[Frumanchu]

<> Interesting perspective. Think of that from another angle. Adam was created from an uncursed Earth. Ought he have been accorded a higher priviledge than Jesus? To me, it makes sense that Jesus, the Second Adam, would be born of an uncursed Virgin. Nice symmetry, no?<>

Symmetry is no argument for doctrine, CG.

<> Essentially, that is ignorance masquerading as scholarship. The Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to how Jesus took on Human Nature.<>

The human nature of Jesus Christ is the very heart of the matter of the Immaculate Conception, CG. If not for Original Sin and its effect on ALL humanity from Adam down, the virgin birth would not be necessary. My comparison to mythology had to do with the notion of gods and mortals contributing genetically and procreatively to an offspring, usually with the result of extra-human or god-like characteristics. The Immaculate Conception is the Roman answer to the problem of Jesus being fully human without being tainted by Original Sin.

<> The Catholic Church teaches with the authority of Christ. Reject the Teachings of the Pillar and Ground of Truth and you reject Jesus.<>

And that's the heart of the debate. All debate between Catholics and Protestants over doctrine inevitably comes back to this point. The RCC claims that it is the sole representative of Christ on Earth, and that by rejecting it or its teachings you are somehow rejecting Christ Himself. We can argue about the Immaculate Conception all the live-long day, but when it comes down to it you appeal to an authority I don't recognize (the RCC, not Jesus) and the authority I appeal to (the Word of God) is only accepted by you as filtered through the RCC.

One of us needs their eyes opened. I pray that happens regardless of who it is:)

[Catholicguy]

<> Interesting perspective. Think of that from another angle. Adam was created from an uncursed Earth. Ought he have been accorded a higher priviledge than Jesus? To me, it makes sense that Jesus, the Second Adam, would be born of an uncursed Virgin. Nice symmetry, no?<> Symmetry is no argument for doctrine, CG.

<> It isn't the sole reason. It is arguing from analogy though. <>

<> Essentially, that is ignorance masquerading as scholarship. The Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to how Jesus took on Human Nature.<> The human nature of Jesus Christ is the very heart of the matter of the Immaculate Conception, CG.

<> Sorry, you are mixing up ALL the consequences of Original Sin Vs THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION which is a specific issue. <>

If not for Original Sin and its effect on ALL humanity from Adam down, the virgin birth would not be necessary. My comparison to mythology had to do with the notion of gods and mortals contributing genetically and procreatively to an offspring, usually with the result of extra-human or god-like characteristics. The Immaculate Conception is the Roman answer to the problem of Jesus being fully human without being tainted by Original Sin.

<> Apples and Kumquats.<>

<> The Catholic Church teaches with the authority of Christ. Reject the Teachings of the Pillar and Ground of Truth and you reject Jesus.<> And that's the heart of the debate. All debate between Catholics and Protestants over doctrine inevitably comes back to this point. The RCC claims that it is the sole representative of Christ on Earth, and that by rejecting it or its teachings you are somehow rejecting Christ Himself. We can argue about the Immaculate Conception all the live-long day, but when it comes down to it you appeal to an authority I don't recognize (the RCC, not Jesus) and the authority I appeal to (the Word of God) is only accepted by you as filtered through the RCC. Makes sense to me. That whcih you argue about, Catholics wrote. The author of the text know more'n you? <>

One of us needs their eyes opened. I pray that happens regardless of who it is:)

<> Scott Hahn long proceeded you. :)<> 235 posted on 10/8/02 3:46 PM Eastern by Frumanchu