written word. The Scriptures are unclear, which explains why the Church had to contend with the false Christological teachings of apostate Catholic clerics in the early centuries, who dismissed the Apostolic Tradition, and define as dogma what ought not to be doubted and questioned.

 

[justinangel]

What oral traditions extant in Paul's time are you talking about?

The oral traditions include those that you won't find in Paul's epistles, such as the virgin birth of Christ ("born of a woman"), the new Eve's freedom from all stain of sin, the new Ark of the Covenant's exemption from putridity and corruption and her assumption body and soul into Heaven. Paul's letters only address certain fundamental controversial issues of faith and morals that had to be resolved in particular ecclesial communities. Hence, Paul did not commit everything he may have orally taught in writing. But everything he and the Apostles preached has been handed down to the one visible and hierarchical Church which was founded by Christ (paradosis) as a deposit of faith.

 

[Albion]

. Being sinless means being full of grace.

Says you and the Roman Catholic Church, even though you're quoting from the King James Version of the Bible which is well-known for the use of wording that is straight out of the seventeenth century. You have, at least, put your finger on the only possible argument for the immaculate conception--a misinterpretation of the words of the angel to Mary.

However, even if we take them to mean what you say, it doesn't follow that she ALWAYS was 'full of sinlessness," nor did the angel say any such thing to her, so it's still a legend without any Scriptural basis.