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

[Albion]

the problem with that is even the root form of sola scriptura cannot be found in scripture or the early church fathers writings. The root form of the Immaculate Conception can.

All that such a statement means is that you don't understand the issue.

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine; it is an approach to the study of the Bible. You might as well say that the word "Bible" never appears in scripture, so believing in a thing it says is stupid. To say that Sola Scriptura is not in scripture is not unlike saying that translating from the original languages into English is not in scripture, so the New American Standard of the Bible (or one of the other Catholic versions often used) is false. Any reasonable person ought to be able to comprehend the ridiculousness in all of this posturing.

The "immaculate conception" on the other hand IS a doctrine that is obligatory on members of your church. So what is its basis? Legend.

It has no "root form" in scripture, despite your saying it does. What is there is only evidence of Mary being accepted by God much after her conception and birth. You imagine that this refers to her conception, and people like terry will instantly say "spin" if anyone dares to point out what actually is said--and NOT said--in the relevent verses. However, what is there in scripture is there. What is in the human imagination is uncontrolled.

 

[Catholic Christian]

I know. It's just not first century evidence of a belief in the immaculate conception.
.

Yes it is: Its implicit, if not explicit. Can you give me explicit first century texts explaining the trinity?

 

[Catholic Christian]

According to them so did Sola Scriptura.

Peace

I wish I had said that.

Albion: Where is Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide taught in the first century? Where is it taught that there are 27 books in the New Testament?

 

[Albion]

I wish I had said that.

Albion: Where is Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide taught in the first century?

That's an irrelevant question, Terry, since neither is believed in because of Tradition but rather because they are Biblical. That means that evidence from Tradition is not germaine to these principles, not any more than is seeking the answer to a chemistry forumula in a book on banking.

But in any case, this thread is about the Immaculate Conception, where it came from, and whether it has any validity from either scripture or Tradition.

The concept of SCRIPTURE study (Sola Scriptura) is that SCRIPTURE is our guide, not Tradition or traditions, even though early Church Fathers are on record saying that it is Scripture and nothing else which guided their teachings.

With the Immaculate Conception, however, we have a doctrine that is BASED ON Tradition claimed by its devotees to be proven BY TRADITION. That means that it is entirely relevant for us to inquire into the accuracy of those claims, unlike the situation with Sola Scriptura which denies any equality between Tradition and the Word of God.

 

[Catholic Christian]

That's an irrelevant question, Terry, since neither is believed in because of Tradition but rather because they are Biblical. That means that evidence from Tradition is not germaine to these principles, not any more than is seeking the answer to a chemistry forumula in a book on banking. But in any case, this thread is about the Immaculate Conception, where it came from, and whether it has any validity from either scripture or Tradition.The concept of SCRIPTURE study (Sola Scriptura) is that SCRIPTURE is our guide, not Tradition or traditions, even though early Church Fathers are on record saying that it is Scripture and nothing else which guided their teachings.With the Immaculate Conception, however, we have a doctrine that is BASED ON Tradition claimed by its devotees to be proven BY TRADITION. That means that it is entirely relevant for us to inquire into the accuracy of those claims, unlike the situation with Sola Scriptura which denies any equality between Tradition and the Word of God.

They are not biblcal: Nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by faith ALONE, and nowhere does the Bible say that we are to go by the Bible ALONE. That is just YOUR flawed interpretation, just as you think our support for the Immaculate Conception is flawed.

So, the REAL question is what it always is: Who is the authoratative interpretor of Scripture, the individual, or the successors of the apostles - the bishops in union with the bishop of Rome? That is the REAL issue here. All other arguments flow from that fundamental debate.

 

[Albion]

They are not biblcal

Sure they are.

Nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by faith ALONE

But it says that we are saved by faith and nothing else.

How does that not equal Faith alone?

and nowhere does the Bible say that we are to go by the Bible ALONE.

It does say that the scriptures are the Word of God and as good as gold when used for our instruction.

Are you just hung up on the terminology? If so, let's call it salvation by faith, not works, and that we know this from the word of God itself, which nothing else--being that nothing is above God--can equal or best.

So, the REAL question is what it always is: Who is the authoratative interpretor of Scripture, the individual, or the successors of the apostles

Oh no. That is NOT the first question. The first question is "What do we look to for the answers?" WHEN we have decided that, we can discuss how it is to be understood.

 

[Rick Otto]

his confusion of terminology works hand in hand with his confusion of issues, making it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Athanasias]

All that such a statement means is that you don't understand the issue.

Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine; it is an approach to the study of the Bible. You might as well say that the word "Bible" never appears in scripture, so believing in a thing it says is stupid. To say that Sola Scriptura is not in scripture is not unlike saying that translating from the original languages into English is not in scripture, so the New American Standard of the Bible (or one of the other Catholic versions often used) is false. Any reasonable person ought to be able to comprehend the ridiculousness in all of this posturing.

The "immaculate conception" on the other hand IS a doctrine that is obligatory on members of your church. So what is its basis? Legend.

It has no "root form" in scripture, despite your saying it does. What is there is only evidence of Mary being accepted by God much after her conception and birth. You imagine that this refers to her conception, and people like terry will instantly say "spin" if anyone dares to point out what actually is said--and NOT said--in the relevent verses. However, what is there in scripture is there. What is in the human imagination is uncontrolled.

First of all, Sola scripture is a principle but it seems to have a quazi-doctrinal flavor and many protestants themselves of various denominations will tell you that . However, if one logically follows this conclusion(to only accept things in the written word as authoritative and final) then one has to admit the defeat of this "Main" principle because even the principle cannot be derived from scripture. Now I do not go by the bible alone and no one should. I would also look to what the early Christian community reflected and taught about authority. And even the fathers of the church never taught this man made principle of sola scriptura. So not only is scripture against this false principle but so is the entire body of Christianity for the first 1519 years. That is a Big black hole in a theory or principle that one is supposed to base all of his doctrinal knowledge on now isn't it?

2ndly the root form of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Is in scripture implicitly and in tradition explicitly, not to mention miraculously evidence that shows this. I wrote a 8 page college term paper on this showing in scripture and history how this is fact, If you would like me to email a copy to you then pm me and I will do so. It is loaded with implicit root evidence biblically and explicit root evidence patristically. So your wrong. You are the one with the burden of proof and you are the one who is going outside of true historical and biblical Christianity. You are the one imagining it doesn't exist because you are going by a false man made protestant tradition that ells you so. You cannot look to history or the fathers or the implicit evidence biblically because your protestant forefathers taught you that this doctrines must be wrong. I will send you my paper if you want biblical evidence along with patristic for the root forms of this dogma. Your the one imagining and taking away from the word of God not us.

 

[Hentenza]

First of all, Sola scripture is a principle but it seems to have a quazi-doctrinal flavor and many protestants themselves of various denominations will tell you that . However, if one logically follows this conclusion(to only accept things in the written word as authoritative and final) then one has to admit the defeat of this "Main" principle because even the principle cannot be derived from scripture. Now I do not go by the bible alone and no one should. I would also look to what the early Christian community reflected and taught about authority. And even the fathers of the church never taught this man made principle of sola scriptura. So not only is scripture against this false principle but so is the entire body of Christianity for the first 1519 years. That is a Big black hole in a theory or principle that one is supposed to base all of his doctrinal knowledge on now isn't it?

2ndly the root form of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Is in scripture implicitly and in tradition explicitly, not to mention miraculously evidence that shows this. I wrote a 8 page college term paper on this showing in scripture and history how this is fact, If you would like me to email a copy to you then pm me and I will do so. It is loaded with implicit root evidence biblically and explicit root evidence patristically. So your wrong. You are the one with the burden of proof and you are the one who is going outside of true historical and biblical Christianity. You are the one imagining it doesn't exist because you are going by a false man made protestant tradition that ells you so. You cannot look to history or the fathers or the implicit evidence biblically because your protestant forefathers taught you that this doctrines must be wrong. I will send you my paper if you want biblical evidence along with patristic for the root forms of this dogma. Your the one imagining and taking away from the word of God not us.

So you wrote a paper that you think proves the immaculate conception both by implicit evidence and by explicit evidence. I am not interested in you posting an 8 page paper here but it would be interesting to hear what your implicit evidence from scripture is.
Go ahead and post them one at a time so that we can discuss them one at a time.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes it is: Its implicit, if not explicit. Can you give me explicit first century texts explaining the trinity?
[/b]

LOL!!!! What does the Trinity have to do with the immaculate conception?

 

[Athanasias]

So you wrote a paper that you think proves the immaculate conception both by implicit evidence and by explicit evidence. I am not interested in you posting an 8 page paper here but it would be interesting to hear what your implicit evidence from scripture is.
Go ahead and post them one at a time so that we can discuss them one at a time.

I will not post the paper here(too long) but if you pm me I will send it to you as a attachment which includes both biblical and patristic footnotes and a bibliography of sources.

 

[Albion]

First of all, Sola scripture is a principle but it seems to have a quazi-doctrinal flavor and many protestants themselves of various denominations will tell you that .

I suppose that almost anything can be said to have a "quazi-doctrinal (sic) flavor." It's not a doctrine.

However, if one logically follows this conclusion(to only accept things in the written word as authoritative and final) then one has to admit the defeat of this "Main" principle because even the principle cannot be derived from scripture.

That misconception has already been addressed and corrected many times. What do you offer us about the topic here--the Immaculate Conception idea and its late appearance in Church history?

Now I do not go by the bible alone and no one should. I would also look to what the early Christian community reflected and taught about authority.

such as when the Fathers cited scripture as the reason for their doctrinal teachings?

2ndly the root form of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Is in scripture implicitly and in tradition explicitly,

If it were, it would be easy for any proponent to present it instead of using vagueries like "root form" (meaning not actually there). But as you see, no one has produced it...or the "root form" either.

You are the one with the burden of proof

Actually no. I asked for the evidence of what YOU believe, and you don't have any for us to consider. It's that simple. Plus, the topic here asks about the doctrine. I do not have to prove a negative, i.e. find evidence that something that doesn't exist...doesn't.

I wrote a 8 page college term paper on this showing in scripture and history how this is fact

A whole 8 page "term paper?" Then post the important excerpts here for us to see so that we can be done with comments like something sorta kinda like evidence of the Immaculate Conception is hinted at, but not exactly, so just trust us....

 

[Hentenza]

I will not post the paper here(too long) but if you pm me I will send it to you as a attachment which includes both biblical and patristic footnotes and a bibliography of sources.

Hi Athanasias,

Sorry if I was not clear. This thread is a debate thread on the immaculate conception so what I was asking was for you to post your implicit scriptural evidence one at a time in this thread so that we could discuss them. I would invite all points of view to participate.

 

[Athanasias]

I suppose that almost anything can be said to have a "quazi-doctrinal (sic) flavor." It's not a doctrine.

However, if one logically follows this conclusion(to only accept things in the written word as authoritative and final) then one has to admit the defeat of this "Main" principle because even the principle cannot be derived from scripture.[/qutoe]

That misconception has already been addressed and corrected many times.



such as when the Fathers cited scripture as the reason for their doctrinal teachings?

And even the fathers of the church never taught this man made principle of sola scriptura.[/qutoe]

They apparently did not use that term. So what? They also did not use the terms Hermaneutics, Hagiolatry, Exegesis and other words that aren't usually used for purposes of denominational sparring.



If it were, it would be easy for any proponent to present it instead of hiding behind vagueries like "root form" (meaning not actually there) and the like. But as you see, no one can produce it.



Actually no. I asked for the evidence of what YOU believe, adn you can't find any. It's that simple. I do not have to prove a negative, i.e. find evidence that something that doesn't exist...doesn't.



Wow. A whole "8 page" "term paper."

Post the important excerpts here for us to see, then. That should be easy.

First of all, Catholic also cite scripture to prove doctrines. The Fathers were Catholic. that doesn't mean they taught the principle of sola scriptura. I know the word isn't used but neither is the principle by the early Church. But the early church did use the principle of Scripture and oral apostolic tradition and the authority of the Catholic church. As a matte of fact you wouldn't even have the new testament canon if it were not for the Catholic church, her traditions and her popes and councils which you had to rely on to even know it existed and what books were inspired. Again this logically disproves the late man made theory of sola scripture. So why should we trust you and your late man made protestant traditions?

Secondly. the evidence must be read as a whole. So I will gladly email you my term paper with all the evidence and we can discuss the issues but I will not post just parts of it here. It needs to be read as whole to get the entire impact(footnotes and all). So do you want to read it or not.

I can and did find evidence and you know it your simply being facetious and seem to not want to take a look.

 

[Athanasias]

Hi Athanasias,

Sorry if I was not clear. This thread is a debate thread on the immaculate conception so what I was asking was for you to post your implicit scriptural evidence one at a time in this thread so that we could discuss them. I would invite all points of view to participate.

Hey. thanks for the clarification. Biut you were pretty clear and I appreciate your open honesty and charity. God bless you. As a theology teacher in training I feel the evidence for this dogma needs to be looked at as a whole and not just pieces of it. That is why i will not post parts of it. But I will send anyone a copy of it via email. and then we can discuss the issues. I hope you understand. God bless you always.

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

 

[Albion]

First of all, Catholic also cite scripture to prove doctrines. The Fathers were Catholic.

but not members of any particular denomination of later times. They are the heritage of all Christians.

I know the word isn't used but neither is the principle by the early Church.

Then you'd agree, wouldn't you, that asking "Where in scripture is Sola Scriptura?" is an invalid and irrelevant question? If so, all we have to do is find out if the early church used, from the beginning, 1) scripture or 2) Tradition to define its beliefs.

But the early church did use the principle of Scripture and oral apostolic tradition

"Tradition," as the alternative to Scripture, does NOT mean simply conveying the Bible's teachings orally. As used in the "Catholic" churches it means accepting as true any legend that has stood the test of time since the beginning of Church history and has been accepted by all in the Church. I simply ask you to show that this is the case with the idea of "the Immaculate Conception," in view of the fact that it appears to be of later origin.

Secondly. the evidence must be read as a whole. So I will gladly email you my term paper with all the evidence and we can discuss the issues but I will not post just parts of it here. It needs to be read as whole to get the entire impact(footnotes and all). So do you want to read it or not.

It also needs to be seen by everyone.

I asked for relevant excerpts, so that doesn't tie your hands in any way. You get to choose them for us to peruse. You get to defend them. You get to cite the sources used. That's more open than you'd be with me. And it's only an 8 page paper, not a thesis, for heaven's sake!

 

[Catholic Christian]

but not members of any particular denomination of later times.

Yes. Denominations began when people broke away from the One Church. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The heretical protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The list of popes can be traced back to Peter himself, the first pope. Here is a list: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Jesus’ Church is called catholic because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

 

[Catholic Christian]

...implicit scriptural evidence...

(quote):

...When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.


from the tract "Immaculate Conception and Assumption", at
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[Athanasias]

(quote):

...When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.


from the tract "Immaculate Conception and Assumption", at
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

That is good but I would say there is much much more implicit evidence biblically than just that verse as my Paper shows. but that verse is a good one as the early church fathers also agreed.

 

[Albion]

Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Which means "HIS CHURCH," not the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, the Church of the East, the Presbyterian Church, or any other segment of Christ's Church.