Actually, I believe many of them do have a great answer and Biblical truths and signs following.
Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
............The Historical Evidence
The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]
However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).
When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,
Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]
Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]
Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,
If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]
However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:
His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]
This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]
As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.
Uhhhh Gamaliel . . . I think is the spelling. Sigh.
Plenty true.
A satanic wonder? Of course not!
And her alleged sinlessness, and the same question remains.
I'm not interpreting anything...And the scripture tells you not to interpret...
Neither Jesus nor anyone else says you must repent and get baptized together...What Jesus and the apostles say is that you must repent...Repent before baptism...Even repent without baptism...
There's not a single case of getting baptized before repentance or without repentance...
= No baptism for babies...It won't hurt 'em but they'll just get wet and cry...
Amen....
While the Bible does not say, I'm assuming the "good thief" was over 18!
The Catholic Church teaches that there is such a thing as "baptism of desire"; obviously there are many who have never heard of Jesus or baptism; there must be some way for them to be saved- or are they all consigned to hell due to the circumstances of their birth?
All know the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible.And he then goes on to basically call those reading the NIV instead of the KJV as heretics. What is funny is that he seems to believe that the Bible was originally written in KJV English!
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
But what does the NIV say?
In the NIV, Lucifer is the "morning star". Now in the NIV, the KJV word "Lucifer" is identified as the "morning star". See for yourself:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Therefore from the NIV Bible, the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure. Is this a correct rendering for the devil? Satan was fallen from heaven. He was cast down to the earth in Revelation. Can we find the "morning star" anywhere else in the NIV? Certainly! The following passages in the NIV shows the "morning star" as Jesus Christ! Note these verses carefully: NIV shows the "morning star" as Jesus Christ! Moreover, if the NIV can in some verses find the word "morning star" as Jesus Christ; then we would assume that the NIV can find Satan and Lucifer! Here is the verses from the NIV with the word "morning star" which identify it as Jesus Christ.
NIV: Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.
NIV: 2 Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
NIV: Revelation 2:28 I will also give him the morning star.
So the NIV successfully finds the the word "morning star" as Jesus Christ in several verses. But what about what we just observed inside the NIV when it called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12 the "morning star"? Since the NIV already found the word "morning star" as Jesus Christ in several verses, I would think that the translators had enough smarts to recognize that "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12 is NOT JESUS CHRIST! Therefore, from this gross error, we can only conclude that the NIV translation (I.E., commentary translation) means that Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV!
We conclude that the NIV means that Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV!
Heavenly Father, please intercede and help us from the gross errors found in the NIV and help people to find a much needed suitable translation of your perfect Word of God - Since you God are perfect; the Godhead is perfect; Jesus Christ is perfect; and Jesus Christ is called "the Word of God", then your Word in the Bible must be as accurate as you are perfect. In Christ Jesus name we pray. Amen.
No.
Uri’s post was a sola solo add-on to God’s word. Not unusual for one of that group.
Good point — here we have quite a few Catholics who heard the Gospel and read the Bible quite regularly, thank you! I wonder if Rn’s group believes that reading the NIV is wrong and they only read the Bible in KJV version (as it was wrote ;-P)
HOW CONVENIENT!
.
.
It's persistently mystifying
how seemingly easy it is for many
RC Rabid Clique types hereon
to ?blithely?
rubberize their logic and understandings of history
as well as of organizational, sociological, theological facts
.
.
to PRETEND that
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling
[otherwise known by some as the RCC]
--to PRETEND
THAT
The VAIWSOTARM is NOT
composed of a very complex, convoluted, deceptive
nasally offensive pile of
disparate groups with theologies, dogmas, practices from A to Z
all PRETENDING to be very kosher Vatican "Christianity."
How they delude themselves that it's all a homogeneous, seamless IN-GROUP
is irrational reality mangling that would do a psychotic proud.
Thankfully, God is not the least bit fooled nor amused by such brazen falsehoods.
That’s a tiresome old strawdog.
But better be careful about going to the hair dresser!
So how many "gods" do you think there are?
So how many "gods" do you think there are? The Pope believes there is one.
This is what has been debated about in this entire thread. From what I understand you saying, you do believe that from the moment we are born (or dare I say it from the moment we are conceived), we are sinners since we have the sin of Adam and Eve on us, correct?
No, she wasn't -- because Jesus is her Savior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.