Immaculate Conception?

[miknik5]

Read GOD's first command to "Adam" (man)

HIS command already implied that HE knew we would disobey

HE said, do not eat from
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil

FOR IN THE DAY YOU EAT OF IT

You will surely die

 

[miknik5]

We're deep into "what ifs" now, but I'd say that the shepherds and wise men were no more covered at Jesus' birth than God could have provided for everyone if he'd come in some other way.

You're not understanding

When HE came to us, when THE WORD was made flesh, GOD covered HIS GLORY in our covering

Our covering (flesh) covered HIS GLORY


On the Mount of transfiguration, HE revealed HIS GLORY to those whom HE called up the mountain

Even from the beginning, throughout GOD's WORD, HIS HOLINESS is declared

No one could approach the mountain of the PRESENCE of GOD unless they were called

 

[miknik5]

We have a COVERING

Not like the high priests garments,

but THE HIGH PRIEST's GARMENT
And all that is needed before the throne of GOD

 

[miknik5]

What did you think the brightness of HIS COMING implies to those who do not have the RIGHT COVERING?

 

[miknik5]

THAT's THE BLESSING revealed
That even as GOD foreknew our fall, HE, from the abundance of HIS GRACE from the beginning, created us

Because....HE more importantly knew the victory in HIS SON

 

[CrystalDragon]

We never were destined for it by or through our own attempts. It was a starting place to bring us to THE ONE who would take us home

And how would that have occurred? What would have changed? If people were already with God in the Garden, wouldn't we have already been with the one who would take us home, and wouldn't we be at "home" in the first place?

 

[kepha31]

Grace means unearned favour.. the manifestation of God in the flesh .come to die for us all is the same Grace ,the same unearned favor ..it doesn't make a person sinless just favored very mercifully.

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”
Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary – itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” – which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language).

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer).​

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact hat kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)​

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14 (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)
Ephesians 2:8-10

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:
1. Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.
All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament...
Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Grace means unearned favour.. the manifestation of God in the flesh .come to die for us all is the same Grace ,the same unearned favor ..it doesn't make a person sinless just favored very mercifully.

Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14. That doesn't mean equality because Mary is a human creature made sinless while Jesus was always sinless. Big difference.

 

[miknik5]

And how would that have occurred? What would have changed? If people were already with God in the Garden, wouldn't we have already been with the one who would take us home, and wouldn't we be at "home" in the first place?

People?

Adam and Eve
Two
And even with only two, not many and with many multiple interference, intrusion and, influence, two listened to the wrong voice telling them that GOD did not really say

And they listened

And you are saying "people" as though there were a multitude
And remember, with a multitude comes many different ideas, suggestions, notions, opinions which may or may not be TRUTH

 

[Albion]

You're not understanding

When HE came to us, when THE WORD was made flesh, GOD covered HIS GLORY in our covering

Our covering (flesh) covered HIS GLORY

And I'm saying that God could have accomplished that in some other way if he'd chosen.

 

[Albion]

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”
Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary

You are correct. They do believe that, even though the verse doesn't teach it at all.

 

[miknik5]

And how would that have occurred? What would have changed? If people were already with God in the Garden, wouldn't we have already been with the one who would take us home, and wouldn't we be at "home" in the first place?

Can you ensure that the children you bear will be in your likeness?

Let alone GOD's?

Adam, in a sense brought forth Eve

And they disobeyed
And they were only two

They then brought forth children and Adam couldn't even ensure that all his sons would be in his likeness

Cain wasn't

The word of GOD says: when men increased on the face of the earth, they began to call in the name of THE LORD?

Why?

Because everyone was bearing fruit with seed in it according to its likeness?

No

The only one of GOD's creation that didn't and couldn't

 

[Rhamiel]

What is interesting as well is that Genesis is a Jewish scripture and the Jews never developed the theory of Original Sin.

the Jews never really had a firm concept of Hell either
at the time of His ministry, most of the Jews rejected Jesus as being the Messiah
you can not really look to the Jews as having right understanding of Scripture because even now so many of them are blind to the truth of Christ

If Mary was conceived without sin, then why couldn't everyone be?

because Adam and Eve ruined it for us
and when we sin, we reinforce their original disobedience

More to the point why wouldn't God just cause Jesus to be conceived without sin? What would be the point in Mary being conceived without sin?

why did God say the tablets of the 10 Commandments had to be put in an ornate gold covered box?
because it was fitting for Him to do such, the object that was carried within is of such great dignity that the vessel must be shown proper consideration

The blessed mother confirmed it when she appeared to St. Bernadette. She said "I am the immaculate conception."
“I Am the Immaculate Conception”, Our Lady told St. Bernadette

Protestants ignore miracles when convenient
of course you could look at the fruits of what has happened at Lourdes, conversions, physical healing, those who were lukewarm in the faith made fervent
not for a generation, but for decade upon decade we have seen such things, for over 100 years there have been healings there and yet it is just ignored

Question: if we were still in "the Original Home" (which by the sound of it doesn't seem like it was infinite or anything so it would have become too crowded to fit everyone, anyway, since things existed outside the Garden anyway, the Garden was the only "perfect" area, or almost perfect), what would we be doing?

we would be doing what we do now
farming, building things, making art
having families, I think it is reasonable to say that there would still have been the generation of children
even in Genesis chapter 2 before the fall Eve is described as Adams wife

we could speculate that as the unfallen human family grew, Eden would expand so as to tame the whole world, Eden was the size of a garden to be managed by one man, as more men would be born the area would grow

either everyone alive would just be alive forever, and births would be exceedingly rare
or maybe like Enoch, the after many many centuries on earth the humans would be assumed into heaven

this is just speculation though, our first parents kinda ruined everything for us

 

[CrystalDragon]

People?

Adam and Eve
Two
And even with only two, not many and with many multiple interference, intrusion and, influence, two listened to the wrong voice telling them that GOD did not really say

And they listened

And you are saying "people" as though there were a multitude
And remember, with a multitude comes many different ideas, suggestions, notions, opinions which may or may not be TRUTH

Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. So yes, there would have eventually been many "people" in the Garden, eventually too many because the Garden wasn't infinite.

Can you ensure that the children you bear will be in your likeness?

Let alone GOD's?

Adam, in a sense brought forth Eve

And they disobeyed
And they were only two

They then brought forth children and Adam couldn't even ensure that all his sons would be in his likeness

Cain wasn't

The word of GOD says: when men increased on the face of the earth, they began to call in the name of THE LORD?

Why?

Because everyone was bearing fruit with seed in it according to its likeness?

No

The only one of GOD's creation that didn't and couldn't

We can't assure it, but God easily could of. And I don't get what you're saying—how does that relate to my point about everyne in the Garden being with God already and thus they already would have been "home" had they been born in the Garden?

 

[Albion]

Protestants ignore miracles when convenient

And Catholics create them when they need their faith to be bolstered.

 

[miknik5]

Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. So yes, there would have eventually been many "people" in the Garden, eventually too many because the Garden wasn't infinite.



We can't assure it, but God easily could of. And I don't get what you're saying—how does that relate to my point about everyne in the Garden being with God already and thus they already would have been "home" had they been born in the Garden?

GOD's HOLINESS
And man's acknowledgement of both GOD's HOLINESS and GRACE
that HE...ALONE...provided THE WAY back home

 

[miknik5]

Question for you Crystal


Do you think if we were still in the garden and did not eat of the forbidden tree that any would have died?

 

[Colter]

I disagree with what your saying, and it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked.

But yes Adam and Eve were created perfect, and it would stay they way had they or their offspring not disobeyed God.

We are born sinners, and we are slaves to sin
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Ephesians 2:1-3

We are born sinners in the Kingdom of Darkness, unless you repent believe get saved, you do not belong to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Eve, then Adam sinned, that's not perfection. Cain fears people beyond the presence of his immediate family out in the world. They weren't the first humans. We dig up the bones of evolution, of pre-humans, of ancient life.

 

[Colter]

Jesus is God in the flesh.
God is Holy and cannot be around sin.

I would be led to believe that Mary would be unclean to God, unless she was either:
a) Saved, or more, not sure what that would mean
b) Be made without Sin

How can God Himself be born from a sinful sinner, that doesn't make sense to me.

To answer your question, I mean: The Holy Spirit and Mary gave birth to a son did they not? Mary was the mother.

There was sin in heaven.

 

[miknik5]

There was sin in heaven.

And these rebellious angels were cast out because of it

Again showing the HOLINESS of GOD that nothing that does evil or causes sin can be in HIS PRESENCE

 

[miknik5]

Eve, then Adam sinned, that's not perfection. Cain fears people beyond the presence of his immediate family out in the world. They weren't the first humans. We dig up the bones of evolution, of pre-humans, of ancient life.

Did GOD send Eve out apart from
Adam?