Immaculate Conception

[Major1]

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.

NOT the commentaries my friend...........The Bible!!!!! THE BIBLE!

 

[Albion]

We should let Major1 speak for himself. No, he doesn't follow a "tradition" instead of scripture nor did he say he does so, and it was the New Testament that he said was 2000 years old, not something else.

 

[Albion]

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

That's true.

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

Also true. That's speculation.

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

True.

 

[Major1]

We should let Major1 speak for himself. No, he doesn't follow a "tradition" instead of scripture nor did he say he does so, and it was the New Testament that he said was 2000 years old, not something else.

Thank brother. He knew exactly what I was saying but he felt the need to try and make it look like something else.

 

[Major1]

That's true.


Also true. That's speculation.


True.

I am always amazed at how religions and cults can make up doctrines out out f thin air with no proof or validation of any kind.

One of my dear friends, @PeaceB is trying to use Matt. 2:13 to verify that the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. But in telling Joseph, “Get up, . . . take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

There is no mention of 1260 days that suggests Mary is the woman of Rev. 12.

Then when we look closer at Matt. 2:13 we see that Joseph is to take two people, Mary and Jesus, not a larger brood from a previous marriage. That removes the false teaching that Joseph was married before Mary and had children If he was than he would have been told to take the whole family.

Why does this happen?

Because it has always been tempting to try to make Scripture say something it does not say in order to create a theology we like. But we should remember a basic principle of scriptural interpretation: “Whenever possible, let Scripture interpret Scripture.” We get into trouble when we try to make God’s Word fit our preconceived ideas or a doctrine we find comforting. The notion of Joseph’s previous marriage is such an idea and has no foundation in God’s Word and neither does Mary fit Rev. 12.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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".

Enoch and Elijah were taken into heaven alive. Mary's body was taken after she died.

The NT is not a biography of Mary or even Jesus. It is a collection of the teachings crucial for salvation. Mary's death is hardly a teaching crucial to salvation, but it is true...unless the Spirit of Truth Christ promised would guide the Church, fell asleep on the job.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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.

That Christ had to entrust Mary to someone's care (ALL her children would care for her), and that Mary, after being espoused, was shocked upon being told she would concieve, are both Biblical evidence of the Patristic account. How you choose to interpret this evidence is up to you, but I'm sticking with the ancient understanding, not the newly coined one.

 

[prodromos]

We should let Major1 speak for himself. No, he doesn't follow a "tradition" instead of scripture nor did he say he does so, and it was the New Testament that he said was 2000 years old, not something else.

His own words betray him.
He stressed that the interpretation of Scripture that he pushes is not his own, and then directed me to various sources, all of them modern, for evidence of the teaching that he is passing on. That is the very definition of "tradition". He has also clearly identified it as a "tradition of men" as he identifies a number of his sources as individual men.
You and I both know that no one can read a text without interpreting, and that includes the text of Scripture. He keeps conflating the age of Scripture with his particular (traditional) interpretation despite the tradition he follows being unknown in the early church. Every Church with origins preceding the councils which ruled on Mary's ever virginity, maintain that she remained a virgin.
So it comes down to which tradition you choose to follow. That of the early church fathers, or that of the latter day Protestant fathers.

 

[Albion]

His own words betray him.
He stressed that the interpretation of Scripture that he pushes is not his own, and then directed me to various sources, all of them modern, for evidence of the teaching that he is passing on. That is the very definition of "tradition". .

No. It is not.

 

[Major1]

Enoch and Elijah were taken into heaven alive. Mary's body was taken after she died.

The NT is not a biography of Mary or even Jesus. It is a collection of the teachings crucial for salvation. Mary's death is hardly a teaching crucial to salvation, but it is true...unless the Spirit of Truth Christ promised would guide the Church, fell asleep on the job.

My dear friend. There is not one single verse that says what you posted or even suggests what you posted to be Biblically true. NO NOT ONE.

What you posted is completely fabricated by the Catholic church. If that is not true then would you please post the Bible verse to confirm your comment.

 

[Major1]

His own words betray him.
He stressed that the interpretation of Scripture that he pushes is not his own, and then directed me to various sources, all of them modern, for evidence of the teaching that he is passing on. That is the very definition of "tradition". He has also clearly identified it as a "tradition of men" as he identifies a number of his sources as individual men.
You and I both know that no one can read a text without interpreting, and that includes the text of Scripture. He keeps conflating the age of Scripture with his particular (traditional) interpretation despite the tradition he follows being unknown in the early church. Every Church with origins preceding the councils which ruled on Mary's ever virginity, maintain that she remained a virgin.
So it comes down to which tradition you choose to follow. That of the early church fathers, or that of the latter day Protestant fathers.

You are very mistaken and very deceptive. I sincerely want you to seek out other teaching sources which verify my comments. THAT is what I encouraged you to do. I do so again. I am very uncomfortable with you thinking that I sit and make up Bible doctrine. I really do want you to look at other sites where the Bible is taught.

I am NOT pushing my own interpretations which is exactly why I want YOU to go to other Christian web sites where the Bible is taught and see for your self.

You said.........
"Every Church with origins preceding the councils which ruled on Mary's ever virginity, maintain that she remained a virgin."

Again your deceptive nature damages your witness for Christ. I and no one I Know of has said that MAry was not a virgin. What I have said and say again is that there are no Bible Scriptures to verify the Catholic Doctrine that she was a virgin for the rest of her life. NONE----ZERO!

It is NOT a matter of tradition today or yesterday but rather is Catholic tradition to be accepted over the Bible. I have stated NO and do so again.

Obviously there is tradition and I accept that, but NO tradition is to be accepted over the Biblical Scriptures.

 

[Major1]

That Christ had to entrust Mary to someone's care (ALL her children would care for her), and that Mary, after being espoused, was shocked upon being told she would concieve, are both Biblical evidence of the Patristic account. How you choose to interpret this evidence is up to you, but I'm sticking with the ancient understanding, not the newly coined one.

Mary being espoused and Christ entrusting Mary to John are two separate events separated by 33 years. One does not support the other.

That is of course your choice of course but I am sticking to the Biblical account..

 

[prodromos]

No. It is not.

Oh? What is your definition?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Tradition from Dictionary.com:

6. Theology.

1. (among Jews) body of laws and doctrines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Moses and originally handed down orally from generation to generation.
2. (among Christians) a body of teachings, or any one of them, held to have been delivered by Christ and His apostles but not originally committed to writing.
3. (among Muslims) a hadith.

 

[kepha31]

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.

For Aquinas it was a question of WHEN she was immaculately conceived, not IF.
I'm not scrolling to find the original discussion. There was a qualifier before the word "deception". Check it out.

 

[kepha31]

For Aquinas it was a question of WHEN she was immaculately conceived, not IF.
I'll retract if you admit to not being all that familiar with Aquinas, then there is no deception. If you have a degree in Aquinian theology, then you are being deceptive.

 

[prodromos]

For Aquinas it was a question of WHEN she was immaculately conceived, not IF.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[kepha31]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, (a matter of WHEN) he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin (not a matter of IF AT ALL)

Thus you should never tolerate someone to say that Aquinas endorsed the idea that Mary was sinful. He absolutely and unequivocally did not, and you should ask any Protestant/Orthodox who says this whether he has actually read what Aquinas said on the subject or whether he is repeating erroneous claims made in anti-Catholic sources. If he is doing the latter, he is repeating gossip. If he is doing the former, and really does know what Aquinas said, then he is being deceptive.
Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception
This is on page 4. I did not accuse you personally of deception if you read carefully what it says. I don't think you know that much about Aquinas so you can't be deceptive.

 

[prodromos]

Thus you should never tolerate someone to say that Aquinas endorsed the idea that Mary was sinful.

Never suggested such a thing. My only comment was regarding your quoting of Aquinas in support of the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception when he himself opposed the dogma. You seem to have read into that an awful lot of additional stuff which I had not, and would not have suggested. I have not read Aquinas for a long time but do remember some things clearly. You give the impression that you yourself have only read the bits quoted in the articles you link to.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are totally correct. When one rejects the Bible as sole authority in spiritual matters and accepts the words of man, disaster always follows.

Why is that?????

Because ALL men are sinners. There is none righeteous, no not one.

The disaster actually followed when a group of reformationists took the bible as sole authority ( or rather their excessive self belief they could interpret it innerrantly) and so came up with numerous mutually exclusive interpretations of doctrine. As a direct result so splintered reformationist christianity into 10000 factions and counting. Or more like 1000001 including major!

Because nowhere does the bible say it is the sole authority, which it would need to do, to avoid a logical self contradiction. Since you seem to think the prime "infallible truth"is that the bible is the o"nly source of infallible truth", but since it does not include your prime truth, you therefore believe in a logical contradiction!
QED. Not least because scripture says the foundation of truth is the church not scripture and so contradicts you again.

. And you clearly dont understand how the faith was handed down by apostolic succession and Christs' behest by early christians, or indeed that Christ gave authority to give doctrinal decisions on meaning of doctrine, "bind and loose" to apostolic succession which they have since done, and with whom Major has no connection and is certainly not a branch on that tree. Scripture says "how can they teach if they are not sent?" for the very reason we are not to listen to those who decide not to be part of that tree. The catholic church, the one christ instituted.

As for your - as always - faulty proof texting:
"all men are sinners" to include Mary is easily shown faulty. I can give you millions of exceptions without even thinking.

You need to start taking a holistic view of scripture Major. Instead of "proof texting" and confirmation bias to try to make scripture say what you want it to.

Romans 9:11 makes clear that from the first babies (using esau as example) have done neither good nor bad, ie are not sinners.

So all new born are not sinners, at least for a period indeed many eg mentally ill never gain the capacity to willful breach of gods law, so can never sin by definition. So there are millions that prove you wrong, in your misuse of the word "all".

Jesus was wholly man. He is an exception to your rule of "all" too.

We also know from Jude 24:25 that the Lord "is able to keep you from falling".

So there are two ways to save.

One is to get you out, when you have fallen in the pit, most of us rely on, the other is to stop you from falling, and unless you had not noticed , that is what we ask in the Lords prayer to be kept from temptation, deliver from evil.

And when Mary says "god my saviour" that is what she meant.

Do you doubt the ability of the lord to do so? For the one who must be his Sons early teacher, as a result is given more grace than any before or since. "full of grace " "the lord is with her".

Clearly such a one can be saved by preventing from falling, Judes says so!
And if the lord cannot do that for one "full of grace" whom "he is with" - It seems you underestimate our Lord

And you do not read the whole of scripture as my examples show.

Answer me. If mary sinned. Give me an example from scripture.
You cannot.

So you interpret silence however you want it to be. Instead of listening to the magisterium appointed to answer the questions. To "bind and loose"

And you dont listen to the early fathers.
You think your own intellect is greater than all before you seemingly.

No wonder you are so off course