Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible

[Cachonga]

Prieldedi:

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?

You mean who else besides Mary? Like maybe John who was given charge of her by Jesus? Maybe a combination of the different Apostles (she did spend some time with them, didn’t she?).Or maybe some things were given by the Holy Spirit Himself.

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.

And my point is that God chose not to reveal where Luke got his information, but that doesn’t make it any less reliable or inspired.

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.

This is not an answer to the question. Just to further clarify it, I’ll rephrase the question. Is it the official, “infallible” teaching of the Church, or is it just your own, fallible opinion (based on your understanding of tradition)?

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

So is God’s salvation of His people better today than it was before Christ ascended? David certainly enjoyed the benefits of salvation (remember that under the law he and Bathsheba should have been stoned for adultery - no sacrifice for sin there. Yet God forgave him, and even called him “A man after my own heart” after that incident).

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.

I’ve been through that discussion before (about the Trinity in Scripture), and it’s off topic, so I won’t go through it again. What I will do is remind you that the topic is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible”, which cannot be done. While the Bible doesn’t have every little detail of the life and ministry of Jesus (not even the best biography of any famous person does), I would assert that what we do have is sufficient (see 2 Tim 3:16-17).

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

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, received 6 of the 7 sacraments, and even trained my children in preparation for confession and their first communion (my wife to be was a widow with 3 children, the youngest was 10). I would say I understand what the church teaches about confession and communion (I have since come to reject the teaching completely, but that’s another topic).

God told us about Mary in Genesis 3:15.

Still the assertion, but nothing other than church teaching to back up the claim. I used 2 different translations to indicate that there is some ambiguity in whether it’s “he” or “she” that crushes the serpent’s head. I see plenty of evidence to accept this as referring to Jesus, but only to Mary in the sense that He is the seed of the woman.

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.

And as I pointed out above, there is some ambiguity in the verse, so there is no way to say for sure that it is Mary that will crush the serpent (makes no sense to me since it was Jesus that was crucified for us, not Mary; it was Jesus who died that death might be conquered, not Mary).

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

Is that what that passage says? Really! Hey, all true Christians are the enemy of Satan, and will be forever (just like Mary). Of course, they weren’t always that way. In fact, just like Mary, they weren’t always here. Just like Mary, they had a beginning. Just like Mary, they were saved, and there is enmity between them and Satan. The question still remains unanswered - when was Mary saved and cleansed from sin? You believe it was from conception, not because the Scriptures require it, but because your “infallible” church has dogmatically declared it to be so. Bottom line - you cannot demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

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.

Then I must question why you would even bring up whoever gave him the facts. It is irrelevant to any part of the discussion, because wherever, however, and by whomever he got the facts, the Spirit was still the author, and it is totally irrelevant. The Spirit may as well be the fact-giver, because all the facts that were written by Luke were intended to be given to him and written down.

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).

It is demonstrating the Immaculate Conception from Scripture, not proving it directly. In fact, I said earlier: “It is certainly no definitive proof, but it is an interesting point, nonetheless.” Nowhere in Scripture does it say ‘Mary was without sin’. Just as nowhere does it say ‘God is a Trinity’.

However, the points being brought up go to her importance in the eyes of God, and help demonstrate the doctrine.

If a woman could be the Mother of God in the flesh, and is blessed above all other creatures, why is it so far-fetched that the Lord didn’t let her see corruption even from her conception?

I also do not see why the Holy Spirit, who inspired Scripture, was not giving honor to His holy servant through Luke’s rendition of the Gospel. Luke may have been giving veneration (though you disagree, but really it’s irrelevant), but the Spirit did give her honor as His servant. Why else would we need to know that she was blessed, the Mother of God, full of grace/highly favored?

I am glad that you at least acknowledge she is the Mother of God.

 

[Cachonga]

PeaceInChrist:

Then I must question why you would even bring up whoever gave him the facts. It is irrelevant to any part of the discussion, because wherever, however, and by whomever he got the facts, the Spirit was still the author, and it is totally irrelevant. The Spirit may as well be the fact-giver, because all the facts that were written by Luke were intended to be given to him and written down.

I agree it’s irrelevant, but if you look back at post #16 you will see that it started as an answer to Prieldedi’s question, “Do you know who gave him the facts?”.

It is demonstrating the Immaculate Conception from Scripture, not proving it directly. In fact, I said earlier: “It is certainly no definitive proof, but it is an interesting point, nonetheless.” Nowhere in Scripture does it say ‘Mary was without sin’. Just as nowhere does it say ‘God is a Trinity’.

The problem is, I can (and have) demonstrate the fact that God has revealed Himself to us in Scripture as a triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and because of this, it is acceptable to refer to God as a Trinity. However, as I have demonstrated, there is absolutely NO indication in Scripture of exactly when Mary was saved (let alone made sinless).

However, the points being brought up go to her importance in the eyes of God, and help demonstrate the doctrine.

Baloney! Look back and see how many times I pointed out that there was no argument about what was being said! Mary was saved - no argument. Mary was blessed - no argument. Mary is the mother of God - no argument (other than I prefer to keep to the Scriptures and call her the mother of the Son of God). It seems that with the presentation of all of these “arguments” in which there is no dispute, you can then justify the claim that Mary was immaculately conceived, even though there is no indication of this within the pages of Scripture (If Protestants agree with us that Mary was saved, blessed, and the mother of Messiah, then they should believe us when we say she was also immaculately conceived).

If a woman could be the Mother of God in the flesh, and is blessed above all other creatures, why is it so far-fetched that the Lord didn’t let her see corruption even from her conception?

Because God’s ways are not our ways, and since He chose not to reveal this information to us, then to “infallibly” declare that He did (which is what the dogma does) is to go beyond what God has written. There are warnings about adding to God’s word (that’s what caused the fall in the first place).

I also do not see why the Holy Spirit, who inspired Scripture, was not giving honor to His holy servant through Luke’s rendition of the Gospel. Luke may have been giving veneration (though you disagree, but really it’s irrelevant), but the Spirit did give her honor as His servant. Why else would we need to know that she was blessed, the Mother of God, full of grace/highly favored?

The focus of the Gospel is Jesus, not Mary. God honored her by making her most blessed, and telling us that is what she is. I find no reason to accept your speculation about what God may or may not have done.

I am glad that you at least acknowledge she is the Mother of God.

As I mentioned earlier, I chose to acknowledge her as the mother of the Son of God, which is what the Scriptures say of her.(see Luke 1:35).

 

[Prieldedi]

You mean who else besides Mary?

No, I meant who else besides the writer.

And my point is that God chose not to reveal where Luke got his information, but that doesn’t make it any less reliable or inspired.

No, it was Luke who decided not to reveal where he got his information. Luke didn’t sit down and said “OK, Lord, I’m ready with pen and paper, start dictating”.

Who told you Luke wrote Luke? The writer doesn’t say who he is. Why do you believe it was Luke?

What makes it reliable is the Church teaching that the writer was Luke. Another Church teaching, and not the Bible or Luke himself, says that Luke’s Gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The same Church said that the “Gospel of Peter” was not inspired by the Holy spirit and was left out of the Bible. If you reject the Church teaching on Mary, why do you accept the Church teaching that the Gospel writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Where is that in the Bible?

This is not an answer to the question. Just to further clarify it, I’ll rephrase the question. Is it the official, “infallible” teaching of the Church, or is it just your own, fallible opinion (based on your understanding of tradition)?

I’m gonna turn the question back to you. Do you know of any official declaration of the Church in which the Church denies that Luke had a devotion for the Mother of his Savior? I ask you this because there are five icons (paintings) of Mary by St. Luke in existence today. The five icons are not the originals, they are copies of the originals made before they were destroyed by the passing of time. Before you jump and say anything I must remind you that there are no originals of the books of the Bible, only copies of copies.

As for the Church’s infallibility, the Church said that Luke wrote Luke and ALL Christians accepts Her infallibility. The Church said the Peter didn’t write the Gospel of Peter and ALL Christians accepts Her infallibility.

So is God’s salvation of His people better today than it was before Christ ascended? David certainly enjoyed the benefits of salvation (remember that under the law he and Bathsheba should have been stoned for adultery…

That’s physical salvation, David was saved from bodily harm. We believe that Jesus had to die and rise before there was the chance of eternal salvation. That’s why Jesus was sent by the Father. The fact of the Messiah dying and resurrecting in order for us to be eternally saved was not taught in David’s time nor before Jesus arrival. That’s why the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus, that’s why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah even to this day.

I’ve been through that discussion before (about the Trinity in Scripture), and it’s off topic, so I won’t go through it again. What I will do is remind you that the topic is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible”, which cannot be done… I would assert that what we do have is sufficient (see 2 Tim 3:16-17).

Well sorry to disagree, but SlowerAndSlower did demonstrate it.

When Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Scripture was only the Old Testament, the one with 46 books. He wasn’t referring to Luke’s Gospel, nor any of his own epistles, nor any of the books that are now the New Testament.

continues…

 

[Prieldedi]

continues…

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, received 6 of the 7 sacraments, and even trained my children in preparation for confession and their first communion (my wife to be was a widow with 3 children, the youngest was 10). I would say I understand what the church teaches about confession and communion (I have since come to reject the teaching completely, but that’s another topic).

I stand by what I said, you didn’t understand it, that’s why you reject it.

Still the assertion, but nothing other than church teaching to back up the claim.

What else do you need to believe in the Church’s teachings? A resurrected Paul, or Peter, or John? After they died, who protected the Gospel? The crowds? Like when Moses went up to the mountain? Did the crowd keep God’s word? No, it didn’t. Just the same, the Apostles and their successors are like Moses and Aaron in their time. Without Peter, the Apostles, Paul and their successors the crowd would get lost, just look at the protestant camp and the thousands of denominations. I’ll change thousands for the number 10 if you wish, still 10 is not ONE.

Jesus left a Church, not a book. He left MEN in charge, not pages and ink. It is because these men (the successors) say it that we have to believe it. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide them to the complete truth. The complete truth is therefore NOT in the Bible. So when the Church tells us we have to believe this or that, it’s not men speaking, it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them to the complete truth.

I used 2 different translations to indicate that there is some ambiguity in whether it’s “he” or “she” that crushes the serpent’s head. I see plenty of evidence to accept this as referring to Jesus, but only to Mary in the sense that He is the seed of the woman.

And as I pointed out above, there is some ambiguity in the verse, so there is no way to say for sure that it is Mary that will crush the serpent (makes no sense to me since it was Jesus that was crucified for us, not Mary; it was Jesus who died that death might be conquered, not Mary).

The one that crushes Satan’s head is the seed, Jesus. Depending on the language, it sometimes says “SHE will crush”, but in this sentence “she” is the seed, which in several languages is a feminine noun. The use of the pronoun SHE in this sentence confuses many who believe it’s referring to the Virgin Mary, but it’s Jesus.

Is that what that passage says? Really! Hey, all true Christians are the enemy of Satan, and will be forever (just like Mary). Of course, they weren’t always that way. In fact, just like Mary, they weren’t always here. Just like Mary, they had a beginning. Just like Mary, they were saved, and there is enmity between them and Satan. The question still remains unanswered - when was Mary saved and cleansed from sin? You believe it was from conception, not because the Scriptures require it, but because your “infallible” church has dogmatically declared it to be so. Bottom line - you cannot demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible!

But we are not the woman, Mary is the woman. The same woman Jesus calls woman at the Cana wedding. The same woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head mentioned in Revelation 12. The authority of the Church that you reject says it and that should be enough for any Catholic or Christian. Yes, you are free to reject what the Church says regarding Mary, that’s your choice. But just as you think that the Church cannot demonstrate the Immaculate Conception straight from the Bible, we Catholics say that the Immaculate Conception can be demonstrated straight from the Bible. We Catholics can see it, right from the Bible. The Bible can be hidden from us for life, but if a priest preaches us that Mary was Immaculate conceived we would still believe.

In the end it’s your personal opinion against a Church guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, you must provide proof that the Holy Spirit guides you instead of the Church to the complete truth.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

The problem is, I can (and have) demonstrate the fact that God has revealed Himself to us in Scripture as a triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and because of this, it is acceptable to refer to God as a Trinity. However, as I have demonstrated, there is absolutely NO indication in Scripture of exactly when Mary was saved (let alone made sinless).

Yet she presumed that the Lord was her savior, before He was even born. She also said that her soul magnifies the Lord. Magnifies. How could a creature’s soul magnify the Lord, unless there was something very unique about her?

Also, the Trinity was not quite so clear to many, as it took councils and much combating heresy to come to the conclusion that God is, in fact, a Trinity. It also took many councils to come to the conclusion that the Logos is not created, but begotten, and that He has both a human and divine nature. Yet you speak of these things as though they were crystal clear, when more brilliant men than us needed a council
guided by the Spirit to come to a conclusion (a method which you now deny is acceptable, for some reason).

Baloney! Look back and see how many times I pointed out that there was no argument about what was being said! Mary was saved - no argument. Mary was blessed - no argument. Mary is the mother of God - no argument (other than I prefer to keep to the Scriptures and call her the mother of the Son of God). It seems that with the presentation of all of these “arguments” in which there is no dispute, you can then justify the claim that Mary was immaculately conceived, even though there is no indication of this within the pages of Scripture (If Protestants agree with us that Mary was saved, blessed, and the mother of Messiah, then they should believe us when we say she was also immaculately conceived).

First, I am not saying that because all these things are present in Scripture, you must also believe the Immaculate Conception. I am demonstrating that God has done amazing things, and included Mary in these plans. Anything is possible with God, including the Immaculate Conception, and to say that this doctrine is ‘not His way’, is presumptuous and limits Him. I do not see why Mary cannot be the woman from Genesis, or the woman clothed with the sun and with a crown of 12 stars from Revelation, or why, based on all God did for her, and all the allusion to her and typology about her, she couldn’t have been free from sin. You say that our demonstration is lacking, because you interpret it differently. The Arians did the same against the Trinity, as have numerous sects throughout history.

Secondly, stating that Mary seemed very sure of her salvation, that she was highly favored/full of grace, merely supports the IC, which the Church, unified as the Body of Christ, with the teaching authority of the Apostles guided by Almighty God, has declared as Truth. Scripture does not need to explicitly mention a doctrine for a doctrine to be truth, otherwise even Protestants would not have many doctrines.

Because God’s ways are not our ways, and since He chose not to reveal this information to us, then to “infallibly” declare that He did (which is what the dogma does) is to go beyond what God has written. There are warnings about adding to God’s word (that’s what caused the fall in the first place).

Interesting, then, that the whole of the Trinitarian doctrines and doctrines of the dual nature of Christ come from early councils, from around the same time that Mary was declared the Mother of God, ever virgin, and Augustine speculated that she may have been without sin.

The Arians would disagree that the Trinity is not adding to the word of God, and they constituted a majority of the Church at times, if I’m not mistaken. I wonder how we resolved that dispute? Further, I wonder when that method became obsolete? I wonder when determining important questions of doctrine without any kind of council or authority became “God’s way”, when for so long, that was the way of men (Judaisers, Gnostics, Arians, ect)?

The focus of the Gospel is Jesus, not Mary. God honored her by making her most blessed, and telling us that is what she is. I find no reason to accept your speculation about what God may or may not have done.

Yes, Jesus is the focus. Yet her soul magnifies the Lord. Why is any of this even necessary for the Spirit to write through Luke? Because Mary magnifies the Lord. The Immaculate Conception does not take away from God; it gives Him glory, that He regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.

As I mentioned earlier, I chose to acknowledge her as the mother of the Son of God, which is what the Scriptures say of her.(see Luke 1:35).

You adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ’s dual nature, so she is, by default, the Mother of God. Elizabeth also calls her the ‘mother of my Lord’ in Luke. Thus, Mother of God. Whatever you choose to call her, she is what God has made her.

I am sorry that you have rejected the Church and believe that the Lord allowed His believers to go into apostasy for 1,000 years (or however long you determine based on which doctrines you disagree with. It would be more like 1500 if we were talking about the Real Presence or the authority of bishops or Apostolic succession). I also don’t appreciate your uncharitable tone (‘baloney!’ for instance), and ask that you be civil.

 

[Cachonga]

Prieldedi:

No, I meant who else besides the writer.

Already addressed in previous posts.

No, it was Luke who decided not to reveal where he got his information. Luke didn’t sit down and said “OK, Lord, I’m ready with pen and paper, start dictating”.

Are you saying that Luke left out something that God wanted included? Did any of the writers of Scripture ever include something that God didn’t want included? Seems to me that if you answer “yes” to either question then you don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Of course, God didn’t “dictate”, but He certainly approved of all that was written (IMHO).

Who told you Luke wrote Luke? The writer doesn’t say who he is. Why do you believe it was Luke?

Luke is generally accepted as the author of Luke and Acts from the earliest times (yes, I do believe in Traditions, just not the way you do).

What makes it reliable is the Church teaching that the writer was Luke. Another Church teaching, and not the Bible or Luke himself, says that Luke’s Gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The same Church said that the “Gospel of Peter” was not inspired by the Holy spirit and was left out of the Bible. If you reject the Church teaching on Mary, why do you accept the Church teaching that the Gospel writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Where is that in the Bible?

This is a fascinating discussion, but way off the topic (church authority). I’ll just ask when the Church “infallibly” declared that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke. If they didn’t, then it seems that you’re stuck with the same confidence that I have. Of course, who wrote what is off topic, so I suggest we drop it and stick to the topic.

I’m gonna turn the question back to you. Do you know of any official declaration of the Church in which the Church denies that Luke had a devotion for the Mother of his Savior? I ask you this because there are five icons (paintings) of Mary by St. Luke in existence today. The five icons are not the originals, they are copies of the originals made before they were destroyed by the passing of time. Before you jump and say anything I must remind you that there are no originals of the books of the Bible, only copies of copies.

This is getting way off topic! I will just say that forgeries are not uncommon in the Catholic Church (examples – Donations of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals). I’d like to see the source for the claim of St. Luke making icons of anyone.

BTW – one reason for rejecting the Gospel of Peter was it wasn’t written until about the middle of the 2nd century, which is a bit late for Peter to be writing anything.

That’s physical salvation, David was saved from bodily harm. We believe that Jesus had to die and rise before there was the chance of eternal salvation. That’s why Jesus was sent by the Father. The fact of the Messiah dying and resurrecting in order for us to be eternally saved was not taught in David’s time nor before Jesus arrival. That’s why the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus, that’s why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah even to this day.

So you’re saying God’s salvation before Jesus ascended was a physical salvation only? You’re asserting that nobody prior to the crucifixion even thought God’s salvation would be spiritual? And is God saving His chosen people any better since the crucifixion than He did before? I would say that God saves the same, regardless of when Jesus was physically crucified (as I pointed out, He is referred to as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8), and since He inspired the Scriptures, then I see no reason to believe David understood salvation differently than Mary (though the means of that salvation may have been understood differently).

Well sorry to disagree, but SlowerAndSlower did demonstrate it.

Apparently we agree to disagree.

When Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Scripture was only the Old Testament, the one with 46 books. He wasn’t referring to Luke’s Gospel, nor any of his own epistles, nor any of the books that are now the New Testament.

So is Genesis any more inspired than 2 Corinthians? Is the Old Testament more inspired than the New? Maybe (and this is just my own, fallible opinion), God, who inspired ALL of Scripture, had Paul write this as a means of confirming that All of Scripture is God-breathed!

I stand by what I said, you didn’t understand it, that’s why you reject it.

Obviously God has given you the ability to read my heart and know what I understand. And here I thought only my wife had that ability!

<continued…>

 

[Cachonga]

:

What else do you need to believe in the Church’s teachings? A resurrected Paul, or Peter, or John? After they died, who protected the Gospel? The crowds? Like when Moses went up to the mountain? Did the crowd keep God’s word? No, it didn’t. Just the same, the Apostles and their successors are like Moses and Aaron in their time. Without Peter, the Apostles, Paul and their successors the crowd would get lost, just look at the protestant camp and the thousands of denominations. I’ll change thousands for the number 10 if you wish, still 10 is not ONE.

Interesting how we’ve strayed off topic to this point. You bring up a question of authority, which is not part of the topic. You then mention “thousands” of Protestant denominations. Have you ever checked the source for that claim? I have. Interesting how it includes denominations that we would both consider non-Christian (like Mormons and JW’s). What I find most interesting is that the very source used (World Christian Encyclopedia) says there are over 1,000 Catholic denominations. To be fair, most of these are Orthodox, but it still indicates there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations. You may want to check sources before citing from them.

Jesus left a Church, not a book. He left MEN in charge, not pages and ink. It is because these men (the successors) say it that we have to believe it. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide them to the complete truth. The complete truth is therefore NOT in the Bible. So when the Church tells us we have to believe this or that, it’s not men speaking, it’s the Holy Spirit guiding them to the complete truth.

Now you’re just grandstanding. This is way off topic, which specifically addressed what could be demonstrated straight from the Bible. I’ll ask you (and feel free to treat it as rhetorical, since it’s off topic), why did God inspire a book (the Scriptures) if Tradition was what His Church would be run by?

The one that crushes Satan’s head is the seed, Jesus. Depending on the language, it sometimes says “SHE will crush”, but in this sentence “she” is the seed, which in several languages is a feminine noun. The use of the pronoun SHE in this sentence confuses many who believe it’s referring to the Virgin Mary, but it’s Jesus.

Yeah!!! Something we agree on! :extrahappy:

But we are not the woman, Mary is the woman. The same woman Jesus calls woman at the Cana wedding. The same woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head mentioned in Revelation 12. The authority of the Church that you reject says it and that should be enough for any Catholic or Christian. Yes, you are free to reject what the Church says regarding Mary, that’s your choice. But just as you think that the Church cannot demonstrate the Immaculate Conception straight from the Bible, we Catholics say that the Immaculate Conception can be demonstrated straight from the Bible. We Catholics can see it, right from the Bible. The Bible can be hidden from us for life, but if a priest preaches us that Mary was Immaculate conceived we would still believe.

And so, in the final analysis, you believe it because the Church says so, whether you find it in Scripture or not. So why even pretend that Scripture matters (another rhetorical question)?

In the end it’s your personal opinion against a Church guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, you must provide proof that the Holy Spirit guides you instead of the Church to the complete truth.

I never claimed to have complete truth. I never claimed to be infallible or perfect in any way. However, God gave me a mind, and He has communicated in His word in a language that men can understand (mostly be way of translations these days, but we still have writings in the original languages to look to). Fortunately, when I went to school they still taught students how to think, not just pass standardized tests that a trained monkey could pass (OK, I’m not very happy with the public school system). I learned how to read and comprehend; how to follow context and draw conclusions based on the written word. This may surprise you, but I do acknowledge the authority my Church has over me, and I can examine my conclusions with men who have studied and DO know the Biblical languages.

 

[Cachonga]

PeaceInChrist:

Yet she presumed that the Lord was her savior, before He was even born. She also said that her soul magnifies the Lord. Magnifies. How could a creature’s soul magnify the Lord, unless there was something very unique about her?

Psalm 33:4 reads “O magnify the Lord with me; and let us extol his name together.” (DRA). The psalmist not only magnified the Lord, but called on others to join him. And still, the question of WHEN was she saved is unanswered in Scripture.

FYI – I won’t respond to the Scriptural evidence for the Trinity. I’ve done it before, and it is not on topic.

First, I am not saying that because all these things are present in Scripture, you must also believe the Immaculate Conception. I am demonstrating that God has done amazing things, and included Mary in these plans. Anything is possible with God, including the Immaculate Conception, and to say that this doctrine is ‘not His way’, is presumptuous and limits Him. I do not see why Mary cannot be the woman from Genesis, or the woman clothed with the sun and with a crown of 12 stars from Revelation, or why, based on all God did for her, and all the allusion to her and typology about her, she couldn’t have been free from sin. You say that our demonstration is lacking, because you interpret it differently. The Arians did the same against the Trinity, as have numerous sects throughout history.

Secondly, stating that Mary seemed very sure of her salvation, that she was highly favored/full of grace, merely supports the IC, which the Church, unified as the Body of Christ, with the teaching authority of the Apostles guided by Almighty God, has declared as Truth. Scripture does not need to explicitly mention a doctrine for a doctrine to be truth, otherwise even Protestants would not have many doctrines.

Again, there is no dispute that God has done amazing things (just the fact that He saves anyone is amazing). I also agree that Mary could have been immaculately conceived. HOWEVER, since Scripture is silent about it, I see no reason to presume she was anything but a normal woman, at least until the annunciation. IF it was necessary for her to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus, God could have cleansed her completely right before the angel came in (didn’t have to be from conception). To deny that God could have cleansed her in this way is to limit God. So now, we’ve both been exposed as limiters of God. It comes back to the topic, demonstrating the immaculate conception straight from the Bible. I assert that it cannot be done, and so far, I haven’t had any Scriptural evidence that would require me to accept the dogma.

Interesting, then, that the whole of the Trinitarian doctrines and doctrines of the dual nature of Christ come from early councils, from around the same time that Mary was declared the Mother of God, ever virgin, and Augustine speculated that she may have been without sin.

The Arians would disagree that the Trinity is not adding to the word of God, and they constituted a majority of the Church at times, if I’m not mistaken. I wonder how we resolved that dispute? Further, I wonder when that method became obsolete? I wonder when determining important questions of doctrine without any kind of council or authority became “God’s way”, when for so long, that was the way of men (Judaisers, Gnostics, Arians, ect)?

Interesting that we stray off topic like this. Good discussion for church authority maybe, but not for this topic.

Yes, Jesus is the focus. Yet her soul magnifies the Lord. Why is any of this even necessary for the Spirit to write through Luke? Because Mary magnifies the Lord. The Immaculate Conception does not take away from God; it gives Him glory, that He regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.

And as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the psalmist magnifies the Lord and calls for others to join him. Was the psalmist also immaculately conceived? Does God not get glory from allowing a “normal” woman to give birth to His son?

I am sorry that you have rejected the Church and believe that the Lord allowed His believers to go into apostasy for 1,000 years (or however long you determine based on which doctrines you disagree with. It would be more like 1500 if we were talking about the Real Presence or the authority of bishops or Apostolic succession). I also don’t appreciate your uncharitable tone (‘baloney!’ for instance), and ask that you be civil.

I apologize for my tone, but in return I ask that you not continue to use arguments that are not arguments. If it’s something we all agree on, there is no need to bring it up. The topic is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception straight from the Bible”. I haven’t seen any evidence that Mary was saved (let alone sinless) from conception. By the arguments presented, the best I can agree to is that she was saved (and cleansed) some time prior to the annunciation. While this would include her conception, it would also preclude it, as it could have taken place at any time over a period of several years (we don’t know how old she was when the angel visited her, but it seems reasonable to suppose that she was at least 13).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Psalm 33:4 reads “O magnify the Lord with me; and let us extol his name together.” (DRA). The psalmist not only magnified the Lord, but called on others to join him. And still, the question of WHEN was she saved is unanswered in Scripture.

FYI – I won’t respond to the Scriptural evidence for the Trinity. I’ve done it before, and it is not on topic.

Again, there is no dispute that God has done amazing things (just the fact that He saves anyone is amazing). I also agree that Mary could have been immaculately conceived. HOWEVER, since Scripture is silent about it, I see no reason to presume she was anything but a normal woman, at least until the annunciation. IF it was necessary for her to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus, God could have cleansed her completely right before the angel came in (didn’t have to be from conception). To deny that God could have cleansed her in this way is to limit God. So now, we’ve both been exposed as limiters of God. It comes back to the topic, demonstrating the immaculate conception straight from the Bible. I assert that it cannot be done, and so far, I haven’t had any Scriptural evidence that would require me to accept the dogma.

Interesting that we stray off topic like this. Good discussion for church authority maybe, but not for this topic.

And as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the psalmist magnifies the Lord and calls for others to join him. Was the psalmist also immaculately conceived? Does God not get glory from allowing a “normal” woman to give birth to His son?

I apologize for my tone, but in return I ask that you not continue to use arguments that are not arguments. If it’s something we all agree on, there is no need to bring it up. The topic is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception straight from the Bible”. I haven’t seen any evidence that Mary was saved (let alone sinless) from conception. By the arguments presented, the best I can agree to is that she was saved (and cleansed) some time prior to the annunciation. While this would include her conception, it would also preclude it, as it could have taken place at any time over a period of several years (we don’t know how old she was when the angel visited her, but it seems reasonable to suppose that she was at least 13).

As I said in my posts, Scripture helps us demonstrate the IC, not prove it. As Catholics, we believe that Scripture cannot be read in an isolated context. Perhaps the OP claimed it could be proven (I can’t see the post right now so I don’t know), but, if I’m not mistaken, even in the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it was said that can’t be positively proved from Scripture (it isn’t explicitly mentioned).

However, the OP presented what I felt were good examples of support for the Immaculate Conception. You disagree with the interpretation, and say that it does not show the Immaculate Conception at all, and this is why I brought up the authority arguments as far as interpretation of the Trinity was concerned, because it is a similar concept (though I agree that, especially with the Gospel of John, the Trinity is more clearly supported than the graced nature of Mary).

Hopefully the OP will come back on to defend his positions, as I really can’t speak to his train of thought, though I like his examples.

But thank you for keeping a more civil tone. I know apologetic debates can get heated

 

[Prieldedi]

Already addressed in previous posts.

Are you saying that Luke left out something that God wanted included? Did any of the writers of Scripture ever include something that God didn’t want included? Seems to me that if you answer “yes” to either question then you don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Of course, God didn’t “dictate”, but He certainly approved of all that was written (IMHO).

Luke is generally accepted as the author of Luke and Acts from the earliest times (yes, I do believe in Traditions, just not the way you do).

I’d like to see the source for the claim of St. Luke making icons of anyone.

No, what I’m saying is that God let Luke write his Gospel, Luke had free will to include or exclude facts about Jesus and Mary. He doesn’t mention the wedding at Canna. Do you believe he never heard the story before he wrote his Gospel? I’m sure it was his calling to leave it out.

Tradition also says that Luke wanted to include all he could about Mary, but She insisted on having the focus of his Gospel on Her son Jesus, not on Her. (I have the feeling you’re gonna reject this Tradition)

Since Mary asked him not to write too much about Her, he decided to make those icons. There is a very old painting of Luke painting Mary and the baby Jesus. Google it… “Luke’s icons of Mary”, you’ll be surprised. (Luke is the patron saint of artists, physicians, surgeons, students, butchers)

This is a fascinating discussion, but way off the topic (church authority). I’ll just ask when the Church “infallibly” declared that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke. If they didn’t, then it seems that you’re stuck with the same confidence that I have. Of course, who wrote what is off topic, so I suggest we drop it and stick to the topic.

I wont say it is way off the topic. St. Augustine said:

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

This is getting way off topic! I will just say that forgeries are not uncommon in the Catholic Church (examples – Donations of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals).

BTW – one reason for rejecting the Gospel of Peter was it wasn’t written until about the middle of the 2nd century, which is a bit late for Peter to be writing anything.

I should’ve mention the Epistles of Clement instead. They were written before the end of the First Century, he is mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3 and he was the 4th Bishop of Rome (4th Pope), yet his writings were left out.

So you’re saying God’s salvation before Jesus ascended was a physical salvation only? You’re asserting that nobody prior to the crucifixion even thought God’s salvation would be spiritual? And is God saving His chosen people any better since the crucifixion than He did before? I would say that God saves the same, regardless of when Jesus was physically crucified (as I pointed out, He is referred to as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8), and since He inspired the Scriptures, then I see no reason to believe David understood salvation differently than Mary (though the means of that salvation may have been understood differently).

No… I’m not saying that. I’m saying that what David wrote is that he was saved by God from being killed. He was saved so he would continue among the living… he was saved from physical harm that would’ve cost him his life. Daniel comes to mind too, he was put in the fire and was saved by God who didn’t allow him to die. This salvation is similar to the ones lifeguards save when someone is drowning. That’s what I’m saying. Of course, being in the Bible it is a prefigure of eternal salvation.

Apparently we agree to disagree.

So is Genesis any more inspired than 2 Corinthians? Is the Old Testament more inspired than the New? Maybe (and this is just my own, fallible opinion), God, who inspired ALL of Scripture, had Paul write this as a means of confirming that All of Scripture is God-breathed!

But then again, WHO decides what is Scripture? When Paul wrote that it was only the Old Testament. When you say ALL of Scripture, how do you know which is and which isn’t Scripture? Why Clement epistles are not Scripture? Why do you accept they aren’t?

Obviously God has given you the ability to read my heart and know what I understand. And here I thought only my wife had that ability!

No, I don’t know your heart. I said that based on the testimonies of former Catholics who came back to the Church who walked similar paths as yours. I should know your path is unique. Sorry if I crossed a line I shouldn’t have crossed.

 

[Cachonga]

PeaceInChrist:

As I said in my posts, Scripture helps us demonstrate the IC, not prove it. As Catholics, we believe that Scripture cannot be read in an isolated context. Perhaps the OP claimed it could be proven (I can’t see the post right now so I don’t know), but, if I’m not mistaken, even in the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it was said that can’t be positively proved from Scripture (it isn’t explicitly mentioned).

The OP mentioned this in Objection 1. In his response to the objection, I got the feeling that he was saying that we now know better (or he knows better). I brought this up in my initial post, but have had no response from the OP as of yet.

However, the OP presented what I felt were good examples of support for the Immaculate Conception. You disagree with the interpretation, and say that it does not show the Immaculate Conception at all, and this is why I brought up the authority arguments as far as interpretation of the Trinity was concerned, because it is a similar concept (though I agree that, especially with the Gospel of John, the Trinity is more clearly supported than the graced nature of Mary).

The OP certainly presented the usual verses to support the claim, but there is still the question of when was Mary actually saved. Again, since the Scriptures are silent on this, it could have been from conception, but it could also have been right before the annunciation. Since this is supposedly being demonstrated straight from the Bible, what would your conclusion be, based only on the Scriptures? At best, I would say Ineffabilis Deus was correct when it said, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”.

Hopefully the OP will come back on to defend his positions, as I really can’t speak to his train of thought, though I like his examples.

I’d like to see that, too.

But thank you for keeping a more civil tone. I know apologetic debates can get heated

No problem. I try to keep it civil and respectful, but it’s not always possible (I’m sure you know that as well). I guess it didn’t help that I was having a fried baloney sandwich at the time!

 

[Prieldedi]

:Interesting how we’ve strayed off topic to this point. You bring up a question of authority, which is not part of the topic. You then mention “thousands” of Protestant denominations. Have you ever checked the source for that claim? I have. Interesting how it includes denominations that we would both consider non-Christian (like Mormons and JW’s). What I find most interesting is that the very source used (World Christian Encyclopedia) says there are over 1,000 Catholic denominations. To be fair, most of these are Orthodox, but it still indicates there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations. You may want to check sources before citing from them.

That’s why I reduce the number to ten denominatin. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church of Nicaragua is different than the Catholic Church of USA. We know they are the same.

Now you’re just grandstanding. This is way off topic, which specifically addressed what could be demonstrated straight from the Bible. I’ll ask you (and feel free to treat it as rhetorical, since it’s off topic), why did God inspire a book (the Scriptures) if Tradition was what His Church would be run by?

The Church runs by both. That’s what non Catholics reject. Nothing that the Church teaches is not found in the Bible. The Sanhedrin couldn’t put 2+2 with the Virgin birth, with Him being the Messiah. Jesus challenged them, “read the Scriptures”. That challenge is still up, now with non Catholics too.

Yeah!!! Something we agree on! :extrahappy:

Great!

And so, in the final analysis, you believe it because the Church says so, whether you find it in Scripture or not. So why even pretend that Scripture matters (another rhetorical question)?

As I said before, the Church relies on both, Scripture and Tradition. I use as an example the passage where Jesus uses parables when preaching and afterwards, in privacy, He explains them to the Apostles. Then I ask, where is the explanation of those parables in writing? Nowhere, yet for 2000 years Catholics and Protestants have been explaining them without a single written word of Jesus explanation of what they really meant. This is an example that proves (to me) the extra Bible teaching of the Church. There are more and we accept them, whether we like them or not.

I never claimed to have complete truth. I never claimed to be infallible or perfect in any way. However, God gave me a mind, and He has communicated in His word in a language that men can understand (mostly be way of translations these days, but we still have writings in the original languages to look to). Fortunately, when I went to school they still taught students how to think, not just pass standardized tests that a trained monkey could pass (OK, I’m not very happy with the public school system). I learned how to read and comprehend; how to follow context and draw conclusions based on the written word. This may surprise you, but I do acknowledge the authority my Church has over me, and I can examine my conclusions with men who have studied and DO know the Biblical languages.

Right, you never claimed to be infallible. Sorry once more.

Are you a baby boomer? I am. I was also taught how to think, I attended a very good jesuit school here in Nicaragua. I think that belonging to the generation that brought great changes to the world in all walks of life, including religious changes, most of us had doubts about our faith at one point or another in our lives. I’m part of a rebellious generation. I doubted, I questioned some of the Church’s teachings. To my human mind many are not logic, but I understand God’s logic is not human. My family on my mother’s side is Protestant, she converted before marrying my father (by the way, she’s from Missouri). I’m used to have this sort of conversation with my American family.

As Rick Salbato, a Catholic internet writer says, “The Bible is inspired by God but the reader is not.” He goes on to say “It amazed me how I could think that I could outsmart the Church in only one lifetime of study. Millions of lifetimes, millions of prayers over thousands of years, have poured into what we call the Doctrine of the Faith. Can it be wrong?” I recommend you to read his article here: The Greatest Prayer in the Bible - From Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Cachonga]

Prieldedi:

No, what I’m saying is that God let Luke write his Gospel, Luke had free will to include or exclude facts about Jesus and Mary. He doesn’t mention the wedding at Canna. Do you believe he never heard the story before he wrote his Gospel? I’m sure it was his calling to leave it out.

I’m sure he heard the story of the wedding. Did he leave it out because of his free will or because God didn’t need him to report it (since it’s recorded for us already in other Gospels)? In regard to Mary’s salvation, did he not mention it was from conception, because of his free will, because God didn’t want us to know, or maybe (and this is a radical idea to some) it didn’t happen?

Tradition also says that Luke wanted to include all he could about Mary, but She insisted on having the focus of his Gospel on Her son Jesus, not on Her. (I have the feeling you’re gonna reject this Tradition)

It’s definitely a tradition I’m not familiar with. I will withhold judgement until I can investigate it further. A quick examination into the icons supposedly painted by Luke seems (upon initial investigation) to be as authentic as the Donations of Constantine. I don’t think I’ve seen any reported prior to the 4th century. I will, however, continue to look into this as well.

I wont say it is way off the topic. St. Augustine said:

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Since the topic is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible”, authority issues are irrelevant, as well as what any ECF may have said about the topic (and I can find out-of-context quotes from ECF’s to support just about anything I want, which is why I don’t bother quoting them).

But then again, WHO decides what is Scripture? When Paul wrote that it was only the Old Testament. When you say ALL of Scripture, how do you know which is and which isn’t Scripture? Why Clement epistles are not Scripture? Why do you accept they aren’t?

This is off topic, but I would say that God decides what Scripture is. Just a passing thought, Paul was trained as a Pharisee, so what OT canon was he referring to as Scripture? Treat this as rhetorical and something to think about.

No, I don’t know your heart. I said that based on the testimonies of former Catholics who came back to the Church who walked similar paths as yours. I should know your path is unique. Sorry if I crossed a line I shouldn’t have crossed.

You’re right, we are unique. The point I was trying to make (and I think I succeeded) is that you don’t know very much about my life. I mentioned training my children as an example, but you still did’t know that I began school in a private Catholic school, that I started school right before Vatican II, that I was very active in church, I was a reader, a team leader on youth retreats, and even went to mass 6 days a week when I was in high school (hey, even God took a day off, right?). And still, this isn’t all there is to me and my experience. Live and learn!

That’s why I reduce the number to ten denominatin. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church of Nicaragua is different than the Catholic Church of USA. We know they are the same.

And yet Catholic’s continue to use this source incorrectly. Since it’s off topic, I won’t say anymore about it.

Are you a baby boomer? I am. I was also taught how to think, I attended a very good jesuit school here in Nicaragua. I think that belonging to the generation that brought great changes to the world in all walks of life, including religious changes, most of us had doubts about our faith at one point or another in our lives. I’m part of a rebellious generation. I doubted, I questioned some of the Church’s teachings. To my human mind many are not logic, but I understand God’s logic is not human. My family on my mother’s side is Protestant, she converted before marrying my father (by the way, she’s from Missouri). I’m used to have this sort of conversation with my American family.

Baby boomer, and (like many good Catholics would say) I would be an only child if not for my 5 brothers and 5 sisters (my dad claimed to be an oversexed Baptist, but I never saw him go to church or read a Bible). My parents immigrated to Texas from Indiana, and at my mothers funeral, her best friend of 77 years told us that she was planning to be a nun after graduation. Instead she met dad and got married (good for me - I’d feel funny caller her “Sister Mom”). This is really off topic, so I suggest we not continue this except maybe by PM.

 

[SlowerAndSlower]

To PeaceInChrist,
Thank you for being the first in these forums to give positive feedback to
what I consider to be an apologetic gift.

To Cachonga in posts #2, #16, #18, #21, #23, #27, #28, #29, #32, #34
Thank you for your extensive consideration of the reasoning!

Recall that prior to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, there was no
atonement for sins, as it says in Hebrews 10:4 “For it is impossible for
the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Those who died before Christ
did were waiting for the pivotal event, for salvation was possible to them
afterwards, as indicated in Matthew 27:52 describing events immediately subsequent
to the crucifixion “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the
saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After the
resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and
appeared to many.”

As expressed in step 1-4 of the original post, from Luke 1:47 it is shown
that in the period prior to Christ’s sacrificial death that Mary is in a
“saved” state (unlike those of the saints who had fallen asleep).
As expressed in step 5, with no atonement for sin possible
at that time, the only way to be in the “saved” state (a state of grace)
is to be without original sin and to have never sinned.
For a hypothetical person in a “saved” state now,
the stringent requirement of never having sinned is removed (thanks be
to God! Praised be Jesus Christ, true God and true man!))

For space limitations, the original post is really only the outline of
the reasoning. To formally develop the reasoning will take dissertations
(which I encourage) and books. Because of the same space limitations,
the original post only mentioned the Old Testament passages.

In the Old Testament, many references to vindicator or savior
are in the context of struggles and battles on earth. David is
specifically mentioned as being a sinner with Bathsheba (it is clear that
he is not immaculately conceived), but some of his writing is prophetic.
In the New Testament, the context is the salvation of Christ coming to
Israel and then to the gentiles.

To teeboy in Post #4, 15
If you identify a weak assumption, that can help make the reasoning stronger.

To cap76 in Post #5
It is not assumed that “having Jesus as Savior = sinlessness”, as in never having
sinned for someone living after Jesus’ death. However, when we are forgiven
of our sins by Jesus, it is as if we had never sinned, though we may still
have a debt of temporal punishment.

To PeaceInChrist in Post #6, #8, #17, #22, #26, #30
Thank you for your posts with many good points.

To teeboy in Post #7, #11, #12
Thank you for your post on various subjects.

To roselily in Post #9
Yes, these are some of the rich, related verses from the old testament.

To roselily in Post #10
I share your hope that all Christians be one!
If this line of reasoning has value, it will not be that Catholics might
sleep through a revised homily on or about Dec. 8 (Feast of the
Immaculate Conception), nor that some textbooks might be revised, but
it is hoped that many of those who have an intellectual difficulty
with Mary will overcome it and thus come closer to Christ - that better
appreciating the dizzying heights of her holiness, the infinitely greater
glory of God will be better appreciated.

To Prieldedi in Post #13, #14, #19, #20, #24, #25, #31, #33
Thanks for many good posts!

It is the Catholic Encyclopedia that wrote “No direct or categorical
and stringent proof can be brought forward from Scripture”.
Ineffabilis Deus
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
gives many rich scriptural passages that point to Mary’s immaculateness.

 

[Cachonga]

SlowerAndSlower:

Recall that prior to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, there was no
atonement for sins, as it says in Hebrews 10:4 “For it is impossible for
the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Those who died before Christ
did were waiting for the pivotal event, for salvation was possible to them
afterwards, as indicated in Matthew 27:52 describing events immediately subsequent
to the crucifixion “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the
saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After the
resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and
appeared to many.”

Fascinating, but not relevant. God’s salvation of His people is complete and perfect regardless of whether it was BC or AD. Furthermore (and more to the topic), I still haven’t seen anything that would require me to believe Mary was immaculately conceived. Saved - Yes, but when? At what point in her life? It’s been argued that God could have created her sinless (like the dogma declares), and I acknowledge that God COULD have done that, but I also recognize that God is great enough that He could cleanse a “normal” woman perfectly, and He could have done it at any point in her life. If you have Scriptural proof that this salvation was from conception, and that it meant she was without all stain of sin, I would be very interested to see it.

As expressed in step 1-4 of the original post, from Luke 1:47 it is shown
that in the period prior to Christ’s sacrificial death that Mary is in a
“saved” state (unlike those of the saints who had fallen asleep).
As expressed in step 5, with no atonement for sin possible
at that time, the only way to be in the “saved” state (a state of grace)
is to be without original sin and to have never sinned.
For a hypothetical person in a “saved” state now,
the stringent requirement of never having sinned is removed (thanks be
to God! Praised be Jesus Christ, true God and true man!))

We all agree Mary was saved. That’s not an argument. When did this take place? that’s the question that you need to answer from Scripture to prove your claim. You assert that “at that time, the only way to be in the “saved” state (a state of grace) is to be without original sin and to have never sinned.” Can you please show me that from Scripture? This appears to me to be nothing more than an assertion based on the dogma, but not from Scripture.

For space limitations, the original post is really only the outline of
the reasoning. To formally develop the reasoning will take dissertations
(which I encourage) and books. Because of the same space limitations,
the original post only mentioned the Old Testament passages.

Luke 1:47 is from the Old Testament? Leave that aside, you still have not shown from the Bible when Mary was saved (let alone sinless and/or free from original sin). I haven’t even brought up the fact that Mary (being a law-abiding, Jewish woman) made sin offerings (a strange thing for someone without sin, wouldn’t you say?).

In the Old Testament, many references to vindicator or savior
are in the context of struggles and battles on earth. David is
specifically mentioned as being a sinner with Bathsheba (it is clear that
he is not immaculately conceived), but some of his writing is prophetic.
In the New Testament, the context is the salvation of Christ coming to
Israel and then to the gentiles.

So when David calls God his savior, it’s prophetic, but when Mary says it, it’s not? I would suggest that the meaning was the same for David as it was for Mary. Be that as it may, it STILL doesn’t answer the question of WHEN was Mary saved! This is what the entire discussion comes down to. Can you show from Scripture that Mary was immaculately conceived or just that she was saved at some point in time?

 

[SlowerAndSlower]

Cachonga,
Thank you for your response.

As you say, “God is great”. His justice is perfect. His mercy is infinite.
With these immense factors, he still puts himself under some constraints, such
as respecting the free will of men. Another constraint concerns the
forgiveness of sins: In Acts 4:12,
referring to Jesus, Peter said:“There is salvation in no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” In 1 Cor 15:3
“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” For
a hypothetical “normal” woman prior to Christ’s death, there was no “cleansing”
possible. It was at this time that Mary is in a “saved” or “clean” state,
for which it is necessary to never have been “sullied”. Thus, the Immaculate
Conception follows by a process of elimination.

Regarding sin offerings by Mary, note that Christ, though sinless,
presented himself to be baptized by John the Baptist. John objected, but
Jesus responded “Let it be so now; for it is proper in this way to
fulfull all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). The same reasoning may be
applied to Mary.

 

[Cachonga]

SlowerAndSlower:

As you say, “God is great”. His justice is perfect. His mercy is infinite.
With these immense factors, he still puts himself under some constraints, such
as respecting the free will of men. Another constraint concerns the
forgiveness of sins:

Not that it’s part of the topic, but we have as much “free will” before God as a 2 year old has with his parents!

In Acts 4:12,
referring to Jesus, Peter said:“There is salvation in no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” In 1 Cor 15:3
“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” For
a hypothetical “normal” woman prior to Christ’s death, there was no “cleansing”
possible. It was at this time that Mary is in a “saved” or “clean” state,
for which it is necessary to never have been “sullied”. Thus, the Immaculate
Conception follows by a process of elimination.

You’re grasping at straws (or straw men), and continue to base your conclusion on the dogma, not the Scripture. The fact is there is no mention in Scripture of when Mary was cleansed, and without this there is no way to demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible.

Regarding sin offerings by Mary, note that Christ, though sinless,
presented himself to be baptized by John the Baptist. John objected, but
Jesus responded “Let it be so now; for it is proper in this way to
fulfull all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). The same reasoning may be
applied to Mary.

I’ve been through this before, but quickly, John’s baptism was NOT for forgiveness of sin, but to turn the hearts of the people toward God (and marked the beginning of the public life and ministry of Jesus, which is an important and significant point in time). On the other hand, the sin offerings made by Mary were specifically identified and required by the Law of Moses (see Lev 12:6-8 and Lev 15:28-30). Furthermore, she made sin offerings on a regular basis for many years (unless you don’t think she had a normal menstrual cycle, which is also not supported by the Bible).

 

[roselily]

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.

Yes!

Those who do not honour O Most Holy Mother,:’ it is those kind spirits not from God.

 

[roselily]

To roselily in Post #9
Yes, these are some of the rich, related verses from the old testament.

To roselily in Post #10
I share your hope that all Christians be one!
If this line of reasoning has value, it will not be that Catholics might
sleep through a revised homily on or about Dec. 8 (Feast of the
Immaculate Conception), nor that some textbooks might be revised, but
it is hoped that many of those who have an intellectual difficulty
with Mary will overcome it and thus come closer to Christ - that better
appreciating the dizzying heights of her holiness, the infinitely greater
glory of God will be better appreciated.

True!

O mother of God, O Most Holy Mother!:angel1:

:’ I know that it is Mary, who, come to us first; and we have much more blessings.
.See there will be many level heavens for all God children, each will be reward accordingly ,
Could us ask mother of God, we will come more closer to Christ.
in this world we have sufferings, but
there will be the kingdom of God New heavens and new earth Paradise awaits us.
and there the Redeemer, kind and merciful.
surrender ourself into His Mercy
and He will lead us,
the glorious inheritance of our future which awaits us.
and eternal happiness inexhaustible.