 |
First of all, do you believe that Jesus Christ was a man? (Careful, I didn't say only a man.)
Secondly, do you see any connection between the dogma of The Immaculate Conception and the humanity of Christ?
I believe that there is an intimate connection between these two concepts.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was a man?
YES, definitely so.
The dogma of The Immaculate Conception means that SHE was born different from any human being.
She was born untainted without
Original sin.
The connection of the two is that
She was instrumental in bringing
Jesus Christ to live amongst us.
She was worthily specially chosen for
Jesus to become a man.
1. yes Jesus was human, he was a male human but he was also God.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
2. No, dogma is dogma, Christ was born a man and to do this God required a human vessel because Jesus had to be 100% human in order for the sacrifice for sin to be made. Mary has a unique place in history, but Jesus made it very plain that it was about him, not Mary. Only Jesus made the sacrifice, only Jesus redeemed us.
I will be bold here and say that there is not one scrap of scripture to base this dogma on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ROLCAM
Jesus used the title "Son of Man" almost exclusively. If Mary was not conceived just like all the rest of us, then the connection between Christ and mankind is broken, and all the types of Messiah in the Old Testament are not applicable.
The only way for Mary to be born without sin would be if her father was not a sinner. Mary was conceived in the usual manner and had no advantage over any other Jewish girl of her time, except that she was a descendent of King David.
The fact that she was devout had nothing to do with her birth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Hi Gal,
Impressive reasoning going on here.
Tut
I think the concept of the immaculate conception is a literalizing of a spiritual symbol. The immaculate mother stands for the purified, or divine nature (unconscious spiritualized tendencies - the Holy Spirit) that brings forth spiritual awareness (conscious spiritualized thinking - Jesus coming to live in us) which is the Christ that is born within us. This is the rebirth that Christ speaks about - the spirit that brings forth spirit. Mary herself was the flesh that brought forth flesh. As stated by Galveston, how could she be born without original sin? Then her parents would have to have been born sinless too which means there was a secret race of sinless people on earth.
That is straight heresy, you cannot suggest that Mary and the Holy Spirit are the same. Mary stands for motherhood and obedience to God's will. There is no sinless race of people otherwise Christ died for nothing. Remember, for it is easily forgotten, what is impossible for man is possible for God. It is faith and obedience that sancified Mary. You cannot argue any of this with Catholics, they will just quote doctrine to youQuote:
Originally Posted by deepinthought2
Yeah sorry - I"m not saying Mary and the Holy Spirit are the same. Mary is Mary. Catholicism is a blend of Christian and pagan symbolism. There is no 24 or 25th of December in the Bible - it comes from Mithraism and is the day of the rebirth of the sun 3 days after its death at the winter solstice. And there is no immaculate conception in the Bible either. It was taken from pagan myths about the virgin mother which symbolizes the birth of consciousness out of unconsciousness or instinct - an evolutionary concept. The pagan Greeks equated Mary with their mother goddess who gives birth to her son, or the sun. In esoteric teaching the immaculate virgin mother is supposedly the purified nature of the aspirant that gives birth to the enlightened state of consciousness. Now if you do want to put it in Christian terms, then the good virgin mother is the good fertile soil of Christ's parable that receives the Holy Spirit seed to give birth to the reborn Christ-like nature. I was just continuing in the Catholic tradition of blending symbolisms, but perhaps its best not to. Show me in the Bible that Mary is co-redemptrix. Luke 11:27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." 28He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
I would avoid rewriting Christ's parables and I would certainly avoid continuing Catholic mysicism and symbolism. Jesus did not exalt Mary in her life time above her status as his mother and neither should we rather we should focus on JesusQuote:
Originally Posted by deepinthought2
Let me just clarify my point of view (hopefully):
1. Mary was a fallible being and serves no spiritual role
2. Jesus is the focal point and a real person and God
3. The concept of the Immaculate Conception is a contamination from pagan mythology due to the similar symbolism – it has no Biblical foundation
Early Christians, being Greeks etc, were poetic thinkers with a background in mythology. And they liked to expand Biblical symbols a little bit. I think it started innocently enough, but later the Romans and Roman Catholicism literalized everything and deified these symbols. So I am not trying to deify Mary by any means but merely trying to explain how she, besides being a person, also featured in their way of thinking as a symbol that only later progressed to become a deity.
Because the goddesses of mythology represent both mother nature and human nature, it was natural for them to see (in their poetic mindset) Mary as a symbol of the fallible human psyche or mind that is fertilized from above (by the Holy Spirit) to conceive Christ within us. They used the mystery of the birth of Christ to illustrate the mystery of rebirth of the Christian. And to them she was like the fertile soil of Christ's parable that receives the seed and brings forth a harvest of grain (the bread of life). She was fertile because she accepted the Spirit, but the fact that she was the good soil later made her the good mother and then the infallible mother – just a natural decay from abstract to concrete thinking. I'm not putting a new spin on Christ's parable and saying that He is referring to Mary. It was the Christianized pagans who did that.
So while I lament the course of events, I think that their initial insight was actually quite neat. It didn't contradict the Bible and the intention was not to bring paganism in. It actually reminds me that Christ is both our outward saviour and a symbol of an inner process that must take place.
Too complicated for me, Deep, I'm just a simple man.
I believe that Christ was one Person, that he subsists with two natures, human and God, i.e. Hypostasis union.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. “ ( John 1:14)
"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross." (Phil 2:6-8)
I believe the proclamation made in Ineffabilis Deus:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
...the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Yes there is an unbreakable bond between the two doctrines – without Mary Christ is a creature, created like the rest of us, without an immaculate Mary Christ is born with inherited sin of Adam.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Ineffabilis Deus:
... the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.
JoeT
So, Joe,
Do I understand you correctly?
You cite Catholic dogma to support Catholec dogma?
Every true doctrine will be proved by multiple Bible passages.
Can you support "immaculate conception" by any Bible passages?
Wasn't that proclaimed by the Pope in the 1950's or thereabout?
Don't you think that is a little late for us to consider it as being true?
If you understood the importance of the Church’s teaching, you wouldn’t have asked the following questions; but, you did understand me correctly, if you understood you read;Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
a.) Christ subsists with two natures, human and God, i.e. Hypostasis union.
b.) the “first instance of [Mary’s] conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful,”
c.)Mary is the ‘new’ Eve.
Which means what? Are you teaching that God’s revelation to man stopped after the Catholic Church canonized Scripture?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Where is that written? I missed that passage.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Yes, and I’ve done so several times. Did you forget and would like for me to do it again?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Roughtly 100 A.D. and formalized by the Pope in 1854 A.D.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
It’s Catholic doctrine. “Doctrine” means “the act of teaching”; Church doctrine then becomes catechetical instruction to the faithful.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
JoeT
Actually no. It comes from the 25th of March, which is precisely 9 months before Christmas. And that happens to coincide with the date that the Jews believe was the first day of Creation, as in Genesis. The 25th of March is Day 1, 26th day 2, 27th day 3, 28th day 4, 29th day 5, 30th day 6 and 31st day 7. And their calendar began on April 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by deepinthought2
You see, Jesus is the New Creation.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Yes.Quote:
Secondly, do you see any connection between the dogma of The Immaculate Conception and the humanity of Christ?
I do also. Please explain what you think.Quote:
I believe that there is an intimate connection between these two concepts.
Don't you cite the Bible to support the Bible? You probably think I'm only making one point here, but I'm making two. The Bible is a Catholic book. So every time you cite the Bible to support doctrine, you are using a Catholic citation.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Show me from Scripture.Quote:
Every true doctrine will be proved by multiple Bible passages.
Yes. I'll start with one.Quote:
Can you support "immaculate conception" by any Bible passages?
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Mary is the Woman to whom this verse refers. There is enmity between she and Satan. Therefore she could never be controlled by him. And therefore she was born immaculate.
Yes. A doctrine which was always held by the Catholic Church was proclaimed because of the challenge posed by Protestants. Just as in the Council of Trent, the same 73 books of the Bible were canonized because of the challenge by the Protestants.Quote:
Wasn't that proclaimed by the Pope in the 1950's or thereabout?
It was a confirmation of the truth held since Apostolic times.Quote:
Don't you think that is a little late for us to consider it as being true?
Juan:
Look at this, the best I've seen.
YouTube - The Truth About Mary and Scripture: MUST SEE!
JoeT
See: Rom 3:10-12, 3:23, 5:12, Ps 14:3, 53:3,
Do you guys believe these Scriptures? They prove the UNIVERSAL need for us to be saved from our sin. There are NO exclusions.
These also illustrate what I said about every true doctrine being supported by several passages.
PS, Joe, I ain't Juan. He lives a few blocks South of me.
That is awesome! Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
If a man is run over by a truck and taken to a hospital and the doctor treats him, then it is said the doctor saved him.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
If a man is crossing the street and another man warns him that a truck is coming. Did that other man save him from being run over?
We, are saved as by the first instance. Jesus saved us after we were impacted by original sin.
Jesus saved Mary in the second instance. Because He knew that she would be His Mother, He prevented her from being affected by sin.
North.Quote:
These also illustrate what I said about every true doctrine being supported by several passages.
PS, Joe, I ain't Juan. He lives a few blocks South of me.
May we go over those Scriptures one at a time? Feel free to start and add your comments to each. I want to see how you claim that they impact Mary.
Ps 14:3 & 53:3 say the same thing, that God looked down and found no good people. Did God tell the truth? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Rom. 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. Vs. 12 says the same thing.
Vs 23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Did that mean except Mary? I think not.
Want more?
What did Jesus say on the subject?
Mt. 19:17 "There is none good but one, that is, God." - - -
What did Jesus say about His mother?
Lu. 11:27 "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and th paps which thou hast sucked.
28. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
Mt. 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy bretheren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48. But he answered and said unnto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who ae my brethren?
49. And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!"
I can't see that these passages need any interpretation. Can you?
Your reasoning seems to be like this:
God, (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) created everything, including mankind.
Mary gave birth to Jesus the man, who you call God. (Jesus never said that of Himself)
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.
That makes Mary before God, which is impossible. Why can't you see how convoluted this reasoning is?
Jesus said this about His relationship to the Father:
John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my bretheren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God."
And finally, for now at least:
Heb. 10:5 "Wherefore when he (Jesus) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."
Mary gave Him that body that was to be the final and perfect sacrifice for sin. That was what she is the mother of, not the eternal God the Son.
I do honor Mary, but if she had no sinful nature, then she herself could have been our savior and Jesus would not have been needed.
Why didn't you quote them? I want to see if that is true. Then we can deal with the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
My time is short this evening so let me suggest an excerpt from St. John Chrysostom’s homily.
Rom 3:10
What then have we more than they? For we have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues have they used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.“He had accused the Gentiles, he had accused the Jews; it came next in order to mention the righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those that used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater punishment, then after this the salvation which is by grace was necessary. Speak then of it, O Paul, and display it. But as yet he does not venture, as having an eye to the violence of the Jews, and so turns afresh to his accusation of them; and first he brings in as accuser, David speaking of the same things at length, which Isaiah mentioned all in short compass, so furnishing a strong curb for them, so that they might not bound off, nor any of his hearers, while the matters of faith were laid open to them, might after this start away; being beforehand safely held down by the accusations of the prophets. For there are three excesses which the prophet lays down; he says that all of them together did evil, and that they did not do good indifferently with evil, but that they followed after wickedness alone, and followed it also with all earnestness. And next that they should not say, What then, if these things were said to others? “ And he goes on… CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom)
I wouldn’t finish reading it, you may not like it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:04 AM. |