Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible

[SlowerAndSlower]

Demonstrating
The Immaculate Conception
Straight From the Bible!
Dedicated to the 900 million kids killed over the last 20 years.

Step 1—Consider Luke 1:47 (as in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)):
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

Step 2— Look at the last two words of verse 47: “my Savior”.
Notice anything unusual? In the other 24 occurrences of the word
“Savior” in the NRSV New Testament, it is preceded by the articles
“our” or “the” or “a”.
{ Hint—This singularity in Holy Scripture points to Mary’s unique role
in salvation history. }
Note that the particular form (σωτῆρί) of the original Greek word
meaning “savior, redeemer, preserver” is used only twice in the Bible,
and only once is translated as “my Savior” in the NRSV.

Step 3— What difference does it make to say “my Savior”
vs “our/the/a Savior”? - Written in the inerrant bible,
it is true that some people are “saved” or are in a state of
sanctifying grace or will go to heaven immediately should they be
summoned by death at a moment’s notice. However, the group of the
saved is not well defined by “our/the/a”, whereas for “my Savior” there
is no wiggle room. Hence, MARY IS “SAVED”!

Step 4— What is the tense of Luke 1:47 in the NRSV? →
The present tense…”my spirit rejoices in God my Savior”.
What is the significance of the present tense? → In the inerrant Bible,
it means that Mary is in a state of sanctifying grace or “saved” at the
time that the statement was spoken. Note that she did not say
“my spirit rejoices in God who will be my savior”.

Step 5— What is significant about the time that Mary proclaimed Luke 1:47? →
At the time of the Luke 1:47, Christ had not died on the cross (he had
not even been born yet), and the souls of the just awaited this great
event to be freed. With Christ’s death on a cross to be the atonement for
sin, and sin precluding being “saved”, to be “saved” at the time of
Luke 1:47, one had to be without sin. Hence, Mary was without sin
at that time. If she were without sin at the time of Luke 1:47,
then she must have also been free from sin at all previous moments of
her existence, because there did not exist a means of atoning for sins.
Furthermore, there was no original sin in Mary, because that would
also preclude salvation. The lack of original sin had been effected
by God: Mary calls him Savior. Hence, the Bible demonstrates the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
confirms the Catholic dogma.

            Answering Possible Objections/ Questions

Objection 1—The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Immaculate Conception
and the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854 “No direct or
categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from
Scripture.” Doesn’t that mean there is something wrong with this
demonstration?
Response → this denial of the existence of such a proof was not based
upon a rigorous proof, but seemingly the collective understanding of
many who have tried and grown frustrated.

Objection 2— From John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” If the sinlessness of Mary comes
from her own words, does that mean that she has deceived herself?
Response → Jesus uses a rhetorical question to the persecuting Jewish
leaders to say that he is without sin in John 8:46
“Which of you convicts me of sin?” but he does not deceive himself.
Note, that the the loose definition of “we” allows for specific
exceptions to be explained in God’s word.

Objection 3— Are there not passages in the Old Testament that have
similar wording, and hence it might be concluded that others are
Immaculately Conceived as well? Answer → There are somewhat
similar passages, but in these cases the exact words and situations
are different in key ways—ie 1 Sam 2:1, Job 19:25.

Question 1— Can it be shown that Mary is sinless after Luke 1:47 and before her life came to an end?
Response → Yes. Luke 1:47 must also be true in the prophetic sense,
at the end of her life, at her final judgment. If Mary had subsequently sinned
but had enjoyed the same salvation mechanism as others have after Jesus’
death on a cross, then Luke 1:47 would be true now if she spoke it after her
death, but not in the same sense at the time of the Magnificat.
Therefore, for scripture to be inerrant, she would have had to had said
something different (or it would not have been included in the Bible) -
perhaps something to the effect of “my spirit rejoices in the hope that
Jesus my son will be my savior”. However, the Bible does not say that,
so she remained without sin.

Thanks for your attention.
Other Questions/Comments/Suggestions/Typos?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

This is very interesting. Thank you for posting! It is nice to be able to demonstrate doctrine from Scripture, and it is interesting, and telling, that before Jesus Christ was even born, Mary proclaimed that she was blessed and that Jesus was her Savior.

I love Luke’s veneration of Mary! Thanks again for the insight!

 

[Cachonga]

SlowerAndSlower:

Step 1—Consider Luke 1:47 (as in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)):

How is this different from what any saved person can say? Would you say all saved people are immaculately conceived? I would hope not!

Step 2— Look at the last two words of verse 47: “my Savior”.

What is your background in the Greek language? Why should I trust your interpretation? And why should I accept an English translation as authoritative? And again, how is this different from what any truly saved person can say? Keep in mind, the psalmist used expressions like “My Rock” and “My Salvation”.

You say the Greek word appears twice, but you don’t share with us the other verse where it’s used. Jude 1:25 says, “to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” (NASB) This letter was written to Christians, as a group, so to use “our” instead of “my” is absolutely appropriate. God is not any less a savior here than He is in Luke 1:47, is He?

Finally (for this step), even if you’re correct in the Greek, how does it follow that Mary was immaculately conceived? Couldn’t the statements be just as true if she had been saved and cleansed of sin right before the angel came and announced that she would be the mother of the Messiah?

Step 3— What difference does it make to say “my Savior”
vs “our/the/a Savior”?

What in Scripture leads you to believe this saving was from conception, or that it has anything to do with sinlessness? You make a good argument that she was clearly saved (a point no Protestant I am aware of would disagree with), but your conclusions are not supported by the evidence.

Step 4— What is the tense of Luke 1:47 in the NRSV?

There is no dispute that Mary was saved when she said these words, but you still have not shown how this points to being saved from conception (or that this salvation meant sinless). And again, how is this not something that any truly saved person could say?

Step 5— What is significant about the time that Mary proclaimed Luke 1:47?

Once again, your conclusion is not supported by your evidence. David said, “My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence.” (2 Sam 22:3 NASB) Wasn’t this before Jesus was born? How can David call God his savior, unless he was saved? I would suggest a Catholic-like answer to the question – that is, since God is present at all points in time equally (the “eternal now”), He is able to save His elect people completely, regardless of when they lived. Don’t forget, the inerrant Scriptures tell us that Jesus was the Lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev 13:8)

Objection 1—The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Immaculate Conception
and the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854 “No direct or
categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from
Scripture.” Doesn’t that mean there is something wrong with this
demonstration?
Response → this denial of the existence of such a proof was not based
upon a rigorous proof, but seemingly the collective understanding of
many who have tried and grown frustrated.

It sounds like you’re saying that Ineffabilis Deus would have been different if you had been there to guide the pope (I’m sure I’m wrong, but that’s the impression I get from your response to the objection). Hopefully, I’ve been able to demonstrate why Ineffabilis Deus says “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”

Objection 2— From John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” If the sinlessness of Mary comes
from her own words, does that mean that she has deceived herself?

Since Mary NEVER said she was sinless (and none of the writers of Scripture ever made that claim), this is a strawman objection, and the response given is not relevant.

Objection 3— Are there not passages in the Old Testament that have
similar wording, and hence it might be concluded that others are
Immaculately Conceived as well? Answer → There are somewhat
similar passages, but in these cases the exact words and situations
are different in key ways—ie 1 Sam 2:1, Job 19:25.

And yet there is my response to Step 5. Furthermore, we have your assertion that “There are somewhat similar passages, but in these cases the exact words and situations are different in key ways”, followed by 2 Scripture citations, with no explanation of how they are different, and in what key ways. What about 2 Sam 22:3 where David calls God “My Savior”?

Question 1— Can it be shown that Mary is sinless after Luke 1:47 and before her life came to an end?

This is not really an argument. While I do not believe the verse in question says anything about sin, I can agree that she was (like I believe all true Christians are) without sin upon her death. That still does not answer the question of WHEN was she cleansed of sin? I find nothing in your presentation that would convince me she was conceived without sin. I do find evidence in Scripture to lead me to believe she was NOT immaculately conceived, but you never touched on those particular objections, so I won’t bring them up here.

PeaceInChrist:

I love Luke’s veneration of Mary! Thanks again for the insight!

Luke reported the facts as he got them (and as the Holy Spirit guided him). This is not veneration. To read it as such is to misunderstand Luke (IMHO).

 

[teeboy]

I think the op is making at least one assumption which makes his argument not a stringent proof.

 

[cap76]

I think the op is making at least one assumption which makes his argument not a stringent proof.

Not sure which assumption you’re thinking of, but one that I see is the assumption (which is a gross heresy, really) that having Jesus as Savior = sinlessness.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Not sure which assumption you’re thinking of, but one that I see is the assumption (which is a gross heresy, really) that having Jesus as Savior = sinlessness.

I think he intended to point out that, even before Jesus Christ had died for her, and thus opened the door to salvation, Mary called Him ‘my Savior’, and so distinguishes herself from those who call Him ‘our Savior’ after He had died for our sins.

It is certainly no definitive proof, but it is an interesting point, nonetheless. And of course, Protestants believe that the Immaculate Conception is a heresy regardless (even though they have demonstrated no authority by with which they can claim to call others heretics, other than something not being mentioned explicitly in Scripture, in which case they cannot adhere to Trinitarian doctrine or the dual nature of Christ).

 

[teeboy]

I think he intended to point out that, even before Jesus Christ had died for her, and thus opened the door to salvation, Mary called Him ‘my Savior’, and so distinguishes herself from those who call Him ‘our Savior’ after He had died for our sins.

It is certainly no definitive proof, but it is an interesting point, nonetheless. And of course, Protestants believe that the Immaculate Conception is a heresy regardless (even though they have demonstrated no authority by with which they can claim to call others heretics, other than something not being mentioned explicitly in Scripture, in which case they cannot adhere to Trinitarian doctrine or the dual nature of Christ).

Protestants have no leader to whom they credit positive law. At least no visible leader. And certainly no visible office. Unless of course they believe what the Pope says they should believe, which of course would not make them Protestant, so that is what I would call an oxymoron (Protestants who believe what the Pope says they should believe).

Now. Can one’s actions make one a Protestant? I would say yes. For instance, outwardly discrediting the Pope with ill intent (bearing false witness against the Church).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Protestants have no leader to whom they credit positive law. At least no visible leader. And certainly no visible office. Unless of course they believe what the Pope says they should believe, which of course would not make them Protestant, so that is what I would call an oxymoron (Protestants who believe what the Pope says they should believe).

Now. Can one’s actions make one a Protestant? I would say yes. For instance, outwardly discrediting the Pope with ill intent (bearing false witness against the Church).

Interesting, that you say one can inadvertently be Protestant. I suppose this is true, but if the one who opposed Church doctrine that was authoritative and binding on them as a Catholic, and was aware, yet still publicly proclaimed it, they would be guilty of formal heresy, and, if I am not mistaken, incur automatic excommunication.

But this is besides the point. The Immaculate Conception is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but at the very least, the OP brings up interesting points about the terminology and mannerism of Mary.

I also notice, that when the Holy Family is addressed together, even when Joseph is present, Mary is given more attention. For instance, Simeon addresses Mary, and Mary is the one who speaks to Jesus when they find Him in the temple. It would have been more proper for an unknown man (like Simeon) to address Joseph, and for Joseph to address Jesus when He was found in the Temple. Instead, it is Mary who speaks to her Son, and who keeps all He did in her heart.

This is all besides her own words, spoken by the Holy Spirit in Chapter 1.

Fascinating, is it not, the subtle veneration that Scripture gives to Mary?

 

[roselily]

Demonstrating
The Immaculate Conception
Straight From the Bible!
Dedicated to the 900 million kids killed over the last 20 years.

Step 1—Consider Luke 1:47 (as in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)):
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

Step 2— Look at the last two words of verse 47: “my Savior”.
Notice anything unusual? In the other 24 occurrences of the word
“Savior” in the NRSV New Testament, it is preceded by the articles
“our” or “the” or “a”.
{ Hint—This singularity in Holy Scripture points to Mary’s unique role
in salvation history. }
Note that the particular form (σωτῆρί) of the original Greek word
meaning “savior, redeemer, preserver” is used only twice in the Bible,
and only once is translated as “my Savior” in the NRSV.

Step 3— What difference does it make to say “my Savior”
vs “our/the/a Savior”? - Written in the inerrant bible,
it is true that some people are “saved” or are in a state of
sanctifying grace or will go to heaven immediately should they be
summoned by death at a moment’s notice. However, the group of the
saved is not well defined by “our/the/a”, whereas for “my Savior” there
is no wiggle room. Hence, MARY IS “SAVED”!

Step 4— What is the tense of Luke 1:47 in the NRSV? →
The present tense…”my spirit rejoices in God my Savior”.
What is the significance of the present tense? → In the inerrant Bible,
it means that Mary is in a state of sanctifying grace or “saved” at the
time that the statement was spoken. Note that she did not say
“my spirit rejoices in God who will be my savior”.

Step 5— What is significant about the time that Mary proclaimed Luke 1:47? →
At the time of the Luke 1:47, Christ had not died on the cross (he had
not even been born yet), and the souls of the just awaited this great
event to be freed. With Christ’s death on a cross to be the atonement for
sin, and sin precluding being “saved”, to be “saved” at the time of
Luke 1:47, one had to be without sin. Hence, Mary was without sin
at that time. If she were without sin at the time of Luke 1:47,
then she must have also been free from sin at all previous moments of
her existence, because there did not exist a means of atoning for sins.
Furthermore, there was no original sin in Mary, because that would
also preclude salvation. The lack of original sin had been effected
by God: Mary calls him Savior. Hence, the Bible demonstrates the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
confirms the Catholic dogma.

            Answering Possible Objections/ Questions

Objection 1—The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Immaculate Conception
and the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854 “No direct or
categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from
Scripture.” Doesn’t that mean there is something wrong with this
demonstration?
Response → this denial of the existence of such a proof was not based
upon a rigorous proof, but seemingly the collective understanding of
many who have tried and grown frustrated.

Objection 2— From John 1:8: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” If the sinlessness of Mary comes
from her own words, does that mean that she has deceived herself?
Response → Jesus uses a rhetorical question to the persecuting Jewish
leaders to say that he is without sin in John 8:46
“Which of you convicts me of sin?” but he does not deceive himself.
Note, that the the loose definition of “we” allows for specific
exceptions to be explained in God’s word.

Objection 3— Are there not passages in the Old Testament that have
similar wording, and hence it might be concluded that others are
Immaculately Conceived as well? Answer → There are somewhat
similar passages, but in these cases the exact words and situations
are different in key ways—ie 1 Sam 2:1, Job 19:25.

Question 1— Can it be shown that Mary is sinless after Luke 1:47 and before her life came to an end?
Response → Yes. Luke 1:47 must also be true in the prophetic sense,
at the end of her life, at her final judgment. If Mary had subsequently sinned
but had enjoyed the same salvation mechanism as others have after Jesus’
death on a cross, then Luke 1:47 would be true now if she spoke it after her
death, but not in the same sense at the time of the Magnificat.
Therefore, for scripture to be inerrant, she would have had to had said
something different (or it would not have been included in the Bible) -
perhaps something to the effect of “my spirit rejoices in the hope that
Jesus my son will be my savior”. However, the Bible does not say that,
so she remained without sin.

Thanks for your attention.
Other Questions/Comments/Suggestions/Typos?

I read,

**Song of Songs 6

9 My dove, my perfect one, is the only one,
the darling of her mother,
flawless to her that bore her.
The maidens saw her and called her happy;
the queens and concubines also, and they praised her.
10 ‘Who is this that looks forth like the dawn,
fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
terrible as an army with banners?’

**

 

[roselily]

Protestants have no leader to whom they credit positive law. At least no visible leader. And certainly no visible office. Unless of course they believe what the Pope says they should believe, which of course would not make them Protestant, so that is what I would call an oxymoron (Protestants who believe what the Pope says they should believe).

Now. Can one’s actions make one a Protestant? I would say yes. For instance, outwardly discrediting the Pope with ill intent (bearing false witness against the Church).

I hope all Christians be one,
I read,

**John 17
20 ‘I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one,23I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
**

 

[teeboy]

Interesting, that you say one can inadvertently be Protestant. I suppose this is true, but if the one who opposed Church doctrine that was authoritative and binding on them as a Catholic, and was aware, yet still publicly proclaimed it, they would be guilty of formal heresy, and, if I am not mistaken, incur automatic excommunication.

But this is besides the point. The Immaculate Conception is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but at the very least, the OP brings up interesting points about the terminology and mannerism of Mary.

I also notice, that when the Holy Family is addressed together, even when Joseph is present, Mary is given more attention. For instance, Simeon addresses Mary, and Mary is the one who speaks to Jesus when they find Him in the temple. It would have been more proper for an unknown man (like Simeon) to address Joseph, and for Joseph to address Jesus when He was found in the Temple. Instead, it is Mary who speaks to her Son, and who keeps all He did in her heart.

This is all besides her own words, spoken by the Holy Spirit in Chapter 1.

Fascinating, is it not, the subtle veneration that Scripture gives to Mary?

There are many subtleties in the Bible. Often times the devil is subtle in his temptations.

I do give credit to Joseph for doing the will of God. It isn’t said that Joseph went into the desert. I sometimes wonder.

The fact that Herod felt betrayal after being duped by the wisemen seems subtle. Does this Justify his act of ordering the killing of innocents? I think not… The devil is very subtle. I often wonder if Herod was being tested by the Romans who we know were a deceitful bunch.

 

[teeboy]

I hope all Christians be one,
I read,

**John 17
20 ‘I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one,23I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
**

This is what we hope. However, most Christians, I believe, don’t care to understand what positive law is. This is due to their preoccupation with the superficial press and other forms of mammon.

Love your neighbor; forgive your enemy.

 

[Prieldedi]

Luke reported the facts as he got them (and as the Holy Spirit guided him). This is not veneration. To read it as such is to misunderstand Luke (IMHO).

Do you know who gave him the facts?

Do you know that the fact giver was also Holy Spirit guided?

That’s why we Catholics can see St. Luke’s veneration of the Virgin Mary in those passages.

 

[Prieldedi]

Once again, your conclusion is not supported by your evidence. David said, “My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; My savior, You save me from violence.” (2 Sam 22:3 NASB) Wasn’t this before Jesus was born? How can David call God his savior, unless he was saved? I would suggest a Catholic-like answer to the question – that is, since God is present at all points in time equally (the “eternal now”), He is able to save His elect people completely, regardless of when they lived. Don’t forget, the inerrant Scriptures tell us that Jesus was the Lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev 13:8)

Are David and the Virgin Mary speaking of the same kind of salvation? When you read the whole chapter 22 in 2 Samuel it is clear David is talking about physical salvation. David speaks of “enemies”, “adversaries”, “their attack”, “armed band”, “war”, “bow of brass”, “pursued my enemies”, “wiped them out”, “destroyed them”, “people’s assault”… you get the idea.

Not so in the case of the Virgin Mary. Her salvation is different than that of David’s. It’s Her spiritual salvation, Her soul’s salvation She talks about.

That’s what SlowerAndSlower is presenting here. She was already saved at a point in time when the concept had not been defined, the reason being that the person who was going to define it had not been born: Jesus. At that time the sacraments of reconciliation and communion had not being established by Jesus for the same reason.

So the lack of future tense in the Virgin’s words is telling. Being saved at that moment in Her life means no original sin (Immaculate Conception) and no personal sin of which to ask pardon for or to repent of (sinless life).

We must not forget that in the very first book of the Bible God prophesied the Virgin’s Immaculate Conception and Her sinless life, when He said to the serpent in Genesis 3:15… " I will make you enemies, you and the Woman"… and as God saved David from his enemies (mortal men), God saved the Virgin Mary from Her spiritual enemy (Satan) from the moment of Her Immaculate Conception.

 

[teeboy]

Are David and the Virgin Mary speaking of the same kind of salvation? When you read the whole chapter 22 in 2 Samuel it is clear David is talking about physical salvation. David speaks of “enemies”, “adversaries”, “their attack”, “armed band”, “war”, “bow of brass”, “pursued my enemies”, “wiped them out”, “destroyed them”, “people’s assault”… you get the idea.

Not so in the case of the Virgin Mary. Her salvation is different than that of David’s. It’s Her spiritual salvation, Her soul’s salvation She talks about.

That’s what SlowerAndSlower is presenting here. She was already saved at a point in time when the concept had not been defined, the reason being that the person who was going to define it had not been born: Jesus. At that time the sacraments of reconciliation and communion had not being established by Jesus for the same reason.

So the lack of future tense in the Virgin’s words is telling. Being saved at that moment in Her life means no original sin (Immaculate Conception) and no personal sin of which to ask pardon for or to repent of (sinless life).

We must not forget that in the very first book of the Bible God prophesied the Virgin’s Immaculate Conception and Her sinless life, when He said to the serpent in Genesis 3:15… " I will make you enemies, you and the Woman"… and as God saved David from his enemies (mortal men), God saved the Virgin Mary from Her spiritual enemy (Satan) from the moment of Her Immaculate Conception.

If the above was actually from the Bible, proof would be stringent. You, however, are taking pieces of scripture and adding to it.

 

[Cachonga]

Priededi:

Do you know who gave him the facts?

By his own testimony, he interviewed many people, presumably even Mary herself. Do you think Mary venerated herself?

Do you know that the fact giver was also Holy Spirit guided?

Not necessarily. Even wicked men can pass along historical facts. The Holy Spirit did guide Luke in how he put the facts together and recorded them, but the people he talked to may not have all been guided by the Holy Spirit.

That’s why we Catholics can see St. Luke’s veneration of the Virgin Mary in those passages.

I would only ask – is this the official, “infallible” teaching of the Church (that Luke was venerating Mary in his Gospel), or is it just your own, fallible opinion?

Are David and the Virgin Mary speaking of the same kind of salvation? When you read the whole chapter 22 in 2 Samuel it is clear David is talking about physical salvation. David speaks of “enemies”, “adversaries”, “their attack”, “armed band”, “war”, “bow of brass”, “pursued my enemies”, “wiped them out”, “destroyed them”, “people’s assault”… you get the idea.

I also notice phrases like “A smoke went up from his nostrils, and a devouring fire out of his mouth: coals were kindled by it.” (2 Sam 22:9 DRA), “And he rode upon the cherubims, and flew: and slid upon the wings of the wind.” (2 Sam 22:11 DRA), “And I shall be perfect with him: and shall keep myself from my iniquity.” (2 Sam 22:24 DRA), and “Thou hast given me the shield of my salvation: and thy mildness hath multiplied me.” (2 Sam 22:36 DRA). Sounds like a mixture of physical and spiritual ideas here. I don’t see how this is different from what Mary proclaimed (other than she didn’t face physical enemies the way David did),

Not so in the case of the Virgin Mary. Her salvation is different than that of David’s. It’s Her spiritual salvation, Her soul’s salvation She talks about.

Ignoring the spiritual aspects of David’s song does not negate its meaning.

That’s what SlowerAndSlower is presenting here. She was already saved at a point in time when the concept had not been defined, the reason being that the person who was going to define it had not been born: Jesus. At that time the sacraments of reconciliation and communion had not being established by Jesus for the same reason.

Another straw man. Nobody is disputing that Mary was saved at a point in time. The question is, what was that point in time? There is nothing in the text of Scripture that would require anyone to believe that this salvation was from conception.

So the lack of future tense in the Virgin’s words is telling. Being saved at that moment in Her life means no original sin (Immaculate Conception) and no personal sin of which to ask pardon for or to repent of (sinless life).

Here you are making an assertion with no evidence. Why should I accept that her salvation meant that she was preserved from all stain of sin from her conception? What, in her prayer, requires anyone to think she was saved from conception? Why couldn’t the salvation have come right before the angel made the announcement that she would be the mother of Messiah? Do you deny that God could cleanse her (or anyone) in such a way that they would be sinless and perfect before Him? Since God chose not to tell us anything about Mary prior to the annunciation, to jump to the conclusion that He preserved her from all stain of sin from conception is going beyond what God chose to reveal to us.

We must not forget that in the very first book of the Bible God prophesied the Virgin’s Immaculate Conception and Her sinless life, when He said to the serpent in Genesis 3:15… " I will make you enemies, you and the Woman"… and as God saved David from his enemies (mortal men), God saved the Virgin Mary from Her spiritual enemy (Satan) from the moment of Her Immaculate Conception.

Assertion, but no proof offered. How does Gen 3:15 (“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” DRA, or “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." NASB) speak of an immaculate conception?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Not necessarily. Even wicked men can pass along historical facts. The Holy Spirit did guide Luke in how he put the facts together and recorded them, but the people he talked to may not have all been guided by the Holy Spirit.

Questioning the inerrancy of Scripture and the importance of every word will not gain you much credibility among Catholics. Regardless of what information Luke was given, all that he wrote was put on the paper through the Holy Spirit, including the fact that all generations will call Mary blessed, that she is full of grace and favored by God (this is no unimportant detail), that Elizabeth called her the mother of the Lord, that Simeon addressed her and prophesied regarding her.

The Holy Spirit wished us to know these things. There is no getting around this. So, is Mary blessed, and is she the Mother of God? Scripture certainly seems to say so.

Also, in terms of Luke venerating Mary, we can’t know what Luke was feeling about Mary. All we know is that the Holy Spirit inspired him to write about her, and obviously, from Scripture, we see that she was holy, obedient, and the mother of God.

 

[Cachonga]

PeaceInChrist:

Questioning the inerrancy of Scripture and the importance of every word will not gain you much credibility among Catholics. Regardless of what information Luke was given, all that he wrote was put on the paper through the Holy Spirit, including the fact that all generations will call Mary blessed, that she is full of grace and favored by God (this is no unimportant detail), that Elizabeth called her the mother of the Lord, that Simeon addressed her and prophesied regarding her.

Excuse me, but where do I question the inerrancy of Scripture? That is a very strange accusation to bring against someone who believes in sola scriptura! I was pointing out that Luke’s sources may not have been led by the Holy Spirit, that even the most wicked person can give accurate facts. I did acknowledge that when Luke wrote, he WAS led by the Holy Spirit. Please look at what I actually said.

The Holy Spirit wished us to know these things. There is no getting around this. So, is Mary blessed, and is she the Mother of God? Scripture certainly seems to say so.

Straw man argument! There is no dispute that God wanted us to know these things. Mary is most blessed among women, and she is unquestionably the mother of the Messiah (as the angel told her, she is the mother of the Son of God). This still doesn’t address when (or even if) she was made sinless (which is NOT addressed in Scripture).

 

[Prieldedi]

If the above was actually from the Bible, proof would be stringent. You, however, are taking pieces of scripture and adding to it.

Can you be specific? Are you saying 2 Samuel 22 isn’t in the Bible? Luke 1:47-49 isn’t in the Bible? Sorry to ask, but it would be better for me and the readers if you point out what’s what you find unbiblical.

 

[Prieldedi]

By his own testimony, he interviewed many people, presumably even Mary herself. Do you think Mary venerated herself?

Presumably? “As for his mother, she kept all these things in her heart.” (Luke 2:51) Who else but the Virgin Mary could’ve told St. Luke Her thoughts?

Not necessarily. Even wicked men can pass along historical facts. The Holy Spirit did guide Luke in how he put the facts together and recorded them, but the people he talked to may not have all been guided by the Holy Spirit.

You miss my point. The fact giver was the Virgin Mary. We are dealing only with the first chapter of Luke in this conversation as it relates to the Virgin Mary.

I would only ask – is this the official, “infallible” teaching of the Church (that Luke was venerating Mary in his Gospel), or is it just your own, fallible opinion?

For over 1999 years the Church has venerated Mary. Generation after generation of Catholics have done it. Saying that we Catholics (Popes, Bishops, priests and lay Catholics) can see Luke’s veneration is not my personal opinion, it’s the history of our Church. Our devotion to Mary is a historical fact. So even though Luke doesn’t say it, we can see it.

I also notice phrases like “A smoke went up from his nostrils, and a devouring fire out of his mouth: coals were kindled by it.” (2 Sam 22:9 DRA), “And he rode upon the cherubims, and flew: and slid upon the wings of the wind.” (2 Sam 22:11 DRA), “And I shall be perfect with him: and shall keep myself from my iniquity.” (2 Sam 22:24 DRA), and “Thou hast given me the shield of my salvation: and thy mildness hath multiplied me.” (2 Sam 22:36 DRA). Sounds like a mixture of physical and spiritual ideas here. I don’t see how this is different from what Mary proclaimed (other than she didn’t face physical enemies the way David did),

Ignoring the spiritual aspects of David’s song does not negate its meaning.

I can go both ways. But in David’s time salvation was not what it is after Jesus.

Another straw man. Nobody is disputing that Mary was saved at a point in time. The question is, what was that point in time? There is nothing in the text of Scripture that would require anyone to believe that this salvation was from conception.

There is no need to have it in writing. Non Catholics work their way from the Bible backwards to Jesus birth. Catholics work from Jesus birth forward, which includes the writing of the Bible, which doesn’t have everything (John 21:25). The concept of Trinity is in the same category.

Here you are making an assertion with no evidence. Why should I accept that her salvation meant that she was preserved from all stain of sin from her conception? What, in her prayer, requires anyone to think she was saved from conception? Why couldn’t the salvation have come right before the angel made the announcement that she would be the mother of Messiah? Do you deny that God could cleanse her (or anyone) in such a way that they would be sinless and perfect before Him? Since God chose not to tell us anything about Mary prior to the annunciation, to jump to the conclusion that He preserved her from all stain of sin from conception is going beyond what God chose to reveal to us.

If you would accept the sacraments of confession and communion then you would understand.

God told us about Mary in Genesis 3:15.

Assertion, but no proof offered. How does Gen 3:15 (“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” DRA, or “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." NASB) speak of an immaculate conception?

ENMITY. You become friends with the devil when you sin. God didn’t allow Mary to be friends with the devil, or do you believe He said He would do something and then did something else? Keep in mind that this passage is right after the first couple of human beings has committed the first sin.

Tell me, what’s the use of God mentioning a woman being enemies (FOREVER) with Satan in that passage? What for?