Tantum ergo: But its on the internet so it must be true? I mean, how can something on the internet be false?Honestly, Via D, did you even LOOK at Mr. Stevens’ words and work any other place? Did you bother to check out his credentials? Verify what he claimed? How could you claim this is ‘taught’ in your ‘conservative’ diocese when you linked to his crazy web site?? Austin Texas is quirky but I’m pretty sure your bishop isn’t teaching this ‘interpretation’ as truth. . .
Because I looked it up on the internet to give you the information.If this is something that your diocese uses, why is it in a kind of ‘blog’ thing by somebody named “Brad Stevens” of Austin, Texas? Why isn’t it in your catechist handbook with footnotes and scholarly links?
Forget the bio…look at the prayer.From Mr. Steven’s bio:
Lives in Austin Texas with his long-time domestic partner John.
Um. . . .ah. . . Well. Gee.
Not forgotten. They probably have heard of Rumpelstiltskin as well.Apparently, the church has forgotten the “legend” of sexually active Pope Joan in the 10th or 11th century.
No. It’s almost certainly false.Are there too many details of this person’s existence among chroniclers for it to be a legend?
Although the Holy Bible is authoritative, interpretation sometimes presents difficulties. How did the Holy Spirit help Mary to conceive? That is unclear. Did the Holy Spirit produce sperm? Okay, I think we are guessing at this, but that would less of a suspension of the natural order than if done by some other way. So if the Holy Spirit produced sperm inside of Mary, does that mean the Holy Spirit required a male body? I don’t think so - God can do anything. And, besides, we know Mary is a virgin.I would think the Holy Bible would be pretty authoritative and when the Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and they conceive Christ, I would say that’s a pretty good indication that the Holy Spirit is or rather is properly referred to as male…unless you think that a female can get a female pregnant…
No one said anything about the Holy Spirit requiring a male body - the Holy Spirit was not incarnate. The point is that conceiving a child with a woman is a male thing to do…not female…regardless of how it was accomplished by the Holy Spirit.Although the Holy Bible is authoritative, interpretation sometimes presents difficulties. How did the Holy Spirit help Mary to conceive? That is unclear. Did the Holy Spirit produce sperm? Okay, I think we are guessing at this, but that would less of a suspension of the natural order than if done by some other way. So if the Holy Spirit produced sperm inside of Mary, does that mean the Holy Spirit required a male body? I don’t think so - God can do anything. And, besides, we know Mary is a virgin.
There would have to have been sperm if Jesus was fully human. He needed Y chromosome.So if the Holy Spirit produced sperm inside of Mary, does that mean the Holy Spirit required a male body? I don’t think so - God can do anything. And, besides, we know Mary is a virgin.
To take this train of thought a little further: Isn’t sperm a human thing? Mary could account for Jesus’ human nature. Would the Holy Spirit need to make his/her divinity into a human condition by working with sperm. Is it conceivable that an imnipotent God wouldn’t need it? Jesus is both human and divine. the divine part of his nature may not have needed sperm.Although the Holy Bible is authoritative, interpretation sometimes presents difficulties. How did the Holy Spirit help Mary to conceive? That is unclear. Did the Holy Spirit produce sperm? Okay, I think we are guessing at this, but that would less of a suspension of the natural order than if done by some other way. So if the Holy Spirit produced sperm inside of Mary, does that mean the Holy Spirit required a male body? I don’t think so - God can do anything. And, besides, we know Mary is a virgin.
Not if it was a miracle, which it was.There would have to have been sperm if Jesus was fully human. He needed Y chromosome.
If he didn’t have a Y chromosome he wasn’t like us in all things except sin.Not if it was a miracle, which it was.
You seem to be missing the POINT, m’dear.Forget the bio…look at the prayer.
Please don’t call me dear. I stated it was taught as an example of why we do not take the bible literally. This is the prayer we were given. I would have no idea of original aramaic. So disregard this link. Disregard the guy who posted it because he’s gay so he’s an abomination. We all know gay people cannot be trusted to translate anything (at least as far as the armed services are concerned). Leave all the stuff out the distresses you so much, dear, and the fact remains that we do not take the bible literally, dear.You seem to be missing the POINT, m’dear.
You say, “look at the prayer”. WHERE are the sources and authentications of WHERE this came from? It is NOT the original Aramaic of the Scriptures. . .(which it claims had ‘excerpts only’). . .where are the primary source documents which support it, what are the credentials of the ‘scholars’ who translated it, what are the bona fides of the ‘documents’ from which they supposedly ‘translated’ it, etc.?
And what of the credentials of the man posting this?
And you couldn’t find the same scholarly credentials on your OWN diocesean site? From your OWN textbook? From the C.V. of whoever in your parish gave the presentation?
Come on, dear, give us credit for brains. We don’t just look at some words on the Internet and say, "it must be true, it’s right there in (cyber) print!’ We need a lot more ‘fact’ than you supplied.
Very well said Christopher. It shows a complete lack of tact on the Vatican’s part, and all the reactionary crowing doesn’t change the fact that this will only alienate more people from a Church struggling to remain relevant in the 21st century.
Our Church is badly in need of reform, and this. is. not. it.
Why is ‘it’ taught as an example? So you don’t know original Aramaic yet you take what is ‘said’ for granted? Who are your authorities?Please don’t call me dear. I stated it was taught as an example of why we do not take the bible literally. This is the prayer we were given. I would have no idea of original aramaic. So disregard this link. Disregard the guy who posted it because he’s gay so he’s an abomination. We all know gay people cannot be trusted to translate anything (at least as far as the armed services are concerned). Leave all the stuff out the distresses you so much, dear, and the fact remains that we do not take the bible literally, dear.