The Immaculate Conception?

[RND]

Jesus got sinlessness by being God.

He never relied on His divinity on earth but that of His Fathers.

He can't have sin because sin an act of separating oneself from God, and God doesn't separate himself from himself.

Clearly Christ was tempted to sin by the devil. If He could not have sinned then He never would have been tempted - Satan would have just been wasting his time.

I agree Jesus had the nature of Man, but Man as we're meant to be, not as we are.

Then, it appears, the apostles were wrong.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

We are meant to be with God, not separated from him. And, Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

That's 100% correct!

 

[Montalban]

He never relied on His divinity on earth but that of His Fathers.

It's the dame divinity. They're the same God.

Clearly Christ was tempted to sin by the devil. If He could not have sinned then He never would have been tempted - Satan would have just been wasting his time.

Firstly, attempting to tempt is not the same as Jesus being actually tempted.

The very fact that Satan has rebelled against God who is far more powerful than he is a 'waste of time'.

Then, it appears, the apostles were wrong.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

You misunderstand tempted here.
If you attempt to tempt me then you can say “Montalban has been tempted”, alike if I thought for a moment about your offer in a way where I considered it, you can also say “Montalban has been tempted”
One is an act from without, the other an act from within. One is the act of trying to tempt, the other is the act of giving in, of being tempted. It’s a flaw with English.
I have no doubt at all that Satan tried to tempt Jesus. The very fact your quote says that Jesus was without sin shows that he wasn’t tempted as you’re now trying to say, because had he given in to temptation he would have sinned!

That's 100% correct!

Then he can’t have been tempted in the way you would like to think he was.

The Apostles aren't wrong. You are.

 

[RND]

It's the dame divinity. They're the same God.

Jesus prayed regularly to His Father. Why?

Firstly, attempting to tempt is not the same as Jesus being actually tempted.

Well, that's very creative "word smithing" but I'm afraid that just doesn't jibe with scripture. "...was in all points tempted like as [we are..."

Obviously there was an "attempt made to tempt" Jesus.

The very fact that Satan has rebelled against God who is far more powerful than he is a 'waste of time'.

For Satan that is certainly true. He knows he has but a short time.

You misunderstand tempted here.
If you attempt to tempt me then you can say “Montalban has been tempted”, alike if I thought for a moment about your offer in a way where I considered it, you can also say “Montalban has been tempted”
One is an act from without, the other an act from within. One is the act of trying to tempt, the other is the act of giving in, of being tempted. It’s a flaw with English.

Giving in to temptation is sin.

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

Jam 1:12 Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

I have no doubt at all that Satan tried to tempt Jesus.

That's good.

The very fact your quote says that Jesus was without sin shows that he wasn’t tempted as you’re now trying to say, because had he given in to temptation he would have sinned!

If Jesus had given in then you'd be right! Yet, just as any man can be tempted, so too was Jesus tempted.

Then he can’t have been tempted in the way you would like to think he was.

"...all points..."

The Apostles aren't wrong. You are.

Suit yourself.

 

[RND]

Now, as the OP let's get back to the supposed Immaculate Conception idea and let's leave off impeccability for now. If you want to discuss impeccability then start another thread.

I don't want this thread to get off course.

 

[E.C.]

If Mary was sinless why would she need a Savior

The idea of the Theotokos being sinless is a byproduct of Augustinian original sin. He thought that we also inherited the 'guilt' of Adam's sin which was then a 'stain' on the soul which later on brought purgatory and indulgences, but that's another topic.

The idea of the Immaculate Conception comes from that 'stain' bit. Obviously Mary must have been someone pure because I believe an OT prophet or two said that the Messiah would be born of a "virgin" or "young woman" depending upon the translation. Point is, I highly doubt that there are prophecies saying that the Messiah would be born of the town prostitute.

To say that Mary was born without that 'stain' of sin is to make her something more than human. That is not the case because, as the Orthodox Church has upheld for two millenia, she was human and only human. Somebody in the West said that she was born without the ability to sin, yet the Orthodox Church teaches that she was born with the ability to sin (like everyone else) yet lived a life without committing sin.

Big difference between original sin and ancestral sin.


False theology only brings about more false theology.

The missed theology in this thread has inspired me to change my tagline. I wonder how many will get it?

Heh! St. Cyril of Alexandria would be proud!
(Nestorius... not so much)

Jesus prayed regularly to His Father. Why?

Trinity: three separate persons, one in essence.

 

[Montalban]

Jesus prayed regularly to His Father. Why?

To show us what to do. His whole life was a demonstration of how we should live.

Well, that's very creative "word smithing" but I'm afraid that just doesn't jibe with scripture. "...was in all points tempted like as [we are..."

He was without sin (we are not). Your quote shows this. Therefore tempted like we are, is not one sinful person being tempted like another sinful person.

Therefore, although the quote itself says 'alike' it sets out a difference. The difference between us and Jesus is he was not given in to temptation. We get 'tempted' from without, and we get 'tempted' from within, by succombing to that temptation. As Jesus didn't sin, he didn't do the latter.

Obviously there was an "attempt made to tempt" Jesus.

I have no doubt about this.

For Satan that is certainly true. He knows he has but a short time.

Which refutes your point about why Satan would try.

Giving in to temptation is sin.

I agree. That is my very point. Attempts may have been made to tempt Jesus, but he never gave in.

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

Jam 1:12 Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

How's this support your ideas about Jesus not being God?

 

[Montalban]

Mary as Ark of the Covenant
Now here's a Word doc on Mary as Ark compiling ECFs recognizing this parallel. Here is a tidy graph showing the obvious Scriptural parallels.

Why can't Mary be pure, but not Immaculately Conceived?

 

[MrPolo]

They promote it:

Whatever you wish to say about the concept of co-redemptrix, or who's promoting it, it is nothing like a 4th wheel of the Trinity as you asserted earlier.

 

[MrPolo]

Why can't Mary be pure, but not Immaculately Conceived?

The simplest answer is because the Catholic Church only receives divine truths. She does not opine "why not this or that" against what God is revealing. The Spirit has revealed her to the Church as immaculately conceived.

Now to understand why, I think it is useful to recognize Mary as the New Eve, as I mentioned earlier...as I cited ECFs on this matter. That is a very antiquated Tradition. It has sound roots in Scripture. And of course we know Eve was created without original sin. Mary as her ante-type is not inferior to Eve in this way, but greater. Blessed is Mary "among women"---including over Eve. This is only reinforced in her typology as the Ark of the Covenant, which was, as I described earlier, created in the most precious fashion. I could go on and on at the confluence of truths that point to the Immaculate Conception. Luke 1:28...Genesis 3:15...Mary as type of the Church...the nature of the Incarnation itself...the ark of Noah...etc... It may be useful to read the entire document on her Immaculate Conception Ineffabilis Deus which does mention many of these types in brief.

As I understand, the Orthodox do not consider the IC heretical no? They simply believe it is not a divinely revealed truth?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Whatever you wish to say about the concept of co-redemptrix, or who's promoting it, it is nothing like a 4th wheel of the Trinity as you asserted earlier.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4971839/
Co-Redemptrix: Churches View.

 

[prodromos]

As I understand, the Orthodox do not consider the IC heretical no? They simply believe it is not a divinely revealed truth?

We consider it a poor solution to a non-existent problem.

John

 

[MrPolo]

We consider it a poor solution to a non-existent problem.

Is that language from an official Orthodox declaration?

 

[cobweb]

Is that language from an official Orthodox declaration?

Why would we need the IC if we don't have the need for it theologically? It presumes a belief about original sin which we do not have.

 

[Mankin]

Mod Hat On

I am moving this thread to
Mariology & Hagiography
This is the sub forum for discussion involving this topic.
Mod Hat Off
​

 

[MrPolo]

Why would we need the IC if we don't have the need for it theologically? It presumes a belief about original sin which we do not have.

The "why do we need it" angle...

From July 8, 2009:

the Church does not determine what is "sufficient" per se. I do not get that attitude here and elsewhere of people saying "such and such is sufficient" or "we don't need to delve into such and such further", etc... Transubstantiation is another subject where you see this attitude. The Church is subject to the movement of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit so moves to Church into a particular understanding, then the Church will articulate it. The Church's response is not "We don't need to know that", but rather "Yes, Master, be it said as You wish." So if God wishes to say, "Look at My sovereignty. Look at how I operate through my creatures, especially the woman I desired to deliver Personified Salvation to the world," then we say, "Amen!"

I could give you a number of reasons why we need it including because God revealed it.

 

[RND]

The idea of the Theotokos being sinless is a byproduct of Augustinian original sin. He thought that we also inherited the 'guilt' of Adam's sin which was then a 'stain' on the soul which later on brought purgatory and indulgences, but that's another topic.

The idea of the Immaculate Conception comes from that 'stain' bit. Obviously Mary must have been someone pure because I believe an OT prophet or two said that the Messiah would be born of a "virgin" or "young woman" depending upon the translation. Point is, I highly doubt that there are prophecies saying that the Messiah would be born of the town prostitute.

To say that Mary was born without that 'stain' of sin is to make her something more than human. That is not the case because, as the Orthodox Church has upheld for two millenia, she was human and only human. Somebody in the West said that she was born without the ability to sin, yet the Orthodox Church teaches that she was born with the ability to sin (like everyone else) yet lived a life without committing sin.

Big difference between original sin and ancestral sin.

Thanks. The "stain" of guilt for our sins is not inherited but a byproduct of our own rebellion. But, obviously scripture tells us that "all" have sinned and come short of the glory of God, so in that sense Mary could not have been sinless.

 

[RND]

To show us what to do. His whole life was a demonstration of how we should live.

Correct!

He was without sin (we are not). Your quote shows this. Therefore tempted like we are, is not one sinful person being tempted like another sinful person.

He was without sin because He never gave into temptation, whereas human flesh does it all the time.

Therefore, although the quote itself says 'alike' it sets out a difference. The difference between us and Jesus is he was not given in to temptation. We get 'tempted' from without, and we get 'tempted' from within, by succombing to that temptation. As Jesus didn't sin, he didn't do the latter.

But that doesn't mean He wasn't tempted, just that He never succumbed!

I have no doubt about this.

So are we tempted as well. Jesus never gave into temptations.

Which refutes your point about why Satan would try.

No, it actually confirms my point greatly. Since Satan knows he has a short time and can no longer tempt Jesus then he must tempt you and I.

1Jo 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
The "will of God" is that we don't give in.

I agree. That is my very point. Attempts may have been made to tempt Jesus, but he never gave in.

And that's the point. Jesus was tempted He never gave in. We, carnal flesh, give in.

How's this support your ideas about Jesus not being God?

I never said such a thing. I said Jesus never used His divinity on earth but always relied upon the Father and that constant connection. Please, be very careful what you insinuate people have said.

 

[E.C.]

Thanks. The "stain" of guilt for our sins is not inherited but a byproduct of our own rebellion. But, obviously scripture tells us that "all" have sinned and come short of the glory of God, so in that sense Mary could not have been sinless.

What 'stain'? The Orthodox do not believe in 'stains'. It is not a part of our theology. Never has been. From 33AD to now, it has not been.

Of course we've all sinned, but rather than look at an idea and immediately declare it 'heretical', 'man-made' or whathaveyou (no matter the truth such declarations) it helps to look at and understand why and what caused such ideas to come about in the first place.

Roman Catholic notion of Immaculate Conception: comes from faulty beliefs of sin.

 

[RND]

What 'stain'? The Orthodox do not believe in 'stains'. It is not a part of our theology. Never has been. From 33AD to now, it has not been.

What causes a two year old to sin? Have you ever raised one?

Of course we've all sinned, but rather than look at an idea and immediately declare it 'heretical', 'man-made' or whathaveyou (no matter the truth such declarations) it helps to look at and understand why and what caused such ideas to come about in the first place.

Roman Catholic notion of Immaculate Conception: comes from faulty beliefs of sin.

Yep.

 

[MrPolo]

Roman Catholic notion of Immaculate Conception: comes from faulty beliefs of sin.

What do the EO teach we inherit at conception, if anything?