The Immaculate conception of Mary!

[BreadAlone]

1) The topic and title of the debate.

The Immaculate conception of Mary!

2) The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.

Affirmative: Athanasias

Opposition: ahiggs

3) The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.

3

4) Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.

Affirmative

6) Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.

1 Week (7 Days)

7) The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.

5,000 word Maximum

8) Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

Of course..

9) And, finally, the start date of the debate.

ASAP

----------------------------------------------------------------

Let the debates begin! I wish both of you the best of God's blessings, and I have the utmost confidence that things will remain respectful, as a debator with Athanasias previously myself..

ETA: Peanut Gallery http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7274366

 

[Athanasias]

I would like to thank my worthy opponent AHiggs for having this Christian debate with me. May the Lord bless and keep him always! And may our Triune God help us understand each others position and appreciate each other in love even when we disagree politely. May the Lord Jesus help me to articulate a good defense of his mothers Immaculate Conception!

Ahiggs my brother in Christ Jesus, I know you had a few really good questions you wanted to ask. I would like to answer those questions and any other objections you may bring up in the second round. In this first opening statement (first round) I am going to try to systematically explain from scripture and early church history why Catholic Church thinks that Mary was Immaculately Conceived in her mother Anns womb.

So here is a Catholic explanation of why Mary is Immaculately conceived:


Immaculate Mary



First off I want to say the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture and not explicit. There are many doctrines that the bible teach that are implied but not fully spelled out such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the Immaculate conception. In order to understand the implicit doctrines we must look to the bible as a whole and in context and put the pieces of the puzzle together.In order to understand the Immaculate Conception a non-Catholic must first understand what is meant by the doctrine. Contrary to popular beliefs, it does not refer to Christ's conception in Mary's womb. The Catechism of the Catholic church quotes Pope Pius IX in 1854 in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus saying "the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin". This means that the Blessed Virgin Mary was given a gift by Jesus of being free of all sin personal and original since the conception of her in her mother's womb. She is the holy one: spotless, stainless, without blemish, and sinless, immaculate according to many of the early Christians such as St. Ambrose and early scripture scholar Origen.



Some Protestants would argue that Mary could not be sinless because she proclaimed that she herself had a savior. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary did have a savior, Jesus Christ, but there are two ways to be saved. One can be saved by being pulled out of the mud or one can be saved by being prevented from falling in the mud. Mary's salvation was given by Christ at her conception, anticipation for what all Christians hope for at the second coming.

Another common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". The context of St. Paul's writings explains how this message does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word "all", was not describing every single person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions. Mary is also an exception because of her roles as the Ark of the Covenant and new Eve.

Typing away

To understand this dogma one must first understand biblical typology. Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam (1 Cor 15:22, 45). One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes(Jn 3:15-16). Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.


Mary in the New Testament is also a fulfillment of certain types namely Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. In Genesis Eve is described as a "Women" who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke's gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God's plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man Jesus Christ who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion Jn 6:54-58).

Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam. Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Scott Hahn demonstrates that Mary is called by the title "woman" by Jesus himself(Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26-27) and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the "woman" who is described as a fulfillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.


The Fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of Eve too. St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. made direct comparisons to Mary and Eve on a redemptive level. St. Ireneuas spoke of Mary as a fulfillment of Eve stating that in Luke's Gospel Mary loosed the knot of sin that Eve bound the world in. Even as early as the late 1st century the writings of Mathetes spoke of a new “incorrupt”[not corrupted by sin] Eve who was a Virgin.


The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine. Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived. Eve and Adam were created without sin; Jesus and Mary fulfill their types. Just as the new Adam, Jesus is sinless, so too the new Eve, Mary. If Mary was not conceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve. This is why many fathers of the church, such as St. Augustine in his work "Nature and Grace" , freely and confidently proclaimed Mary to be sinless.

New Ark of the Covenant

Another type Mary fulfills is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven(Jn 6:48-51) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom, the church with a rod of iron(Rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself(Jn1:1,14). The United States Catholic Bishops show how St. Luke presented Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant in parallels in their pastoral letter. For example, if one compares 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 they will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask "How can the ark of the Lord come to Me". In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying " why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me." In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary's spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God(Ex 40:34). Luke used the same Greek word that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit(Lk:1:35). Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

Scripture Scholar Dr. Scott Hahn also shows how gospel writer John reveals Mary as the New Ark in the Book of Revelation(Rev 11:19). The ark of God's heavenly covenant is revealed, and in the very next verse(Rev 12:1) the woman, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, appears. Dr. Hahn reminds readers that when Scripture was written there were no chapters and verses, and when the Book of Revelation is read in its immediate and typological context the Ark is revealed as Mary.


The Early Christian Fathers of the Church like St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose had openly proclaimed Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant and many of the fathers of the church also spoke of her being sinless. One of the earliest hymns [The Nisibene Hymn 4th century] written in praise of Mary spoke of Mary as "without stain or blemish" and more early hymns of the early church also spoke of her as the "Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost"[Akathist hymn 5th century]. If Mary is truly a fulfillment of the Ark then her Immaculate Conception makes sense. What the old ark contained could not be touched by sin. One had to be sanctified from sin just to carry the ark due to its precious cargo(1 Chron 15:12-14). Uzzuh was himself killed because he was a sinful man who touched the ark (2Sam 6:6-8). If the old covenant ark could not be touched by sin because of what it carried, how much more would the new covenant fulfillment of the ark (Mary) not be touched by sin for what she carried (the fulfillment of that cargo, Jesus who was far more holier). For the wisdom of God will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin(Wis 1:4), and Jesus Christ is wisdom personified(1 Cor 1:24). Combine this with St. Gabriel's proclamation to Mary giving her the title "Full of grace"(Lk 1:28) or as many Greek bible scholars have shown a more proper translation of that passage is "one who has been perfected and completed in Grace". If a person is perfected or completed in grace there is no room for sin. Hence Mary's Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

Conclusion

The arguments that non-Catholic scholars attempt to make disregarding the Biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception are shown to be folly when one studies the Scripture on a deeper typological level. The Fathers of the Church proclaim Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Immaculate. Scripture and apostolic tradition bear witness to this dogma that Protestants tend to misunderstand. Through the use of Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the Magisterium, the truth of this dogma is cemented.


Well I hope that was understandable. I look forward to your objections and questions and to hearing your understanding of this Dogma. May God bless you always Ahiggs!

Gratefully In Jesus the King through Mary the Immaculate Queen Mother,

Athanasias

 

[ahiggs]

First off I want to say the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture and not explicit.

Basing anything that is not explicit in scripture and making it doctrine is kind of a dangerous proposition.

There are many doctrines that the bible teach that are implied but not fully spelled out such as the Trinity,

True, but not all believe this so to say that it is doctrine for all cannot be said.

the two natures of Christ, and the Immaculate conception.

These are quite explicit, prophesied in the OT and documented in the the New.

In order to understand the implicit doctrines we must look to the bible as a whole and in context and put the pieces of the puzzle together. In order to understand the Immaculate Conception a non-Catholic must first understand what is meant by the doctrine. Contrary to popular beliefs, it does not refer to Christ's conception in Mary's womb. The Catechism of the Catholic church quotes Pope Pius IX in 1854 in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus saying "the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin". This means that the Blessed Virgin Mary was given a gift by Jesus of being free of all sin personal and original since the conception of her in her mother's womb. She is the holy one: spotless, stainless, without blemish, and sinless, immaculate according to many of the early Christians such as St. Ambrose and early scripture scholar Origen.

I am sorry but quoting church elders and popes does not qualify as scripture. Scripture clearly says that Mary was a virgin before and while Jesus was in her womb, which I am sure you would agree. This is the immaculate conception.

Some Protestants would argue that Mary could not be sinless because she proclaimed that she herself had a savior. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary did have a savior, Jesus Christ, but there are two ways to be saved. One can be saved by being pulled out of the mud or one can be saved by being prevented from falling in the mud. Mary's salvation was given by Christ at her conception, anticipation for what all Christians hope for at the second coming.

This I have never heard before, and while it can describe the doctrine, there is no precedence for this. Nor is it prophesied that it would need to.

Another common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". The context of St. Paul's writings explains how this message does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word "all", was not describing every single person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions. Mary is also an exception because of her roles as the Ark of the Covenant and new Eve.

Actually they can sin at least infants and mentally handi capped. They are just not held accountable for it because they don’t understand what they are doing is wrong. Jesus is different being as how he is fully God.

To understand this dogma one must first understand biblical typology. Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam (1 Cor 15:22, 45). One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes (Jn 3:15-16). Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.

No argument here.

Mary in the New Testament is also a fulfillment of certain types namely Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. In Genesis Eve is described as a "Women" who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke's gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God's plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man Jesus Christ who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion Jn 6:54-58).

Yes it may be a type of foreshadow, but it does not make her a new Eve. Nowhere does it say we need a new Eve nor does scripture mention a new Eve. Again we get into speculation that can be dangerous.

Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam. Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Scott Hahn demonstrates that Mary is called by the title "woman" by Jesus himself (Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26-27) and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the "woman" who is described as a fulfillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.

Revelation 12
1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Genesis 37
9And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
10And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

It is pretty obvious that the sun here is Joseph’s father the moon his mother and the 11 stars where his brothers. Jacob and his brothers are the 12 tribes of Israel. The woman is Israel, not Mary.

The Fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of Eve too. St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. made direct comparisons to Mary and Eve on a redemptive level. St. Ireneuas spoke of Mary as a fulfillment of Eve stating that in Luke's Gospel Mary loosed the knot of sin that Eve bound the world in. Even as early as the late 1st century the writings of Mathetes spoke of a new “incorrupt” [not corrupted by sin] Eve who was a Virgin.

The biggest problem with her being the “new Eve” is because Eve was Adam’s wife Eve was Jesus’s earthly mother, not his wife.

The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine. Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived. Eve and Adam were created without sin; Jesus and Mary fulfill their types. Just as the new Adam, Jesus is sinless, so too the new Eve, Mary. If Mary was not conceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve. This is why many fathers of the church, such as St. Augustine in his work "Nature and Grace”, freely and confidently proclaimed Mary to be sinless.

True it would be quite important if she is the new Eve.

New Ark of the Covenant

Another type Mary fulfills is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven (Jn 6:48-51) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom, the church with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself (Jn1:1,14). The United States Catholic Bishops show how St. Luke presented Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant in parallels in their pastoral letter. For example, if one compares 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 they will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask "How can the ark of the Lord come to Me". In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying " why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me." In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary's spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God(Ex 40:34). Luke used the same Greek word that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit(Lk:1:35). Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

This is going to be my interpretation against the Catholic’s, but the way I see this is, that if the Ark of the Covenant was a foreshadow it would have had to be of Jesus. I see no where in scripture where it says we need a “New” Ark of the Covenant. The original will be in the new temple.

Scripture Scholar Dr. Scott Hahn also shows how gospel writer John reveals Mary as the New Ark in the Book of Revelation(Rev 11:19). The ark of God's heavenly covenant is revealed, and in the very next verse(Rev 12:1) the woman, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, appears. Dr. Hahn reminds readers that when Scripture was written there were no chapters and verses, and when the Book of Revelation is read in its immediate and typological context the Ark is revealed as Mary.

The Early Christian Fathers of the Church like St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose had openly proclaimed Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant and many of the fathers of the church also spoke of her being sinless. One of the earliest hymns [The Nisibene Hymn 4th century] written in praise of Mary spoke of Mary as "without stain or blemish" and more early hymns of the early church also spoke of her as the "Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost"[Akathist hymn 5th century]. If Mary is truly a fulfillment of the Ark then her Immaculate Conception makes sense. What the old ark contained could not be touched by sin. One had to be sanctified from sin just to carry the ark due to its precious cargo(1 Chron 15:12-14). Uzzuh was himself killed because he was a sinful man who touched the ark (2Sam 6:6-8). If the old covenant ark could not be touched by sin because of what it carried, how much more would the new covenant fulfillment of the ark (Mary) not be touched by sin for what she carried (the fulfillment of that cargo, Jesus who was far more holier). For the wisdom of God will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin(Wis 1:4), and Jesus Christ is wisdom personified(1 Cor 1:24). Combine this with St. Gabriel's proclamation to Mary giving her the title "Full of grace"(Lk 1:28) or as many Greek bible scholars have shown a more proper translation of that passage is "one who has been perfected and completed in Grace". If a person is perfected or completed in grace there is no room for sin. Hence Mary's Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

Conclusion

The arguments that non-Catholic scholars attempt to make disregarding the Biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception are shown to be folly when one studies the Scripture on a deeper typological level. The Fathers of the Church proclaim Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Immaculate. Scripture and apostolic tradition bear witness to this dogma that Protestants tend to misunderstand. Through the use of Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the Magisterium, the truth of this dogma is cemented.

Here is where we have the problem the “fathers of the church” find scripture to support what they already believed. Not read scripture and find what it says. Read scripture to interpret scripture. Not make assumptions that are not there.

Well I hope that was understandable. I look forward to your objections and questions and to hearing your understanding of this Dogma. May God bless you always Ahiggs!

Thank you again for the opportunity, I hope that my answers are adequate. I also hope that anything I have said does not offend, I tend try to get to the point quickly. I views may not be in line with all or even most protestants, but am totally willing to continue this debate as long as you would like

 

[BreadAlone]

Round 1 Concluded.

Round 2, Commencing.

 

[Athanasias]

Hi Ahiggs, Thanks for you thoughtful response. You gave me some stuff to think about. God bless you! I hope your day is ok. Lets now try to answer your objections.

Basing anything that is not explicit in scripture and making it doctrine is kind of a dangerous proposition.

I have a question about your statement. Why would that be? All Christians believe in the Dogma of the Holy Trinity which is the source and central Christian dogma for all mainline Christian denominations Protestant. Catholic, and Orthodox. All also hold to the hypostatic union of Christ. Those are both implicit in scripture and not explicit. So why do you hold me as a Catholic to having to prove this or any dogma explicitly in scripture when Protestants themselves hold to other dogmas that are not explicit in scripture? Sounds to me like this is just a protestant bias. One must use the inconsistent reasoning that everything must be explicit in scripture because “the Catholic dogma just can’t be true” in other words. You see protestants cannot make that unfair judgment to Catholics when they themselves(protestants) hold to other dogmas like the Trinity that are only implicit in scripture. Do you see how problematic this reasoning of yours is?

Secondly, Were does it say anywhere in revelation that all revelation must be explicit?

True, but not all believe this so to say that it is doctrine for all cannot be said.

This is problematic at least for your position but heretical at most. The Dogma of the Blessed Holy Trinity is the central Christian Dogma for all Christian denominations Catholic. Protestant, and Orthodox. The only ones that reject it are quazi-Christians and cults. Check a well known protestant source called “The Kingdom of the Cults” by protestant scholar Dr.Walter Martin if you think this is just Catholic bias.

Regardless of your answer my point has already been proven by showing that Protestants and Other Christians hold to implicit dogmas all the time(Such as the Trinity and the Hypostatic union). So your case against Catholicism cannot hold water unless you believe in a double standard when it comes to Christians who may disagree with you?

These are quite explicit, prophesied in the OT and documented in the the New.

The bible does not spell out the hypostatic union of Christ or the Trinity in full blown form as we know it today. In fact it never explicitly uses those words. The bible gives us clues and important evidence to Jesus Humanity and divinity and to the Nature of God as Trinity that the early Councils had to reflect upon put the pieces of the puzzle together and eventually dogmatically define. That’s just a historical fact!

I am sorry but quoting church elders and popes does not qualify as scripture. Scripture clearly says that Mary was a virgin before and while Jesus was in her womb, which I am sure you would agree. This is the immaculate conception.

Yes I agree that Mary was a virgin before and while Jesus was borne. But don’t; confuse the Incarnation with Immaculate Conception. Immaculate conception means that at the moment of conception one is made sinless like Eve and Adam and Mary when they were created. But Jesus incarnation was not a immaculate conception because Jesus was not made sinless at conception. Jesus preexisted before his conception and was always sinless! I never said that quoting the Fathers did count as scripture. Why would you think that? I quoted the Fathers because many of them were taught by the apostles or the apostle’s successors. St. Irenaues for example was taught by St. Polycarp who was taught by the disciple John himself. What the Fathers do is show us how the early Christian community believed and practiced. They clearly believe that Mary was a fulfillment of Eve for example if you read their writings. Now not only do they believe that but they were taught by the apostles and their successors and that is how they interpreted scripture . So it is funny for me to see someone wanting to interpret scripture apart from the early church that gave us scripture and that knew the apostles and that loved the Lord and preached and converted many etc etc. So if they can see that Mary was a fulfillment of Eve then why can’t you? I believe you can’t because if you did it would prove the Catholic point that she is immaculate as that type must show as I have demonstrated in my first post.


Secondly. Who says that we have to only use scripture to show a dogma? That is a late man made protestant tradition and never taught by Jesus, the apostles. Or the early Christians.

This I have never heard before, and while it can describe the doctrine, there is no precedence for this. Nor is it prophesied that it would need to.

Can you prove that it is not? I showed how it was extremely logical from scripture and how the early Christian believed it. So what can you show to say that it is not?

Actually they can sin at least infants and mentally handi capped. They are just not held accountable for it because they don’t understand what they are doing is wrong. Jesus is different being as how he is fully God.

Ok, point 1) Jesus is a real person 100% human. He would be included in that “all” if that all was all inclusive. Secondly What sin can a infant possible commit? Can you name one? So yes there are real exceptions to the “all” Paul was talking about. It would be like saying to your mom “All of the kids from school have seen this movie but me” What it means is most people. And what Paul is describing is actual committed sin not original sin. Many protestants recognize this also.

Yes it may be a type of foreshadow, but it does not make her a new Eve. Nowhere does it say we need a new Eve nor does scripture mention a new Eve. Again we get into speculation that can be dangerous.

I feel like I am playing a broken record since I have answered these questions above already Why does there have to be only explicit evidence for a dogma? Again the scripture show this implicitly in Luke and Rev 12. The early Christians who were taught by the apostles taught this. Read them! Even writings in the late first century by the early Chrisitian Mathetes show this. So why do you not see this again??? Why should I believe someones(protestants) opinion that is 2000 years removed from the time of Christ and the apostles rather then look to the early Christians who were taught by the apostles and see what they had to say and how they interpreted scripture? Wouldn’t this be more logical?

Revelation 12
1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Genesis 37
9And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
10And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

It is pretty obvious that the sun here is Joseph’s father the moon his mother and the 11 stars where his brothers. Jacob and his brothers are the 12 tribes of Israel. The woman is Israel, not Mary.

I agree with you as does the Catholic Church at least in part. We do believe that that passage speaks of Isreal Amen! However we also see a fuller understanding or meaning of that passage referring to Mary. Scripture is polyvalent. That means that it has many levels of meanings. For example, the prophecy "out of Egypt I've called my Son" (quoted by Matthew in his gospel), originally referred not to Christ but to Israel being called out of Egypt. By ascribing that prophecy to Christ Matthew was implying that the prophecy had a typological fulfillment in Israel's exodus but that Christ gave it the fullest meaning. The same can be said for this passage in Rev 12. Mary is the Women that gave birth to Jesus the son who ruled the nations with a rod of iron as all Christians agree. This passage then is applied to her as a typological fulfillment of Eve . Again the Early Christians saw her as the New Eve in scripture. So why can’t this be true again?

The biggest problem with her being the “new Eve” is because Eve was Adam’s wife Eve was Jesus’s earthly mother, not his wife.

This does not make a difference when it comes to typological fulfillment. Not everything has to be exact we need just see the main points. For example in John 3 Jesus shows us how he is the typological fulfillment of the Bronze serpent. Now when Jesus is lifted up to save everyone that looks on him does he have to be a bronze statue to fulfill that type? No of course not. Nor does Mary have to be Jesus wife. In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man -Jesus Christ- who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion) Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam.

True it would be quite important if she is the new Eve.

Amen! Yes you do get the point. I believe that this is why protestants must go out of their way and historically and biblically deny that she is the Second eve. Through scripture plainly typologically shows it and the early Christians also did.

This is going to be my interpretation against the Catholic’s, but the way I see this is, that if the Ark of the Covenant was a foreshadow it would have had to be of Jesus. I see no where in scripture where it says we need a “New” Ark of the Covenant. The original will be in the new temple.

Again This is just simple typological scripture. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven(Jn 6:48-51) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom, the church with a rod of iron(Rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself(Jn1:1,14). What does this tell us about Mary?

The Gospel writer St. Luke goes out of his way in describing Mary as that new ark. Here again is the evidence for that. I would ask you to refute this evidence if it is not true. The early Christians again saw this was true.

Compare The Ark to Mary as St. Luke Sees her. Read 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 amd you will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask "How can the ark of the Lord come to Me". In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying " why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me." In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary's spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God(Ex 40:34). Luke used the same Greek word that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit(Lk:1:35). Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

I really need to see some evidence why this is biblically false when Luke and John(Rev 11:19-12:1) both describe Mary as the Ark as well as the Early Christians believed it.

Here is where we have the problem the “fathers of the church” find scripture to support what they already believed. Not read scripture and find what it says. Read scripture to interpret scripture. Not make assumptions that are not there.

First of all how do you know? Were you there when they read the scripture? They were also taught by the apostles and there immediate successors were you? Secondly why do you insist that scripture alone must be used to determine this doctrine? I never agreed to that In this debate. That is your doctrine not mine nor Jesus nor the apostles, nor the early churches.

Thank you again for the opportunity, I hope that my answers are adequate. I also hope that anything I have said does not offend, I tend try to get to the point quickly. I views may not be in line with all or even most protestants, but am totally willing to continue this debate as long as you would like

Your welcome! I am having fun. I hope you are too. You have a good mind! I hope nothing I have said has offended you. I would love to continue this debate. So what denomination are you?

May the Lord Lead us to unity by his grace. God bless you always !

 

[ahiggs]

[quote]I have a question about your statement. Why would that be? All Christians believe in the Dogma of the Holy Trinity which is the source and central Christian dogma for all mainline Christian denominations Protestant.[/quote]
What I am saying is that not “all” Christians believe in a triune God. I am not saying that I am not one of them, but some Messianic Jews and Unitarians do not. The reason I was vague was because it is not part of this debate.

Catholic, and Orthodox. All also hold to the hypostatic union of Christ. Those are both implicit in scripture and not explicit. So why do you hold me as a Catholic to having to prove this or any dogma explicitly in scripture when Protestants themselves hold to other dogmas that are not explicit in scripture?

Because, what you are saying is that “everyone believes it so it has to be true” proof has to be explicit. I can say that the bible implies that Jesus was a created being does that make it true? I can say that the bible implies that we will be come Gods ourselves after we die. Does that make it true. If it is not explicit in scripture, one must look very carefully to make sure that what we believe as Christians is accurate.

Sounds to me like this is just a protestant bias. One must use the inconsistent reasoning that everything must be explicit in scripture because “the Catholic dogma just can’t be true” in other words. You see protestants cannot make that unfair judgment to Catholics when they themselves(protestants) hold to other dogmas like the Trinity that are only implicit in scripture. Do you see how problematic this reasoning of yours is?

Anything that is implied is open to interpretation. One cannot interpret the Truth. Truth does not change, it is the living word of God so can bring new revelation. But, truth for you cannot be different than it is for me. Someone must be wrong. I am not afraid to be wrong, but it must be proved to me with out a shadow of a doubt, and not just implied.

Secondly, Were does it say anywhere in revelation that all revelation must be explicit?

Ok fair enough…where does it say it can be implied?

Regardless of your answer my point has already been proven by showing that Protestants and Other Christians hold to implicit dogmas all the time(Such as the Trinity and the Hypostatic union). So your case against Catholicism cannot hold water unless you believe in a double standard when it comes to Christians who may disagree with you?

Nope no double standard. I just don’t deal well with “everybody says so”, everybody can be wrong, the bible can not.

The bible does not spell out the hypostatic union of Christ or the Trinity in full blown form as we know it today. In fact it never explicitly uses those words. The bible gives us clues and important evidence to Jesus Humanity and divinity and to the Nature of God as Trinity that the early Councils had to reflect upon put the pieces of the puzzle together and eventually dogmatically define. That’s just a historical fact!

It is quote obvious from scripture that he was fully human, he bled he died he got he showed a full range of emotions, from anger to empathy, and joy to sadness.

John 8
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.
Isaiah 9
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

It is pretty obvious that he was human, it is obvious that he claimed that He is God. It is also obvious that it was prophesied that he would be God when he came. This is not implied it is explicit.

Yes I agree that Mary was a virgin before and while Jesus was borne. But don’t; confuse the Incarnation with Immaculate Conception. Immaculate conception means that at the moment of conception one is made sinless like Eve and Adam and Mary when they were created.

Are we saying that Mary did not have a mother and father? Is it not from the seed of Adam that get original sin?

But Jesus incarnation was not a immaculate conception because Jesus was not made sinless at conception. Jesus preexisted before his conception and was always sinless! I never said that quoting the Fathers did count as scripture. Why would you think that?

Because you are quoting them like they are, and what they have to say about the bible is as important as what the bible says

I quoted the Fathers because many of them were taught by the apostles or the apostle’s successors. St. Irenaues for example was taught by St. Polycarp who was taught by the disciple John himself. What the Fathers do is show us how the early Christian community believed and practiced. They clearly believe that Mary was a fulfillment of Eve for example if you read their writings. Now not only do they believe that but they were taught by the apostles and their successors and that is how they interpreted scripture . So it is funny for me to see someone wanting to interpret scripture apart from the early church that gave us scripture and that knew the apostles and that loved the Lord and preached and converted many etc act. So if they can see that Mary was a fulfillment of Eve then why can’t you? I believe you can’t because if you did it would prove the Catholic point that she is immaculate as that type must show as I have demonstrated in my first post.

I have had many teachers over the years, and over time have come to different conclusions than what I was taught, just because they were taught by the apostles does not mean that they didn’t have minds of their own, and able to come to different conclusions themselves. So what they believed is irrelevant what I believe is irrelevant, it all comes back to what scripture says.

Secondly. Who says that we have to only use scripture to show a dogma? That is a late man made protestant tradition and never taught by Jesus, the apostles. Or the early Christians.

Really what did they teach aside from scripture which at that time was Torah and the OT teachings?
Originally Posted by ahiggs
This I have never heard before, and while it can describe the doctrine, there is no precedence for this. Nor is it prophesied that it would need to.

Can you prove that it is not?

Wow…Yeah I can prove there is not precedence read the whole bible Genius to maps there is no precedence, can you prove that there is?

I showed how it was extremely logical from scripture

Ok, point 1) Jesus is a real person 100% human. He would be included in that “all” if that all was all inclusive.

Yep and fully God too not able to sin, Mary was not fully God there fore completely capable of sin

Secondly What sin can a infant possible commit? Can you name one?

Really are you kidding do you have children? Lie, steal, cheat, covet, not honor father and mother. Quite capable of it all

So yes there are real exceptions to the “all” Paul was talking about. It would be like saying to your mom “All of the kids from school have seen this movie but me” What it means is most people. And what Paul is describing is actual committed sin not original sin. Many protestants recognize this also.

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

He didn’t say God and Mary. This statement is pretty exclusive. Since He is God that would include Himself in that statement, unless we are trying to say Mary is divine?

I feel like I am playing a broken record since I have answered these questions above already Why does there have to be only explicit evidence for a dogma?

Because implied in scripture, leaves room for debate

Again the scripture show this implicitly in Luke and Rev 12. The early Christians who were taught by the apostles taught this. Read them! Even writings in the late first century by the early Christian Mathetes show this. So why do you not see this again??? Why should I believe someones (protestants) opinion that is 2000 years removed from the time of Christ and the apostles rather then look to the early Christians who were taught by the apostles and see what they had to say and how they interpreted scripture? Wouldn’t this be more logical?

Because the catholic church has obviously changed since its inception. Many Christians catholic and protestants alike practice things that the first “Christians” did not. They were Jewish. They didn’t practice easter it is rooted in a pagan holiday they didn’t practice Christmas it is rooted in a pagan holiday. They kept Torah, they taught the Law they were even making offerings (sacrifices) in the temple well into the book of Acts.

Acts 21
25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

So something has changed.

I agree with you as does the Catholic Church at least in part. We do believe that that passage speaks of Israel Amen! However we also see a fuller understanding or meaning of that passage referring to Mary. Scripture is polyvalent. That means that it has many levels of meanings. For example, the prophecy "out of Egypt I've called my Son" (quoted by Matthew in his gospel), originally referred not to Christ but to Israel being called out of Egypt. By ascribing that prophecy to Christ Matthew was implying that the prophecy had a typological fulfillment in Israel's exodus but that Christ gave it the fullest meaning. The same can be said for this passage in Rev 12. Mary is the Women that gave birth to Jesus the son who ruled the nations with a rod of iron as all Christians agree. This passage then is applied to her as a typological fulfillment of Eve. Again the Early Christians saw her as the New Eve in scripture. So why can’t this be true again?

I totally understand where your logic is coming from, but again it is a bit of a stretch to claim the woman is Israel and Mary…If Mary is not the “new Eve” and no where is it even implied in scripture that she is, yes the early church fathers may have claimed such, but scripture does not. Nor does it say we need one. When Jesus was called the “new Adam” wouldn’t have been just as easy to continue with, Mary was the “new Eve”?
Originally Posted by ahiggs
The biggest problem with her being the “new Eve” is because Eve was Adam’s wife Eve was Jesus’s earthly mother, not his wife.

This does not make a difference when it comes to typological fulfillment. Not everything has to be exact we need just see the main points. For example in John 3 Jesus shows us how he is the typological fulfillment of the Bronze serpent. Now when Jesus is lifted up to save everyone that looks on him does he have to be a bronze statue to fulfill that type? No of course not. Nor does Mary have to be Jesus wife. In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man -Jesus Christ- who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion) Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam.

Ok lets use your logic then…so Jesus was compared to the bronze serpent in the new testament and the devil was compared to a serpent in the book of Genius so there for the devil in the book of Genius is a foreshadow of Jesus in the new? I realize this is extreme, but…
There is a big difference between wife and mother. Yeah they are both women, but that is where the similarity ends.

Again this is just simple typological scripture. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven(Jn 6:48-51) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom, the church with a rod of iron(Rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself(Jn1:1,14). What does this tell us about Mary?

The Ark of the Covenant was more than just the box that held the items it was the mercy seat of God. And through God we receive mercy not through Mary.

The Gospel writer St. Luke goes out of his way in describing Mary as that new ark. Here again is the evidence for that. I would ask you to refute this evidence if it is not true. The early Christians again saw this was true.

Compare The Ark to Mary as St. Luke Sees her. Read 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 and you will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask "How can the ark of the Lord come to Me". In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying " why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me." In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary's spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God(Ex 40:34). Luke used the same Greek word that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit(Lk:1:35). Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

I really need to see some evidence why this is biblically false when Luke and John(Rev 11:19-12:1) both describe Mary as the Ark as well as the Early Christians believed it.

Yes you can make it look like Mary, but it is just as easy to make it look like Jesus. But, calling Mary the mercy seat of God, is a statement that you may want to reconsider.
Originally Posted by ahiggs
Here is where we have the problem the “fathers of the church” find scripture to support what they already believed. Not read scripture and find what it says. Read scripture to interpret scripture. Not make assumptions that are not there.

First of all how do you know? Were you there when they read the scripture? They were also taught by the apostles and there immediate successors were you? Secondly why do you insist that scripture alone must be used to determine this doctrine? I never agreed to that In this debate. That is your doctrine not mine nor Jesus nor the apostles, nor the early churches.

It seems pretty obvious. No I wasn’t there when they read the scripture, but I can read it for myself. Some of the conclusions that they came up with do not match scripture. I have no problem with you quoting anyone, but to call it undeniable truth is a bit of a stretch. God gave us amazing minds to come up with amazing conclusions. I am not saying that every thing they have to taught is false, but just look at evolution. Many call that undeniable truth, even when it contradicts scripture. And by the way Mary was not declared sinless until 1854 that doesn’t sound that early to me in comparison.

Your welcome! I am having fun. hope you are too.

I am as well

You have a good mind! I hope nothing I have said has offended you. I would love to continue this debate. So what denomination are you?

I appreciate your kind words it is pretty tough to offend me I hope the same toward you I can be kind of rough around the edges some times. As far as my denomination…I have wondered that myself for quite some time. In short I am a Christian…in long…I am a Torah observant gentile follower of Yeshua. I usually refer to Jesus as Yeshua for a couple of reasons.
1 In Hebrew it means God is salvation
2 It is never used as blasphemy

 

[Athanasias]

This may have to come in two different post because my answers are long but I did not exceed the 5000 word limit. Here is my last post # 1

Hello and Peace be with you Ahiggs! I am terribly sorry that it took me so long to respond. My computer would not let me get on this site for the past 3 1/2 weeks. Something about the server and timing out. I don’t know why but it has let me on the site today! So I will answer your objections (Finally). LOL! God bless you for your patience! I appreciate your clarity of questions and good heart. May we always walk together as friends who love Jesus and serve him. Bless you always!

What I am saying is that not “all” Christians believe in a triune God. I am not saying that I am not one of them, but some Messianic Jews and Unitarians do not. The reason I was vague was because it is not part of this debate.

I can understand what you are saying. To my faith and to most other Christians faith the Unitarians and those who deny the truth of the Trinity would not be considered Christian in the real sense at all but rather quazi-Christian. This is because the Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith according to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations. Umm ok but lets for the sake of argument say at least “most” Christians see the implicit biblical evidence for the Trinity. Given this factor you still cannot deny the possibility of the Catholic doctrine then.

Because, what you are saying is that “everyone believes it so it has to be true” proof has to be explicit. I can say that the bible implies that Jesus was a created being does that make it true? I can say that the bible implies that we will be come Gods ourselves after we die. Does that make it true. If it is not explicit in scripture, one must look very carefully to make sure that what we believe as Christians is accurate.

I disagree that proof has to be explicit. Jesus no where teaches that in the scripture. Rather, Jesus and even St. Paul and John assume things that are implied in scripture. I agree with you though that if something is implied we must look to see if there is solid evidence for it before just excepting it. In fact that is what I have done with this debate is give solid biblical and historical evidence that Mary is conceived sinless.

Anything that is implied is open to interpretation. One cannot interpret the Truth. Truth does not change, it is the living word of God so can bring new revelation. But, truth for you cannot be different than it is for me. Someone must be wrong. I am not afraid to be wrong, but it must be proved to me with out a shadow of a doubt, and not just implied.

Truth does not change! Amen! Catholics teach that! However our understanding of a truth can deepen and grow by Gods grace and power. One must interpret truth! We have brains for that reason. Faith does not contradict reason. Both are given by God. Reason and faith go hand in hand. To know how to interpret scripture we must come to the scripture with a reasonable mind and prayer and we must come with some level of prior knowledge or teaching. We cannot just come to scripture on our own without someone teaching us and giving us reasons to understand the passages . If we do that we will fail. This was the error that Phillip got himself into(Act 8:30-31). In fact our first Pope St. Peter spoke of those who are untaught who come to the scripture and twist it to there own destruction(2 Peter 3:15-16).

Ok fair enough…where does it say it can be implied?

Actually the gospel writer Matthew that I quoted just implied that the verse that originally spoke about Israel “out of Egypt I've called my Son" was also speaking about Christ!

Now you didn’t answer my question! I am going to hold you to that! Where does the bible anywhere say that everything must be explicit to be believed as true? In fact were does it say that all revelation God gives us even “must” be in writing in the bible? I am waiting for the passage that says this. Until I see it you by your own principle have defeated yourself and you must at least admit that the Catholic church’s understanding of the Immaculate conception of Mary is at least plausible!

Nope no double standard. I just don’t deal well with “everybody says so”, everybody can be wrong, the bible can not.

So if everybody can be wrong that means that you can be wrong too! Right? So if you can be wrong then given your own ability to error in interpreting the scripture you again must admit that it is at least plausible to believe in the immaculate conception.


What is more logical to believe someone who has been taught by the apostles and has been on the block for a long time(the Fathers) or someone who 2008 years later reads something and thinks they can interpret something by themselves correctly apart from the Church that gave it to him?

 

[Athanasias]

Second Post of my final posting!

It is pretty obvious that he was human, it is obvious that he claimed that He is God.

I do not think it is that obvious. If it was then we would not need have certain groups who claim they are Christian(Jw’s) that deny Christ divinity. Also in the Early Church we have many heresies such as Arianism which was a large movement that denied Christ true divinity. The passages you quoted show one thing. Jesus probably had a human nature. The other passages you quoted showed how Jesus took the divine name. But nowhere did either of those passages explicitly say “Hey Guys I am Jesus and I am fully 100% God and fully 100% human in a hypostatic union”. Many a heresy believed Jesus to only be a demigod of sorts. Some thought that he was only 50% God and 50% human. But we know that is fully God 100% and Fully Human% a divine mystery. Yet the bible never has a passage that says this explicitly! So by your own terms how can you believe it? I agree with you about those passages teaching the concept but they are taught that in a implicit way. In others words you had to look at the passages that suggested Jesus humanity and then look to other passages that suggest his divinity and put the pieces of the puzzle together logically. This is what the Catholic Church does with Immaculate Conception. There was no explicit statement about Jesus hypostatic union in the bible. In fact that is why the Councils of the church were called to deal with the issue and settle the heresies that taught against it. So again by believing in this you are simply borrowing from Christ Catholic Church and her councils.

Are we saying that Mary did not have a mother and father? Is it not from the seed of Adam that get original sin?

It is and Normally what you say is true. But, Can Jesus not save her at conception? Is it impossible for him to do so? We teach that Jesus “saved” her at conception. If you could create your own Mother would you create her defiled in sin? No of coarse not. This is fitting especially since she would be the Holy Ark that Carried Jesus. What the old ark contained could not be touched by sin. One had to be sanctified from sin just to carry the ark due to its precious cargo(1 Chron 15:12-14). Uzzuh was himself killed because he was a sinful man who touched the ark (2Sam 6:6-8). If the old covenant ark could not be touched by sin because of what it carried, how much more would the new covenant fulfillment of the ark (Mary) not be touched by sin for what she carried (the fulfillment of that cargo, Jesus who was far more holier). For the wisdom of God will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin (Wis 1:4), and Jesus Christ is wisdom personified (1 Cor 1:24). Hence Mary Immaculate conception is implicit in sacred scripture! If you can say Jesus is 100% Divine and Jesus is 100% human divine based on those passages you quoted and put together like a puzzle then I can say that Mary is Immaculate based on the two passages I just used and put together like a puzzle implicitly.

I have had many teachers over the years, and over time have come to different conclusions than what I was taught, just because they were taught by the apostles does not mean that they didn’t have minds of their own, and able to come to different conclusions themselves. So what they believed is irrelevant what I believe is irrelevant, it all comes back to what scripture says.

They did have minds of their own just as the writers of the bible did have minds of their own. The Catholic point of logic is stronger. At least we have strong historical witness that these Christians who lived closer to Jesus time and were taught by the apostles of their successors taught these doctrines and saw them in scripture. You simple must go on your own private interpretation of scripture and best college guess to know if the doctrine is not right. In other words you have no way of proving they are wrong and your right besides the fact that you tell me so. At least I can look not only to my interpretation of scripture but also to the apostolic ancient Church taught by the apostles and say I have testimony and witness to the historical seed of truth of this doctrine

Really what did they teach aside from scripture which at that time was Torah and the OT teachings?

How about the Chair of Moses? Jesus refers to Moses Chair (Matt 23:1-4), Yet nowhere in the Old Testament does the chair of Moses appear. This was Jewish oral tradition that Jesus held the apostles bound to and it was not found in the Old Testament anywhere. So there is one example! Another is example is the New testament canon. You hold to the all the books in your new testament to be true scripture yet not one single book in the bible gives us a list of what books belong to the new testament canon and what didn’t. So how do you know that they are scripture? Even if there was a inspired table of contents in the bible none could know with certainty if that was inspired or not. A book cannot authenticate it itself. It needs a living witness outside of itself to do that. That is what the Church does. Have you ever read the epistles of Barnabus or Shepherd of Hermas? How about the 120 Gospels that existed before the Canon was declared? Here again in accepting only those books of the new testament you have you are going by Catholic apostolic tradition and Catholic decisions made in the 4th century.

Yep and fully God too not able to sin, Mary was not fully God there fore completely capable of sin

One doesn’t need to be God to be sinless. If God makes you sinless at your conception or creation then you are created sinless. We teach that Jesus himself created her sinless. It is a simple as that. What can’t God do that? Now Adam and Eve were not God were they? Yet they were created sinless originally before they choose to fall. Jesus and Mary fulfill their types and as a fulfillment Jesus and Mary did what Adam and Eve failed to do. Obey God and not sin. I still have not heard a biblical refutation of the passages I used to show Mary is the Second Eve. Can you show me why Luke and John are do not show Mary as second eve in a typological sense? Until you can do so your position holds no water.

Really are you kidding do you have children? Lie, steal, cheat, covet, not honor father and mother. Quite capable of it all

Now tell me how a infant (incapable of even talking and knowing right form wrong) who merely cries, sleeps, poops, and eats can sin? How can a infant steal? How can infant lie? (He can’t even talk). How can a infant cheat? (He doesn’t even know what he is doing). How can infant covet? How can a infant baby not honor their Mom and Dad? I am shocked you really think a infant can do all these things. How can a infant sin again???? Until you can prove to me he can then this passage in Romans again has exceptions like it or not. Mary then is no problem as she is the Ark and Second eve and as a result a exception!

Mark 10
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

“News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch…………...He was a GOOD man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.”(Acts 11:22-24).

He didn’t say God and Mary. This statement is pretty exclusive. Since He is God that would include Himself in that statement, unless we are trying to say Mary is divine?

No one says that Mary is divine. She is not! Catholics do not teach she is divine. The Catholic church teaches she a human Mother, a created creature(Not God) who was glorified by her son. She is not worshiped! She is not God! God simply created her immaculate just as he created the first Eve initially immaculate. You don’t have to be God to be sinless. God just has to make you that way!

Because the catholic church has obviously changed since its inception. Many Christians catholic and protestants alike practice things that the first “Christians” did not. They were Jewish. They didn’t practice easter it is rooted in a pagan holiday they didn’t practice Christmas it is rooted in a pagan holiday. They kept Torah, they taught the Law they were even making offerings (sacrifices) in the temple well into the book of Acts.

I didn’t know that the birth of Jesus and his resurrection came from the pagans! Jesus came to fulfill the law(Matt 5;17) and since he did we are not bound to mosaic ritual laws anymore. Acts 15 and St, Paul in Romans ands Galatians takes up this false understanding that we must keep the mosaic ritual law to be saved. We are justified by Christ grace through Faith and not by mosaic works of the law(Rom 3:28). We are to justified by Christ and under Christ grace not mosaic law. We follow Jesus the New Moses who gives us the new Law(Gal 6:2, Matt 5:1-47) which is his law of love(Gal 5:6).

I totally understand where your logic is coming from, but again it is a bit of a stretch to claim the woman is Israel and Mary

Why is it a bit stretched out to see Mary in this passage??? I already showed how scripture is polyvalent. Everyone knows that Mary was the literal women that gave birth to Jesus who would fight against the devil. It also makes sense that Mary is was the new covenant “Women”(Jn 19:26-27, Jn 2:4) Jesus the new Adam spoke about. Just as the “Women” Mary was made the the Mother of John(Jn 19:26-27) so too this new Eve like Women is revealed as the mother of all Christians(Rev 12:17). Hence in the early Christian catacombs(1st-2nd century) we have images of the Mary as the Mother of not just John but the Church as a whole. Every one also sees Rev 12 as fulfilling Gen 3:15-16 and Jesus here as being a fulfillment of Adam. So how is Catholic interpretation wrong? You have to show me by refuting the typological context of the passages I spoke about speaking of Mary as Second Eve in revelation! You have not done that yet.

There is a big difference between wife and mother. Yeah they are both women, but that is where the similarity ends.

You are beating around the bush. I showed clearly in my former post that Jesus didn’t have to be a bronze statue to fulfill the Serpent yet he did fulfill that (Jn 3:14-15). But using your logic he would have to have been. Does baptism have to include a ritual cutting with a knife to be a fulfilled type of circumcision? NO, infact this typological fulfillment of baptism was a circumcision made with out hands or knives(Col 2:1-13)! Not everything in New Testament typology has to be exact for a fulfillment to occur. So why does Mary have to be married to Jesus to fulfill the Eve type? Can you show me scripturally why this has to be?????? You have not yet! I am waiting!

The Ark of the Covenant was more than just the box that held the items it was the mercy seat of God. And through God we receive mercy not through Mary.

Through God we receive Mercy through Christ but we received Christ (who is Mercy ) into this world through Gods Holy ark Mary.

Yes you can make it look like Mary, but it is just as easy to make it look like Jesus. But, calling Mary the mercy seat of God, is a statement that you may want to reconsider.

It is not me making it look like Mary its Dr. Luke and the apostle John. I am still waiting for you to show me why Luke and John were not referring to Mary when their writings suggest it strongly and the early Christians knew this!

Here is where we have the problem the “fathers of the church” find scripture to support what they already believed.

How do you know that? Can you prove it? You just assume that because you disagree with the Catholic faith. I could say the same thing about you! You just try to find support from scripture in denying the doctrine because you were taught it was wrong and already believed it. If you read the Fathers writings and Sermons they studied scripture prayerfully and preached on it. How is this any different then you or your minister when they read and preach on the scriptures.

It seems pretty obvious. No I wasn’t there when they read the scripture, but I can read it for myself. Some of the conclusions that they came up with do not match scripture…. Many call that undeniable truth, even when it contradicts scripture. And by the way Mary was not declared sinless until 1854 that doesn’t sound that early to me in comparison.

Some of the things they taught don’t match the scriptures according to your own private interpretation of the scripture. Many Lutherans and Baptist read the scriptures faithfully and prayerfully. Yet they both disagree about issue like does the bible teach infant baptism? The Lutheran says yes the Baptist says no! Whose interpretation is right? At least the Catholics have 2000 years of hindsite to see how the early Christians who were taught by the apostles and their successors read and interpreted the scriptures. You still have not disproved my point! Just because something was not "Formally" declared until years later does not mean that it was not believed by the Early church. The Trinity is a good example of that. Although the Trinity was not "formally" defined until the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in the 4th century we have early evidence from the 2nd century in the fathers that it was believed. Likewise St Augustine in the 5th century, and Scripture scholar Origen in the 3rd spoke of Marys sinlessness.



I hate that this is my last post. I wish I could post another 10 ten or so. If you want to continue this debate maybe we can ask the moderators about that. I truly enjoyed meeting you and debating you and I think you have plenty of good questions. I hope I have not offended you in this last post. I can debate strong too but I never want to seem mean or condemning. If so please let me know. I would love to discuss many issue with you eventually. I hope you have a great day. May the Lord bless and Keep you always my friend!

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais