It's in the blood

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Annunciata

Guest
A Protestant friend of mine (a former Catholic) recently taught a class on “The Precious Blood” only not how we as Catholics believe. She maintains that when the Holy Spirit came to Mary at the Annunciation He brought ‘special blood’ and since Mary’s blood was ‘Adamic blood’, which was sinful, her blood could not flow in Jesus’ veins.

I responded with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which of course was scoffed at, so I guess I’m asking what answer could I have given give? :confused:
 
My first reaction to her presentation would be in the form of a question. Where in the world did she come up with this? It isn’t scripture and it isn’t tradition. Moreover, it is contrary to scripture. What’s next?
 
Unless my memory is failing, the mother’s blood does not, in large degree, mix with the unborn child’s. There is some, but for the most part, the blood does not mix. That is a science answer.
 
Blood doesn’t get mixed until birth when some may mix. My wife had to take precaurions because of rH+ or rH- something or other. It wasn’t until the birth that there may have been a problem.
 
That’s it. One thing that I do not understand is that if it is so easy to accept the replacement of blood, why wouldn’t God simply make an exception for Mary from the start? Did she give the Holy Blood back or stay sin free? Is that what was meant by women will be saved by child birth?
 
As Pax states, where did this concept come from? I too would ask a very direct question. Many protestants ask us to show them in the bible where are beliefs are found, how about turning the tables on her and ask her where in the bible that statement can be found? She couldn’t possibly use tradition as her basis, because there is no such tradition, that I am aware of, that supports her position.

I do not understand the protestant’s preoccupation with attacking Mary. At times their attacks come close to questioning Jesus’ divinity, all in an effort to discredit his mother.
 
40.png
ralphinal:
Unless my memory is failing, the mother’s blood does not, in large degree, mix with the unborn child’s. There is some, but for the most part, the blood does not mix. That is a science answer.
Soooo… where did Jesus get His blood?
 
One would assume that as with any human being, a fertilized egg was created and it took the natural course and made it’s own blood. The DNA that was functional would have been from Mary. This is of course just my opinion.
 
The developing baby makes its own blood, just as it does brain cells and skin. As the cells divide, the body begins to create specialization. Any basic anatomy or biology book that includes the stages of development would explain it better. Another question for this person would be if she accepts the concept of origional sin. It seems that she does is a strange way.
 
40.png
Rae:
From his mother, Mary. His complete human DNA came from one source…Mary.
Only his DNA could have no defects or errors in it…no chance of disease
 
Bud Stewart:
I do not understand the protestant’s preoccupation with attacking Mary. At times their attacks come close to questioning Jesus’ divinity, all in an effort to discredit his mother.
This was exactly what she is trying to do! She thinks we are into ‘goddess’ worship of her…even though she knows in her heart that it isn’t true… She hates Mary and doesn’t want to give her any more ‘credit’ than she thinks she deserves!😦
 
40.png
ralphinal:
That’s it. One thing that I do not understand is that if it is so easy to accept the replacement of blood, why wouldn’t God simply make an exception for Mary from the start? Did she give the Holy Blood back or stay sin free? Is that what was meant by women will be saved by child birth?
that is why I used the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and of course her reply was “that is just Catholic…and where is that in the Scriptures”?
 
Sounds like an attempt at inventing doctrine - something Protestants accuse Catholics of doing. It strikes me as another way of portraying Mary as a mere vessel in the Incarnation… a ‘Stepford’ mother, if you will. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Annunciata:
This was exactly what she is trying to do! She thinks we are into ‘goddess’ worship of her…even though she knows in her heart that it isn’t true… She hates Mary and doesn’t want to give her any more ‘credit’ than she thinks she deserves!😦
Just a litte insight into evangelicals as a past evangelical. Most of them have no clue as I didnt. They needed to be gently and loving and SOUNDLY confronted with their blazing ignorance of what the church acutlly teaches about marian doctrines. There great responeses to all evangelical misunderstandings. Love and proper formation as catholics will either bring conversion or departure
 
40.png
Annunciata:
A Protestant friend of mine (a former Catholic) recently taught a class on “The Precious Blood” only not how we as Catholics believe. She maintains that when the Holy Spirit came to Mary at the Annunciation He brought ‘special blood’ and since Mary’s blood was ‘Adamic blood’, which was sinful, her blood could not flow in Jesus’ veins.
Wouldn’t Mary’s flesh also be sinful? Wouldn’t that contaminate His being? The blood Jesus carried needed to be specifically human in order for the redemption to be effective; the body of Christ also needed to be specifically human in order for the redemption to be effective (Colossians 1:22). "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, . . .Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect . . . (see Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15). Scripture does not seem to indicate that Christ was given “special blood” but on the contrary suggests that both the body and blood of Jesus was exactly like His brethren.

Christ specifically came as the second Adam to redeem the “Adamic” race (Romans 5:18-21; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22; Galatians 4:4, 5). That is why the Holy Spirit did not bring ‘special flesh’ or ‘special blood’ when Christ was conceived; Jesus is as human as can be. He has to be a true descendent of the royal bloodline of David (Romans 1:3; 9:5) in order to inherit the throne of His father (Matthew 1:17; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; John 7:42; Acts 2:29, 30). There is no hint in Scripture that God somehow took David’s blood and purified it before infusing it into Jesus at His conception.

The only reference that I can come up with in regards to mixing the holy with the unholy in regards to Jesus’ blood is in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. It speaks of those that partake of His blood in the eucharist in an unworthy manner which leads to death. But your friend may think that Scripture is being too Catholic here!

The main confusion, in my opinion, that this person has is that she thinks that it is the body, and not the soul of an individual, that carries grace and sin.
 
I would say that this shows a poor understanding of genetics for one as the only blood that could flow throught Jesus is Mary’s Jesus had notearthly father…

Further ones blood has nothing to do with once state of sinfuness or unsinfulness, I would also question where in scriputre we see the creation of special non adamaic blood for Jesus…since chances are they beleivin sola scriptura…
 
I have had this very conversation with different people. Jesus was God and Man at the same time. He was divine and human at the same time. Of course his divine nature came from God. His human nature meaning his DNA in this case came from Mary. At the time of conception the mother 's and the father’s DNA match up in pairs, 23 of them I think if i remember correctly from anatomy and physiology class. Since Jesus had no earthly father this makes it hard to explain scientifically how the conception took place. But if we look to the scripture it is easy. All things are posible to God. Thinking of how God spoke the world into existence out of nothing, this must have been small potatoes to God. Thats why they call the virgin birth a mystery. You cant explain it scientifically. The only explanation is through the Power of the Holy Spirit just as scripture says. The only way to explain Christ did not inherit original sin was the immaculate conception. Mary was kept free of original sin through special grace. Its an awesome thought that Mary while carrying Jesus had God in a physical sense inside her. Why would a protestant wrestle with this type of question and try to bring science into it when it is they who say faith alone?
Peace of Christ,
Joshua
 
Isn’t it funny that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception predates, in one form or another, our understanding of genetics and biological development? True, Aquinas did not accept an Immaculate Conception, as he beleived as many early people did that the soul was infused at the “quickening.” That said, he did beleive that Mary was held free of sin from before the instant her soul joined her body.
 
40.png
Mathetes007:
Wouldn’t Mary’s flesh also be sinful? Wouldn’t that contaminate His being? The blood Jesus carried needed to be specifically human in order for the redemption to be effective; the body of Christ also needed to be specifically human in order for the redemption to be effective (Colossians 1:22). "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, . . .Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect . . . (see Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15). Scripture does not seem to indicate that Christ was given “special blood” but on the contrary suggests that both the body and blood of Jesus was exactly like His brethren.

Christ specifically came as the second Adam to redeem the “Adamic” race (Romans 5:18-21; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22; Galatians 4:4, 5). That is why the Holy Spirit did not bring ‘special flesh’ or ‘special blood’ when Christ was conceived; Jesus is as human as can be. He has to be a true descendent of the royal bloodline of David (Romans 1:3; 9:5) in order to inherit the throne of His father (Matthew 1:17; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; John 7:42; Acts 2:29, 30). There is no hint in Scripture that God somehow took David’s blood and purified it before infusing it into Jesus at His conception.

The only reference that I can come up with in regards to mixing the holy with the unholy in regards to Jesus’ blood is in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. It speaks of those that partake of His blood in the eucharist in an unworthy manner which leads to death. But your friend may think that Scripture is being too Catholic here!

The main confusion, in my opinion, that this person has is that she thinks that it is the body, and not the soul of an individual, that carries grace and sin.
good post!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top