...would God become one with sinful flesh (Mary) -- for 9 months?

[joe370]

Mumbles140;7137869]I do think it can be borderline dangerous to say that God ‘would not want to become one with sinful flesh’ because we cannot speak for God.

That is why He gave us His church forever guided byn the holy spirit, into ALL truth.

However, the Catholic belief is that God chose Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant, and though He denied her the stain of original sin, He did so out of His own compassion, not out of necessity.

God chose to become one with pure flesh as opposed to sinful flesh out of compassion - got it.

It was an honor to Mary for accepting His will so freely and bearing Christ in her womb. God clearly has not become one with ‘sinful flesh’ here, but that doesn’t mean He couldn’t (or wouldn’t). But, we can reasonably be assured He will not because the 2nd Coming of Christ shall not be anything like the first.

Agreed! God can do anything, so yes, it’s not that He couldn’t.

 

[joe370]

I hate to bring this up, but it actually was not necessary

for Mary to be immaculately conceived, but God saw it fitting and honorable to do so (see [forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=491878](this thread) for more information). Also, it is not such that God forced Mary to remain free from sin - she was still a human with free will. However, the Blessed Virgin chose not to sin, just as she chose to remain a virgin throughout her life, even though married to Joseph.

Very true, however, she was preserved from original sin which is inherited by all in spite of free will - right?

 

[SyCarl]

Even assuming that God would not become one with sinful flesh, and I am not about to place limits on God, this would not require the Immaculate Conception. If a pure vessel was required it could have been done at the time of Jesus’ conception as indicated by Cyril of Jerusalem and John of Damascus.

. This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made.

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6)
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth.

John of Damascus (Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

Having said this I have no problem if someone believes in the Immaculate Conception. Despite what the Catholic Church says I do not think it is something we need to know.

 

[joe370]

Hey Janet…

As far as I remember (from biology) I was not truly one with my mother for all of her pregnancy.
Did you know that there are cases in which perfectly healthy babies are born whose mother is HIV positive? If there is no direct transfer of blood there is a chance the child is not affected by the mothers disease…

Just food for thought.

Good point, however, there is a chance the child is affected by the mothers disease…You raise a good point Janet regarding the Eucharist and Christians receiving Jesus’ body. However, I think that is a little different than Mary carrying the baby God in her womb for 9 months. Food for thought: A sinful woman might be prone to do quite a few unhealthy things that could have adversely affected the baby Jesus in the womb.

 

[joe370]

Hey Carl…

SyCarl;7138159]Even assuming that God would not become one with sinful flesh, and I am not about to place limits on God, this would not require the Immaculate Conception. If a pure vessel was required it could have been done at the time of Jesus’ conception as indicated by Cyril of Jerusalem and John of Damascus.

I certainly wasn’t putting limitations on God. It was done at the time of Jesus’ conception and Mary was the pure vessel that formed God’s house, so to speak, for 9 months.

Having said this I have no problem if someone believes in the Immaculate Conception. Despite what the Catholic Church says I do not think it is something we need to know.

Fair enough brother…

 

[joe370]

If the Catholic Church, teaches she was with no sin, it is true.

The Church is infallible, 100% perfection.

The teachings of the CC are infallible, thanks to the ever presence of the holy spirit guiding her into all truth, but not the leaders of the CC, which is what I am sure you meant.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
The Real Presence after the bread and wine have been consecrated by a priest. Precisely why Christ did it in the presence of his 12,not the multitude.

It still is an interesting notion.
You believe that Jesus cannot be born of a normal sinful woman, but He can enter you every Sunday, even though you are not free from any stain of sin.

Ah no. God can do whatever He chooses,but the question is why? Why would God in all His perfection want a sinner conceive perfection? The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.

 

[runningdude]

Hey Nicea…

Absolutely, and God did. :thumbsup:This was primarily a question for non believers, regarding Mary’s immaculate conception. This was yet another question that weighed heavy on my mind as a former non-Catholic, and I just wanted to get some feedback from other non-Catholics if possible. As a former non-Catholic I was told by all my non-Catholic friends and pastor that Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us, but that notion just didn’t sit well with me. I just couldn’t conceive of the idea that God would become one with sinful flesh. The idea that God would allow the blood of a sinful woman to supply nutrients, oxygen etc… to His blood for 9 months, didn’t seem very plausible to me. What did seem plausible, even necessary was the notion that God would only become one with a pure vessel, who was innocent, immaculate, free from all guilt, spotless, undefiled and holy in spirit as well as body, but that’s just my opinion and the teaching of the church founded by Jesus.

What I found interesting was the fact that the angel Gabriel addressed Mary as a title, full of grace, as opposed to using it as an adjectival description. Gabriel says, Hail, full of grace not "Hail, Mary, full of grace. He addressed her by the title, “Full of Grace.” Inferior translations use the word “favor” instead of “grace,” such as, “Most favored one.” It is difficult to understand how this latter translation is used due to the fact that the word “kecharitomene” comes from the root word “charitoo” meaning “grace” not “favor” unless of course, one makes “grace” and “favor” synonymous. The word kecharitomene, I eventually learned, is the past perfect tense of the verb meaning “to give grace,” or “to fill with grace.” Because it is in the past perfect tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace even before the annunciation, the implication being, like you said, that she was the immaculate Ark of the New Covenant.

"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, (Kecharitomene, a perfect passive participle means"having been graced or have already been graced) - the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

The Ark of the Covenant, as all Christians know, is the place of God. In the Old Testament God took great pains to make sure that the Ark was immaculate. Exodus goes into meticulous detail, not once, but twice, in describing what must be done to make the Ark a perfect and pure place for God. If He went to so much trouble to make sure His place is pure, then it surely makes sense that the place of His physical being should also be pure and perfect, i.e., the womb of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

Hi, I actually understood your original question to be a challenge to none Catholics, but it seems very few others did Maybe try posting post as a new post - I thought his one explained your question much more clearly and thoughtfully, and might lead to a better discussion.

p.s. I can tell you’ve been reading some the footnotes in your bible - I recognize the information from when I read them!

 

[Bluegoat]

As much as we know about God and how much God abhors sin, would God still become one with sinful flesh (Mary, if in fact you do not believe that she was free of sin) – for 9 months?

If you are implying what I think you are, it is a heresy, and it would make the whole Christian message nothing but vanity. This is pretty much what gnostics and platonists have always said.

 

[joe370]

runningdude;7138344]Hi, I actually understood your original question to be a challenge to none Catholics, but it seems very few others did

Not a challenge in the slightest. Just trying to see things from all sides.

Maybe try posting post as a new post - I thought his one explained your question much more clearly and thoughtfully, and might lead to a better discussion.

When you say “his” to whom are you referring?

Runningdude,in the beginning there were three parties involved, the serpent, the woman, and the man, and at the time of their sentence, an event was announced for the future, in which the three same parties were to meet again, the serpent, the woman, and the man, but it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the woman, whose seed or son He is, is His mother Mary - right? If Mary is the new Eve who participated with the new Adam, (Jesus) - who, through His work on the cross, reversed the effects of the actions of the first Eve and Adam, then Mary, as the new Eve, (along with Jesus as the new Adam) - would have been created immaculately just as the first Eve and the first Adam were created immaculately - yes, no, maybe?

 

[joe370]

;7138607]If you are implying what I think you are, it is a heresy, and it would make the whole Christian message nothing but vanity. This is pretty much what gnostics and platonists have always said.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Bluegoat and I will respect your opinion just as soon as I know what it is. What do you think that I am implying? I am not sure what you are talking about when you say:

it is a heresy, and it would make the whole Christian message nothing but vanity.

 

[Janet1983]

Hey Janet…

Good point, however, there is a chance the child is affected by the mothers disease…You raise a good point Janet regarding the Eucharist and Christians receiving Jesus’ body. However, I think that is a little different than Mary carrying the baby God in her womb for 9 months. Food for thought: A sinful woman might be prone to do quite a few unhealthy things that could have adversely affected the baby Jesus in the womb.

Would you expect a woman to be especially careful who was told that the baby she will be carrying shall be called the Son of the most High and that the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever?
Even to this day many women who are pregnant are very careful about what they are doing… just look at the amount of literature you will find on the subject of a healthy pregnancy diet, on the subject of pregnancy workouts and other things.
I am sure that she took all the precautions any woman of her day and age would have taken, especially after He was announced to her. On top of that I am sure that God did His part in the healthy pregnancy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would you expect a woman to be especially careful who was told that the baby she will be carrying shall be called the Son of the most High and that the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever?
Even to this day many women who are pregnant are very careful about what they are doing… just look at the amount of literature you will find on the subject of a healthy pregnancy diet, on the subject of pregnancy workouts and other things.
I am sure that she took all the precautions any woman of her day and age would have taken, especially after He was announced to her. On top of that I am sure that God did His part in the healthy pregnancy.

This is in itself a whole other reality many won’t understand till they are actually parents. But I hear you.

I like the “slave for Jesus Christ” tag on religion also.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Bluegoat and I will respect your opinion just as soon as I know what it is. What do you think that I am implying? I am not sure what you are talking about when you say:

it is a heresy, and it would make the whole Christian message nothing but vanity.

lol…I would love to speak to some of this people in person Joe, Unbelieveable. There must be a new “How to confuse Catholics” book out.

 

[Janet1983]

I like the “slave for Jesus Christ” tag on religion also.

Thank you.

lol…I would love to speak to some of this people in person Joe, Unbelieveable. There must be a new “How to confuse Catholics” book out.

Well the confusion extends beyond the Catholic Church…
Bluegoat said something about gnostics and platonists… just that I am not 100% familiar with their teaching, nor am I sure I want to be.

 

[joe370]

Hey Janet…

Would you expect a woman to be especially careful who was told that the baby she will be carrying shall be called the Son of the most High and that the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever?
Even to this day many women who are pregnant are very careful about what they are doing… just look at the amount of literature you will find on the subject of a healthy pregnancy diet, on the subject of pregnancy workouts and other things.
I am sure that she took all the precautions any woman of her day and age would have taken, especially after He was announced to her. On top of that I am sure that God did His part in the healthy pregnancy.

Touche Janet! Certainly God could bring His Son into the world via a sinful woman, however, I just don’t believe He would, but I could be wrong. God did not send the holy spirit to me and promise to guide me into all truth. I guess I will simply trust the church that was given the ever presence of the holy spirit to guide her into all truth.

Thanks for your feedback. You made some excellent points.

 

[joe370]

Hey Nicea…

Ah no. God can do whatever He chooses,but the question is why? Why would God in all His perfection want a sinner conceive perfection? The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.

I eventually learned that the word kecharitomene refers to someone who has already been graced. Furthermore, unlike Stephan, Mary is not merely described as being full of grace at a particular moment; she is addressed as full of grace. Big difference. The language used to describe both of them as full of grace is different and I am not entirely certain what the difference is. I wonder if Pleres Charis is a perfect passive participle as well?

Even as a former non-Catholic it just made perfect sense that God would create His mother in a way that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent, and this would not be the case if she was a sinner.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

If the Catholic Church, teaches she was with no sin, it is true.

The Church is infallible, 100% perfection.

Amen!

 

[flyonthewall]

Since you have requested (name removed by moderator)ut from non-Catholic sources, here is my 2 cents -
If I understand what is being said, then Jesus was not the only perfect person to walk the earth, which kind of throws a monkey wrench into things.
I do not subscribe to original sin, so Mary was indeed born without original sin.
Whether she was a “sinner” or not is not addressed in the scriptures.
I believe she was a righteous woman, selected for her righteousness, just as others in the scriptures were chosen for their righteousness to carry out tasks for the Lord.
I do not think being “full of grace” and being “highly favored” makes one sinless, but it does make them righteous. Afterall, when we repent, we are forgiven. We can no longer say we have never sinned, but that our sins are remembered no more.

I agree that Mary was without sin in her conception of Jesus, because she was still a virgin.
I agree with a lot of things that Catholics believe on this, but not everything.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s some Catholic Teaching related to your question. And you should never say you don’t believe. You should say I’m not knowledgable on the topic “first”. And keep an open mind. This is GOD were talking about here. Can he not do anything he so desires?

Does the Immaculate Conception mean that Mary’s parents didn’t have sex?
Some people think the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that Catholics are saying Mary’s mother was a virgin when she conceived Mary. That’s is a misconception of Catholic teaching. Mary’s parents, St. Joachim and St. Anne, conceived her in the usual way. There was nothing special about that. The Immaculate Conception simply means that through the merits of Jesus, Mary was preserved from original sin. I’ll try to unpack that a bit in this article.

One of the things I think we need to consider when thinking about the immaculate conception is: “Could God do it if he wanted to?” I think anyone would say “God can do anything.” So I think the question remains “why would God conceive Mary without sin?” Perhaps we could say the same thing about why God would want the Ark of the Old Covenant to be pure.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant
I was in Israel last year and I stayed with an Orthodox Jewish family. You should hear the way they talk about the Ark of the Covenant. They sound just like Catholics talking about Mary. To understand how Catholics treat Mary, look at the way the Israelites honour the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Israelites did not worship the Ark but they treated it with incredible reverence.

They are still looking all over Israel for the Ark, but the Ark of the Old Covenant will never be found again, because the Ark of the New Covenant has been found. The Ark of the Old Covenant was built immaculately. It was perfect, as much as it could be under the Old Covenant. If God would be this specific about the purity of the vessel that would carry the Word of God made “stone” (Ex 25:10) we think He would require purity of the Ark of the New Covenant, that would carry the Word of God made “flesh” (Rev 11:19)

Why do we believe Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant in Rev 11:18-12:17?
The Ark of the Old Covenant carried the Word of God made stone while the Ark of the New Covenant carried the Word of God mad flesh when Mary was pregnant with Jesus.
The old Ark of the Covenant disappears in Jer 3:16. The new Ark of the Covenant resurfaces in Revelation 11:19 as the woman with 12 stars around her head.
The Ark of the Covenant has been restored to the temple, which is now heaven (See also Heb 9:1-12)
A woman with a crown is there - the new Ark
The woman in Revelation bore the King of the Israelites (Jesus) - who will rule the nations and is at God’s throne
The devil is very interested in destroying her but she is safe
Her children are all faithful Christians who “follow the lamb” (Rev 12:17)
The Israelites knew God used the Ark powerfully and they brought it into battle (Jos. 6:3-4). The Ark of the New Covenant, Mary, is introduced into the heavenly battle against Satan (Rev 11:19)
If Jesus is the Word made flesh, then we could consider Mary as the Ark made flesh.
Both the old Ark and the new Ark gain their merits because of the “Word of God” made stone in the Old Covenant and made flesh in the New Covenant