Immaculate Conception

Status
Not open for further replies.
Major said:
Mr. MMurphy. This is one of those RCC doctrines which you and I discussed before on another thread. It was then that I told you that this was in fact a RCC doctrine and although not spoken of a lot in today's RCC churches, it is still there and just like purgatory, if it is still there it is still a valid Catholics teaching.

Now that was some time ago and I do not remember the name of the thread or when, but at that time YOU rejected out of hand my comments on this to you and said that the RCC does not do this. If my memory is correct, Larry Lysander even posted a comment that I was in fact correct. Now you are accepting it as truth.

Now as nicely as anyone can say to you, allow me to say that this teaching is completely by the RCC and no where is it found in the Scriptures.

Romans 3:23 says........
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Was Mary included in the word "ALL"???

Romans 3:10-12
" As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that do good, no, not one."

Was Mary included in the word NONE???

Do you see that you are rejecting the Word of God and believing the words of man's teaching the traditions of men?

The fact is.....Mary was a sinner just like you and me are. She was blessed AMONG women and was appointed the wonderful ability to give birth to the baby Jesus.
Click to expand...

The only RCC doctrine I have denied is a doctrine is Marian worship which I do reject and so do Catholics. In any case I am not catholic and this thread is more a discussion about the theological merits of Mary's sinless life, not about the RCC. In fact I've been reluctant to accept the doctrine because I saw it as something that stirred more controversy than use. It was actually the EOC, not the RCC that brought me to at least theologically recognize the merits of the doctrine.

Non of the scriptures you cited, IMO are nails in the coffin. The point with 'all' or 'none' is that it constitute the rule. But Mary is in fact an exception to the rule. I might also say that every human is conceived by a man and woman, although strictly speaking Jesus was not.
 
Major said:
It is not a matter of respect my brother. Every Christian believer I know understand the importance of Mary and what she did. NO ONE disrespects her but we as Protestants do not accept her as sinless neither do we believe we should be praying to her. And nothing I have said indicates her to be equal to Christ.

We do that because the Bible teaches it to us, not a church denomination.

Honestly......have YOU considered the consequences if YOU are wrong about Mary????

Do you really think that God wants her placed on the same level as the Lord Jesus Christ? AND if you do, please for YOUR sake post the Scriptures which you are basing your opinion on. I for one would love to know where you are coming from.
Click to expand...
I was not speaking of the doctrines about her. I don't believe in the assumption. I've only been silent about certain doctrines because of their long history of acceptance.

I was speaking of the reference that she 'was just a vessel' which I think is disrespectful to the Mother of Christ. As I said before, even Muslims don't talk about her that way.
 
I'll keep this very brief because I debating the same topic over and over and over and over and over and over again can get very draining.

Catholic Christians, just like non-Catholic Christians, believe that Christ is our only savior. That Christ is the only one who is both man and God, that He is the only one worthy of worship, and is the only one who died and rose again for our sins. And also, Catholics, like non-Catholics, believe that Mary, just like everyone else, was a human being who also required a savior.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary, while a very good discussion to have because there is no direct passage in Scriptures on this so it raises good questions (and often begins with Sola Scriptura--another discussion that we've had, and is necessary to get to the bottom of in order to accept or reject this one).

I'd like to just put this info out there. I'm not making the argument of this right now, I'm only explaining what it is that Catholics believe.
 
MMurphy said:
The only RCC doctrine I have denied is a doctrine is Marian worship which I do reject and so do Catholics. In any case I am not catholic and this thread is more a discussion about the theological merits of Mary's sinless life, not about the RCC. In fact I've been reluctant to accept the doctrine because I saw it as something that stirred more controversy than use. It was actually the EOC, not the RCC that brought me to at least theologically recognize the merits of the doctrine.

Non of the scriptures you cited, IMO are nails in the coffin. The point with 'all' or 'none' is that it constitute the rule. But Mary is in fact an exception to the rule. I might also say that every human is conceived by a man and woman, although strictly speaking Jesus was not.
Click to expand...

There are no theological merits of Mary's sinless life!!!

Mary is an exception???????

You see. This right here is where tradition slips in and ruins man. We listen to the doctrine of demons and pretty soon they are more important than is the Bible . "Sola Scriptura" is thrown out the window and then man is worshipping man. MARY!
 
LysanderShapiro said:
I'll keep this very brief because I debating the same topic over and over and over and over and over and over again can get very draining.

Catholic Christians, just like non-Catholic Christians, believe that Christ is our only savior. That Christ is the only one who is both man and God, that He is the only one worthy of worship, and is the only one who died and rose again for our sins. And also, Catholics, like non-Catholics, believe that Mary, just like everyone else, was a human being who also required a savior.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary, while a very good discussion to have because there is no direct passage in Scriptures on this so it raises good questions (and often begins with Sola Scriptura--another discussion that we've had, and is necessary to get to the bottom of in order to accept or reject this one).

I'd like to just put this info out there. I'm not making the argument of this right now, I'm only explaining what it is that Catholics believe.
Click to expand...

I hear you and believe you and am with you and you are consistent with every thing you have said. But as you can see, our brother MMurphy does not have the same knowledge of understanding as do you and I and Larry, there are a lot more Catholic believers who accept the sinlessness of Mary than you are letting on about there being. Maybe you could be of some help to him with some PM teaching on this.
 
Major said:
There are no theological merits of Mary's sinless life!!!

Mary is an exception???????

You see. This right here is where tradition slips in and ruins man. We listen to the doctrine of demons and pretty soon they are more important than is the Bible . "Sola Scriptura" is thrown out the window and then man is worshipping man. MARY!
Click to expand...
Major, Sola Scriptura threw traditional out of the window. And I don't understand why you talk the way that you talk. I basically just said not to worship Mary and now your screaming idolatry.

Don't you realize that most of our theology come from traditional understanding of scripture? Arianism is supported by scripture also, it took Nicaea to condemn it because it went against the traditional understanding. Not because it had no biblical merit.
 
Major said:
I hear you and believe you and am with you and you are consistent with every thing you have said. But as you can see, our brother MMurphy does not have the same knowledge of understanding as do you and I and Larry, there are a lot more Catholic believers who accept the sinlessness of Mary than you are letting on about there being. Maybe you could be of some help to him with some PM teaching on this.
Click to expand...

I'll do my best, but I will go on record in saying that what I said doesn't mean I don't believe that Mary was conceived immaculately.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
I'll do my best, but I will go on record in saying that what I said doesn't mean I don't believe that Mary was conceived immaculately.
Click to expand...

Ok my brother. On that one we will have to disagree. I do not find anywhere in the Scriptures that Mary was conceived sinless. It is just not there.

IF you can and will show me the Scriptures that they she was, I will be your biggest supporter and will in fact throw my name in the ring to be the next Pope!!!
 
Major said:
Ok my brother. On that one we will have to disagree. I do not find anywhere in the Scriptures that Mary was conceived sinless. It is just not there.

IF you can and will show me the Scriptures that they she was, I will be your biggest supporter and will in fact throw my name in the ring to be the next Pope!!!
Click to expand...
Pope Major... I dread the thought. Lol

In any case I would point out that original sin is based on the theolgy of Augestine of Hippo and is also not found in scripture. And baptist don't believe it because they don't baptize infants.

The EOC doesn't believe it either.
 
Major said:
Ok my brother. On that one we will have to disagree. I do not find anywhere in the Scriptures that Mary was conceived sinless. It is just not there.

IF you can and will show me the Scriptures that they she was, I will be your biggest supporter and will in fact throw my name in the ring to be the next Pope!!!
Click to expand...

Hahaha, I don't even think the bishop of my own diocese would be a very good pope :p
 
MMurphy said:
Pope Major... I dread the thought. Lol

In any case I would point out that original sin is based on the theolgy of Augestine of Hippo and is also not found in scripture. And baptist don't believe it because they don't baptize infants.

The EOC doesn't believe it either.
Click to expand...

I think Scripture points to original sin. I don't think it is fair to say it is not in scripture.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
 
Another question.. If Mary was sinless, why she died? Wages of sin is death.. And death is a direct result of sin.. If Mary was sinless, how death has rule over her life? Wouldn't she become someone like Adam?
 
Ravindran said:
Another question.. If Mary was sinless, why she died? Wages of sin is death.. And death is a direct result of sin.. If Mary was sinless, how death has rule over her life? Wouldn't she become someone like Adam?
Click to expand...

That brings in the discussion of the Assumption of Mary -- a discussion that many Catholic theologians to this day still discuss.
 
Ravindran said:
Ohh.. I have never heard of this before.. Looked up in Google. New for me
Click to expand...

Yep. I was just mentioning to someone in a private conversation that both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are the only two instances in all of Catholic history where the pope spoke infallibly--just those two times.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Yep. I was just mentioning to someone in a private conversation that both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are the only two instances in all of Catholic history where the pope spoke infallibly--just those two times.
Click to expand...
Well, something we would never agree with each other.. I am not going to agree anyone or anything to be infallible other than Word of God.. Probably this thread boils down to that.. Can someone accept papal infallibility or not..
 
Ravindran said:
Well, something we would never agree with each other.. I am not going to agree anyone or anything to be infallible other than Word of God.. Probably this thread boils down to that.. Can someone accept papal infallibility or not..
Click to expand...

That's another thing I was explaining to someone privately. Papal infallibility doesn't mean papal impeccability. It literally translates to God's Word being the only infallible teaching we have. It would be strange to
 
MMurphy said:
This was an RCC doctrine I never thought I would come to accept, but lately I've found it might in fact be plausible.

In this doctrine, Mary, Mother of God, is born without original sin and goes on to live a sinless life thereafter. I don't believe in original sin, but this doctrine came to make sense since there can be no sin in the presence of God. In that case, to carry and birth our pure Lord, she indeed would have needed to be sinless herself.
Click to expand...
If she had to be sinless, then wouldn't her parents also have to be sinless?
 
MMurphy said:
Pope Major... I dread the thought. Lol

In any case I would point out that original sin is based on the theolgy of Augestine of Hippo and is also not found in scripture. And baptist don't believe it because they don't baptize infants.

The EOC doesn't believe it either.
Click to expand...

WHY????

I am a saint and a born again Christian. We all argue back and forth all the time that we are all Christians so why can't I run for Pope?

Wouldn't you vote for me???

We do not baptize infants because the Bible says that to be saved one "Must believe in thine heart and say with thy mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that He died on the cross and rose from the dead and the 3rd day."

Babies can not think and can not talk! It requires a conscious thought out choice.

Then we have this............"In any case I would point out that original sin is based on the theolgy of Augestine of Hippo"

Wrong. Augustine certainly did not originate the doctrine of "original sin".

From the Catholic web site: http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/10/st-augustine-did-not-invent-original.html

"I have encountered a similar but more widespread problem when it comes to the doctrine of original sin and its alleged "invention" by St. Augustine of Hippo. I have seen this in textbooks, history books, historical programming, even materials put together by Catholic organizations - all asserting, almost as if it is without contest, the "fact" that the Church's teaching on original sin was an invention of St. Augustine of Hippo and is not found in either the Scriptures or the Fathers.

This baffles me, as it seems that just a cursory reading of Scripture and the Fathers, with a bit of understanding of the historical context of Augustine's teaching on original sin, is enough to disprove this oft repeated error of fact.

Nevertheless, just as it is wrong to say St. Thomas invented the Real Presence or St. Cyprian invented the concept of episcopal unity, so it is equally wrong to state that St. Augustine invented the doctrine of original sin. This error becomes culpable when done in textbooks and other contexts that are supposed to be shedding light on history but actually just obscure the facts."
 
Abdicate said:
It's a lie of the devil to cheapen the power of the Holy Spirit and the pureness of the birth of Jesus. Jesus was surrounded by sin but He Himself never committed sin because He alone was sinless. Sin is passed down through the male and Mary was born via a male (her father) so she was sinful in need of salvation like the rest of us. There is zero scripture to support any vague notion that Mary was sinless too.
Click to expand...
Please! Clearly you oppose this doctrine and have issues with it, but respect please that some of us here don't consciously follow "lies of the devil!" Can you not simply disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top