Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine?

[Kepha]

Did you miss the part where Jesus quoted Psalm 69-4 in John 15:25 and Psalm 69-9 in John 2:16-17. Actually, Jesus told me so through his word.

Ah ok. You claim infalibilty now. Mm-hmm.

So, are you saying that Matthew was wrong? Do you know what synoptic gospels mean? Has that been part of your cathechism classes? Yes, you are grabing at straws.

Oh no, I'm saying you are wrong when you want to pretend that the Mary he mentioned was in fact Jesus' Mary when I showed you there were 3 at the foot of the Cross or around that area that were spoken of with Jesus' Mary being names His mother clearly. Can you answer me why you would think that somehow this is the one time Jesus is not mentioned first when they name Mary?

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

You don't like peanuts?

oh I do!! trust me..even peanuts have a purpose! LOL..that struck me so funny the other night...then I make a comment on MYSELF 'not being to smart' as was said by the other person...Kepha takes it personal! THAT is hysterical to me...like, he didn't even read MY POST! Just 'interpreted' it all by himself...and wrongly at that!

 

[Kepha]

darlin' that was pointed to MYSELF...NOT you. RELAX. READ THE BIBLE...it says that ALL the stuff JESUS JESUS..the main Guy...know Him?? IF ALL HE did was WRITTEN DOWN...........NOT the apostles.....for goodness sake...doesn't need that much work to read it...see it for what IT SAYS>...................................................

Do you even know what I'm saying to you? I know it is saying JESUS JESUS the main guy. However, it does seem to prove that not all this JESUS JESUS guy did was written down hence a good point on showing you the total importance on a grand scale of writing it down was. Please tell me you get it now.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Do you even know what I'm saying to you? I know it is saying JESUS JESUS the main guy. However, it does seem to prove that not all this JESUS JESUS guy did was written down hence a good point on showing you the total importance on a grand scale of writing it down was. Please tell me you get it now.

please tell me you didn't MISS the point that it had NOTHING to do with the apostles handing things down ORALLY like you guys like to keep shouting about and using that as your backup! It says NOTHING about ORAL traditions being handed down..GET IT NOW??

 

[IamAdopted]

If the Written Word was all you needed then all the Apostles would have penned it to paper would they not? Show me where Jesus told one of them to Write. Oh and this you must show explicity since you guys love to have explicit writings from us for your own reading.

Think about it, wouldn't all of the writings that they sent out have survived as well? We know that didnt happen. You guys like to claim how Jesus always used it but did you ever stop to think how Christ would cite a tiny verse then expand greatly on it? That is What the Church does but you choose not to listen. Get out of your Sola Scripture theory IamAdopted before it hurts you anymore than it already has.

Oh and show us in the Bible your table of contents to which books belong in there and which do not. I want Chapter and verse. Thank you.

Lets look at some points of scripture shall we.

in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' ?

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."

Now we see here that the scriptures is What Jesus leads us to. Not oral but Scripture. He says you are in error because you know not the scripture.

 

[IamAdopted]

If the Written Word was all you needed then all the Apostles would have penned it to paper would they not?

They did. In the letters that they were sending out.

 

[Hentenza]

[/size][/font]
Ah ok. You claim infalibilty now. Mm-hmm.

I don't see where you have given me any proof that Psalm 69 is not messianic.

Oh no, I'm saying you are wrong when you want to pretend that the Mary he mentioned was in fact Jesus' Mary when I showed you there were 3 at the foot of the Cross or around that area that were spoken of with Jesus' Mary being names His mother clearly. Can you answer me why you would think that somehow this is the one time Jesus is not mentioned first when they name Mary?

I don't understand your point. Watching the cricifixion was Mary, mother of Christ, Mary Magdalene, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
So, ????

 

[ScottBot]

that is what JESUS said and did...NOT the apostles...come on read the black and white there...it didn't say nothing about apostles teachings....

Did you even read the question that I posted this in response to?

 

[ScottBot]

please tell me you didn't MISS the point that it had NOTHING to do with the apostles handing things down ORALLY like you guys like to keep shouting about and using that as your backup! It says NOTHING about ORAL traditions being handed down..GET IT NOW??

[bible]1 corinthians 11:2[/bible]
[bible]2 thessalonians 2:15[/bible]

Those two passages DO talk about oral tradition, quite explicitly. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

 

[ScottBot]

I am still waiting for your refutal. See if you can enlighten me, after all according to you your revelations are correct.

It has been refuted as much as I care to type. YOu can click on links and read. I have nothing new to add. If you reject it, so be it. I don't. Nothing you can say can convince me differently that what the Church teaches, and apparently nothing a devoted Catholic will say is going to change your mind. So again, here we are....

 

[ScottBot]

Do you actually know what that verse means? Is there anything in that verse that says to listen to oral tradition? I think not. Stop trying to change the topic.

If I might make a brief suggestion that may enhance your posting pleasure. Read the context of the answer given to questions before providing commentary. You'll be much less confused.

 

[DMagoh]

My friend got divorced and says its ok. My other non denom friend says he's wrong. They both read the Bible. It makes a mockery of God's Word.

Yeah just like the Rosary (not in the Bible), the Immaculate Conception (not in the Bible), the infallibility of the "pope" (not in the Bible), infant baptism (not in the Bible), purgatory (not in the Bible)....

 

[Kepha]

They did. In the letters that they were sending out.

Not all of the Apostles wrote. If so show me where. If not and it was what was to be handed to us only, tell me why. They were too busy preaching the Oral Word Of God.

I don't see where you have given me any proof that Psalm 69 is not messianic.

The only thing that the Diciples and not Jesus said in John 2 16: was in reference to Psalms

9: For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Your other proves nothing that it was in reference to Psalms 4. This one actually says they remembered what was written.

17: And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

The other is you grasping at straws to try to make psalms 8 also apply since it's in between. Well again, if you want in between then make psalms 5 fit in there as well where this person admits to having sin.

I don't understand your point. Watching the cricifixion was Mary, mother of Christ, Mary Magdalene, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

So, ????

My point is You threw at me a verse which says Mary the Mother of James etc. and somehow want to force us to actually believe, when they spoke of Mary there they actually left out Jesus even when His very Crucifixion was taking place. That instead they only mentioned the other two kids instead of Him. Not likely. You can decide if you want to continue to believe your own twisted version or to now question it. I will personally assume for now you will still go with what you were told since you seem too anti Mary to even remotely be open to any possibility that Mary never had kids despite what both the Catholics and Orthodox tell you.

 

[Renton405]

'''

 

[Renton405]

For good reason, it bucks scripture...

And dispensationilism dosent?? or the rapture??

Its sad protestants don't read scripture in the light of tradition because their self interperatation is so conflicting.. they can't seem to agree on anything..

Don't go pointing fingers now.. at least we go on a 2000 year tradition and the bible.. you go on literal twisted self interperatation that started 1500 years after christ... lets not be hypocritical k now?? IF everything was based on scripture what about the other 7 apostles that wrote nothing on paper?? If sola scriptura was so true why would Jesus chose 7 other apostles who would write nothing on paper?? I really want protestants to think up on this one..


Also Im really surpirsed no one has brought up Fatima and Medjugorje where the virgin mary appeared to 70,000 people in one day.. If mary was just a normal woman all these miracles would not be happening that have involved her now would they?? .. I find it quite interesting that nearly all the christian miracles that have happened during these years have only been with the Catholic Church.. If the protestant churches were so right in their "doctrine" the way they think wouldn't you think there would be some signs showing so?? Instead thousands of different protestant sects show up, all claiming they follow the bible alone. If sola scriptura were so true all the protestant sects would be in full agreemant with each other now would they?? yet they all don't agree with each other on doctrine, Calvinism, JW, Lutheranism, etc! Instead their only retort is too attack Mary and Catholic Dogma, I think that really says alot ..The ECF viewed people who accused Mary of having other children were thought as heretics anyway, just as the Gnostics were..

Also,. does it say anywhere in the bible that Mary sinned??? Please cite some verses..

Anyone ever read the Protoevangelum and the Infancy Gospel of Mary?? I believe St Jermone quoted it.. we do have old outer sources that says mary was without sin.. are there any outer sources that says she was sinful and had other children?? where are the childrens tombs??. Message me when someone finds one , ok?


"All nations will call me blessed" - Luke 1:48

Which church today does that and fullfills this prophecy??

Nuff said

 

[Gwenyfur]

Please remember to post with COURTESY and RESPECT

 

[ScottBot]

Yeah just like the Rosary (not in the Bible), the Immaculate Conception (not in the Bible), the infallibility of the "pope" (not in the Bible), infant baptism (not in the Bible), purgatory (not in the Bible)....

You forgot one.

All doctrines must be explicitly stated in the bible (not in the bible)

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

[bible]1 corinthians 11:2[/bible]
[bible]2 thessalonians 2:15[/bible]

Those two passages DO talk about oral tradition, quite explicitly. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

umm...derr...um..no, don't get it...and you know these 'oral' ones were passed down pure how? Sorry..DOES NOT cut it..it was what was being taught and written down for preservation. THAT Is all I have to say on that...

 

[IamAdopted]

Originally Posted by Amor Vincit Omnia
1 Corinthians 11:2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Do you see where Paul said either by word or the written? Does Paul speak with a forked tongue where He would say something contrary to what he wrote? Paul was an Aposlte. Sent one. Going from place to place. I am quite sure what He spoke did not differ from what He wrote.

 

[Hentenza]

Not all of the Apostles wrote. If so show me where. If not and it was what was to be handed to us only, tell me why. They were too busy preaching the Oral Word Of God.

God made sure that what we needed was written. God always comes through.

The only thing that the Diciples and not Jesus said in John 2 16: was in reference to Psalms

9: For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Your other proves nothing that it was in reference to Psalms 4. This one actually says they remembered what was written.

17: And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

The other is you grasping at straws to try to make psalms 8 also apply since it's in between. Well again, if you want in between then make psalms 5 fit in there as well where this person admits to having sin.

Its quite simple really.

John 15:25
25"But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, 'THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.'

Psalm 69-4
4Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head;
Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies;
What I did not steal, I then have to restore.

John 2:16-17
16and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business." 17His disciples remembered that it was written, "ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME."



Psalm 69-9
9For zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.



Clearly Psalm 69 is messianic since Jesus quoted from it. To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9,

"Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." God's will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69shows us that Jesus had brothers.

My point is You threw at me a verse which says Mary the Mother of James etc. and somehow want to force us to actually believe, when they spoke of Mary there they actually left out Jesus even when His very Crucifixion was taking place. That instead they only mentioned the other two kids instead of Him. Not likely. You can decide if you want to continue to believe your own twisted version or to now question it. I will personally assume for now you will still go with what you were told since you seem too anti Mary to even remotely be open to any possibility that Mary never had kids despite what both the Catholics and Orthodox tell you.

I never stated anything that left out Jesus. I have no clue what you are talking about. You must have misunderstood. I am not anti-Mary. Mary is by far the most blessed woman in the history of mankind. The honor bestowed her to carry and give birth to Jesus is awesome, but I will not stand idly by and let lies be spread about her. The RCC's position of immaculate conception is unbiblical. If you think differently then present biblical evidence instead of rhetoric.