Do I...i don't recall insulting anyone. In fact I don't recall insulting you at all. You on the otherhand, have no apparent problem insulting others in the name of God. I do have a problem with that Precept...precept said:
Q
Last edited:
The Immaculate Conception
- Thread starter InLove
- Start date
Q
JJM
Well-Known Member
InLove,
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.
As for a virgin birth of Mary I've never heard anyone say this. The Catholic Church would definitely say that this is false. The Virgin Birth doesn't need to be clarified because Mary was conceived in a normal way and when it is capitalized it refers to Jesus's Birth. So even if there was another virgin birth in human history you wouldn't need to clarify, just like the Immaculate Conception, when capitalized you know it is referring to Mary's conception not Christ’s even though his was also immaculate. Also there is no such thing as a Catholic sect. There are Catholics and non-Catholics. So some people may believe that St. Anne was a virgin when Mary was conceived but they aren't Catholic.
precept,
What you said is false. While it is true Mary was important to Gnostics to imply that it originated there is wrong.
Quahom1,
Isn't it true that parthenogenesis has never been recoded in Humans?
Also can I ask you something? I mean this with the utmost respect so before I ask just know that. Anyway you seem to be very orthodox in the majority of your beliefs but how do you believe what you do about the origins of the Catholic Church and the origin of its beliefs but still remain Catholic? I mean if I came to the realization that what you say is true not only would I cease to be Catholic but I'd probably also loose all faith in God or at least Christianity.
Also the idea that the Immaculate Conception originated in the 4th an 5th century is false Justin Martyr believed it.
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.
As for a virgin birth of Mary I've never heard anyone say this. The Catholic Church would definitely say that this is false. The Virgin Birth doesn't need to be clarified because Mary was conceived in a normal way and when it is capitalized it refers to Jesus's Birth. So even if there was another virgin birth in human history you wouldn't need to clarify, just like the Immaculate Conception, when capitalized you know it is referring to Mary's conception not Christ’s even though his was also immaculate. Also there is no such thing as a Catholic sect. There are Catholics and non-Catholics. So some people may believe that St. Anne was a virgin when Mary was conceived but they aren't Catholic.
precept,
What you said is false. While it is true Mary was important to Gnostics to imply that it originated there is wrong.
Quahom1,
Isn't it true that parthenogenesis has never been recoded in Humans?
Also can I ask you something? I mean this with the utmost respect so before I ask just know that. Anyway you seem to be very orthodox in the majority of your beliefs but how do you believe what you do about the origins of the Catholic Church and the origin of its beliefs but still remain Catholic? I mean if I came to the realization that what you say is true not only would I cease to be Catholic but I'd probably also loose all faith in God or at least Christianity.
Also the idea that the Immaculate Conception originated in the 4th an 5th century is false Justin Martyr believed it.
Thank you, everyone, for your contribution to my understanding. While I remain a bit confused and curious about some of the issues that have been discussed here, I now have a much better idea of the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception.
But perhaps most importantly, now when someone tells me that Catholics generally hold that Mary was born of a virgin, I can respond with an educated answer. I really did not think this was the case, but I needed to find out. I am amazed (and frankly, disturbed) that I heard this from a Protestant pulpit, a pulpit where I have heard much truth and wisdom. I plan to discuss this in private with the individual who spoke it. Hopefully, I misunderstood what he said.
Thanks again for the helpful info.
InPeace,
InLove
P.S. I read recently on another board that some members are upset by threads started here (I am paraphrasing) against the Catholic church. Please, I hope no one has confused my sincere questions with "Catholic-bashing!" I am not here to bash anyone, and I hope my posts prove that.
But perhaps most importantly, now when someone tells me that Catholics generally hold that Mary was born of a virgin, I can respond with an educated answer. I really did not think this was the case, but I needed to find out. I am amazed (and frankly, disturbed) that I heard this from a Protestant pulpit, a pulpit where I have heard much truth and wisdom. I plan to discuss this in private with the individual who spoke it. Hopefully, I misunderstood what he said.
Thanks again for the helpful info.
InPeace,
InLove
P.S. I read recently on another board that some members are upset by threads started here (I am paraphrasing) against the Catholic church. Please, I hope no one has confused my sincere questions with "Catholic-bashing!" I am not here to bash anyone, and I hope my posts prove that.
No offense given, none taken.JJM said:
I have read of parthenogenisis taking place with humans, but always a female child being the result.
I remain Catholic, because I choose to. I consider the origins of the Catholic church the way I do because I researched the roots and found them. That doen's make Catholisism any less true. My faith in God is not based on my faith in man or man's institutions. Catholosism is my way of expressing that faith. Why would I lose faith in Christ due to possible errors (or not), in the church's beginnings?
Why do I question the church on certain issues? Because I can, and I should. It hasn't weakened my faith by any stretch, it has only made it stronger.
v/r
Q
JJM
Well-Known Member
Quahom1 said:
Quahom1 said:
Oh ok.
Quahom1 said:
I also don't base my faith on a human institution. I base my faith on a divine institution created by God. However if what you say is true no divine institution exists or at least it's not the Catholic Church. And if that is true then the church only has human authority not divine authority, and that’s Luther's premise. So I don’t think it would make any sense to be Catholic if I believed that. 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. Essentially Christianity without the church is simply agnosticism with a name for God. Because you have no real reason to believe anything thus you can believe anything you want and I can't see a God who calls himself the Truth not caring if anyone actually knows the Truth. So I could become Orthodox but I think the basic difference between them and Catholicism is in violation of The First Council of Constantinople. So if the Catholic Church isn't a divine institution, and it can't be if not instituted by the divine, then for all I can see Christianity isn't true. However I've also looked into the beginning of the church and I'd agree it is true that the early church was a little different than it currently is. However the essentials were there and as I once read in The Russian Church and the Papacy byVladimir Soloviev (I'm paraphrasing) "The Catholic church is like and oak tree, grown strong and tall from a small acorn. Sure an acorn doesn't resemble an Oak tree but that doesn't mean that the Oak Tree wasn't once an Acorn. In the same way Catholics shouldn't deny that their Oak Tree was ever an Acorn and those looking for the Acorn should have enough sense to see the Oak tree standing in front of them." Anyway that’s my take on it
.Quahom1 said:
I also question the church on many issues but if I ever disagreed with it on anything I'd leave if for no other reason then they don't want you to receive communion if you do. However nothing has caused me to loose faith in the church yet. Every once in a while I could logically go either way on an issue and I'll accept what the church teaches but I have yet to see any form of hypocrisy or something that is obviously contrary to history. Well I guess I’m done God Bless
.
P
Paultoo
Guest
JJM said:
I agree with JJm
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.
Why so? Christianity began with Jesus and His disciples; long before there was ever an institution called the Catholic church
However the essentials were there and as I once read in The Russian Church and the Papacy byVladimir Soloviev (I'm paraphrasing) "The[/font][/color] Catholic church is like and oak tree, grown strong and tall from a small acorn. Sure an acorn doesn't resemble an Oak tree but that doesn't mean that the Oak Tree wasn't once an Acorn. In the same way Catholics shouldn't deny that their Oak Tree was ever an Acorn and those looking for the Acorn should have enough sense to see the Oak tree standing in front of them." Anyway that’s my take on it
Great analogy.
I also question the church on many issues but if I ever disagreed with it on anything I'd leave if for no other reason then they don't want you to receive communion if you do. However nothing has caused me to loose faith in the church yet. Every once in a while I could logically go either way on an issue and I'll accept what the church teaches but I have yet to see any form of hypocrisy or something that is obviously contrary to history. Well I guess I’m done God Bless
I agree. If you don't even know what your own church teaches; you could pose an embarrassment for the church by spouting off beliefs and positions not sanctioned by the church. Because you by your actions can neither recognize "acorn" Or Oak tree".
Paultoo
It took me a long time to understand that faith and works go hand-in-hand. Writers like John, James, Paul and others (even some that no one is arguing about yet, and even some who were not and will never be "canonized" understood, and understand this.
It is the reason that Christ got upset with His disciples when they tried to keep the children from bothering Him. Jesus was not just giving us a lovely little fluffy saying about how much He loves the little children. He was saying that everyone must come as a child if they want to truly know Him.
If you argue doctrine to death, is it possible to miss the Truth? At least the wonders of it?
Did I open a can of worms when I started this thread? Or is there fruit?
Okay, sometimes I actually do learn from the inflamed debates. But not as much as I learn from those I asked in the first place. I came here to ask a question about what Catholics believed because I needed to know. I found out. But the people who answered me in honesty have come
under attack because of their answers.
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.
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 love you all here, and this is an oasis for me. Otherwise, I would not be here, now of all times. Funny, and I don't even know you. Forgive me if I am out of line. I will make my amends as best I am given "on the morrow." I was compelled to come here now, even if I post out of order or something.
InSorrow,
InHope
InJoy,
InPeace,
InLove
It is the reason that Christ got upset with His disciples when they tried to keep the children from bothering Him. Jesus was not just giving us a lovely little fluffy saying about how much He loves the little children. He was saying that everyone must come as a child if they want to truly know Him.
If you argue doctrine to death, is it possible to miss the Truth? At least the wonders of it?
Did I open a can of worms when I started this thread? Or is there fruit?
Okay, sometimes I actually do learn from the inflamed debates. But not as much as I learn from those I asked in the first place. I came here to ask a question about what Catholics believed because I needed to know. I found out. But the people who answered me in honesty have come
under attack because of their answers.
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.
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 love you all here, and this is an oasis for me. Otherwise, I would not be here, now of all times. Funny, and I don't even know you. Forgive me if I am out of line. I will make my amends as best I am given "on the morrow." I was compelled to come here now, even if I post out of order or something.
InSorrow,
InHope
InJoy,
InPeace,
InLove
Welcom e to Comparative Religion Paultoo !
I understand where both you and JJM are coming from, and concede that the Church is a divine institution. But the humans running it is a different matter all together
They may be blessed, graced even, but still human.
Its ok InLove. There is no guile or attack here. It's refreshing to read such strong convictions about one's own faith without getting knocked in the head.
v/r
Q
I understand where both you and JJM are coming from, and concede that the Church is a divine institution. But the humans running it is a different matter all together
They may be blessed, graced even, but still human.
Its ok InLove. There is no guile or attack here. It's refreshing to read such strong convictions about one's own faith without getting knocked in the head.
v/r
Q
I appreciate your honest answers, Q--thanks.
My head would be aching by now, if not for Love.
Thank you--(I think I will wait a while before I ask any more questions along these lines--but, , I shall return.)
InPeace,
InUnderstanding,
InLove
My head would be aching by now, if not for Love.
Thank you--(I think I will wait a while before I ask any more questions along these lines--but,
, I shall return.)InPeace,
InUnderstanding,
InLove
JJM
Well-Known Member
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)
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)
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?Paultoo said:
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.Paultoo said:
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
This is a very interesting conversation.
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.JJM said:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, InLove! If we haven't met before, welcome to CR!
Indeed! I agree.InLove said:
I find myself thinking like this a lot lately.
Please extend my heartfelt condolences to your friend.
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.
JJM said: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
B
Bandit
Guest
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?JJM said:
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.Bandit said: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.
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
B
Bandit
Guest
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
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
Well-Known Member
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 said: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
B
Bandit
Guest
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.JJM said:
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
Well-Known Member
Wow there are many things to get at here. I'll start with this:Bandit said: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.
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 .