Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[Swamp_Yankee]

Wrong. This is real simple:

If God could stop Mary from inheriting Original Sin, he could skip a step and stop it directly at Jesus. The Catholic reasoning is nothing but special pleading.

Well, ok. But the idea of Mary being immaculately concieved had to have come from somewhere. The RC didn’t just invent it out of the blue, and if they did, for what reason? It doesn’t take anything away from Jesus. If anything, it adds to grandure of the whole story. Our ( catholic ) affections and traditional idea of Mary doesn’t destract us from our love of Jesus.

 

[ckempston]

Well, ok. But the idea of Mary being immaculately concieved had to have come from somewhere. The RC didn’t just invent it out of the blue, and if they did, for what reason? It doesn’t take anything away from Jesus. If anything, it adds to grandure of the whole story. Our ( catholic ) affections and traditional idea of Mary doesn’t destract us from our love of Jesus.

Typically, the one who makes the affirmative claim has to provide proof of the claim. What you’re doing is shifting the burden of proof. I challenge anyone to find where it was taught from the time of the Apostles that Mary was immaculately conceived, sinless, and assumed into heaven.

 

[NonCatholic]

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

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

Only a sinner needs a Savior; otherwise there is no saving to be done since the Savior’s task was to remove sin. Jesus was the only human to walk the face of the earth without sin.

Has anyone ever thought about Joseph, would God prevent him from his Holy Matrimony duties as a husband and the command to procreate?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together she was found to be with child **by the Holy Spirit

Matthew 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, **do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife;
**
So God sent an angel and told Joseph to take her as his wife; thus changing his mind about putting her away…and oh by the way…you can’t have any children with her I need to keep her a virgin.

Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35
31 **Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. **32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” 33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Matthew 13:5-56
54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 **Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? **Where then did this Man get all these things?”

The problem of the identity of the four brothers and sisters of Jesus, mentioned in this place, did not exist in ancient times. Helvidius, the most ancient commentator on this passage, said that they were all the children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus was born. It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew’s words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment. All such efforts fail in the light of the simple, obvious, and necessary meaning of Matthew 13:55,56. The truth was built into the passage by the Holy Spirit and is incapable of destruction.

Source: Coffman’s commentary on the NT

Summary: The Mary of the RCC is not the Mary in Holy Scripture.:hammering:

 

[ckempston]

Only a sinner needs a Savior; otherwise there is no saving to be done since the Savior’s task was to remove sin. Jesus was the only human to walk the face of the earth without sin.

Has anyone ever thought about Joseph, would God prevent him from his Holy Matrimony duties as a husband and the command to procreate?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together she was found to be with child **by the Holy Spirit

This reminds me of the reasoning in the Catholic argument for Purgatory. They claim that since Jesus said the unforgivable sin will not be forgiven in this life or the next, that some sins must be forgivable after death. Now, that is a stretch, but that’s not the point. It is quite clear that in applying the same reasoning to this passage above, that we would conclude that if there was a time before they (Mary and Joseph) came together, that there would be a time after they came together. That would be consistent. However, there appears to be no method to the madness. It’s all about FIAT.

 

[NDfan]

Well, ah, yes. I mean, yes, the Holy Spirit had no sin to pass on, and Jesus had no human father. I wish I had a better understanding of the idea I posted. It was not mine, I heard it sometime ago, and it made perfect sense when I heard it. I wish I could do it justice here. I was hoping someone else here might be familiar with it. Quick question, where does it say " Christ was born into sin". Thanks SY

SY,

Peter’s letter says Christ committed no sin nor did HE have deceit in HIS mouth. I was saying HE was born into sin meaning coming into a sinful world. I don’t believe there’s a scriptural verse that has those exact words.

 

[Mickey]

It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew’s words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment.

Preaching that St Mary and St Joseph had other children is the real spin doctoring. The patristic support fot St Mary’s perpetual virginity is absolutely overwhelming–even the early reformers preached it. How sad it is for me to see this relatively modern heresy resurface time and time again.

 

[NDfan]

Well, ok. But the idea of Mary being immaculately concieved had to have come from somewhere. The RC didn’t just invent it out of the blue, and if they did, for what reason? It doesn’t take anything away from Jesus. If anything, it adds to grandure of the whole story. Our ( catholic ) affections and traditional idea of Mary doesn’t destract us from our love of Jesus.

SY,

The sinless nature of Mary often gets derived from the greeting in Luke 1:28. That famous word kecharitomene. I believe the OP was starting with Genesis 3 to open the discussion but then it moved to Luke 1:28. Pius was the one who declared Mary to be sinless from conception based on the interpretation of kecharitomene as full of grace. Most RC theologians will admit that Luke 1:28 does not singularly provide this support but when coupled with other scriptural verses completes the picture if you will.

As far as adding grandure I guess you could say that but to take it a step further and create doctrines that are required beliefs is a gigantic step.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Preaching that St Mary and St Joseph had other children is the real spin doctoring. The patristic support fot St Mary’s perpetual virginity is absolutely overwhelming–even the early reformers preached it. How sad it is for me to see this relatively modern heresy resurface time and time again.

How so? Do we really need to re-visit Matthew 1:25 and all the verses with brother and sister?? Just because some of the reformers preached this doesn’t make it so. Show me someone from the late 1st or early 2nd century that preached it. Or perhaps we should move this to another thread first.

 

[Mickey]

Or perhaps we should move this to another thread first.

Go for it.

 

[NDfan]

Go for it.

I hope this works. Try this link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4632993#post4632993

 

[ckempston]

Preaching that St Mary and St Joseph had other children is the real spin doctoring. The patristic support fot St Mary’s perpetual virginity is absolutely overwhelming–even the early reformers preached it. How sad it is for me to see this relatively modern heresy resurface time and time again.

Ok, this claim constantly goes unchallenged by Protestants, and is consistently perpetuated by Catholics with no evidence to back up the claim.

Here’s a simple challenge: please provide this overwhelming support.

I guarantee that this “support” won’t become “overwhelming” any time before the 5th century AD.

 

[NDfan]

Ok, this claim constantly goes unchallenged by Protestants, and is consistently perpetuated by Catholics with no evidence to back up the claim.

Here’s a simple challenge: please provide this overwhelming support.

I guarantee that this “support” won’t become “overwhelming” any time before the 5th century AD.

I added a thread to discuss this and sent the link to you via private message. But here it is.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4632993#post4632993

 

[fbl9]

But Mary did not represent the permanent place GOD would abide in HIS incarnate state. Scripture tells us that Jesus was born into sin but committed no sin.

What you are suggesting is that Jesus could have been affected by Mary’s sinful state requiring her to be sinless. That would mean that GOD can be tainted by sin which is impossible. This is where the argument runs into Jesus human nature vs HIS GODLY nature. And again I will refer right back to scripture which shows that when Jesus touches unclean people they are cleansed. It’s not the other way around. That people had to be clean to touch Jesus.

Yes Jesus was born into sin but not born of it.
What does immaculate mean?CLEAN…so looking into this doctrine we find the Church saying At the time of Mary’s conception she was cleansed of orginal sin.Just who did the cleaning?The very same one whom she called her savior…Just what was she saved from at that time??

 

[NDfan]

Yes Jesus was born into sin but not born of it.
What does immaculate mean?CLEAN…so looking into this doctrine we find the Church saying At the time of Mary’s conception she was cleansed of orginal sin.Just who did the cleaning?The very same one whom she called her savior…Just what was she saved from at that time??

But FBL scripture does not say she was cleansed of original sin. That’s the meaning that is gleaned out of Luke 1:28. What I could see is if the church stated that she was clean while carrying Christ. But after the birth of Christ you can’t make the statement that she never sinned. Christ is the only one in scripture that we are told never sinned.

If Mary committed no sin why did she die? The wages of sin are death. If Mary died then how did that happen unless she was a sinner? Christ was murdered so we know HE didn’t die of natural causes as a result of HIS sin. But please answer this for me.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Ok, this claim constantly goes unchallenged by Protestants, and is consistently perpetuated by Catholics with no evidence to back up the claim.

LOL!

I am Orthodox and we stand united with Catholics on this. The undivided Church believed in the perpetual virginity of St Mary–that is why it goes unchallenged by protestants. It has been taught this way for 2000 years and your challeges are fruitless. I will participate after a couple days–my Christmas is tomorrow–we are on the Julian calendar.

 

[rinnie]

Yes Jesus was born into sin but not born of it.
What does immaculate mean?CLEAN…so looking into this doctrine we find the Church saying At the time of Mary’s conception she was cleansed of orginal sin.Just who did the cleaning?The very same one whom she called her savior…Just what was she saved from at that time??

Good point fb19:thumbsup: If Mary was with sin, and was born of original sin, and not saved from it, then if what they claim is true there is no way that Jesus could have been born without original sin either, because if Mary had it he had it right! So either the church was indeed correct in their statement that Mary was saved at conception which in part states how Jesus was also sinless. again good point.

 

[NDfan]

Good point fb19:thumbsup: If Mary was with sin, and was born of original sin, and not saved from it, then if what they claim is true there is no way that Jesus could have been born without original sin either, because if Mary had it he had it right! So either the church was indeed correct in their statement that Mary was saved at conception which in part states how Jesus was also sinless. again good point.

So Rinnie you are saying that Jesus would inherit sin from Mary if she was sinful? How so when scripture tells us that sin is carried through the seed of the man. Again if GOD pardoned Mary at conception per se then HE could easily have saved Jesus at conception.

And as I have asked before if Mary was sinless then how did she die?? The wages of sin are death. By your statement then Mary should still be alive today in this life.

 

[rinnie]

So Rinnie you are saying that Jesus would inherit sin from Mary if she was sinful? How so when scripture tells us that sin is carried through the seed of the man. Again if GOD pardoned Mary at conception per se then HE could easily have saved Jesus at conception.

And as I have asked before if Mary was sinless then how did she die?? The wages of sin are death. By your statement then Mary should still be alive today in this life.

Okay if I go by what you are saying then Jesus died too right. He was sinless!

 

[rinnie]

So Rinnie you are saying that Jesus would inherit sin from Mary if she was sinful? How so when scripture tells us that sin is carried through the seed of the man. Again if GOD pardoned Mary at conception per se then HE could easily have saved Jesus at conception.

And as I have asked before if Mary was sinless then how did she die?? The wages of sin are death. By your statement then Mary should still be alive today in this life.

Also Mary was taken up to heaven. Her body was never buried in the grave. Her body was pure was never left to rot. She was taken straight up to God. Now that is according to Church teachings. The same Church that gave us all other teachings. We either believe all of the teachings of the Church or we don’t. Also the only difference between Mary and Jesus is this, Mary did indeed need a savior, we agree and was indeed saved at her conception. But Jesus never needed a Savior he was a savior. Who was he going to be saved from himself. I was just pointing out your logic did not work. Because Jesus did indeed die. He was crucified under p p suffered DIED and was buried. He was risen on the third day in fullfillment of scriptures. So they did both really die. Because he could not have been risen from the dead if he indeed had not died. Of course not his soul but neither does ours and thats a whole different mattter.

 

[NDfan]

Okay if I go by what you are saying then Jesus died too right. He was sinless!

Jesus did not die of natural causes due to HIS sin. Jesus was murdered which was a sin committed by another. Big difference.