Pagan Blood Running through Christ's veins

[Tis_Bearself]

I get the impression the OP is taking the word “pagan” in its OT sense to mean bad, evil, etc.

“Pagan” in this context means what 1ke and others have said…gentile blood, non-Jewish blood. Which would make perfect sense since Jesus came for everybody, not just the Jewish people. It doesn’t mean Jesus had evil blood in his lineage.

 

[PluniaZ]

Stop nitpicking everything the Pope says as an opportunity to criticize him.

Jesus put the Pope here to pastor you.

Receive his teaching like good, docile sheep.

 

[Zaccheus]

The founding Apostles did not believe in the immaculate conception. Neither did Christ. It was invented centuries later by people far removed from the eye witnesses to Christianity.

My first reaction: – say what!?

Christ knew who He was. He knew who His mother was. He most certainly did know she was without sin.

The fact that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not formally announced till long after does not in the least prove that the generation of the Apostles were ignorant of it.
Further: “It was formally announced centuries later” does not mean “It was made up after the fact”.

EDIT: Hey, we can edit hours later.

 

[Vico]

The founding Apostles did not believe in the immaculate conception. Neither did Christ. It was invented centuries later by people far removed from the eye witnesses to Christianity.

It is in Luke 1:28

The word kecharitomene is that title that Gabriel used for Mary, which is a perfect passive participle meaning a gift that Mary had already received and abides in.

 

[tgGodsway]

Hello Vico,

thank you for your reply. I’m looking at the Luke chapter 1 verse 28 passage. I think you may be saying more than the Greek word is saying here. There is no indication from the Greek language that Mary’s gift was the gift of a sinless life. Or that she was conceived or born sinless. The Greek counterpart for the English word “favored” does acknowledge she is to be honored with a high and special honor, but I do not see any more than that… It’s root word is the word Charis-Grace.

But putting that aside for a moment. The idea of Mary being a sinless person is not a settled matter from the New Testament itself.

In order for the New Testament to affirm and celebrate this so-called “truth,” it must (#1) acknowledge it! #2 it must agree and support it. Indoctrinate us to it. #3 It must have at least two or three biblical witnesses to be established as the word of God.

Add to that the fact that Mary sung her beautiful song of praise calling God her Savior. And, the fact that she willingly celebrated her Jewish traditions of Passover, pointing to the realities of our sinful state and how sin should be dealt.

Lastly, is the emphatic pronouncements to the Church at Rome where the Apostle Paul, quoting the O.T. spoke of man’s fallen state and said, "… both Jews and Gentiles are ALL UNDER SIN, Ro. 3:1 This is where he needed to interject the words, “accept for Mary!”

As a closing remark we cannot forget the Apostle John who said, “If WE say, we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” I think IF John knew and believed that Mary was an exception, he would have worded it a little different. So would Paul to the Church at Rome.

Actually if there were any N.T writers who even gave us a drop of evidence that Mary was conceived and/or born sinless, it would have been represented and celebrated. Paul would have indoctrinated us to it and the other Apostles would have said the “amen!” Wouldn’t you think? …

No. no… this view came centuries later by a Roman council who decreed it. I believe it was in 1854. but you may want to check that. But these people were not eye-witnesses to the founding of Christianity and they were far removed. Therefore they do not have the biblical authority to speak it, or call it the word of God when their foundations have no roots in our New Testament founders.

all for now. tgGodsway

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That would mean God would have had to specifically intervene. According to the same source, _We are born into sin both through our mother and through our earthly father. Jesus was born of Mary and if she would have been infected with original sin, then Jesus would have been infected also.
Since Mary had a mother and a father, both of whom contained the stain of original sin, it had to be God himself who cleansed her at conception to keep that stain from being passed on to her, so that she would be the perfect vessel. That’s the way I understand the immaculate conception at least.

Its not actually a teaching of faith that Mary had to be cleansed of OS for Jesus to be free.
It is actually enough that he had no human father.

It is commonly held that OS is passed down through the male seed.

In any case, “the blood of pagans” is nothing that Jesus, or Mary, needed to be cleansed from.
It is no different than the blood of Patriachs wrt sin. It is but an expression meaning something else.

You may as well say, along with white supremacists and Nazis and Valdemort, that the blood of muggles, Black Africans or non-Arians is somehow degenerate and inferior.

Its complete nonsense.

 

[GEddie]

Pagan blood?

No such thing. There is only human blood, in its 5 or so types.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tgGodsway]

The problem here is not so much about doctrine as it is whose doctrine, The doctrine spoken into existence by Roman council’s? Or the doctrine settled by the founders of the faith, the apostolic church? Their message stands opposed to the council’s.

 

[Vico]

Hello Vico,

thank you for your reply. I’m looking at the Luke chapter 1 verse 28 passage. I think you may be saying more than the Greek word is saying here. There is no indication from the Greek language that Mary’s gift was the gift of a sinless life. Or that she was conceived or born sinless. The Greek counterpart for the English word “favored” does acknowledge she is to be honored with a high and special honor, but I do not see any more than that… It’s root word is the word Charis-Grace.

But putting that aside for a moment. The idea of Mary being a sinless person is not a settled matter from the New Testament itself.

In order for the New Testament to affirm and celebrate this so-called “truth,” it must (#1) acknowledge it! #2 it must agree and support it. Indoctrinate us to it. #3 It must have at least two or three biblical witnesses to be established as the word of God.

Add to that the fact that Mary sung her beautiful song of praise calling God her Savior. And, the fact that she willingly celebrated her Jewish traditions of Passover, pointing to the realities of our sinful state and how sin should be dealt.

Lastly, is the emphatic pronouncements to the Church at Rome where the Apostle Paul, quoting the O.T. spoke of man’s fallen state and said, "… both Jews and Gentiles are ALL UNDER SIN, Ro. 3:1 This is where he needed to interject the words, “accept for Mary!”

As a closing remark we cannot forget the Apostle John who said, “If WE say, we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” I think IF John knew and believed that Mary was an exception, he would have worded it a little different. So would Paul to the Church at Rome.

Actually if there were any N.T writers who even gave us a drop of evidence that Mary was conceived and/or born sinless, it would have been represented and celebrated. Paul would have indoctrinated us to it and the other Apostles would have said the “amen!” Wouldn’t you think? …

No. no… this view came centuries later by a Roman council who decreed it. I believe it was in 1854. but you may want to check that. But these people were not eye-witnesses to the founding of Christianity and they were far removed. Therefore they do not have the biblical authority to speak it, or call it the word of God when their foundations have no roots in our New Testament founders.

all for now. tgGodsway

We agree that there is no direct scriptural proof of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The scriptural basis however is first in Genesis 3:15. For references to writings in the early Church on it, see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

On the word kecharitomene does mean more than simply highly favored, as one understands from the ancient meaning of charis, a reciprocal relationship between a god and man, and that the word is unique – meaning an established state of that.

Approved tradition of the Church reigns, just as tradition is what was used to determine what scriptures were canonical. The Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, in faith and morals.

St. Augustine teaches that every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honour of God (propter honorem Domini). (De natura et gratia, 36, 42.) St. Ephrem the Syrian puts Mary, in her immaculateness, on the same plane as Christ (see Par. 3). - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

The tradition of the Church includes the fifth century feast of The conception of Saint Anne, the Ancestress of God, December 9.

The decree of Sixtus IV Cum Praeexcelsa, was February 28, 1476.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…How so…?

 

[Zaccheus]

The problem here is not so much about doctrine as it is whose doctrine, The doctrine spoken into existence by Roman council’s? Or the doctrine settled by the founders of the faith, the apostolic church? Their message stands opposed to the council’s.

Was gravity not real till Sir Isaac Newton published his findings?
Did things not fall to the ground when released, until Sir Isaac ‘spoke the doctrine into existence’?

The fact that a truth was not officially proclaimed by a council till centuries after the Resurrection, does not make it untrue. Neither does it mean that nobody knew it or believed it before that.

 

[Wesrock]

No. no… this view came centuries later by a Roman council who decreed it. I believe it was in 1854. but you may want to check that. But these people were not eye-witnesses to the founding of Christianity and they were far removed. Therefore they do not have the biblical authority to speak it, or call it the word of God when their foundations have no roots in our New Testament founders.

It was declared in the 19th century to be dogma. That doesn’t mean the idea that Mary was without sin isn’t an ancient teaching of the Church which is also held by our Orthodox brothers and sisters. (They have some differences in their understanding of original sin, but in both traditions, Mary never sinned).

The problem here is not so much about doctrine as it is whose doctrine, The doctrine spoken into existence by Roman council’s? Or the doctrine settled by the founders of the faith, the apostolic church? Their message stands opposed to the council’s.

There’s no opposition between the Apostolic “message” and Church teaching.

 

[midori]

Just because I didn’t see links to the full context of the original remarks–

The full speech in Spanish.

The English version.

And a chunk from the middle:

Mary is the first light who announces night’s end, and above all, the impending day. Her birth helps us to understand the loving, tender, compassionate plan of love in which God reaches down and calls us to a wonderful covenant with him, that nothing and no one will be able to break.
.
Mary knew how to transmit God’s light, and she reflected the rays of that light in her home which she shared with Joseph and Jesus, reflecting it also in her people, her country and that home which is common to all mankind: creation.
.
In the Gospel, we have heard the genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-17), which is not a “simple list of names”, but rather a “living history”, the history of the people that God journeyed with; by making himself one of us, God wanted to announce that the history of the just and of sinners runs through his blood, that our salvation is not a sterile entity found in a laboratory, but rather something concrete, a salvation of life that moves forward. This long list tells us that we are a small part of a vast history, and it helps us not to claim excessive importance for ourselves; it helps us elude the temptation of over-spiritualizing things; it helps us not withdraw from the concrete historical realities in which we live. It also integrates in our history of salvation those pages which are the darkest and saddest, moments of desolation and abandonment comparable to exile.
.
The mention of women – though none of those referred to in the genealogy has the category of the great women of the Old Testament – allows us a particular rapprochement: it is they, in the genealogy, who tell us that pagan blood runs through the veins of Jesus, and who recall the stories of scorn and subjugation. In communities where we are still weighed down with patriarchal and chauvinistic customs, it is good to note that the Gospel begins by highlighting women who were influential and made history.

(Out of curiosity, is there a way to have a double-return in the middle of a blockquote, without breaking the blockquote? I tried writing my HTML tags by hand, and it didn’t work. But a wall of text is hard enough to read without being able to do some interior formatting to break things up and make it easier on the eye.)

 

[Gorgias]

(Out of curiosity, is there a way to have a double-return in the middle of a blockquote,

without breaking the blockquote? I tried writing my HTML tags by hand, and it didn’t work. But a wall of text is hard enough to

read without being able to do some interior formatting to break things up and make it easier on the eye.)

No, I don’t think so.

 

[Wesrock]

(Out of curiosity, is there a way to have a double-return in the middle of a blockquote, without breaking the blockquote? I tried writing my HTML tags by hand, and it didn’t work. But a wall of text is hard enough to read without being able to do some interior formatting to break things up and make it easier on the eye.)

I just did some quick testing. It does not seem like you could do a double return. But you could cheat and put a period in the space. That reconnects the paragraphs into one big block post. So for example:

Mary is the first light who announces night’s end, and above all, the impending day. Her birth helps us to understand the loving, tender, compassionate plan of love in which God reaches down and calls us to a wonderful covenant with him, that nothing and no one will be able to break.
.
Mary knew how to transmit God’s light, and she reflected the rays of that light in her home which she shared with Joseph and Jesus, reflecting it also in her people, her country and that home which is common to all mankind: creation.

 

[Zaccheus]

@Wesrock: Thank you for that idea.

 

[tgGodsway]

No. Just because someone decreed it in the name of God, doesn’t mean it is exempt from the biblical checks and balances. The Bible demands at least two witnesses to establish a truth. If there is no witness, there is no truth. Many cult founders have a word from God.

 

[Zaccheus]

Godsway
No. Just because someone decreed it in the name of God, doesn’t mean it is exempt from the biblical checks and balances.

Agreed. Merely that someone said it is not enough.

Godsway
The Bible demands at least two witnesses to establish a truth. If there is no witness, there is no truth.

Matthew 16: 17-19. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Christ and the Father testify that the Church has authority to teach.
I realize you may not agree but I’m not trying to convert you, merely telling you my reason to believe.

Godsway
Many cult founders have a word from God.

Oh yes. Jim Jones and David Koresh spring to mind right now.

 

[Vico]

(Out of curiosity, is there a way to have a double-return in the middle of a blockquote, without breaking the blockquote? I tried writing my HTML tags by hand, and it didn’t work. But a wall of text is hard enough to read without being able to do some interior formatting to break things up and make it easier on the eye.)

Yes use the greater than on a line by itself between the paragraphs.

 

[Gorgias]

midori:

(Out of curiosity, is there a way to have a double-return in the middle of a blockquote, without breaking the blockquote?

I just did some quick testing. It does not seem like you could do a double return.

Umm… guys? @Wesrock, @midori? You realize that a “double-return” is exactly what I did in my reply to midori… right?