Immaculate Conception

bbbbbbb · Jun 15, 2017

Constantine the Sinner said:
The courtyard actually isn't specified in the verse of driving out the money changers, at least not in the Greek or any literal translation. Furthermore, mentioning the altar seems out of place if you're talking about the courtyard.

Here is a Wikipedia article which explains why it was the outer court of the Gentiles - Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia

As for Zechariah, here is the passage from II Chronicles 24 -

20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, “Thus God has said, ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, He has also forsaken you.’” 21 So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the Lord.

Here is what Jesus said in Luke 11 -

49 For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God

There is no doubt that this is the Zechariah in question. The point Jesus was making is that all of the blood of the prophets from that mentioned first (Abel) to the last (Zechariah) would be charged against that generation.

kepha31 · Jun 15, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
Mark 3:31 Then His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus is using His mother as a model because she did the will of God. She said "yes". There is a unity with those who do the will of God and Mary who did the will of God perfectly. You are trying to make a dichotomy between the whole crowd and My brother and sister and mother.” There is no dichotomy. It's one family who does the will of God. These verses don't diminish Mary at all, they elevate obedient believers to her status when they obey God like she did. That's what Marian devotion is for, to help us do the will of God. They are not the "gotcha" verses anti-Catholics think they are.

Furthermore, if Jesus was slighting His mother, He would be violating the 4th Commandment: Honor your parents.

bbbbbbb · Jun 15, 2017

kepha31 said:
Jesus is using His mother as a model because she did the will of God. She said "yes". There is a unity with those who do the will of God and Mary who did the will of God perfectly. You are trying to make a dichotomy between the whole crowd and My brother and sister and mother.” There is no dichotomy. It's one family who does the will of God. These verses don't diminish Mary at all, they elevate obedient believers to her status when they obey God like she did. That's what Marian devotion is for, to help us do the will of God. They are not the "gotcha" verses anti-Catholics think they are.

Furthermore, if Jesus was slighting His mother, He would be violating the 4th Commandment: Honor your parents.

Do you also slight His brothers and sisters, as well by ignoring them entirely?

kepha31 · Jun 16, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
Do you also slight His brothers and sisters, as well by ignoring them entirely?

First, you are evading the point.
Second, just as your post wasn't addressed to anyone
in particular, neither was my reply.
Third, Mark 3:31 supports Catholic teaching on Mary when it is closely examined, it doesn't prove what anti-Catholics want it to prove.
Fourth, I only ignore the Christian Taliban who constantly bash the Church and refuse to be reasoned with.

Constantine the Sinner · Jun 16, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
Here is a Wikipedia article which explains why it was the outer court of the Gentiles - Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia

As for Zechariah, here is the passage from II Chronicles 24 -

20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, “Thus God has said, ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, He has also forsaken you.’” 21 So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the Lord.

Here is what Jesus said in Luke 11 -

49 For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God

There is no doubt that this is the Zechariah in question. The point Jesus was making is that all of the blood of the prophets from that mentioned first (Abel) to the last (Zechariah) would be charged against that generation.

1. I don't really buy that article, because when something happens in the courtyard, Scripture refers to it as outside the Temple; for example: "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." It's also incorrect regarding the money having to be changed due to graven images, as you can see from the link within it: Tyrian shekel - Wikipedia Certainly, money-changing was required, but graven images had nothing to do with that. Ancient Jews weren't Muslims, you know: they had images of cherubim in the temple. They just rejected ascribing divinity to anything made by hands.

2. The altar is not the courtyard, and Christ said Zachariah was killed between the temple and the altar (the word translated as "between" also means "in the middle of," "among," "in the midst of," etc.)

3. The last prophet was John the Baptist, not Zachariah.

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2017

kepha31 said:
First, you are evading the point.
Second, just as your post wasn't addressed to anyone
in particular, neither was my reply.
Third, Mark 3:31 supports Catholic teaching on Mary when it is closely examined, it doesn't prove what anti-Catholics want it to prove.
Fourth, I only ignore the Christian Taliban who constantly bash the Church and refuse to be reasoned with.

Thank you for the compliment. I have been called many things, but rarely Christian, which is what I prefer to be called.

What you perceive to be bashing of your denomination is, in reality, an attempt at a sane discussion. I know full well that if I were to attempt anything approaching bashing I would be quickly disbarred from CF.

Now, what is the point that you think I am evading? It seems to have slipped my attention.

Did Jesus have a mother? brothers? sisters?

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2017

Constantine the Sinner said:
1. I don't really buy that article, because when something happens in the courtyard, Scripture refers to it as outside the Temple; for example: "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." It's also incorrect regarding the money having to be changed due to graven images, as you can see from the link within it: Tyrian shekel - Wikipedia Certainly, money-changing was required, but graven images had nothing to do with that. Ancient Jews weren't Muslims, you know: they had images of cherubim in the temple. They just rejected ascribing divinity to anything made by hands.

2. The altar is not the courtyard, and Christ said Zachariah was killed between the temple and the altar (the word translated as "between" also means "in the middle of," "among," "in the midst of," etc.)

3. The last prophet was John the Baptist, not Zachariah.

In the Old Testament, which is the only Bible known at the time of Jesus, Zechariah is the last individual mentioned who was murdered. The Jewish Bible does not end with Malachi as our Bibles do, but with II Chronicles, where the murder of Zechariah is recorded. Thus, Jesus was not in error in speaking of all the blook spilled from that of righteous Abel to that of Zechariah. Do you think Jesus was somehow mistaken or confused?

Constantine the Sinner · Jun 16, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
In the Old Testament, which is the only Bible known at the time of Jesus, Zechariah is the last individual mentioned who was murdered. The Jewish Bible does not end with Malachi as our Bibles do, but with II Chronicles, where the murder of Zechariah is recorded. Thus, Jesus was not in error in speaking of all the blook spilled from that of righteous Abel to that of Zechariah. Do you think Jesus was somehow mistaken or confused?

No, I think you are. The Hebrew Bible ends with Malachi.

I don't think Jesus was referring to the Zachariah of the Old Testament, since his blood was not spilled by the altar. I think he was talking about the Zachariah, Father of John, who was in the temple, by the altar, fulfilling his duty as priest, when he was killed.

bbbbbbb · Jun 16, 2017

Constantine the Sinner said:
No, I think you are. The Hebrew Bible ends with Malachi.

I don't think Jesus was referring to the Zachariah of the Old Testament, since his blood was not spilled by the altar. I think he was talking about the Zachariah, Father of John, who was in the temple, by the altar, fulfilling his duty as priest, when he was killed.

You certainly have a right to think whatever you wish. The Hebrew Bible does end with Malachi and matches the Protestant canon. The Hebrew Bible is divided into three primary sections - the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the last-named, II Chronicles is the final historical book and names Zechariah as being the last person murdered.

We have no evidence, other than hearsay created to fit John the Baptist's father into the narrative, that he was the person referenced by Jesus Christ. It does seem peculiar that such a significant event might have taken place without the slightest mention in the gospels, whereas we have written record in II Chronicles of Zechariah being murdered, and not just murdered in any old place, but in the temple, which is affirmed by Jesus.

Constantine the Sinner · Jun 17, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
You certainly have a right to think whatever you wish. The Hebrew Bible does end with Malachi and matches the Protestant canon. The Hebrew Bible is divided into three primary sections - the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the last-named, II Chronicles is the final historical book and names Zechariah as being the last person murdered.

We have no evidence, other than hearsay created to fit John the Baptist's father into the narrative, that he was the person referenced by Jesus Christ. It does seem peculiar that such a significant event might have taken place without the slightest mention in the gospels, whereas we have written record in II Chronicles of Zechariah being murdered, and not just murdered in any old place, but in the temple, which is affirmed by Jesus.

No, Jesus says he was murdered in the midst of the altar, not the temple courtyard (which is not referred to as simply "the temple" in the OT, but distinguished as the court, there is no verse that uses simply "the temple" to refer to the courtyard, let alone "in the midst of the temple and the altar"). Furthermore, there were a lot more historical books back then (Hanukkah commemorates something only mentioned in these). The Pharisaic standardizing of a canon and variant did not occur until long after Christ, and was partially in response to Christianity. Finally, the idea that Christ would see Zachariah as the last of the righteous or the prophets or something like that, which you seem to positing, makes no sense. The idea that prophets stopped being sent then, is an exclusively Pharisaic belief, and one which had no precedent prior to Christ, and indeed is a reaction against Christianity, and indeed is fundamentally irreconcilable with Christianity. Jews back then did not see history that way, they saw themselves as a continuing nation, they had a continuing temple. They did not see their Scriptural canon as "closed", that is a view that started after the failure to rebuilt the temple. To impose this Pharisaic-Reformation perspective on Biblical history, on Christ, is anachronistic.

The Gospels were writings kept by a religion that basically made you an outlaw. You really cannot compare New Testament Scripture with the Old Testament in terms of being exhaustive, because the position of the people writing each was fundamentally different. Two of the Gospels don't even start until Christ is an adult and don't even mention the virgin birth. Of the two that do mention the virgin birth, the material leading up to Christ's birth is still dwarfed by the rest of the Gospel. No, the idea that the Gospels were intended to be exhaustive records of Jesus and his extended family is ridiculous; the Gospels are intended to simply be records of Christ's sayings, his miracles, and of course his Passion and Resurrection; everything else is "trimming" so to speak.

bbbbbbb · Jun 17, 2017

Constantine the Sinner said:
No, Jesus says he was murdered in the midst of the altar, not the temple courtyard (which is not referred to as simply "the temple" in the OT, but distinguished as the court, there is no verse that uses simply "the temple" to refer to the courtyard, let alone "in the midst of the temple and the altar"). Furthermore, there were a lot more historical books back then (Hanukkah commemorates something only mentioned in these). The Pharisaic standardizing of a canon and variant did not occur until long after Christ, and was partially in response to Christianity. Finally, the idea that Christ would see Zachariah as the last of the righteous or the prophets or something like that, which you seem to positing, makes no sense. The idea that prophets stopped being sent then, is an exclusively Pharisaic belief, and one which had no precedent prior to Christ, and indeed is a reaction against Christianity, and indeed is fundamentally irreconcilable with Christianity. Jews back then did not see history that way, they saw themselves as a continuing nation, they had a continuing temple. They did not see their Scriptural canon as "closed", that is a view that started after the failure to rebuilt the temple. To impose this Pharisaic-Reformation perspective on Biblical history, on Christ, is anachronistic.

The Gospels were writings kept by a religion that basically made you an outlaw. You really cannot compare New Testament Scripture with the Old Testament in terms of being exhaustive, because the position of the people writing each was fundamentally different. Two of the Gospels don't even start until Christ is an adult and don't even mention the virgin birth. Of the two that do mention the virgin birth, the material leading up to Christ's birth is still dwarfed by the rest of the Gospel. No, the idea that the Gospels were intended to be exhaustive records of Jesus and his extended family is ridiculous; the Gospels are intended to simply be records of Christ's sayings, his miracles, and of course his Passion and Resurrection; everything else is "trimming" so to speak.

I see no further purpose of continuing this irrelevant (to the topic of the thread) discussion. I believe I understand your position and I trust that you understand mine. Perhaps now the discussion regarding the alleged immaculate conception of Mary can continue. Adieu.

FenderTL5 · Jun 17, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
I see no further purpose of continuing this irrelevant (to the topic of the thread) discussion. I believe I understand your position and I trust that you understand mine. Perhaps now the discussion regarding the alleged immaculate conception of Mary can continue. Adieu.

As info: The Orthodox Study Bible annotation on the verse in Luke indicates that both are mentioned by the church fathers.
I won't argue the point either way.

kepha31 · Jun 19, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
I see no further purpose of continuing this irrelevant (to the topic of the thread) discussion. I believe I understand your position and I trust that you understand mine. Perhaps now the discussion regarding the alleged immaculate conception of Mary can continue. Adieu.

Alleged? Do you mean Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger were wrong? Please explain how "Full of Grace" (Luke 1:28, John 1:14) the same Greek word, can have a little sin on the side.

Since non-denoms reject the early Church Fathers and the reformers, is there anybody left that you agree with?

bbbbbbb · Jun 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
Alleged? Do you mean Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger were wrong? Please explain how "Full of Grace" (Luke 1:28, John 1:14) the same Greek word, can have a little sin on the side.

Since non-denoms reject the early Church Fathers and the reformers, is there anybody left that you agree with?

On this particular doctrine I am in agreement with every branch of Christianity other than your own, which has been free to chart its own destiny since at least the Great Schism.

kepha31 · Jun 19, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
On this particular doctrine I am in agreement with every branch of Christianity other than your own, which has been free to chart its own destiny since at least the Great Schism.

Every branch of Christianity taught the Immaculate Conception until a bunch of liberal modernist Protestants came along in the 19th century. I think they were reacting to the Miracles at Lourdes that started in 1858. That's a fascinating story.
http://catholicgo.org/a-story-and-miracles-of-our-lady-of-lourdes/
Our Blessed Mom tells this simple 13 yr. old her name, and had to tell the priest. When he heard it,...you'll have to read the story.

This link is about the Medical Committee who investigate alleged miracles. The home page lists 7 arguments for the existence of miracles.

Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracel acceptence.

bbbbbbb · Jun 19, 2017

kepha31 said:
Every branch of Christianity taught the Immaculate Conception until a bunch of liberal modernist Protestants came along in the 19th century. I think they were reacting to the Miracles at Lourdes that started in 1858. That's a fascinating story.
http://catholicgo.org/a-story-and-miracles-of-our-lady-of-lourdes/
Our Blessed Mom tells this simple 13 yr. old her name, and had to tell the priest. When he heard it,...you'll have to read the story.

This link is about the Medical Committee who investigate alleged miracles. The home page lists 7 arguments for the existence of miracles.

Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracel acceptence.

There is only one Christian denomination, yours, which has turned the Immaculate Conception into a dogma and then waited until 1950 to do it. As you well know, the Orthodox churches do not, nor ever have, shared the view of original sin that your Church requires in order for the Immaculate Conception to make any sense.

kepha31 · Jun 20, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
There is only one Christian denomination, yours, which has turned the Immaculate Conception into a dogma and then waited until 1950 to do it.

Being dogmatized does not mean invented. The belief has always been there and developed like all doctrines develop.

As you well know, the Orthodox churches do not, nor ever have shared the view of original sin that your Church requires in order for the Immaculate Conception to make any sense.

That's not entirely true. They think the guilt of the Original Sin stayed with Adam and Eve but we have the consequences. You should do some homework before misrepresenting the Orthodox like you misrepresent Catholicism.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/catholic-church-vs-protestant-reformers.html Historically, the Orthodox have been inconsistent on this matter. If there is no original sin, why do we need a savior?
A primary biblical basis for Original Sin is found in Romans 5:12-21 that you are forced to interpret privately. O/S was elaborated on unanimously by the early Church Fathers whom you have nothing to with.
If you are going to refute Original Sin, you have to first know what it is because I don't think you have a clue. Otherwise, you come across like another Christian Taliban.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/catholic-church-vs-protestant-reformers.html
https://oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin

post #55 have you stumped?

The Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception.

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.

You believe Luther's sola scriptura that he invented, but reject his teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
I believe in what has been handed down from the
Apostles, you believe whatever you choose.

Albion · Jun 20, 2017

kepha31 said:
Alleged? Do you mean Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bullinger were wrong? Please explain how "Full of Grace" (Luke 1:28, John 1:14) the same Greek word, can have a little sin on the side.

Since non-denoms reject the early Church Fathers and the reformers, is there anybody left that you agree with?

The discussion is misdirected if citing individual people who may have accepted the idea of the Immaculate Conception as true continues on and on. There are many ideas concerning the afterlife, the saints, the end times, and more, that are held by individuals at the same time as other individuals in the same church take the opposite positions on them. That's not the issue.

Regardless of what Luther thought about this matter of the Immaculate Conception, Luther never made it an article of faith, did not include it in his catechisms, and no Lutheran church has made it into a must-believe doctrine. The issue, IOW, is that one denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has done just that--made it into a dogma binding upon all members.

bbbbbbb · Jun 20, 2017

kepha31 said:
Being dogmatized does not mean invented. The belief has always been there and developed like all doctrines develop. That's not entirely true. They think the guilt of the Original Sin stayed with Adam and Eve but we have the consequences. You should do some homework before misrepresenting the Orthodox like you misrepresent Catholicism.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/catholic-church-vs-protestant-reformers.html Historically, the Orthodox have been inconsistent on this matter. If there is no original sin, why do we need a savior?
A primary biblical basis for Original Sin is found in Romans 5:12-21 that you are forced to interpret privately. O/S was elaborated on unanimously by the early Church Fathers whom you have nothing to with.
If you are going to refute Original Sin, you have to first know what it is because I don't think you have a clue. Otherwise, you come across like another Christian Taliban.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/catholic-church-vs-protestant-reformers.html
Original Sin - Questions & Answers

post #55 have you stumped?

The Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception.

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.

You believe Luther's sola scriptura that he invented, but reject his teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
I believe in what has been handed down from the
Apostles, you believe whatever you choose.

Really now. What makes you think that Martin Luther died while defending the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I do not recall any of his 95 theses even mentioning it.

I think it is you who are misrepresenting Orthodoxy in asserting that they believe in the Immaculate Conception. Although they do believe that Mary was sinless, they do not dogmatically assert that her conception was without the stain of Original Sin (primarily because they do not believe that infants are born as sinners). In any event, I welcome any input from our Orthodox friends to clarify these matters for us. Neither you nor I can claim to know Orthodoxy.

The fact does remain that your denomination is the only branch of Christianity which has decided to elevate the doctrine of the Immaculat Conception to that of a dogma, which means, of course, that one must beieve it in order to be saved.

kepha31 · Jun 20, 2017

bbbbbbb said:
Really now. What makes you think that Martin Luther died while defending the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I do not recall any of his 95 theses even mentioning it.

You don't like his quote, nor the reference. He didn't write his 95 thesis in his last years, but defended the I/C, according to Lutheran scholar Arthur Piepkorn. So you raise the bar with further skepticism because you refuse to believe Luther taught the I/C. It's no wonder you refuse to believe the ECF.

The fact does remain that your denomination is the only branch of Christianity which has decided to elevate the doctrine of the Immaculat Conception to that of a dogma, which means, of course, that one must beieve it in order to be saved.

That's right. The Church doesn't teach fad theology invented in the post-enlightenment era.

Immaculate Conception

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency