Immaculate conceptions in the Bible, ...Mary?

[brb3]

Let’s start from your premise that Mary only became immaculate once she had Christ within her womb. How is it then that the angel greets her as immaculate before she has even agreed to be His mother, let alone conceived Him? Clearly she was already immaculate prior to the point where she conceived Christ

Good points Lily … U r sharp ! I must admit that scripture indicates she was fully graced PRIOR TO Christ’s miraculous conception within her womb. So, her Baptism FOLLOWED her receipt of HS.
And she was sinless at some point prior to her 1st month onset. Was it at first appearing of Gabriel, as child, or at conception ? As long as she is purified at or before having her egg fertilized by HS …would it make any difference at what age it happened ? Scripture doesn’t need to tell us every detail …

 

[brb3]

Brb3 why don’t you just use common sense rather than scripture?
Would God, in his infinite wisdom, choose a sinful women to bear a sinless child, to make the word flesh?

U anticipated my answer in preceding post !!

 

[brb3]

So, for crying out loud …why didn’t early church bring this topic into their writings ? Were they too scared that 1-3 rd century church couldn’t handle such a revelation of a SuperSaint woman ? Did we have to wait 18 centuries to announce the news …officially ?

 

[brb3]

“Supersaint?”

Honey, if you want to be a 1st and 2nd century Catholic, you are out of luck. That ship has sailed. Only people who lived in the 1st and 2nd century were supposed to be 1st or 2nd century Catholics. Teachings are timeless, not bound to ‘1st and 2nd century’. And that belief of ‘sine qua none’ being ‘1st and 2nd century Catholics beliefs’ is itself not Scriptural.

Alas… those were the days of yore…before tradition overwhelmed scripture!!!

 

[Scoobyshme]

Food for thought…

Protestants overemphasize Scripture to the exclusion of the whole Word of God. The Word of God is Sacred Tradition + Holy Scripture. John 21;25 says that NOT everything Jesus said, did, and taught is IN the Scriptures. Yet, in Matt. 28:20, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and teach ALL that He had taught them (both in word and deed). So, Scripture is not the whole of Divine Revelation.

When Jesus roamed the earth, He never wrote a book, nor did He command anyone else to write a book. He taught ORALLY. They called Him “Rabbi” (Teacher). The Apostles taught orally. The New Testament wasn’t assembled till the fourth century, by the successors of the Apostles, the Pope and bishops in union with him. They had to go through over 300 documents and letters that were considered holy, to choose which ones went into the New Testament. They only chose 27.

Also, keep in mind that it has only been since the late 1800’s, early 1900’s that universal literacy was of concern to society. The Industrial Revolution brought this on. Before that, it wasn’t necessary for the vast majority of people to read or write to make a living and survive. So, a “Bible-reading” church was not just impracticle. It was impossible, except for the elite few who could read!

So, what did Jesus leave us as a guide to the fullness of His truths? A book? NO! The Church, which is His Mystical Body! So the question should not be, “Where is such and such in the Scriptures?” The question should be, “What does the Church, founded and guided by Christ, teach about such and such.”

 

[shreek]

I really don’t think this is an issue. Even Luther and Calvin upheld the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It’s only really evangelicals, baptists, and the like that deny it, a very very minute part of Christianity let alone Protestantism.

 

[TimothyH]

The immaculate conception is all over scripture. It’s all over the place. It is all through Scripture for one who is able to see it.

***He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim *and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

Mary is the tree of life. The fruit of Mary is Jesus, which gives us eternal life. God protected the tree of life - Mary - from the beginning of time with a cherubim and sword.

As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

If the ark of the covenant is seen as a prefigurment of Mary, then we can clearly see God preserving her integrity and purity. No one, expecially a man, was to touch the ark. No one was to touch Mary. Her purity was protected by God from the beginning of her existence, just like the ark. From the moment God told Moses to build the ark, no one was to touch it.

Many of the holy women of the Old Tesament forshadow Mary’s absolute purity and cleanliness from the time of her conception. One of the most beautiful stories is of Judith, who aided by God, maintained absolute purity and sanctity in the face of great peril.

As the Lord lives, who has protected me in the path I have followed, I swear that it was my face that seduced Holofernes to his ruin, and that he did not sin with me to my defilement or disgrace. (Judith 13:16)

Again, purity, perfection, sinlessness. I really want to ask whether anyone studies scripture? It’s all over the place in scripture.

When we read scripture as a unified whole - assuming we read it at all - all the prefigurments of Mary tell us that she was pure from the moment she began to exist.

-Tim-

 

[brb3]

T

The immaculate conception is all over scripture. It’s all over the place. It is all through Scripture for one who is able to see it.

***He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim ***and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

Mary is the tree of life. The fruit of Mary is Jesus, which gives us eternal life. God protected the tree of life - Mary - from the beginning of time with a cherubim and sword.

As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

If the ark of the covenant is seen as a prefigurment of Mary, then we can clearly see God preserving her integrity and purity. No one, expecially a man, was to touch the ark. No one was to touch Mary. Her purity was protected by God from the beginning of her existence, just like the ark. From the moment God told Moses to build the ark, no one was to touch it.

Many of the holy women of the Old Tesament forshadow Mary’s absolute purity and cleanliness from the time of her conception. One of the most beautiful stories is of Judith, who aided by God, maintained absolute purity and sanctity in the face of great peril.

As the Lord lives, who has protected me in the path I have followed, I swear that it was my face that seduced Holofernes to his ruin, and that he did not sin with me to my defilement or disgrace. (Judith 13:16)

Again, purity, perfection, sinlessness. I really want to ask whether anyone studies scripture? It’s all over the place in scripture.

When we read scripture as a unified whole - assuming we read it at all - all the prefigurments of Mary tell us that she was pure from the moment she began to exist.

-Tim

Tim…
Where did u come up with these scriptural connections to Mary ? Which ECF first searched scriptures for such & wrote of ? Origen perhaps ?

 

[brb3]

That is NOT Scriptural and it has not been a Christian teaching. Where did you find it?
I need to qualify this idea. It would not of been a Baptism of Blood, but rather Water. Its the plasma with antibodies that is exchanged between mom & fetus. The RBC bloodcells are too large to get across amniotic barriers. And, its mainly maternal plasma components going to fetus …not fetal to mom. Only at delivery does a minimal exchange of fetal to mom transfer of Blood & plasma occur.

So, I’d have to say its not a fetal baptism of mom …during gestational 9 months. But, at birth … yes, in actuality, one could say it happened !!

 

[De_Montfort]

The immaculate conception is all over scripture. It’s all over the place. It is all through Scripture for one who is able to see it.

***He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim ***and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

Mary is the tree of life. The fruit of Mary is Jesus, which gives us eternal life. God protected the tree of life - Mary - from the beginning of time with a cherubim and sword.

As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

If the ark of the covenant is seen as a prefigurment of Mary, then we can clearly see God preserving her integrity and purity. No one, expecially a man, was to touch the ark. No one was to touch Mary. Her purity was protected by God from the beginning of her existence, just like the ark. From the moment God told Moses to build the ark, no one was to touch it.

Many of the holy women of the Old Tesament forshadow Mary’s absolute purity and cleanliness from the time of her conception. One of the most beautiful stories is of Judith, who aided by God, maintained absolute purity and sanctity in the face of great peril.

As the Lord lives, who has protected me in the path I have followed, I swear that it was my face that seduced Holofernes to his ruin, and that he did not sin with me to my defilement or disgrace. (Judith 13:16)

Again, purity, perfection, sinlessness. I really want to ask whether anyone studies scripture? It’s all over the place in scripture.

When we read scripture as a unified whole - assuming we read it at all - all the prefigurments of Mary tell us that she was pure from the moment she began to exist.

-Tim-

Tim awesome post I have learned a lot from your posts on Mary in Scripture!
Your post also affirms that St. Louis de Montfort calling Mary the Tree of Life is indeed scriptural!
Thank you for your post!

 

[John_oxios]

Adam and Eve weren’t conceived (although they were created without original sin).

Isaac? I’ve never heard of this notion. Where do you see him as being immaculately conceived?

**It’s a pious conjecture that John the Baptist was conceived without original sin, based solely on the observation that he leaped in the womb **when he heard Mary’s greeting. This isn’t official Church teaching, though, to the best of my knowledge.

Hello,
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the Womb of Elizabeth:

Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,** and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.**

Luk 1:16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,

Luk 1:17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared

John would be specially consecrated to God all the days of his life, as Samson should have been. He was named by God even before he was conceived, and had a unique filling of the Holy Spirit.

It is often discussed among theologians that John was born sinless because he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the Womb, whats filled can’t be filled anymore.

But I believe it is not official teaching of the Church as in Doctrine or Dogma.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I need to qualify this idea. It would not of been a Baptism of Blood, but rather Water. Its the plasma with antibodies that is exchanged between mom & fetus. The RBC bloodcells are too large to get across amniotic barriers. And, its mainly maternal plasma components going to fetus …not fetal to mom. Only at delivery does a minimal exchange of fetal to mom transfer of Blood & plasma occur.

So, I’d have to say its not a fetal baptism of mom …during gestational 9 months. But, at birth … yes, in actuality, one could say it happened !!

Hi,
This is a southern Baptist teaching, Not Catholic! It denies Mary as a true mother and is the reason Baptists refer to Mary as merely a vessel.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

So, for crying out loud …why didn’t early church bring this topic into their writings ? Were they too scared that 1-3 rd century church couldn’t handle such a revelation of a SuperSaint woman ? Did we have to wait 18 centuries to announce the news …officially ?

Hello,
Church’s were named in Mary’s Honor for her role in our Salvation since the first the 1st century,

Can God and sin coincide? Mary receives the full presence of God in Trintiy, Like no other person since Adam and Eve.

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Mary was prepared by God to carry Jesus as his Human mother, made in the flesh.

Remember, No Mary! No Jesus!

Catholics Hold Mary in Honor above all men, yet still beneath God.
the Latin Term for Mary is Hyper-Dulia.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

The immaculate conception is all over scripture. It’s all over the place. It is all through Scripture for one who is able to see it.

***He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim ***and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

Mary is the tree of life. The fruit of Mary is Jesus, which gives us eternal life. God protected the tree of life - Mary - from the beginning of time with a cherubim and sword.

-Tim-

Hi Tim,
Going to have to disagree with you on this point, Jesus is the ‘Tree of Life’ from which we eat to receive Eternal Life. Christ on the Cross saves us.

In Fact God’s act of Mercy was to keep Adam and Eve, from entering the Garden again was to prevent them from eating of the tree of Life and sinning to keep them from being eternally damned.

Mary becomes our spiritual Mother and Queen when we accept God’s Son, Jesus as our King ,we become his brethren.

God bless,
John

 

[BiologyBrain]

I need to qualify this idea. It would not of been a Baptism of Blood, but rather Water. Its the plasma with antibodies that is exchanged between mom & fetus. The RBC bloodcells are too large to get across amniotic barriers. And, its mainly maternal plasma components going to fetus …not fetal to mom. Only at delivery does a minimal exchange of fetal to mom transfer of Blood & plasma occur.

So, I’d have to say its not a fetal baptism of mom …during gestational 9 months. But, at birth … yes, in actuality, one could say it happened !!

I’m new to this discussion and board, but felt the need to comment.

First, at the moment of conception changes take place to the Mother’s body that are instantaneous, irrefutable, and everlasting. That is true for “normal” conceptions. How much more so would that be the case with Mary and Jesus?

Second, immunoglobulins (antibodies, etc) are primary products of white blood cells. Therefore, there is an exchange of blood prior to delivery. The blood in question just isn’t the red blood we’re used to thinking about.

Third, when the ECF’s wrote of Mary being sinless they wouldn’t have specified that she was conceived that way. At that time, conception was definitely not fully understood. Human eggs were not thought of and sperm cells had not been visualized yet. Most people thought that the man’s seed contained fully formed humans that merely needed to be incubated by the woman. The female component of reproduction was not fully known or understood.

Fourth, even if Scripture and the ECF’s were completely silent on Mary’s sinless nature, we have thousands of references, studies, and critiques of her ever sinless nature. As knowledge progressed, more research was done into various areas of the Faith. The ECF’s don’t speak against IVF or gunning down innocents because those two concepts (artificial conception and guns) were not yet in the minds of man. Although Scripture and Tradition were inspired by God, He couldn’t overload man’s feeble mind with thing that had yet to be discovered. The story of the Incarnation and Eucharist was already stretching the minds of these holy men. If people of the day waked away from Christ because He told them “my flesh is real food, and my blood is true drink. Unless you eat of the Son of Man you shall not have life within you” (I’m paraphrasing, sorry I’m no bible scholar), wouldn’t they really have thought He (and His followers later) were nuts for talking about His mother’s state of sin(lessness) at her conception? How much more would talk of conception, antibodies, etc have confused the ECF’s?

Fifth, in an effort to be parsimonious, wouldn’t it be most logical to believe that the moment of Mary’s conception, while performed in the “normal” way, she was “destined” together NT Ark of the Covenant and therefore when God created her soul, He did so without staining it with original sin? It complicates matters to assign Mary’s soul original sin at conception, but wipe it clean at a later date. The most simple (simplest) answer is usually correct… The most simple answer is that God knew Mary at her conception and knew she was to be the Mother of His Son; so He preserved her from original sin when He breathed life into her.

 

[brb3]

        Going to have to disagree with you on this point,  Jesus is the 'Tree of Life......

In Fact God’s act of Mercy was to keep Adam and Eve, from entering the Garden again was to prevent them from eating of the tree of Life and sinning to keep them from being eternally damned.

Uhh…

John—

Something doesn’t sound right on the what u say here on Adam & Eva … in the Garden, …that last paragraph above. Please clarify what u have posted !!

 

[brb3]

Hello,
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the Womb of Elizabeth:

Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,** and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.**

Luk 1:16 And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,

Luk 1:17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared

John would be specially consecrated to God all the days of his life, as Samson should have been. He was named by God even before he was conceived, and had a unique filling of the Holy Spirit.

It is often discussed among theologians that John was born sinless because he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the Womb, whats filled can’t be filled anymore.

But I believe it is not official teaching of the Church as in Doctrine or Dogma.

God bless,
John

Now,…I do like what u say here, on John’s IC status

Most Catholics disagree with me when I state your beliefs on John…but, Catholics here on CAF often tend to believe solely whats in CCC, Papal Bulls, dogmatic docs, etc …and don’t think they can read scripture ‘for all its worth’ …as St. Paul taught we should.

 

[brb3]

I’m new to this discussion and board, but felt the need to comment.

Fifth, in an effort to be parsimonious, wouldn’t it be most logical to believe that the moment of Mary’s conception, while performed in the “normal” way, she was “destined” together NT Ark of the Covenant and therefore when God created her soul, He did so without staining it with original sin? It complicates matters to assign Mary’s soul original sin at conception, but wipe it clean at a later date. The most simple (simplest) answer is usually correct… The most simple answer is that God knew Mary at her conception and knew she was to be the Mother of His Son; so He preserved her from original sin when He breathed life into her.

Except for Mary’s own testimony, as told to Luke, and recorded in his Gospel. /// Where Mary acknowledged Jesus as her SAVIOR. (From Orig. Sin no doubt, and possibly Personal sin,)------- …if she was 'saved in adulthood, prior to (or at) Gabriel’s appearance.

 

[Ophelia23]

I’m new to this discussion and board, but felt the need to comment.

First, at the moment of conception changes take place to the Mother’s body that are instantaneous, irrefutable, and everlasting. That is true for “normal” conceptions. How much more so would that be the case with Mary and Jesus?

Second, immunoglobulins (antibodies, etc) are primary products of white blood cells. Therefore, there is an exchange of blood prior to delivery. The blood in question just isn’t the red blood we’re used to thinking about.

Third, when the ECF’s wrote of Mary being sinless they wouldn’t have specified that she was conceived that way. At that time, conception was definitely not fully understood. Human eggs were not thought of and sperm cells had not been visualized yet. Most people thought that the man’s seed contained fully formed humans that merely needed to be incubated by the woman. The female component of reproduction was not fully known or understood.

Fourth, even if Scripture and the ECF’s were completely silent on Mary’s sinless nature, we have thousands of references, studies, and critiques of her ever sinless nature. As knowledge progressed, more research was done into various areas of the Faith. The ECF’s don’t speak against IVF or gunning down innocents because those two concepts (artificial conception and guns) were not yet in the minds of man. Although Scripture and Tradition were inspired by God, He couldn’t overload man’s feeble mind with thing that had yet to be discovered. The story of the Incarnation and Eucharist was already stretching the minds of these holy men. If people of the day waked away from Christ because He told them “my flesh is real food, and my blood is true drink. Unless you eat of the Son of Man you shall not have life within you” (I’m paraphrasing, sorry I’m no bible scholar), wouldn’t they really have thought He (and His followers later) were nuts for talking about His mother’s state of sin(lessness) at her conception? How much more would talk of conception, antibodies, etc have confused the ECF’s?

Fifth, in an effort to be parsimonious, wouldn’t it be most logical to believe that the moment of Mary’s conception, while performed in the “normal” way, she was “destined” together NT Ark of the Covenant and therefore when God created her soul, He did so without staining it with original sin? It complicates matters to assign Mary’s soul original sin at conception, but wipe it clean at a later date. The most simple (simplest) answer is usually correct… The most simple answer is that God knew Mary at her conception and knew she was to be the Mother of His Son; so He preserved her from original sin when He breathed life into her.

:clapping: This is an excellent post. Really well done!

 

[ahs]

So, for crying out loud …why didn’t early church bring this topic into their writings ?

Why would they have needed to? Was there any doubt on the matter that you have discovered from the first centuries?

Were they too scared that 1-3 rd century church couldn’t handle such a revelation of a SuperSaint woman ?

OR was there simply no reason to pronounce something that was universally accepted on the basis of Oral Tradition? HAve you discovered anything from the early Church that would suggest the earliest Christians were affraid to teach the earliest Christians? I have seen the opposite…that they proclaimed the Truth even under pain of death. So I doubt they were “scared” of anything.

Did we have to wait 18 centuries to announce the news …officially ?

What makes you think it was not announced officially? Just because it was not written down? Does the Church make official proclamations on every matter of Doctrine even when there are no debates or heretical claims being made?

Why would the Church need to include such in any writing from the first centuries? My guess is that it was such common knowledge that it didn’t need to be explicitly written out until many centuries later. But the main point is that all of our Christian Faith doesn’t need to written out explicitly in order for it to be true. Or do you suppose that it does?