Mama Kidogo
Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Leprechauns make lousy cereal. But those added marshmallows are not bad.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Their horns were highly prized as an aphrodisiac. Thats why they became extinct
(Unicorns, not Leprechauns)
So...first there was no historical proof, now the proof isnt old enough?
It is impossible to please everyone...please show where IC contradicts the apostles in scripture...thanks!
So here goes; I understand this was doctrine long before it was dogma. What was happening that caused the need for it to be elevated to dogma? Was there some odd heresy running rampant? I mean is there some history about why it was elevated? Or was it just a belief held so long they decided it should be?
See post #246. The conversation is swirling with scripture of all falling short, being conceived in sin.
BTW, my take on birthed with the "inclination to sin" or however one phrases it is we are all born spiritually dead. We must be born again from above. Even Mary. Christ not, whose Father is God.
So if all are conceived in sin, does that all include everyone, or are there exceptions. We had this same debate, which I don't think you were part of before, much earlier in the first thread. And here is the problem with your "all" argument. You are taking it to mean every human being without exception, well the problem is we know of at least one exception don't we? Jesus. So if there is one exception, there can always be others. So you are left with a quandary, either you admit that there can be exceptions to the "all" or you have to claim that Jesus was also a sinner in need of redemption. Hopefully you are not considering the later.
Jesus cannot be an exception to a rule he was never a part of.
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
God cannot fall short of himself. So you are creating a logical fallacy by saying he is an exception to this statement in Romans 3:23.
2. Jesus existed before man (John 1:1-4) and is not a literal descendant of Adam who passed on sin and death to "all men" (Romans 5:12) so did not inherit sin.
3. The bible was written for man. Not for angels or demons or God. It was written for the benefit of man. That would exclude Jesus. So when it says "all" it really means all mankind. No exceptions.
So...first there was no historical proof, now the proof isnt old enough?
It is impossible to please everyone...please show where IC contradicts the apostles in scripture...thanks!
So if all are conceived in sin, does that all include everyone, or are there exceptions. We had this same debate, which I don't think you were part of before, much earlier in the first thread. And here is the problem with your "all" argument. You are taking it to mean every human being without exception, well the problem is we know of at least one exception don't we? Jesus. So if there is one exception, there can always be others. So you are left with a quandary, either you admit that there can be exceptions to the "all" or you have to claim that Jesus was also a sinner in need of redemption. Hopefully you are not considering the later.
...and unicorns!
But the crux of the matter, and where your argument fails is in two points: 1) Either Jesus is a man or He isn't. The passage says all men have sinned and fallen short, right. We know Jesus did not sin or fall short. We also know that He was a man as well as God. So He is an obvious exception. If there is one exception there can be others.I already explained the answer.
"Conceived in sin", "having a propensity to sin", we all have that upon our birth. Including Mary.
What of Christ? No, because His Father is God.
We must be born-again. We are ALL born first spiritually dead (propensity to sin, inclination toward evil, inherited sin, whatever the phrase is means we are born spiritually dead). We must be born-again (spiritual -our spirit- birth). Christ, however, didn't need to be born again.
So, one exception to the "all", who is Christ because He did not have a human father.
But the crux of the matter, and where your argument fails is in two points: 1) Either Jesus is a man or He isn't. The passage says all men have sinned and fallen short, right. We know Jesus did not sin or fall short. We also know that He was a man as well as God. So He is an obvious exception. If there is one exception there can be others.
2) no one is claiming that Mary wasn't redeemed. In her situation we believe she was redeemed at the moment of her conception. Thus at no point in her life was she not full of grace or most favored of God.
So from this points I still have not seen where any of this contradicts Scripture, which is what was originally proposed. We are not discussing whether or not the Immaculate Conception is true or not, but whether it contradicts Scripture, which all attempts to prove that it does, have fallen short.
Three things trouble me about the notion/doctrine of IC. (so far)
1. It took until 1854 and Pope Pius IX to augment it as belief.
2. I cannot understand why the Bible is at pains to point out the
lineage of Jesus, including a prostitute, murderer and adulterer, but
suddenly others find it necessary to attribute a special grace (whatever that is)
to Mary.
3. What are the visible results of elevating Mary? In answer I would say an
emphasis on aspects of deity that no human can possess, and leading people
down a path that should not be trodden.
So at least you express an understanding that there is an exception to the rule.No, the argument doesn't fall short. All men have sinned. As you say, Jesus is man AND God. You're conflating man with manANDGod. Mary too was human (man).
Again, Christ was born Spiritually alive, like Adam originally. Adam sinned and died spiritually. That is what we inherit. Death, propensity to sin, carnal nature, inherited guilt.
Christ never sinned. Christ's father is God.
We must be born-again. Born spiritually by our Father, thus He taught us to pray.
So yes, IC contradicts scripture that says "all men (not Man/God) fall short".
Three things trouble me about the notion/doctrine of IC. (so far)
False assertion. The doctrine was raised to the level of Dogma in the Catholic Church. It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church since the early centuries.1. It took until 1854 and Pope Pius IX to augment it as belief.
Don't see how both correlate. The Archangel Gabriel, elevated Mary, not human beings.2. I cannot understand why the Bible is at pains to point out the lineage of Jesus, including a prostitute, murderer and adulterer, but suddenly others find it necessary to attribute a special grace (whatever that is) to Mary.
strawman, since no Church that I know of advocates the Adoration of Mary as a goddess.3. What are the visible results of elevating Mary? In answer I would say an
emphasis on aspects of deity that no human can possess, and leading people
down a path that should not be trodden.
The evidence against unicorns doesn't exist. Therefore to not believe in unicorns is to lose your salvation.
Good points. And as several of the rest of us have mentioned, the lack of any Scriptural foundation for the doctrine would in itself be enough to require us to reject it, all of the points you listed here aside.
So one question then if the lack of any Scriptural foundation for a doctrine should be enough to require one to reject a belief; why do you still believe in Sola Scriptura? There is zero Scriptural foundation for this innovation, and yet you still accept it as a belief, why?
If I would have to guess, your answer to this question would probably be very similar to a Catholic's response to why we believe in the Immaculate Conception.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?