1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    05 Jan '10 08:22
    Questions for Christians only:
    (I understand that this has been Catholic dogma since 1800s so perhaps this question is aimed at non-Catholics)

    Does your church support the Immaculate Conception?

    Do you? Is it an important belief?

    Thanks.
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    05 Jan '10 08:35
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Questions for Christians only:
    (I understand that this has been Catholic dogma since 1800s so perhaps this question is aimed at non-Catholics)

    Does your church support the Immaculate Conception?

    Do you? Is it an important belief?

    Thanks.
    If my new girlfriend once said to me "Fabian, I'm having a child!" and we haven't had any sex yet, I would suspect she had another man besides me. If she tried to explain, "Fabian, I have been faithful, honest', I don't know what's happened, perhaps it was a spirit or something." I just wouldn't believe her.

    Josephus did in his case.
  3. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    05 Jan '10 09:131 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If my new girlfriend once said to me "Fabian, I'm having a child!" and we haven't had any sex yet, I would suspect she had another man besides me. If she tried to explain, "Fabian, I have been faithful, honest', I don't know what's happened, perhaps it was a spirit or something." I just wouldn't believe her.

    Josephus did in his case.
    I think you have confused the immaculate conception with the virgin birth (or perhaps more accurately, the Annunciation).
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    05 Jan '10 10:12
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    I think you have confused the immaculate conception with the virgin birth (or perhaps more accurately, the Annunciation).
    These are just catholic ideas. As I'm not catholic, I have no idea what's the difference.

    My belief is that poor Joshephus was scr*wed by Mary. Or not.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '10 10:171 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Questions for Christians only:
    (I understand that this has been Catholic dogma since 1800s so perhaps this question is aimed at non-Catholics)

    Does your church support the Immaculate Conception?

    Do you? Is it an important belief?

    Thanks.
    Was Mary herself immaculately conceived, free from original sin when her mother conceived her?

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. VII, pp. 378-381) acknowledges regarding the origin of the belief: “ . . . the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture . . . The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless. . . . It is impossible to give a precise date when the belief was held as a matter of faith, but by the 8th or 9th century it seems to have been generally admitted. . . . [In 1854 Pope Pius IX defined the dogma] ‘which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her Conception.’” This belief was confirmed by Vatican II (1962-1965).—The Documents of Vatican II (New York, 1966), edited by W. M. Abbott, S.J., p. 88.

    perhaps other well versed catholic scholars who frequent the forum, for example the illustrious Conrau may be be able to offer some insight into its importance. we ourselves (jehovahs witnesses) find no scriptural basis for it, and indeed there seems to be reason to reject it.

    The Bible itself says: “Well then, sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.” (Rom. 5:12, JB.) Does that include Mary? The Bible reports that in accord with the requirement of the Mosaic Law, 40 days after Jesus’ birth Mary offered at the temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from uncleanness. She, too, had inherited sin and imperfection from Adam.—Luke 2:22-24; Lev. 12:1-8.

    this of course is simply our stance, others may have a different evaluation and different reasons.
  6. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    05 Jan '10 10:471 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Was Mary herself immaculately conceived, free from original sin when her mother conceived her?

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. VII, pp. 378-381) acknowledges regarding the origin of the belief: “ . . . the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture . . . The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolu ...[text shortened]... is of course is simply our stance, others may have a different evaluation and different reasons.
    I seriously doubt that anything of the sort is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The 1917 page can be read here:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

    Catholics believe that doctrine develops and that theology is progressive. Dogma does not emerge in a vacuum but through exegesis, debate and a gradual siphoning of ideas. The Immaculate Conception is an example of this. The Scriptures clearly indicate Mary as distinctly full of grace and suggest her as a contrast to Eve, as the second Eve. Some early Church Fathers disputed whether Mary's 'pain' (at the finding in the temple and at the cross) were sinful. By the scholastic period, however, the main dispute was whether Mary was conceived immaculately or was conceived in original sin and then became immaculate. St. Thomas of Aquinas seems to have argued the latter. In 1854, the Immaculate Conception was declared a dogma, stating that Mary was conceived immaculate in view of the merit that Christ would give and because of her cooperative role in salvation.

    The offering at the temple does not really indicate sin. While the Law did prescribe that a woman offer a sacrifice to purify herself after giving birth, giving birth can hardly be called a sin. In the same way that Jesus was baptised even though he did not need John's 'baptism of repentance and the forgiveness of sins', so too did Mary obey the Law.
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    05 Jan '10 10:58
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    I think you have confused the immaculate conception with the virgin birth (or perhaps more accurately, the Annunciation).
    Yes I'm talking about Mary's conception.

    I don't think Jesus' conception is up for debate.
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '10 12:111 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I seriously doubt that anything of the sort is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The 1917 page can be read here:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

    Catholics believe that doctrine develops and that theology is progressive. Dogma does not emerge in a vacuum but through exegesis, debate and a gradual siphoning of ideas. The Immaculate Conce John's 'baptism of repentance and the forgiveness of sins', so too did Mary obey the Law.
    the reference was to the New Catholic encyclopaedia, volume, date of publishing and page reference numbers have also been given. i tried to corroborate this myself but i am having difficulty in doing so. i therefore have taken it upon trust that this is so. secondly, the sin offering was not given in respect of birth, for as you have stated, this is not a sin, but of being unclean as prescribed in the Law, which as Paul states, was given, to make 'sin manifest'.

    (Leviticus 12:1-8) . . .And Jehovah went on to speak to Moses, saying:  “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘In case a woman conceives seed and does bear a male, she must be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity when she is menstruating she will be unclean.  And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin will be circumcised.  For thirty-three days more she will stay in the blood of purification. She should not touch any holy thing, and she should not come into the holy place until the fulfilling of the days of her purification.  “‘Now if she should bear a female, she must then be unclean fourteen days, as during her menstruation. For sixty-six days more she will stay with the blood of purification.  Then at the fulfilling of the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest.  And he must present it before Jehovah and make atonement for her, and she must be clean from the source of her blood. This is the law about her who bears either a male or a female.  But if she cannot afford enough for a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest must make atonement for her, and she must be clean.’”

    secondly as Paul stated, as a natural descendent of Adam, she would have inherited sin. Romans 5:12
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '10 16:29
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Yes I'm talking about Mary's conception.

    I don't think Jesus' conception is up for debate.
    mmm, i dunno, there are some real freaky protestant groups out there, who may deny it.
  10. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    05 Jan '10 16:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    mmm, i dunno, there are some real freaky protestant groups out there, who may deny it.
    I didnt mean to suggest that there wasnt anyone who disbelieved the Virgin birth.

    I meant it shouldnt be debated. I cant see anyone being pursuaded from one camp to another on such a fundamental question.

    However the conception of Mary seems to be debatable - as an atheist it seems unimportant and I just wished to get a little insight into its importance.
  11. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    05 Jan '10 17:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    secondly as Paul stated, as a natural descendent of Adam, she would have inherited sin. Romans 5:12
    Who was Paul exactly. Were the records straight 2000 years ago????

    The Sun newspaper stated Freddie Star ate a hamster in 1974. Apparently the editor since said it was a lie. That's just 35 years.......

    What is this stuff you live your life for, instead of getting a good screw everynight??

    Aint you got one?? Go forth and sin. Mikeloms 6:1:2010
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '10 17:54
    Originally posted by mikelom
    Who was Paul exactly. Were the records straight 2000 years ago????

    The Sun newspaper stated Freddie Star ate a hamster in 1974. Apparently the editor since said it was a lie. That's just 35 years.......

    What is this stuff you live your life for, instead of getting a good screw everynight??

    Aint you got one?? Go forth and sin. Mikeloms 6:1:2010
    i have a very beautiful and loving wife, i do not read The Sun but prefer newspapers, and i have been around long enough to know that you dont know what you are talking about, therefore, in the event that you produce anything with substance, you can let the forum know and we may even pick up on it, as it stands, its just empty words from a hollow man!
  13. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    05 Jan '10 18:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie

    secondly as Paul stated, as a natural descendent of Adam, she would have inherited sin. Romans 5:12
    That's the point of the idea of the immaculate conception though, isn't it, that Mary did not inherit sin? Paul does not mention Mary in Romans 5:12.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '10 18:111 edit
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie

    [b]secondly as Paul stated, as a natural descendent of Adam, she would have inherited sin. Romans 5:12

    That's the point of the idea of the immaculate conception though, isn't it, that Mary did not inherit sin? Paul does not mention Mary in Romans 5:12.[/b]
    yes he does, he mentions everybody,

    (Romans 5:12) 12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—.

    the reference is of course to mankind.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 Jan '10 18:252 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I didnt mean to suggest that there wasnt anyone who disbelieved the Virgin birth.

    I meant it [b]shouldnt
    be debated. I cant see anyone being pursuaded from one camp to another on such a fundamental question.

    However the conception of Mary seems to be debatable - as an atheist it seems unimportant and I just wished to get a little insight into its importance.[/b]
    mmm, i dont know why it is important myself, for even though my father is a catholic, he is, well, quite liberal with his beliefs. In my own mind i thought that perhaps it had something to do with the fact that Christ is considered to be born as perfect, i.e, sinless, by all christians, therefore how can one explain the genetic imperfection that would inevitably have been passed on from his mother if all had sinned i.e are imperfect. I thought this may have been an attempt to reconcile this, but then when i discovered how old the idea was, naturally, i dismissed the theory.
Back to Top