Immaculate conception is the belief that Mary was free of original sin. The theological problems with this are many.
It says that Jesus wasn’t needed for dealing with original sin.
a. It just took divine magic. Then why didn’t God didn’t do this earlier and rid us of the problem of sin long ago? We are left with the idea that God does things not for any reason but just because He arbitrarily feels like doing it that way. This sort of Christianity does not interest me.
b. It took a long breeding program to produce a woman without original sin. So Jesus was without sin just because of His parentage? I guess this buys into a view of sin I cannot agree with.
I do not agree with the idea that infants are born with sin (original sin, that Mary was supposedly born without). How? Is sin in the blood or the genetic code? Is original sin something that requires a scientific solution – by growing babies outside a human womb or by genetic alteration?
It is almost as if they are trying to justify making Mary into a semi-deity as an object of worship. I can sympathize with those wanting a female deity in their religion.
From Wikipedia connecting to my preference for some of the theological positions of the Eastern Orthodox.
Eastern Orthodoxy never accepted Augustine’s specific ideas on original sin, and in consequence did not become involved in the later developments that took place in the Roman Catholic Church, including the Immaculate Conception.[66][67] In 1894, when Pope Leo XIII addressed the Eastern church in his encyclical Praeclara gratulationis , Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos, in 1895, replied with an encyclical approved by the Constantinopolitan Synod in which he stigmatised the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility as “Roman novelties” and called on the Roman church to return to the faith of the early centuries.[10]
I don’t agree with the dogma either, but I see you don’t understand it. BioLogos claims they want closer ties with Roman Catholics. Catholics would do well to stay away from here, which they do anyway.
And I say: the whole shtick–from Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” to “Jesus’ Conception in a Virgin”–very likely had more to do with early “educated” Jewish Christians trying to wrap their heads around the Son of God’s incarnation in a human body without contracting Original Sin.
The argument if sperm is used there is no lineage to David is untrue…there is lineage through both lines as they (Joseph and Mary) were, as was customary in Jewish culture with marriage, part of the same family anyway.
That is also why there are two differing accounts of His geneolgy.
May I throw another “log on the fire”…
One of the respondants made mention of a sinless Jesus and posed the question is the sin in the blood or elsewhere such as in the genetic code.
If Jesus was sinless, and had no apparent physical blemish in Him, why after he was resurrected did no one recognise Him? Does this not suggest that even in the incarnation, Jesus was far less than perfect…I would argue spiritually this was also the case in the sense that he was just as vulnerable as we are.
Show me your genealogical charts and I’ll show you mine. “part of the same family” is a “work-around” contrived to maintain Jesus’ descendency from King David AND preserve Jesus’ purity uncontaminated by Original Sin. Our God is quite capable of stepping into humanity without getting sullied by the mud hole that He steps in to.
I don’t know what beaglelady thinks there is to understand about it. Frankly I don’t think the Catholics understand anything about it either. Are Catholics like the Muslims where they take offense at any disagreement or criticism? Perhaps some are. I suspect there is quite a spectrum of attitudes.
Here it is in the Catholic catechism second edition.
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
But from catholic.com, it is described just in the way I stated.
The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that states that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain.
And here is the Catholic encyclopedia
The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
I think Luke adequately explains this problem when he wrote
23Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began His ministry.
He was regarded as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
The other explanation has always been that one of the genealogies is in fact down Marys family clan lineage (even though Joseph is included). That is because, as I stated before, it was customary for Jewish families to intermary within their clans. There are plenty of examples of this throughout the Old Testament (remembering the OT ends just before the genealogy commences in Matthew Chapter 1)
are you dissenting because the idea of God implanting sperm into Mary is something that a religious person cant stomach…are you therefore suggesting sperm is the result of sin and therefore evil?
I’m dissenting because contriving a “work-around” to maintain Jesus’ descendancy from King David AND maintain Jesus’ sinlessness from his conception to his ascension is precisely that: a contrived work-around, which–in my view–was promoted by “educated” Christian Jews who had difficulty explaining how God could incarnate AND Jesus could be sinless from conception to death.
The entire biblical translation requires considerable understanding of Jewish culture of the day in which its various books were written…so much so that even in order to translate, the context of statements made has to be considered in every instance. I don’t view the method used to facilitate accurate translation as a workaround any more than the interpretation of Jewish genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I would go a step further and state that science requires far greater workarounds for many of its hypothesise than does the genealogy of Jesus (not being anti science here, just making an observation)
In the link to my thread that I posted above, I quoted a portion of the Babylonian Talmud:
Shabbat 145b-146a:
"Rabbi Yoḥanan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when the snake came upon Eve, i.e., when it seduced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai, their contamination ceased, whereas gentiles did not stand at Mount Sinai, and their contamination never ceased. Rav Aḥa, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What about converts? How do you explain the cessation of their moral contamination? Rav Ashi said to him: Even though they themselves were not at Mount Sinai, their guardian angels were present, as it is written: “It is not with you alone that I make this covenant and this oath, but with he that stands here with us today before the Lord our God, and with he that is not here with us today”
(Deuteronomy 29:13–14), and this includes converts.
Yevamot 103b:
“The Gemara answers: He implants filth in her and contaminates her, as her body accepts his semen. As Rabbi Yoḥanan also said, based on his understanding that the serpent seduced Eve into having sexual relations with him: When the serpent came upon Eve, he infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased.”
“With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.”
Although I’m told, by a knowledgebale Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, that the Rabbi Yohanan in the readings above would have been a 2nd century Jew–I think I remember–it’s not unreasonable to believe that he was not the Jew who came up with the doctrine of moral impurity, Jewish presence on Mt. Sinai being a “purification” from that “original sin”, the presence of “guardian angels” at Mt. Sinai standing in for later converts’ to Judaism, and Gentiles continued moral impurity.
Jesus, born of Joseph AND Mary or Mary alone would have been sufficient to claim that “he stood at Mt. Sinai” and was cleansed of all moral impurity at the time of his conception, but being not being a genetic heir of King David would have–as far as “educated Jews” are concerned–precluded him from being a direct genealogical descendant of King David.
Your belief that the inability of folks to recognize Jesus after his resurrection supports a conclusion that Jesus was “not quite perfect” is unfounded. I say, it would be surprising to find anyone who knew Jesus before his crucifixion “to recognize” Jesus after his resurrection".
My claim, that the two genealogies are a “work-around” solution to a non-existent problem stands. No further argumentation will persuade me to think otherwise. Case closed.
I have not bothered to quote any of what you wrote above…i am surprised by your referencing here.
On the topic of the Gospel, why are you quoting a Jewish rabbi from the second century as a source of authority on the issue of Gentiles?
The Jews are well known to both deny the Messiah (particularly in the first and second centuries) and do not agree that the gospel was given to the gentiles to take to the world!
I am not following your pathway in the above post…its referencing seems deeply flawed for the reason I have given above and its conclusion based on that referencing is equally deeply flawed and indeed even irrelevant. I am not sure its even on topic?
Are you denying that Jesus the man was physically a product of thousands of years of sin? Whilst you contemplate this question might I remind you that scholars have debated for years the physical stature of Jesus and my understanding is that current conclusions are he was not of a significant physique or stunning to look at. He was just a normal average man! People were not attracted to him because he was awesome to behold!
why are you here Terry? If case is closed, then you appear to be a “youtube commenter” who complains that the video is boring and of no interest and yet continues to engage by writing comments!
To dissent where dissent is appropriate and give the rationale for my dissent. When inadequate counter-argument is presented, I close my case. You seem to have difficulty with my initial position and believing that your counter-argument was ineffective and unpersuasive. And now I’m at a loss as to what more I can say. So, go ahead, you can have the last word if that makes you feel better.
Yep Holy Spirit raised Jesus., and Holy Spirit raises all of us.
@Dale
yes there’s injustice. you ask is there justice
I think injustice happens due to people want to be spiritual head initiator. Then there’s pride condemnation.
When we respond to God learning from God as God is our spiritual head, then there’s no pride condemnation, as we’re responders allowing God flow initiating. As we’re all of God’s spiritual body.
However on earth due to air, its easier to block God and try to initiate spiritual God head and not be the responder, then there’s all these God spiritual heads pride condemnation.
That is pretty good evidence for the widespread existence of sin, and not just in the sole case you mentioned. The Bible says we are all sinners, and I certainly believe that! I definitely am, and I would hope that everyone could confess that they are too. Saying they are not is prideful, speaking of.
That is going to require some explaination!
The evil, the sin in the world suggests otherwise!
How do you ‘go to God’? How does that work?
What kinds of things do you learn? Can you list any? If you think you learned that the Holy Spirit lives in all of us, there is good reason to believe you are sadly mistaken, as I pointed out above.
I don’t think through words of sin. I think through relationship allowing Holy Spirit teach me in the midst of my situations and through it all
Plus no one explain how blood actually wash away sins, you all would say blood is a symbol, well that’s witch craft. Taking a physicals thing and attaching program to it 'till its so well crafted, then as time goes by the belief gets stronger. That’s what witch craft is right? This is a serious question. Also Jesus bones can’t be broken? Is that crafted too? How did God design this craft for? Using physical items such as blood and make it a program? = zero
I do know people program as they’re programmers another word for witch crafts., witch are the programmers and then crafts which gets stronger into beliefs as time goes by, passing it down from generations. The word Witch is universal so even Christians are witches, am I understanding this correctly? This is a serious question. I learn from @Terry_Sampson about Jesus caused zero with in the banking system with God. So there’s no dept in the banking system and when Jesus rose the everybody’s banking account is zero
How this was done is blood but blood is a symbol only right? However sheep blood can do this too and that’s symbol too., so animal blood and Jesus blood is the same right?
