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

[Tdigaetano]

Thank you.
Sorry, I hadnt seen your other posts.


Does that make it necessarily a correct doctrine?



I understand, but as we look at the facts,
if they dont seem to line up with Scripture,
then what?

Thanks,
sunlover

First does it contridict scripture.... these supposed "contradictions" are they actual or is there a misinterpretation of the scripture and/or doctrine.

Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[sunlover1]

First does it contridict scripture....

I dont know. Shall we look?
Your argument was that
"This doctrine was believed and carried on over the 1,854 years through tradition."

these supposed "contradictions" are they actual or is there a misinterpretation of the scripture and/or doctrine.

THATS what we should be looking at.
Not what other guys thought or didnt.

Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it's not true

Absolutely, amen.
But if what IS in the Bible,
contradicts the doctrine,
then what?

That's what I wonder too.

sunlover

 

[Tdigaetano]

dont know. Shall we look?
Your argument was that
"This doctrine was believed and carried on over the 1,854 years through tradition."

There are writtings from 150 A.D. ish till 1854 A.D. about Mary and there probly will continue to be writtings. These writtings have been preserved and protected by the church over all these years. All have simular views about Mary. Its not that someone 2000 years ago said Mary was immaculatly conceived and it was passed down over 2000 years verbally through the church. It was all perserved in the writtings and teaching of theologians over the last 2000 years.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on December 8, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. Even though the doctrine wasn't defined about 400 years prior the Church had already declared a feast day for it.

Absolutely, amen.
But if what IS in the Bible,
contradicts the doctrine,
then what?

That's what I wonder too.

sunlover

If a proposed Doctrine contradicts the bible then it is rejected and defined as a heresy. If it is not found in the bible explicitly, the church then refers back to tradition and looks at previous work that has been done on the subject.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Which Christians have been doing now for over 2000yrs.
And the practice of not praying to them for less then that. I wonder who is redifining the words of Scripture? Peace

Christians?? You mean Catholics, don't you?

Take note of the day, folks: Ormly admits Catholicism IS 2000 years old.


Hoo Haa !

 

[Ormly]

Take note of the day, folks: Ormly admits Catholicism IS 2000 years old.


Hoo Haa !

Indeed, I do. . . . in the pure sense of the word.

I don't consider the RCC or EO catholic in the same sense.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Indeed, I do. . . . in the pure sense of the word. I don't consider the RCC or EO catholic in the same sense.

"and blah, blah..."
- Taber (Christopher Lloyd) - "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"

 

[Ormly]

"and blah, blah..."
- Taber (Christopher Lloyd) - "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"

I said in the same sense, right? Where did I go wrong? Can you say they are all universal? I don't think so.
Whereas the the Church of Jesus Christ, is.

 

[Albion]

There are writtings from 150 A.D. ish till 1854 A.D. about Mary and there probly will continue to be writtings.

Thank you.

In other words, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is NOT Apostolic, and as a result it CANNOT be doctrine that is necessary to believe. It cannot even be a belief by way of Tradition, right or wrong, since it does not go back to the beginning of the Church.

 

[sunlover1]

There are writtings from 150 A.D. ish till 1854 A.D. about Mary and there probly will continue to be writtings. These writtings have been preserved and protected by the church over all these years. All have simular views about Mary. Its not that someone 2000 years ago said Mary was immaculatly conceived and it was passed down over 2000 years verbally through the church. It was all perserved in the writtings and teaching of theologians over the last 2000 years.

Now we're going back to what other men
believed. When I asked, "Shall we take a look",
I meant at the Scripture.

For instance this passage:
What does this mean?

Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned...

If a proposed Doctrine contradicts the bible then it is rejected and defined as a heresy. If it is not found in the bible explicitly, the church then refers back to tradition and looks at previous work that has been done on the subject.

So why not this doctrine?
It contradicts the Bible,
according to the above
passage right?

sunlover

 

[mont974x4]

dunno, maybe "all men" does not include women?

 

[Albion]

When I asked, "Shall we take a look",
I meant at the Scripture.

For instance this passage:
What does this mean?

Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned...

All humans are sinners, at least at some stage of their existence. It's undeniable. And while we are at it, this is a good example of the failings of that thing called Tradition. It is said by its proponents that it builds upon the Bible or that doctrine is developed from the Bible.

Yet we see the reality, which is to disregard the Bible (as with the verse you've given us here) and build upon rationalizations instead. The idea of the "Immaculate Conception" is a very good example of the Bible saying one thing and the Tradition saying not something IN ADDITION but IN OPPOSITION.

 

[Catholic Christian]

dunno, maybe "all men" does not include women?

LOL

 

[simonthezealot]

Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned...

Yet we see the reality, which is to disregard the Bible (as with the verse you've given us here) and build upon rationalizations instead. The idea of the "Immaculate Conception" is a very good example of the Bible saying one thing and the Tradition saying not something IN ADDITION but IN OPPOSITION.

And to be a right standing member of said church one needs to accept all her doctrines/dogmas...In light of what is shown here one could surely and rightly suggest they are preaching a false gospel.

 

[sunlover1]

And to be a right standing member of said church one needs to accept all her doctrines/dogmas...In light of what is shown here one could surely and rightly suggest they are preaching a false gospel.

Odd though, because it was through
the Catholic church, that I was taught
(as a kid) that all were born with
original sin, and that baptism would
wash that away.

 

[Catholic Christian]

And to be a right standing member of said church one needs to accept all her doctrines/dogmas...In light of what is shown here one could surely and rightly suggest they are preaching a false gospel.

Don't you EVER say anything funny?

 

[Catholic Christian]

Late one night, a burglar broke into a house he thought was empty. He tiptoed through the living room but suddenly he froze in his tracks when he heard a loud voice say: "Jesus is watching you!"

Silence returned to the house, so the burglar crept forward again. "Jesus is watching you," the voice boomed again. The burglar stopped dead again. He was frightened. Frantically, he looked all around. In a dark corner, he spotted a bird cage and in the cage was a parrot. He asked the parrot:

"Was that you who said Jesus is watching me?" "Yes," said the parrot. The burglar breathed a sigh of relief and asked the parrot: "What's your name?" "Clarence," said the bird.

"That's a dumb name for a parrot," sneered the burglar. "What idiot named you Clarence?" The parrot said, "The same idiot who named the Doberman Jesus."

 

[mont974x4]

A man wrote a letter to a small hotel in a Midwest town he planned to visit on his vacation.

He wrote: "I would very much like to bring my dog with me. He is well-groomed and very well behaved. Would you be willing to permit me to keep him in my room with me at night?"

An immediate reply came from the hotel owner, who said, "I've been operating this hotel for many years. In all that time, I've never had a dog steal towels, bedclothes, silverware or pictures off the walls. I've never had to evict a dog in the middle of the night for being drunk and disorderly. And I've never had a dog run out on a hotel bill. Yes, indeed, your dog is welcome at my hotel. And, if your dog will vouch for you, you're welcome to stay here, too."

 

[Catholic Christian]

Thank you. In other words, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is NOT Apostolic, and as a result it CANNOT be doctrine that is necessary to believe......

The question is: Is it true? Christ said "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free".

All truth is of God. All error is from.. ..er.. ..that guy with the pointy tail.

There are plenty of things that Christians accept which the apostles didn't specifically teach:
* They never taught that there were 27 books in the New Testament. That came later. Should we reject that?
* They never uttered the word "Trinity". That came later, and, ironically, was based in part on works of Greek philosophers. Should we reject that?

Bottom line: Is it true? Most Christians, and the 2000 year old Christian tradition says it is. The 500 year old teaching of a minority handful of Christians say it isn't. I'm cool with old one.

Oh, and remember; no apostle ever uttered the words: "Just accept Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior". Now THAT DEFINITELY is NOT Apostolic.

 

[mont974x4]

There's actually biblical support for the trinity and asking Him into your heart.

 

[Catholic Christian]

A man wrote a letter to a small hotel in a Midwest town he planned to visit on his vacation. He wrote: "I would very much like to bring my dog with me. He is well-groomed and very well behaved. Would you be willing to permit me to keep him in my room with me at night?" An immediate reply came from the hotel owner, who said, "I've been operating this hotel for many years. In all that time, I've never had a dog steal towels, bedclothes, silverware or pictures off the walls. I've never had to evict a dog in the middle of the night for being drunk and disorderly. And I've never had a dog run out on a hotel bill. Yes, indeed, your dog is welcome at my hotel. And, if your dog will vouch for you, you're welcome to stay here, too."

LOL