Immaculate Conception

Originally posted by spamandham
I'm not sure what you mean with this, but the immaculate conception refers to the supernatural conception of Jesus in Roman Catholic mythology. You may be confusing that with their teaching that Mary was born without original sin?

Do some research, the RCC believes the Immaculate Conception is about Mary and her being conceived without sin, which is not true. As someone else mentioned this is an error of the RCC. That is not the only thing they teach that is corrupt.

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I believe that the "Immaculate Conception" never really
happened. Yup, Mary and Joseph did the nasty ..

As was stated before ....

The 'Immaculate Conception' is NOT Jesus! It refers to MARY.
It was her conception that is considered immaculate by the
Catholic Church. And that has nothing to do with sex. It has
to do with sin. It refers to her being conceived without original
sin.

Ya'll might want to check the Catholic Catechism before
you continue on with this discussion ...

[edit on 12/27/2005 by FlyersFan]

DAM! you guys got to it before me!

I got excited! Finally a question where my knowldge of theology isnt being put to use on peopel who are talkign about heaven hell or the spirit or sin. Way to steal my fun guys....

Yes as it has been said. The Immacculate conception has absloutly nothing to do with Christ Jesus. It deals with Mary's conception.

What this means is that she was to be the mother of God, and God being her creator could choose "His" (I say "His" in quotes because undoubtly some nay sayer will be liek "How do you know god is a He?" which is an issue I have discussed in other threads) mother. God being able to give her anything she needed created her with the gifts of sanctifying grace. Or being in the utmost favor of God and in a state of redemption.

hrm that was suprisingly short....

ok what i meant was....why do you think the virgin births in former religions are false yet you think that jesus was born of a virgin mother???? why is it that jesus and mary can lay claim to something that is probably as old as the dawn of man????

Originally posted by Mizar
What this means is that she was to be the mother of God, and God being her creator could choose "His" (I say "His" in quotes because undoubtly some nay sayer will be liek "How do you know god is a He?" which is an issue I have discussed in other threads) mother. God being able to give her anything she needed created her with the gifts of sanctifying grace. Or being in the utmost favor of God and in a state of redemption.

hrm that was suprisingly short....

I got questions, though~

If God gave her sanctifying grace in order to have a child whose death would provide that same type of grace for the world--why not just eliminate the death of the child?

Does that mean Mary was redeemed before the price was even paid?

And how can God be the creator of His own mother? If God has a mother, then isn't the whole thing flawed, since we should have an 'Almighty Goddess?' It's like saying the chicken is both the egg it lays as well as the egg that is laid--and it's the only laying hen in the henhouse....

I'm asking these from the perspective of wondering how the RCC supports these ideas through scripture?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Ya'll might want to check the Catholic Catechism before
you continue on with this discussion ...

Good advice, which I followed--finding the catechism online at The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website.

In Article 3 'The Seven Petitions', VII, 2853:
Victory over the "prince of this world" was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is "cast out." "He pursued the woman" but had no hold on her: the new Eve, "full of grace" of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring." Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: "Come, Lord Jesus," since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.

To support the underlined part, it is necessary to totally disregard Paul's words:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Galatians 1:18-19

Article 9, I, 966:
"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

III, 974:
The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

Where in scripture does it say that Mary was taken up 'body and soul,' or even taken up, at all--as well as 'exalted by the LORD as Queen over all things?'

Also, the idea that she was 'preserved free of all stain of original sin' pretty much contradicts anything Paul ever wrote about sin--here is one example:

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Galatians 3:22

'All' would include even Mary.

Here is a quiz about these things.

Certainly the idea of Mary being conceived without the physical act of procreation is not precedented in the religious mythos of the ages....

Who came up with the idea, anyway, in the Church? Was it perhaps an effort to present a new and improved version of the ages-old immaculate conception?

Originally posted by GameSetMatch
Nice job AkashicWanderer, well put together.

In defense of the word of God and Bible believers; satan knew of the forth coming of Christ looong before any human. satan only knows how to mix and mirror. The immaculate birth's of other false gods is his way to bring people over to his camp and to create doubt in believers in Christ. satan has been deceiving since the beginning of time...

"See, the virgin birth is nothing new... It is just a rip off of insert Babylonian/pagan theology here. Come on in the water is warm just how you like it." -satan

Q:What is it that made mankind start to ponder the idea of an Immaculate Conception?

A: satan's influence in a world of sin. Separation from God.

Q:What physical act is the Immaculate Conception alluding to?

A: It is alluding to the deception of the truth.

Oh, where is that damn lol smiley when you need it?

Well, since I don't have it here, let it be know that I am laughing right now. It's ALWAYS, "well, their belief is similar because the devil ripped it off and made it first. ALL other similar beliefs in other religions is false." What a nice cop out to explain what is obviously a rip-off or adaptation of other, older religions. (like the Romans did to the Greeks)

Not to side track, but there's a thing in evolution called parsimony. With it, you use the simplest explanation when trying to backtrack evolutionary pathways. I guess Occam's Razor is something like that.

What's the point? Well, if one explanation is that the devil ripped off Jesus and copied it in ALL those preceding religions, while the other is that Christians ripped it off of other religions, which one has fewer steps? :w:

Originally posted by truthseeka
Oh, where is that damn lol smiley when you need it?

lol! They do not always fit the expressions I want some times too.

Well, since I don't have it here, let it be know that I am laughing right now. It's ALWAYS, "well, their belief is similar because the devil ripped it off and made it first. ALL other similar beliefs in other religions is false." What a nice cop out to explain what is obviously a rip-off or adaptation of other, older religions. (like the Romans did to the Greeks)

lol No, it was not a cop out. I do believe the stories of the Bible. I do not beleive they are rip-off's or adaptation's of other religions. It would not matter how much evidence I could show you to support BOTH sides of the argument. It is up to you to choose what side you want to believe. As you can already see I am cutting out a huge argument, because I can like you can support BOTH cases.

Not to side track, but there's a thing in evolution called parsimony. With it, you use the simplest explanation when trying to backtrack evolutionary pathways. I guess Occam's Razor is something like that.

There is a thing called Entropy which makes the whole evolution lie crumble at its very foundation. The whole evolution thought is a destructive path. Entropy is the second law of thermal dynamics and that is the curse interesting enough what we are ALL under from Adam and Eves sin.

What's the point? Well, if one explanation is that the devil ripped off Jesus and copied it in ALL those preceding religions, while the other is that Christians ripped it off of other religions, which one has fewer steps?

Here is where I mentioned in many many posts. There comes a time to choose a side (or camp), and only by faith can you stick to one side or the other. I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light. ALL other systems are death and destruction, false, a beautiful lie. The end result is eternal separation of God.

Also--unless one subscribes to the idea that God is subject and limited to the same framework of 'time' that we are--it really is irrelevant 'who stole what from whom.'

If time is really a spiral (one school of thought) then the authenticity question is moot.
If God is outside time (and hence all angels, both in grace and fallen) then it is, once again, a moot point.

But still the question remains 'what does immaculate conception really mean?'

And...

'dare we try this at home, ourselves, dear?'

Ha ha, Game. Nice try.

It's nice to think that the 2nd law of thermo destroys evolution. My point was about the simplest explanation, but I'll bite. What you seem to forget is that entropy applies to CLOSED systems. Organisms are NOT closed systems, though. So, find another way to attack evolution.

IN christ being god everything he did had infinite effects. THere for his death on the cross had infinite salvation due to his infinate nature as God. Mary was born of the Human nature and did not possess the devine nature to have actions with infinite effects for the forgivness of sins to all of the world and all of the peoples.

Mary was human Christ was God.

I quote F. J. Sheed

"Yet for many devoted lovers of the Blessed Virgin, a troubling question remains. Our Ladyhad said in the Magnificat: "My spirit doth rejoice in God my Savior." How could God be her Savior, what was there to save her from, if she had had grace always?

Gradually they came to see the answer (they being theologains), or rather the two-fold answer. To save men from their sins is a great mercy of God; but to save this one woman from ever sinning was a greater mercy, but still a mercy. Not only that. SInless as she was, possessed of grace at every instant, she was still a member of a fallen race, a race to which Heaven was still closed. The Savior's redeeming act opend heaven to her as to all members of the race."

What he is saying and what the theologains say is that Mary even though she had the ability to know God fully she was not excepted into heaven yet because she was still of the human race. The only way for her to gain exceptance into heaven was through Christ Jesus' triumph over sin on calvary.

"I am the way the truth and the life"

I hope that clarifies Queen annine.

Forget what I said about the question of whether Mary was a 'virgin' or just an 'unmarried maiden.' I forgot about this verse:

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:34

Originally posted by plague
ok what i meant was....why do you think the virgin births in former religions are false yet you think that jesus was born of a virgin mother???? why is it that jesus and mary can lay claim to something that is probably as old as the dawn of man????

It requires you to believe and accept as fact something. That something is that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman who ever lived. If you can't accept that as fact you might as well stop reading. When they disobeyed God and sin entered humanity God told them a Savior would be coming through the woman. I don't believe this refers specifically to Mary but Eve(representing those who carry and bear children, women). satan heard this as well. So all these other "ancient" people's groups that are brought up are false. Adam and Eve were the first people. Once again if you choose not to believe this, then you will not be able to proceed any further and have faith in Jesus Christ. So since Adam and Eve were the first people and satan heard a Savior was coming, he has been taking God's plan of salvation and distorting it and lying about it since the beginning.

Originally posted by queenannie38

If God gave her sanctifying grace in order to have a child whose death would provide that same type of grace for the world--why not just eliminate the death of the child?

Does that mean Mary was redeemed before the price was even paid?

And how can God be the creator of His own mother? If God has a mother, then isn't the whole thing flawed, since we should have an 'Almighty Goddess?'

I'm not catholic but I have and am learning what the RCC consists of.

Sin had to be atoned for is why Jesus died. Sin/sins had to be paid for, and they were transferred to Christ and He paid their price which is death for those who have sinned. The wages of sin is death and that is a Law of God.

This could be said many ways but Mary was the human who God decided would carry Jesus as part of God being incarnated in a human body. Mary was not sinless she too had sin that needed to be atoned for.

Luke 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Jesus was her Savior also, she acknowledges that in the above verse. She also acknowledges that God is the Savior.

This is one of the major problems I have with RCC. Mary was the mother of Jesus not God the Father, but Jesus also existed with God the Father from all of eternity past. Mary was a link into providing a human body for Jesus, that's all. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always been. Mary hasn't, but they come awful close to saying she was and even cross the line sometimes regarding this fact.

A person comes to God the Father through the salvation found in Christ. The Holy Spirit then teaches us about God and draws us closer to Him and changes us as we yield ourself to Him.

I just heard this again last night on EWTN. The RCC believes you come to Jesus through Mary. NO, there is no such thing. There is no one between us and Jesus. Mary is elevated beyond who she is in the RCC and that damages and diminishes who Christ is, and I beleive it prevents true salvation from being proclaimed and understood.

Originally posted by queenannie38
If God is outside time (and hence all angels, both in grace and fallen) then it is, once again, a moot point.

I don't believe so, because people are stuck in time. satan and the angels who followed him already have their fate determined. They also know the truth. They choose not to follow it but they know it.

Each individual person does not. We are the ones who are the objects of this war between God and satan. Since we are stuck in time and have a short limited physical lifetime, we are capable of being deceived. I think it's a very important point regarding humans. It provides the reason that truth can be played with and turned into lies by satan.

ok could it be possible that maybe one of these past religions actually did have there god born from a virgin mother and that the jews borrowed this from them to validate there god incarnate?

Originally posted by dbrandt
Mary was the mother of Jesus not God the Father ...

The Catholic Church believes that God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Spirit are all one God in three divine persons.
The Holy Trinity. That is how Mary is the Mother of God. Nowhere
does the Roman Catholic church say that she is Mother of God - the Father.
It just says that she is Mary, Mother of God.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Where in scripture does it say

The Catholic faith has scripture AND sacred tradition. Sacred Tradition
is called for in scripture. Not all truths are in scripture and scripture
states that. I'll get those quotes and post them here for you.

the idea that she was 'preserved free of all stain of original sin'

Much of this comes from the Angel Gabriel saying to Mary -
'hail full of grace, the Lord is with you'. If Mary had sin on her soul
she wouldn't be 'full of grace' . Full implies just that .. full ...without
room for anything else.

Certainly the idea of Mary being conceived without
the physical act of procreation

Immaculate Conception doesn't have anything to do with sex.
It has to do with sin. The term Immaculate Conception states
that Mary was free from sin from the very moment of her
conception. The Catholic Church does not believe that Mary
was concieved without sex being involved.

Who came up with the idea, anyway, in the Church?

I'll look up the history of that belief and get back to you ...

www.catholic.com...
This site has information on the Catholic belief of Immaculate Conception.
It is written in easy to read language and explains things rather well.


[edit on 12/27/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by queenannie38
Does that mean Mary was redeemed before the price was even paid?

The Catholic doctrine states that Mary indeed was redeemed, as
all humans are. However, she was redeemed BEFORE she was
born. As others stated, God works outside of time and he applied
the redemption to her so that His Son could have a holy and
immaculate tabernacle in which to rest for 9 months before birth.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

It just says that she is Mary, Mother of God.

That's confusing and borders on, and even strays over the line, of who she is and who God is.

The RCC with this statement makes Mary more eternal than God. That's the way it comes across. Whether intentional or unintentional, that's what comes across. And as such confuses the issue and leads to disunity and I believe keeps salvation from truly being proclaimed in simplicity, purity and truth.