Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[mardukm]

This is my own personal viewpoint.

I can’t remember the exact verses at this time:

– When Isaiah predicts, “Who has ever heard of a woman not in travail until after she has given birth?” Isn’t travail in birth one of the results of original sin? If this woman does not have birth pangs, what can we conclude?

– The Song of Songs mentions that the ark of the Lord will be laden on all sides with gold from the time of its creation. Isn’t Mary traditionally regarded as the Ark of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I’ve always interpreted these to refer to Mary somehow even when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome. Now that I am in communion with Rome, my understanding has been validated, via the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Admittedly, I am Coptic, and the Alexandrian School was always famous for its allegorical use of Scripture. You don’t have to agree with my interpretations, but I’m rather comfortable with them as a Copt.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NonCatholic]

12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth

Genesis 37:9
Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

In Genesis 37:9 to 11, you have something unmistakably connected to this. There is this description of Joseph and a dream that Joseph had. And in the dream, verse 9, he relates to his brothers. Joseph, one of the 12 sons of Jacob, and he has 11 brothers, and he said, “I have another dream, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars were bowing down to me.” Now that is almost a direct parallel with the exception that you have 12 stars in the book of Revelation. And what Joseph is saying in that passage, in that dream, is that, "I had a dream that my position in Messianic promise, my position in the divine plan is to be the promised line of God…He represents Messianic promise. That is to say he is exalted above everybody else and the promises and the purposes of God in the Messianic plan.

And here is the identical imagery. This woman is exalted above everybody else. This woman is exalted and associated with the 12 tribes of Israel. So, clearly, the imagery here is of the nation that is more than the tribes. The nation that is above all other nations. This is imagery that is literally taken from 37th chapter of Genesis. Clothed, in this case, with the sun, showing brilliance and reflecting its light as the glorious nation that God has chosen.

She is pregnant. Israel is often depicted this way. You can go to the Old Testament, Isaiah 26, Isaiah 54, Isaiah 66, you can go into Hosea, Micah, Jeremiah. You will find Israel depicted as a woman in travail, as a woman in birth pain, as a woman trying to bring forth a child. This is Israel.

 

[mardukm]

She is pregnant. Israel is often depicted this way. You can go to the Old Testament, Isaiah 26, Isaiah 54, Isaiah 66, you can go into Hosea, Micah, Jeremiah. You will find Israel depicted as a woman in travail, as a woman in birth pain, as a woman trying to bring forth a child. This is Israel.

Seems as though your interpretation supports my understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah about the woman who will give birth without travail. If Israel is depicted as a woman who gives birth WITH travail, then Isaiah’s prediction must refer to something else — Mary and the Immaculate Conception.:clapping:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Well I’ve seen this line if thinking many times FBL. Why would Jesus inherit a sinful nature from Mary if Mary had not inherited it from her father?? Why would GOD need to pardon Mary per se to protect Jesus from sin when he could have just pardoned
Jesus? Jesus inherited his earthly qualities from Mary but it’s impossible for GOD to inherit sin. Jesus was GOD incarnate so if it’s possible for GOD to inherit sin then the world would fall apart.

To follow your response Jesus did not come from the seed of a man so HE therefore would not have inherited sin from Mary. The problem we get into with taking this approach is to reduce the ability for GOD to be man. Sin and GOD simply don’t mix. By virtue of being GOD sin is canceled out. That’s why we see so many people being healed just by touching Christ. Look at the leper who touched Christ and was immediately healed. Also the bleeding woman. In both cases you would have been considered unclean in the Jewish world. Instead the opposite happened.

If you say Jesus couldn’t be 100% an without Mary’s sinful nature, then the same could be said for Mary. That she wasn’t 100% woman. Scripture just does not say that at all.

Blessing to you too FBL. Look forward to talking with you some more.

Good post.

 

[Hislittlelady]

I’m not sure if this came up in another post or not, but all I want to share is my opinion here. Who can possibly think that Jesus, both human and divine in nature, could possibly be born into a vessel of sin? That wouldn’t make sense to me at all.

Although Catholic and knowing the church teaches that Mary was sinless from the start, even if this be open to debate, my reason tells me that she probably was pure from birth since she was chosen by God to be Mother of the Messiah right from when she was conceived. God can do anything he wants. This whole entire universe is His. Why would he make a human being, with original sin on their soul to carry His Only Begotten Son, both man and God, to be placed in a sinful vessel, or even that ever had sin in it.

Therefore, my reasoning would absolutely tell me, even aside from what the church teaches, is that Mary was pure from the moment of her conception. She was excluded from having original sin, and just to make a further statement, I’d probably see it this way even if I were a non-Catholic. For whatever God’s reason was, He didn’t have it added to scripture and who knows why.

This is just another big mystery that everyone tries to solve and we will never have the solution or the answer to this, just as we won’t with so many other doctrines of the church. It’s all a matter of faith and our own choice to believe or not according to our study of scripture and sacred tradition.

Peace to all and blessings in the new year to come.

 

[mardukm]

Well I’ve seen this line if thinking many times FBL. Why would Jesus inherit a sinful nature from Mary if Mary had not inherited it from her father?? Why would GOD need to pardon Mary per se to protect Jesus from sin when he could have just pardoned
Jesus? Jesus inherited his earthly qualities from Mary but it’s impossible for GOD to inherit sin. Jesus was GOD incarnate so if it’s possible for GOD to inherit sin then the world would fall apart.

To follow your response Jesus did not come from the seed of a man so HE therefore would not have inherited sin from Mary. The problem we get into with taking this approach is to reduce the ability for GOD to be man. Sin and GOD simply don’t mix. By virtue of being GOD sin is canceled out. That’s why we see so many people being healed just by touching Christ. Look at the leper who touched Christ and was immediately healed. Also the bleeding woman. In both cases you would have been considered unclean in the Jewish world. Instead the opposite happened.

If you say Jesus couldn’t be 100% an without Mary’s sinful nature, then the same could be said for Mary. That she wasn’t 100% woman. Scripture just does not say that at all.

Blessing to you too FBL. Look forward to talking with you some more.

Your argument cannot work from a Christological perspective.

You are claiming that Jesus is sinless because He is God, not because of the flesh he took from His mother. The problem with your position is that it assumes that God had an interest in Mary only at the moment of the Incarnation. However, you forget that Scripture states that God would MAKE FOR HIMSELF His own abode, a prophecy of His first coming.

In the Old Testament, MEN with imperfect hands made an abode for God which needed to be purified before God rested upon it. What possible scriptural logic can you propose to make anyone believe that the abode that God HIMSELF made FOR Himself would not ALREADY be purified from the very first moment He made it? God already knew from the first days of Creation who would be the abode of his Incarnation. God began making this abode when God first formed Mary. From the first moment of her conception, God made Mary SPECIFICALLY to be the abode and receptacle of His Incarnation (or do you suppose God had any other purpose in mind for her?).

God was not some kind of passive agent in His Incarnation, brother. He had a direct, active hand in MAKING FOR HIMSELF HIS OWN abode.

I pray you reconsider your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ckempston]

I’m not sure if this came up in another post or not, but all I want to share is my opinion here. Who can possibly think that Jesus, both human and divine in nature, could possibly be born into a vessel of sin? That wouldn’t make sense to me at all.

Although Catholic and knowing the church teaches that Mary was sinless from the start, even if this be open to debate, my reason tells me that she probably was pure from birth since she was chosen by God to be Mother of the Messiah right from when she was conceived. God can do anything he wants. This whole entire universe is His. Why would he make a human being, with original sin on their soul to carry His Only Begotten Son, both man and God, to be placed in a sinful vessel, or even that ever had sin in it.

Therefore, my reasoning would absolutely tell me, even aside from what the church teaches, is that Mary was pure from the moment of her conception. She was excluded from having original sin, and just to make a further statement, I’d probably see it this way even if I were a non-Catholic. For whatever God’s reason was, He didn’t have it added to scripture and who knows why.

This is just another big mystery that everyone tries to solve and we will never have the solution or the answer to this, just as we won’t with so many other doctrines of the church. It’s all a matter of faith and our own choice to believe or not according to our study of scripture and sacred tradition.

Peace to all and blessings in the new year to come.

It’s hard for some to believe that God would become a man at all. Doesn’t make it untrue, does it? Besides, this reasoning has already been refuted. Jesus’ very purpose of coming into the world was to come into direct contact with sin: he took it upon himself on the Cross. Secondly, if God could put a shield around Mary at her conception to protect her from sin, he could just as easily have done it to Jesus and cut out the middle-man (or woman).

 

[ckempston]

Your argument cannot work from a Christological perspective.

You are claiming that Jesus is sinless because He is God, not because of the flesh he took from His mother. The problem with your position is that it assumes that God had an interest in Mary only at the moment of the Incarnation. However, you forget that Scripture states that God would MAKE FOR HIMSELF His own abode, a prophecy of His first coming.

God does not abide in Mary, he abides in the church.

In the Old Testament, MEN with imperfect hands made an abode for God which needed to be purified before God rested upon it. What possible scriptural logic can you propose to make anyone believe that the abode that God HIMSELF made FOR Himself would not ALREADY be purified from the very first moment He made it? God already knew from the first days of Creation who would be the abode of his Incarnation. God began making this abode when God first formed Mary. From the first moment of her conception, God made Mary SPECIFICALLY to be the abode and receptacle of His Incarnation (or do you suppose God had any other purpose in mind for her?).

He abides in the church, not Mary. You are confused.

God was not some kind of passive agent in His Incarnation, brother. He had a direct, active hand in MAKING FOR HIMSELF HIS OWN abode.

I pray you reconsider your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

Broken record: his abode is the church, or possibly the New Jerusalem, but certainly not Mary, any more than he abides in any other believer.

 

[NonCatholic]

Seems as though your interpretation supports my understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah about the woman who will give birth without travail. If Israel is depicted as a woman who gives birth WITH travail, then Isaiah’s prediction must refer to something else — Mary and the Immaculate Conception.:clapping:

Blessings,
Marduk

Believe what you want, but the Scripture is pretty clear and will always verify itself in almost every circumstance and you can’t tell me that what is spoken in Genesis, being so similar, doesn’t give insight to Revelation Revelation 12 that there is not some parallel…excuse me, I misspoke, you can tell me it is coincidence or not related. However one of the purpose’s of Revelation is future Prophecy.

I care more about getting it right…consider when the “immaculate” conception theory came into being, then compare to what the Mary of the Bible says concerning the need of a Savior and Scripture speaks for itself. It is undeniable unless you do not have the Spirit that leads to all truth residing in you.

 

[NDfan]

Genesis 37:9
Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

In Genesis 37:9 to 11, you have something unmistakably connected to this. There is this description of Joseph and a dream that Joseph had. And in the dream, verse 9, he relates to his brothers. Joseph, one of the 12 sons of Jacob, and he has 11 brothers, and he said, “I have another dream, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars were bowing down to me.” Now that is almost a direct parallel with the exception that you have 12 stars in the book of Revelation. And what Joseph is saying in that passage, in that dream, is that, "I had a dream that my position in Messianic promise, my position in the divine plan is to be the promised line of God…He represents Messianic promise. That is to say he is exalted above everybody else and the promises and the purposes of God in the Messianic plan.

And here is the identical imagery. This woman is exalted above everybody else. This woman is exalted and associated with the 12 tribes of Israel. So, clearly, the imagery here is of the nation that is more than the tribes. The nation that is above all other nations. This is imagery that is literally taken from 37th chapter of Genesis. Clothed, in this case, with the sun, showing brilliance and reflecting its light as the glorious nation that God has chosen.

She is pregnant. Israel is often depicted this way. You can go to the Old Testament, Isaiah 26, Isaiah 54, Isaiah 66, you can go into Hosea, Micah, Jeremiah. You will find Israel depicted as a woman in travail, as a woman in birth pain, as a woman trying to bring forth a child. This is Israel.

NonCatholic excellent post. RC Sproul explains this very well. I was making the point to my friend Canto of how the RC has interpreted it. The parallel here is incredible.

 

[mardukm]

God does not abide in Mary, he abides in the church.

He abides in the church, not Mary. You are confused.

Broken record: his abode is the church, or possibly the New Jerusalem, but certainly not Mary, any more than he abides in any other believer.

Really? He did not overshadow Mary? I guess you are a Protestant, so you naturally do not understand the specialness of Mary in the eyes of God. I have even heard Protestants argue that God up to the point of the Incarnation could have chosen ANYONE to be His Mother. Funny how Protestants always claim “God has a plan for you,” yet deny that God had a plan for Mary from the moment of her conception. Protestantism is filled with contradictions, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NonCatholic]

NonCatholic excellent post. RC Sproul explains this very well. I was making the point to my friend Canto of how the RC has interpreted it. The parallel here is incredible.

Can you tell Bendictus2…LOL

 

[Mickey]

God does not abide in Mary, he abides in the church.

God the Son certainly did abide in the womb of St Mary. That which cannot be contained was contained in the womb of the holy Virgin. But St Mary was born with original sin like every other human being. She is the perfect example of how we should live our Christian lives, and she was like us in every way, including original sin.

There is one great difference.

Through her own free will–by grace–she chose to not sin during her earthly life.

 

[mardukm]

Believe what you want, but the Scripture is pretty clear and will always verify itself in almost every circumstance and you can’t tell me that what is spoken in Genesis, being so similar, doesn’t give insight to Revelation Revelation 12 that there is not some parallel…excuse me, I misspoke, you can tell me it is coincidence or not related. However one of the purpose’s of Revelation is future Prophecy.

I didn’t deny your interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 did I?

I care more about getting it right…consider when the “immaculate” conception theory came into being, then compare to what the Mary of the Bible says concerning the need of a Savior and Scripture speaks for itself. It is undeniable unless you do not have the Spirit that leads to all truth residing in you.

I know that the dogma of the IC specifically states that GOD preserved Mary from original sin. So, yes, she needed a Savior. The dogma does not deny that. Perhaps you want to reword your statement, for as it stands it is not much of an argument.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Through her own free will–by grace–she chose to not sin during her earthly life.

I believe the same thing, brother. I used to think that the dogma of the IC deprived Mary of free will. But I realized that belief would be inconsistent with the teaching that Christ who also knew no sin had free will.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I believe the same thing, brother.

So then you also believe that she was born with original sin?

 

[Mickey]

Christ who also knew no sin had free will.

Do you believe that Christ was capable of sinning?

 

[mardukm]

Do you believe that Christ was capable of sinning?

No.

 

[ckempston]

Really? He did not overshadow Mary? I guess you are a Protestant, so you naturally do not understand the specialness of Mary in the eyes of God. I have even heard Protestants argue that God up to the point of the Incarnation could have chosen ANYONE to be His Mother. Funny how Protestants always claim “God has a plan for you,” yet deny that God had a plan for Mary from the moment of her conception. Protestantism is filled with contradictions, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

Strawman. I made no such claims. There’s no contradiction here. Mary was chosen, as far as I can imagine, from the foundation of the world. She is indeed special, as she herself points out: “all generations will call me blessed.” I certainly do that, I simply don’t take it to the nth degree like Catholics do.

 

[Mickey]

No.

So Christ had free will but could not sin. And St Mary had free will and could sin but chose not to. So why do you believe that St Mary needed to be preserved from original sin in her mother’s (St Anne) womb?