Question For Wols - Immaculate Conception

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have heard about Immaculate Conception which teaches Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. In Luke 1:46-47 she says, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour".

I just wanted to know your thoughts on this. Hope all is well. :)

Inquiring Sincerely,

Jeff
 

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
some of the thoughts I have read are in the direction that if Mary was sinful then Jesus was too because of the "gene" of sin passed on. To "solve" this problem Mary is sinless there...biblically supported by the pure statements made of mary in the bible...I wonder ..isn't the same thing said about moses or Lot?
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
19,977
4,666
62
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟198,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The concept of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary needed a Savior as much as any other human being; however, through a special action of God, she was preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception. This was her salvation. The rest of us are saved later. :)

As for the "gene" of sinfulness being passed on to Christ through Mary, it's not so much that as it was that God wanted a spotless vessel to bear His Son into the world.

There are various theological arguments that have been tossed around through the centuries, but the bottom line on this one, like with many Marian doctrines, is whether you believe it or not. Scripture can be interpreted both ways, pro and con for Mary's sinlessness....it just depends on your theological viewpoint. :)

Blessings,
---Wols.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkland1244

Regular Member
Feb 20, 2002
195
3
Visit site
✟529.00
Faith
Anglican
Mary was not made sinless by God so that she could give birth to a sinless child. Jesus' sinless nature stems from the fact that He is God, which is totally unconnected to his mother's sinfulness or lack thereof.

Mary was preserved from sin in order to make her a PROPER vessel for Christ. It was done out of propriety, not necessity.

Kirk
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
19,977
4,666
62
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟198,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Catholic Church does not adhere to Luther's concept of "Scripture alone" as the sole basis for all aspects of faith, morals, practice, or belief. Neither did any orthodox Christian, for 1,520 years.

You are free to reject whatever you like that is not found in Scripture. Just remember that your position is in direct contrast to the historical practice of the Faith from 33 AD onward, and is a rather johnny-come-lately innovation dating no earlier than the 15th century. :)

Blessings,
--Wols.
 
Upvote 0
B

BlalronResurrected

Guest
In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. They quoted scripture, not traditions, to prove their point.

When Jesus was in the desert fasting, and Satan tempted him, Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, "It is written" as for example, in Matthew 4:4, "he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Christ rebuked the Pharises for making their traditions on a par with the word of God. He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye."
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
19,977
4,666
62
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟198,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. They quoted scripture, not traditions, to prove their point.

That's fine. Now all you have to do is prove this me by means of Scripture. Where does the Bible say that the Bible alone is all you need? And do not quote 2 Tim 3:16; that passage says that all Scripture is inspired; it does NOT say that only Scripture is inspired. We believe that Tradition is inspired as well.
When Jesus was in the desert fasting, and Satan tempted him, Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, "It is written" as for example, in Matthew 4:4, "he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Quite right. And how did Jesus deliver these Scriptures to Satan? Did he silently give Satan a Bible to read and sit down while Satan read it? Hardly. Jesus spoke the Scripture to Satan; "he said"; "out of the mouth of God". The spoken, oral Word of God is just as efficacious as the written Word of God.
Christ rebuked the Pharises for making their traditions on a par with the word of God. He declared to them in Mark 7:13 "You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye."

Notice, however: Jesus did not condemn all tradition. He condemned corrupt tradition. Specifically, He condemned corrupt Jewish tradition. He certainly did not condemn Christian Tradition, since it didn't exist yet.

And in any event, if Tradition is condemned in the Bible, how do you account for Scriptures like 1 Cor 11:2, or 2 Thess 2:15, or 2 Thess 3:6, or John 21:31?

Catholic Tradition is not man-made. It is the spoken Word of God, delivered orally by the Apostles to the first Christians. Somne of this oral teaching got written down and became the New Testament; some of it did not and reamins Tradition. Tradition stopped being created with the death of the last Apostle, just as written Scripture did. It has not changed, nor has it evolved since then. The only thing that has changed is the practice of the Christian faith since the Reformers threw Tradition away and began to evolve their own ideas of Christianity into the 20,000+ Protestant denominations we have today.

But oddly enough, it's always the Protestants who accuse the Catholics of "making things up". ;)

Blessings,
---Wols.


 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"Just remember that your position is in direct contrast to the historical practice of the Faith from 33 AD onward, and is a rather johnny-come-lately innovation dating no earlier than the 15th century. "

:lol: no its not, its a taking back to the roots of what we believe view, for we are going back to what was oringally thought because of the evidence in the church as people saw it (and do see it today IMO) that something went wrong.

"We believe that Tradition is inspired as well. "

there inlies the difference.

"Catholic Tradition is not man-made. "

most of it is...:) That's the difference b/w catholics and prodistants.

"Somne of this oral teaching got written down and became the New Testament; some of it did not and reamins Tradition"

Rather error on the side of conservative then on the liberal and do wrong.
 
Upvote 0
B

BlalronResurrected

Guest
The Immaculate Conception was adopted as a catechism by the Catholic Church in 1854. My question is, why wouldn't it have been revealed earlier? You'd think something as important as that would have been revealed in the Bible and not 1854 years after the fact.

Also, the Catholic Church says that Mary stayed a virgin her entire life which is found nowhere in the Bible. Do you really think a married couple (Joseph and Mary) would never be intimate with each other their whole lives?
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
19,977
4,666
62
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟198,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...it just took them until the 1850s to get around to defining it.

That's right. And that's nothing new, either. There have been many doctrines which took centuries to be officially formulated.

The concept of the Trinity, for example, was taught by the Apostles; but it was not officially formulated until 325 years after Jesus' birth, at the Council of Nicaea.

As for Mary's perpetual virginity, this is also a doctrine which dates from the first century of the Christian Faith. We, here in the 21st century, tend to marry people of our own age, and sex is a big part of our choosing to marry. But in 1st-century Palestine, it was not always so; young girls often married men of much older ages, and for a variety of reasons. We have other extant documents from the period, such as the Protoevangelion of James, which indicate that Jospeh was an older man, possibly approaching 40, who was a widower with grown sons at the time he married Mary, who was probably a girl of about 15 or so.

This helps explain two things: one, it helps to explain where Jesus "brothers" came from (they were stepbrothers), and two, it helps to explain why Mary and Joseph did not engage in sexual relations---Jospeh was more of a protector to Mary and caretaker to Jesus than a conjugal sex partner.

This probably seems totally bizarre to you, as it likely flies in the face of everything you have believed about the Holy Family up until now. But again, keep in mind that this is what was known about Joseph and Mary and believed right up until about the middle of the 17th century. Even Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli believed this about the Holy Family; it was their followers, after the death of the Reformers, that invented the current train of thought.

Again, you are under no compulsion to agree. :)

Blessings,
---Wols.
 
Upvote 0
B

BlalronResurrected

Guest
Since there's no proof that we have any oral teachings of the apostles with us today that they didn't write down, only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.

I don't know about you, but I choose God's Word over the traditions of men. I know many Catholics, and their mindset is stressfull to them (Catholics try to "earn" their salvation, with Protestants salvation is by grace through faith alone, it is not of works) and many have abandoned their religion for that reason.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkland1244

Regular Member
Feb 20, 2002
195
3
Visit site
✟529.00
Faith
Anglican
<<Since there's no proof that we have any oral teachings of the apostles with us today that they didn't write down, only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.>>

We have the witness of extra-biblical writings of the Early Church Fathers. If you are capable of understanding it, I suggest reading "The Development of Christian Doctrine" by John Henry Newman.

<<I don't know about you, but I choose God's Word over the traditions of men. >>

The Bible is not "God's Word." The Word of God is Jesus. The Logos. Jesus != Bible. Ergo the Bible != the Word of God.

And Catholic Tradition is not a "tradition of men." You are clearly totally ignorant of early Christian history, or you wouldn't spread such nonsense. Want traditions of men? Look at nonsense garbage like:

Pre-millenialism.
The "Rapture."
Once Saved Always Saved.
The Lutheran Canon of the Bible.
Sola-Scriptura.
Sola-Fide.

<<I know many Catholics, and their mindset is stressfull to them >>

And I know many Fundamentalists who are too stupid to tie their own shoes. What's your point?

<<(Catholics try to "earn" their salvation,>>

That is a dirty, filthy lie, and by spreading it you show yourself to be nothing more than a worthless anti-Catholic bigot, totally undeserving of respect or conversation.

Anti-Catholic bigots are a boil on the body of Christ.

Kirk
 
Upvote 0
B

BlalronResurrected

Guest
The Bible is not "God's Word."


Wow. Even Catholics think the Bible is God's word (at least I thought so).

The Word of God is Jesus.


Yes, and the word's of Jesus were faithfully recorded in written form by the Apostles.

The Logos. Jesus != Bible. Ergo the Bible != the Word of God.


I don't know where you got that from if you claim to be Catholic. I thought Catholics believed in the Bible, apparently not. If you don't believe in the Bible, what do you believe in?

<<(Catholics try to "earn" their salvation,>>


That is a dirty, filthy lie, and by spreading it you show yourself to be nothing more than a worthless anti-Catholic bigot, totally undeserving of respect or conversation.

Anti-Catholic bigots are a boil on the body of Christ.


Could you please try to refute what was said instead of just calling me a bigot? Does the Catholic church say that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works? Unless they recently changed, that's not what they currently teach.

I disagree with the Catholic church. I believe they point people in the wrong direction in many areas. I am not a bigot as you claim. I want people to know the same Jesus as described in the Bible, the written account faithfully recorded by the apostles who witnessed Christs actions and words first hand. This is not out of hatred, it is out of love.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.