Mary as Immaculate Conception

[JustaServant]

All I said was I play the harp, if that bothers you I am sorry…You have no idea if I am angry or not…anger seems to be an issue here. I only got really angry once and that was when talking about annullments, and they removed the tread when I could back up everything I said…Of course my answers where not included when it was closed…Louemma, I am NOT angree…and I did not think that you could try to win anyone over on this foum…The only things I do, or try to do is speek my beliefs, which are not agreed with, and consequently I am called angry…When I began I got frustrated, but even then not angry…Then I began answering the way I was talked to…now I just say what is on my mind with honesty and conviction…If I come across angry, I appologise to you, however you are wrong…I am direct, and perhaps that is where the rub is. If someone is sarcastic to me, that is my reply…I am usually grining when I am answering them, because I think its funny. I think the chubbys they send me are funny and now alot of times I send them back…I will say I get very tired of them telling me I am ignorant, and uneducated, etc. But now that does not even bother me as it did. I guess you have to grow some tough skin if you where once Catholic and come on a forum like this. Its a no win situation really, because I do not agree with 99% of the things said, and they think I am a heretic**…I guess I sould be glad that I am living now instead of the times of the Crusades because if you did not agree with the CC they killed you…**…Now that is not being nice is it…Its to bad that you don’t reallu know me as a person…you may even like me…Who knows…God loves me though and if that is all I had, that would be enough. God Bless you now and always… forgive my spelling…I do not proof read so this is full of it i am sure and that seems to bother some people alot…

Hmmm…could it be snarky comments like the one above?

 

[PRmerger]

hmmm,

No I don’t believe Jesus is the whole trinity, but I guess what I was asking was along lines of-

if
Son of God is the second person of the Trinity,
and Son of God is part of Godhead from eternity past,

then
how could Mary give birth to that was from eternity past?
how could Mary give birth to Jesus’s spiritual nature?

The same way we, as mothers, give birth to a person who has an eternal soul. We do not give our children their immortal soul. Mary did not give Jesus his divinity, his soul, his divine nature. She gave birth to Jesus, a divine Person.

Just like I gave birth to 5 persons, while not claiming to have given them their eternal souls.

 

[PRmerger]

Anyway… I am curious why people put so much faith in the Bible at all, and I was hoping that somebody here could clarify this for me…

Good questions, all.

First point: it seems to me that skeptics will use different standards for judging the veracity of the Bible than they use on other books.

That is, modernists will go to great lengths to discredit the historical accuracy of Scripture, yet they decline to use the same critical standards on other ancient texts.

Dr. Peter Kreeft writes: (bold and BB codes mine)
“…if we used the same critical standards on other ancient leterature that modernists use on the bible, we would doubt every single fact we know today about every single writer and event before the Middle Ages. If modernists applied to the Bible the same standards that historians and textual scholars apply to secular literature of ancient times, **the biblical records would be accepted as some of the most reliable and credible of all ancient documents.” **

Richard Purtill, in Thinking About Religion, supports the point: “It is sometimes claimed that historians simply as historians regard Old and New Testament history as unreliable on some independent historical grounds. But…many events which are regarded as firmly establised historically have far less documentary evidence than many biblical events, and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer after the event than many records of biblical events. Furthermore, [SIGN]we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories;[/SIGN] and the surviving copies are much ealrier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based.” So,why do these “legitimate” historians question biblical accounts? What is their true motivation? [SIGN1]“If the Biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events or have reference to God, angels, etc. biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established than most of the history of , say, classical Greece and Rome.[/SIGN1] But because the biblical accounts DO mention miracles and DO involve reference go God, angels, and demons, etc, considerations other than purely historical ones come into the picture…(modernists) are convinced as part of their genral worldview that miracles don’t happen…Those who wish to demythologigize Scripture reject particular accounts of miracles in Scripture because they hold a general view about the meaning of miracle stories(as mere myth, not historical fact).”

 

[John7]

The same way we, as mothers, give birth to a person who has an eternal soul. We do not give our children their immortal soul. Mary did not give Jesus his divinity, his soul, his divine nature. She gave birth to Jesus, a divine Person.

Just like I gave birth to 5 persons, while not claiming to have given them their eternal souls.

got it, thanks

 

[grndslm]

Good questions, all.

First point: it seems to me that skeptics will use different standards for judging the veracity of the Bible than they use on other books.

That is, modernists will go to great lengths to discredit the historical accuracy of Scripture, yet they decline to use the same critical standards on other ancient texts.

Dr. Peter Kreeft writes: (bold and BB codes mine)
“…if we used the same critical standards on other ancient leterature that modernists use on the bible, we would doubt every single fact we know today about every single writer and event before the Middle Ages. If modernists applied to the Bible the same standards that historians and textual scholars apply to secular literature of ancient times, **the biblical records would be accepted as some of the most reliable and credible of all ancient documents.” **

Richard Purtill, in Thinking About Religion, supports the point: “It is sometimes claimed that historians simply as historians regard Old and New Testament history as unreliable on some independent historical grounds. But…many events which are regarded as firmly establised historically have far less documentary evidence than many biblical events, and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer after the event than many records of biblical events. Furthermore, [SIGN]we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories;[/SIGN] and the surviving copies are much ealrier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based.” So,why do these “legitimate” historians question biblical accounts? What is their true motivation? [SIGN1]“If the Biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events or have reference to God, angels, etc. biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established than most of the history of , say, classical Greece and Rome.[/SIGN1] But because the biblical accounts DO mention miracles and DO involve reference go God, angels, and demons, etc, considerations other than purely historical ones come into the picture…(modernists) are convinced as part of their genral worldview that miracles don’t happen…Those who wish to demythologigize Scripture reject particular accounts of miracles in Scripture because they hold a general view about the meaning of miracle stories(as mere myth, not historical fact).”

Look. I’m curious how people could believe the Gospels to be infallible… after knowing the time frame that historians believe to be the approximate years that the Gospels were created.

The people who wrote the Gospels are not the 12 apostles with him and more then likely never even met the MAN. That’s the problem. Paul seems to be the man, tho… since he was the closest to the source… which is why I was hoping a knowledgeable Catholic could school me on him. I just don’t know much about Paul the author. Is that the Apostle Paul? Anyway… point is known by any wise Catholic that the Gospels at least were not written by the APOSTLES. They were just disciples from a couple dozen towns down the road and two generations later by people who who only wrote hearsay.

Hence me asking about Paul the author. If anybody knows if THAT was the apostle or just some dude who heard it thru the grapevine too? And if he is the closest thing you’ve got to the source… why no mention of the Virgin Birth? Why does this information take so long to surface???

EDIT: And in reference to your comment about there being more “biblical narratives”. That’s my whole problem with the deal. Where are the secular accounts of Jesus? I know there’s four guys you like to reference a lot, but they only talk of “Christ”, the Annointed One… not Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus, but, unfortunately, his “work” has long been believed to be forged. Having nothing but biblical narratives might even just make me believe that Jesus could be the figment of the Roman government’s imagination in order to get people to become more obedient. Who knows? Hopefully somebody knows more about Paul, tho? I’d like to hear how he let the Virgin Birth thing slip his memory in all the tons and tons of works he put together.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus is turned from a great TEACHER into “God’s ONLY begotten son” thru DECADES of grapevine stories.

He was not really a great teacher, IMHO, for most of his students did not get his message whatsoever.

He claimed to be God, not just a great teacher.

Perhaps he did tell the truth and people perverted the meanings of his words by adding in fancy stories and themes that were based on nothing found in reality.

Why would they want to do that? What benefit did they receive except to die torturous deaths while still proclaiming this “myth”? That sounds quite :whacky:

Aquinas argues that if this “myth” of Jesus being God did not really happen, then the greater miracle is this: *there could not be a greater miracle than that the whole world should have been converted without miracles! *

 

[PRmerger]

Look. I’m curious how people could believe the Gospels to be infallible… after knowing the time frame that historians believe to be the approximate years that the Gospels were created.

Oh! Well, then, that’s an easy one. It’s because we believe in God.

If God could rise from the dead, then surely he’s capable of preserving his written word infallibly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Implications are, He was God made Man…He was the Son of God…Are you sayig that Jesus can not be bothe God from His Father and Man from Mary who is in no part God…Ar you saying God cannot do this… Are you limiting God…

Leslie-

Let me show you just how badly you have stumbled…the following explanation is from CARM, a website that is bitterly anti-Catholic:

Nestorianism

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title “Mother of God.” He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.

Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the “human person” then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

carm.org/nestorianism

 

[PRmerger]

EDIT: And in reference to your comment about there being more “biblical narratives”. That’s my whole problem with the deal. Where are the secular accounts of Jesus?

There’s a multitude of writings by authors which are NOT biblical narratives.

50-90 Signs Gospel
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John

See this site here.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to hear how he let the Virgin Birth thing slip his memory in all the tons and tons of works he put together.

Your argument might present a problem to Bible Christians, that is, those who subscribe to the Sola Scriptura paradigm, but as Catholics we do not believe that God’s revelation is confined only to the Sacred Scriptures.

So, even if St. Paul does not mention–even once–the Virgin Birth, we know that God’s revelation regarding the Virgin Birth has been preserved through Sacred Tradition (and, of course, the Gospels.)

 

[grndslm]

As far as I’m concerned any work created after 55-65 AD is just too far away from the source to take seriously.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as I’m concerned any work created after 55-65 AD is just too far away from the source to take seriously.

Ok. So you’re asking for extant narrative written from secular sources coeval with Jesus’ birth?

Do you apply this same standard for any other historical figure? Do you believe Socrates existed? What writings can you cite that discuss him–not written by any of his disciples–that are coeval to his life?

 

[grndslm]

Your argument might present a problem to Bible Christians, that is, those who subscribe to the Sola Scriptura paradigm, but as Catholics we do not believe that God’s revelation is confined only to the Sacred Scriptures.

Interesting. God’s revelation is also confined to folklore?? Or is there something else?

That’s really it in a nutshell.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting. God’s revelation is also confined to folklore?? Or is there something else?

The Word of God is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Folklore…you crack me up.

 

[grndslm]

Ok. So you’re asking for extant narrative written from secular sources coeval with Jesus’ birth?

Do you apply this same standard for any other historical figure? Do you believe Socrates existed? What writings can you cite that discuss him–not written by any of his disciples–that are coeval to his life?

How about picking somebody a little bit closer to the supposed time of Jesus’ birth/death?? And when did those writings surface?

 

[grndslm]

The Word of God is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Folklore…you crack me up.

We are talking about an immaculate conception here, aren’t we?

 

[Randy_Carson]

We are talking about an immaculate conception here, aren’t we?

THE Immaculate Conception, yes.

 

[PRmerger]

How about picking somebody a little bit closer to the supposed time of Jesus’ birth/death?? And when did those writings surface?

It would seem that the answer is NO,you do not have any extant narratives of secular sources for Socrates. And the answer is also, NO you do not apply the same standard to other historical figures.

You believe Socrates existed (and, BTW, there are some scholars who dispute that), but you do not have any narratives coeval with his existence?

Why do you hold Christians to a standard that you yourself do not hold?

 

[grndslm]

THE Immaculate Conception, yes.

You’re saying Christianity is the first religion to integrate a Virgin Birth somewhere in the story?? The list was quite exhaustive when I last looked…

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re saying Christianity is the first religion to integrate a Virgin Birth somewhere in the story?? The list was quite exhaustive when I last looked…

No.

I’m saying that Christianity is the first religion to include a REAL Virgin Birth.