immaculate conception (richard)

[_JAK]

Put yer hand down, woman. It's about Mary being conceived without sin. The Immaculate Conception IS Mary.

No applause please.

Darn, I'm glad this wasn't a bet for money.

What is your reflection on this discussion?

JAK

[_JAK]

Put yer hand down, woman. It's about Mary being conceived without sin. The Immaculate Conception IS Mary.

No applause please.

Darn, I'm glad this wasn't a bet for money.

What is your reflection on this discussion?

I asked this because I expressed the idea that Mary was, as it were, in the right place at the right time to be used. She had no options (according to some doctrine-makers). She could not choose. Hence, she has no genuine personal merit.

JAK

[_JAK]

I asked a very simple question.

JAK A. According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Roman Catholic), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah,” Jesus.

Richard Evidence please for this assertion. Where is this implicit or explicit in the RC teaching of immaculate conception. And please DO NOT use RC evidence for virgin birth in your support for this.

JAK answered with texts which support the virgin birth (the very thing I ASKED HIM NOT TO DO.)

Luke 1:34-38

1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

Just a few verses earlier (1:17-20), Zacharias is struck dumb for doubting his wife's angel-assisted pregnancy. Why wasn't Mary punished for her disbelief?

Was Joseph the father of Jesus?

1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
"With God nothing shall be impossible."

Can God do anything?

1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

==

In bold was specific script used by the RCC to claim the second miracle.

JAK

One last time: JAK support from an RC text your statement that

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Roman Catholic), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah,” Jesus.

.
And support it from an assertion of the immaculate conception, NOT another doctrine like the virgin birth.

I made no reference to “virgin birth.” in citing the biblical scripts. I cited that which Bishop Sheen cited.

What does the Luke 1:34-38 state?

Can it be interpreted? Has it been interpreted?

My point remains ambiguity of biblical scripts as they are used by various Christian groups in the construction of doctrine(s).

JAK

[_marg]

What is your reflection on this discussion?

I asked this because I expressed the idea that Mary was, as it were, in the right place at the right time to be used. She had no options (according to some doctrine-makers). She could not choose. Hence, she has no genuine personal merit.

JAK

Well was the issue ever whether she had merit? And what do you mean by merit?

But what I think about it all, is that the Hebrew Bible was used to help create a new religion. A half/man-half god individual was created via story, demi -gods being an accepted and common notion to Pagan Romans, and which would fit in with the messiah from the Hebrew Bible as close as possible in order to usurp that sacred text from Judaism and create a more inclusive, less restrictive religion. This new religion at the time, was also closely associated with gnosticism and paganism. I think it is a story which developed to fit with various pieces of available information, such as a translation error from Hebrew for young woman, into virgin in Greek into the N.T. I have my doubts regarding much of the story being truthful, including a Mary being claimed a virgin at the time she existed, if she did.

[_richardMdBorn]

I made no reference to “virgin birth.” in citing the biblical scripts. I cited that which Bishop Sheen cited.

What does the Luke 1:34-38 state?

Can it be interpreted? Has it been interpreted?

My point remains ambiguity of biblical scripts as they are used by various Christian groups in the construction of doctrine(s).

JAK

You cited

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

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."

This is inconsistent with the statement of yours which I challenged

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

The texts cited in the RC site are Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, Proverbs 8, Ecclesiasticus 24 and the Canticle of Canticles 4:7.

You link also to

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_ ... eption.htm

and write that

Bishop Sheen states there are two miracles, only one of which is the "Immaculate Conception." (singular)

I see no reference to Bishop Sheen in this web site. Where is your reference from him cited? Where is the reference to Luke 1:34-38 in a RCC web site teaching about the immaculate conception.

[_JAK]

I made no reference to “virgin birth.” in citing the biblical scripts. I cited that which Bishop Sheen cited.

What does the Luke 1:34-38 state?

Can it be interpreted? Has it been interpreted?

My point remains ambiguity of biblical scripts as they are used by various Christian groups in the construction of doctrine(s).

JAK

You cited

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

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."

This is inconsistent with the statement of yours which I challenged

According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.

The texts cited in the RC site are Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, Proverbs 8, Ecclesiasticus 24 and the Canticle of Canticles 4:7.

You link also to

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_ ... eption.htm

and write that

Bishop Sheen states there are two miracles, only one of which is the "Immaculate Conception." (singular)

I see no reference to Bishop Sheen in this web site. Where is your reference from him cited? Where is the reference to Luke 1:34-38 in a RCC web site teaching about the immaculate conception.

JAK:

Richard,

My citing of Bishop Sheen and quotations by him submitted for World Book and Britannica
were in the discussions regarding biblical contradictions and difference of opinion on interpretation of biblical scripts.

Bishop Fulton Sheen was mentioned as he was quoted in the World Book Encyclopedia library edition under the topic “Immaculate Conception.”

My comment, however was incidental to GoodK in addressing “Problematic Interpretations.”

The following is Roman Catholic doctrine was officially designated by Pope Pius IX
on December 8, 1854. However, it was previously accepted by the RCC. (Bishop
Fulton J. Sheen, World Book Encyclopedia, also New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – on line)

Luke 1:34-38

1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

Just a few verses earlier (1:17-20), Zacharias is struck dumb for doubting his wife's angel-assisted pregnancy. Why wasn't Mary punished for her disbelief?

Was Joseph the father of Jesus?

1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
"With God nothing shall be impossible."

Can God do anything?

1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is interpreted differently by various Protestant groups.

Some accept the RCC doctrine, other reject it. Still others construct a different interpretation or doctrine.

It is fair to recognize that various interpretations are claims or articles of faith.

Keep in mind that the writing of these scripts took place long after the alleged specific words were to have been spoken.

Hence, problematic interpretations

The main focus in that discussion was biblical contradictions.

From Wikipedia Bishop Sheen is detailed. It was this Bishop who quoted the Luke passages under the topic “Immaculate Conception” in the World Book Encyclopedia (1985).

You response, in effect contradicted/disagreed with the article which appeared in the World Book.

I responded here quoting that article and pointing to Problematic Interpretations which was the subject title of that post.

Bishop Sheen stated the following:

“Mary had two human parents. The Virgin Birth implies a miracle, namely that Christ was ‘conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.’ She had asked the angel Gabriel how she, a virgin, should become the mother of the promised Messiah, and she was told this would be by the power of God (Luke 1:34-38). The Roman Catholic church has always upheld these two articles of faith.”
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, World Book Encyclopedia, 1985.

I’m just quoting a source here. I am not defending a doctrine.

Sheen also states in the same article:
“Immaculate Conception (first of two miracles) means that the Virgin Mary in order to be pure enough to become the mother of Christ was conceived free from the burdens of original sin. Her soul was created in the purest holiness and innocence.”

I stated:
“So if you disagree, Richard, your disagreement is not with me, but rather with the World Book Encyclopedia, various Roman Catholic websites, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.”

My point was to identify various interpretations/contradictions of biblical scripts, many scripts, as I documented.
==
The 2007 World Book Encyclopedia has a different author and there is a slight variation in the article which I have quoted in our discussions.

The New Advent link is (as I understand it) an official Roman Catholic website.

The CatholicBridge link was addressed to marg with a question as to how she might interpret the data/information in that on-line source.

There has been so much in individual posts here that even that makes for confusion as posts often appear some distance from the post to which they were intended as response.
==
I don’t know from your post (I think just above) what you intend.

Immaculate Conception is discussed at considerable length in this more neutral website. If you scroll down, you will find that the doctrine is not accepted by Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican Church or by various Protestant churches.

The section under Protestantism details some of the disagreements with Roman Catholic dogma.

There are many internal links in this site just above. It would take some time to sort through all of them. However, if you have interest, there are links to much information.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK,

Give me the FULL citation by Bishop Sheen about the immaculate conception which refers to Luke 1:34-38 and I will respond to it.

[_JAK]

The Immaculate Conception doctrine claims two miracles as I referenced.

Jersey Girl here claims: “Mary was the Immaculate Conception.”

So far as I know, no Christian group claims that. In the World Book article, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen stated this:

“Mary had two human parents.” Hence in the Roman Catholic Church (according to this article), Mary was not the “Immaculate Conception.” Instead, she was the vehicle for the “Immaculate Conception.”

JAK I do believe you are still misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine. By saying that Mary was the immaculate conception it means according to Catholic doctrine she was granted special status, free of sin by the R.C. Church. Yes she has 2 biological parents, she still is considered the "immaculate conception" to the church, that's just the doctrine to grant her special status. Of course I guess so too Jesus is immaculately conceived, but I suppose just to make sure it is clearly understood he had no sin, Mary was given that status as well.

So in my opinion those who are so focussed on this, to the exclusion of other concepts related don't see the forest for the trees.

Do you not see though that according to R.C. doctrine defined, Mary is the "Immaculate conception"?

JAK:

I agree with your dissection here but object to the statement made by Jersey Girl.

Jersey Girl stated:

“Mary was the Immaculate Conception. The link you provided states so. Here it is:”
Jersey Girl’s comments.

It is the freedom from original sin which is the key and the “first miracle” according to Bishop Sheen as it was claimed for Mary. The statement above is misleading. Your detail is not misleading.

I also observed that any individual woman here is irrelevant to the story. To give the doctrine “legs,” it was necessary for the hierarchy to have a story of extraordinary claims. The specific person is irrelevant in the sense that we have the evolution/emergence of a religion here, and the central character is going to be Jesus Christ. While RCC doctrine elevates Mary by fiat that she is without original sin, it is that fact without original sin which is RC doctrine. (No one has yet to define “conception” which I asked previously.)

Your statement that “she was granted special status…” by the RC Church is as I read the doctrine. If you find a RCC website which states: “Mary was the Immaculate Conception,” I should like to see that five-word sentence standing alone in an official RCC document.

World Book Library Edition 2007 states the following on “original sin.”

“The catholic Church teaches that humanity was created not only by God but also for God. Its destiny is to share God’s life forever, in union with God and one another. God intended humanity to achieve this destiny by loving obeying His will. But original sin interfered with God’s plan for humanity. The Bible describes Adam, the first man, as sinning by an act of disobedience to God. Adam’s sin affects every person born in the world.”

While this appears where I said, the World Book also states that the complete article on the Roman Catholic Church was approved by the RCC. The article is 6 pages, therefore, my paragraph clip here is a small fraction of the article from which it comes.

“Original sin” is a doctrine absent evidence for multiple claims inherent in it.

That Jesus was immaculately conceived is Bishop Sheen’s "second miracle." And of course Jesus is regarded (RCC) as without sin.

You state:

“Do you not see though that according to R.C. doctrine defined, Mary is the 'Immaculate conception'?”

What is the definition of each of the two terms used here? I asked that previously.

What does “conception” mean in the context of this statement?

What does “Immaculate” mean in the context of this statement?

In any case, I recognize your point and yield to the construction.

JAK

[_marg]

“Do you not see though that according to R.C. doctrine defined, Mary is the 'Immaculate conception'?”

What is the definition of each of the two terms used here? I asked that previously.

What does “conception” mean in the context of this statement?

What does “Immaculate” mean in the context of this statement?

In any case, I recognize your point and yield to the construction.

I can understand a disagreement with the phrase, "Mary is/was the Immaculate Conception". I do have some difficulty getting my mind wrapped around it. There is an official R.C. doctrine regarding a declaration Mary was conceived free of original sin. Jesus as well, would have been according to R.C. belief conceived free of original sin. The church probably needed to make official a statement regarding Mary, not Jesus because it is not obvious nor stated in the Bible that she was born free of original sin. I doubt the R.C. Church would refer to Mary as the immaculate conception. Mary was given an immaculate conception according to R.C. doctrine by God, it was Mary’s immaculate conception, the conception of Mary was immaculate… but Mary is/was the immaculate conception doesn’t sound quite right.

As far as your questions…"immaculate" in the context of the statement means free of original sin as per doctrine on original sin according to the R.C. church.

“Conception” .. I’m not certain exactly what is meant. I think of it as “conceived” by whatever means is necessary to conceive . For her, according to R.C. beliefs, I believe she was conceived through natural means by her parents.

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK,

Give me the FULL citation by Bishop Sheen about the immaculate conception which refers to Luke 1:34-38 and I will respond to it.

Am still waiting for this citation from JAK.