Two points
1. God is all powerful and if he wants to make a person sinless he can do so even if it contradicts the general principle that all humans are sinners.
I know you and your church members have no problem accepting such things even thou it contradicts the word of God.
Just where does this leave room for your choice in life? Free will so to speak.
2. I ti smore likely that the Immaculate conception of Mary was the reult of the early church wanting to emphasise Christ's divinity. Let's not forget that in the early church there were people who thought Jesus was a prophet but not the son of God and at the other extreme there were those who believed that Jesus was purely divine and spiritual and never lived on earth as a human. At the council of Nicea it wa decided that Christ had two natures, the divine and the human, but he is not half and half is is both fully human and fully divine. If Mary is regarded as having been a sinner thenthen that would cause more arguments from the party that considered Jesus to be just a prophet.
Let's not forgt that before the council of Nicea and the reign of Constantine, Christians weren't united, and they believed in aall sort of weird and wonderful things. Some believed Jeuss was a prophet, some believed he was only a spirit, some thought to go to Heaven you ahd to be martyred and some thought once you had accepted Christ and were saved you could go around committing all the sins you want. Then let's not forget the gnostics who believed that Christians were saved by obtaining secret knowledge. What I mean is that Christians didn't just suddenly appear with fully developed beliefs back in the first century.
Pointing to past errors or doctrine of the founders is no excuse for the continued error of tradition as compared to scripture. But your church has painted itself into a corner many centuries ago by claiming itself to be infallible. In that it can never admit to error in any sense of the word, to do such a thing would immediately prove itself false.
Its true the Marion doctrine has been taught threw tradition from the beginning and the NT verses by John, 1st John 4, IMO point directly at it. The portrayals of Madonna and son bear a striking resemblance to Isis and Horus, Isis also shares the same qualities that you attribute to Mary. To prove that Marionisum is alive and well it wasn't until 1854 that Marys immaculate conception became infallible dogma for Catholics. When you become a member you accept it as factual church dogma.
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."
And again with the statement that it can't be found in scripture.
Straight from your Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent...then/07674d.htm
But it does not detour your magistrate from bending every verse possible to make it sound justified.
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. 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). The translation "she" of the
Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the
woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is
Christ; the
woman at enmity with the
serpent is
Mary.
God puts enmity between her and
Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between
Christ and the seed of the serpent.
Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of
soul which the serpent had destroyed in
man, i.e. in
sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of
Mary with
grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and
Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the
Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His
Redemption, the perfect preservation of His
virginal Mother from
original sin.
John warned us with the words translated anti-christ, the only place in the scripture they are used.
That those that teach Jesus did not come in the flesh, are of the spirit of anti-christ. That pretty much covers the coveted founding of the RCC and its authoritative interpretation of Mathew 16-18. Like your church says you ether believe us "the RCC", or scripture its as simple as that. My debates with Catholic that are bible literate lead to all sorts of interpretations more often than not they simply "deny" the word and stand on tradition alone, which is exactly the place your church places you by it own admissions. But what should one expect from a church that has made such claims threw the age. Such as only they can interpret scripture and there is no salvation outside the RCC. That they operate as the vicor of christ on earth with the authoritative power to open and close salvation to whom ever it pleases.
I'm sorry the more I think of it the more the Spirit within me rises to address such blasphemy, I don't want to direct that at you. The next time you go for one of those trademarked magic cookies called the eucharist I hope you remember the teaching of your Mary and Johns teaching of Jesus coming in the flesh.
[sup]5[/sup] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the
tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
[sup]6[/sup] He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
[sup]7[/sup]
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[sup][
b][/sup]
[sup]8[/sup]
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[sup][
c][/sup]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
[sup]9[/sup] He said to them, “
All too well
you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. [sup]10[/sup] For Moses said,
‘Honor your father and your mother’;[sup][
d][/sup] and,
‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[sup][
e][/sup] [sup]11[/sup] But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me
is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift
to God), [sup]12[/sup] then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, [sup]13[/sup]
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down.