The Immaculate Conception Error!

[emekrus]

“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3: 10, 23

As I begin to debunk this erroneous doctrine of ‘the immaculate conception of Mary’, let me quickly submit that I’m not out for religious bashing. But rather, I’m out with a holy motive of love, to rescue some of our well-meaning, lovely brethren in the Lord. Who are inadvertently indoctrinated into this erroneous doctrine that is obviously very disastrous.

“The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head: silk and damask- red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand people were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome. After a few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said:

‘Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.’

The Supreme Pontiff answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”
The cardinal withdrew; the Pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

‘Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.’
The pope again answered: ‘I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.’

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St. Peter, to ask again:

‘Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.’
The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

‘Yes! We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception… There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!’

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired. The last act of the most ridiculous and sacrilegious comedy the world had ever seen, was over; the doors of heaven were forever shut against those who would refuse to believe the anti-scriptural doctrine that there is a daughter of Eve who has not inherited the sinful nature of Adam.

She was redeclared exempt when the God of Truth said, “There is none righteous; no, not one: for all have sinned!” (Rom. 3:10, 23)
No trace of this teaching is found in the first centuries of the Church.”
(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c. 1886])
(As quoted in Rebecca Brown’s ‘Prepare For War’)

Dear brethren in the Lord, it is very clear that this doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, is unscriptural. The doctrine was enacted without consulting ‘The Book Of Truth’-The Holy Bible. And of course, the Holy Spirit does not speak against scriptural Truths.

We can’t afford to risk our salvation and faith on what man says. No matter his title, position or whatever. Like the Berea Fellows in the book of acts of the Apostle, when we receive an instruction, exhortation or doctrine from our teachers, we should be wise enough to compare them with scriptural truths (Acts 17:11).

Anybody can claim to have heard the Holy Spirit, but for us to be on the safest side, we must compare what we receive with the scriptures. I for one, I do not take everything I’m taught in Church, no matter who it is I received it from. If I compare, and it does not concur to scriptural truth, I discard it.

To this end, I often tell people that I listen to every sermon with filter in my ears. And that is including my present Pastor. Because I believe salvation is a personal race.

On the Day of Judgment, I can’t blame my failure on anyone but myself. Hence, The Lord Jesus said, we should be as wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove…

The scriptures admonishes us to worship God in spirit and Truth. We are commanded to walk in the Spirit. We’re are told that when the Holy Spirit comes, he’ll guide us into all truth. But particularly, Jesus says he will not speak of himself, but rather, he will take of mine, and show them to you. Jesus words are as entrenched in the word of God- the Bible.
Anything outside the written word of God, is definitely not from the Spirit of Jesus- The Holy Spirit.

To this end, the Apostle Paul says; anyone who preaches any other gospel, apart from the original gospel, let him be accursed—Gal 1:8.

Hence, to avoid the curse of God, we must confine ourselves to only scriptural truths.

It is my earnest prayer, that the Lord Jesus, will restructure your heart, and pull you out of this erroneous doctrine (if you’re involved) with this word in season in the Mighty Name of Jesus Christ!

Remain Blessed!

Emeke Odili

 

[epostle1]

“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3: 10, 23

As I begin to debunk this erroneous doctrine of ‘the immaculate conception of Mary’, let me quickly submit that I’m not out for religious bashing.

(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c. 1886])

Charles Chiniquy (1809-99) is a favorite source for anti-Catholics – throughout the 19th and 20th centuries – for his spiteful and entirely unfounded accusations against the Church. The basis for his anti-Catholicism stemmed from his own removal from Catholic ministry for inappropriate behavior.

The facts are: Chiniquy was ordained a priest in 1839 in Quebec City and became known as a powerful orator and the so-called Canadian “Apostle of Temperance.” In 1846, however, his scandalous and immoral activities led to his departure from Quebec, from the Oblate novitiate at Longueuil in 1847, and from the diocese of Montreal in 1851.

The last removal stemmed from his improper relationships with women. He journeyed to Chicago and was so unwilling to curb his behavior and sexual indiscretions that he local bishop, Anthony O’Regan suspended him and, with regret, eventually excommunicated him for refusing to cease his behavior or desist in administering the sacraments.

In 1859, he and 1,000 followers gathered at St. Anne, Illinois and became affiliated with the local Presbyterian Synod. In 1862, the Presbyterians also cast Chiniquy from their community – going so far as to defrock him – for conduct unbecoming a minister.

He then went with his gullible followers to Canada. There he embarked upon a long career as a vicious anti-Catholic polemicist in order to gain favor with the various anti-Catholic Protestant groups in the country and as a means of explaining away his own excommunication. His writings are so blatantly untruthful that they are not worth critiquing.

One other area of Chiniquy’s writing that is worth mentioning is his absurd effort to claim that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 by a conspiracy of the Jesuits. Such a notion, propagated by anti-Catholics even in to the 20th century, is completely unsupported by historical fact.

Chiniquy claimed to be a close friend of Lincoln, using the one-time legal assistance given to him by the future president to claim that he had visited Lincoln during the civil war, in 1862 and 1864. Such visits were not noted in any of Lincoln’s papers, nor were they ever mentioned by Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. The story was also thoroughly rejected by Lincoln’s own son who attested to the fabrication by Chiniquy of quotes supposedly made by the resident relating to the Jesuits and a Catholic cabal.

For useful reading, you might consult “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P.T. Chiniquy,” by Joseph George Jr., in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Feb. 1976, vol. 69, pp. 17-25. The article documents Chiniquy’s lies and distortions. Given his lack of credibility on this major issue, one can easily see why his other anti-Catholic claims are considered so preposterous.
EWTN.com - Charles Chiniquy


(As quoted in Rebecca Brown’s ‘Prepare For War’)

[/QUOTE]"...The testimony put forth in this book has been found to be completely false and was written by a woman who had her medical license revoked and has been diagnosed as having serious mental issues such as “acute personality disorders including demonic delusions and/or paranoid schizophrenia.”

Rebecca Brown (Yoder is her married name) is a former doctor who has written a series of controversial Christian books about Satanism and a former Satanist named Elaine who was apparently the bride of Satan. Her books were published by the notorious anti-Catholic publisher Jack Chick of Chick Publications. He published two of her books, He Came to Set the Captives Free (1986) and Prepare for War (1987).

Among her many far-fetched claims, Brown believes Roman Catholicism is witchcraft, that American Indian reservations are cursed, and that violence in the African American community stems from inherited family curses originating with African tribal warfare. She also claims to know of the existence of large, Satanic covens in America performing various evil works, rituals and sacrifices and the teaching in her books that born-again Christians can be inhabited (not possessed) by demons.

... Elaine is the central character in Brown’s book and even though her surname is never given, the woman has been identified as Edna Elaine Moses, a mentally unstable woman who met Brown during her residency at Ball Memorial Hospital. Brown and Elaine eventually moved in together along with Elaine’s developmentally challenged daughter, Claudia.

The friendship proved to have a negative effect on Brown who started out as a well-respected doctor but gradually digressed into bizarre behavior such as conducting exorcisms on patients, which led to her being dismissed.
It was during this time that Brown began treating Elaine and her daughter, as well as other women for a variety of conditions such as brain tumors, leukemia, gall bladder disease and blood disorders, all supposedly caused by demons. At one point, she was treating Elaine for what she believed was leukemia by drugging her with massive doses of Demerol and Phenobarbitol. The complaint also states that she allowed Claudia to inject herself with Demerol. Thankfully, this all led to the revocation of her medical license.

It should also be noted that both of her books were investigated by Personal Freedom Outreach, a counter-cult Christian organization, and they concluded that the stories were false, with many inconsistencies between the books and other teaching tapes and testimonies produced by Brown.

Emeke Odili, burn those books.
- See more at: The Strange Story of Rebecca Brown, MD | Women of Grace

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true because the Church says it is true.
There are 27 inspired books in the NT because the Church couldn't find any more.
The Church is not wrong about the NT books, and she is not wrong about the IC.
It's the same Church.

The doctrine hinges on Luke 1:28, and the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[mjrhealth]

Just another lie. Jesus was perfection born in an imperfect body. If Mary was perfect as some seem to think Jesus would never have being able to walk this earth as one of us, sinfull nature of the flesh. that was His whole pupose of being here. To live a perfect life in an imperfect body.

In all His Love

 

[epostle1]

Jesus is God incarnate, like us in everything but sin. No one disputes this fact.
Mary was not incarnated, she was conceived from ordinary parents.
What does scripture say about original sin?
Why do most churches teach it but some do not?

Is Mary foreshadowed in the Old Testament?
Is every Christian full of grace, or is grace a matter of degree?
Who else is full of grace in scripture?
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception flows from Luke 1:28, and the sacredness of the Ark of the Covenant.

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'"

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene ("favored one" above) as "full of grace"]​

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).

(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

 

[justaname]

Jesus is God incarnate, like us in everything but sin. No one disputes this fact.
Mary was not incarnated, she was conceived from ordinary parents.
What does scripture say about original sin?
Why do most churches teach it but some do not?

Is Mary foreshadowed in the Old Testament?
Is every Christian full of grace, or is grace a matter of degree?
Who else is full of grace in scripture?
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception flows from Luke 1:28, and the sacredness of the Ark of the Covenant.

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'"

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene ("favored one" above) as "full of grace"]​

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).

(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

I comprehend the idea of grace unlike any other, hence Theotokos...
Is there a greater honor a woman could receive? True today we house the Spirit, yet she received the Spirit to produce the Flesh and Blood Jesus. She nourished God's physical needs while He was an embryo though infant unto toddler. Astounding first that God would humble Himself, second that she had the privilege. This truly is high favor, grace beyond measure.

Yet what besides philosophical reasons warrants the idea that God kept her from original sin?

 

[epostle1]

I comprehend the idea of grace unlike any other, hence Theotokos...
Is there a greater honor a woman could receive? True today we house the Spirit, yet she received the Spirit to produce the Flesh and Blood Jesus. She nourished God's physical needs while He was an embryo though infant unto toddler. Astounding first that God would humble Himself, second that she had the privilege. This truly is high favor, grace beyond measure.

Yet what besides philosophical reasons warrants the idea that God kept her from original sin?

God saw it fitting for Mary for the reasons you listed. "grace beyond measure" doesn't leave room for sin, original or actual. God didn't have to make Mary sinless for his plan of salvation, but He chose to. Her role is not incidental, but required.

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:
Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean "a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18" (Vine, II, 170).

One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary's sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and "conqueror" of sin (emphases added in the following verses):
(Kittel, 1304-1305)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It's a "zero-sum game": the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises,

1. and hold either that grace does not save or
2. that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy.

It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

 

[StanJ]

As Jesus taught more than once, that no man(or woman) is good, we know Mary was not immaculate. In terms of original sin, that was Eve's alone. We as humans are born with a carnal nature that WILL eventually sin. We are not born WITH sin, but INTO a sinful world.
THAT is what scripture teaches...no more...no less.

 

[emekrus]

“As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3: 10, 23

As I begin to debunk this erroneous doctrine of ‘the immaculate conception of Mary’, let me quickly submit that I’m not out for religious bashing.

(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c. 1886])

Charles Chiniquy (1809-99) is a favorite source for anti-Catholics – throughout the 19th and 20th centuries – for his spiteful and entirely unfounded accusations against the Church. The basis for his anti-Catholicism stemmed from his own removal from Catholic ministry for inappropriate behavior.

The facts are: Chiniquy was ordained a priest in 1839 in Quebec City and became known as a powerful orator and the so-called Canadian “Apostle of Temperance.” In 1846, however, his scandalous and immoral activities led to his departure from Quebec, from the Oblate novitiate at Longueuil in 1847, and from the diocese of Montreal in 1851.

The last removal stemmed from his improper relationships with women. He journeyed to Chicago and was so unwilling to curb his behavior and sexual indiscretions that he local bishop, Anthony O’Regan suspended him and, with regret, eventually excommunicated him for refusing to cease his behavior or desist in administering the sacraments.

In 1859, he and 1,000 followers gathered at St. Anne, Illinois and became affiliated with the local Presbyterian Synod. In 1862, the Presbyterians also cast Chiniquy from their community – going so far as to defrock him – for conduct unbecoming a minister.

He then went with his gullible followers to Canada. There he embarked upon a long career as a vicious anti-Catholic polemicist in order to gain favor with the various anti-Catholic Protestant groups in the country and as a means of explaining away his own excommunication. His writings are so blatantly untruthful that they are not worth critiquing.

One other area of Chiniquy’s writing that is worth mentioning is his absurd effort to claim that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 by a conspiracy of the Jesuits. Such a notion, propagated by anti-Catholics even in to the 20th century, is completely unsupported by historical fact.

Chiniquy claimed to be a close friend of Lincoln, using the one-time legal assistance given to him by the future president to claim that he had visited Lincoln during the civil war, in 1862 and 1864. Such visits were not noted in any of Lincoln’s papers, nor were they ever mentioned by Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. The story was also thoroughly rejected by Lincoln’s own son who attested to the fabrication by Chiniquy of quotes supposedly made by the resident relating to the Jesuits and a Catholic cabal.

For useful reading, you might consult “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P.T. Chiniquy,” by Joseph George Jr., in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Feb. 1976, vol. 69, pp. 17-25. The article documents Chiniquy’s lies and distortions. Given his lack of credibility on this major issue, one can easily see why his other anti-Catholic claims are considered so preposterous.
EWTN.com - Charles Chiniquy


(As quoted in Rebecca Brown’s ‘Prepare For War’)

[/QUOTE]"...The testimony put forth in this book has been found to be completely false and was written by a woman who had her medical license revoked and has been diagnosed as having serious mental issues such as “acute personality disorders including demonic delusions and/or paranoid schizophrenia.”

Rebecca Brown (Yoder is her married name) is a former doctor who has written a series of controversial Christian books about Satanism and a former Satanist named Elaine who was apparently the bride of Satan. Her books were published by the notorious anti-Catholic publisher Jack Chick of Chick Publications. He published two of her books, He Came to Set the Captives Free (1986) and Prepare for War (1987).

Among her many far-fetched claims, Brown believes Roman Catholicism is witchcraft, that American Indian reservations are cursed, and that violence in the African American community stems from inherited family curses originating with African tribal warfare. She also claims to know of the existence of large, Satanic covens in America performing various evil works, rituals and sacrifices and the teaching in her books that born-again Christians can be inhabited (not possessed) by demons.

... Elaine is the central character in Brown’s book and even though her surname is never given, the woman has been identified as Edna Elaine Moses, a mentally unstable woman who met Brown during her residency at Ball Memorial Hospital. Brown and Elaine eventually moved in together along with Elaine’s developmentally challenged daughter, Claudia.

The friendship proved to have a negative effect on Brown who started out as a well-respected doctor but gradually digressed into bizarre behavior such as conducting exorcisms on patients, which led to her being dismissed.
It was during this time that Brown began treating Elaine and her daughter, as well as other women for a variety of conditions such as brain tumors, leukemia, gall bladder disease and blood disorders, all supposedly caused by demons. At one point, she was treating Elaine for what she believed was leukemia by drugging her with massive doses of Demerol and Phenobarbitol. The complaint also states that she allowed Claudia to inject herself with Demerol. Thankfully, this all led to the revocation of her medical license.

It should also be noted that both of her books were investigated by Personal Freedom Outreach, a counter-cult Christian organization, and they concluded that the stories were false, with many inconsistencies between the books and other teaching tapes and testimonies produced by Brown.

Emeke Odili, burn those books.
- See more at: The Strange Story of Rebecca Brown, MD | Women of Grace

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true because the Church says it is true.
There are 27 inspired books in the NT because the Church couldn't find any more.
The Church is not wrong about the NT books, and she is not wrong about the IC.
It's the same Church.

The doctrine hinges on Luke 1:28, and the Ark of the Covenant.







My dear, your criticism and conclusion sounds so ironical to me. You say the authors of the source I quoted, asserted a false claim, yet you affirm their claims in your conclusion. It kind of sound preposterous to me.

 

[epostle1]

My dear, your criticism and conclusion sounds so ironical to me. You say the authors of the source I quoted, asserted a false claim, yet you affirm their claims in your conclusion. It kind of sound preposterous to me.

Your first source, he was thrown out of every religious institution he attended for perverse behavior, and wrote the worst imaginable anti-Catholic rhetoric to appease fundamentalist fanatics hoping for acceptance.

Your second source was a paranoid schizophrenic in a nightmarish world with demons everywhere and had her medical license suspended. . Her books were investigated by Personal Freedom Outreach, a counter-cult Christian organization.
Your authors have no credibility. "0", ziltch.

I don't affirm false claims. There is not a single line in my conclusion that your hate cultists affirm. BTW, my conclusion was of bumper stick quality. Very brief.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true because the Church says it is true. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???
There are 27 inspired books in the NT because the Church couldn't find any more. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???
The Church is not wrong about the NT books, and she is not wrong about the IC. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???
It's the same Church. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???

You need to tell the difference between a term mentioned and affirmation of its meaning. Mentioning and affirming are 2 different things. What disturbs me is after your authors are exposed as liars, you rush to defend them. That kind of literature rots the mind. Hate speech diminishes your ability to reason. It's spiritual pornography due to its effects on the brain.

Go over post #4 and #6 and offer a rebuttal based on scripture, and spare me the hate propaganda.

 

[emekrus]

Your first source, he was thrown out of every religious institution he attended for perverse behavior, and wrote the worst imaginable anti-Catholic rhetoric to appease fundamentalist fanatics hoping for acceptance.

Your second source was a paranoid schizophrenic in a nightmarish world with demons everywhere and had her medical license suspended. . Her books were investigated by Personal Freedom Outreach, a counter-cult Christian organization.
Your authors have no credibility. "0", ziltch.

I don't affirm false claims. There is not a single line in my conclusion that your hate cultists affirm. BTW, my conclusion was of bumper stick quality. Very brief.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true because the Church says it is true. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???
There are 27 inspired books in the NT because the Church couldn't find any more. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???
The Church is not wrong about the NT books, and she is not wrong about the IC. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???
It's the same Church. <<< Affirmed by Chiniquy and Brown???

You need to tell the difference between a term mentioned and affirmation of its meaning. Mentioning and affirming are 2 different things. What disturbs me is after your authors are exposed as liars, you rush to defend them. That kind of literature rots the mind. Hate speech diminishes your ability to reason. It's spiritual pornography due to its effects on the brain.

Go over post #4 and #6 and offer a rebuttal based on scripture, and spare me the hate propaganda.

Chiniquy and Brown, by my original quotes, asserts that there is a doctrine such as Immaculate Conception, which is biblically wrong. And you come up with your claims that they are false testifiers. Yet you agree that there is such a doctrine as Immaculate Conception of Mary. From all indications its just your words against theirs. With no definite scripture revelation to prove your points.

The only point you're trying to prove is the error you've been made to believe. Although I'm not here for any needless argument. Like I stated in the first paragraph of my post, I'm not out for any religious bashing or debates, I wrote strictly with a heart of love to save those that care to listen. And of course, accepting an instruction or not is a personal onus. It is not by force.

 

[epostle1]

Chiniquy and Brown, by my original quotes, asserts that there is a doctrine such as Immaculate Conception, which is biblically wrong.

No, it is not. It is biblically sound, you just refuse to honestly examine the evidence.
And you come up with your claims that they are false testifiers.

Any court of law would not accept the testimony as reliable from a sex pervert or a mentally unbalanced person, but you do.

Yet you agree that there is such a doctrine as Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Yes. Do you know what it means?

From all indications its just your words against theirs.

No, it isn't. It's the words of scripture, the foreshadowing of the Ark of the Covenant, the Judaic understanding of the mother's role of the Davidic kings, the reverence the Apostles had for Jesus' mother, the writings of the early church fathers, the saints, the great councils against the words of deranged hate cultists.

With no definite scripture revelation to prove your points.

Sorry, I can't have a discussion with one who ignores the scripture I use, then says, "no definite scripture revelation to prove your points". Again, scroll up to post #4 and #6. I'll remind you of the 2 verses in post #4 featuring commentaries for Protestant scholars that you did not see, defining "Full of Grace". Post #6 has 5 scripture reference that you did not see with 2 numerous supporting scripture references by Protestant scholars, plus a term defined by the world class bigot James White. If you wish to ignore all my posts and continue to falsely accuse me, II will put you in the ignorasium with the Whore-duh-Babble-on psychos.

The only point you're trying to prove is the error you've been made to believe. Although I'm not here for any needless argument. Like I stated in the first paragraph of my post, I'm not out for any religious bashing or debates, I wrote strictly with a heart of love to save those that care to listen. And of course, accepting an instruction or not is a personal onus. It is not by force.

The content of your opening post is hate speech and persecution against Catholics "with a heart of love" . What did we do you?
The Immaculate Conception is not an error, it was taught by Martin Luther (inventor of sola scriptura that you diligently follow) and to a large extent other reformers. Why don't you pick on them? The essence of the doctrine is in scripture and a teaching of Christianity from the beginning.

Why do you accept Martin Luther's sola scriptura theory but reject his teaching on Mary's sinlessness? It looks like cafeteria Christianity to me.

Your scriptural lens is clouded by all that hate crap you've gobbled up. That's why you can't see any scriptures or explanations that I post. I think I am talking to a wall but I'll give you one more chance for a sane discussion.

 

[StanJ]

Emekrus...kepha31 is an inculcated RC, so you waste your time expecting her to SEE the truth in scripture, or trying to explain it to her.

 

[epostle1]

Dialogue with Protestants on the Irrational, Unbiblical Demand​

for Multiple, Explicit Scriptural Prooftexts for Every Doctrine​

​

This discussion was condensed from a combox on a friend's Facebook page. Guy's words will be in blue; Brian's in green.

Guy Duininck
I can't support the view that Mary was born without original sin. . . . there is no scriptural evidence for this. I think that some would like to wish it was so and look for reason to make it so, but that doesn't mean it is so. . . . I think there should be one supporting scripture at least. Jesus' sinlessness is mentioned very often. . . . One clear scripture is very important......at least for me to even consider believing something of this import.. . . I really prefer that my doctrine come from the Scriptures. And in this particular case, I have not believed Mary had a sinless nature for 30 years and have not seen any Scripture evidence to support that she did. . . . And I'm not too interested in the "overwhelming tradition of the church." I'm interested in the Scriptures and what they say and don't say. . . . I prefer several clear NT scriptures for NT doctrine. . . . But for doctrine, I need 3-4 clear NT scriptures. Does Paul or any other NT writer even reference Mary?

Where are your "several clear NT scriptures" for the notion that all doctrines have to be established by "several clear NT scriptures"? Good luck (you'll need it, believe me).

I said that I....me.....prefer 3-4 clear NT scriptures.

Why? Where does that idea come from in the first place? Traditions of men and not Holy Scripture?

Brian Sleeman
What are we told scripturally about 'evidence' that it should come from two or three witnesses - why then would God not expect the same 'verification' of His instructions - that the scriptures provide two or three references to support it has a 'prescription' of action and not just a 'description' of events?

Protestants build their entire rule of faith and theology upon sola Scriptura (the notion that the only infallible authority is Scripture, and in practice, that every doctrine needs explicit biblical proof to be believed at all), yet this idea is never found in Scripture anywhere (it was basically invented by Luther out of thin air, under pressure in a debate). So why the irrational double standard? You can base that false tradition of men on nothing whatever in Scripture, yet demand all kinds of explicit biblical proofs for every Marian doctrine, as if that is necessary, when there is plenty about Mary in Scripture: just not enough for your arbitrary taste. And what is there many Protestants don't or can''t see, under the principle of "no man is so blind as he who will not see."

Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a very important, fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

Yes, and it was pointed to in various places. Are we told in multiple places to treat the virgin in any special way because she (as is every other creation of God) an implement for bringing about His Will? And does it anywhere say that the Virgin would herself be sinless? The conception of Christ was immaculate - not Mary herself.

I believe the Virgin Birth is mentioned in two places only in the New Testament: Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:23. Paul never mentions it; the Gospels of Mark and John never do, nor do the rest of the NT books.

So by the usual hackneyed, fallacious Protestant reasoning, the fact that Paul doesn't mention the Virgin Birth would supposedly be a proof (if we consistently applied this false "demand") that it is a false doctrine, just as it is argued that Marian doctrines are false because Paul doesn't mention her.

We have two texts in two Gospels for the Virgin Birth. But we have the same amount for Mary's sinlessness: Luke 1:28 ("full of grace") and the texts that illustrate the ark of the covenant parallel. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman also notes another fascinating biblical indicator:

"...The holy Daniel, when St. Gabriel appeared to him, "fainted away, and lay in a consternation, with his face close to the ground." (Dan. 8:17) When this great archangel came to Zacharias, the father of St. John the Baptist, he too was troubled, and fear fell upon him." (Luke 1:12) and rendered speechless for his doubt (Luke 1:20) But it was otherwise with Mary when the same St. Gabriel came to her. She was overcome indeed, and troubled at his words, because, humble as she was in her own opinion of herself, he addressed her as "Full of grace," and "Blessed among women;" but she was able to bear the sight of him..."

Hence we learn two things:

1) how great a holiness was Mary's, seeing she could endure the presence of an angel, whose brightness smote the holy prophet Daniel even to fainting and almost to death;

2) since she is so much holier than that angel, and we so much less holy than Daniel, what great reason we have to call her the Virgo Admirabilis, the Wonderful, the Awesome Virgin, when we think of her ineffable purity!

Eve, a mere human was previously sinless, so the concept has precedence. God could have chosen not to intervene at Mary's conception, but He is in charge and he chose to do it that way. The words of Gabriel are eternal, they come from God. So when was Mary "Full of Grace"?

Where is a Greek geek when you need one?

 

[mjrhealth]

So simple. Mary was born just like us all, She was born just as we all are and would of sinned just as we all do.

She was given teh choice like us all, to do Gods bidding, When Mary accepted His word.

Luk 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.

Than she received the Holy Ghost as promised,

Luk 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.

As it is with all those who believe God, but in the case of Mary it bore life in teh form of a man, a human child conceived by teh Holy ghost, and that was when she received his grace as we all do,

When we believe.

in all His Love

 

[this-gospel]

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Luke 2:22)

 

[StanJ]

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Luke 2:22)

and there is the pure, simple, yet effect truth....Mary was NOT immaculate if she fell under that law.

 

[Deborah_]

​

I believe the Virgin Birth is mentioned in two places only in the New Testament: Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:23. Paul never mentions it; the Gospels of Mark and John never do, nor do the rest of the NT books.

So by the usual hackneyed, fallacious Protestant reasoning, the fact that Paul doesn't mention the Virgin Birth would supposedly be a proof (if we consistently applied this false "demand") that it is a false doctrine, just as it is argued that Marian doctrines are false because Paul doesn't mention her.

We have two texts in two Gospels for the Virgin Birth. But we have the same amount for Mary's sinlessness: Luke 1:28 ("full of grace") and the texts that illustrate the ark of the covenant parallel. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman also notes another fascinating biblical indicator:

"...The holy Daniel, when St. Gabriel appeared to him, "fainted away, and lay in a consternation, with his face close to the ground." (Dan. 8:17) When this great archangel came to Zacharias, the father of St. John the Baptist, he too was troubled, and fear fell upon him." (Luke 1:12) and rendered speechless for his doubt (Luke 1:20) But it was otherwise with Mary when the same St. Gabriel came to her. She was overcome indeed, and troubled at his words, because, humble as she was in her own opinion of herself, he addressed her as "Full of grace," and "Blessed among women;" but she was able to bear the sight of him..."

Hence we learn two things:

1) how great a holiness was Mary's, seeing she could endure the presence of an angel, whose brightness smote the holy prophet Daniel even to fainting and almost to death;

2) since she is so much holier than that angel, and we so much less holy than Daniel, what great reason we have to call her the Virgo Admirabilis, the Wonderful, the Awesome Virgin, when we think of her ineffable purity!

There's a failure in logic here. Paul doesn't mention a lot of things, but we believe them if they are elsewhere in Scripture. Two witnesses to the virgin birth (Matthew and Luke) are enough.

How do you equate 'full of grace' to 'sinless'? What is the logical connection between the two? To our Protestant minds, a sinless person wouldn't need any grace.

Lots of people have been in the presence of angels without fainting. Abraham, Jacob, the wife of Manoah (Samson's mother), Zechariah... None of them were particularly holy, let alone sinless. So that really doesn't count as evidence. In fact, the Greek word used to describe Mary's disquiet is stronger than that used to describe Zechariah's.

 

[StanJ]

There's a failure in logic here. Paul doesn't mention a lot of things, but we believe them if they are elsewhere in Scripture. Two witnesses to the virgin birth (Matthew and Luke) are enough.

How do you equate 'full of grace' to 'sinless'? What is the logical connection between the two? To our Protestant minds, a sinless person wouldn't need any grace.

Lots of people have been in the presence of angels without fainting. Abraham, Jacob, the wife of Manoah (Samson's mother), Zechariah... None of them were particularly holy, let alone sinless. So that really doesn't count as evidence. In fact, the Greek word used to describe Mary's disquiet is stronger than that used to describe Zechariah's.

Welcome Deborah...to bring you up to speed, you won't find ANY logic from kepha31...she's an inculcated RC, but your post is spot on.

 

[brakelite]

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Antichrist being in denial of the Christ as coming in the flesh, this does in fact perfectly fit with the Catholic Church's doctrine re the immaculate conception of Mary...a claim that because Mary was without original sin, thus Jesus could live the perfect life. yet this is a denial of scripture, that says that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin.(Romans 8:3). He was born in the likeness of fallen Adam, sinful flesh. He was born however without the propensities to sin that we inherit, and most certainly did not sin on any occasion. He lived a perfect life, yes, not because he had a perfect mother, but because he lived in accordance to the OT mandate, the just shall live by his faith. Thus He is our example. Though we are born of sinful flesh as He was, we also can be born again of the Spirit to live a victorious life through faith in the power and grace of an all-powerful and merciful loving Savior.
By creating an 'immaculate conception' theory the Vatican removes the glory of Christ's sinless life from the Father and gives the glory to Mary. In this they again fulfil the concept of antichrist (replacing Christ) by denying the very unique relationship between the Father and Son which resulted in Christ's victorious life. (1 John 2:22)

Its sad Kepha that you brand every criticism of your church as hate speech. The millions of martyrs that fell at the hands of Vatican persecutors throughout the last 1700 years were not burnt, murdered, flayed alive, beheaded, tortured and put to the sword because they hated the RCC...it was because they loved Truth, the Bible as their authority over tradition, and the freedom of conscience which is a God given right ...the Vatican is the one with the hatred, not just for all he aforementioned principles, but alo for those who would live by them. Which is the reason I suppose why there is so much sarcasm, invective, put-downs, and personal attacks peppering your posts. You need to come out of her before God judges her.View attachment 347

 

[brakelite]

What the 'imaculate conception' doctrine also accomplishes very successfully is to remove Jesus as our nearest kinsman. Because according to RCC lies, Jesus did not take the seed of David according to the flesh...nor even the seed of Abraham...both fallen men...fallen flesh...but took upon Himself the seed of Mary..."unfallen and immaculate flesh". So therefore Jesus is so far removed from us, He can no longer be our Mediator, Friend, nor even Messiah. Thus the Vatican denies that He is even Christ. Not only so, but if Jesus did not partake of sinful flesh, as Paul informs us, then we can no longer partake of His righteousness, and the law can no longer be fulfilled in us. (Romans 8:3,4)
I fact, it goes further. If Jesus was born of an immaculate mother, the the following is also made null and void. 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. ....thus the entire plane of salvation is turned on ts head...Mary becomes our Savior, Jesus is just a by-product, and incidental appendage. No wonder Mary becomes the worshiped Mediatrix...no wonder Jesus is removed from us...He is too good...too holy...too inaccessable to be our help in time of need...no, no, we have to go to Mary who becomes our intercessor.
Satan knew exactly what he was doing when he inspired the pope to utter that foolishness ....‘Yes! We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception… There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!’