No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLurker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hope said:
An apology would be most appreciated and Christ like
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t expect one.

I’ve been tempted to pull the plug already… and maybe I’m just naive for not having done so already. But I think there’s something to @ReadTheBible that drives him/her to be so persistent about Mary. A mother wound… a missing mother figure… a lost wife… a broken marriage. Could be any of those.

That anti-Catholic man in the office building was the same. In his case, it was a broken marriage. He was jealous of the Catholic Church because of sacramental Holy Matrimony. To justify himself in not reconciling to his wife, he took it out on Mary.

I can’t judge him or @ReadTheBible. But there’s always more to the story than the snarky forum user. There’s a human being behind the keyboard who’s hurting. Or sometimes more than one human being as you could see over here with another user.
 
Last edited:
You sound a lot like what I heard Bishop Sheen say. Oh what a privilege to see him in person.
 
mcq72 said:
Some have a different catechesis on the nature of the believer, even two natures ( the old man, that sinneth, and the new man in Christ)…yet in these two we are a new creation in Christ that is at emnity with Satan. Did not know if a saint sins once he is then always at emnity with God. Preposterous in my opinion to say only Jesus and Mary were enemies to Satan.
Click to expand...
The verse only mentions the Woman and her Seed. While other Christians are at odds with Satan, it is to a lesser extent and it isn’t as complete as what Genesis talks about.
 
hope said:
You do not address her answer that as a married women she was not having sex.
Click to expand...
Betrothed is not a consumated wedded position…it is just as contractual as our marriage but more like engaged…i believe it was still customary to remain virgin until the wedding night, which in Mary’s case had not ocurred yet ( the wedding)…hence, " I can’t be pregnant yet" paraphrase to the angel…for having known no man, Joseph included).
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
The verse only mentions the Woman and her Seed. While other Christians are at odds with Satan, it is to a lesser extent and it isn’t as complete as what Genesis talks about.
Click to expand...
Capitalising seed is interpretive. Qualifying, quantifying emnity is interpretive.
 
ReadTheBible said:
Please show me the Aramaic scripture. I won’t wait too long because we both know it doesn’t exist 🙂
Click to expand...
Correct. The Greek is God breathed, inspired.

Wether adjective, noun, descriptor, title there is no indication of time frame to conception but that to being received before angelic visitation. It also holds no bearing into future. It also has no bearing on sinlessness ( 10 Jewish 13 year old maidens could have been sinless, yet the one chosen would have been full of grace, even by foreknowledge of her being chosen). She was fully graced or highly favored by being chosen, and that before the visitation.
 
Last edited:
They were married but not living together. Your comments do not address the main problem. Your adding to what Mary said. She didn’t say but Joseph hasn’t come for me yet. A woman being told that she would have a child and she is married not engaged, would assume that Joseph would be the father. Mary’s question clearly shows that this is not the case. She doesn’t even mention Joseph which is odd when she is his wife. The wedding for Mary had happened. Like I have already stated they were Married.
 
hope said:
The wedding for Mary had happened.
Click to expand...
I dont think so hope. They were not living together because the wedding had not occurred( the marriage betrothedal yes). Why we dont even do that, get married to live apart ( except for unusual circumstances).

And what she says does not say anything about a vow either.

Remember, her immediate obedience or control of fulfillment thru Joseph was not in her hands…the wedding night could have been up to a year or more away! She is simply stating to the angel she had no premarital sex with anyone, including Joseph, whom she had not wedded yet. If they had had the wedding, then i could see your point .
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
They were not living together because the wedding had not occurred
Click to expand...
You do realize that the actual post-bethroal wedding of Mary you’re referring to is not mentioned in the Bible, right? I say this because I think there is a double standard at play here.

Also, you’re ignoring a lot of typology from the Old Testament.

www.catholic.com

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Why do Catholics call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant? Steve Ray will answer that question by taking you on a thrilling journey through the Bible.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

Don’t touch the Ark.
 
Last edited:
You took this out of context Here it is in context.
hope said:
“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition.
Click to expand...
emphasized text
 
MarysLurker said:
You do realize that the actual post-bethroal wedding of Mary you’re referring to is not mentioned in the Bible, right? I say this because I think there is a double standard at play here.
Click to expand...
I think I get your drift…yes …not mentioned for obvious reasons…that indeed are told us in scripture…the “complications”
 
What do you mean by complications for clarity’s sake?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Correct, why we don’t capitalize seed or quantify/ qualify emnity…our interpretation of this scripture is that it speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is that it says nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top