Immaculate Conception

[Major1]

My dear friend can answer your question to him. As for me, I do not care what Aquinas, or John Wayne or President Clinton said. IF it is not found in the Word of God it means nothing to me.

So then, will you please post the Bible Scripture that confirms the Immaculate conception.

Where in the Bible is it stated that Mary was sinless.

Once again. Did Thomas Aquinas oppose the doctine of the immaculate conception or not? I only ask that you clarify this because you earlier accused me of being deceptive, so either demonstrate that I was being deceptive or retract the accusation.

I do not know who you are speaking to as you did not use the "Reply" option.

If it is me, thank you for the post. I will ask you to read comment #91 again as it applies now just as it did back then.

 

[Mountainmike]

The problem is that the Catholic Church does not accept the Bible as being the authority which determines truth. Instead, they have substituted a magisterium of men who develop doctrines and dogmas for their church.

Hopelessly wrong.
Don't any of you study at all before comment?

Catholics accept what Jesus instituted , that is apostolic succession to hand on the faith by tradition, which carries the meaning of the word of God. Long before there was a New Testament.

He gave the authority to bind and loose on doctrine, by apostolic successors jointly, and also successors of Peter alone.

The councils so instituted decided the New Testament canon you now call scripture, which has some, but not all of doctrine passed by tradition, and which also carries the meaning of scripture. Study those fathers to find out what it means. you cannot choose your own meaning.

As scripture says - the foundation of truth is the church.

Sola scriptura is , a man made tradition, easily provable as false, in several ways, And neither you nor major have the authority to interpret scripture - without god's appointed magisterium, so the priesthood of all believers thinking wrongly they can interpret scripture is why they come up with so many mutually exclusive variants and schisms and denominations.

Meanwhile if you study early fathers that well predate NT , you can discover what was actually handed down from Jesus by the apostles, some of which is in scripture but only if you interpret it correctly.

That is verifiable christian history.
Not the distorted reformationist kind.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

You said..........
" In order to justify Mary being God's vessel, there had to be a loophole for her, so the idea that she evaded that issue with her conception it what they came up with."

In plain English then, you are saying that the RCC made up the doctrine of the Immaculate conception.....correct???

Correct. Which, in Catholic theology, is permissible. They have a doctrine which says theology, like science, is something which grows and develops over time and new truths are uncovered and old truths are corrected. This is fundamentally at odds with my beliefs, since I believe the Church's dogma must remain strictly and only what Christ and the Apostles taught, without any addition or subtraction.

 

[Major1]

Correct. Which, in Catholic theology, is permissible. They have a doctrine which says theology, like science, is something which grows and develops over time and new truths are uncovered and old truths are corrected. This is fundamentally at odds with my beliefs, since I believe the Church's dogma must remain strictly and only what Christ and the Apostles taught, without any addition or subtraction.

If you are aware of this event, and you accept as non-Biblical, why do you believe so many Catholics work so hard to prove that it is actually not Biblical?

Then as an Orthodox believer, would you say that you are more inclined to follow Bible doctines than Church traditions?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Then as an Orthodox believer, would you say that you are more inclined to follow Bible doctines than Church traditions?

I would say the Bible is considered to be the paramount witness of Church Tradition by the Orthodox.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Correct. Which, in Catholic theology, is permissible. They have a doctrine which says theology, like science, is something which grows and develops over time and new truths are uncovered and old truths are corrected. This is fundamentally at odds with my beliefs, since I believe the Church's dogma must remain strictly and only what Christ and the Apostles taught, without any addition or subtraction.

You would make a good Protestant (aside from all the objectionable Protestant beliefs you find) because we completely reject the concept of an ever-evolving faith, especially as espoused by the Catholic Church. As I am certain you know, we Protestants attempt to believe and practice only what Christ and the Apostles taught, without any addition or subtraction. Toward that end we look to the most reliable source - the Bible.

You might respond that I might make a good Orthodox Christian. I find I have the foundational philosophy in common with Orthodoxy and, as a result, have always had great respect for my Orthodox friends.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

You would make a good Protestant (aside from all the objectionable Protestant beliefs you find) because we completely reject the concept of an ever-evolving faith, especially as espoused by the Catholic Church.

All Orthodox do. There is a joke which goes, "How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?"

And the answer is: CHANGE??! IS OUTRAGE!

 

[Major1]

I would say the Bible is considered to be the paramount witness of Church Tradition by the Orthodox.

 

[Major1]

Mary's death was a feast day celebrated in the liturgy both East and West. That is absolutely doctrinal

Nice strawman. Did Aquinas oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or not?

Then you should have no problem posting the Bible book, chapter and verse.

 

[Major1]

The problem is that the Catholic Church does not accept the Bible as being the authority which determines truth. Instead, they have substituted a magisterium of men who develop doctrines and dogmas for their church.

And since that is true, they can virtually make up anything they want to, like.......
Perpetual virginity of Mary,
The Rosary,
Pergatory,
The Assumption of Mary and the list goes on and on.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Then you should have no problem posting the Bible book, chapter and verse.

Mary's death was absolutely taught in both the West and the East as having happened from early times, obviously ever since her death, people knew or were taught that she died. It probably wouldn't be detailed in the Bible because that's hardly a fact required for salvation, and most of the Bible was written before it happened anyway. He is contrasting this with the Catholic teaching that Mary never died, but was assumed living into heaven. Catholics teach this because according to the doctrine of immaculate conception, Mary was immune to death; this is of course a problem, since even CHRIST wasn't immune to death!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

And since that is true, they can virtually make up anything they want to, like.......
Perpetual virginity of Mary,
The Rosary,
Pergatory,
The Assumption of Mary and the list goes on and on.

Mary's perpetual virginity is attested to by Christ having to leave her to John's care (if she had other biological children, they would be legally required to care for her), and to her own response to the Annunciation: an angel telling her she would conceive, would hardly be a case of shock for her if she were espoused to a man; but because Joseph was much older than her, in fact something of a father figure, there was no intention of intercourse; that is why she says how is she going to conceive, being a virgin; if she intended to lose her virginity to the man she was espoused to, why would she bother to ask that?

 

[Major1]

Mary's perpetual virginity is attested to by Christ having to leave her to John's care (if she had other biological children, they would be legally required to care for her), and to her own response to the Annunciation: an angel telling her she would conceive, would hardly be a case of shock for her if she were espoused to a man; but because Joseph was much older than her, in fact something of a father figure, there was no intention of intercourse; that is why she says how is she going to conceive, being a virgin; if she intended to lose her virginity to the man she was espoused to, why would she bother to ask that?

I understand your thesis but I can not agree with it.

If we do a little more study on this I think you will see that Jesus' brothers and sisters were not there when Jesus was crucified. While Jesus was alive, his siblings did not believe he was the Christ.

John 7:5 tells us that His brothers did not accept Him as Messiah.............
"For even His brothers did not believe in Him".

So it is not hard to grasp that at the end of his life, Jesus wanted his mother cared for by someone he could trust, so he placed her care in the hands of the disciple whom he loved, who also was present at his death.

John 19:25-27.........................
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home".

This means that as the eldest son in the family, Jesus fulfilled his duty to his parent. It also probably means that Joseph at this point had probably died.

Do you think that the brothers of Jesus would be upset????? I can imagine that Jesus' brothers felt slighted by his choice. But it remains a fact that Mary believed in Jesus and they did not. Jesus' choice was both logical and practical.

It is true that later, one of Jesus' brothers, James, did become a Christian and a leading member in the church which is seen in Galatians 1:19. But this doesn't change what took place at the cross.

Thnak you for the comment.

 

[Major1]

Mary's death was absolutely taught in both the West and the East as having happened from early times, obviously ever since her death, people knew or were taught that she died. It probably wouldn't be detailed in the Bible because that's hardly a fact required for salvation, and most of the Bible was written before it happened anyway. He is contrasting this with the Catholic teaching that Mary never died, but was assumed living into heaven. Catholics teach this because according to the doctrine of immaculate conception, Mary was immune to death; this is of course a problem, since even CHRIST wasn't immune to death!

Yes my friend, I am well aware of your comment about the death of Mary.

My point is that Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary being a perpetual virgin, or bein sinless, ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there or her presumed "Assumption".

We know that everyone in the past has died except Enoch and Elijah and IMO they were used as an example of the Rapture to Old Test saints.


Hebrews 9:27..........
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I understand your thesis but I can not agree with it.

If we do a little more study on this I think you will see that Jesus' brothers and sisters were not there when Jesus was crucified. While Jesus was alive, his siblings did not believe he was the Christ.

John 7:5 tells us that His brothers did not accept Him as Messiah.............
"For even His brothers did not believe in Him".

So it is not hard to grasp that at the end of his life, Jesus wanted his mother cared for by someone he could trust, so he placed her care in the hands of the disciple whom he loved, who also was present at his death.

John 19:25-27.........................
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home".

This means that as the eldest son in the family, Jesus fulfilled his duty to his parent. It also probably means that Joseph at this point had probably died.

Do you think that the brothers of Jesus would be upset????? I can imagine that Jesus' brothers felt slighted by his choice. But it remains a fact that Mary believed in Jesus and they did not. Jesus' choice was both logical and practical.

It is true that later, one of Jesus' brothers, James, did become a Christian and a leading member in the church which is seen in Galatians 1:19. But this doesn't change what took place at the cross.

Thnak you for the comment.

It's an inventive reading, but that's the problem. It's invented, not derived from ancient reading. It's so new even Luther and Calvin would reject it. It also doesn't address most of my post.

 

[Major1]

It's an inventive reading, but that's the problem. It's invented, not derived from ancient reading. It's so new even Luther and Calvin would reject it. It also doesn't address most of my post.

Actually, it is about 2000 years old. The Bible quotes are valid and the Scriptures are the Word of God.

I really thin that it is clear and concise and very correct. However, it is your choice to accept or reject.

 

[prodromos]

Actually, it is about 2000 years old.

Your interpretation isn't.

The Bible quotes are valid and the Scriptures are the Word of God.

But your interpretation of the above is your own and not the Word of God. Do not conflate the two.

 

[Major1]

Your interpretation isn't.

But your interpretation of the above is your own and not the Word of God. Do not conflate the two.

Certainly I did not do that and I believe you know that.

I am simply saying that the information has been in the Bible for almost 2000 years so therefore it is not a NEW explanation at all.

Please do not ever think that I place MY comments above the Word of God. You are welcome to call me anything you like, but that is not one of them. Also, please do not think that I sit at a computer thinking up my own interpretations.

Look up what I post on regular, open minded theological web sites that teach the Word of God and you will see that what I am saying is accepted, universal theological teachings.

Look up the things I say in Matthew Henry Commentaries, John Gill Commentaries, Dr. John Hinson, Liberty University web site or any other that you choose.

 

[prodromos]

Certainly I did not do that and I believe you know that.

I am simply saying that the information has been in the Bible for almost 2000 years so therefore it is not a NEW explanation at all.

Please do not ever think that I place MY comments above the Word of God. You are welcome to call me anything you like, but that is not one of them. Also, please do not think that I sit at a computer thinking up my own interpretations.

Look up what I post on regular, open minded theological web sites that teach the Word of God and you will see that what I am saying is accepted, universal theological teachings.

Look up the things I say in Matthew Henry Commentaries, John Gill Commentaries, Dr. John Hinson, Liberty University web site or any other that you choose.

None of those commentaries are 2000 years old, nor are your 'regular, open minded theological web sites'. But at least you admit that you follow a tradition, albeit a relatively recent one.

 

[Major1]

Mary's perpetual virginity is attested to by Christ having to leave her to John's care (if she had other biological children, they would be legally required to care for her), and to her own response to the Annunciation: an angel telling her she would conceive, would hardly be a case of shock for her if she were espoused to a man; but because Joseph was much older than her, in fact something of a father figure, there was no intention of intercourse; that is why she says how is she going to conceive, being a virgin; if she intended to lose her virginity to the man she was espoused to, why would she bother to ask that?

The fact that Jesus made sure His mother was taken care of by John, has absolute nothing to do with her virginity.

Now......... Two things to understand.

1. There is absolutely NO Biblical evidence that suggests Joseph was much older than Mary.

2. There is also NO Biblical evidence that Joseph was married previously.

Both of those comments are completely fictional and are products of the RCC.