or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Jesus is here thanks to no man
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jesus is here thanks to no man - Page 3

post #41 of 64
Holding back from posting off-color land of milk and honey joke.
post #42 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
Paul thought Jesus was given power by God at the resurrection (as are we). Paul's Christ was not a historical figure but an indwelling spirit.
Phillipians 2:5-8: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

Colossians 1:15-17: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 2:9: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

2 Tim 1:9: who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time

All written by Paul.

As always, all passages are NIV.
post #43 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
But it seems that the only "criteria" for being born without original sin is that your mother never enjoyed the pleasures of sex.
no... you are once again falling into the familiar trap of mistaking Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth. By virtue of a miracle, Mary (who was concieved and born in the usual fashion) was born without the blot of Original Sin on her soul (ie Concieved Immaculate) and thereafter lived a blameless life for the 13 years or so it took her to concieve the babe and be a perfect vessel for God made Man. Mary gave birth to Jesus (as the joke goes) "without the prior unpleasantness of physical intimacy" and that is refered to as the Virgin Birth. It stands to reason, however that He was also born sans Original Sin.

As to the other stuff you said about women and sex being intrinsically dirty... I would tend to agree with your assessment that this is an unavoidable interpretation of this theoligical construct. Which is why I, personally, reject it.
post #44 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
It stands to reason, however that He was also born sans Original Sin.
i'm not following. if Miriam could be born sinless of parents who had original sin, why couldn't Yeshua? Miriam was Jewish, until she was 12/13 she would have lead a blameless life anyway because until the point we call bar/bat mitzvah children have not taken on the responsibility for their own actions.
post #45 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
i'm not following. if Miriam could be born sinless of parents who had original sin, why couldn't Yeshua?
It would seem the goal was not simply that he be born w/out sin, but born of a perfect vessel.
Quote:
Miriam was Jewish, until she was 12/13 she would have lead a blameless life anyway because until the point we call bar/bat mitzvah children have not taken on the responsibility for their own actions.
Well, there you have it then.
post #46 of 64
T

Quote:
... by DaryLLL
... Holding back from posting off-color land of milk and honey joke ...


:LOL

Just as I was thinking that maybe it wasn't appropriate to post an off-color "mixing meat&milk" joke ...



post #47 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
Another tidbit about the above confusion between the prophecy in Isaiah: The Hebrew word used was almah, which means young woman. It was translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos, which does mean virgin.
Thanks for that info, DaryLLL. I knew that was the case, but I didn't know the words.

Of course, it pretty much shoots down the accusation that Christian translators with an agenda were responsible for that reading of Isaiah. The Septuagint was compiled by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, about 250 years before Christ was born. If you think Isaiah didn't say "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, etc., etc.," your beef is with those guys.
post #48 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Piglet68
1) no "god" could come from a "mere woman"
God, by definition, can do anything. The Church's theology about the Immaculate Conception doesn't derive from any notion than God could not have done things any other way. He didn't even need to become a man at all, put to it. He didn't need to create anybody, and He didn't need to save his creatures when they rejected Him. He just did all that out of love. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Quote:
2) sex makes you dirty and "sinful"
You might get that idea from a flawed reading of the Virgin Birth doctrine (which all Christians profess, not just Catholics), but I don't see how the Immaculate Conception has any bearing on that, as that doctrine has nothing to do with sex or the lack of it.

(editing this post to note that kama'aina mama has already tried to correct the widespread confusion of these two doctrines)
Quote:
And considering the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception didn't occur to the Church until a mere 150 years ago, methinks I smell a distinctly Victorian interpretation tainting things here.
Whoa, just because the doctrine was pronounced definitively in 1854 doesn't mean it didn't "occur to the Church" before that. There are lots of doctrines which Catholics hold that still haven't been pronounced and defined, and may never be. These things take awhile. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was celebrated in Catholic churches at least as far back as the fifth century A.D., and the theology behind the doctrine was developed during the first and second centuries, by Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, among others.
post #49 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean
The Septuagint was compiled by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, about 250 years before Christ was born. If you think Isaiah didn't say "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, etc., etc.," your beef is with those guys.
'fraid not. earliest exant Isaiah shows "young woman", not "virgin". there is a gap of several hundred years from which we have no septuagint copies so it is not currently possible to tell when the word was "reinterpreted".
post #50 of 64
I'm confused. What verses in the Bible talk of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? All my years of going to church I've never heard of this.
post #51 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by sleeping queen
What verses in the Bible talk of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
Want the short answer? None.

The long answer is here. You gotta remember, though, that the Catholic Church has always believed lots of things that aren't "in the Bible," though she would never believe anything that the Bible contradicts.
post #52 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean
, that the Catholic Church has always believed lots of things that aren't "in the Bible," though she would never believe anything that the Bible contradicts.
Just for fun, go here:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0160.asp

Comics galore to refute your notion!

Jack Chick thinks the Catholic Churhc is the whore of Babylon. And that its core beliefs are based on the words of men, not God's Word.
post #53 of 64
Thanks, DaryLLL. And I never knew that the Jesuits assassinated Abraham Lincoln, either. The things I learn.
post #54 of 64
Sean, thanks for the link. What a very long answer.
post #55 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by sleeping queen
Sean, thanks for the link. What a very long answer.
yeah. and generates lots of questions. it's pretty obvious this...

sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

...was written before the Church officially changed its position on foetal life and "quickening" and abortion. the implication is either original sin or the soul itself is not actually present at the precise moment of conception. which was, not coincidentally i suppose, the teaching at the time.

interesting.

T

was this reformed in Vatican II or is it still RC dogma?

1930 – Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent
post #56 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
the implication is either original sin or the soul itself is not actually present at the precise moment of conception.
Only if you're assigning a temporal sense to 'before,' instead of an ontological sense, as was intended. It's all very Thomistic. Good question, though.

Quote:
was this reformed in Vatican II or is it still RC dogma?
1930 – Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent
Why take my word for it? See for yourself! Read Casti Connubii to discover that your paraphrase is incorrect. The encyclical extols and celebrates marriage in glowing terms, and along the way condemns artificial birth control, not intercourse without reproductive intent. (See paragraphs 55 and 56).
Quote:
Casti Connubii, Dec. 31, 1930
...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature,...
(emphasis added)
And yes, it's still very much Catholic teaching (not "dogma" legally, but not worth digressing), and ever shall be. As evidence that Vatican II did not "reform" this teaching, see Humanae Vitae, by Paul VI (1968), or take a gander at the Catholic Catechism (1993), section 2370.
post #57 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Only if you're assigning a temporal sense to 'before
it doesn't really matter, neither sense has meaning until the moment of conception, and then the ordering comes right back into play. do you know if there a clarification of this issue when the "animated foetua" approach was reversed? i'd love to read how they argued out of the box.

Quote:
Read Casti Connubii to discover that your paraphrase is incorrect.
it wasn't my paraphrase, but my bad, i should have provided a link. but your link...is this really how it begins or am i looking at the wrong document?

Quote:
How great is the dignity of chaste wedlock...


this is really really long...i'll have to get back to you on this, lol. so far i've learned mixed marriages are forbidden...
post #58 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
do you know if there a clarification of this issue...
I'll get back to you, I'm trying to cook my wife's birthday dinner.

Quote:
is this really how it begins or am i looking at the wrong document?
No, that's the right doc. You think it's funny because of the word 'chaste'? Cuz chaste doesn't mean celibate, it means morally decent. So a marriage where the spouses are faithful to each other is chaste. Bear in mind also, it's a translation from Latin. (See chastity.)
post #59 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Very Snoofly

PS Sean, I borrowed "very snoofly" from a song called "Nobody Understands Me" on Sandra Boynton's "Philadelphia Chickens" album (my daughter's favorite). Nobody understands the singer because she mostly talks gibberish..."it's very snoofly," she laments at one point. It struck me as funny.
T

We have that too! My kids love it.
post #60 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
do you know if there a clarification of this issue when the "animated foetua" approach was reversed? i'd love to read how they argued out of the box.
OK, I'm back with a fuller answer for you. First of all, that long page that explained the Immaculate Conception doctrine isn't infallible, only the doctrine itself is infallible. This is the doctrine.
Quote:
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.
That's the infallible part, pronounced definitively in 1854. I'm making this distinction not because I think there are errors in that explanatory page (I haven't found any), but just in case you thought I was claiming something I'm not.

Now then: Aristotle thought that life begins at the instant of conception, but ensoulment ("animation") doesn't happen until sometime later. It was actually a three-step process, whereby the fetus gets a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, then finally a rational (human) soul. I should point out that these weren't three different souls being switched out like air filters, they were the same soul being upgraded, as it were. The whole process took 40 days for baby boy fetuses, and 80 days for baby girl fetuses. It was all very silly, but this theory was what a lot of educated folks thought for many centuries. Even Catholic folks. Probably even popes and bishops.

Fortunately, it's not what popes and bishops think that's infallible; it's what they pronounce and define as dogma. And the Church's dogmatic position on "animation" was, .... nothing. The Church has never pronounced any position at all on when ensoulment occurs! Weird, huh? Obviously, Catholics believe it occurs sometime, but whether it's at the moment of conception (as most Catholics currently believe) or some other time before birth, the Church has no dogma, and never has. So Catholics can believe whatever they want about it. Or to be more precise, they may believe whatever they want about it, until further notice. After all, that might in the fullness of time become a defined dogma, too. It's a "Management Reserves the Right..." kind of thing.

(Edited. Took out the last paragraph, which discussed Church teaching on
Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!
something
. I really don't want to turn this thread into that kind of thread. But Dado asked, and anyone interested in the point I would have made here can read this article. I hope anyone with more questions or comments about you-know-what will start a new thread.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Jesus is here thanks to no man