The Immaculate Conception

[JJM]

inlove,

God bless you. If your post was in reference to me I don't mean to be attacking anyone I just asked Q a question and then I was giving my perspective on the matter. (One I think was asked for although the question may have been rhetorical)

Originally Posted by Paultoo

I don't agree. Luther was still practising Catholicism even though he believed that salvation could be achieved without one's working to be saved

Your right I should have worded myself better. Protestantism denies the church's Devine authority but if you insert that in for "it rejects that church" then I think the rest is ok. Is there anything else you disagree about?

Originally Posted by Paultoo

Why so? Christianity began with Jesus and His disciples; long before there was ever an institution called the Catholic church


Paultoo

This is True the Word Catholic in reference to the church didn't show up until 110 with St. Ignatius but in the same way the word Christianity didn't show up until about 50 years before that. Does that mean before then they weren't Christian I don't think so. My argument is that while the name didn't originate until later the apostles were the Catholic Church's first Bishops and Christ was its founder even though it wasn't called Catholic. In the same way, they where the first leaders of Christianity even before it was called that.

[Abogado del Diablo]

This is a very interesting conversation.

Originally Posted by JJM

But Protestantism (and I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way) doesn't make any sense to me because it has no source of teaching that can be taken infallibly. Because the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and it rejects that church so if you want to throw out one of the books of the bible or throw out another you might as well because you have no reason to keep that book or remove the other, other than the Catholic Church says so.

I agree with this statement. I've been working on a very similar idea myself. Once you decline to accept the authority of the Church and its doctrines, or at least open them up to question, then why should any doctrine of the Church be sacrosanct? JJM is right. It doesn't make much sense to test a doctrine and refuse it but not test others, right down to the selection of the Canon and foundational doctrines of orthodox Christianity, which were all established by the authority of the Church.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, InLove! If we haven't met before, welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by InLove

It took me a long time to understand that faith and works go hand-in-hand.

Indeed! I agree.

If you argue doctrine to death, is it possible to miss the Truth? At least the wonders of it?

I find myself thinking like this a lot lately.

I may not be a scholar in the area of comparitave religion, but I will tell you what I know tonight. I have just attended the funeral service of a four-year-old girl, and her Grandpa is my beloved friend, and as difficult as he can be,
he sang in his love for her, and in his prayer for her,
and played along on his guitar in honor of her, and praised God with his heart.

Please extend my heartfelt condolences to your friend.

I urge us all to get a grip and find some perspective that we can talk about in peace. Life may be short, it may be eternal, it may to some roll over and over again. But attacking people's beliefs is, frankly, counterproductive. Act.

I agree. I still believe the whole point of Jesus' ministry, indeed the ministries of all of the great spiritual leaders, is in the doing. Not the believing or thinking, or arguing.

[InLove]

[QUOTE=JJM]

inlove,

God bless you. If your post was in reference to me I don't mean to be attacking anyone I just asked Q a question and then I was giving my perspective on the matter. (One I think was asked for although the question may have been rhetorical)



Not at all, JJM. You are always informative and your posts are civil. I enjoy reading them. I may have mixed this thread up with a similar one (you probably know which one I am talking about--I started them both.) There was a definite problem there, and none of you posting here were the cause of it. Besides, I think I just had kind of a hard day yesterday. I may have been too tired to be posting.


Thank you, Juantoo3--nice to meet you. I will convey your condolences.

Please, continue the conversation--I agree with Abogado--it is interesting.

InPeace,
InLove

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by JJM

Hi umm I think the Immaculate Conception has been pretty well covered but I think I'll just add a little. Mary was sinless for many reasons but I’ll explain a few. The first is Mary's role as the Ark of the New Covenant (I can explain this later if you like) because the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, and the Ark of the OT was supposed to be perfect, the Ark of the NT actually is. It also stems from Mary's role as New Eve. As the old Eve was created without sin and chose to disobey God the new Eve Mary was created without sin and Chose to accept the will if God (the annunciation). Also it is also necessary for the dignity of God that his mother the person who he would actually dwell in and receive flesh from should be sinless.

sorry JJM, but this does not sound right. I think the bible says all are born into sin & shapen in iniquity & that ALL have sinned & come short of the glory of God. I dont know where you get that Mary was created & bypassed that. Is that in the bible?
There was no new Eve (spiritual Eve) until after Calvary from what I can see.
But hey, if that is what you believe I wont try to mess it up, it just does not sound right to me.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bandit

sorry JJM, but this does not sound right. I think the bible says all are born into sin & shapen in iniquity & that ALL have sinned & come short of the glory of God. I dont know where you get that Mary was created & bypassed that. Is that in the bible?
There was no new Eve (spiritual Eve) until after Calvary from what I can see.
But hey, if that is what you believe I wont try to mess it up, it just does not sound right to me.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner.

That is where it comes from Bandit. There is/was arguement about the two possible meanings when Paul said: Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

Another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

It is still a subject of very strong debate among Christians

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

i know not everyone commits sin. but death still reigned over them that did not sin after the similtude of Adams transgression until after Calvary. that would include everyone no matter how perfect.
even Mary was under the curse of death (sin) prior to the cross.

it still does not sound right (to me), so carry on & thanks Q for explaining when/where it comes from

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i know not everyone commits sin. but death still reigned over them that did not sin after the similtude of Adams transgression until after Calvary. that would include everyone no matter how perfect.
even Mary was under the curse of death (sin) prior to the cross.

it still does not sound right (to me), so carry on & thanks Q for explaining when/where it comes from

I think this needs to be asked for the purposes of this discussion: is it possible to die without having the stain of Original Sin? For Jesus died, so if the answer to that question is no then Jesus wasn't sinless. And if that is true he wasn't God. So what is your opinion on the above question? Because I think that needs to be answered before we can continue to explain.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by JJM

I think this needs to be asked for the purposes of this discussion: is it possible to die without having the stain of Original Sin? For Jesus died, so if the answer to that question is no then Jesus wasn't sinless. And if that is true he wasn't God. So what is your opinion on the above question? Because I think that needs to be answered before we can continue to explain.

You believe God turned into a man so you would conclude with these things or feel that is how it is. I do not see it that way & you know I do not believe Jesus is God the same way you do. Even Jesus was made to be sin for us yet he knew no sin. I do not believe God was made to be sin or even that it is possible, neither do I believe God learns obedience, but the man Christ Jesus did.

The high priests offered up the sacrifice first for there own sin then for the sins of the people...this Jesus did once when he offered himself.

I think the question is...is it possible to BE BORN of flesh w/o the stain of original sin? since that is what you are trying to say Mary/Jesus was.
No I do not believe that is possible, or that Mary or Jesus bypassed it because there would have been no need for the cross even for those who did not sin after the similtude of Adam. Calvary was required for all. It was a commandment given to Jesus. Without it, everyone would be lost reguardless of how perfect & without sin they are.

Jesus was sinless-Neither do I believe it was the virgin birth of Jesus that made him without sin. Jesus literally never commited sin, yet had a sin flesh nature & I believe that he could have transgressed, or it would be impossible for him to be tempted in all points. God cannot be tempted like this.

Yes I do believe it is possible to die w/o original stain of sin because of Calvary, when we are born again of the Holy Ghost through Jesus & washed in his blood, but it was not possible prior to the cross. All sin is blotted out & God remembers them no more.
It was the curse of eternal death, hell & the grave that Jesus broke, not a physical death which we all will see (with exception of those who are alive & remain who are caught up to meet him).

We most definately will not agree here, but that is ok. I DO understand what you are trying to say now, & where you get it from but I do not see it that way. However, very few ever understand what I am trying to say & can come full circle with me.

I feel it is much deeper than most will allow to try & see, so you may continue without my opinion. From here it turns into a godhead discussion & that is different than the conception & birth of Mary.

so the wheel is all yours without my interruption & I will just kind of hum along in the back seat. Thank You for the company.
Maybe some others have questions on this dialogue.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Bandit

You believe God turned into a man so you would conclude with these things or feel that is how it is. I do not see it that way & you know I do not believe Jesus is God the same way you do. Even Jesus was made to be sin for us yet he knew no sin. I do not believe God was made to be sin or even that it is possible, neither do I believe God learns obedience, but the man Christ Jesus did.

The high priests offered up the sacrifice first for there own sin then for the sins of the people...this Jesus did once when he offered himself.

I think the question is...is it possible to BE BORN of flesh w/o the stain of original sin? since that is what you are trying to say Mary/Jesus was.
No I do not believe that is possible, or that Mary or Jesus bypassed it because there would have been no need for the cross even for those who did not sin after the similtude of Adam. Calvary was required for all. It was a commandment given to Jesus. Without it, everyone would be lost reguardless of how perfect & without sin they are.

Jesus was sinless-Neither do I believe it was the virgin birth of Jesus that made him without sin. Jesus literally never commited sin, yet had a sin flesh nature & I believe that he could have transgressed, or it would be impossible for him to be tempted in all points. God cannot be tempted like this.

Yes I do believe it is possible to die w/o original stain of sin because of Calvary, when we are born again of the Holy Ghost through Jesus & washed in his blood, but it was not possible prior to the cross. All sin is blotted out & God remembers them no more.
It was the curse of eternal death, hell & the grave that Jesus broke, not a physical death which we all will see (with exception of those who are alive & remain who are caught up to meet him).

We most definately will not agree here, but that is ok. I DO understand what you are trying to say now, & where you get it from but I do not see it that way. However, very few ever understand what I am trying to say & can come full circle with me.

I feel it is much deeper than most will allow to try & see, so you may continue without my opinion. From here it turns into a godhead discussion & that is different than the conception & birth of Mary.

so the wheel is all yours without my interruption & I will just kind of hum along in the back seat. Thank You for the company.
Maybe some others have questions on this dialogue.

Wow there are many things to get at here. I'll start with this:



You say that Jesus must not be God because He was tempted and God can't be tempted. Is that correct? Ok this is my take on it. Jesus has two natures one is Human and one is Divine. So it was Jesus's human Nature that was tempted not his Divine one. For this reason Christ also has two wills but those wills never disagree.



Now to whether Mary was saved by Calvary. God is outside time The Grace which He bestowed upon Mary, for the greater glory and dignity of Jesus Christ and to fulfill His Goal of fulfilling the Old Testament, still came from Calvary. However she was preserved from Original sin by that Grace rather than Saved from it.



Now to the concept of Original Sin. Original Sin is the Sinful nature and the stain of that sinful nature that is with in us as descendants of Eve. Adam and Eve were created without Original Sin. They didn't have Sinfulness inside them they couldn't be tempted by from with in but they could be tempted from outside aka the snake. When they took that apple into their body they also took the Original sin into themselves and that sin flesh nature. So Christ could have been tempted without Original Sin. And Mary could have as well but she could still have sinned just as Eve did but she didn't. Jesus could have also, although I think existence would have ceased to be if he did but that is beside the point.



Finally I guess you are right it does pretty much hinge on whether or not Jesus is actually God. Most Orthodox Christianity rests on that. Anyway sorry this is kind of all over the place but so are my thoughts right now .

[PistisSophia]

I have read someplace that it was a linguistic mistranslation. Virgin is incorrect; what was meant was "a young woman"..........

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by JJM

Wow there are many things to get at here. I'll start with this:



You say that Jesus must not be God because He was tempted and God can't be tempted. Is that correct? Ok this is my take on it. Jesus has two natures one is Human and one is Divine. So it was Jesus's human Nature that was tempted not his Divine one. For this reason Christ also has two wills but those wills never disagree.



Now to whether Mary was saved by Calvary. God is outside time The Grace which He bestowed upon Mary, for the greater glory and dignity of Jesus Christ and to fulfill His Goal of fulfilling the Old Testament, still came from Calvary. However she was preserved from Original sin by that Grace rather than Saved from it.



Now to the concept of Original Sin. Original Sin is the Sinful nature and the stain of that sinful nature that is with in us as descendants of Eve. Adam and Eve were created without Original Sin. They didn't have Sinfulness inside them they couldn't be tempted by from with in but they could be tempted from outside aka the snake. When they took that apple into their body they also took the Original sin into themselves and that sin flesh nature. So Christ could have been tempted without Original Sin. And Mary could have as well but she could still have sinned just as Eve did but she didn't. Jesus could have also, although I think existence would have ceased to be if he did but that is beside the point.



Finally I guess you are right it does pretty much hinge on whether or not Jesus is actually God. Most Orthodox Christianity rests on that. Anyway sorry this is kind of all over the place but so are my thoughts right now .

Right, because sin is disobedience & Jesus was obedient even to the death of the cross. Adam & Eve were also tempted w/o original sin like you say. if you think about it, even Adam could have qualified for the cross before he transgressed if you see it like that because he too was made sinless. I am thinking maybe we can do a (one on one) some day if CR lets us, & turn over all the stones together & see what we come up with together if you want to. Like maybe this fall or winter. Some of the stuff you say I see the same possiblities. It is a big mystery & that is why it goes all over the place.

Those two wills you mention in Jesus did disagree in one place, because Jesus said not my will but thine be done. Jesus asked God for the cup (cross) to pass him if it were possible, so Jesus did have a will of his own outside of God. The reason they end up agreeing is because Jesus was obedient to the will of God, being full of the Holy Ghost & that is how we want to be too.

You see Jesus as God from birth. I see him as God (so to speak) from this side of Jordan.

I just dont think I should try to get into it too much under this topic. Then we have different trinitarian views, the jehova witness view, the Jesus only view & some others & I dont want to go all the rounds with that many views at once because it gets confusing & repetitive. Just so you know, I do believe Jesus is God in many ways, but not the same way that has been passed down over the centuries.

But no need to worry. What I believe is not written in any supplements to the bible or literature or imposed on as a doctrine the same way other godhead beliefs are. It is just kind of there & i have learned to accept being the minority.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by PistisSophia

I have read someplace that it was a linguistic mistranslation. Virgin is incorrect; what was meant was "a young woman"..........

I think they are trying to stay on course with the birth of Mary & not so much Jesus, but it is kind of hard when she was the mother.

If you are trying to convince some that Mary was not a virgin & that a young woman could no way possibly ever be a virgin, it wont work. I have already been down that & I believe she was a young woman & a virgin when she concieved.

Welcome to CR PistisSophia & have fun here.

[Dor]

A couple of questions I have came up with from following this thread Id like to ask for clarification.

Originally Posted by JJM

It also stems from Mary's role as New Eve. As the old Eve was created without sin and chose to disobey God the new Eve Mary was created without sin and Chose to accept the will if God (the annunciation).

If Jesus is the "new" Adam then wouldn't the Church be the "new" Eve? After all Eve was Adam's wife not his morther.

Originally Posted by JJM

I think this needs to be asked for the purposes of this discussion: is it possible to die without having the stain of Original Sin? For Jesus died, so if the answer to that question is no then Jesus wasn't sinless.

Well when Adam sinned it caused the fall of mankind. And we have been told that no man was without sin cause all men fall short of the glory of God..But Jesus was God so he could meet the glory of God and thus he died sinless and washed away the penalty for the rest of us.

[Faithfulservant]

I think this needs to be asked for the purposes of this discussion: is it possible to die without having the stain of Original Sin? For Jesus died, so if the answer to that question is no then Jesus wasn't sinless.

2 Cor. 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.


Jesus was sinless. On the cross He took the sins of the world on Him. When He died He said "It is finished" The sins were gone.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.