Jump to content
IGNORED

Immaculate conception


gdemoss

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  54
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   37
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/28/2017
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

What she means is that the passage from I Timothy isn't referring to the Roman Catholic cult.

Thank you Shiloh357, but please let Davida speak for herself. Anyway, what if her interpretation of this passage is incorrect? I am not saying this to be harsh, but she could be wrong, wouldn't you agree?  When Protestant, I too believed in a invisible church, (minus your cult remark) but when studing Scripture further in the matter learnd that no-way would Jesus leave us an invisible church with no type of authority. Nowhere in my study of Scripture did I ever be find that the Church is invisible. What I did find was references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church. For example:

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will  not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" -Matt 18:17.  It would be silly to think that Jesus would establish His Church then make it invisible and inaccessible to us. If that were the case, where would one seek it to rule it, converse with it and lay complaints before it?

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." --Acts 20:28. When the Church sent St. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, wrote to it, and persecuted it, was this just in spirit? These were visible acts on both sides would you not agree?

"And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church" --Acts 20:17. It is the property of the Church to carry on the preaching of the Word of God, the Sacraments etc. How could this be called invisible?

And then there is the passage in question, 1 Tim.3:15; "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is visible. The pastors and their sheep must know each other. What kind of shepherd cannot see his flock? St. Peter was as to a pastor when Jesus told him, "feed my sheep", and so were the Apostles, and they are all visible.

How are these verses to be understood of an invisible Church Shiloh?

It is referring to all Christians who are born again, who comprise the body of Christ.


Sorry Shiloh357, like Davida, unless you consider your private interpretation to be infallible, you could be misunderstanding and misinterpreting this passage and could be in error, correct?

The Body of Christ does not include the Roman cult.

I'm sorry, not only is this mean spirited, and nothing more than a personal opinion.  I am surprised the moderators haven't called you on it. I have a feeling it it were reversed, I would be.

Have a Blessed Holy Week.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
28 minutes ago, Fidelibus said:

Thank you Shiloh357, but please let Davida speak for herself. Anyway, what if her interpretation of this passage is incorrect? I am not saying this to be harsh, but she could be wrong, wouldn't you agree?  When Protestant, I too believed in a invisible church, (minus your cult remark) but when studing Scripture further in the matter learnd that no-way would Jesus leave us an invisible church with no type of authority. Nowhere in my study of Scripture did I ever be find that the Church is invisible. What I did find was references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church. For example:

It's not an "invisible Church."   It is the universal Body of Christ that is comprised of a regenerate membership, namely those who have been born again, regardless of denominational affiliation, social status, nationality or gender.   The Body of Christ is comprised of people who have been born again and who belong to every tribe and tongue.

And the reason I know her interpretation is correct is that the RCC didn't exist when Paul penned his letters to Timothy.   One of the errors of the RCC is that it reads itself, retroactively into the Bible.  Every reference to the Church of Jesus Christ is falsely attributed to RCC as if the RCC was the Church at the time Paul was ministering and that is simply not the truth.   The RCC is NOT the Church that Jesus founded. And it is not part of the authentic New Testament Church.
 

Quote

 

Sorry Shiloh357, like Davida, unless you consider your private interpretation to be infallible, you could be misunderstanding and misinterpreting this passage and could be in error, correct?


 

It's not a "private interpretation."   It's how the Bible describes the Church.  Unlike the Roman cult, I use proper hermeneutics.

Quote

I'm sorry, not only is this mean spirited, and nothing more than a personal opinion.  I am surprised the moderators haven't called you on it. I have a feeling it it were reversed, I would be.

It's not mean spirited.  It is an accurate description of how the RCC dupes people.  The RCC behaves like a cult.  It has the earmarks of a cult.  It is more than a cult, though.  It is a false religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

On 4/9/2017 at 10:01 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

So are you saying God could not choose to create Mary without sin?God is greater than the flesh and sin does not have dominion over God. So I'm not sure how your reasoning applies? Sin can out power God when it come to the flesh?

 

Yes, that is where I am at on this and why I am asking my catholic brothers to use the opportunity to bridge the gap for me.  If the doctrine were true and I believe it to be a lie then I am missing some important information that would allow me to believe.  If it isn't true then my dear brothers and sisters who believe are believing a lie and I need to understand how to help minister unto them.

To better help you see how to help me see what you see please consider the following truths. 

We are told that nothing is impossible with God.  We are also told that it is impossible for God to lie.  So I conclude that while God can accomplish anything he does so in truth.

I consider things like the Israelites having to wait to enter into the land until the inhabitants of the land had filled up their sin to the point of being ejected.  This tells me that there are truths that govern the choices that God makes to bring things to pass.

God makes a way then brings things to pass. Things are said to happen in the fullness of time.  He does so according to truth, righteousness and according to every thing else about his person.  So God cannot do somethings because they go against his word that he gave. For this cause the gifts and callings of God are without repentance as well.  In this world all things are upheld by the power of his word. 

My conclusion is that God cannot choose to do whatever he wants whenever he wants because everything must be according to his word that he has already given.  The doctrine of the immaculate conception must fit into this truth if it is true.  If God only needed a sinless sacrifice and God was able to keep Mary from sin then God ought to have spared his son and allowed him to stay in the form of God and destroyed sin using a created person.

I have already shown that Mary need not be sinless to bear Christ.  She sinned in Adam.  The only important thing is that Christ be sinless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
On 4/9/2017 at 9:01 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

So are you saying God could not choose to create Mary without sin?God is greater than the flesh and sin does not have dominion over God. So I'm not sure how your reasoning applies? Sin can out power God when it come to the flesh?

 

It's not a question of what God can or cannot do.  The question is, did He?  The answer is He did not.

Rom. 3:10 states that there is none righteous, no not one.   Rom. 3:23 says, "for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.   Nowhere does Paul qualify that with an exception for Mary.

Jesus is the only person in the entire Bible recognized as sinless. (II Cor. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, and I Pet. 2:22).   Jesus knew no sin, was tempted in all ways like us, but was without sin and Did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth.    Mary is never described that way.

In Rev. 5:1-5, all of heaven was searching for the one person who was worthy to break the seals on the scroll.  The ONLY person in all of Heaven and earth  found worthy is Jesus.  Not even Mary was worthy to break the seals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
On 4/8/2017 at 9:35 AM, Fidelibus said:

I would hope that you would agree that God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; 1. can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

 

There is only ONE plan of salvation mentioned or even foreshadowed in the Bible.  Salvation is through faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross.  We are justified (declared righteous) on the merit's of Jesus sacrifice of Himself on our behalf.   Mary was not saved in any manner that is different than any other person.   No one is saved from sin apart from the cross.  Any notion that God simply created her sinless is biblically baseless and thus unchristian and is rejected by those who are authentic, New Testament Christians.  Jesus didn't save Mary from the stain of sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

On 4/9/2017 at 9:54 PM, Fidelibus said:

Thank you gdemoss for your reply and personal insight.  As for Original sin and the fall of man,and the Catholic Churches teaching on it.  I would suggest going online to see the official Catholic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It would be to much to post, but I suggest looking at paragraphs 402-411. Maybe after you do that, we could continue our discussion on the fall of man. The reason for my not posting them is..... to be honest, if you are anything like myself, I tend to skip over extremly long posts. I know.... I know, I should read them. Oops! 

Also gdemoss, I'd like to address something you stated is the first paragraph;

 

 

This statement make me think back to my days as a Protestant where I was taught and believed Mary was nothing more that a mere vessel. Do you believe this?  However, what I came to learn in my conversion, this wasn't the case at all, mere vessels cannot give their considered consent for being used for their intended purpose. Take Lk.1:28 for example."And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Ever hear of the word "kecharitomene?" The Greek title "full of grace" comes from it. It describes a "perfection" and "abundance" of grace. In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her? Even some of the Fathers of Protestantism believed Mary to be without sin, especially if she was completely filled with God's grace. I just can't seem to find where in history where Protestants came to believe otherwise. Do you know when? Also, Have you ever noticed that Luke 1:28 happens to be the only place in the Bible where anyone is addressed with the important title of "full of grace?" I thought that was an interesting fact.

In my conversion to Catholicism, my studies of the Immaculate Conception led me to Lk. 1:35: "the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." In this passage I came to learn it shows Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.  Just think about it.... According to the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the pure and holy vessel that held the Ten Commandments (the Old Covenant). The Ark was so holy in fact, that if anyone where to touch it they could actually fall down and die! It was housed in the Holy of Holies, which was a perfectly clean place where the Jewish high priests could enter only once a year according to their law (Lev. 16:2-4). So how are Mary and the Ark related? The same language that describes God's "dwelling" place for the Old Ark is used again for Mary's overshadowing by the Holy Spirit. Put another way, the Old Ark held God's Ten Commandments and could not be touched by human hands because of its holiness. Mary, the New Ark, holds the New Covenant in her womb, which is Jesus Christ. How much holier is Christ than the Ten Commandments? It only makes sense that for Mary to hold God in her womb, she too would be completely pure and without any sin.

 

 

With all due respect gdemoss, Scripture disagrees: "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great..." ---1 Tim. 15-16.

St. Paul is saying the Church is the pillar and bulkwrh of truth.

 

 

What if I showed you where Scripture say's "No one seeks for God?"

 

 

And thank you for doing the same.  Have a Blessed Palm Sunday

Thank you for taking the time to write this post.  Lots of love in there.  It warms my heart to see you carefully expounding your belief that I might see what you do.  I haven't the time to answer now except something quick.

You and I agree in places where we outwardly appear to disagree.  The bullwark of truth is the church, yes, but only because the Word of God dwells in them (the assembly of believers ie catholic, universal church of which all who believe are part).

What if you showed me how David by the Holy Spirit proclaimed that there are none who seek after God?  I would declare that David was true and that this was true of me until God called me unto him through Christ.  Then, and only then, did I hear the one sent and believe.  From that new born faith I began to hear that God is tge rewarder of this who diligently seek him.  So, yes, I am guilty.  I sought not after God but only to satisfy my flesh but God sent a messenger of Christ and now I seek God.

Maybe I should read this catechism you speak of but time fails me because I spend it ministering unto the lost, sick and the dying. I get to watch atheists come to believe through my preaching of Christ then see them minister the spirit of Christ unto yet others whose lives become radically changed by him.  I watch selfish men begin to behave like acts 2 and 4 new believers.  

As for other parts of your post concerning logical thoughts about comparisons between Mary and the ark etc.  For me, this type of logical deduction has proved time and again to lead me into grave error.  Many things have a logical conclusion that lead into error.  The serpent used a perfectly logical argument to convince Eve that it was a good idea to eat the fruit.  Just because some teaching has been around for a long time and embraced by many doesnt mean it is right.  The Roman Catholic doctrine wins no points for its longevity for many other errant religions have stood the test of time.

Anyone, myself included, who does not do what God has taught us to do by default deceives themselves.  I am careful to watch the hands and feet of those who would seek to teach me doctrine.  Do they visit the widows and orphans in their affliction?  Do they give to all who ask of them?  Do they turn the other cheek.  Do they hold deep seeded resentments against others?  Do they seek to satisfy their own bellies?  Where is their heart?  Who is their master by their works?  

If a man can convince me that he love his brother then that man can convince me he loves God and that Christ is in him of a truth. 

I will be in prayer asking God, whom I seek because he taught me to seek him, of tge things you have said concerning the logical progression of comparisons and their validity.  May God bless us with truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,789
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

or else God is not saying the truth here thru Paul

Romans 3:23 (KJV)

[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

the all is inclusive to humanity...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Judas Machabeus
2 hours ago, gdemoss said:

Yes, that is where I am at on this and why I am asking my catholic brothers to use the opportunity to bridge the gap for me

I have to copy and paste you post instead of quoting it.... my phone is gliching. 

Quote"

Yes, that is where I am at on this and why I am asking my catholic brothers to use the opportunity to bridge the gap for me.  If the doctrine were true and I believe it to be a lie then I am missing some important information that would allow me to believe.  If it isn't true then my dear brothers and sisters who believe are believing a lie and I need to understand how to help minister unto them.

To better help you see how to help me see what you see please consider the following truths. 

We are told that nothing is impossible with God.  We are also told that it is impossible for God to lie.  So I conclude that while God can accomplish anything he does so in truth.

I consider things like the Israelites having to wait to enter into the land until the inhabitants of the land had filled up their sin to the point of being ejected.  This tells me that there are truths that govern the choices that God makes to bring things to pass.

God makes a way then brings things to pass. Things are said to happen in the fullness of time.  He does so according to truth, righteousness and according to every thing else about his person.  So God cannot do somethings because they go against his word that he gave. For this cause the gifts and callings of God are without repentance as well.  In this world all things are upheld by the power of his word. 

My conclusion is that God cannot choose to do whatever he wants whenever he wants because everything must be according to his word that he has already given.  The doctrine of the immaculate conception must fit into this truth if it is true.  If God only needed a sinless sacrifice and God was able to keep Mary from sin then God ought to have spared his son and allowed him to stay in the form of God and destroyed sin using a created person.

I have already shown that Mary need not be sinless to bear Christ.  She sinned in Adam.  The only important thing is that Christ be sinless."

End quote

-----------------------------

Quote "We are told that nothing is impossible with God.  We are also told that it is impossible for God to lie.  So I conclude that while God can accomplish anything he does so in truth."

I agree.... sorta, God can not contradict reason. God can not make a round triangle. God also didn't not guarantee to protect our understanding of his word. So his Word is truth, Yes. Our understanding of this Word is not always correct. 

-------

quote" I consider things like the Israelites having to wait to enter into the land until the inhabitants of the land had filled up their sin to the point of being ejected"

you lost me here. The Israelites could not enter the promise land until everyone from the generation that sinned by worshipping the golden calf had died. 

God did use the Israelites as the method to invoke justice against the inhabitants for the sins they were committing. But God didn't keep them out of the promise land waiting for the sin meter (my words) to reach a certain point. 

---------

Quote "My conclusion is that God cannot choose to do whatever he wants whenever he wants because everything must be according to his word that he has already given"

I agree, so what part of his word would the immaculate conception violate?

---------

Quote "The doctrine of the immaculate conception must fit into this truth if it is true"

i agree. I asked already what part you find is in conflict so I'll wait for your response and answer best I can. 

-------

quote "If God only needed a sinless sacrifice and God was able to keep Mary from sin then God ought to have spared his son and allowed him to stay in the form of God and destroyed sin using a created person"

God did not need a sinless sacrifice, I touched on this in a previous post responding to someone else. Mary needed a saviour, the teaching is that God applied the merits of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross to Mary at the moment of her conception. She was saved and made perfect. She was than filled with Gods grace and by the power of that grace she remained sinless. She triumphed where Eve had failed. 

When we sin we offend and infinite God and only an infinite sacrifice can atone for the offense. This is why Jesus had to fully offer himself up to be a sacrifice for our sins. Because he was that infinite sacrifice. Simply being sinless would not be enough. 

If I could make a recommendation. Tim Staples recently wrote a book called behold your Mother. It covers all the Marion teachings of the Catholic Church. If you go on you tube and search for Tim Staples you should be able to find some of his talks. 

Another resource is Scott Hahn, he was a prestbrytarian pastor and anti-catholic (in the sense Catholics weren't saved) and he's got lots of talks and materials out on Mary as well. His website is The St Paul Centre or salvation history Scott Hahn in google should find it too. 

Its a very deep theological topic and hard to go indepth on a forum. So if you are sincrere in your desire to seek knowledge (and I have no reason to doubt you) on what Catholics believe when it comes to the Immaculate Conception than you can go wrong with those two guys. 

Cheers and God Bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:
 

---------

Quote "The doctrine of the immaculate conception must fit into this truth if it is true"

i agree. I asked already what part you find is in conflict so I'll wait for your response and answer best I can. 

Romans 3:23:  "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.   The Bible teaches that all persons are sinners, and have sinned,and Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to make an exception for Mary.  

I John 1:10:  "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."   There is no way to proclaim the immaculate conception of Mary without calling God a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  54
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   37
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/28/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 4/10/2017 at 8:05 AM, Davida said:

Shiloh stated it basically. But I would add again the "CHURCH" in this context is not physical , it is not any denomination and it is DEFINITELY NOT the Roman Catholic church although that's what their main hold on people is based upon - i.e. telling people "you better stay with us because RCC is Christ's Church!! & you wont get to heaven otherwise!! ".

Thank you Davida for your reply, but I must respectfully disagree. When Protestant like youself, I too believed this. However, the truth was revealed to me through years of study/prayer and the Holy Spirit that this was not the case at all. The Church is not a mere "organization." The Church is made up of the believers, some of whom have been called into the ministerial priesthood. The Church, unlike Protestant churches I attended, it is not a man-made entity. It is a Divine entity, established on earth by Jesus Christ, Son of God. Not by mere men like Martin Luther (Lutherans), John Calvin (Calvinists), John Smythe (Baptists), John and Charles Wesley (Methodists), etc.

Such a lie. That is a false teaching & Self-promotion by  the RCC & it shows no knowledge &  poor understanding of the Bible at best and utter diabolical deception at worst.

Again, I must respectfully disagree. When Protestant like youself, I too believed this. However, the truth was revealed to me through years of study/prayer and the Holy Spirit that this was not the case at all. 

The Body of Biblical Believers will come from many different denominations.

Could you show me using Sola Scriptura where it say's this in the bible? 

I'm sorry Fidelibus,  that the Protestant Church you attended must not have been a strong Bible teaching Church otherwise you would not have DEFECTED to the RCC.

Please Davida, yelling at me that I defected is unnecessary for that's not what happened at all. 

 I attended many different Protestant churches, ending in a non-Denominational church, with all of them claiming to be "strong bible teaching churches." While doing this, I became confused by....... if they all were teaching from the same bible, why was there so many different beliefs in/about the bible?  One church would believe in infant Baptisim, and the other would not. One would embrace same sex marriage, and the other would not. One would be okay with abortion, and the other would not. Can you see how one would wonder how these self proclaimed strong bible believing churches,all preaching to be guided by the Holy Spirit can differ so much? 

This is one of the reasons I looked deeper into Church history, there had to be some sort of authority, surly Jesus wouldn't have left us a church (singular) with such division. Lo and behold, and to my dismay, my studies led me to the pre-Reformation church fathers and the church that was fifteen hundred years before any Protestant/non-denomination was in exsistance. And that Church was the Catholic Church..... 100%!   Did I like what I found? No way....I didn't want to believe it, and for awhile I wouldn't!  But some thing ( the Holy Spirit) kept pulling me back to look futher into what was missing, and that was the Catholic Church. That is the short of my conversion (not defection) David.

In closing Davida, I posted some bible passages in my reply to Shiloh357 that I felt pointed to a physical church, (Matt 18:17,  Acts 20:28, Acts 20:17) and asked how are these verses to be understood of an invisible Church? Shiloh357 didn't adderss them, would you?

Have a Blessed Holy Week!


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...