Peanut Gallery: The Immaculate conception of Mary!

katholikos said:

A total misunderstanding of the Scripture.

Click to expand...

Not really. For Christ is the rock that all faith is laid upon. He is the Rock that causes also a stumbling stone. The Church is founded upon the Rock. Christ. He is the foundation layed.

lionroar0 said:

I don't know what an Overlord is.

Peace

Click to expand...

overlord. Ruler. The one in charge.

katholikos said:

You apparently don't know what a "pope" is. The English word pope is a poor translation, from Latin: "papa" or "father", and from Greek πάπας ," pápas". It refers to the Bishop of Rome. We call priests and bishops father (see here: LINK ). Who came up with the word "pope", I have no idea. But he is the "Bishop of Rome." And the first mention of the Bishop of Rome does not come centuries later. The Bishops of Rome were traced back to Peter in early Christian writings:

According to Jerome in 383 AD:

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome"
(Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle"
(Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

And according to Eusebius even earlier, in 312 AD

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]"
(Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

So why don't you actually state facts instead of posting error and misinformation

Click to expand...

I know what pope means. Stop obfuscating and answer the question.

Uphill Battle said:

...I know what pope means. Stop obfuscating and answer the question.

Click to expand...

LOL. Pointing out your gross error is obfuscating? Exposing your misinformation is obfuscating?

Tell me, who is the person that makes a lie the truth and says the truth is a lie?

Your questions have all been answered multiple time. You don't want answers, so I don't know why you keep asking for them

perhaps someone without a self-righteous chip on their shoulder can answer then. Probably better to talk with someone who doesn't call me Satan.


when is is claimed that Pope Peter started his office in Rome?

katholikos said:

You apparently don't know what a "pope" is. The English word pope is a poor translation, from Latin: "papa" or "father", and from Greek πάπας ," pápas". It refers to the Bishop of Rome. We call priests and bishops father (see here: LINK ). Who came up with the word "pope", I have no idea. But he is the "Bishop of Rome." And the first mention of the Bishop of Rome does not come centuries later. The Bishops of Rome were traced back to Peter in early Christian writings:

According to Jerome in 383 AD:

Click to expand...

katholikos said:

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome"
(Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

" Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle"
(Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

And according to Eusebius even earlier, in 312 AD

" Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]"
(Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

So why don't you actually state facts instead of posting error and misinformation

Click to expand...

Sorry, I fail to understand how any of this substantiates that Mary specifically was conceived immaculately? Much less that it does so to the very highest level of certainty and importance.





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Sorry, I fail to understand how any of this substantiates that Mary specifically was conceived immaculately?...

Click to expand...

Because the pope is the successor of Peter with the authority to bind and loose. He has taught that the Immaculate Conception is true, and it is therefore true. Case closed.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.....Much less that it does so to the very highest level of certainty and importance..

Click to expand...

Truth is truth. Are there levels of truth? Either something is so or it is not so. The Blessed Virgin was immaculately conceived. It is so.

Josiah said:

Sorry, I fail to understand how any of this substantiate that Mary specifically was conceived immaculately?...

Click to expand...

Because the pope is the successor of Peter with the authority to bind and loose. He has taught that the Immaculate Conception is true, and it is therefore true. Case closed.

Click to expand...

No, case never addressed.

The Pope is merely agreeing with the Pope. He is expressing his opinion. Such is not substantiation at all.

If I said that it is my opinion that Toyotas are generally better than Yugos, that's MY OPINION - I've yet offering NOTHING to substantiate what I stated. Apples and oranges, as you well know. We all know.







.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

No, case never addressed....

Click to expand...

The case has been addressed many times.
The scriptures have been addressed many times.
The theology behind it has been addressed many times.
The ECF's have been addressed many times.


You just keep rejecting the truth. And when a few pages in the thread go by, you just start the same round of questions all over again. Its just an anti-catholic game for you. I will not continue to engage in it.

nah. You'll just call the people who disagree with you as non-existant, or equate them as Satan, and ignore them. Feather in your cap, you win, who can argue!

(Expecially with your infallible avatar watching over the whole thing.)

I wonder if Ratzinger is posting here under the name of Katholikos. It isn't that much of a stretch... considering he thinks every word he types is infallible truth.

katholikos said:

The scriptures have been addressed many times.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have revealed very clearly that the Bible does NOT teach this.
And you have revealed that the view is problematic by giving us the definition of the word typically translated as "brother" and "sister."
You've done a solid job of revealing the lack of biblical support.

The ECF's have been addressed many times.

Click to expand...

Of course, those who came to embrace the report came to embrace the report. But, as we all know, that's not substantiation. And the very late dates associated with the single handful of quotes, their lack of association with Mary, Joseph, Jesus or ANY Apostle, and the absolute lack of ANY substantiation by ANY of them all have revealed to all how completely empty your hand is. I could not have shown the complete lack of substantiation better than you have done for us.



Now, is it LOVING to share a popularly held story or report if the only substantiation is that the one teaching it shares an opinion that his opinion is correct? Especially in a matter of DOGMA - the highest level of certianty? Especially in a matter people here have confessed they would NOT want spread around, one potentially VERY hurtful, painful and embarrassing? THAT is the issue before us.... That you wish to disregard it and just keep shouting "It's true because it's true" doesn't address it at all.








.

I finally finished my Debate! Sorry it took so long. For almost a month my server on my computer would not connect me to this site. Thank the Lord that it finally worked!

I posted two last post responding to all Ahiggs questions and objections. I feel the Catholic side was far stronger as far as evidence goes.


Thanks for watching and praying. I want to thank all the Catholics on this board for taking up the Catholic truth that our Lord gave us so faithfully. May the Lord bless you all! Keep watching I am sure it will get posted soon!

Here is what a professor of New testament Greek[Father Mateo] has to Say about Lk 1:28 (Full of grace) and its implications to the immaculate conception.

"The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb's lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, "he graced, bestowed grace." This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because "the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result."(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)

It's Greek to CRI

Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the "continuance of a completed action";(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) "completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem."(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tenseThe next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)

1. "He has defiled this sacred place" (Acts 21:28)--their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.

2. "The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh" (Gal. 4:23)--the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.

3. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)--that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

Other examples I found:

1. "God spoke to Moses" (John 9:29)--the Pharisees hold that the Mosaic Law still and always holds.

2. "It is finished" (John 19:30)--the work of redemption culminating in the passion and death of Christ is complete and forever enduring .

3 "He rose on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4)--unlike Lazarus who was raised from the dead but must die again, Christ rose to everlasting life.

4. "All things have been created through him and for him" (Col. 1:16)--all creation continually exists, upheld by God (this is the teaching of God's universal providence and also the refutation of deism).

Here are examples, like kechari-tomene, of perfect participles in the New Testament:

1. "To the praise of his glorious grace, which he bestowed on us in his beloved"(Eph. 1:6)--Christ is perfectly, completely, endlessly loved by his Father.

2. "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42)--Christ is perfectly and endlessly blessed by God.

Because Luke 1:28 uses the perfect participle kecharitomene to describe Mary, CRI is wrong to say there is nothing in this verse to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine[Immaculate conception] with Scripture."

Source found here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp



Well I am finished with this discussion. God bless you all. I hope protestants all learned something from the debate.

Gratefully in Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais

I'm disappointed.

Nothing was shown to substantiate this dogma.
From God's Scriptures or even from the RCC's own "Fathers."




.

Athanasias said:

Because Luke 1:28 uses the perfect participle kecharitomene to describe Mary, CRI is wrong to say there is nothing in this verse to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine[Immaculate conception] with Scripture."

Click to expand...

With all due and deserved respect, this apolgetic is as weak as they come....

"I have other sheep," Jesus stated in Scripture. Does that substantiate that those "other sheep" are Native Americans and THEREFORE LDS dogma about the societies here, the plates, Joseph Smith and the founding of Christ's Church here is proven? The Mormon will tell you, no, it doesn't exactly "prove" it but it proves the harmony of Mormonism.

Now, if you will accept that rubric when Mormons use it (and thus accept what they draw from that verse - even though it doesn't 'substantiate' it), then I'll at least give you credit for consistency and fairness - even if I disagree with the rubric (for both LDS and RCC).



.

disappointed. But are you suprised?

You'll just call the people who disagree with you as non-existant, or equate them as Satan, and ignore them.

Click to expand...

Gee -- pot and kettle must be very close friends on this site, given their frequent interactions.

katholikos said:

So why don't you actually state facts instead of posting error and misinformation

Click to expand...

The easiest manner in which to state error is to simply quote what rome states as fact.

Uphill Battle said:

disappointed. But are you suprised?

Click to expand...

... a bit.


Our Catholic friend seem to promise MUCH more than was delivered.
What we "got" was the old, tired, "but it's POSSIBLE and the RCC says it's true so it is" arguments we've all heard before, which could have been just copied and pasted from dozens of websites (I don't know if it was). Nothin' that any Catholic would accept from any noncatholic for a view it doesn't embrace.

I thought there was going to be solid stuff from the RC Denominations "Fathers" early on, etc., etc. But it never was presented. I was very much looking forward to some new quotes that we all haven't seen before (all late and mostly not 'on point').


BUT, one thing was made clear: The RCC (and LDS) have two entirely different modes of authentication - one for self and the opposite for everyone else. And THAT'S what we saw so displayed. The "I'm right so therefore I'm right - why don't you understand that?" combined with, "It's right unless I myself determine that Scripture contradicts it - which is impossible because then God would be a liar since I can't be" mixed with some, "It's dogma unless you can prove that it's not." When Mormons use this identical epistemology, Catholics laugh in their face and decry it silly and circular. When Catholics do it, Mormons laugh in their face and decry it silly and circular. I think they both have a point....


Here's MY perspective. This is the view of a single denomination (the Catholic Church). It's not accepted by the older EO or OO - both of whom the RCC regards as legit if heretical, also stewards to the Deposit of Faith. WITHIN THAT SINGULAR DENOMINATION (one of 30,000 of them, Catholics insist), it is a fairly told tradition. NOWHERE NEAR the Apostolic age and thus any claims to the Apostles is silly, but old. Since I believe in the Providence of God, I tend to give it some respect for no other reason than it's historic embrace (if only by one denomination). I don't view it as heretical or impossible - it is not UNbiblical in my opinion, just clearly abiblical and atraditional. But, you see, the RCC made it DOGMA. The highest level of truth, certainly and importance. To deny such is to be a heretic, and as my priest once noted, "Heaven is not populated by heretics." The RCC enacts dogma for one reason: so it may anathamatize, condemn, excommunicate and rebuke those who don't accept it - strongly implying that they are not Christians or saved or at least as wonderful as they. IF this were a "pious opinion" (as Protestants refer to such), there would be little discussion. But, the RCC made it dogma. As one of my Orthodox friends once commented, "My biggest problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that it has never learned when or how to shut up." Or, I might add, the difference between POSSIBLE and DOGMATIC FACT.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

whatever. I challenge you to find one instance where I've called someone Satan. OR said that someone doesn't exist if I disagree with them.

nice try.

if you're going to use invective, at LEAST try to find some that is remotely true.

I'm just wondering what's the point? Leaving aside the question whether Mary was immaculately conceived, why does it matter whether she was or was not?

Athanasias said:

Here is what a professor of New testament Greek[Father Mateo] has to Say about Lk 1:28 (Full of grace) and its implications to the immaculate conception.

"The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb's lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, "he graced, bestowed grace." This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because "the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result."(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)

It's Greek to CRI

Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the "continuance of a completed action";(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) "completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem."(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tenseThe next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)

1. "He has defiled this sacred place" (Acts 21:28)--their entrance in the past produced defilement as a lasting effect.

2. "The son of the slave woman was born according to the flesh" (Gal. 4:23)--the perfect with reference to an Old Testament event can mean it retains its exemplary effect.

3. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" 1 Cor. 9:1, Acts 22:15)--that Paul has seen the Lord is what establishes him permanently as an apostle.

Other examples I found:

1. "God spoke to Moses" (John 9:29)--the Pharisees hold that the Mosaic Law still and always holds.

2. "It is finished" (John 19:30)--the work of redemption culminating in the passion and death of Christ is complete and forever enduring .

3 "He rose on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4)--unlike Lazarus who was raised from the dead but must die again, Christ rose to everlasting life.

4. "All things have been created through him and for him" (Col. 1:16)--all creation continually exists, upheld by God (this is the teaching of God's universal providence and also the refutation of deism).

Here are examples, like kechari-tomene, of perfect participles in the New Testament:

1. "To the praise of his glorious grace, which he bestowed on us in his beloved"(Eph. 1:6)--Christ is perfectly, completely, endlessly loved by his Father.

2. "Blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42)--Christ is perfectly and endlessly blessed by God.

Because Luke 1:28 uses the perfect participle kecharitomene to describe Mary, CRI is wrong to say there is nothing in this verse to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine[Immaculate conception] with Scripture."

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your argument, the loss of the distinction between perfect and aorist in the transition from Attic to Koine is well documented.

If "Father" Mateo does not know that, then he is not much of a professor of the NT.