Poster "stunned" by Mary's Immaculate Conception

[mozart-250]

For Catholics, there are no throw away verses. Oh. Maybe there are: Jeremiah 53 isn’t in the Catholic Bible.

Ah…somebody finally picks up on this…
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Contarini]

But you understand, I expect, that the sinlessness of Mary is not built upon this one passage of scripture, but rather is a part of the deposit of faith which finds support in this one passage of scripture (among others).

Yes, I do understand that. Sometimes, however, Catholics in online debates with Protestants get carried away and (in trying to meet Protestants on their own ground) make exegetical arguments that the text won’t bear.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ah…somebody finally picks up on this…
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

I check the King James Bible and it doesn’t have Jeremiah 53. Jeremiah is only up to 52 Chapters not 53.

The Douay Rheims Bible have 52 verses also.

The only thing that Protestant lack are the Deutrocanonical Books. (Septuagint).

King James Bible (Protestant) Jeremiah Chapter 52 verse 34.

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/bible/jeremias.cfm

Douay Rheims Catholic Bible Jeremiah Chapter 52 verse 34.

plainbible.com/Jeremiah.htm

 

[mercygate]

In check the KJV and it doesn’t have Jeremiah 53. Jeremiah is only up to 52 Chapters not 53.

The Douy Rheims Bible have 52 verses also.

The only thing that Protestant lack are the Deutrocanonical Books. (Septugaint).

Manny – Mozart & I BOTH know that . . .

 

[Contarini]

Well I have two different Greek versions.

What is the version that has the longer form of the word whereas the supposedly Erasmus version has the shorter version? KVJ with strong’s numbers show the short version. Is not the KJV based on Erasmus’?

P.S. thanks for the Kecharitomene. I could not find that anywhere.

Maybe should elaborate to Mozart the in-depth meaning of the word.

I don’t see two forms of the word in my critical NT, although the edition I have (which is the standard one used by students of the Greek NT) doesn’t include every minor and unimportant variant (I have an older critical NT at home that has even fewer variants).The only textual variant I have in this verse concerns the phrase “blessed are you among women” which the “Byzantine” manuscripts (Erasmus’s text was based on Byzantine manuscripts) include and the “Alexandrian” manuscripts (including the two oldest manuscripts and therefore favored by most modern scholars) omit. Andrew of Crete and one 12th-century manuscript also add the phrase “and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus,” which of course like “blessed are you among women” occurs in v. 42 in Elizabeth’s greeting.

Are you sure that your KJV isn’t simply citing the root form of the word? This would be the normal way you cite a word. You give (in Greek) the first person singular present indicative active. This is the form you would look up in a dictionary.

Edwin

 

[sneakers]

I’m sitting here, not sure how to respond to these questions, but let me give it a try… I’ve known for years that Catholics teach that Mary was conceived without original sin. Whenever I stopped to think about the concept (which was not often), my thoughts ran along the line of “ok, this is not something I believe, but I suppose I don’t have a big problem with the concept”. My thoughts on the Assumption of Mary would be similar…that this teaching is not scripturally based, but does not contradict scripture either. (Yes, I know that you find the teachings to be Scriptural).

Then, however, I stumbled across the teaching that Mary was without sin. As I noted in my other post, I was stunned. Truly, truly stunned. I thought that even though I am Protestant (mostly Methodist and Episcopal Churches with brief stays a few other places), I had a respectable understanding of Catholic teaching, but this one caught me totally, absolutely off-guard. It is a matter of faith to me that only one human being, Jesus himself, is without sin. Tempted in all ways, yet still without sin. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, except for Christ. If this is true, as I believe it is, then to say that Mary was without sin is a very serious contradiction. Maybe I’m in a minority and this teaching of the Catholic Church is widely known among other Protestants, but it certainly was not known to me. I don’t know if I would have converted or not (for I do have other areas of disagreement as well), but this one pretty much did it for me.

Since this revelation, I’ve heard and read many Catholic explanations of the teaching and remain unconvinced. I’ve heard of the mud pit, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the argument of appropriateness as opposed to necessity and many others. And I remain unconvinced. Mary is blessed among women for all time, and beyond the end of time, she is a Saint and the Mother of God, but I cannot believe that she was without sin.

To respond to Orion’s questions, do I believe that Mary was conceived without original sin? At this point, no. Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit, yes. And, yes, Jesus is fully human and fully God.

Actually, I would be “stunned” if she wasn’t conceived without sin! I cannot imagine that God would allow His son to be carried within an “unclean vessel” so to speak. I’m no theologian - I can’t keep up with the great theological minds on this board, lol!!, That is the way my simple mind understands it. By the same token, though she died, Jesus would not have allowed his mother’s body to be corrupted by the ravages of death. I believe that He took her body into heaven. Perhaps it may not be in scripture, but it is probably part of the ancient oral Tradition of the Church as passed down from the Apostles.

 

[Syele]

Actually, I would be “stunned” if she wasn’t conceived without sin! I cannot imagine that God would allow His son to be carried within an “unclean vessel” so to speak.

This is the very thing that bothers me. If Mary sinned, and repented, and GOd Forgave her… How is she still an “unclean vessel”? People can say forgiveness is off toipic but this is where I’m stuck!

 

[jmcrae]

This is the very thing that bothers me. If Mary sinned, and repented, and GOd Forgave her… How is she still an “unclean vessel”? People can say forgiveness is off topic but this is where I’m stuck!

Yes, we are clean when we are forgiven by Christ on the Cross, but Mary was “full of grace” even before such forgiveness became possible.

She needed to be totally pure for Christ’s sake, so that no stain of sin would be in His physical body, which of course was taken entirely from Mary’s DNA - He had no human father. That’s why she also could not have been touched by Original Sin, so that He would not be able to inherit it from her.

 

[Syele]

Yes, we are clean when we are forgiven by Christ on the Cross, but Mary was “full of grace” even before such forgiveness became possible.

She needed to be totally pure for Christ’s sake, so that no stain of sin would be in His physical body, which of course was taken entirely from Mary’s DNA - He had no human father. That’s why she also could not have been touched by Original Sin, so that He would not be able to inherit it from her.

I still don’t follow. You say, yes she would have been clean when forgiven and then in the next line you speak of a “stain of sin”.

 

[jmcrae]

I still don’t follow. You say, yes she would have been clean when forgiven and then in the next line you speak of a “stain of sin”.

Mary not only had no sin, she also had no memory of sin, and no personal experience of sin.

The experience/memory is what I’m referring to as a “stain.”

 

[Syele]

Mary not only had no sin, she also had no memory of sin, and no personal experience of sin.

The experience/memory is what I’m referring to as a “stain.”

So the very memory of sin makes you “unclean”? What happened to being washed “white as snow”?

 

[seek]

The premise to be sinful is to be fully human is incorrect. To be fully human
is to be sinless. God’s original intent was our being obedient and sinless and from that fully human. That Mary was graced to do as such really has
absolutely nothing to do with what we think. It has to do with what Mary
chose and what a Sovereign God chose. That having perfect grace in
Luke’s Annunciation and the Coronation of the Queen in Revelation isn"t
enough for Sola Scriptura advocates isn’t enough, well sorry I guess.
It is what Tradition, and the Church’s intrepetive authority gives
us. I submit myself to that authority even in matters where I diasgree.
I keep my mouth shut on these matters and lay myself open to have my
mind and heart changed by the Grace of God. Romans, I think says it
Lord, I believe. Help me in my unbelief

 

[Jennifer123]

So the very memory of sin makes you “unclean”? What happened to being washed “white as snow”?

Is this where we get into “concupiscence”? Is this relevant in a Marian doctrine discussion? Really, I’m not sure, I just know that there is a difference between Catholic and Protestants notions of “Original sin” and “forgiveness”.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Are you sure that your KJV isn’t simply citing the root form of the word?

Yes you are right, it’s citing the root not the actual word. The strong group really did not do such a great job did they?

So how does one find out the definition of the words that were actually used without having studied Greek?

Is there an exhaustive Concordance?

 

[JoeyWarren]

The premise to be sinful is to be fully human is incorrect. To be fully human
is to be sinless. God’s original intent was our being obedient and sinless and from that fully human. That Mary was graced to do as such really has
absolutely nothing to do with what we think. It has to do with what Mary
chose and what a Sovereign God chose. That having perfect grace in
Luke’s Annunciation and the Coronation of the Queen in Revelation isn"t
enough for Sola Scriptura advocates isn’t enough, well sorry I guess.
It is what Tradition, and the Church’s intrepetive authority gives
us. I submit myself to that authority even in matters where I diasgree.
I keep my mouth shut on these matters and lay myself open to have my
mind and heart changed by the Grace of God. Romans, I think says it
Lord, I believe. Help me in my unbelief

that was very good!

 

[Syele]

Is this where we get into “concupiscence”? Is this relevant in a Marian doctrine discussion? Really, I’m not sure, I just know that there is a difference between Catholic and Protestants notions of “Original sin” and “forgiveness”.

Well see, the thing is I don’t understand Catholic Marian Theology and I’m trying to grasp it. It isn’t the Origional sin part I have issue with so much as the sinlessness itself. You are probably correct it’s a problem between the diffrenece of definition of the doctrines of “Original sin” and “forgiveness”.

 

[Contarini]

Yes you are right, it’s citing the root not the actual word. The strong group really did not do such a great job did they?

I don’t think you understand. The root form is the standard form of the word–it’s the form you would find in a dictionary. This is perfectly normal procedure. You can’t treat every tense, mood, person, etc., of a verb as a separate word. It’s like the difference between “have,” “has,” and “had.” In a dictionary this would all be under “have.” It’s just that Greek words change more radically (on the whole–some English words obviously do too) and have far more different forms. Greek is a highly “inflected” language, while modern English is not.

So how does one find out the definition of the words that were actually used without having studied Greek?

That is the word that was used. This is a question of Greek grammar, so naturally studying Greek helps!

Is there an exhaustive Concordance?

At this level you need to look at a lexicon–Liddell and Scott is the best general Greek one, but there are specific NT lexicons. There are also “Theological Dictionaries” which give linguistic and theological analysis of each word in the NT. Vine’s is the most accessible and commonly used (at least among evangelical Protestants)–Kittel’s is far more in-depth (the full edition is 10 volumes).

Another excellent resource–though it presupposes some knowledge of Greek–is a one-volume guide to the Greek text put out by the Pontifical Biblical Institute (if I remember rightly) and explaining difficult words and constructions. It’s at my office and unfortunately I can’t remember the exact title.

This webpage gives a handy list of various exegetical resources–note especially “Greek Resources for NT Study” some distance down.

I’m sorry, but there is no short-cut to this information. It’s complex stuff.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

.

If Mary could not have carried Jesus in her womb unless she was sinless then God either can’t or won’t forgive her completely enough to make it possible. If you;d have answered the questions I asked perhaps this one could have been cleared up.

.

I think that it needs to be said, that, as I understand it, Catholic teaching is not that Mary could not have carried Jesus in her womb unless she was sinless; it is that it was fitting that she be sinless, because she carried Jesus in her womb…
It sounds like, I know, that I am being unduly pedantic, but I did grow up in the house with an English/Latin teacher, & these 2 concepts are totally different, if you look carefully at what they imply…

(Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist finds herself, once again, attempting to bring clarity to a Protestant/Catholic conversation…)

 

[mercygate]

I think that it needs to be said, that, as I understand it, Catholic teaching is not that Mary could not have carried Jesus in her womb unless she was sinless; it is that it was fitting that she be sinless, because she carried Jesus in her womb…
It sounds like, I know, that I am being unduly pedantic, but I did grow up in the house with an English/Latin teacher, & these 2 concepts are totally different, if you look carefully at what they imply…

(Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist finds herself, once again, attempting to bring clarity to a Protestant/Catholic conversation…)

Uh-huh. The “fitting” business made the whole concept more acceptable to my formerly Protestant mind. It made the Immaculate Conception more a matter of Jesus than of Mary – which, of course, it is.

 

[Zooey]

If you are baptized, and if you took your sins to Confession, and if from the moment you stepped out of the Confessional you in fact never committed another sin, then in that case, you would indeed be sinless. Your past sins would have been washed out of your soul, and it would be clean and bright again.

And this is very close to the Wesleyan idea of entire sanctification. Again, I see Wesley coming closer to Catholic teaching than the teaching of most (if not all) Protestant teachers.

First, it was not because Jesus was without sin that He was sacrificed; it was because He was God the Second Person.

No human being, even if they are sinless, could ever become a sacrifice for sins, since any human being only has the capacity of one sinless human being.

God alone has the capacity to take on the sins of the entire human race and yet remain without sin, because God alone is infinite (and something, regardless of how large it is, added to infinity, equals nothing - but something added to something finite causes the finite thing to be adulterated with the thing that was added - a sinless human being taking on the sins of the whole world would go straight to Hell from the abundance of sins added to him; only the infinite God can withstand this and still remain without sin).

I think that’s right. It sounds solid to me. Otherwise, we would be back to the blood sacrifices that went on & on endlessly in the temple. No human being could possibley take on all that sin.

Second, I have heard it said (and I believe it) that even if I or you or any single individual were the only person who had ever sinned, Jesus Christ would have died on the Cross for that one person.

There is someplace in St Teresa of Avila’s writings where she says something very like this…The closest I can come…She begins (as she often does) with: “His Majesty showed me”…and goes on to say just this. That if she were the only person in need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ would have died for “me, Teresa de Ahumada”.

This means that if every human being on earth with the sole exception of me (or you) is Immaculately Conceived, and I alone am born with Original Sin, Jesus Christ would have died on the Cross to save me from Original Sin; that’s how much He loves me, and that’s how much He loves every human being on earth - if this is so, (and I do believe that it is) then the fact that His mother was Immaculately conceived takes nothing away from Christ’s love for me, and takes nothing away from His sacrifice on the Cross for my sins and for the sins of all who are born into sin (which is everyone except His mother, who was saved by Him from her sins in a different way, in that she was prevented from ever committing them in the first place) because He would have done it even if 6.5 billion people in the world were Immaculately Conceived, and I alone were born to sin.

:clapping: :dancing:

With all do respect, aren’t you even that much more critical with teachings such as those laid out by Wesley? Granted, I don’t question his sincerity to uphold God’s Word, but you do follow traditions laid out by him 1700 years after Christ.
Alexius

Yeah, we do. Tradition is, therefore, a lot easier for me to accept, since Wesley both followed Tradition, & is the source of much Methodist tradition.

Is this where we get into “concupiscence”? Is this relevant in a Marian doctrine discussion? Really, I’m not sure, I just know that there is a difference between Catholic and Protestants notions of “Original sin” and “forgiveness”.

Yes, & this is a problem. There is a difference. (There is even a difference between one Protestant & another). Also, Eastern Orthodox is different still.
We have to not assume that just becasue of using the same word, does not of necessity, mean that we are saying the same thing.