A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[JoeT]

If Mary can be conceived without inheriting the fallen nature of her parents then there is no reason that Mary's Son can't also be conceived without inheriting his mother's fallen nature. Thus your own doctrine cancels out the need for Mary to be immaculately conceived.

Hoist on your own petard.

One receives justification, the same grace received by Mary, at least in part, and without the involvement of their parents. The graces Mary received at conception would have been similar, but likely more abundant, without the involvement of her parents.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

If Mary can be conceived without inheriting the fallen nature of her parents then there is no reason that Mary's Son can't also be conceived without inheriting his mother's fallen nature. Thus your own doctrine cancels out the need for Mary to be immaculately conceived.

Hoist on your own petard.

Think about it, either there was a spousal relationship or God forced Himself on Mary making her child somehow illegitimate.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

We can’t apply all of this to Christ just because it applied to man, there’s no scripture to support any of this applying to Christ. There’s not a single verse in the scriptures that implied that Christ was ever capable of inheriting a sinful nature.

You don't see much of the "impossible" in Scripture. What man, other than Christ in the Bible was born without original sin? Jesus Christ was wholly God, and wholly man - not half man, not soulless man, and not flesh-less man.

The Word is God, [John 1:1] made flesh, i.e. man [John 1:14].

JoeT

 

[BNR32FAN]

You don't see much of the "impossible" in Scripture. What man, other than Christ in the Bible was born without original sin? Jesus Christ was wholly God, and wholly man - not half man, not soulless man, and not flesh-less man.

The Word is God, [John 1:1] made flesh, i.e. man [John 1:14].

JoeT

Yes but His being man doesn’t negate His deity at the same time. We can’t apply all scriptures that pertain to man to Christ. For example these apply to man not Christ.

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:10‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Like I said there’s no scripture that indicates that Jesus was ever capable of sin and we can’t include Christ with ever passage of scripture that pertains to man.

 

[JoeT]

Yes but His being man doesn’t negate His deity at the same time. We can’t apply all scriptures that pertain to man to Christ. For example these apply to man not Christ.

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:10‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Like I said there’s no scripture that indicates that Jesus was ever capable of sin and we can’t include Christ with ever passage of scripture that pertains to man.

I think you're missing the point, I was speaking of Jesus Christ, not every man. It is however, with the grace of God to be an adopted son/daughter of God. [John 1:12]

What we can say of God we can say of Jesus Christ and what we can say of man known to us as Jesus Christ we can say of God. So, when the man thirst on the cross, God the creator of thirst. One Person two natures, God and man.

With regard to the Scripture you've presented, they don't apply to Christ for two reasons. First man is not, was not'created' evil, rather Scripture tells us that God said man was good - and the fall didn't "remake" or "recreate" man, rather justice (righteousness) was removed, our nature and Adam's nature were one and the same. Second, Christ was the Son of man, a New Adam, righteousness personified without sin.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

Think about it, either there was a spousal relationship or God forced Himself on Mary making her child somehow illegitimate.

JoeT

That isn't even Catholic teaching, nor does it logically follow. I'd ask for your source on this but I strongly suspect it originated with you.

 

[prodromos]

You don't see much of the "impossible" in Scripture. What man, other than Christ in the Bible was born without original sin? Jesus Christ was wholly God, and wholly man - not half man, not soulless man, and not flesh-less man.

The Word is God, [John 1:1] made flesh, i.e. man [John 1:14].

JoeT

The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception, and likewise was His mother cleansed, carrying God in her womb.

 

[JoeT]

The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception, and likewise was His mother cleansed, carrying God in her womb.

How is it assumed? Does the Second Person of the Trinity put on a man suite? Or was the Second Person 'conceived' as us humans are. You seemed to be describing a ghost possessing a man? Nestorius had a similar take on the Second Person, which is why in 325 A.D. the Creed included the words "born of woman".

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

That isn't even Catholic teaching, nor does it logically follow. I'd ask for your source on this but I strongly suspect it originated with you.

You know, I always thought the devil was an idiot! He spent countless hours tempting Christ in the desert [Cf. Matthew 4:1-11] . If he is just like us, as in Hebrews 4:15 says, he can be tempted as Adam and Eve were tempted.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

How is it assumed? Does the Second Person of the Trinity put on a man suite? Or was the Second Person 'conceived' as us humans are.

He took on our whole nature by being conceived in Mary's womb, of her flesh, similarly to how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.

You seemed to be describing a ghost possessing a man?

You are mistaken.

Nestorius had a similar take on the Second Person, which is why in 325 A.D. the Creed included the words "born of woman".

So when you are unable to respond to my points, you try to associate my argument with heresy. Nice!

 

[prodromos]

You know, I always thought the devil was an idiot! He spent countless hours tempting Christ in the desert [Cf. Matthew 4:1-11] . If he is just like us, as in Hebrews 4:15 says, he can be tempted as Adam and Eve were tempted.

JoeT

You are going to have to explain what this has to do with my response to your post #22

 

[The Liturgist]

How does Mary’s perpetual virginity magnify The Lord?

Mainly because she remained, according to John Wesley, Martin Luther, etc, virgin despite bearing a child, which is otherwise impossible since bearing a child at that time required sexual intercourse.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Mainly because she remained, according to John Wesley, Martin Luther, etc, virgin despite bearing a child, which is otherwise impossible since bearing a child at that time required sexual intercourse.

No what I meant was how does her remaining a virgin afterwards magnify Christ?

 

[JoeT]

We can’t apply all of this to Christ just because it applied to man, there’s no scripture to support any of this applying to Christ. There’s not a single verse in the scriptures that implied that Christ was ever capable of inheriting a sinful nature.

We say Jesus Christ is wholly God and wholly man. Consequently, what we say of the Divine Messias is also true of man Jesus Christ. A man begotten is the image of his father. So too is Jesus Christ,
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure [or "image" in Greek] of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high." [Hebrews 1:3]

If born of woman, as all men are "born of woman" Jesus Christ would with out exception inherited original sin. However the woman bore Jesus Christ was immaculate, without sin. There is no alternative except to say Jesus Christ was a pagan mystic, which is the furthest thing from the Christ who is our Lord.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

If born of woman, as all men are "born of woman" Jesus Christ would with out exception inherited original sin.

Human nature was healed in Him at the moment of His conception. There is no necessity for His mother to have not carried our fallen human nature.

 

[JoeT]

Human nature was healed in Him at the moment of His conception. There is no necessity for His mother to have not carried our fallen human nature.

Are we to understand that God needs to be healed in order to take on flesh? If this being (your imagined God), is born of woman is "healed" within evil flesh doesn't that imply corruption in the past, corruption in the present? And how would "evil flesh" redeem our God in the womb of an evil woman? There is every reason for Mary to have been immaculate, else Christ would need redemption - getting right with God - which is what you seem to imply, an oxymoron.

Also, does anybody need to be healed of their human nature? If our nature is corrupt then would we not be innocent of our innate sinfulness and our creator culpable for our nature?

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

Are we to understand that God needs to be healed in order to take on flesh? If this being (your imagined God), is born of woman is "healed" within evil flesh doesn't that imply corruption in the past, corruption in the present? And how would "evil flesh" redeem our God in the womb of an evil woman? There is every reason for Mary to have been immaculate, else Christ would need redemption - getting right with God - which is what you seem to imply, an oxymoron.

Also, does anybody need to be healed of their human nature? If our nature is corrupt then would we not be innocent of our innate sinfulness and our creator culpable for our nature?

JoeT

That has got to be the worst misrepresentation of a post I have seen for a long time. I don't know if it is deliberate or you simply are unable to understand plain English.

 

[JoeT]

Ok let’s continue that passage a bit.

“Then He brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces the east; and it was shut. The Lord said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, he shall sit in it as prince to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out by the same way.””
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭44:1-3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

If this gate refers to Mary’s womb did Christ go out through the same womb He came in from?

“Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” – St. Ambrose of Milan (ca AD 390)

“It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this – ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this – ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.” – St. Augustine (ca AD 430)

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

That has got to be the worst misrepresentation of a post I have seen for a long time. I don't know if it is deliberate or you simply are unable to understand plain English.

My response was simply to your comments and the implications that grow out of that response.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

My response was simply to your comments and the implications that grow out of that response.

JoeT

If you imagine such implications then you have not understood my response.