The Immaculate Conception was a response of Augustine’s theology regarding Original Sin. In a nutshell, Augustine taught that man inherited Adam’s sin and therefore, when man is born he’s already hell bound, even as a baby…which is why we see Baptism in the RCC as “saving” the baby from hell and limbo for those babies not baptized shortly after birth. In light of Augustine’s theology, Mary couldn’t be tainted with sin at birth; therefore the Immaculate Conception was dogmatized.
In Orthodoxy, we believe that we inherited death from Adam and we each are responsible for our own sin, but man being in a fallen state will choose to sin. Yes, we baptize babies, but not in the same light as the RCC does, its much deeper than that.
ICXC NIKA
-
Jesus repudiates Mariolatry, Part the Fourth
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Matt Black, Jan 9, 2008.
Page 8 of 8
-
Originally Posted by mrtumnus
The 'red' above would be a great argument Mike if it had any accuracy in any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. However, it doesn't. That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it.
So to say it was "needed" for this purpose is as illogical as you say. Fortunately this isn't the basis, so it's a non-issue. -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Black
Apparently a woman's work is never done...well, maybe if you organised yourselves a bit better, dears...
-
I don't know about Docetism and don't care whatever they were.
My logic is very clear and simple as follows:
1. If the Ovum of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh.
If any tissue of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any cell of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Blood of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
If any Nucleod or DNA of Mary was used, it means Flesh became Flesh
( DNA exist only where Protein exist)
All the above denies the Fundamental Truth that Word became Flesh !
If NOTHING of Mary could be used for the formation of Body of Jesus Christ, Mary can never be the Biological Mother.
There is NO WAY for Mary to be the Biological Mother as long as "the Word became Flesh " is True.
Therefore the Claimers of Biological Motherhood of Mary are Heretics! because they insist that Jesus was born out of a human flesh.
2. Nobody could refute my assertion either Biblically or Scientifically so far, but just brought John Hagee or Docetism, which is the typical Witch Hunting by Roman Catholics, Inquisitors, and the devout Roman Catholic politicians like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.
If you are confident with your assertion, tell me which Bible verse refute the Word became Flesh and support the Biological Motherhood of Mary.
If you have a conviction for it, tell me how Mary could be the Biological Mother of Jesus, and what is the definition of Biological Motherhood. -
I had asked for evidence that any reputable Christian believes as you do and I have not seen that yet. Where is the history of this belief? Does it originate with you or does it originate with Paul, Peter, Jesus or even more contemporary reputable Christian teachers? Please answer this question. -
Roman Catholic is a Pagan Heresy and their followers are Heretics.
The major paganism of Roman Catholics are following.
1. Mary is Mother of God - This denies Trinity because they claim God the Father is not God in the phrase of Mother of God.
2. Purgatory:
They honestly claim that they do not go to the Heaven after the death.
This is because they have no conviction of Salvation.
They do not know how many million years they will have to spend in the Inferno. Their conscience tell them that they cannot go to the Heaven.
They claim that they can get out of Inferno by the prayers and Almsgiving of their descendants. We know that they cannot change their spiritual status by any Human works. Are they praying for their families even during their lives? Will they satisfy God? NOthing but the Blood of Jesus can satisfy God. Therefore we can safely conclude that RCC is standing on the sinking sand.
3. Transubstantiation.
They honestly confess that they are Pagan Cannibalism believers because they confess they eat the human flesh and human blood prohibited by the Law, without knowing that the Blood was to be offered to God, not for human drinking.
4. Papacy
They honestly confess that their holy father is a corruptible human being, while the True Christian Believers have only one Holy Father who never dies.
5. Infant Baptism
They baptize the babies who do not know Jesus, never heard and understood the Gospel.
They honestly confess that they are performing Unbelievers Baptism in order to bring the billions of Unbelievers into the Christian world.
In conclusion, RCC is nothing but the pagan roman religion which contradict Christian Truth, killlng millions of Christians by Inquisition, Crusade, Proxy Wars etc.
" My people come out of her, that ye be not partakers of her sins " ( Re 18:4) -
Just to make it clear Eliyahu - I don't believe any of those things. I just DO believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus - His earthly mother.
-
Have you ever read Genesis? Read Genesis 18 where God appeared and ate the meals provided by Abraham. Didn't He eat the food because He had the flesh at that time? You are denying the Power of God !
The Life Science has been developped only after 1950 such as DNA, Nuleod, Cell Biology etc and therefore this couldn't be scientifically studied very much. I studied and consulted with the Bible. Are you depending on how much famous the claimants are ? -
Mary was born as a sinner, and Jesus didn't take anything from the sinner.
The Blood shed at the Cross was not inherited from Mary, the innate sinner. RCC claim that the Blood shed at the Cross was from Mary, which I reject ! -
-
You believe that 50% miracle is believable, but not 100% miracle.
1) Word became flesh
2) Ovum of Mary was used ( or any part of Mary)
I didn't get that belief from any other people, neither from John Hagee nor from Docetism, nor from Benny Hinn.
Whenever, any important doctrines matter, I consult with the Bible only. That's how I can eliminate the human influence.
On this board, I already claimed several times what was not claimed before, but I realized from the Bible for myself.
1) Jesus died on Thursday and Matthew 28:1 supports it as it has the plural Sabbaths.
2) Contradiction of Mark 2:26 which the most of English bible misunderstand - Abiathar was not the High Priest when David entered the temple but his father Ahimelch was the priest. So, most English bible contradict between OT and NT. WAs Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar? Read Samuel 21:1-
3) I have been the only one who refuted Mother of God by pointing out the contradiction with Trinity. My defense and logic is quite different from Nestorius or any other people
4) I have refuted the Transubstantiation by pointing out the contradiction with Leviticus 17 which prohibits the drinking of Blood. Many people refuted it in different ways, but not by pointing out Leviticus 17.
5) I refuted that Son of God had a mother by pointing out Hebrews 7:1-5
6) I refuted Purgatory by pointing out that it is based on Works, not on the Grace
7) I objected Obligatory Celibacy by pointing out 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 about children. Many refuted by pointing out that the Overseers should be a husband of one wife. BUt I pointed out they had children.
Except 2) I learned all from my God directly when I read the Bible as 1 John 2:27 says. As for 2) I learned it from J.N. Darby.
I have several more discovery which may be revealed when I finish the Bible translation.
I have translated Greek NT for myself and still am translating the Hebrew OT now, and when I read the Bible, I learn the Truth and find the mistakes of the Bible Translators too.
Do I need a reputable scholar to present the Truth? Read 1 John 2:27 and Gal 2:6
IN 2004, on this board, I claimed that Ovary of Mary was not used. At that time my apology depended mostly on Matt 1:20. It is only recent time that I found the contradiction between Jn 1:14 and Biological motherhood for Jesus.
Jesus cannot have any Biological Mother.
By claiming it, you are strongly denying that Word became Flesh.
Both are not compatible at all.
If you cannot find the contradiction there, please consult with someone who has higher IQ. -
mrtumnus,
I posted.....
As you can see, the Catholic Church does indeed teach that Mary was born without the taint of original sin, and they teach that Mary lived sinless during her life.
God bless,
Mike -
Matt said...
We are MEN! :D
Mike -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And please please please stop banging on about the Catholics, Hitler and Mussolini. AFAIK, none of us on this thread are Catholics and none of us have voted for or would dream of voting for Hitler and Mussolini; the virgin birth is a doctrine adhered to by pretty much all Christians with the exception of a few uber-liberals and other whackjobs. Drop the straw men, please. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
No, neither can I. -
-
My argument will stand permanently as long as the Truth Word became flesh which you deny when you insist anything of Mary became Jesus !
As for the following, please remember that Ann asked me about the Reputable Source, and I didn't have any Reputable Source, but myself.
This is why I don't spend time for Docetism. I don't care who said this before. But I am sure that this belief was not available before the Life Science was available. I am not exalting myself but when asked for the Reputable sources, I myself discovered it and God is my Witness.
Page 8 of 8