The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Mama Kidogo]

Their horns were highly prized as an aphrodisiac. Thats why they became extinct
(Unicorns, not Leprechauns)

Leprechauns make lousy cereal. But those added marshmallows are not bad.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

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!

Gee. Can't we get past it contradicting the gospel first? We haven't even come close to doing that yet. But then me wearing a string bikini doesn't contradict the gospel. But it's just wrong to anyone viewing.

Seriously, I don't begrudge the Catholic their IC. I just don't agree with it.What it contradicts is my tradition and beliefs. I don't even see it contradicting Scripture. It's a gap filler. If one needs the gap filled I guess it serve the purpose.

We all have theories (or possibilities) that we have taken past theory and made them beliefs. Catholics are in no way unique in doing that. But my interest in this thread is really to get a simple question answered (and to better understand other's beliefs but that's secondary). I kinda expected it to be brought up in the defense of the dogma.

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?

 

[Defensor Christi]

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?

The Holy See was petitioned by a number of Bishops across the world to clearly define the dogma...Yes, it a belief that was held but not formally defined...

Ineffabilis Deus

 

[Erose]

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.

 

[MrMoe]

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.

 

[Erose]

If a tree falls in a forest when no one is around does it make any noise?

A little Zen Buddhism this morning.

 

[Erose]

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.

Ah the dilemma, either you deny Christ's humanity or call Him a sinner; or you have to admit that there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Standing Up]

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!

Of course there is "historical proof" since RC defined IC with support to the 4th century. The question is whether it is apostolic proof? Does IC source to apostles? The answer, so far, is clearly no.

Keep in mind "sourcing to apostles" was a tool the very early church used to determine a belief's veracity. The church rejected Marcion's teachings because they came after the apostles. Likewise Pope Soandso's teachings are rejected because they came after the apostles.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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.

 

[SolomonVII]

...and unicorns!

The evidence against unicorns doesn't exist. Therefore to not believe in unicorns is to lose your salvation.

 

[Erose]

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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".

 

[Zeek]

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

 

[Erose]

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".

So at least you express an understanding that there is an exception to the rule.

The problem is that you are ignoring the very fact that Jesus became man in all ways except sin. He is just as much a human being as you and I are. Thus either the all does not include all, or Jesus was a sinner. So again, you have failed to present an argument that does away with exceptions to the all men have sinned.

Anyway, all we are going to do is go around and around in circles, but the original OP proposed, has failed miserably to show that the Immaculate Conception contradicts Scripture.

 

[Erose]

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.

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.

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.

Don't see how both correlate. The Archangel Gabriel, elevated Mary, not human beings.

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.

strawman, since no Church that I know of advocates the Adoration of Mary as a goddess.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The evidence against unicorns doesn't exist. Therefore to not believe in unicorns is to lose your salvation.

Do you mean an active disbelief or merely a refusal to acknowledge the possibility of their existence? IOW, the difference between aunicornistic and agnostic about unicorns.

 

[Erose]

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.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Does it matter unless one is in obedience to aunicornistic or agnostic about unicorns in the first place?

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

Not necessarily.
But at least without specific Biblical support, there really ought to be something that falls in the line of historical evidence that the belief actually had at some point been passed on by the apostles-those who had first hand knowledge of who Jesus was, in other words.