Your comment:”The immaculate conception, by admission of catholic apologists, cannot be found or be supported by Scripture.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056";
But you left out:
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 )
Luke 1:28
The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene , Hail, full of grace ( Luke 1:28 ) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace ) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God’s Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles ( 4:7 , “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee”)
Catholic apologists do not promulgate Catholic teaching. Some Catholic leaders have been wrong in their interpretations. This was done by Pope Pius IX with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ , the Saviour of the human race , was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056";
But you left out:
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 )
I left it out as the first sentence says it all. Yet catholics plow right ahead and try to find something in the text that's not there. And then they twist the scripture to read something that's not there to make it fit the narrative.
They reference a early writing that was rejected by the early church in the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium).
If this text is so crucial to Catholicism and Mary then why didn't the rcc include it in the canon at Trent when they had the chance??
I'm not even going to go into Luke 1:28 as there is nothing in this text that says Mary was immaculately conceived and neither do the other texts catholics cite.
Again, the burden is on catholicism to show with crystal clarity where the text says Mary was immaculately conceived or assumed, etc.
That the pope had to wait until 1854 to make this "dogma", and it was only after a groundswell of the laity and clergy petitioning him for this that he made this dogma.
Really....the vicar of Christ has to wait until public opinion wants something and then he declares it dogma??
If it was as clear as catholics contend, this would have been put to bed very, very early in the life of the church.
That is wasn't speaks volumes.
It's a good thing Paul wasn't swayed by public opinion in Galatians and his other writings as easily as the pope was.
"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”
If I'm not mistaken, this is called playing fast and loose with the texts. The 'she shall crush thy head' can refer to Jesus as the means to crush the serpent's head and this would give credence to the woman, the 'she' being Israel. The second place you insert 'his' you create a useful confusion which draws focus away from the initial prophecy of ISrael being pursued by the dragon through History until Jesus was born and grew to manhood.
I'll ask you, how many of your sins were in the future when Jesus was upon the cross? ... Justification is a legal decree of not guilty by reason of His substitutionary declaration from the Cross. So to teach that the proclamation can be lost then obtained, again and again, and again is to strike the rock the second time for water, rather than do as told, to speak to it. You restrict the water of life offered freely 'to all who will', trying to make it commandable by the nicotailanizing of the institutional church of Rome. Jesus said clearly that he hates that ...
The Hebrew word for "he" is ה֚וּא and the Hebrew word for "she" is הִ֛וא. There is a distinct difference. The Hebrew word הִ֛וא (she) is NOT used in Genesis 3:15. The Hebrew word ה֚וּא (he) IS used in Genesis 3:15. The Catholic Church has changed the words of scripture to claim something that is NOT true and therefore lies.
Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
And where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. Grace is an indicator of sinfulness because someone without sin does not need grace.
Only sinners need grace.
Neither does the word *grace* mean *without sin*.
Mary and Grace
The word grace used in this passage in Luke is used in one other place in the Bible and that is Ephesians 1 where Paul is us that with this same grace, God has blessed us (believers) in the Beloved. IOW, we all have access to that grace and it has been bestowed on us all.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm
Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Ephesians 1:4-6 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Greek word “grace”
charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace
Original Word: χαριτόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: charitoó
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5487 xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
Word Origin: from charis
Definition: to make graceful, endow with grace
NASB Translation: favored (1), freely bestowed (1).
Let's analyze this...
Who makes the Judgment call as to this WRONGNESS claimed?
And just how do you determine whether they are correct or not?
They're infallible unless they're not then whether you believe it or not is up for grabs?
Sounds just like the sorts of things Catholic condemn Prots for. I guess it's a matter of *Rules for thee, but not for me*.
It's OK of RC's do it but not Prots.
There's a word for that.
It's called "hypocrisy".