“The Blessed Virgin had not only a real mother but also a real father, and her conception was brought about according to the human laws of generation. But at the moment that her soul was joined to her body, God - in view of the merits of Christ - filled her soul with sanctifying grace.”
If this were necessary, or true or important, it is strange that God did not choose to record it in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor the Church Scriptures.
As such, we can conclude it wasn’t necessary, nor true, nor important for the Church. It is made up out of whole cloth and took almost 2,000 years to become doctrine of the RC denomination.
I guess Genesis 1-11 is just uniquely impossible, huh?
“The Virgin Birth It is a matter of Catholic faith that Mary was a Virgin at the conception and at the birth of Christ, and that she always remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.”
After Jesus was born Joseph did know his wife:
Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
How does the Church reconcile this passage ?
The word for brother in Mark 6:13 is translated 102 times in the KJV as "adelphos" brother as in actual kin relationship
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matt1:11 Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Matt 1:16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
Now go to the old testament:
Jer 22:24-30“As I live,” says the LORD, “though Coniahfn the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off; “and I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear—the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of the Chaldeans. “So I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, into another country where you were not born; and there you shall die. “But to the land to which they desire to return, there they shall not return. “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol— A vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, And cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, Hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the LORD: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”
Joseph was of the cursed Jeconiah (Coniah) royal line. Jesus being the adopted son of Joseph was the "first born" (by position) of Joseph but without the blood curse. He was still a son of David through Mary through a non-royal lineage. So Jesus was the son of David with a valid claim to the throne as required by prophesy.
This is the biggest bunch of nonsense and false teaching I've seen you post. There is one part you said that is true....there may be an illusion. There's lots of them in catholicism apparently.
So let's be clear what you're alluding to.
Let's address the "immaculate conception" since that totally disagrees with scripture....not that that has ever bothered catholics.
Paul and Luke are friends. On that we agree.
Paul, a Pharisee by training, who knows the Law and understands the sin offering Mary made according to Luke 2:24 somehow ignores what "we think" the good doctor told him about this.
Paul completely ignores what "we think" Luke also told him when regarding Mary's admission of the need for a savior in Luke 1:47-48 when she says, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave."
Paul, being a Pharisee of Pharisees, knows Mary is a sinner by these two accounts.
He then goes on to write Romans 3:23, for ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.
Yet, he didn't make an exception regarding Mary being sinless in ANY of his writings. Not once did he make even a veiled hint of an exception for Mary. Nor did Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, James, Peter, or Jude make a note on this. For that matter neither did any of the writers of the Old Testament, after the fall, suggest anyone, outside of the Messiah, was free of sin.
Catholics will respond by trying to appeal to the Greek, which I applaud, but they miss the translation of the word, κεχαριτωμένη, used by Luke in his account of the angel Gabriel greeting Mary.
Let's deal with the the greeting first as catholicism has taken that to mean something it is not.
Luke 1:28
And having come in, he said to her, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." (NASB)
The Greek for Hail is chaire. It is the present imperative active. Usually the imperative mood is one of command. However, according to Greek scholar, Wallace, the word is used here as a "stereotyped greeting" in which the imperative has suppressed its original injunctive force. The imperative is reduced to an exclamation. This occurs especially in greetings. Wallace, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics, p493.
Wallace also translates this passage as Greetings, favored {lady}! The Lord is with you.
So we see this is not a title as catholics claim even if translated as Hail. It is simply a greeting.
The base greek word in question in this passage, charitoo, χαριτόω is a verb. It means God extending Himself to freely bestow grace. It is used twice in the NT. The other usage is in Ephesians 1:6, ἐχαρίτωσεν, where it used as an aorist indicative active. Ephesians 1:5-6 reads as follows. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
This is God’s grace being freely bestowed on His children.
The big word catholics pin their hope on in Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene, κεχαριτωμένη. This is a verb acting as a perfect middle/passive participle.
The key to understanding the perfect is that the time is present from the standpoint of the speaker, not necessarily the reader.
The perfect participle carries the same significance that the perfect does in the indicative. It indicates a completed action that has consequences in the present.
To understand this, we have to look at this in terms of time from Luke's perspective. If we do this we'll understand this word and passage much better.
Luke wrote his book around 60 AD. Most scholars agree Christ was born between 6 and 4 BC.
So looking at this from Luke's perspective...remember he's the writer, Mary had already been favored with grace just before she was pregnant with Christ. So somewhere between 6 and 4 BC she was favored with grace by God. This is the past event Luke is recording. This did not occur at her birth. It occurred from Luke's perspective, in the past.
It did not occur at her birth as catholic teaching claims. We have no record of this in the Bible. More importantly, catholics have no record of this either….other than they said so. Recall that Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit, had meticulously researched what he wrote (Luke 1:1-4) so that, as he put it, we would “know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”
So who are we to believe? The good doctor Luke who has thoroughly researched this? Or the catholic church who has just said it happened offering no proof. That it took until 1854 to make this official dogma of the church is telling. If this was that well known beforehand why wasn’t it mentioned by any of the writers of the NT?
The impact of that action, Mary being favored with grace, is being felt in the present. Mary is still blessed. She is still favored with grace. It is something she doesn't lose. Generations still rightly called her blessed.
We've already addressed the issue of Mary remaining a virgin based on the use of the Greek language so I will not repost this again.
It amazes me that catholics still remain wedded to proven false doctrine when confronted with the truth of the Word.
The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the conception of Christ....the dogma declares that Mary herself was conceived without original sin.
Beautiful article! Lots to think about! Thanks, and God bless!
Poor ol' frustrated Joseph.
I wonder why he stuck with her all those years.
Mary was NOT a very good Christian for FAILING to be a COMPLETE wife to him.
This information is obtained from the Catholic Encycolpedia Online. It advertises itself as the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history. This easy-to-search online version was originally printed in fifteen hardcopy volumes. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
That in and of itself tells us all we need to know about this false doctrine that that catholic church continues to promulgate. The catholic church admits this false teaching cannot be found in Scripture. Nor can it be supported from Scripture. But that doesn't stop them from plowing ahead. The deception goes even deeper.
But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer.
[The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
Can the catholic appeal to "tradition"?
From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.
What is left for the catholic to appeal to?
Proof from reason is all that's left. I will add, man's reason.
So it comes down to feelings and wouldn't it be a nice kind of thing for God to do for Mary. While a nice sentiment it doesn't meet the Biblical test for proof as attested to by the catholic church.
We can wish and say we hope there isn't a Hell....but we know there is as the Bible teaches this. We can wish and hope that none would ever wind up in Hell, but we know those who do not have faith in Christ will based on the Bible.
Too many false doctrines have been built upon man's reasoning and that's all that's left to the catholic regarding the immaculate conception.
This shows us what the false teaching of the immaculate conception is predicated upon. It is not in the Bible. It is based on a poor translation that cannot, by the catholic church's own admission, be defended. It comes down to man's reason which we know if subject to error.
I pray our catholic friends to examine this teaching critically and come out of the false teaching of the catholic church.
This is like reading Cinderella, Aesop’s fables...and Alice in Wonderland all at the same time...
I just can’t imagine why some one would believe this...
Sorry I had to miss this. Had to get some things sorted at work.
MARY! RUN FOR THE HILLS!
No scriptural reference concerns Mary's last years on earth. According to tradition, she went to Ephesus, where she experienced her dormition. Another tradition states that she remained in Jerusalem. The belief that Mary's body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church.
So this is the second dogma the catholic church admits is not founded on any Scripture. It is based on feelings and gee, wouldn't that be nice...oh, and the pope said so.
Notice also there is no agreement on where her final days/years were...maybe Ephesus...maybe Jerusalem. No one knows.
Sad that "dogmas" of the catholic church cannot be founded upon Scripture.