Help: Explaining the "Why" of the Immaculate Conception

[DianJo]

I actually have something to say about this.

An important doctrine in ANY type of chrisitian church is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Protestants usually end it there, and Catholics generally say that Mary was a continual virgin after she was born and was sinless.

One thing I must point out, and while many might disagree with it, this is the standpoint I’ve come to take. When you think about it, I think it’s only Matthew and Luke who made references to the virginity of Mary. The fact that Paul and even John seemed to be oblivious to this fact is very hard to believe. My stance on this is, like others who are more professionals in this realm, is that the virgin birth was either copied down wrong (or stolen from another religion) or, it was simply a translator’s mistake. The latter is probably more easily believable, because quite a few translations of the core Bible books (By core, I mean the ones accepted as canon by all sects of Christianity) that have “young woman” instead of “virgin.”

My main source of information is from Religious Tolerance, which, for the uninformed, is a website that discusses religions around the world and sensitive issues within religions as unbiasedly as humanly possible. Of course, their’s always some bias, but they generally do a good job of keeping it free of that. There are quite a few sites out there that offer pro-virgin birth and anti-virgin birth; both are just a google search away.

If you want to take that website as authoritative about your “mix of religious preference,” then fine. You will find here that we don’t put any stock in such sites - especially when it spews the same garbage about translation errors and stolen stories that scholars have debunked for many years. Our bibles of today translate almost exactly what is found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

So, I think most around here will take the word of 2000 years of scholastic study and work over a secular site that trys to make all religions relatively the same - which we know that all religions are not the same and some are not even close. My advise is to stick with reputable and reliable sites if you want to be listened to on matters of Catholic theology.

 

[Benadam]

One thing I must point out, and while many might disagree with it, this is the standpoint I’ve come to take. When you think about it, I think it’s only Matthew and Luke who made references to the virginity of Mary. The fact that Paul and even John seemed to be oblivious to this fact is very hard to believe. My stance on this is, like others who are more professionals in this realm, is that the virgin birth was either copied down wrong (or stolen from another religion) or, it was simply a translator’s mistake. The latter is probably more easily believable, because quite a few translations of the core Bible books (By core, I mean the ones accepted as canon by all sects of Christianity) that have “young woman” instead of “virgin.”

Jesus Himself reveals His Incarnation and consequently His Mother’s virginal state when He teaches that John the Baptist is the greatest man born of woman.

What He is saying is that He is not generated by any child of Eve’s. This means by necessity that Mary is Virgin. If Mary were sexually active it would profoundly inhibit or even eliminate the ability for the human intellect to apprehend the Incarnation.

 

[Benadam]

Had a question.

Is it the correctly instructed theology that Mary had to be a sinless virgin in order to conceive a sinless Savior, or would Jesus have been sinless anyway, due to His divinity?

There are some good posts about places that God dwells being purged and the parallels one can draw between the OT ark and the Garden of Eden, and the purity of Mary. However, is it the case that flesh is flesh and sin is determined by how it is operated, and since Jesus operated it to perfection, the qualities of the flesh were of no consequence? Or is it the case that although the soul operates the flesh, the flesh still has to be uncorrupted, and since Jesus inherited flesh from Mary, that flesh had to be pure?

No. Mary’s sinlessnes is not necessary. Mary’s sinlessness was somewhat of a requirement. Not that Jesus would have inherited sin from the womb but His experience of human love would have lacked perfection. He would have been reduced to teaching entirely without the experience of perfect human love. How could He have taught only a good tree can produce good fruit if Mary had sin? Because God chose to conform to the order He established, Mary had to be sinless. There are other reasons for Mary’s sinlessness as well. John the baptists experience in the womb when the sound of Mary’s voice reached his mothers ears may have been dependent on her sinlessness, without this experience John may not have been able to live a perfect life of righteousness. That perfection was required to make a straight way for the Lord as well. Because of God’s choice to work within the order pre-established from the beginning Mary’s sinlessness was a necessity just as the virgin birth was in order to fulfill the prophecy in Genesis that uses the word “seed”.

Jesus as a baby would have suffered the temptations involved in anxieties that are coped with by the rest of humanity by distorting reality. This would have created difficulties He was spared by Mary’s sinlessness.

Because of God’s choice to work within the order pre-established from the beginning Mary’s sinlessness was a necessity.

Uhhh…help.