Immaculate Conception

[miamited]

HI wondering

I think when we wander from the scriptures, we tend to get lost.

I am in absolute agreement with you on that and I'm trying to show you that your sources are 'wandering' from the Scriptures.

However, it's the church that put the NT together.

Yes! Absolutely. The early fellowships chose to formally codify the Scriptures so that errors such as these couldn't get in. So what is someone to do who wants to believe something that isn't necessarily made clear in the Scriptures? However, they weren't given the authority to write more, they're only task was to take what was then generally accepted as faithful Scripture and formally recognize it to keep it pure. And that has done a wonderful thing in keeping such ideas as this from actually being provable by some word found in the Scriptures that others might have added after this idea of Mary's conception in her mother as being somehow special, when the Scriptures don't ever make such a position clear.

I don't think I inferred that all the occupants of the Hall of Faith were born miraculously, but the proof you're using that Mary was would apply to most of them.

Surely we don't believe all the occupants of the Hall of Faith were born miraculously?

You literally wrote the words all the occupants in your question to me.

Sheez. That's not an 'inferred' statement, that's an absolute statement.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jaybo]

Hey, YOU live over there, not me!
Don't you know what's going on in colleges?
Transgender persons are demanding to be called THEY...
even if it's one person only.

I don't understand this...so don't ask me too much.

Where did you hear this? I haven't heard it ... ever. And "they" is plural. It might be a better description of someone who has multiple personalities than someone who chooses their gender.

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

I think IMHO, that you're thinking about this too much.
Does it matter HOW it happened?
God created the universe, can't He fertilize an egg however He would see fit?

So, now it's not important huh? Sure yes God can do whatever He sees fit to do in whatever way that He sees fit to do it. However, in this matter of Mary becoming pregnant, we are told that God's Spirit would come over her to accomplish this to answer Mary's question of how such a thing would happen. God tells us some things about this event. He tells us how the Holy Spirit is going to come over Mary to cause her to be impregnated.

You gotta quit jumping around on me, though. Are we going to discuss how the egg got into Mary's body or whether or not Mary's birth was somehow special?

However, from where I'm sitting, the cadre of respondents who support this idea of Mary's birth being immaculate in nature seems to think it matters very much. I'm just returning fervor with fervor.

God bless,
Ted

 

[electedbyHim]

So what is the truth?

Was Mary sinless or a sinner?

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

...in keeping with my general beliefs, I'd have to say that we should
trust the biblical scholars.

Never without Scriptural support. And that doesn't mean, to me, that because you believe that the church has the authority to change Scripture, that it does. I have no problem following the readings of one of the biblical scholars so long as what he is teaching is clearly in line with the Scriptures. Listen, I can tell you that I'm the King of England, but I'm going to find it difficult to prove that to the castle guards. Anyone can tell you how they understand the Scriptures, as we all do, but when it comes to any source material for one's understanding of the things of God, then it has to come from the word of God to be sure to me. And for me, the word of God needs to be reasonably specific.

As you say, trusting other sources is in keeping with your general beliefs. Not mine. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be divisive on this, but yes, it's important to me that I rightly divide the word of God. That I use them and only them to learn and train in all righteousness, wisdom and truth.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

If some bible scholar writes a book, the only thing that I know to be true are the pieces of Scripture that are in the book. Whether or not they are understood correctly by the writer is up for grabs. Now, I often listen to extrabiblical teachings, but always with an eye towards verifying what I'm being told or taught with the Scriptures. Kind of like the Bereans of Paul's day. They listened to Paul. But they weren't really prepared to throw in with him until they had stepped back and verified everything that he had told them against the Scriptures.

Now you sent me a list of various new covenant writings that you claimed supported your claim, but I just don't see it! I don't see how The connection you are trying to make can only be made if we are willing to accept that the Catholic organization knows the truth about this, I guess through some kind of Holy Spirit revelation. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Jim Jones told all his followers they had to drink the poison to meet him in the promised land. I ain't drinking it cause I don't think that's where anyone's going to meet Jim Jones.

I'm not buying that Mary's mother had her daughter Mary, who would be betrothed to Joseph, in any other way than a normal cause of pregnancy and normal delivery of child. The only person necessary to be born sinless to accomplish God's purpose was Jesus. The rest of us fall into the category of: for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And for the express purpose of those who would say, "They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good,..." And just in case someone gets up and says, "Well, what about so and so, they have always done good." The passage finishes: No, not one.

Anyway, I've said my piece and I'm moving along. I'll stop in from time to time and see how things are progressing. I hope everyone has a safe and God glorifying new year.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

So what is the truth?

Was Mary sinless or a sinner?

Hi electedbyhim

My answer is sinner. God's word doesn't seem to make any reference to any human being without sin, other than Jesus. I believe that Mary, after God impregnated her, was full of grace. The words, "Hail Mary full of grace." are not anywhere defined in the bible as having something to do with a person's sin or lack thereof. That is something that can only be understood from the passage if one trusts the teachings of the Catholic organization.

However, I've done enough study and seen enough godless injustice within their system, that I'm not about to proclaim that the Catholic organization is the true 'church' of God and so I don't have the same confidence that some here seem to have.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

The Pope has passed .

 

[miamited]

The Pope has passed .

Hi jasonc

I'm not really familiar with the protocol, but is he still considered and referred to as 'the pope' after he has left his position?

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hi jasonc

I'm not really familiar with the protocol, but is he still considered and referred to as 'the pope' after he has left his position?

God bless,
Ted

I believe so akin say president Lincoln ,bush Sr etc

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

I believe so akin say president Lincoln ,bush Sr etc

Well, just for fun I looked it up.

On 26 February 2013, Father Lombardi stated that the pope's style and title after resignation are His Holiness Benedict XVI, Roman Pontiff Emeritus, or Pope Emeritus.

I don't have any idea who this Father Lombardi is (and no, I don't need anyone to tell me about him) but I'm assuming that this is an official position of the RCC.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Mungo]

Hi jasonc

Well, just for fun I looked it up.

On 26 February 2013, Father Lombardi stated that the pope's style and title after resignation are His Holiness Benedict XVI, Roman Pontiff Emeritus, or Pope Emeritus.

I don't have any idea who this Father Lombardi is (and no, I don't need anyone to tell me about him) but I'm assuming that this is an official position of the RCC.

God bless,
Ted

It's an honorary title rather like professor emeritus.
Good explanation in Wikipedia
"Emeritus (/əˈmɛrɪtəs/; female: emerita)[Note 1] is an adjective used to designate a retired chair, professor, pastor, bishop, pope, director, president, prime minister, rabbi, emperor, or other person who has been "permitted to retain as an honorary title the rank of the last office held".

 

[miamited]

It's an honorary title rather like professor emeritus.
Good explanation in Wikipedia
"Emeritus (/əˈmɛrɪtəs/; female: emerita)[Note 1] is an adjective used to designate a retired chair, professor, pastor, bishop, pope, director, president, prime minister, rabbi, emperor, or other person who has been "permitted to retain as an honorary title the rank of the last office held".

Hi Mungo

Right! I get that. That's why I looked it up. However, just referring to him as 'Pope' is not in keeping with the doctrines and rules of the RCC proper, according to this guy Lombardi, who is apparently fairly high up the food chain of the Catholic organization.

Maybe they just aren't able to send a cohesive message on the matter.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo

Right! I get that. That's why I looked it up. However, just referring to him as 'Pope' is not in keeping with the doctrines and rules of the RCC proper, according to this guy Lombardi, who is apparently fairly high up the food chain of the Catholic organization.

Maybe they just aren't able to send a cohesive message on the matter.

God bless,
Ted

Well, as you believe you are infallible there is no point in correcting you.

 

[miamited]

Well, as you believe you are infallible there is no point in correcting you.

Hi Mungo,

You apparently get some sort of enjoyment out of making that ludicrous claim to support your position. Fine.

Of course, there's really the chance that the exact same thing is really going on with the other side of this discussion. However, if you're living your life thinking that just because you can't stick to a conversation with someone because you can't 'correct ' them, you're likely to live a very frustrating life as far as talking to people about faith matters.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again Mungo,

I've gone back over several pages to look at your posts. I see that you have, in one posted the Catholic position on the matter. Now, I have to ask you, did you really think that you were dealing with some bumpkin who had never seen or heard the Catholic position? You really think that you've posted the Catholic position and now if no one excepts it then they are 'know it alls' who cant' be corrected?

Oh, and before you come back with, "that's not what I said. I never used the term 'know it all'.,,save it. If you want to discuss with me this issue of the immaculate conception, then drop the 'Catholic teaching' on the subject, give me the Scriptures references, and we'll discuss each one, one by one.

Now this isn't any promise that minds will be changed, but I'm just amazed that you got into this discussion thinking that you could just throw the Catholic catechism at them, and if they don't want to accept that...I'm done. If that's what you want, then you should likely stick with the Catholic boards. Because out here in Christianforums.net land there are a lot of people who don't buy this big bugaboo that the Catholic organization itself didn't preach or make issue with for about 1,000 years. Then you decide to Ieave off with some, "I'm going to be rude and make some comment that the person is arrogant and beyond correction."

Are you even remotely aware that even the RCC didn't formally codify this understanding until 1661?

In 1661, Pope Alexander VII (r. 1655-67) declared in a papal bull, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, that Mary was conceived without original sin and that the feast of the conception celebrates that fact. This bull would have an impact on the eventual decision to declare the Immaculate Conception a Church dogma.Dec 3, 2021

It wasn't until after 1066 that a monk floated the idea of the immaculate conception.

Eadmer (1066-1124), a monk at Christ Church, Canterbury. England was one of the first proponents of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He discussed it in his book "De Conceptione sanctae Mariae."

So, let's start off with what seems to be historical fact, that no one in the early church seems to have held the position.

Now you, well, you're a staunch Catholic I imagine. You do your hail Marys and Penances and and pay your indulgences and you find a certain comfort in that, When the Catholic organization came up with this idea of the immaculate conception and adopted it as dogma, well you ate it up just like MAGA Trump fan eats up his lies. I look forward to sharing with you if you so choose to.

(BTW, before you get incensed that I used the phrase MAGA Trump fan...It's called a simile.)

God bless,
Ted

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Lol,maga ,I'm not a Biden fan but lol .

 

[Robert Pate]

Someone help me understand how Mary was sinless.

Please share Scripture only.

Grace and peace to you.

Mary was not sinless. Everyone has been born after Adam, Romans 5:12.

The words "Immaculate Conception" are not to be found anywhere in the Bible. It is another Catholic fairy tale.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Doing some further investigative work on this 'immaculate conception' idea.

Seems that this could be why it got made into doctrine in the mid 1800's:

When the woman's role in conception was discovered by medical scientists, the Roman Catholic Church faced a problem. For the first time, Mary was seen to play a direct role in Jesus' conception. Her contribution would have been expected to pass original sin onto Jesus -- an intolerable arrangement because the Church has taught that Jesus was without sin at his birth and during his life on earth.

The Church had two choices:

~ To declare that Mary did not pass original sin onto Jesus at the time of his conception, or
~ To declare that Mary herself was free of sin when she was conceived.

And here we find why some cling to it so tightly:

It is now a required belief for Roman Catholics. In 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed in his Bull Ineffabilis that:

"...We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

So, not believing this account ex-communicates a 'good' Catholic.

Apparently Catholics don't understand the power of their own God. They are held on to the idea that Jesus was somehow genetically attached to Mary. That's probably not true. I'm pretty confident that the Holy Spirit coming over Mary didn't mean that he had sexual relations with her to impregnate her. It's most likely that the embryo implanted in Mary's womb had already been prepared with all the necessary fertilization, however that was achieved. In other words, Jesus' physical body would have had none of either Joseph's or Mary's DNA or anything else.

The Holy Spirit implanted in the womb of Jesus an already fertilized egg and attached it to her uterine wall and from their Mary's body took over and fed the fetus until birth. I'm going with, "if we could have some of Jesus' DNA and some of Joseph's and Mary's DNA, there wouldn't be any match. Whatever DNA we could obtain from Jesus likely came from the hand of God. Just as perfect as His creation.

Trust your God that He didn't have an issue with Mary having never sinned, because that would have defiled His Son. There is none of her in him.

God bless,
Ted
​

 

[jasonc]

Hi all,

Doing some further investigative work on this 'immaculate conception' idea.

Seems that this could be why it got made into doctrine in the mid 1800's:

When the woman's role in conception was discovered by medical scientists, the Roman Catholic Church faced a problem. For the first time, Mary was seen to play a direct role in Jesus' conception. Her contribution would have been expected to pass original sin onto Jesus -- an intolerable arrangement because the Church has taught that Jesus was without sin at his birth and during his life on earth.

The Church had two choices:

~ To declare that Mary did not pass original sin onto Jesus at the time of his conception, or
~ To declare that Mary herself was free of sin when she was conceived.

And here we find why some cling to it so tightly:

It is now a required belief for Roman Catholics. In 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed in his Bull Ineffabilis that:

"...We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

So, not believing this account ex-communicates a 'good' Catholic.

Apparently Catholics don't understand the power of their own God. They are held on to the idea that Jesus was somehow genetically attached to Mary. That's probably not true. I'm pretty confident that the Holy Spirit coming over Mary didn't mean that he had sexual relations with her to impregnate her. It's most likely that the embryo implanted in Mary's womb had already been prepared with all the necessary fertilization, however that was achieved. In other words, Jesus' physical body would have had none of either Joseph's or Mary's DNA or anything else.

The Holy Spirit implanted in the womb of Jesus an already fertilized egg and attached it to her uterine wall and from their Mary's body took over and fed the fetus until birth. I'm going with, "if we could have some of Jesus' DNA and some of Joseph's and Mary's DNA, there wouldn't be any match. Whatever DNA we could obtain from Jesus likely came from the hand of God. Just as perfect as His creation.

Trust your God that He didn't have an issue with Mary having never sinned, because that would have defiled His Son. There is none of her in him.

God bless,
Ted
​

I'm quite anti papist ,yet the kinsman redeemer (goel) has to be family to those he redeems how is man redeemed by Jesus if there is no biological connection ?

I won't get hung up on Jesus dna but I believe that mary played a genetic role .Jesus in the flesh was a son of David per prophecy .

 

[miamited]

I'm quite anti papist ,yet the kinsman redeemer (goel) has to be family to those he redeems how is man redeemed by Jesus if there is no biological connection ?

I won't get hung up on Jesus dna but I believe that mary played a genetic role .Jesus in the flesh was a son of David per prophecy .

Because there is biological connection. He had all the cell structure and tissue that all other humans have. That's the biology of Jesus. Now, you might question the genealogy of Jesus if he has no human parentage, but I don't think there's much question as to the genealogy of Jesus.

"This is my Son in whom I am well pleased."

Jesus, as far as I've always believed, is the Son of God. He doesn't have any DNA from some other human being as all other children have. But he is 'fully man' by the biology of his body and mind and thoughts and feelings. He is fully human in every way of any other human...except that his DNA didn't come from an earthly ancestor.

God bless,
Ted