Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ealgeone

Okay... so... granting that point, for the sake of argument: can you progress to the SECOND portion of my question (which you didn’t include in your quote)?


228 posted on 02/12/2015 8:45:19 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies ]


To: paladinan
Okay... so... granting that point, for the sake of argument: can you progress to the SECOND portion of my question (which you didn’t include in your quote)?

That is the point. There's nothing in Scripture you can solidly point to and say here is the immacualte conception.

We can do that on other points of Christianity. For example, how is one saved. John 3:15-16 gives us the answer. It's clear.

Now, take the catholic way at interpresting Scripture from an allegorical perspective, which is how the IC and assumption came to be defined. And no, there isn't a verse on that, but there doesn't need to be. A reading of the text tells us what we need to know, especially when you keep it in context.

The whole arugment of Mary being the new Eve is what drives a lot of this. It's a nice thought, but scripturally we have nothing that tells us that Mary is the New Eve. That's where the allegory angle comes in.

It's also eisogesis....reading something into Scripture that isn't there. Catholics do this with John 21:25. Just because not everything Jesus ever did was written down do we begin to assume he did other things. This is partly the justification for the assumption.

For example, the Mormons could claim this verse to justify their belief that Jesus appeared to the Indians in North America. Is there anything in Scripture saying He didn't? No. Is there anything in Scripture that said He did? No. So from the Mormon perspective they can claim He did because we can't prove He didn't. BTW...I am not a Mormon and totally disagree with their postions.

This is what catholicism has done with the assumption. We have no record of Mary dying. We don't have record of Joseph dying either for that matter. Was he assumed also? Did Mary die? We don't know; but odds are pretty high she did. Was she taken up before she died? We don't know. We have no solid evidence she was or wasn't. It's a nice thought, but it is not supported by Scripture. None of the apostles wrote about it. John didn't address it and his Gospel is the last one written. We have no eyewitnesses to it.

Besides, it is a detour to the message of the Gospel. The gospels are about Christ and how Christ came to save us. That should be the focus.

Instead, the rcc has put up a detour with all of this business of mary. It's a distraction from the purpose of the Gospel. Who benefits from this? Satan.

If more people are focused on praying to Mary, worshipping Mary, etc, the less attention is paid to Jesus. And that is the goal of Satan.

244 posted on 02/12/2015 11:12:10 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson