Mary's immaculate conception and history

[mcq72]

& Scripture tells us that that nothing impure can approach Him)

Bingo ,exactly!!! We could not approach Him in His glorified state, at least not fully (Moses was partially viewing on the mount, and he came down like a glowing ghost !).

That is the whole point in the Incarnation !!! That God would leave His glorified state and take on carbon atoms, become human flesh. He would touch fallen, sinful human flesh, to heal it !!! We would touch Him even, as the little children did, as the women with the issue ! This pre resurrection Christ did not get the cooties upon touching sinful flesh, even in Mary’s womb, in my opinion. Furthermore, His flesh would not only touch sinful flesh, He would finally take and become that sin, upon himself, on the cross for us, and put it to death.

For sure we love the Lord so much we would want the best for Him, but I think it would be a sentimental error to then suggests what is fit for His wombly habitation, or what is fit for His mother, beyond any plain writ and right Jewish expectation.

Reminds me of the great and glorious St. Peter, and his misplaced devotion and affection for the Lord, who insisted, saw that it was "fitting’’, right to the end, that Christ would not suffer (what Satan also wanted), slicing off an ear.

No, Christ became unglorified human flesh, thru that same human flesh of Mary and the Holy Ghost. Finally, with tears in my eyes, I write to say He became sin, our sin, ugly, unsightly, so much so, that even the Father had to turn away. This is the better sentiment, a broken heart over this, and not making Mary superhuman because it is “fitting” and nice. The latter going against the grain of the former.

peace… really

 

[stpurl]

I phrased that poorly, forgive me. Any incomplete teachings or improperly understood interpretations which were further and better understood later.

 

[tgGodsway]

There’s one thing I do not know. I don’t know if these early theologians had a progression of thought over time. In other words, you can pull one of their statements at one point of time, but I can pull a conflicting statement from a later point in time and it has changed. I don’t care enough to investigate this.

The bottom line is that whether it is Thomas Aquinas, or Augustine, or anybody, these men must submit to what the word of God actually teaches on the doctrine of sin.

What troubles the water here is an extra-biblical reference (and/or oral tradition) which contradict all that is stated in the N.T. and old. Frustration and confusion always accompanies a conflicting view.

You cannot establish or approve your view if you strictly use the Apostles and gospel writer’s teaching alone. This is why you go outside.

For this very reason I seek only the founders of the faith who laid the divine foundation rather than the obscure and contradictory points of view coming from those outside the Apostolic circle and divine providence.

 

[tgGodsway]

OK… but your case is that it refers to ‘sin’. Please find ‘sin’ in the description of Leviticus 12, then. And, if ‘sin’, then please explain what sin it is.

My goodness, the passage explains itself. Here, I’ll quote it again,
Lev 12:6
'When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a SIN OFFERING, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting.
7 Then he shall offer it before the LORD, and MAKE ATTONEMENT for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female.

8 And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons–one as a burnt offering and the other as a SIN OFFERING. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

-There were two things going on here. You seem to only acknowledge the one. The ceremony for cleansing and purifying of menstrual issues was to be made by a male lamb without spot or blemish, reflecting the reality of Christ on the cross who heals us of our disease. This was the burnt offering.

The second offering (Mary was also to bring) was a SIN offering for the sins her family. "The “priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.” v8.

Why do you go around this obvious passage? Mary not only knew she was a sinner, as the scripture declares, but she practiced the ceremonies of her day according to the Law with the understanding that they applied to her.

 

[tgGodsway]

It is a valid question. You are claiming that “all” means every single human being ever. Yet, you hypocritically state that children who have not yet reached the age of reason are “exempt” from “all” as Paul defines “all”.

You can’t have it both ways, tgG. Either “all” includes babies and children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or "all " does not really mean “all.”.

I am not one who speak when the bible does not speak. You do. Since the N.T. doesn’t give a solid answer to the issue of babies, I pause. That is what you are suppose to do by the way. However, I have stated on this site before, that if God wants to judge the babies according to their sin, then let Him do it. Innocence will prevail. “Let the little children come to Me, for such is the kingdom of God.”

 

[tgGodsway]

It is true that Luke was not an Apostle. His deliberate arrangement of the birth narrative to demonstrate that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant is usually lost on evangelicals. The early church understood that Mary was the new Eve.

What?.. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant? please explain this.

 

[Gorgias]

The second offering (Mary was also to bring) was a SIN offering for the sins her family. "The “priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.” v8.

Why do you go around this obvious passage? Mary not only knew she was a sinner, as the scripture declares, but she practiced the ceremonies of her day according to the Law with the understanding that they applied to her.

Outstanding!

Again, though, I have to ask: please tell me exactly what ‘sin’ this offering was in atonement for?

I mean… it’s not that all women had to perform this sin offering. In fact, I would think that a family would commit sin regularly, right? So, if this were for “the sins [of] her family”, then all mothers should have been required to make this sacrifice on a regular basis for their families, right?

But… that’s not what’s going on here. This only applies to a mother who has just given birth. So: in this context, what’s the sin that is being atoned for?

If you want us to accept your interpretation, you’ll need to identify the particular sin, given the context. I’d like to hear your take on it before I give mine…

 

[kainosktisis]

Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find the word “Trinity”. Yes, Scripture does point to it, but it doesn’t specifically call it that.

 

[tgGodsway]

Again, this is theology untaught by the Apostles in the divine record. At best it is an “interpretation” which you are certainly entitled to as a member of the body of Christ.

Actually I will agree to a few of your points here, Firstly, it was the then virgin Mary who gave birth to Christ. This is commendable and worth not only acknowledgment, but great honor. Agreed…

The Genesis 3:15 passage does not single the “women” out as one person. Why? Because “her seed” can only be a reference to the Church to which Mary was apart. The “seed” of the women is an expression that the bible can never refer to a human female. It was her spiritual offspring (not physical or literal) to which Satan’s hatred would be launched. If it were literal offspring then this would point back to the aggression of Adam’s family, which would be a contradiction of terms.

As to her being a second Eve, this too was never taught in the Apostle’s doctrine, but I suppose I see your point here except that “Eve”, again, could not be a reference to a human female, such as Mary, because the “women” of Genesis 3:15 was also not a reference to a human female for the reasons given.

The perpetual virginity of Mary did not show up in the belief system of the CC until around the 2nd. Century. It has resulted in term-switching and shifting of the obvious meaning of a passage to a more customary or symbolic explanation.

In light of all scripture shows and eludes to, concerning her children, your argument is unconvincing.

And there is still no evidence of a miracle at conception, only to the contrary.

 

[susanlo]

The Fathers are not infallible. And the Church never claimed they were. For pity’s sake, SOME of Origen’s works are solid in theology and some are really not. That doesn’t mean that we throw out everything Origen ever said because some of what he said at another point was ‘off’.

I mean, your own Martin Luther taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. By the beliefs of most protestants today who regard Luther as a bright and shining star, that embrace of a major Catholic teaching would have them burning the 95 Theses. . .if protestants held themselves to the same standards that they seem to expect CATHOLICS to hold regarding Catholic theologians.

Double standard much?

I think that the big difference here is Catholicism’s claim of having an infallible teaching authority. Catholicism claims to have a Sacred Tradition that only they know about as well as a special authority to infallibly interpret Scripture. This allows them to proclaim doctrines that are infallible. Often it is claimed that these doctrines have been believed by all Christians since the time of the Apostles.

In Protestant churches the Scriptures are God’s Word and the only source of infallible teaching. Reading the Bible, praying and worshiping with others are all ways to learn and grow in our faith. However even the most educated and prayerful Christian still doesn’t claim to be an infallible teacher. We read teachings from recent leaders as well as ancient Christian leaders. We can learn and grow so much from reading and learning from these sources, but recognize that these leaders are human and some teachings could be in error.

I have never been Lutheran. My faith is not based on what Martin Luther said, wrote or taught. He had a big influence on Christianity during the time of the reformation, but my belief is based on what the Bible reveals to us. Therefore if Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, or the pastor at my church teaches something that is in error it is simply because they are a fallible human. We don’t look to our human leaders to be the source of infallible teaching as is done in Catholicism.

 

[tgGodsway]

Again, though, I have to ask: please tell me exactly what ‘sin’ this offering was in atonement for?

You find your answer in the Law. Each family would go to Jerusalem where the Temple was located once a year to make their offering before the Lord and by agency of the high Priest.

The sin offering was for all of the sins of the family that year. It was type and shadow, only because we know that the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sin. Only Christ. see Heb. 9:7

But is this new for you?

 

[tgGodsway]

Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find the word “Trinity”. Yes, Scripture does point to it, but it doesn’t specifically call it that.

This is not a real point. The word bible is not in the bible, yet we understand what it means. Trinity is a theological term used in more contemporary times. But, again, this is not a serious point.

 

[kainosktisis]

She is the Ark of the New Covenant because in her womb she (like the Ark of old, which carried God before His People) bore God the Son within her, Jesus Christ, Whom Scripture tells us is:

1. The Word Made Flesh (Jn 1:14);
2. Our Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (See Hebrews 4:14 - 5:10);
3. Our Living Bread from heaven (See John 6:22-69).

The original Ark of the Covenant carried within it:

1. The Tablets w/ the 10 Commandments on them (Exodus 16:33-36);
2. A jar of manna from the desert (Exodus 16:33-36);
3. Aaron’s staff that had budded confirming God choosing him as High Priest (Numbers 17).

The original Ark was so holy that for a time it was kept in the Temple of Jerusalem in the Holy of Holies, & there are various references to it in Scripture in Exodus 26 (in the Tabernacle during the desert wandering), 1 Kings 8, & 2 Chronicles 5.

In Revelation 11, we have a vision of the Ark that St. John says appears in heaven, & immediately following that a woman crowned with the sun appears:

19Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.

Ch. 12
1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

 

[tgGodsway]

I mean… it’s not that all women had to perform this sin offering

for some reason you seem to think the passage is only dealing with women. No. Mary and her husband came and practiced the requirements of the Law together as a family not Mary, alone. Go back and read how the high priest performed it, not Mary herself.

 

[Gorgias]

You find your answer in the Law. Each family would go to Jerusalem where the Temple was located once a year to make their offering before the Lord and by agency of the high Priest.

The sin offering was for all of the sins of the family that year.

That’s a different offering. That’s not the offering of Leviticus 12.

But is this new for you?

The claim that the offering a new mother makes (in Leviticus 12) is the same thing as the annual Yom Kippur offering is a novel one. I’ve never heard anyone attempt to conflate the two offerings.

for some reason you seem to think the passage is only dealing with women.

Ahh, but it is. Please re-read Leviticus 12 (all emphases mine):

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Nowhere in this passage does this suggest that this is an offering for “the family together”, as you claim. This is an offering that is strictly in relation to her, as a new mother. So, again: what sin has she committed, since we see that your suggestion that this is an offering for multiple people’s sins is inaccurate?

Go back and read how the high priest performed it, not Mary herself.

Right. I’m not claiming that she acts as priest – just that she’s bringing the offering for herself alone, which is what the text is telling us.

 

[susanlo]

Babies are delivered from original sin at their infant baptism. Here is St. Thomas Aquinas to sum it up for you, “For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: ‘The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb” (Summa III: 27).

Do you know if this belief - that Mary contracted original sin, but was cleansed from it in the womb - was a widely held view in the time of Aquinas (13th century)? What did others believe at the time?

 

[Gorgias]

OriginalGabrielof12:

But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb” (Summa III: 27).

Do you know if this belief - that Mary contracted original sin, but was cleansed from it in the womb - was a widely held view in the time of Aquinas (13th century)? What did others believe at the time?

Aquinas’ view stemmed from a misunderstanding of human reproductive biology. In his day, it was believed that the ‘human’ did not exist in the womb prior to ‘animation’ (or “quickening”). Prior to that time, they believed, there was life, but it was not human.

Here’s what Aquinas says on the subject, in ST III.27.2:

The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation … Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Do you see it? Aquinas doesn’t think that there is a rational soul present in the womb until the ‘animation’. (Now… he absolutely believed that Mary was sanctified at the moment she had a rational soul!)

But, since he did not understand that the human in the womb had a rational soul at conception, he was unable to assent to the claim that a human person could be sanctified at conception. It was an error of biology, not theology.

 

[susanlo]

You really need to check out your citations before you just copy and paste them. He doesn’t talk about “flesh of sin” in chapter 24; in that chapter, he’s talking about Paul. However, he does talk about it in chapter 38. There, he writes:

[Jesus], therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal flesh of sin. For what He then took of flesh, He either cleansed in order to take it, or cleansed by taking it. His virgin mother, therefore, whose conception was not according to the law of sinful flesh (in other words, not by the excitement of carnal concupiscence), but who merited by her faith that the holy seed should be framed within her, He formed in order to choose her, and chose in order to be formed from her.

Chapter 38 [XXIV.] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15012.htm

Jesus did not assume flesh of sin, but was “born of a maternal flesh of sin.” The conception mentioned in this passage is Mary’s conception of Jesus. This is not referring to Mary’s mother’s conception of Mary. This is similar to what he taught elsewhere. I understand that Augustine believed that sex, even in a marriage, was sinful. I think that may have affected his teaching. This shows that Mary was chosen because of the merit of her faith, and not that she was chosen before she was born. I don’t see how this would show that Mary was immaculately conceived. This is showing how Jesus was immaculately conceived.

 

[kainosktisis]

The point being that while certain things are not explicit in Scripture, they are still there implicitly.

 

[guanophore]

I am not one who speak when the bible does not speak.

On the contrary, imposing an artificial age for baptism, prior to which a person is not separated from God because they are “innocent” is contrary to your interpretation of “all” in Romans. If “all” means “all” as you define it, then infants and children prior to the age of reason (whenever you decide that occurs) are still “sinners through Adam” and therefore, separated.

However, I have stated on this site before, that if God wants to judge the babies according to their sin, then let Him do it. Innocence will prevail. “Let the little children come to Me, for such is the kingdom of God.”

Yes, we understand this to mean that they can be brought through baptism.

Definitely, your rendering should give you pause, as these infants and children have also “sinned through Adam”. It is a flaw in the anti-Catholic theology.