...would God become one with sinful flesh (Mary) -- for 9 months?

[wwolverine]

As much as we know about God and how much God abhors sin, would God still become one with sinful flesh (Mary, if in fact you do not believe that she was free of sin) – for 9 months?

There are few miracelous births in the Holy Bible. One is Isaac to Abraham and Sarah and than there is Samson to his parents who too could not produce a child without God’s intervention, There is also John and we have Mother Mary born to St Anna and Joaquim. I believe all these births were only with God’s help and for a speicial purposes and hence have to be sinless.

God Bless

 

[Matorin]

Where are you getting the term “one flesh”? As far as I know, the only time that phrase is used is in relation to a husband and wife, not a mother and child.

 

[joe370]

Where are you getting the term “one flesh”? As far as I know, the only time that phrase is used is in relation to a husband and wife, not a mother and child.

Do you believe that a babies flesh is in fact one with the mothers flesh, for 9 months?

 

[Reuben_J]

Am I getting this right? There is a prophecy that could validate this? I am very intrigued by that.
The thing is that I don’t believe that God would send her to say something that is not biblical. If I cannot match it up with Scripture I remain skeptical.

You are right. God would not say something if it is not Biblical. In other word, there should not be any new revelations that have not been revealed. As for apparitions, these are private revelations that are not binding for all Catholics to believe. There are a few apparitions that have been endorsed by the Church but they are not binding on all Catholics – Catholics have an option whether to believe or not. Endorsement of apparitions is not the same as infallibility. Other Catholics please correct me if I am wrong on this.

The Immaculate Conception being declared a doctrine was not because of the apparitions –the apparitions only confirmed what had been believed and known to the Church from the earliest time.

Biblical references for the Immaculate Conception are Gen 3:15 & Lk 1:28. However, these verses cannot be understood at face value but one has to have in depth knowledge of the Bible to really appreciate what they mean and entail.

 

[Reuben_J]

JonNC:

Well, like I said, I’m more inclined to something like the IC. And the lack of excplicitness of scripture regarding the specific point in time of her sinlessness (full of grace), is why I disagree more with the dogmatic declaration, even though I do generally agree with the belief.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I was browsing through this thread and found this post which is dated Oct 7th. Sorry for intruding into the discussion. I would like an insight from you, as a Lutheran - what would you expect to see in the scripture for you to believe that the Immaculate Conception is scriptural?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I was browsing through this thread and found this post which is dated Oct 7th. Sorry for intruding into the discussion. I would like an insight from you, as a Lutheran - what would you expect to see in the scripture for you to believe that the Immaculate Conception is scriptural?

Thanks and God bless.

Hi Reuben,
I would have wanted to see something that at least implied being protected from the stain of original sin from conception. The angel’s statement that she is, “most favored”, or “full of grace”, certainly lends strength to the belief that she was protected from sin at least prior to, during, and perhaps following Christ’s birth, and for me, maybe even from conception.
It is not strong enough, however, to bind the conscience of the believer, in my opinion, for these reasons and also because it doesn’t necessarily follow that a belief in th IC has implications for our salvation.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are right. God would not say something if it is not Biblical. In other word, there should not be any new revelations that have not been revealed. As for apparitions, these are private revelations that are not binding for all Catholics to believe. There are a few apparitions that have been endorsed by the Church but they are not binding on all Catholics – Catholics have an option whether to believe or not. Endorsement of apparitions is not the same as infallibility. Other Catholics please correct me if I am wrong on this.

The Immaculate Conception being declared a doctrine was not because of the apparitions –the apparitions only confirmed what had been believed and known to the Church from the earliest time.

Biblical references for the Immaculate Conception are Gen 3:15 & Lk 1:28. However, these verses cannot be understood at face value but one has to have in depth knowledge of the Bible to really appreciate what they mean and entail.

Ah, but these are not “Private revelations” they are “Public” and thus their gravity becomes that much greater.

And exactly what the Vatican states is “They are Worthy of Belief”. And there we are met with Silence. Yet its known what the Elect believe. Pope Benedicts May 13th Homily could be read in its entire content which is long. But leaves little doubt what he believes. Now when you consider where his beliefs lie, you can be assured all around him are on the same page. Which also becomes apparent if you Search out the Lectures of Fr Malichi Martin who was the advisor to 3-Popes and a exorcist for many years. His lectures give a facinating insight into much of what you will never, ever hear about the Elect. And also the reality that they know much more than we, and are reluctant to reveal due to fanaticism The deeper you dive into faith the clearer this becomes. Its a simple truth that we as followers are only told what we need to know. We are definatly on a need to know basis. No different than the US Government or any for that matter. But when you consider this is God we are talkiing about? The magnitude deepens. lol

But yes you are correct about the rest. Really what I’m doing here is presenting all with the facts which take time and effort to obtain. Heres another which I’m not so sure all Catholics realize after reading through these threads about Mary.

Its the Catholic Churchs Canon Law 1247 which includes the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

While this can be searched and read easily. I’m pretty sure what won’t be stated in the search is the reality of missing Mass on Holy Days of Obligation. December 8th is the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There are six Holy days in the US. To miss this Mass is considered a grievous sin. When I attended Catholic school it was considered a Mortal Sin. Has this changed? I doubt it and if so I’m not aware of it.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

With respect to everyone. What we first must “always” understand, is that we as individuals have much different levels of belief.

For example there are pragmatic Catholics, there are pro-active Catholics and so on, in all Christology. And where you fall in this scale is fine. Being on the path is whats most important.

I propose that an open mind is kept though. School is never out, and the more we come to know, the more we realize how much more there is to know. And since school is mentioned let me elaborate a bit.

I find those amazing who come here and boldly state disbelief, and judge, and attempt to use intellect to persuade others they are in fact wrong in “their” believe or God himself.

For years I worked with various individuals with various behaviors as a Therapist. Though intellect is wonderful, I have found it to be an enormous obstacle when a change is needed. Often those with the disease of substance abuse for example, encounter an issue with their intellect, because they FEEL to little , and think and intellectualize to much. Thus a wall stands between them and recovery. And were talking destructive behavior here. To relate to your feelings it to “indentify” and thus truly understand. And of course this isn’t everyone with high IQs, but its common enough I assure you. Ask any Clinical Director in any Therapeutic Community. Don’t take my word, research this.

And I know of no better example than when you read Luke. We can draw many different conclusions because we are met with Silence on many ideals. And when you are only thinking about what is being said, then you haven’t even started to reach the intended level of understanding. When you can feel whats being conveyed. The you begin to understand how God “felt” about Mary. Not thought about Mary but felt. Being simple human beings we can only strive to reach this level. And we must remind ourselfs daily, this is all we are, simple human beings. Otherwise I would suggest you still struggle with Self a bit to much to grasp God. Just my opinion now, take it for what its worth:shrug:

We haven’t even reached a point we can live together without butchering one another. Are we really capable of understand Gods love for Mary? Do we as humans really know how to love? We may only be scratching the surface here. “I find myself walking toward my destination, and thats away from myself.” {William Penn} It becomes necessary to realize that the body is not conscious, we are conscious of the body, the mind is not conscious, we are conscious of it. Our Soul remains incapsulated in the sin of human flesh intent on destroying us. We must remember first and foremost daily, our goal is to save our Soul.

So I conclude, are we thinking about what the Bible is saying? Or are we Feeling whats being said?

God Bless, and Much Love for “all” my Brothers and Sisters in Christology.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Hi Reuben,
I would have wanted to see something that at least implied being protected from the stain of original sin from conception. The angel’s statement that she is, “most favored”, or “full of grace”, certainly lends strength to the belief that she was protected from sin at least prior to, during, and perhaps following Christ’s birth, and for me, maybe even from conception.
It is not strong enough, however, to bind the conscience of the believer, in my opinion, for these reasons and also because it doesn’t necessarily follow that a belief in th IC has implications for our salvation.

Jon

Jon, I would absolutely agree with you if the bible was the Christians final authority for binding the conscience of the believer, but, that is not the case according to the bible. People were given the authority to bind and loose, and the question is: which people, since Pentecost, were given the authority to bind and loose? Like you said, binding via the individual interpretation of the :bible1: is no - no.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

Jon, I would absolutely agree with you if the bible was the Christians final authority for binding the conscience of the believer, but, that is not the case according to the bible. People were given the authority to bind and loose, and the question is: which people, since Pentecost, were given the authority to bind and loose? Like you said, binding via the individual interpretation of the :bible1: is no - no.

Then let’s take it a step further: while it is rather uniformly accepted both east and west that the Holy Theotokos was protected from (at least personal) sin, it is not uniformly accepted that this happened at the time of her conception, nor is it stated as such in the early Church. Contrarily, Theotokos, Virgin birth, semper virgo are uniformly accepted east and west.

As for scripture, there seems no evidence that belief in the IC ought to be an article of faith, as it has no bearing on salvation.

I thought some might be interested in this Lutheran view:
stjohn17v20-21.com/mary03.htm

Jon

 

[Mumbles140]

Am I getting this right? There is a prophecy that could validate this? I am very intrigued by that.
The thing is that I don’t believe that God would send her to say something that is not biblical. If I cannot match it up with Scripture I remain skeptical.

Just an interesting detail: 2017 is the the 100th anniversary of Fatima and the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Sorry for the delay, but I was traveling this weekend. Your previous comment about apparitions has been argued (quite properly) by others, so I will not revisit that. What I would like to discuss, however is your belief that EVERYTHING must be in the Bible.

Applying your logic, there have been no miracles performed since the Bible was written. But read about the 67 confirmed miraculous healings that have taken place in the blessed waters at Lourdes. Really take the time to see how meticulous the Church is in these matters before declaring it a confirmed miracle.

Also, I think one could argue that Mary’s apparition is fitting. Did Jesus not appear with the Old Testament prophets to several of the apostles? If the holy dead have the ability to reappear, then surely the Mother of Christ could do the same.

Though I didn’t want to get into this old argument, but you’re so focused on ‘sola scriptura’ that I have to - where in the Bible does it provide the proper canon? And why are there different versions of the Bible? Again, I don’t want this to turn into an argument about Tradition versus Scripture, but I feel it is relevant if you are falling back on “if it’s not in the Bible…”

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC;7150604]Then let’s take it a step further: while it is rather uniformly accepted both east and west that the Holy Theotokos was protected from (at least personal) sin, it is not uniformly accepted that this happened at the time of her conception, nor is it stated as such in the early Church. Contrarily, Theotokos, Virgin birth, semper virgo are uniformly accepted east and west.

Agreed.

As for scripture, there seems no evidence that belief in the IC ought to be an article of faith, as it has no bearing on salvation.

Agreed. However, it is a non-salvific article of faith. The question is:

What gives the CC the right to make this claim? Does the CC possess the biblical/metaphorical keys to bind and loose? The CC absolutely does not if the CC is not the historical church founded by Jesus, forever guided by the HS, into all truth. Once I was able to answer this question, all of my other doubts/questions were answered.

I thought some might be interested in this Lutheran view:
stjohn17v20-21.com/mary03.htm

I will check it out Jon.

As I mentioned before: the leaders in Jesus’ church, were given the authority to bind and loose as per the bible. The question I had to ask myself was: Which church leaders, since Pentecost, (in the world today) - were given the authority to bind and loose? Again, like you said, binding via the individual interpretation of the bible is frowned upon according to the bible.

It was either the EOC or the CC for the simple fact that I could not establish who founded either church, other than Jesus, which was not the case with every Protestant church. I am fairly sure that you agree with that simple logic, but I could be wrong.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben,
I would have wanted to see something that at least implied being protected from the stain of original sin from conception. The angel’s statement that she is, “most favored”, or “full of grace”, certainly lends strength to the belief that she was protected from sin at least prior to, during, and perhaps following Christ’s birth, and for me, maybe even from conception.
It is not strong enough, however, to bind the conscience of the believer, in my opinion, for these reasons and also because it doesn’t necessarily follow that a belief in th IC has implications for our salvation.

Jon

Thanks Jon, that’s all that I wanted to know. As always, it always encourages me to know how close your position with the Catholic Church is.

I’d certainly not want to change your mind on what you’d consider sufficient in the scripture for it to ‘bind the conscience of the believers’.

I note that you take seriously the angel’s greeting of ‘full of grace’ on Mary though not sufficient for a doctrine on the Immaculate Conception to be based on.

Just a thought. Very often we cannot find Christian doctrines having explicit scriptural verses on which they can be categorically based on. I hope you agree with me on that. Where scriptural verses are used they have to be expounded in other that they support the doctrines.

Frankly I had trouble defending Christian doctrines solely based on the scripture. That’s why argument with non-Christians can never ends with a conclusion. Ultimately it is a matter of our faith in believing the said doctrines.

An example: There are no explicit scriptural verses on the resurrection (let alone the Trinity). Nobody saw Jesus actually rose from the dead. Though to us it is as obvious as anything; it is not so for the non-believers. They will ask you, ‘tell me where it says Jesus rise from his death?’ With the illusion that people can perform, even his death can be an illusion, a trick.

If Gabriel the archangel who brought the message of God replaced the name Mary with ‘Full of grace’, would that not saying anything about what she is in the eyes of God? Would God not sustain that, in view of the fact that it is God who asks? God sustained even for less (example Gideon) what more to say about his own plan of salvation that involves his Son?

In my personal opinion, even if I am not a Catholic, to deny the Immaculate Conception, is to deny God sustaining power in keeping to his word – full of grace.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Reuben_J]

Ah, but these are not “Private revelations” they are “Public” and thus their gravity becomes that much greater.

And exactly what the Vatican states is “They are Worthy of Belief”. And there we are met with Silence. Yet its known what the Elect believe. Pope Benedicts May 13th Homily could be read in its entire content which is long. But leaves little doubt what he believes. Now when you consider where his beliefs lie, you can be assured all around him are on the same page. Which also becomes apparent if you Search out the Lectures of Fr Malichi Martin who was the advisor to 3-Popes and a exorcist for many years. His lectures give a facinating insight into much of what you will never, ever hear about the Elect. And also the reality that they know much more than we, and are reluctant to reveal due to fanaticism The deeper you dive into faith the clearer this becomes. Its a simple truth that we as followers are only told what we need to know. We are definatly on a need to know basis. No different than the US Government or any for that matter. But when you consider this is God we are talkiing about? The magnitude deepens. lol

…

God Bless, Gary

Hi Gary.

How could apparitions be ‘public’? I was saying they are not binding on every Catholic to believe. I am not speaking for myself - I have no problem in believing apparitions and their messages if they are endorsed by the Church but I would consider them private revelations as they should not contain any new revelations that we do not know already. They are private in the sense that they are only seen and experienced by individuals long after the age of the official revelation by the Lord at the time of the Gospel.

I would like to say it again that doctrine like the Immaculate Conception is not based on apparition no how matter valid it is. Apparition only serves to confirm what is already believed by the Church.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[GaryTaylor]

I hear what your saying.

Though the resurrection I see much different.

The stone was removed so others could go into the tomb by the Angel, not before so Jesus body could get out. The stone was removed “then” Jesus was found resurrected. John 20:19

There are 12 different accounts of Christ appearing after the resurection starting with Mary and ending with John. His body was also not subject to our laws of nature after his resurrection.

The Angel rolled back the stone as the guards shook with fear. Then the Amgel announced Christ had been resurrected. Just as he said he would. Then the women came and looked. But he was gone before the Stone was moved.

But with the Blessed Mother Luke is the defining Chapter. Without a doubt.

 

[Steven_John]

As much as we know about God and how much God abhors sin, would God still become one with sinful flesh (Mary, if in fact you do not believe that she was free of sin) – for 9 months?

Its a question that one could debate with many for a log time.

I guess along the same lines one could ask would G-d who abhors sin subject Him self or His to die by sin. By this stick we see the same spirit over logic.

G-d is not bound by as men see sensible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Gary.

How could apparitions be ‘public’? I was saying they are not binding on every Catholic to believe. I am not speaking for myself - I have no problem in believing apparitions and their messages if they are endorsed by the Church but I would consider them private revelations as they should not contain any new revelations that we do not know already. They are private in the sense that they are only seen and experienced by individuals long after the age of the official revelation by the Lord at the time of the Gospel.

I would like to say it again that doctrine like the Immaculate Conception is not based on apparition no how matter valid it is. Apparition only serves to confirm what is already believed by the Church.

God bless.

Reuben

Zeitoun Egypt in 1968-1970 and Fatima were Public I’m pretty sure all the others were private. But 1/4 million witness the apparitions in Zeitoun with confimed healings. 70-thousand in fatima witnessed the Miracle of the Sun, Which was predicted to happen at that date by Mary. at the same time the seers seen the appartion of the Holy Family. Three visions they had seen. Much different than a private vision though no? Zeitoun is unreal. She was appearing for up to 8-hrs at a time. Went on for two years on the Feast days.

Required no, “worthy of belief” is the term the vatican is using.

The apparitions have nothing to do with doctrine. They only serve to confirm that which already known. Oh your right about that.

What I find facinating is how the Visions from Akita, Our Lady of Good Success, and Fatima all seem to relate. All confirmed Miracles also.

I believe as you remain rooted in faith you come to certain truths about God. As a teen I believed they were all nuts. As time has gone by though I believe certain things have happened in my own life, which I can’t explain are blessings. Certainly has made me research and re-think the apparitions. Theres much moe to all of this which see and most will care to admitt. Hey, its as Christ said in the Bible. As you believe, so it will be. I 100% convinced of this today.

I also believe the verse Christ mentioned about the Birds and God providing everything they need. It applys to us also. We chose this path we take. History clearly shows its not needed to be as we live today.

Such grand ideas of world peace and a world of love. Today we now live in a world where Terror is the daily way of life, sad.

God Bless Bro.

 

[Reuben_J]

What I find facinating is how the Visions from Akita, Our Lady of Good Success, and Fatima all seem to relate. All confirmed Miracles also.

I believe as you remain rooted in faith you come to certain truths about God. As a teen I believed they were all nuts. As time has gone by though I believe certain things have happened in my own life, which I can’t explain are blessings. Certainly has made me research and re-think the apparitions. Theres much moe to all of this which see and most will care to admitt. Hey, its as Christ said in the Bible. As you believe, so it will be. I 100% convinced of this today.

I also believe the verse Christ mentioned about the Birds and God providing everything they need. It applys to us also. We chose this path we take. History clearly shows its not needed to be as we live today.

Such grand ideas of world peace and a world of love. Today we now live in a world where Terror is the daily way of life, sad.

God Bless Bro.

Great. I am glad for you Gary.

Apparitions and miracles happen because it is consistent with God’s love. These are extraordinary act of God because he loves us and want to bless his people with this grace so that we can increase in our faith. People like you are tesimonies of how God brings back his children to himself. Very often Mary the Mother of God is being used as an instrument to assist in this.

God bless you too.

Reuben.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its a question that one could debate with many for a log time.

I guess along the same lines one could ask would G-d who abhors sin subject Him self or His to die by sin. By this stick we see the same spirit over logic.

G-d is not bound by as men see sensible.

Hey Steve,

You know there are the 7-sentences Christ makes on the Cross. The 6th is where he states “My father why do you forsake me”

Even being the Messiah and living as he lived. He was subjected to the trials of the flesh. And the same fate all of us must meet. And the idea that in the very end. For a flashing moment he didn’t know for sure, what was going to happen.

I think and thought often about that sentence.

I know God loved Mary though. Even Mose’s wasn’t that revered by God. Mose’s was given much Grace. Mary was Full of Grace. Amazing

 

[GaryTaylor]

Great. I am glad for you Gary.

Apparitions and miracles happen because it is consistent with God’s love. These are extraordinary act of God because he loves us and want to bless his people with this grace so that we can increase in our faith. People like you are tesimonies of how God brings back his children to himself. Very often Mary the Mother of God is being used as an instrument to assist in this.

God bless you too.

Reuben.

Exactly as I see it Reuben. It gets to the point that you have to wonder how many miracles do we expect her to perform, and how long will all deny before we wake up?

Something has to give, I hope and pray we take advantage of this time we now are being aloted. Its running thin. We can’t contiue on the path were on. This world must offend God much. The Church and home are the only sanctuarys. And even that is only for some.