The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Standing Up]

Would it be safe to say that a lot of Roman Catholicism's errors, doctrines and dogmas came about because of those xtra 7 books it uses?

Perhaps others can shed light on that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602/#post54128344
Roman church errors and inventions


.

Prayers to the dead sources to one of those books.

Ignoring the prophetic or apostolic authority (substituting your own authority to declare doctrine) sources to their accepting of those books, even as Maccabees tells us they are not authoritative.

 

[Albion]

Prayers to the dead sources to one of those books.

That's true. And Purgatory is built to a small degree upon that passage also. Some things said about angels are also referred back to the Apocrypha. Nevertheless, these books--for all the controversy over them--play a very tiny role in the formation of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Standing Up]

Well, in terms of the IC, I have no idea how the case can be made that the dogma can be sourced to apocryphal/deuterocanical books.

The dogma cam about as a result of a philosophical problem concerning the inheritability of original sin, coupled with the extreme hyperbole that has evolved in the hagiography around Mary.

That and it answered the question how a baby could have "pure blood" (apart from original sin) to shed for us. Answer, the mother was made to have "pure blood" at her conception (RC) or at her agreement (EO).

Those answers, however, came with the idea that the mother gave her blood to the baby. We now know the baby makes its own blood or as from the father (God in Christ's case). IC is completely unnecessary to answer the original sin question.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's true. And Purgatory is built to a small degree upon that passage also. Some things said about angels are also referred back to the Apocrypha. Nevertheless, there are almost no doctrines that rest upon any passages out of any of these books.

What would they be called then?


.

 

[Albion]

What would they be called then?


.

What would WHAT be called then?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

What would they be called then?

​

What would WHAT be called then?

Never mind.....had a brain fart moment.......


.

 

[Tzaousios]

Do you not understand that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? Jesus is just a human as you and I. Nothing lacked in Him when it came to His humanity. Are you become a Docetist on me?

New math, have we? Docetism declares that God faked everything. That is not true. You are carrying the label a bit too far. Docetism and catholicism are both "isms".

Perhaps Aphthartodocetism is the more accurate term.

 

[James Is Back]

I asked this earlier but did Mary have a sinless life because I always thought that Christ was the only one that had a sinless life?

 

[By Faith Alone]

I asked this earlier but did Mary have a sinless life because I always thought that Christ was the only one that had a sinless life?

The Scriptures do not set out to describe Mary's life apart from her purposed mission as Christotokos. She was blessed AMONG women and not ABOVE women. All it takes is one fleeting thought to be a sinner. Jesus Christ did not have that problem.

Consider David and his life, especially with Bathsheba. Even with that one black speck on a white sheet, God said David was a man after His heart.

To say Mary was sinless is no less than a fairy tale and therefore conjecture. I do not believe God appreciates that mode of belief. We are to believe what He has REVEALED to us and not that which is imagined.

 

[James Is Back]

The Scriptures do not set out to describe Mary's life apart from her purposed mission as Christotokos. She was blessed AMONG women and not ABOVE women. All it takes is one fleeting thought to be a sinner. Jesus Christ did not have that problem.

Consider David and his life, especially with Bathsheba. Even with that one black speck on a white sheet, God said David was a man after His heart.

To say Mary was sinless is no less than a fairy tale and therefore conjecture. I do not believe God appreciates that mode of belief. We are to believe what He has REVEALED to us and not that which is imagined.

That's what I always believed. That only one person on earth that has ever not sinned was Christ. Everyone from then and now has.

 

[Albion]

I asked this earlier but did Mary have a sinless life because I always thought that Christ was the only one that had a sinless life?

You're right. Jesus is the only one to live a sinless life. But it is also true that the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that all its members must believe that Mary was conceived and born without sin. It is taught, but not considered an infallible doctrine, that she also never did sin thereafter. The first of those two teachings is based totally upon the angel saying to Mary, on the occasion of announcing to her that she had been chosen to give birth to Jesus, that she was favored by God. The second one has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

 

[By Faith Alone]

That and it answered the question how a baby could have "pure blood" (apart from original sin) to shed for us. Answer, the mother was made to have "pure blood" at her conception (RC) or at her agreement (EO).

Those answers, however, came with the idea that the mother gave her blood to the baby. We now know the baby makes its own blood or as from the father (God in Christ's case). IC is completely unnecessary to answer the original sin question.

And the flesh could not have come from Mary. Sinful flesh begets sinful blood:
Rom 8:3....God sending his own Son in the... likeness ....of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 

[By Faith Alone]

You're right. Jesus is the only one to live a sinless life. But it is also true that the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that all its members must believe that Mary was conceived and born without sin. It is taught, but not considered an infallible doctrine, that she also never did sin thereafter. The first of those two teachings is based totally upon the angel saying to Mary, on the occasion of announcing to her that she had been chosen to give birth to Jesus, that she was favored by God. The second one has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

I wish I had proof they taught an infallible doctrine knowing it was so and still required that belief. I do not doubt what you say, considering all the other false doctrines.

CATECHISM PLEASE?

 

[Erose]

The fact that you had to differentiate between West and East here is ample enough recognition of my point.
Widespread acceptance came very early, formal acceptance only at Trent.

The writings in the Catholic Bible received full acceptance in the 5-6th centuries. The East only added to the canon, not subtracted from it as Protestants did 1000 years later.

 

[Erose]

It is enough that you note that there is no historical trail leading to this dogma and what is verifiable from the apostolic age.

Like I said I read it in Scripture. The problem with discussing these things is that we are really putting the cart in front of the horse. To understand the Immaculate conception, one must first understand more fundamental doctrines, such as our understanding of Justification, Sanctifying Grace, Original Sin, etc. Only after this understanding does one fully see this teaching in Scripture starting in Genesis, then Luke, and finally in Revelation. But quite honestly those are in themselves big pies to bite into.

It is a useful method to discern Christian truth, and a necessary parameter to prevent some of the abuses that occurred. It is hardly de fide dogma.

It isn't? I find that quite frankly hard to believe, that Sola Scriptura doesn't have a dogmatic reverence among Protestants. It sure is thrown around here like it is De Fide.

 

[Erose]

Like the Oriental Orthodox?

Christ at birth: One person, two natures (man/God)

Man, including Mary, at birth: One person, one nature (female/male)

When we are born again, we are a new creature (one person, two natures (man and of God). Thus Christ taught us (born again believers) to pray: Our Father ...

Therefore, IC contradicts scripture (all men (one person, one nature) have sinned).

Again you are ignoring Christ's humanity. You have lost this side of the debate, because you cannot ignore the very fact that Christ is a man. Here is how that argument works, if you do not concede that there is no exceptions:

P1: All men have sinned.
P2: Jesus Christ is a man.
C: Therefore He sinned.

We all know that the conclusion is wrong. So either P1 and/or P2 isn't correct or is being misunderstood. So which Premise...

 

[Erose]

All you have shown is Irenaeus denying the myth of ever virgin. Eve as yet a virgin disobeyed. Eve later had children. Mary as yet a virgin obeyed. Mary later had children.

Still on that mantra I see. Yes Mary has more children than Jesus, and in fact I am one of them. That is why I call her Mother Mary.

 

[James Is Back]

Again you are ignoring Christ's humanity. You have lost this side of the debate, because you cannot ignore the very fact that Christ is a man. Here is how that argument works, if you do not concede that there is no exceptions:

P1: All men have sinned.
P2: Jesus Christ is a man.
C: Therefore He sinned.

Wouldn't it be:

P1: All men have sinned.
P2. Jesus Christ is man and God
P3. Due to his divine nature he never sinned

 

[By Faith Alone]

The writings in the Catholic Bible received full acceptance in the 5-6th centuries. The East only added to the canon, not subtracted from it as Protestants did 1000 years later.

I thank God for the great Saint Martin Luther that set in motion purging the leavened.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Wouldn't it be:

P1: All men have sinned.
P2. Jesus Chris is man and God
P3. Due to his divine nature he never sinned

What sort of "man" was He?

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast.... thou.... prepared me: