Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Now, if it can be shown that what we claim is development of Doctrine is actually contradiciton, then y'all would have a point
Use of the word "boring" was tongue in cheek. Everything else I said was the truth.
Thank you. That makes a lot more sense. As I said, there's got to be an awful lot of talent that would qualify. I suspected that this one, as is usual in real life, was an inside who-do-you-know decision, and had nothing to do with the mundane desire to be authentic.
I'm afraid he's gotcha this time, BD. You're probably thinking of verses like:
Lev. 12:1-4 : 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Tell the Israelites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, with the same uncleanness as at her menstrual period. 3 On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised, 4 and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. (NAB, i.e. the "Catholic" approved Bible)(Emphasis added)
Now granted, this language is very confusing, and who among us could possibly make the correct interpretation of it without being told by the Magisterium. However, to understand their logic, as it is being explained to us, perhaps an illustration would be helpful. The Law says that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). BUT, and this is very important, NO WHERE in scripture does it say that one shall not commit adultery on a Tuesday. Therefore, if the Magisterium declared that adultery on Tuesdays was fine, then they would be exactly in accordance with scripture. I hope this was of some service to you in understanding how the Magisterium works.
Mt 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Lu 2:21 - On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
There was a conception.
To say otherwise is to make up your own story because you don't like the way the original was written.
Why, bc, with some minor editing this sounds almost positively Protestant.
I have been thinking that for the longest time. Every minute spent in prayer to a saint is a minute lost with the Lord. Many times I have heard the standard line that it is the same as asking a friend for prayer. I don't buy it. When I ask my friend for prayer, my head isn't bowed and my mind is not cleared and focused only on God. At that moment I am having a conversation with my human friend. That is completely different. If I decided to spend the next 5 minutes in prayer, I would spend all of it with my Master only, I would NOT spend the whole time talking to some dead guy I've never met, asking him to put in a good word for me with God. There is no substitute for praying directly to our Lord, and no purpose for doing otherwise.
Yes it is. Except that, apparently unbeknownst to thee, Mt 1:20 and Luk 2:21 use different words translated in English as one word "conceive."
The Church has always taught that the Word became incarnate, by taking the flesh of Mary in her womb, and became Man (i.e. took on a human nature). There was no "seed" and no "conception" by "seed."
The way you read things suggests some sort of divine-human sexual event.
"There was no seed and no conception,"
Who is the woman's seed?
Gen. 3 15, "15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Who is going to conceive?
Luke 1:31, "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
I don't know since with the exception of Strong, they were Greek not Hebrew scholars.
Yes since they were common names.
and Yes however the sister could be Salome since she was not named in the John passage.
I am beginning to believe the Protestants believe the same thing Mormons do, namely that the Lord Jesus Christ was somehow "conceived" by divine-human sexual intercourse and not by an act of the Word of God "taking on" human nature.
"More precisely he is saying that her virginity "remained inviolate" following the Nativity,"
That's not what the quote said. It only addressed virginity up to the time of birth, "in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate". If you have something from Augustine that says differently, let's see it.
" I really don't understand why our authorities ought be charged with malign or self-interested intent."
And I really don't understand why the Calvinist position on "sola scriptura" is maligned and mocked as "superstition".
When one wants respect for a position, one gives respect to other positions.
Nope. A few things.
1. Conceived is the appropriate translation. Matthew, in particular, is relating to the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy that says a virgin will conceive. If conceive is not permitted to mean "become pregnant" in that verse, then virgin is not permitted to mean "sexually inexperienced female." In that case, we have no virgin and no pregnancy.
2. Since it is the Holy Spirit who is the active agent in the pregnancy of Mary, there is never the hint of sexual relations. "Come upon" and "overshadow" are clear indications that something special is taking place in this instance. In other biblical cases, one reads about "lying with" and "knowing."
Therefore, Mary clearly became pregnant. That had an inception point caused by the Holy Spirit, and that was the "becoming" (conceiving, gennao) that took place.
How did the Holy Spirit cause the conceiving? Through His divine power. Yet the child developed through the stages of pregnancy from implanted fetus through birth.
"Who is the woman's seed?"
Just answer the question. God foretold in Genesis 3:15, that there would be enmity between the serpant's seed and the woman's seed. Who is God referring to?
They made up this ridiculous fairy tale and somehow convinced each other that it's true...
Jesus didn't go thru the womb...Luke is telling a lie...Then they want to convince us that there are many mediators between man and Jesus...But then they don't even know if their mediators made it to heaven...WoW...What a religion...
Conceive, the word used for Mary in Luke 1:31 is the same word used for Mary's cousin Elizabeth in Luke 1:24, 36 and of Rebecca in Rom. 9:10.
We all know how babies are conceived...Was Jesus (in the flesh) conceived, or created???
I'll stick with the bible and let God worry about the intimate details...
See #554 & 555
This has been an eye-opening discussion for me; this thread and another. I had no idea that Catholics believed these things.
I used to have a list of "Major reasons why I am not a Catholic" issues:
1. Immaculate Conception
2. Assumption
3. Opulence
I'm about to the point of adding this: "hymen-preserving birth experience" to the the list. I can't really tell, though, if it is actually required Catholic teaching.
There are other things I disagree with, especially the treatment of scripture, but those are the specific issues that are at the top of my list.
Yep. And the contexts clearly indicate the origin of the pregnancy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.