No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God

[MarysLurker]

This is just silly.

Actually, it’s Socratic elenchus.

As shown by Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro,, a person only holds a given position if they believe it to be true across the board. “You can make angel statues without committing idolatry” is a position. “You can make angel statues without committing idolatry, unless you’re a Catholic” is not a position because a true position is free from logical fallacies, like special pleading.

So the whole time, you were arguing something you didn’t even believe in. They weren’t even positions that you could believe in had you wanted to. Even if they were valid, they were not your positions. They were someone else’s. So you shouldn’t be mad or hurt that they were refuted. You weren’t really discriminating against Catholics. The person who came up with the junk was. Disown the junk, and you also disown the discrimination.

Just food for thought.

 

[Gorgias]

“Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law,”…Deuteronomy 22: 13-21

Wrong law.

This is about a man who has had relations with his wife, and having come to want to get out of the relationship, falsely accuses her of not being a virgin – as was promised him at the time of the betrothal.

That’s a different situation than what you want to seem to think is going on in Luke.

 

[mcq72]

Wrong law.

This is about a man who has had relations with his wife, and having come to want to get out of the relationship, falsely accuses her of not being a virgin – as was promised him at the time of the betrothal.

That’s a different situation than what you want to seem to think is going on in Luke.

it can only be the wrong law if you can point out the right one…furthermore I began citing Deuteronomy to show a small aspect of wedding ceremony, that of the “bedsheets”…that one doesn’t just betrothe and then have conjugal relations, without a wedding of sorts, for this very reason, to prove the maidens virginity…that is to say, if Joseph and Mary were planning their wedding, they would be in trouble for it was thought (before angel came to Joseph) that she could no longer be proved to be a virgin at the wedding.

 

[hope]

it can only be the wrong law if you can point out the right one

I have to agree with Gorgias. I find that to say it isn’t wrong only if you can provide a right one to be silly. I wondered to if you had actually read the scripture you cite as proof that Joseph was faithful to the law.

"If a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, comes to dislike he
and makes monstrous charges against her and defames her by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I first had relations with her I did not find her a virgin,’

Notice that scripture calls the charge that the husband make as being monstrous hardly something you would say about someone being faithful, faithless but not faithful.
You have stated that you understand my position but do you? I believe that

1. Mary had made a vow of virginity
2. The vow was supported by Joseph
3. Joseph agreed to be her spouse in order to protect her and support her
4. Women didn’t just go out and get a job. They had to rely on men to give them food and a place to live. That is why sons were so important.
5. Joseph must have been surprised that Mary broke her vow not knowing that her pregnancy was of the Holy Spirit until he was told.
   6 the question she asked only make sense with the above being true.

 

[mcq72]

I have to agree with Gorgias. I find that to say it isn’t wrong only if you can provide a right one to be silly. I wondered to if you had actually read the scripture you cite as proof that Joseph was faithful to the law.

Dont know that it is silly to ask what law would Joseph have been faithful to with a divorce, as the scripture says.

The law I cite has bearing on marriage and wedding expectations. As told in my post, it strengthens my position that the first conjugal relations after betrothal was important, that the norm was to first have wedding where the bedchamber( stained bedsheet) came to be proof of virginity of a betrothed virgin, and protection from malice by husband for wife and her parents. A wedding was important partly for this feature of proof of said virginity . The couple could not just run off and be “one” somewhere on their own after betrothal. Hence the remaing virgin until a public wedding and wedding night.

Seems clear that Matthew portrays this intermediate period quite well, giving some credence to Mary’s reply of still being virgin to angel…Mary could not assume that angel knew of this anymore than she could assume angel knew of any vow.

Thank you for your listing your understanding. That is how i see it. Others might add vow for temple service early on for Mary, and Joseph being older, even a widower, with children from previous marriage. Others cite no, that Joseph remained virgin his whole life also.

PS…the law I cited I think applies also to Joseph and why he could divorce her…before the angelic dream, …not only was Mary not virgin and grounds for divorce, she was pregnant.

 

[Gorgias]

it can only be the wrong law if you can point out the right one

LOL!

So, wait: “my example is only wrong if you can find a different example”?!? Umm… not how it works, friend. You’re the one attempting to assert that this passage applies; the burden of proof is on you. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and no one needs to demonstrate anything other than “it’s wrong.”

BTW… it’s wrong.

furthermore I began citing Deuteronomy to show a small aspect of wedding ceremony, that of the “bedsheets”

So, think about this for a second: you’re claiming “wedding ceremony”, without anything in the text saying “wedding ceremony”. How does that prove your point, again?

 

[hope]

Dont know that it is silly to ask what law would Joseph have been faithful to with a divorce, as the scripture says.

I think I am finally getting your position. What I found silly is the way you phrased it. Let’s go on. The better scripture would be Deuteronomy 24:1. BTW I may be misunderstanding you but the scripture you quote only gives a reason for divorce not that you must divorce them.
If you think you have answered why she said she was still a virgin you have not. We are not arguing, at least I am not, that the betrothal period that they would not have had relations. It doesn’t matter that they were in the time of the betrothal What I am saying is that for a married woman it would be a strange question. Even today it would be a strange answer from a woman who was just engaged. As I have already provided, her answer was not put as a temporary condition but one that was permanent. The angle spoke of a future event so why would she answer of the betrothal time and not assume the angel meant when Joseph would take her into her home, the second part of marriage?

 

[mcq72]

Even today it would be a strange answer from a woman who was just engaged.

lol…you haven’t heard of a seven year engagement ? I am praying for a couple who has no wedding date in sight!

I have heard a teaching for kids that says, "obedience isn’t obedience if it is not immediate, or obedience is obedience when it is “immediately”, as often portrayed in gospels.

agree that custom may have been up to a year. Also understand some arranged marriages are made when children.

Point is Mary had some idea, but it was also totally out of her hands, and up to Joseph. You and I say a year of waiting almost flippantly, forgetting just what a year is for a teenager, and with that anticipation. a year can seem like an eternity.

Otherwise would agree with you, if the wedding were a week away and she knew it or the date was set etc. it seems it was not.

As I have already provided, her answer was not put as a temporary condition but one that was permanent.

Yes have read info on Greek, and there are those who say the Greek does not call for future tense. Just as “until” does not suggest anything beyond it, the past /present tense does not mean anything beyond it into the future with her virginity, in opinion of many.

The angle spoke of a future event so why would she answer of the betrothal time and not assume the angel meant when Joseph would take her into her home, the second part of marriage?

Understand. But on such an important event, would you leave any assumptions on the table ? In this regard, I like Marylurkers fervor for God not leaving anything to chance, or assumption with regard to Mary. Regardless of our views, we both now know beyond a shadow of a doubt what scripture says, that she was a virgin, exactly because of her succinct reply.

Not sure I agree but some say the announcement was for something quite impending, and many say the conception was immediate after her positive response.

 

[Gorgias]

Just as “until” does not suggest anything beyond it, the past /present tense does not mean anything beyond it into the future with her virginity

I would be cool with that if it came in response to a present tense assertion. But it didn’t… it came as the response to an assertion of a future condition. That means it’s either a non sequitur, or that there was the expectation that the present situation would extend into the future.

 

[mcq72]

What I am saying is that for a married woman it would be a strange question.

just saw a note on Geneva Study Bible:

Most would agree Mary knew that the Messiah would someday be born of a virgin (especially if one holds that she as a child was dedicated to temple service, and perhaps taught and trained as a to that end, of being chosen for such an honor).

So the most natural question for any young Jewish maiden would be just how does one conceive as a virgin? We with hindsight overlook this most natural question.

The question may well have had nothing to do with a vow or when she would conjugate and be taken as wife in oneness. It could simply be the utterance of a pondering heart filled with the word of God, specifically , that a virgin would bring forth the Christ child. Pretty sure there is no prophecy as to the "how’, that it would be by the Holy Ghost.

Again, Mary owned the virgin part , but simply asks the how, like “what is the next step dear angel?”

"Then said Mary unto the angel, {e} How shall this be, seeing {f} I know not a man?

(e) The greatness of the matter causes the virgin to ask this question, not that she distrusted by any means at all, for she asks only of the manner of the conceiving, so that it is plain she believed all the rest.

(f) So speak the Hebrews, signifying by this modest kind of speech the company of man and wife together, and this is the meaning of it: how will this be, for as I will be Christ’s mother I am very sure I will not know any man: for the godly virgin had learned by the prophets that the Messiah would be born of a virgin."…Geneva Bible Study

so , your proposition and mine do not hold up to this new understanding put forth .

The only way out of this is to say Mary did not know/understand Jewish prophecies.

 

[ReaderT]

Now, because of original sin, all of us are conceived with concupiscence (a weak, wounded conscience and tendency towards sin) and are to some extent under the devil’s power in a way that Adam and Eve were not before they fell. If Mary is not protected from that, the devil can exploit concupiscence the way he does with us. We fall all the time, don’t we? If Mary had fallen, ALL OF US DO, and the devil wins.

If Mary was conceived immaculately, she would have no original sin: she’d be in the pre-Fallen state, just like Adam or Eve. But if that’s the case, how on earth was she subject to death (as Pope JP2 taught)? I thought pre-fallen humans weren’t supposed to die

 

[hope]

lol…you haven’t heard of a seven year engagement ? I am praying for a couple who has no wedding date in sight!

Yes I have. My daughters was two years. The amount of time doesn’t matter. The assumption is that you would have a child with your husband. Her assumption should have been that the father would be Joseph not that she did not know man not even Joseph but man. It shouldn’t have mattered if the time for her to join Joseph was immediate or up to a year. We don’t know the time period. Only that within nine months they were living together.
As for until, Gorgais has it nailed. It isn’t that the Greed does not call for future tense and it doesn’t mean like until up to a certain time. It means an unchangeable condition. It does extend into the future that is what is mean by unchangeable.
Your point about when is quite well taken. The angel did not say when but did use future. Even if she understood immediately her thinking should have been that Joseph would come that day.

 

[hope]

Jesus died.

 

[Saint_Prince_Caspian]

The reality is Christian Protestantism has not got rid of Mary. However, they have rather given to the world the context of Her.

In other words, Protestantism is contrary to the Immaculate Conception. In fact, you could cal it contraception.

When I’ve had this debate, wherefore a person describes their theology from Sola Scriptura. They are defining things which Scripture does not entail.

For, they treat Our Lady as a vessel to be used. In fact, their theology is much more attuned to Islam (which believes Allah, as they call to God, created man as a creature for use.) Muslims might want to look at the fact this does not bear shape and form to fidelity in marriage. And if they continue on that path, they have accepted homosexuality as well. It’s called usury.

Protestants, if they think God treated Mary as a mere vessel. Might as well construct all their disciplines on marriage, this way. Cannot blame Mormon’s at one time for succeeding in this way, before the State had to step in and curb their harem.

The reality is that when the Immaculate Conception of Mary was to be deconstructed by Protestantism, they opened or unleashed satan, the devil from his bounds and chains. This, in this way, gave way to the Age of Enlightenment (Mormon’s birthright.) And the other Protestant heresies forthcoming, as that of Agnosticism and Atheism.

This attack on Mary, Our Lady, and the Church. Became the sole marker of every revolution possible. Especially the Sex Revolution. This means, when the moral heresy of Protestantism surfaced, it created this avenue and approach of deconstructing Our Lady to man’s sick sordid and poor ordered disciplines. Which the monster of Moloch resurfaced, and giving the tangible evidence of that through Abortion.

That’s the Moral Heresy of Abortion. It is the root of Protestantism. No less a King in England produced. A Lawyer in France. And a German Augustine who lost his faith.

 

[ReaderT]

I know, which seems to be another issue with the document of Immaculate Conception: why are all these humans subject to death if they’re in the Pre-Fallen state? That shouldn’t happen, I don’t think.

 

[MarysLurker]

I was about to give up on these forums when you all showed up, @Saint_Prince_Caspian and @ReaderT … Thank you for your interest in the topic.

If Mary was conceived immaculately, she would have no original sin: she’d be in the pre-Fallen state, just like Adam or Eve. But if that’s the case, how on earth was she subject to death (as Pope JP2 taught)? I thought pre-fallen humans weren’t supposed to die

The Church doesn’t have an official teaching on whether She died or not. During the debate on the promulgation of the IC, there were “immortalists” and “mortalists” going each way. Ultimately the final proclamation just said “at the end of Her life” without saying how that end occurred.

In private revelations to Ven. Mary of Agreda, it’s recorded that Mary was given the choice whether to enter heaven by death or by directly being assumed without dying, and She chose the former, not wanting to be “special.”

Jesus, similarly, allowed Himself to die as the expiation for our sins.

 

[ReaderT]

I was about to give up on these forums when you all showed up, @Saint_Prince_Caspian and @ReaderT … Thank you for your interest in the topic.

Hah, thank you, I only pass on things I find interesting

The Church doesn’t have an official teaching on whether She died or not. During the debate on the promulgation of the IC, there were “immortalists” and “mortalists” going each way. Ultimately the final proclamation just said “at the end of Her life” without saying how that end occurred.

In private revelations to Ven. Mary of Agreda, it’s recorded that Mary was given the choice whether to enter heaven by death or by directly being assumed without dying, and She chose the former, not wanting to be “special.”

Ah, interesting - I never knew about Mary of Agreda. For what it’s worth, the Eastern Catholic / Orthodox church believes She died, and (Catholic) Saint Anne Emmerich apparently had visions of Her final home, which explorers used to find the House of Mary

 

[mcq72]

Even if she understood immediately her thinking should have been that Joseph would come that day.

Again not sure about such postulation…unless you think holy Mary was unaware of biblical prophecy surrounding virgin birth of the awaited Messiah.

 

[mcq72]

Protestants, if they think God treated Mary as a mere vessel.

What is a “mere vessel”? Were all Jewish maidens awaiting their Messiah mere vessels? If one is not co redemptrix they are mere believers ? If one is cleansed in and with faith in their Messiah is that mere holiness because it is not holy before that in their conception ? If one is considered still to be a sister in Christ is that mere kinship because it is not mother of us all, flow of all our graces?

Just wondering.

 

[mcq72]

And the other Protestant heresies forthcoming, as that of Agnosticism and Atheism.

Sounds like anti Trumpers…throw in everything evil but the kitchen sink and blame it on Protestantism…as if no evils came out of the church in error or rebellion before 1500.

This attack on Mary,

Indeed, some do, but hopefully you don’t mean sincere believers who have a different understanding in their convictions and conscience on certain Marion doctrine
Otherwise sounds like no difference in bully tactics of her detractors as you say .

Which the monster of Moloch resurfaced, and giving the tangible evidence of that through Abortion.

Totally aided and supported by so many Protestant and Catholic politicians alike…the CC has less of an excuse boasting of its better magisterium and authority structure.

That’s the Moral Heresy of Abortion. It is the root of Protestantism.

Well, ok if you mean to disparage those who cling to free will and conscience and freedom to live according to ones convictions, calling them “Protestants”. Didn’t know abortion was one of the " sola’s".