wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
Strangely, according to one book I read, some people got the Immaculate Conception wrong. IC does not refer to the birth of Christ but to that of the Virgin Mary. Mary was free of the taint of the 'original sin' from the moment she was conceived in her mother's womb. They cleared her up on 8th December 1854.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually even I have to admit, some of the Catholic arguments make more sense than the Protestant's.
Not sure whether you realize .. but the immaculate conception explains away something very beautifully - the biblical idea of original sin.
Because through Adam, all man has sinned. That's why they came out with the Virgin Birth. 'cos last time when woman discriminated, they thought the seed came from the man; the woman was just a vessel.
today genetics tell us man and woman contribute equally .. so cham .. the sin can be passed through the mother!
But fear not .. now we have sinless mother! Problem solved!
Is this true? -
Huh?Originally posted by ben1xy:traidition should nv contradict scripture. that's the main point people miss out.
ok ... now i expect u to list out things that we Catholics do that contrsdict scripture... i sure wish Macross or Oberditica was here! i need back up!
in a perfect setting, church (both catholic and protestant) traditions should not contradict scripture, but tradition being man made (most of the time) does have it flaws and may happen to contradict scripture (so I would not say, its never happen).
that's why, I ask this question on can traditions be use as a benchmark to interpret scripture?
-
Hmm question
faith by the scriptures alone is what i read when i read up on martin luther,so where is his basis? -
lets see if I remember correctly (think its something like this, can't remember the exact wordings)Originally posted by laurence82:Hmm question
faith by the scriptures alone is what i read when i read up on martin luther,so where is his basis?
"The righteous shall live by faith", faith in the finished of Christ alone for our salvation.
on the scripture, the Bible alone as the sole authority in all things that leads to righteousness. -
how could they got it wrong?Originally posted by laurence82:Strangely, according to one book I read, some people got the Immaculate Conception wrong. IC does not refer to the birth of Christ but to that of the Virgin Mary. Mary was free of the taint of the 'original sin' from the moment she was conceived in her mother's womb. They cleared her up on 8th December 1854.
Is this true?
Jesus has always been virgin-birthed since the gopsels were written.
The immaculate conception refers to Mother Mary. -
yesh, but where in the Bible which says the Bible, ie, the collection of those exact gospels chosen by the church fathers, as the sole authority?Originally posted by vince69:lets see if I remember correctly (think its something like this, can't remember the exact wordings)
"The righteous shall live by faith", faith in the finished of Christ alone for our salvation.
on the scripture, the Bible alone as the sole authority in all things that leads to righteousness. -
how could the individual books say something about the Bible which wasn't even compiled?Originally posted by laurence82:yesh, but where in the Bible which says the Bible, ie, the collection of those exact gospels chosen by the church fathers, as the sole authority?
-
Nah, its a long standing myth, thats why its called a myth, or misconceptionOriginally posted by Icemoon:how could they got it wrong?
Jesus has always been virgin-birthed since the gopsels were written.
The immaculate conception refers to Mother Mary.
Virgin birthed? Meaning, they didnt do anything?
I see two proposals here, that Mary was a virgin, and Mary was not tainted with the original sin, therefore Jesus is not tainted with the original sin.
Am I right? -
something doesn't sounds right with your explaination, don't think this is the offical version.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually even I have to admit, some of the Catholic arguments make more sense than the Protestant's.
Not sure whether you realize .. but the immaculate conception explains away something very beautifully - the biblical idea of original sin.
Because through Adam, all man has sinned. That's why they came out with the Virgin Birth. 'cos last time when woman discriminated, they thought the seed came from the man; the woman was just a vessel.
today genetics tell us man and woman contribute equally .. so cham .. the sin can be passed through the mother!
But fear not .. now we have sinless mother! Problem solved!
cause this will lead to the question of "does Mary (Mother of Christ) have sinless parents?"
If I don't remember wrongly, the teaching is that God did a miracle by removing the sin nature from her, so as part of His master plan to prepare the way for His Son's coming (something like this, again, the wording may differ). -
who are they?Originally posted by laurence82:Nah, its a long standing myth, thats why its called a myth, or misconception
Virgin birthed? Meaning, they didnt do anything?
I see two proposals here, that Mary was a virgin, and Mary was not tainted with the original sin, therefore Jesus is not tainted with the original sin.
Am I right?
Yes. Mary was a virgin => original sin from Joseph not passed down. Virgin birth has 100% biblical basis.
Immaculate conception => no original sin from Mary to pass down. Weak or non-existent biblical basis. -
Actually, its a paradox. If Martin Luther said 'faith by scriptures alone', where in the scriptures did it said Christians must have 'faith by scriptures alone'?Originally posted by Icemoon:how could the individual books say something about the Bible which wasn't even compiled?
Even if there is some hint or even explicit verses on this, what constitute the scriptures, another big issue. -
What is not right?Originally posted by vince69:something doesn't sounds right with your explaination, don't think this is the offical version.
cause this will lead to the question of "does Mary (Mother of Christ) have sinless parents?"
If I don't remember wrongly, the teaching is that God did a miracle by removing the sin nature from her, so as part of His master plan to prepare the way for His Son's coming (something like this, again, the wording may differ).
Immaculate conception => no original sin from Mary to pass down.
Whether Mary had sinless parents not important. -
machiam circular reasoning hor?Originally posted by laurence82:Actually, its a paradox. If Martin Luther said 'faith by scriptures alone', where in the scriptures did it said Christians must have 'faith by scriptures alone'?
Even if there is some hint or even explicit verses on this, what constitute the scriptures, another big issue.
as usual. -
Didnt Jesus have two more brothers? Or Jesus is a special case alone?Originally posted by Icemoon:who are they?
Yes. Mary was a virgin => original sin from Joseph not passed down. Virgin birth has 100% biblical basis.
Immaculate conception => no original sin from Mary to pass down. Weak or non-existent biblical basis.
If IC does not exists, wouldn that make Jesus bornt out of a sinful human? -
In what sense? You mean Martin Luther?Originally posted by Icemoon:machiam circular reasoning hor?
as usual. -
ya .. Jesus have siblings. But Jesus should be the oldest.Originally posted by laurence82:Didnt Jesus have two more brothers? Or Jesus is a special case alone?
If IC does not exists, wouldn that make Jesus bornt out of a sinful human?
Protestants don't believe in IC .. that's why after genetics was discovered .. their solutions to explain original sin sound sillier and sillier.
so how is sin passed down? through genes? -
ya. 'cos you trying to find justification from the bible.Originally posted by laurence82:In what sense? You mean Martin Luther?
anything you find will resemble circular reasoning. -
I am more confusedOriginally posted by Icemoon:ya .. Jesus have siblings. But Jesus should be the oldest.
Protestants don't believe in IC .. that's why after genetics was discovered .. their solutions to explain original sin sound sillier and sillier.
so how is sin passed down? through genes?
Passing down of sin is different from clearing someone of sin.
I dont know the Prots side of the IC explaination and its relations with genetics and passing down of sin.
Care to explain? -
That is the same as saying the Martin Luther's arguments or in fact, the Bible is very 'holey', pun intended.Originally posted by Icemoon:ya. 'cos you trying to find justification from the bible.
anything you find will resemble circular reasoning. -
I find all this hard to follow.
But is anybody here in disagreement that all men are sinful? -
Mainly about Immaculate Conception, tradition vs scripturesOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I find all this hard to follow.
But is anybody here in disagreement that all men are sinful?
Got digress abit about the basis for Martin Luther's 'faith by the Bible alone' and genetics -
yah .. passing down is a different act from clearing something.Originally posted by laurence82:I am more confused
Passing down of sin is different from clearing someone of sin.
I dont know the Prots side of the IC explaination and its relations with genetics and passing down of sin.
Care to explain?
The summary is this - God cleared Mary of her original sin at her conception so Mary couldn't pass down THE original sin to Jesus Christ.
Don't ask whether the siblings of Jesus sinless or not .. 'cos they clearly inherited the original sin from Joseph.
Brilliant right? -
Protestants cannot explain why Jesus is not sinful from birth.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I find all this hard to follow.
But is anybody here in disagreement that all men are sinful? -
Catholics maintain that Jesus did not have brothers. In the original Araimic language, there is no distinction between the use of the word brother and cousinOriginally posted by laurence82:Didnt Jesus have two more brothers? Or Jesus is a special case alone?
If IC does not exists, wouldn that make Jesus bornt out of a sinful human? -
I will maintain a consistent argument as above. Pulling in the Araimic language into context. When Jesus named Peter to be the rock on who he will build his church, in the original language, it meant key-stone. which in a historical context meant only 1.