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:
With all respect, that is just semantics. Can you please provide a scriptural reference for this “She was preserved from sin in order to carry the Living Word of God.”
I know the question was not asked of me but I will respond if that is okay.
Because God gave us a choice if we want to serve Him or deny Him. If there was no temptation, there was no choice.
All doctrinal understanding about Mary must first begin with the acceptance of Old Testament typology about her.
I do not have the time, but there has been many in depth works that break down how much of Catholic doctrine has developed from the Old Testament’s fulfillment in the New.
A common argument is that there is actually very little recorded in the New Testament about Mary.
The dearth of information about Mary makes sense when one considers two things....
Mary was still alive when it was written and most doctrines regarding Mary were delineated and defined due to challenges to what was commonly believed about her, i.e. in regards to her perpetual virginity, her assumption into heaven and her preservation from sin. Dissent about Mary was and is a way for Protestants to justify their separation from the Church.
Second, the New Testament was written to a very new Church in order to maintain truth and unity in teachings and to chastise and correct when churches veered from that truth and unity.
The New Testament does two things, it confirms that Jesus was born, suffered, died and rose in fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures promising a Messiah and it lays out to the new Christians how they are to live in Christ.
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.”
____________________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Ive never heard of the “ray of sun” theory before but I have heard of the painless birth story...
Personally I have no problem with Mary giving birth the way other women did...
It does not make Jesus any less God just because His mother might have had a bloody, painful time of the labor and delivery...
My concern is with cults who attempt to say Mary remained a virgin because she didnt have sex with a man but with a god..her own god the father in heaven who came down to visit her etc..
Mary “knew” no man nor any god...
There was no physical sex act involved with the conception of Jesus no matter how much some man’s finite mind cannot conceive of any other way...
Jesus was not conceived as we were conceived...
The Bible is quite clear on that...
The Bible also tells us that Mary “brought forth” her first born son...
And she shall bring forth a son, Matthew 1:21
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, Matthew 1:23
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: Matthew 1:25
And, behold, you shalt conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call His name JESUS. Luke 1:31
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, Luke 2:6, 7
And Mary’s cousin Elizabeth also “brought forth” The same greek term is used..
Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son. Luke 1:57
the Greek for brought in those verses is tikto meaning to produce, (from seed as a mother, a plant, the earth etc) bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail
a woman cannot “be in travail” if she is having a painless birthing process.
The greek word gennao is used for Elizabeth merely because she did have a sex act involved with the conception of her son, John the Baptist, to procreate, (of the father but by extenstion of the mother) figuratively to regenerate, bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, make, spring.
There was no natural procreating, by a father and a mother, begetting, making, at the conception of the LORD Jesus Christ..
However there was the same bringing forth and travail in His birth for His mother as there was for all women in those days..
Why start that process and go through all that when He knows the results of all our choices? If Adam and Eve hadn’t been tempted and as a result, sinned, serving or denying Him wouldn’t even be an issue, would it? Wouldn’t they and all of their descendants have remained ‘blessed’?
It is not semantic, but as I said, I do not have time to fully answer your questions right now.
Will try to do so later, if I have a chance to come back online:)
Does it ever dawn on Christians that this is weird? Or immoral? G-d sires a child with a mortal woman? A woman he is not married to? (fornication) A woman that is betrothed to another? (adultery) Many pagan gods were born of a virgin and this is another case of a Grecco-Roman man-god myth.
This whole can of worms sets up blasphemous attacks on Catholic beliefs....
&&
Which was, no doubt, the poster’s intent in starting this thread.
That graqphic is just not showing for me in either place you posted it on this thread.
“the New Testament was written to a very new Church in order to maintain truth and unity in teachings and to chastise and correct when churches veered from that truth and unity”
And yet there is no teaching about Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity. If these things were important to be taught why were they not taught to the New Testament Church in Scripture.
I understand the typology of the Old Testament. What I don’t understand is the conclusions drawn by it that contradict written scripture.
If you draw a conclusion that is neither directly supported or directly contradicted by the written Word then that is fine to believe.
However, I find a problem with drawing conclusions from typology in the OT that directly contradicts scripture in the NT and have that become your doctrine.
Yes He knew the result of their choices. He also had the plan of redemption since before He created them. He could have made us robots obedient to His will with no mind of our owns. That was not His plan. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, I do not know the result. I assume that just as sin came through one man that perfection would have as well. This is just my belief. Could someone down the line have sinned if Adam didn’t? I don’t know. However, God knew that Adam and Eve would sin and He had the plan to redeem mankind.
Your understanding is wrong. God did not have sex with Mary. She was a virgin when Jesus was born. She was a vessel that God chose to bring Christ into the world.
"Until" in 17th c. English does not imply that the event in question ever happened. It was used more like we would use "before". In Numbers 12, Moses is said to have not spoken a falsehood "until the day of his death". That doesn't mean that he started lying on his deathbed! Similarly, Mary and Joseph were chaste "until" the birth of Jesus, thus showing that Christ's birth was miraculous. It doesn't imply that they then ceased living chastely.
I don’t see any blasphemous attacks. All I see is people debating scripture. Something that is done within my own church as we don’t all believe the same on every issue. It doesn’t mean we don’t love one another. I have seen some less than tasteful comments but I don’t think that has anything to do with faith just the subject matter.
Shoot, if you just want to make up stuff “passed through Mary as a ray through a pane of glass” then why don’t you just say Jesus floated intact out of her stomach and hovered in mid-air??
Ed
They accidentally removed the asterisk and footnote that said “For all have sinned* and fallen short of the glory of God. * Except for Mary”
Ed
I understand the explaination. I don’t however believe it. Yes it could have meant what you are saying. However, the Bible doesn’t state that she remained a virgin. Common sense would dictate that a man and woman living as husband and wife would have marital relations.
There are too many things to explain away and no direct confirmation that she remained a virgin. It wasn’t sinful for her to have relations with her husband so I am not sure why people have a problem believing that she did.
God entrusted Jesus to a woman to the world. I think God would want a pure vessel which Mary is. For me it’s that simple. Otherwise God would have put Jesus in a basket somewhere and left to be found just as He did with Moses.
Well if Mary was made sinless to bear Jesus, making her a special creation, then Anne, her mother, must have been born sinless as well, to bear such a special, sinless creation as Mary!
Ed
Your welcome- I am just showing the Catholic view without getting into an unchristian contentious( Your wrong I am right only with slangs) that other threads have shown. Just something to think about. I like your manner. May Christ guide us in this life and beyond!
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.