Posted on 10/06/2010 7:56:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Overall, Catholics liked the movie "The Nativity" but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name." I don't think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass." Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:
Remember that when Uzzah merely touched the Ark of the Covenant to steady it, he died. Even a man motivated by his marital duty would not have relations with the new Ark of the Covenant . . . how could you enter where God had been? That doesn't make sense either.
The Bible does not directly deny that Mary remained a virgin, and the traditions of the Church Fathers to the earliest days explicitly state that she did. Many of the Church Fathers knew Mary and the Apostles personally. Where the Bible is silent there is no reason even for one who believes in Sola Scriptura to ignore contemporary witness outside the Bible.
“Does it ever dawn on Christians that this is weird?”
You’ll have to take that up with God...
Ed
Thanks, Gipper, you too...
Ed
Yes, I realize that...but does it matter? She was still pregnant...still in a scandalous position. Would G-d ever put a mortal woman in such a position? No. She still belonged to a man. The baby would technically be a bastard child since it wasnt Josephs. I know that sounds harsh but it is true. And would or could G-d violate his own Torah against illicit relationships? No. The whole thing is not moral by G-ds own word.
Are you saying that no one ever touched Jesus? He was after all God.
Why could someone touch Jesus but not where Jesus had been? That doesn’t make sense.
They died when they touched the Ark of the Covenant because God told them NOT to touch it. They were to carry it with poles.
There are types and shadow of lots of things in the OT. That does not mean that things happen exactly the same.
I wont but you will....for believing G-d would engage in an immoral act.
It seems that if He hadn’t created the temptation, then there would be no sin. We wouldn’t be robots, if we didn’t know, would we? Just blessed beings, like those in heaven. Do you believe that God knows the outcome of His plan?
No need to bring the sin of Adam into this - in fact the Virgin Mary is often contrasted with Eve - the second Eve, who did not fall and brought forth salvation.
Something to think about only:-—————————IX. Misunderstanding about Romans 3:23 (”All have sinned”)
Rom. 3:23 - Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned “ only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.
Rom. 3:23 - “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.
Rom. 3:23 - finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”
1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all (”pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (”pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).
Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all (”pantes”) men. Again, this proves that “all” does not mean “every single one” because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).
Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says “many (not all) were made sinners.” Paul uses “polloi,” not “pantes.” Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.
Rom. 3:10-11 - Protestants also use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse.
Psalm 14 - this psalm does not teach that all humans are sinful. It only teaches that, among the wicked, all are sinful. The righteous continue to seek God.
Psalm 53:1-3 - “there is none that does good” expressly refers to those who have fallen away. Those who remain faithful do good, and Jesus calls such faithful people “good.”
Luke 18:19 - Jesus says, “No one is good but God alone.” But then in Matt. 12:35, Jesus also says “The good man out of his good treasure...” So Jesus says no one is good but God, and then calls another person good.
Rom. 9:11 - God distinguished between Jacob and Esau in the womb, before they sinned. Mary was also distinguished from the rest of humanity in the womb by being spared by God from original sin.
Luke 1:47 - Mary calls God her Savior. Some Protestants use this to denigrate Mary. Why? Of course God is Mary’s Savior! She was freed from original sin in the womb (unlike us who are freed from sin outside of the womb), but needed a Savior as much as the rest of humanity.
Luke 1:48 - Mary calls herself lowly. But any creature is lowly compared to God. For example, in Matt. 11:29, even Jesus says He is lowly in heart. Lowliness is a sign of humility, which is the greatest virtue of holiness, because it allows us to empty ourselves and receive the grace of God to change our sinful lives.
And that is why God provided Jesus with an earthly father. He wasn’t a bastard, He had a father. What illicit relationship? If God did not have sex with her, where is the illicit relationship?
As someone who was not a virgin when she gave birth, I can say without a doubt that there is pain in childbirth even for the non-virgins. (How do you think I got pregnant?) The statement that Mary had no pain in childbirth because her hymen didn’t tear makes no sense. Lots of women who give birth are not virgins. You wouldn’t believe how many.
Adam and Eve were husband and wife. Christ is the second Adam. Mary is not his wife but his mother.
Sex with your husband is not sinful and would not have defiled Mary.
The Apostle Paul said it was better to remain unmarried not married and chaste. The Bible actually warns us against denying our husbands sexually.
Nowhere is Scripture does it tell us that Mary was sinless. She was as much in need of a Saviour as Adam and Eve after the Fall.
Nothing in your citation indicates that she was any different from you or me. It was completely and totally the grace of God - defined as “unmerited favor.”
I’m a Christian. Jesus, the Christ, is my Messiah.
Your website calls Jesus a false Messiah.
I don’t think there is any way to bridge the gulf between your belief and my belief, so...each of us, in our own way, will have to “take that up with God,” and only one belief will prevail.
Ed
Lots of women who give birth are not virgins. You wouldn’t believe how many.
_______________________________________
AHHHHHHHH I believe that would be ALL of them...
Except for Mary the mother of Jesus..
She remained sexually a virgin until AFTER she gave birth...
However her hymen would have been torn from the inside out during childbirth..
Jesus said in the New Testament, "no one comes to the father except through me." However, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the "co-redemtrix" and is an equally valid pathway to God. This is not biblical.
The gospel accounts clearly say that Jesus had brothers, and Mary had other children. James, the author of the NT book that bears his name, is cited in the NT as the brother of Jesus. Mary could not have "retained her virginal integrity" if she had other children. It makes sense that, after giving a natural birth to Jesus, she and Joseph got married, lived and normal life, and had more children.
The Bible also says that Joseph, Mary's husband, did not "know her" until she had given birth. Meaning, she was not a virgin after Jesus' birth.
I never understood why the Catholic Church had to make Mary into a perpetual virgin anyway. It added nothing to the gospel story or the centrality of Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection.
If you want someone to share love, you wouldn't make robots. Only a free being can choose to love.
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.