Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[NonCatholic]

When did God say MARY actually sinned?

Mary said it herself.

Mary of the scriputres is not the Mary of the Catholic Church - says who ?

I for one.

Are you saying that God cannot save a woman from all sin?

Is that what I said? No. One of God’s purposes for sending Jesus was to save believers from their sin…he does not distinguish male from female.

If God can save a woman from all sin, is he not saving her, hence he becomes her sav(e)iour ?

I agree, but you must have sin in order to remove sin. If you have no sin, then you do not need a Savior…is that complicated?

 

[NonCatholic]

Historic Protestantism rejects this novel idea of a secret rapture. The Historic Protestant and Reformed Faith has from the beginning been predominately Amillenial. This rapture doctrine in no more than a 150 years old, and is a carnal American eschatology that has no support in the Scriptures, nor in Church History. Just thought I would throw that in there!

You are mistaken on both the origin of premillinialist and the support in Scriptures. What are you? Pre, post, ah or hybrid?

 

[guanophore]

Verse 17 reads "So the dragon was enraged with the woman (Israel), and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus".

Why did you insert the word “Israel” into the holy scripture?

Also, since “Israel” as a nation did not follow Jesus, then how can you apply this passage to them?

We know that during the tribulation, which is what this whole scenario is engaged in., there is the 144,000 Jews which are what?..testifying about Jesus. Also, there are going to be a lot of believers that they have reached, so when the dragon goes after “rest of her children”, because they couldn’t get the one’s that are hidden and protected in the hills, then the dragon goes for all of the rest of the believers…could refer to Jews only, but I suspect the dragon is going more after all sons of Abraham by faith, which would be all believers, which would make more sense given the time, the tribulation…this is very fascinating and I’m glad I will be raptured prior to all of this…praise God!

Well, it is imaginative. HOwever, I think it is far beyond the scope of this thread so will refrain from getting into it here. Suffice to say that the images in apocalyptic literature are multivalent. The “woman” has referent to Mary, as mother to all those who follow the commandments of her son, as well as to the true Israel, those who have received the Messiah, as well as to the Church, the Bride who acts as mother to the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

Mary said it herself.

No. What she said was thanks to God for SAVING her from sin. Thats not quite the same.

I for one.

Your perceptions of Mary when reading the Scriptures are different than our perceptions.

We read the Scriptures from the point of view of those who wrote them, and you read them separated from that.

This is part of the inheritance of being Protestant. Separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

Is that what I said?

I agree, but you must have sin in order to remove sin. If you have no sin, then you do not need a Savior…is that complicated?

Apparently it is that complicated, because what you have reasoned here is not consistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[NonCatholic]

Why did you insert the word “Israel” into the holy scripture?

It refers to Israel, the woman in the passgae is the nation.

Well, it is imaginative. HOwever, I think it is far beyond the scope of this thread so will refrain from getting into it here. Suffice to say that the images in apocalyptic literature are multivalent. The “woman” has referent to Mary, as mother to all those who follow the commandments of her son, as well as to the true Israel, those who have received the Messiah, as well as to the Church, the Bride who acts as mother to the faithful.

Definitely not Mary of the Bible, possibly the church, but I think with more study we could eliminate that as a possibility, but definitely Israel…as it fits the tribulation and Israel is often referred to as a woman.

 

[guanophore]

It refers to Israel, the woman in the passgae is the nation.

You are adding to the Holy Scripture. This is an interpretation/opinion.

The Nation of Israel did not embrace Christ.

Definitely not Mary of the Bible,

I accept that you do not recognize this Mary through the Reformed lens you are using to read the Scripture.

possibly the church, but I think with more study we could eliminate that as a possibility, but definitely Israel…as it fits the tribulation and Israel is often referred to as a woman.

I will let this one go, since it is outside the scope of this thread, and I am not interested in the modern evangelical millenial debate.

 

[NonCatholic]

No. What she said was thanks to God for SAVING her from sin. Thats not quite the same.

she said Luke 1:46-47 "And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”
No where, except the Catholic mind, has someone in Scripture called God their Savior and been without sin. No one has ever exhauted God that did not need saving. And no human, except Jesus, was ever without sin…no one. Saying anything else is contrary to what God has already said.

Your perceptions of Mary when reading the Scriptures are different than our perceptions.

Each person’s perception is their reality…we might agree on this…LOL

We read the Scriptures from the point of view of those who wrote them, and you read them separated from that.

I disagree, I believe you read them from a human perspective, whereas my guide and teacher is the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture.

This is part of the inheritance of being Protestant. Separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

Don’t know about that. Which Apostolic tradition, the Catholic version or the Scriptural version? There appears to be a difference from what I know and have observed.

Apparently it is that complicated, because what you have reasoned here is not consistent with Catholic teaching.

No it is very simple, but your version of Apostolic tradition complicates everything to the point where no one is able to understand…sorry about the leaking…it is not personal; I hope you understand that…we present and we agree on a few things and differ on many.

By the way…is the posting a little better? Took a minute or two to get it correct. At first it seemed like a real hassle and does have its drawbacks, but now that I have the hang of it…not too bad.

 

[NonCatholic]

You are adding to the Holy Scripture. This is an interpretation/opinion.

Everything is an interpretation…it is a matter of looking at the whole of Scripture and getting the right interpretation, which can only happen with the Holy Spirit.

The Nation of Israel did not embrace Christ.

Again, you must review the context of the passage. Your statement has no effect.

I accept that you do not recognize this Mary through the Reformed lens you are using to read the Scripture.

If the reformed lens is synonymous with the Holy Spirit, then I agree.

I will let this one go, since it is outside the scope of this thread, and I am not interested in the modern evangelical millenial debate.

We will start another thread sometime soon. I’m getting a little worn today.

 

[Good_Fella]

Mary said it herself.

One of God’s purposes for sending Jesus was to save believers from their sin…he does not distinguish male from female.

I agree, but you must have sin in order to remove sin. If you have no sin, then you do not need a Savior…is that complicated?

Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam and Eve by his death on the cross. But original sin is not a personal transgression of ours as individual human beings. It’s a state we’ve contracted in our humanity. By the redemptive merits of Christ’s sacrifice, we can receive the grace of forgiveness of our own personal sins provided we are contrite and repent. Redemption and forgiveness go hand in hand in God’s plan of salvation. There is no redemption for people who die in a state of mortal sin (a violation of the Ten Commandments) by refusing to repent. Thus Mary was saved through the merits of Christ’s death on the cross by being preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception, having been implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve in her humanity. But she was in no need of having been forgiven of any personal sins that she would have had to commit in her life.

The manner in which Mary’s salvation took course in her life radically differs from that of the human race. Unlike the rest of us, Mary was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, which is necessary for our salvation. As a result, her human nature was not affected by the inclination to sin (concupiscence). And Luke assures us in the words of the angel Gabriel that Mary, ‘Kecharitomene’, never fell from God’s grace by committing a personal sin. Mary’s soul proclaimed the greatness of the Lord throughout her entire life. The Church Fathers perceived this when they referred to Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of Justice…through you [the Divine Maternity] every faithful soul achieves salvation.”
*Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at Ephesus (A.D. 431) *

PAX :tiphat:

 

[RobHom]

Mary said it

Proof?

I for one.

Proof?

Is that what I said? No. One of God’s purposes for sending Jesus was to save believers from their sin…he does not distinguish male from female.

OK, but you’re just being “deflectionary”.

I agree, but you must have sin in order to remove sin. If you have no sin, then you do not need a Savior…is that complicated?

Taking a little literary license?

I fear that your knowledge of Mary is extremely limited or very biased as a result of your training.

You are attempting to constrain God and His powers and abilities, and using the bible to confine Him. Not good, especially when you consider that God did not say that the bible is the end all to be all, nor does the bible say that either.

To frame it simply by way of a set of questions:

1. If God is omniscient, He knows all, right?
2. If God is omnipotent, He can do anything, right?
3. If God is omnipotent, He could create a woman to bear His son on earth, and He could create the perfect woman, a sinless woman to bear His Son, right?
4. Why is that so difficult to understand?

One answer is because you have a seriously limited knowledge about Mary…from her birth onward.

 

[guanophore]

she said Luke 1:46-47 "And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”
No where, except the Catholic mind, has someone in Scripture called God their Savior and been without sin. No one has ever exhauted God that did not need saving. And no human, except Jesus, was ever without sin…no one. Saying anything else is contrary to what God has already said.

I suppose you may be right. It does make a difference in the understanding when you read through the lens of what the Apostles believed and taught.

It is very simple. God can save people from sin just as much by preventing them from falling into it as He can by cleaning them after.

It is not necessary to sin. God created Adam an Eve without sin, and this is how He intends us to live. If God can create the first Eve with no sin, why could He not the second?

Anyway, it all centers around the understanding of original sin. Since your beliefs have departed from the Apostolic teaching on that point, nothing about the immaculate conception will make any sense.

Each person's perception is their reality..we might agree on this..LOL

From a psychological perspective, a lot can be said for this. When the Apostle states that we have the “mind of Christ”, he means that we adopt His perceptions in lieu of our own.

 I disagree, I believe you read them from a human perspective, whereas my guide and teacher is the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture.

So, you have a HS hotline, and whoever does not agree with your interpretation must be carnal?

Interesting the HS seemed to have completely abandoned the Church He was sent to preserve and protect until the Reformation.
Such a weakling, that third person of the Trinity!

 Don't know about that.  Which Apostolic tradition, the Catholic version or the Scriptural version?  There appears to be a difference from what I know and have observed.

This is a very true statement. From what you know, and what you have observed, there appears to be a difference. Well said. However, in reality, there is no contradiction between them, since they both came from the same Source. Catholics produced the NT out of Catholic belief and practice. That is why there is nothing in them that is contradictory.

No it is very simple, but your version of Apostolic tradition complicates everything to the point where no one is able to understand…sorry about the leaking…it is not personal; I hope you understand that…we present and we agree on a few things and differ on many.

I am sure that the Apostolic faith as it has been preserved by the Catholic Church is a “complication” to those who are the offspring of the ones who abandoned it 500 years ago.

By the way…is the posting a little better? Took a minute or two to get it correct. At first it seemed like a real hassle and does have its drawbacks, but now that I have the hang of it…not too bad.

YES! Much easier to read and follow. :clapping:

Everything is an interpretation…

I am glad that we can agree on this point.

…it is a matter of looking at the whole of Scripture and getting the right interpretation, which can only happen with the Holy Spirit.

I agree, but I would add that one must read them from the point of view of the authors that wrote them.

Again, you must review the context of the passage.  Your statement has no effect.

I am beginning to get the feeling that none of my statements are going to have much of an effect on you!

If the reformed lens is synonymous with the Holy Spirit, then I agree.

I am confident that the Reformers believed it was, and that all who sincerely are seeking Christ and thereby have embraced it also believe that it is. I am sure that Luther sincerely believed that the HS was telling him James was an epistle of straw, too.

 

[nbtb1348]

Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam and Eve by his death on the cross. But original sin is not a personal transgression of ours as individual human beings. It’s a state we’ve contracted in our humanity. By the redemptive merits of Christ’s sacrifice, we can receive the grace of forgiveness of our own personal sins provided we are contrite and repent. Redemption and forgiveness go hand in hand in God’s plan of salvation. There is no redemption for people who die in a state of mortal sin (a violation of the Ten Commandments) by refusing to repent. Thus Mary was saved through the merits of Christ’s death on the cross by being preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception, having been implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve in her humanity. But she was in no need of having been forgiven of any personal sins that she would have had to commit in her life.

The manner in which Mary’s salvation took course in her life radically differs from that of the human race. Unlike the rest of us, Mary was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, which is necessary for our salvation. As a result, her human nature was not affected by the inclination to sin (concupiscence). And Luke assures us in the words of the angel Gabriel that Mary, ‘Kecharitomene’, never fell from God’s grace by committing a personal sin. Mary’s soul proclaimed the greatness of the Lord throughout her entire life. The Church Fathers perceived this when they referred to Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

“Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of Justice…through you [the Divine Maternity] every faithful soul achieves salvation.”
*Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at Ephesus (A.D. 431) *

PAX :tiphat:

This is nothing more than eisegesis-- Injecting one’s own doctrine into a passage. It is fable and myth and to see the immaculate conception in Scripture is not only totally unnecessary,it is distracting from the sinlessness of the Savior. The Holy Spirit never authored that doctrine. Men did, and it shows why RCC boasting of being the authors of Scripture and having an authoritative line of succession couldn’t POSSIBLY be true!

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

This is nothing more than eisegesis-- Injecting one’s own doctrine into a passage. It is fable and myth and to see the immaculate conception in Scripture is not only totally unnecessary,it is distracting from the sinlessness of the Savior. The Holy Spirit never authored that doctrine. Men did, and it shows why RCC boasting of being the authors of Scripture and having an authoritative line of succession couldn’t POSSIBLY be true!

Here we go again… :banghead:

 

[nbtb1348]

Here we go again… :banghead:

Yeh, we’re never going to give you a pass on that one. It is much too easy to refute. You would serve yourself and God well to focus on obeying the things He CLEARLY says in Scripture instead of following things contrived that distract from the things that truly please the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They have never directed anyone to pray to Mary. It is the sin of unbelief concerning all the wonderful promises Jesus made to Christians about HIS direct access and ministry of prayer.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Yeh, we’re never going to give you a pass on that one. It is much too easy to refute. You would serve yourself and God well to focus on obeying the things He CLEARLY says in Scripture instead of following things contrived that distract from the things that truly please the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They have never directed anyone to pray to Mary. It is the sin of unbelief concerning all the wonderful promises Jesus made to Christians about HIS direct access and ministry of prayer.

Except you should practice what you preach. For the first 1500 years, the world was Catholic. Everything was Catholic in belief. Goes to show you how Christ must have established the Catholic church if that was the only one around. Protestanism hadn’t seen the light of day until about 500 years ago…clue?

 

[guanophore]

This is nothing more than eisegesis-- Injecting one’s own doctrine into a passage. It is fable and myth and to see the immaculate conception in Scripture

Catholics need not engage in eisegesis. You see, these passages were written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is no dichotomy between their contents and the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Just because you cannot “see” something, that does not make it a fable and a myth. Spiritual things can only be discerned by spiritual sight.

is not only totally unnecessary,it is distracting from the sinlessness of the Savior.

If this is the cse for you, then I recommend that you stay off threads like this one. It is dangerous for someone so weak in faith to be exposed to such discussion.

Jesus came to deliver us from sin, and He desires that we all refrain from sin, and live in purity. This is not a distraction from Him, but the highest honoring of Him.

 The Holy Spirit never authored that doctrine.  Men did, and it shows why RCC boasting of being the authors of Scripture and having an authoritative line of succession couldn't POSSIBLY be true!

You are correct that it is not “Roman”, but in fact, the Scripture was penned, preserved, protected, promulgated and proclaimed by Catholics, and that is where the authority comes from. However, this authority is from Jesus, not men. It was the HS, moving in men who inspired the Scripture, and guided the development of the Canon.

 

[NonCatholic]

Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam and Eve by his death on the cross. But original sin is not a personal transgression of ours as individual human beings. It’s a state we’ve contracted in our humanity. By the redemptive merits of Christ’s sacrifice, we can receive the grace of forgiveness of our own personal sins provided we are contrite and repent. Redemption and forgiveness go hand in hand in God’s plan of salvation. There is no redemption for people who die in a state of mortal sin (a violation of the Ten Commandments) by refusing to repent. Thus Mary was saved through the merits of Christ’s death on the cross by being preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception, having been implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve in her humanity. But she was in no need of having been forgiven of any personal sins that she would have had to commit in her life.

The manner in which Mary’s salvation took course in her life radically differs from that of the human race. Unlike the rest of us, Mary was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace, which is necessary for our salvation. As a result, her human nature was not affected by the inclination to sin (concupiscence). And Luke assures us in the words of the angel Gabriel that Mary, ‘Kecharitomene’, never fell from God’s grace by committing a personal sin. Mary’s soul proclaimed the greatness of the Lord throughout her entire life. The Church Fathers perceived this when they referred to Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

That was one of the best Catholic answers I have seen on the subject.

I have one, maybe two questions…yes or no. Can you make a case for your claim from Scripture? If you say yes, then the followup question is where?

 

[NonCatholic]

I fear that your knowledge of Mary is extremely limited or very biased as a result of your training.

You are limited due to your brainwashing. We are given limited knowledge of Mary of the Bible because there is little to be said.

Not good, especially when you consider that God did not say that the bible is the end all to be all, nor does the bible say that either.

He just said it is where you find Jesus and eternal life…I love the way Catholics down play the role of the the Bible as the Supreme Authority - standing above all else. “You honor me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me”…this is God’s reply to those who believe anything else comes remotely close to Scripture in it’s authority and infallibility. There is nothing equal…nothing. Yes there are many useful tools, such as books and some traditions, which aid us in our understanding of Scripture and worship.

To frame it simply by way of a set of questions:

1. If God is omniscient, He knows all, right?
2. If God is omnipotent, He can do anything, right?
3. If God is omnipotent, He could create a woman to bear His son on earth, and He could create the perfect woman, a sinless woman to bear His Son, right?
4. Why is that so difficult to understand?

1. agree
2. disagree…Can God lie? Can He sin?
3. That would be pure speculation in light of what Scripture teaches. True believers only go by what God has chose to reveal and that is not one of them.
4. Unlike yourself, I live on God’s revelation; whereas you live in some other revelation…I’m sorry but I can’t join you in that slippery slope.

One answer is because you have a seriously limited knowledge about Mary…from her birth onward.

I have no knowledge of the birth of Mary of the Bible, other than she was human; therefore conceived from sinful parents and delivered in the usual way.

 

[guanophore]

That was one of the best Catholic answers I have seen on the subject.

I have one, maybe two questions…yes or no. Can you make a case for your claim from Scripture? If you say yes, then the followup question is where?

You will find that Good Fella is full of those. If you were to “search” Good Fella and Mary, you will find the threads full of awesome explanations that will more than answer all of your questions.

 

[NonCatholic]

You will find that Good Fella is full of those. If you were to “search” Good Fella and Mary, you will find the threads full of awesome explanations that will more than answer all of your questions.

How do you search like that…you are good at giving this kind of advice.