Immaculate conception

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

On 2017-04-07 at 7:56 AM, gdemoss said:

I need help understanding the roman catholic doctrine of immaculate conception. Please read below and answer the question.  Please refrain from answering if you don't believe or are not roman catholic.

Man was created, fell and subsequently all people born of their procreation are born after their fallen sinful image.

Jesus, the lord from heaven, was in the form of God pre-existing the creation of man yet placed into the womb of Mary and therefore was sinless, untouched by the fall.

Where did Mary come from if she was supposedly sinless?

FOR CLAIRITY: THIS THREAD IS MEANT TO BE AN INVITATION FOR ME TO DIALOG WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THEORY.  PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DEBATING THE VALIDITY OF SAID DOCTRINE. 

Caps used so as to not be overlooked.  Not yelling

 

First 5 posts were exactly what you didn't want. I believe it was One Light that suggested going to a catholic forum and asking there. I think that is sound advice, you don't ask on a fundamentalist site a question about Catholic Doctrine. Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) has a forum. I don't go very often, but when I have gone they've been very nice. 

You seem sincere in wanting to understand why and what they believe. 

[Fidelibus]

10 hours ago, 4LdKHVCzRDj2 said:

I am a sinner, Jesus called me. I accepted it. I hope you understand what I meant.

Thank you 4ld for your responce, but I'm not quite following what you meant. Back when you quoted Rom.3:23 my thoughts were you were implying that 'all' have sinned, means all have sinned, Mary included, no exceptions. Thats what made me wonder on your thoughts of Rom.3:11 where it states "no one seeks for God."   So once again if I may........If "all have sinned" means that everyone, without human exception, has sinned, then "No one seeks for God," means that no one, without human exception, seeks for God. Yet, you say that you do seek for God. Which means one of the following must be true: 1) You were wrong and you do not seek for God in your life; or 2) You think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one seeks for God." Which is it? Are you not seeking for God in your life, or do you believe the Bible is wrong when it says "No one" seeks for God?  Thanks!

[Fidelibus]

5 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Try this one, Jesus own words.

Matthew 19:17, And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:  there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Hello Hazard. By Matthew’s reformulation of the Marcan question and reply (Mark 10:17) Jesus’ repudiation of the term “good” for himself has been softened. Yet the Marcan assertion that “no one is good but God alone” stands, with only unimportant verbal modification.

What is your take on this passage?

[4LdKHVCzRDj2]

10 hours ago, Fidelibus said:

Which is it? Are you not seeking for God in your life, or do you believe the Bible is wrong when it says "No one" seeks for God?

The passage you quoted seems to have some specific context or understanding, especially when you read it all and not just take one phrase out of it:

"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
As it is written:
    There is none righteous, no, not one;
    There is none who understands;
    There is none who seeks after God.
    They have all turned aside;
    They have together become unprofitable;
    There is none who does good, no, not one.

    Their throat is an open tomb;
    With their tongues they have practiced deceit;
    The poison of asps is under their lips;
    Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

    Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    Destruction and misery are in their ways;

    And the way of peace they have not known.
    There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." - Romans 3:9-19

 

And it is registered that the people did seek God when they needed:

"And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah." - 2 Chronicles 20:3

 

"So Judah gathered together to ask help from the Lord; and from all the cities of Judah they came to seek the Lord." - 2 Chronicles 20:4

 

"Then he searched for Ahaziah; and they caught him (he was hiding in Samaria), and brought him to Jehu. When they had killed him, they buried him, “because,” they said, “he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the Lord with all his heart." - 2 Chronicles 22:9

 

Maybe it means there is none that seeks God always, or in a constantly and faithfully manner, or in the way it should be done back then.

Edited April 9, 2017 by 4LdKHVCzRDj2

[HAZARD]

47 minutes ago, Fidelibus said:

Hello Hazard. By Matthew’s reformulation of the Marcan question and reply (Mark 10:17) Jesus’ repudiation of the term “good” for himself has been softened. Yet the Marcan assertion that “no one is good but God alone” stands, with only unimportant verbal modification.

What is your take on this passage?

Jesus used this penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words, to understand the concept of Jesus’ goodness and, most especially, the man’s lack of goodness. The young ruler "went away sad, (Mark 10:22), because he realized that although he had devoted himself to keeping the commandments, he had failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments—love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength (Matthew 22:37-38).  The man’s riches were of more worth to him than God, and thus he was not "good" in the eyes of God. Jesus’ question to the man was to draw the man to recognize Christ’s divine identity. This is substantiated by passages such as (John 10"11), wherein Jesus declares Himself to be “the good shepherd.” Similarly in (John 8:46), Jesus asks, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” Of course the answer is "no." Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15),  holy and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26), the only One who “knew no sin” (2 Cor.5:21).  
 

[gdemoss]

16 hours ago, Fidelibus said:

 If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

 

 

Could I ask you gdemoss what you beleive is the the pillar and bulwark of the truth? Also, Do you seek God?  Thanks!
 

I will address these two exclusively because they bring to light the heart of the matter.

 First:

With the fall of man, Sin was guarenteed dominion over all flesh.  Procreation guarenteed that all humans would be born in Adams fallen image.  Had God simply been able to save someone from having a sinful nature then there was no need for Jesus.  He could have simply made a human who knew no sin and sacrificed them.  Jesus being in the form of God was unaffected by the fall of man.  His nature as sinless was intact.  He kept it when he was placed in Mary's womb.  

Adam and Eve knew no sin and were righteous until the fall.  Mary was in Adam when he sinned and therefore sinned in Adam.  Though Mary had sinned in Adam it doesn't mean she is unable to carry Christ in her womb.  Christ's sinlessness is only contingent upon him not being in Adam when Adam sinned and his own personal conduct during his life.  Even if Mary never committed a personal sin while alive, she still sinned in Adam. 

I like how you point out that God can save someone from sinning against him.  The bible has plain examples of that. 

Second, 

The pillar and bulwark of truth is the Word of God, not to be confused with that which is the written word of God.

Yes, I seek God.  I want to know God.

Thank you for being open and kind in our dialog.

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

6 hours ago, gdemoss said:

With the fall of man, Sin was guarenteed dominion over all flesh

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?

 

[Fidelibus]

18 hours ago, gdemoss said:

I will address these two exclusively because they bring to light the heart of the matter.

 First:

With the fall of man, Sin was guarenteed dominion over all flesh.  Procreation guarenteed that all humans would be born in Adams fallen image.  Had God simply been able to save someone from having a sinful nature then there was no need for Jesus.  He could have simply made a human who knew no sin and sacrificed them.  Jesus being in the form of God was unaffected by the fall of man.  His nature as sinless was intact.  He kept it when he was placed in Mary's womb.  

Adam and Eve knew no sin and were righteous until the fall.  Mary was in Adam when he sinned and therefore sinned in Adam.  Though Mary had sinned in Adam it doesn't mean she is unable to carry Christ in her womb.  Christ's sinlessness is only contingent upon him not being in Adam when Adam sinned and his own personal conduct during his life.  Even if Mary never committed a personal sin while alive, she still sinned in Adam. 

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;

Jesus being in the form of God was unaffected by the fall of man.  His nature as sinless was intact.  He kept it when he was placed in Mary's womb.

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.

Second, The pillar and bulwark of truth is the Word of God, not to be confused with that which is the written word of God.

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.

Yes, I seek God.  I want to know God.

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

Thank you for being open and kind in our dialog.

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

[Fidelibus]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

That "Church" that is referred to is the body of True Believers , it does not mean a physical "church"

Thank you Davida for your reply. If you do not believe it to be a physical church, then what type of church do you say it is refurring too, and how do come to that reasoning/belief? (i.e. by what authority?)  Back when I was a Protestant, I was taught and believed it was some sort of invisible church until my studies (to my surprise) led me to believe otherwise. Would this invisible church be your belief as well? Thank you.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Fidelibus said:

Thank you Davida for your reply. If you do not believe it to be a physical church, then what type of church do you say it is refurring too, and how do come to that reasoning/belief? (i.e. by what authority?)  Back when I was a Protestant, I was taught and believed it was some sort of invisible church until my studies (to my surprise) led me to believe otherwise. Would this invisible church be your belief as well? Thank you.

What she means is that the passage from I Timothy isn't referring to the Roman Catholic cult.  It is referring to all Christians who are born again, who comprise the body of Christ.   The Body of Christ does not include the Roman cult.