The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Standing Up]

Well concerning how early this belief was seen let us look at the witnesses of this doctrine:

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies, bk III, ch 22, 4: 4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto you.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

-snip-

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

BTW:

I listen to Paul who was given a revelation by the ascended Lord and Paul alone in AD 63 about the new calling. If you deny Paul as apostle to the Gentiles and accept Peter the apostle to the circumcision as your apostle you deny the Lord on 2 fronts.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Peter received a revelation from the living Lord when Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose. Paul even went to Peter for approval of what he's teaching. Paul never says, anywhere, that Mary sinned. We know that, too, by what Jesus called his own mother.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Scripture (God-breathed) says so.

Scripture, which came from the Catholic Church, does not say Mary sinned. We know this by how Jesus addressed his mother...

 

[By Faith Alone]

Scripture, which came from the Catholic Church, does not say Mary sinned. We know this by how Jesus addressed his mother...

Phooey:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but... by me....

Jesus is the same God as Genesis 1:1 (John 1:1 and 14). JESUS gave us the Scriptures by inspiration and not the catholic church.

The more you boast the worse you look. Your own words place the church in the untenable position of being anti-Christ. Don't accuse me of saying you are anti-Christ. You say it yourself.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Peter received a revelation from the living Lord when Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose. Paul even went to Peter for approval of what he's teaching. Paul never says, anywhere, that Mary sinned. We know that, too, by what Jesus called his own mother.

I did NOT say Peter never received any revelation, did I? No, I did not. The calling of Ephesians and Colossians was given to PAUL as an apostle to the gentiles. You CANNOT show me where Peter was EVER called an apostle to the Gentiles.

Mary was NOT a space alien, ya know:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"Men" is generic for MANKIND

1 Cor 15:21-22
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as....in Adam all die.....even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Mary DIED just like everyone else will unless the are alive at His coming.

 

[James Is Back]

Scripture, which came from the Catholic Church, does not say Mary sinned. We know this by how Jesus addressed his mother...

Are you saying Mary did not sin?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I did NOT say Peter never received any revelation, did I? No, I did not. The calling of Ephesians and Colossians was given to PAUL as an apostle to the gentiles. You CANNOT show me where Peter was EVER called an apostle to the Gentiles.

and you cannot show me (below) where Mary died. But to your "fact", so what? Jesus never said Peter, you go minister to the Jews, Thomas, you go to the Indians, Andrew you go here, Philip, you go there.

Mary was NOT a space alien, ya know:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"Men" is generic for MANKIND

1 Cor 15:21-22
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as....in Adam all die.....even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Mary DIED just like everyone else will unless the are alive at His coming.

There is nowhere in Scripture that shows that Mary died. But I can show you lots of places in Scripture where "all" does not mean everyone.

Rom. 3:23 - You want to use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

- "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and the senile cannot sin.

- finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - You might also like to use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, "No one is good but God alone." But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says "The good man out of his good treasure..." So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

 

[Albion]

....I can show you lots of places in Scripture where "all" does not mean everyone.

Rom. 3:23 - You want to use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

- "all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and the senile cannot sin.

- finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - You might also like to use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.

Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.

Psalm 53:1-3 - "there is none that does good" expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people "good."

Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, "No one is good but God alone." But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says "The good man out of his good treasure..." So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.

Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.

What is proven by the above verses other than that all may not mean all? There isn't anything in there about Mary being sinless.

At best, you've shown that it is possible--which we all know. God can do anything, and certainly that is included. But the issue still remains the same: Is there any reason to think that he did spare her from sin? Well, no.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What is proven by the above verses other than that all may not mean all? There isn't anything in there about Mary being sinless.

At best, you've shown that it is possible--which we all know. God can do anything, and certainly that is included. But the issue still remains the same: Is there any reason to think that he did spare her from sin? Well, no.

So, it's a matter of your interpretation vs. the Catholic Church's authoritative teaching. And we see, from this, and other things, that Mary was sinless. The End.

 

[Albion]

So, it's a matter of your interpretation vs. the Catholic Church's authoritative teaching. .

Actually, I didn't interpret anything. These verses don't even deal with the issue except to do what you said up front--show that, in Scripture as in our own language, when "all" is used, there might be an exception to it somewhere. But that doesn't in any show us that Mary WAS indeed sinless.

There are no two ways about it.

 

[By Faith Alone]

And in Hebrews 11 lists Enoch among those that died in faith.

And 20 years after Elijah was taken into the atmosphere by a whirlwind:
2 Chron 21:12 And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah,

 

[By Faith Alone]

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Peter received a revelation from the living Lord when Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose. Paul even went to Peter for approval of what he's teaching. Paul never says, anywhere, that Mary sinned. We know that, too, by what Jesus called his own mother.

The Kingdom of Heaven is Christ's reign over ISRAEL when He assumes His position in the place of David in Israel ON EARTH. Peter and the 11 were ALL given authority but that authority did not come out of their own head. They could only "bind and loose" that which was already approved by God Himself and the Holy Spirit would use them in that manner.

The Hope of the church that was revealed to Paul in AD 63 was to a higher Glory never before revealed in the SUPER heavenlies.

Col 3:1-4
1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't think that a Biblical verse about Mary being greeted as being full of grace in any way could be seen as a firm theological basis for absence of sin, let along Immaculate Conception.


That is a very sloppy exegesis, and I think any reasonable person or scholar would have to agree that that is a flimsy support for such an important dogma.

 

[Defensor Christi]

It was never formally canonized by any church until the Reformation.

But there was a broad consensus, with variations, on which books made up Scripture very early on in Christianity as a whole.
It wasn't a magical process at all.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Catholic canon today.

Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that a Biblical verse about Mary being greeted as being full of grace in any way could be seen as a firm theological basis for absence of sin, let along Immaculate Conception.

Correct. It's entirely speculative.

That is a very sloppy exegesis, and I think any reasonable person or scholar would have to agree that that is a flimsy support for such an important dogma.

That's also true, not that mentioning it will make any difference in these "discussions."

Some people specialize in it, but regardless of who it is doing it, resorting to such arguments is intended to prove the claim to the writer himself or demonstrate that he has SOME answer. It doesn't matter to him that it's immediately recognized as defective by the reader.

 

[Zeek]

"It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
"They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema…" (Council of Trent, 4th Session, April 8, 1546, "Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures")

 

[By Faith Alone]

"It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
"They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema…" (Council of Trent, 4th Session, April 8, 1546, "Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures")

And the leavened was purged at a later date much to the dismay of the "inspired" catholic church. Also in the fact the NT writings are not in chronological sequence.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by SolomonVII

It was never formally canonized by any church until the Reformation.

But there was a broad consensus, with variations, on which books made up Scripture very early on in Christianity as a whole.
It wasn't a magical process at all.
​

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Catholic canon today.

Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

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



.

 

[Albion]

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?

.

No. These books have a quite different character from the "rest" of the Bible books, and there are hardly any doctrines that depend upon what's in the Apocrypha.

By and large, Roman Catholic doctrinal errors come from either reinterpreting passages in the New Testament or from creating new doctrines out of custom/traditions/folklore, etc.

 

[SolomonVII]

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



.

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 came 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.