Mary as Immaculate Conception

[grndslm]

No.

I’m saying that Christianity is the first religion to include a REAL Virgin Birth.

That’s what I’m trying to figure out… What makes you so sure that there weren’t others before? And that Jesus’ conception was truly “immaculate” to begin with??

Every bit of “Sacred Scripture” you have is hearsay as far as I can tell. So what else is there?

 

[onenow1]

=onenow “Leslie who is the Lord Elizabeth is speaking of in above the verses ? Elizabeth recognizes, the honor the Lord has given to her, Isn’t this obvious in the verse: she asks, how she is deserving of her presence.” I never said that she did not give birth tho Jesus,

Mary’s response to Elizabeth.

Luke1:
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

=onenow " Wow ! Mary’s been saved already ! 'And she needed to be

48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me BLESSED; That can be pronounced 2 ways…

=onenow "Can you explain this verse 48 to us and why only Catholics do this?"Blessed is a far cry from my Mother…my mothers name is Susan…She was Jesus mother, and then given to John…Not the world

49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. We canm all say that.

=onenow "What do you suppose these great things the Lord has done for Mary "?I don’t know, nothing is specificaly named…but He has done great things for us all…

50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. Absolutly. His mercy, not Mary’s

=onenow

51 He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, Right again

"All these words are inspired of the Holy Spirit, the words of God."Your right, See there are some things we can agree on…

#47 Yup !

#48

#49 Indeed ! But none of us will ever have the privilage of raising Jesus !

50 She is the Mother of Mercy !​

51 Indeed !​

=onenow "Can you explain this verse 48 to us and why only Catholics do this?"Blessed is a far cry from my Mother…my mothers name is Susan…She was Jesus mother, and then given to John…

Leslie:

Not the world

Quote=onenow1 I wonder why Jesus called the apostle Son and not John could it be Mary is the new Eve And Jesus the New Adam ?

 

[Leslie_Polley]

No extras…Not one…Only what is in the Bible…anything other than that would be my opinion and I would tell you it was my opinion…not the Word of God…

 

[Leslie_Polley]

=onenow “Leslie who is the Lord Elizabeth is speaking of in above the verses ? Elizabeth recognizes, the honor the Lord has given to her, Isn’t this obvious in the verse: she asks, how she is deserving of her presence.” I never said that she did not give birth tho Jesus,

Mary’s response to Elizabeth.

Luke1:
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

=onenow " Wow ! Mary’s been saved already ! 'And she needed to be

48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me BLESSED; That can be pronounced 2 ways…

=onenow "Can you explain this verse 48 to us and why only Catholics do this?"Blessed is a far cry from my Mother…my mothers name is Susan…She was Jesus mother, and then given to John…Not the world

49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. We canm all say that.

=onenow "What do you suppose these great things the Lord has done for Mary "?I don’t know, nothing is specificaly named…but He has done great things for us all…

50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. Absolutly. His mercy, not Mary’s

=onenow

51 He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, Right again

"All these words are inspired of the Holy Spirit, the words of God."Your right, See there are some things we can agree on…

#47 Yup !

#48

#49 Indeed ! But none of us will ever have the privilage of raising Jesus !

50 She is the Mother of Mercy !​

51 Indeed !​

=onenow "Can you explain this verse 48 to us and why only Catholics do this?"Blessed is a far cry from my Mother…my mothers name is Susan…She was Jesus mother, and then given to John…

Quote=onenow1 I wonder why Jesus called the apostle Son and not John could it be Mary is the new Eve And Jesus the New Adam ?

Jesus was the new Adam, as he had to undo what Adam did…No Mary is NOT the new Eve as Eve was the wife of Adam and then you would be saying that Jesus is also her husband and as well as her child, she had NO part of our salvation, of which she had nothing to do with it…Christ is the ONLY one who was responsable for our Salvation.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

LOVE that!! Quite amusing.

PR you are a joke…:whackadoo:

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Her anger is an internal problem. Her new-found fanaticism just gives it an outlet. People with anger problems will flock to wherever their problem is enabled.
Hate is spawned out of fear. You hate and fear what you know or*** think ***you know. The scary thing is, many cannot see it, deny it’s there, or use a different word for it.
Hate, if left unchecked and not repented of, will do physical as well as mental and spiritual damage.

Read my answer to Louemma…I think that you will find you have no idea what you are taking about concerning me…But I do enjoy your arm chair psychology…You should have majored in it…I did. God needs to give you discernment. I forgive you for what you said. God bless

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Leslie-

Let me show you just how badly you have stumbled…the following explanation is from CARM, a website that is bitterly anti-Catholic:

Nestorianism

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title “Mother of God.” He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.

Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the “human person” then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

carm.org/nestorianism

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Your argument might present a problem to Bible Christians, that is, those who subscribe to the Sola Scriptura paradigm, but as Catholics we do not believe that God’s revelation is confined only to the Sacred Scriptures.

So, even if St. Paul does not mention–even once–the Virgin Birth, we know that God’s revelation regarding the Virgin Birth has been preserved through Sacred Tradition (and, of course, the Gospels.)

John doesn’t mention it either…what do you supose is up with that?

 

[Good_Fella]

The Implications are, He was God made Man…He was the Son of God…Are you sayig that Jesus can not be bothe God from His Father and Man from Mary who is in no part God…Ar you saying God cannot do this… Are you limiting God…

Mary is the mother of one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who took his human nature from her. She bore the Son of the Most High - not his human nature, nor a human person who co-inhabited a human body with a divine Person. Jesus is one divine Person who possesses a divine and a human soul, a divine and a human intellect, and a divine and a human will by becoming incarnate. And Mary is His mother. At least Elizabeth thought so. Just how explicit must Scripture be for you sola scripturists?

“I and the Father are one.”
John 10, 30

Jesus is declaring that he, a single individual, is divine.

“If anyone will not confess that Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, ‘The Word was made flesh’]: let him be anathema.”
Council of Ephesus, Anathemas Against Nestorious, 1 (A.D. 430)

Unfortunately you made it difficult for me to quote you in your last reply to me by inserting your retorts in my replies which you quoted. I don’t have the time to rearrange everything in its proper place. You do play a mean harp.
:harp:

PAX

 

[Leslie_Polley]

As far as I’m concerned any work created after 55-65 AD is just too far away from the source to take seriously.

Johns Gospel does not start at the birth, it started around John the Baptist time…althought the first few verses deal with the Glory of God.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

This is where I get stuck often,
doesn’t Bible say “Before Abraham was I am” ?
Therefore could also say ‘before Mary Jesus (2nd person of Trinity) was’
Or was part of the Trinity created in birth process??

I don’t get it

No the Trinity was formed from the begining … I have tried to explain how Jesus is both God and man, the divine nature being from His Father God, and the Man nature by mary…It seems that noo one understands that all of our sins were taken on by Jesus, and this was the plan of God…people try to limit God sometimes, because some thruths are hard if not impossible to believe, but this is whaere faith comes in…if God said it , it is so. Being on here with alot of people trying to prove each other wrong is really ridiculous…Our minds are so finite and Gods so infinite that we will never grasp fully so many things until we reach heaven. I probably did not answer your question, and if not I am sorry…keep the faith, for faith, hope and love are what we have and all will be done with but love…

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s what I’m trying to figure out… What makes you so sure that there weren’t others before?

Real virgin births? I can’t be sure of that…who knows? What matters is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

And that Jesus’ conception was truly “immaculate” to begin with??

Um…it’s Mary…not Jesus…who was the Immaculate Conception. Try Wiki and get back to us on that one.

Every bit of “Sacred Scripture” you have is hearsay as far as I can tell. So what else is there?

The testimony of an infallible Church built by Jesus who was raised from the dead as evidence that He is who He claimed to be - God.

Hope that helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Look. I’m curious how people could believe the Gospels to be infallible… after knowing the time frame that historians believe to be the approximate years that the Gospels were created.

The people who wrote the Gospels are not the 12 apostles with him and more then likely never even met the MAN. That’s the problem. Paul seems to be the man, tho… since he was the closest to the source… which is why I was hoping a knowledgeable Catholic could school me on him. I just don’t know much about Paul the author. Is that the Apostle Paul? Anyway… point is known by any wise Catholic that the Gospels at least were not written by the APOSTLES. They were just disciples from a couple dozen towns down the road and two generations later by people who who only wrote hearsay.

Hence me asking about Paul the author. If anybody knows if THAT was the apostle or just some dude who heard it thru the grapevine too? And if he is the closest thing you’ve got to the source… why no mention of the Virgin Birth? Why does this information take so long to surface???

EDIT: And in reference to your comment about there being more “biblical narratives”. That’s my whole problem with the deal. Where are the secular accounts of Jesus? I know there’s four guys you like to reference a lot, but they only talk of “Christ”, the Annointed One… not Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus, but, unfortunately, his “work” has long been believed to be forged. Having nothing but biblical narratives might even just make me believe that Jesus could be the figment of the Roman government’s imagination in order to get people to become more obedient. Who knows? Hopefully somebody knows more about Paul, tho? I’d like to hear how he let the Virgin Birth thing slip his memory in all the tons and tons of works he put together.

Off topic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as I’m concerned any work created after 55-65 AD is just too far away from the source to take seriously.

Off topic.

 

[grndslm]

John doesn’t mention it either…what do you supose is up with that?

Point is… considering the number of works Paul came out with, it’s surprising that it DID slip his mind.

Mary is the mother of one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who took his human nature from her. She bore the Son of the Most High - not his human nature, nor a human person who co-inhabited a human body with a divine Person. Jesus is one divine Person who possesses a divine and a human soul, a divine and a human intellect, and a divine and a human will by becoming incarnate. And Mary is His mother. At least Elizabeth thought so. Just how explicit must Scripture be for you sola scripturists?

“I and the Father are one.”
John 10, 30

Jesus is declaring that he, a single individual, is divine.

ACTUALLY… if you read the quote in context. He was stating that God, the Creator Himself, said that all Jews were gods. He was stating that all Jews are divine. Even more generally, he was saying that ALL MEN ARE CHILDREN OF GOD. It’s amazing that the context of that quote is just thrown out the window to prove that he is the “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”, while at the same time… Jesus was merely looking at things in a new philosophical perspective.

Was he lying when he called all those around him gods? Was that blasphemy?

What about Mark 10:17-18?? Was Jesus lying when he said that he was NOT good… that there is ONLY ONE that is good – God ALONE??

Johns Gospel does not start at the birth, it started around John the Baptist time…althought the first few verses deal with the Glory of God.

I’m trying to separate John the Apostle from John the Author… and the story of John from when the story was actually written.

Real virgin births? I can’t be sure of that…who knows? What matters is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Perhaps that is the only thing that matters. But… like I said… knowing that Paul was the original author of the New Testament… and then Mark copies some stuff from him… and then Matthew and Luke copy from Mark… and then John copies from them, magically adding in an extra large amount of crazy stuff that was unheard of until 60+ years after the death of Jesus…

Just simply recognizing the order that the books of the NT were written in… recognizing the style of the authors copying from other authors… recognizing who mentions what and who forgot super important, key notes… recognizing that the Gospels were drafted by men who most likely never even saw Jesus, and only had a collection of quotes, called ‘Q’…

I just don’t understand why people think that the Bible is anything close to what actually happened. Any hardcore Catholic will tell you that the Gospels were written by men who never saw Jesus, but it doesn’t matter because of… (well, actually I haven’t heard a legitimate reason yet).

Um…it’s Mary…not Jesus…who was the Immaculate Conception. Try Wiki and get back to us on that one.

Umm… if you want to get super grammatically technical like you are… it’s both Mary’s and Jesus’ conception. Mary’s conception of Jesus means Jesus’ conception, does it not?? Conception of Jesus == Jesus’ conception.

The testimony of an infallible Church built by Jesus who was raised from the dead as evidence that He is who He claimed to be - God.

The testimony of the Church is infallible according to who?? … oh right, the Church. Nice display of circular logic. Truth decides what is infallible, and the Catholic Church ain’t it… I’m sorry.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Off topic.

As he said, and this thread has been derailed so it is now closed.

I would strongly suggest that most all of you carefully review this link and insure that all future posts comply.
Very sincerely,