Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[Good_Fella]

I will not say I 'strut" but I do affirm that studying history made me Catholic

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.”
Cardinal John Henry Newman

Such a statement is narrow minded and short sighted. You would have to apply the same principle to the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and the canon of scripture. None of these are found in Scripture. None of them are “man made” either. They are the result of the HS guiding the Church “into all truth” just as Jesus promised.

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, ‘speaking’ of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the ‘other’ scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led in the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stabilty."
2 Peter 3, 15-18 :knight2:

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 12-13

“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”
John 14, 18

The Bible does not “teach” which is one reason. Second, the Word of God is not limited to the Bible. Using the criteria “if I don’t see it in my bible it is man made” is absurd. By that criteria, you have to throw out the bible itself, since it nowhere contains the list of books that belong therein.

*But you remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because *you know from whom you have learned it. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching.
2 Timothy 3, 14,17

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350)

I will easily conceded that this doctrine emerges primarily out of Sacred Tradition. this is not a problem for me, because the canon of scripture comes from the same place.

Same with the Trinity.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fullfilled among us [Sacred Tradition], just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us [Oral Tradition], I too have decided, after investigating everything anew, to write it down [Scripture] in an orderly sequence for you, the most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
*Luke 1, 1-4 *

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2, 2

The gospel according to nbtb.

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the scriptures as I have delivered them to you.
1 nbtb 11:2

PAX :blushing:

 

[Canto]

The only way to get to the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of Mary is for a man to make it up and call it dogma. It is nowhere taught in the Word of God…“But our infalliable Pope told us so!!!”

The IC is taught in the oral word of God and I would argue scripture too. Remeber when Paul told the Thesselonians to hold onto tradition wether written OR oral?

Did the men at the council of Rome in 382 AD make up the canon of the New Testament which currently all of Christianity accepts? The NT canon is nowhere taught in the written word of God. Maybe our infalliable Pope Damasucs told us so.

 

[Good_Fella]

The writings on the catacomb walls that are enduring are the ones that are Christian. They are consistent with what the apostles taught and what the Holy Spirit illumined. No one in those caves were talking about Catholicism. They were talking about Jesus and the Way. They were talking about what God was doing to save mankind. The true church was the same then as it is today. It is wherever the Holy Spirit lives inside of a believer, and it is wherever those believers gather to worship, and to have community, and evangelize, and baptize and observe the Lord’s Supper. That has always been the chruch and always will be.

The persecuted early Christians in the Church at Rome believed in and adored the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist together with the brethren in the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. And they believed Mary was chaste and sinless as part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church united in faith.

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”
Clement of Rome, ‘Letter to the Corinthians, 44,4’ (A.D. 80)

“They [dissenters/heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
*Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7:1’ *

“Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Letter to Smyrnaeans, 8:1’ (c.A.D. 110)

The Bishop of Antioch was a disciple of John the Evangelist.
“The Word is everything to a child; both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse; The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”*
Clement of Alexandria, ‘The Instructor of the Children’ (ante A.D. 202)

“Contemplate, therefore, the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggest this to thee, let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘Catechetical Lecture, 12:8’ (c.A.D. 350)

“For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which he wove for Himself.”
Hyppolytus of Rome, ‘Treatise on Christ and ant-Christ, 4’ (A.D. 200)

“This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not woman. But she is once virgin and mother – pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood.”
*Clement of Alexandria, ‘The Instructor, 1:6’ (A.D. 202) *

“Believe then that this Only-begotten Son of God for our sins came down from heaven upon earth, and took upon him this human nature of like passions with us, and was begotten of the Holy Virgin and of the Holy Ghost, and was made Man”
Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘Catechetical Lecture, 4:9’ (c.A.D. 350)
*
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”*
Ephraim of Antioch, ‘Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23’ (A.D. 370)

PAX

 

[MDK]

While you guys strut your historical knowledge, I will say again: The only way to get to the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of Mary is for a man to make it up and call it dogma. It is nowhere taught in the Word of God. The few verses thrown up to string the case together are laughable. They are Scripture, and they mean what they mean, but they do not mean that! And repeating the mantra will not make it different, no matter how many times you say, “But our infalliable Pope told us so!!!”

Do you believe in the infallibility of the entity who brought you the Bible, or was it just blind luck somehow? In other words, could an entity that was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit, select which texts were inspired to deem as Scriptures to put into the Bible, and which non-inspired texts to leave out?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Click link, then on the word enmity and see the original Hebrew for yourself, then apply the reality of the definition to the reality of history and the word stands as “Hatred” as for one’s enemy.

searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+3:15&translation=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en

NonCatholic? I hesitate to respond, because of your disposition to the text and content. If you want to take a Hebrew content of this Gen.3:15 and the word “Enmity” your english interpretation of Hatred to the text, misses the main objective from the Hebrew speech and meaning. Where I think your word “hatred” implied does not equate with the context. For one the word “Between” is attached applying the seperating from the Woman and the serpent. Secondly, The Hebrew explanation of the text has the Woman applying the deadly blow to the serpent not Jesus. This supports Apostolic Tradition of the power Woman, the Virgin Mary, so your word “hatred” only supports the Virgin Mary’s victory over the serpent, not disqualifies the seperation from the Serpent and the Virgin Mary.

For God to make mortal enemies “Between” the Woman and her seed translates that the Woman and her seed will not have any thing to do with the serpent because of they are forever mortal “enemies”, and enemies do not congregate or have anything in common, thus “hate” implies the deadly blow that is to come and has already come from the Woman (blessed Virgin Mary) and her seed (Jesus).

Have you read the full Hebrew content of Genesis 3:15? It has a future Woman to come who will give the mortal blow to the serpent, thus supporting Apostolic Tradition.

In other words the “hatred” Mortal “enemies” God himself states “I” will place these “between” the serpent and the Woman and her seed, indicating a seperation that will never be united only when the Woman and her seed deliver the deadly blow to their “hated enemy”.

Peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

NonCatholic? I hesitate to respond, because of your disposition to the text and content. If you want to take a Hebrew content of this Gen.3:15 and the word “Enmity” your english interpretation of Hatred to the text, misses the main objective from the Hebrew speech and meaning. Where I think your word “hatred” implied does not equate with the context. For one the word “Between” is attached applying the seperating from the Woman and the serpent. Secondly, The Hebrew explanation of the text has the Woman applying the deadly blow to the serpent not Jesus. This supports Apostolic Tradition of the power Woman, the Virgin Mary, so your word “hatred” only supports the Virgin Mary’s victory over the serpent, not disqualifies the seperation from the Serpent and the Virgin Mary.

For God to make mortal enemies “Between” the Woman and her seed translates that the Woman and her seed will not have any thing to do with the serpent because they are forever mortal “enemies”, and enemies do not congregate or have anything in common, thus “hate” implies the deadly blow that is to come and has already come from the Woman (blessed Virgin Mary) and her seed (Jesus).

Have you read the full Hebrew content of Genesis 3:15? It has a future Woman to come who will give the mortal blow to the serpent, thus supporting Apostolic Tradition.

In other words the “hatred” Mortal “enemies” God himself states “I” will place these “between” the serpent and the Woman and her seed, indicating a seperation that will never be united only when the Woman and her seed deliver the deadly blow to their “hated enemy”.

Peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

While you guys strut your historical knowledge, I will say again: The only way to get to the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of Mary is for a man to make it up and call it dogma. It is nowhere taught in the Word of God. The few verses thrown up to string the case together are laughable. They are Scripture, and they mean what they mean, but they do not mean that! And repeating the mantra will not make it different, no matter how many times you say, “But our infalliable Pope told us so!!!”

I find your comment very comical; For one you apparently believe in the Sacred Scriptures that the CATHOLIC CHURCH by her infallible authority given to her by Jesus Christ himself, put the books of the bible together as God breathed so that you can believe in the sacred scriptures, yet you strike at the hand that feeds you? Then you want to tell the 2000 year old Catholic Christian church that your biblical interpretation supersedes the last 2000 years of Christians who walked the earth and gave the bible your trying to argue against now that is comical.

I got news for you, your biblical interpretation will blow away in the wind, but the Catholic interpretation has remained and will remain here on earth unchanged until Jesus returns. History already proves your interpretation has changed and will continue to change with the times.