December the Eighth

casey junior

I havent been to school in nearly fifty years, but heres a question I never got to ask.
How did the Immaculate Conception occur on Dec 8 and the birth of Christ on Dec 25?

ballsymchugh

it's Mary's conception, she was born without sin.

casey junior

Thanks for that, just googled it and found that an awful lot of catholics dont know that!
BTW is there a day to celebrate Christs conception?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

hinault

casey junior wrote: »

Thanks for that, just googled it and found that an awful lot of catholics dont know that!
BTW is there a day to celebrate Christs conception?

Jesus wasn't conceived in the human meaning/understanding of conception.

According to Christian teaching (and Islamic teaching) an angel from God visted Mary and asked her if she was willing to conceive the Son of God.

Fanny Cradock

casey junior wrote: »

I havent been to school in nearly fifty years, but heres a question I never got to ask.
How did the Immaculate Conception occur on Dec 8 and the birth of Christ on Dec 25?

It is unlikely that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Just like there is no mention of how many Magi (often called "wise men") where present after Jesus was born, there is no definitive indication as to the date of his birth.

Jester Minute

casey junior wrote: »

Thanks for that, just googled it and found that an awful lot of catholics dont know that!
BTW is there a day to celebrate Christs conception?

The Annunciation.

georgieporgy

casey junior wrote: »

Thanks for that, just googled it and found that an awful lot of catholics dont know that!
BTW is there a day to celebrate Christs conception?

As Jester says Jesus' conception is celebrated on 25March (Annunciation)

homer911

ballsymchugh wrote: »

it's Mary's conception, she was born without sin.

Now there's a topic for a different thread...

keano_afc

homer911 wrote: »

Now there's a topic for a different thread...

Got in there just before me.

ballsymchugh

there was some wan on newstalk yesterday talking about the people up from the country and she mentioned that jesus was conceived and then a few weeks later he was born. now whatever people may believe about Christianity, i don't think he would've survived that prematurely..

georgieporgy

Here's a link for anyone interested in Martin Luther's view
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/mary/mary_5.htm

here's a taste of what he wrote;

[HTML]
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
[/HTML]

philologos

As I would see it, it is extra-Biblical. In order to subscribe to this I would need to be convinced of there being strong Scriptural support for it. This is irrespective of Luther.

Jester Minute

It is one of the most amusing, yet puzzling, experiences I have as a Catholic, to bring up Luther or Calvin, or any of the early protestant fathers, only to find that the protestant you are talking to you disowns him immediately and knows him not. *sigh*

The entire Christian revelation is not confined to Scripture alone, but includes Sacred Tradition also. These are the Traditions, the teachings, of the Apostles, passed on from the beginning by word of mouth. The New Testaments writers acknowledge that Scripture does not contain everything, and even Scripture itself does not list the Canon of the Bible, so protestants are dependent on the Tradition of a Church they have now come to reject. for the Bible they do embrace. It boggles the mind.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

It is one of the most amusing, yet puzzling, experiences I have as a Catholic, to bring up Luther or Calvin, or any of the early protestant fathers, only to find that the protestant you are talking to you disowns him immediately and knows him not. *sigh*

The entire Christian revelation is not confined to Scripture alone, but includes Sacred Tradition also. These are the Traditions, the teachings, of the Apostles, passed on from the beginning by word of mouth. The New Testaments writers acknowledge that Scripture does not contain everything, and even Scripture itself does not list the Canon of the Bible, so protestants are dependent on the Tradition of a Church they have now come to reject. for the Bible they do embrace. It boggles the mind.

Why should that be amusing? Luther was just a fallible human being. No-one should treat him as an authority figure. He was a key figure in the movement of Reformation, but the key word there is 'movement'. The early Reformers still carried a lot of superstitious baggage from the Roman Catholic Church - they didn't go nearly far enough. Luther inherited a lot of thinking that he never shook off. It took later generations to shake off a bit more of the junk.

philologos

There is no formal teaching in the church I subscribe to on the Immaculate Conception. Although, personally I belong to a church, I would think as an individual what can be argued Scripturally. If people can demonstrate how teaching corresponds to Scripture I'm quite happy to consider it.

Having said this, I do broadly agree with the 39 Articles of Religion written by the English Reformers.

You have a simplistic view of Protestantism which at its earliest can even be broken down into multiple branches.

Edit: Wasn't it only in the 19th century when this was added to RCC dogma anyway?

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Why should that be amusing? Luther was just a fallible human being. No-one should treat him as an authority figure. He was a key figure in the movement of Reformation, but the key word there is 'movement'. The early Reformers still carried a lot of superstitious baggage from the Roman Catholic Church - they didn't go nearly far enough. Luther inherited a lot of thinking that he never shook off. It took later generations to shake off a bit more of the junk.

How offensive to the good Lord that you refer to His Sacred Tradition as junk.

May Almighty God have mercy on your poor misguided soul.

It is amusing because, from the Catholic mindset, Tradition is very important, obviously. Protestants, as you rightly point out, dumped Sacred Tradition and replaced it with a new tradition of men, a new theology. It is kind-of ironic that once this new tradition is established, in consistency with the protestant approach, the very men who gave the new tradition are dumped, disowned even, as fallible men - fallible men that provided a new tradition on their own authority, unlike the Apostles who had the Divine authority and guarantees, protection of the Holy Spirit etc... (Mt. 16:18 etc...). This is amusing, intellectually baffling to the Catholic mind that Protestants would disown the men who gave them their religion.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no formal teaching in the church I subscribe to on the Immaculate Conception. Although, personally I belong to a church, I would think as an individual what can be argued Scripturally. If people can demonstrate how teaching corresponds to Scripture I'm quite happy to consider it.

Having said this, I do broadly agree with the 39 Articles of Religion written by the English Reformers.

You have a simplistic view of Protestantism which at its earliest can even be broken down into multiple branches.

Edit: Wasn't it only in the 19th century when this was added to RCC dogma anyway?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

This article shows that belief in the BVM's blessedness, in diverse ways, from early times:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

A brief excerpt:

The Ascension of Isaiah


"[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’" (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).


The Odes of Solomon


"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).


Justin Martyr


"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

philologos

Again, the authenticity of the below text (Acension of Isaiah and so on) would need to be established before I could give them the same weight as Scripture. They are extra-Canonical presumably for a reason.

As for linking to catholic.com this is useful to a degree, but I much prefer when people bring their original arguments to the table. This is a discussion forum, not a Google search request.

As for tradition. I think most Protestants would accept the traditions of the early church, but most would say that there was corruption in the RCC for a long period of time. This corruption means that we need to go back to the roots of the Christian faith (what is recorded in the Bible) and establish how Christianity was originally practiced and believed. Secondary tradition is welcome, but it needs to be backed up by Scripture to show that it isn't a deviation or a corruption from what we originally hold. This is at least how I see it. I'm not opposed to tradition, but tradition must have a solid basis.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, the authenticity of the below text (Acension of Isaiah and so on) would need to be established before I could give them the same weight as Scripture. They are extra-Canonical presumably for a reason.

As for linking to catholic.com this is useful to a degree, but I much prefer when people bring their original arguments to the table. This is a discussion forum, not a Google search request.

As for tradition. I think most Protestants would accept the traditions of the early church, but most would say that there was corruption in the RCC for a long period of time. This corruption means that we need to go back to the roots of the Christian faith (what is recorded in the Bible) and establish how Christianity was originally practiced and believed. Secondary tradition is welcome, but it needs to be backed up by Scripture to show that it isn't a deviation or a corruption from what we originally hold. This is at least how I see it. I'm not opposed to tradition, but tradition must have a solid basis.

The early Christians rejected abortion and contraceptive methods. Every Christian denomination, nevermind the Catholic Church, rejected contraception until 1930. After this time, exceptions were made, and it became universal in Protestant circles, not only in practice but teaching also. If a Christian wanted to go back to the roots, they would reject the contraception and abortion, just like the early Christians.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The counter-reformation dealt with the issues of concern. The thing was sorted out. Of course it is sad that the revolt happened, and sin was it's cause and stimulus, but nonetheless, there was no need for it. What was needed was an increase in holiness which is the true renewal in the Church.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

How offensive to the good Lord that you refer to His Sacred Tradition as junk.

I rather think that it is some of the stuff that you refer to as 'Sacred Tradition' that is offensive to the good Lord.

May Almighty God have mercy on your poor misguided soul.

Yes, thank God, he showed me that mercy when He saved me.

It is amusing because, from the Catholic mindset, Tradition is very important, obviously. Protestants, as you rightly point out, dumped Sacred Tradition and replaced it with a new tradition of men, a new theology. It is kind-of ironic that once this new tradition is established, in consistency with the protestant approach, the very men who gave the new tradition are dumped, disowned even, as fallible men - fallible men that provided a new tradition on their own authority, unlike the Apostles who had the Divine authority and guarantees, protection of the Holy Spirit etc... (Mt. 16:18 etc...). This is amusing, intellectually baffling to the Catholic mind that Protestants would disown the men who gave them their religion.

You really do manage to miss the point spectacularly.

Traditions need to be assessed. This is because some traditions are useful and good, buit others are junk. So, I am being entirely consistent in using Scripture, and my God-given intelligence, to decide which traditions (either Protestant or Catholic) I feel are from God and which ones have a very different source indeed.

Anyway, having said that, there's little point in saying "Luther (or Calvin, or anyone else except Jesus) believed such and such" and expecting non-Catholics to be impressed or embarrassed as if they treated Luther as some king of sacred oracle.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

Traditions need to be assessed. This is because some traditions are useful and good, buit others are junk. So, I am being entirely consistent in using Scripture, and my God-given intelligence, to decide which traditions (either Protestant or Catholic) I feel are from God and which ones have a very different source indeed.

I think the Lord had a different thing in mind than relying on feelings when He said to the Apostles, ''He who hears you, hears Me.''

So, which exactly, are the junk Traditions of the Catholic Church? (And be very careful what you say about Catholic Traditions. I probably shouldn't even dare to ask the question for it may tempt you to grave sin.)

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Traditions need to be assessed. This is because some traditions are useful and good, buit others are junk. So, I am being entirely consistent in using Scripture, and my God-given intelligence, to decide which traditions (either Protestant or Catholic) I feel are from God and which ones have a very different source indeed.

maybe if you rely more on God and the Holy Spirit rather than self directed investigation and self reliance you might yet arrive at the truth.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

I think the Lord had a different thing in mind than relying on feelings when He said to the Apostles, ''He who hears you, hears Me

And anything I hear from the apostles I listen to.

So, which exactly, are the junk Traditions of the Catholic Church?

No, we're not going to take this off topic and turn it into a megathread with multiple parts.

I'll keep it on topic by confining my opinion to the unbiblical doctrine of the immaculate conception.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I'll keep it on topic by confining my opinion to the unbiblical doctrine of the immaculate conception.

The topic appears to be confusion between the Immaculate Conception and the Annunciation.

An assertion that discussion is about the Immaculate Conception as unbiblical doctrine would be considerably off topic.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

The topic appears to be confusion between the Immaculate Conception and the Annunciation.

An assertion that discussion is about the Immaculate Conception as unbiblical doctrine would be considerably off topic.

Untrue. The OP refers to the Immaculate Conception, so you can't get much more on topic than that in the eyes of the mods (which, when determining what is on topic, is the only opinion that matters).

Fanny Cradock

Jester Minute wrote: »

I
So, which exactly, are the junk Traditions of the Catholic Church? (And be very careful what you say about Catholic Traditions. I probably shouldn't even dare to ask the question for it may tempt you to grave sin.)

I'm getting thoroughly sick of your self-righteous nonsense. The vast majority of Christians here manage to have a proper conversation without resorting to sanctimonious smugness. And all this in the full knowledge that any one of us is likely to hold opposing views on any number of issues. It's called having an opinion and it's part of being human.

Most of us are happy to acknowledge that there are disagreements and get on with the important part of practising their common faith without issuing pathetic spiritual threats.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Untrue. The OP refers to the Immaculate Conception, so you can't get much more on topic than that in the eyes of the mods (which, when determining what is on topic, is the only opinion that matters).

I have no problem with discussion the Immaculate Conception, however I see no mention of it being an unbiblical doctrine in the OP.

This concept of unbiblical doctrine appears to have been introduced later and at least one other poster has suggested that this could spawn another thread (9)

Post 1 is clearly related to the Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception and possible confusion between the two. There is also an implication that the OP is a Catholic and if he wants to discuss the doctrinal origins let us hear him.

Jester Minute

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm getting thoroughly sick of your self-righteous nonsense. The vast majority of Christians here manage to have a proper conversation without resorting to sanctimonious smugness. And all this in the full knowledge that any one of us is likely to hold opposing views on any number of issues. It's called having an opinion and it's part of being human.

Most of us are happy to acknowledge that there are disagreements and get on with the important part of practising their common faith without issuing pathetic spiritual threats.

Your anger suggests I've touched a nerve, or several nerves.

It was not a threat. It was a warning. They are not the same thing.

Meanwhile, I am noticing a certain anti-Catholicism. I wish Catholics were treated the same as Muslims. Over there I notice they have a very, very robust pro-Islamic charter. Why is it Catholics should be any different?

We've seen on this thread, Sacred Tradition referred to as 'junk'. And that by one of the very people who are supposed to be moderator.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

This concept of unbiblical doctrine appears to have been introduced later and at least one other poster has suggested that this could spawn another thread (9)

Post 1 is clearly related to the Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception and possible confusion between the two. There is also an implication that the OP is a Catholic and if he wants to discuss the doctrinal origins let us hear him.

Please refrain from backseat modding in a thread.

It was two Catholic posters (Georgie & Jester) that decided to bring Martin Luther into this. They knew where that kind of coat trailing would lead.

JimiTime

Jester Minute wrote: »

Your anger suggests I've touched a nerve, or several nerves.

It was not a threat. It was a warning. They are not the same thing.

Meanwhile, I am noticing a certain anti-Catholicism. I wish Catholics were treated the same as Muslims. Over there I notice they have a very, very robust pro-Islamic charter. Why is it Catholics should be any different?

We've seen on this thread, Sacred Tradition referred to as 'junk'. And that by one of the very people who are supposed to be moderator.

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh. People like you drive me feckin nuts with your persecution complex!!! You are by far the most sectarian provocateur around these parts at the moment, and yet you have the cheek to whinge about the 'anti-catholocism'??? Get yer head out of yer @rse and cop on will ye!!

Jester Minute

JimiTime wrote: »

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh. People like you drive me feckin nuts with your persecution complex!!! You are by far the most sectarian provocateur around these parts at the moment, and yet you have the cheek to whinge about the 'anti-catholocism'??? Get yer head out of yer @rse and cop on will ye!!

PDN referred to Catholic Tradition as junk. If you said that to a devout Muslim on a comparable issue, there'd be uproar.

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

philologos

Jester Minute wrote: »

The early Christians rejected abortion and contraceptive methods. Every Christian denomination, nevermind the Catholic Church, rejected contraception until 1930. After this time, exceptions were made, and it became universal in Protestant circles, not only in practice but teaching also. If a Christian wanted to go back to the roots, they would reject the contraception and abortion, just like the early Christians.

There are also numerous Scriptures in contradiction with the practice of abortion. Although, this seems to be a key obsession for you. There are other sins apart from these. Bearing false witness, being greedy with your possessions, slandering others, hatred, malice, lustfulness and so on.

As for contraceptives, I'm willing to change my position on a cogent Biblical argument that this is the case. I have yet to hear one, therefore my position is that contraceptives are acceptable within marriage. If one is to have sex outside marriage it would be best advised that they use contraceptives (I would consider this situation immoral however).

Jester Minute

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also numerous Scriptures in contradiction with the practice of abortion. Although, this seems to be a key obsession for you. There are other sins apart from these. Bearing false witness, being greedy with your possessions, slandering others, hatred, malice, lustfulness and so on.

As for contraceptives, I'm willing to change my position on a cogent Biblical argument that this is the case. I have yet to hear one, therefore my position is that contraceptives are acceptable within marriage. If one is to have sex outside marriage it would be best advised that they use contraceptives (I would consider this situation immoral however).

Well as an ex-unborn baby, I have a particular interest in their well-being. Oh, and being their elder brother in the human family. And also following the teachings of Jesus, what with His mention of the least of His brethren and all that.

Regarding contraception, the entire Bible is an argument against abortion. But we've been over this turf before. If you want to look at the verses again: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

Oh look - it's 3.41am! I must get to bed. Imagine being up at this hour! Shocking!

philologos

I've seen this list before, none of them have to do with contraceptives rather about how people shoehorn the Bible to come to this conclusion. Some of the interpretations are wholly absurd:

Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

Marital love is undermined by the use of contraceptives?

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

Fairly sure these are speaking about circumcision.

1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a "work" through which women may be saved by God's grace.

One can both bear children and use contraceptives at different junctures in their lifetime

1 Cor. 6:19-20 - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

This isn't an argument for not using contraceptives.

Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Nor is this.

Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God's Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

These refer to the Levite priesthood, not the general population.

This list is some of the most questionable use of Scripture I've seen in a good while. Disregarding the context of the passage for use in argument.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

PDN referred to Catholic Tradition as junk. If you said that to a devout Muslim on a comparable issue, there'd be uproar.

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Have you not noticed Protestant Fundamentalism and Creationism being ridiculed on this forum? Why should Catholicism, especially your fundamentalist brand, be sacrosanct?

Indeed, why should any proposition or ideology be sacrosanct? If it makes absolute claims, or even those claiming to be critically important, must those who think them nonsense keep it to themselves? Surely those who feel in their hearts the truth of their position should shrug off ridicule, rather than be offended by it?
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

georgieporgy

I certainly agree with those sentiments Wolfsbane. Let's all try harder to tolerate each other's differences of opinion.

georgieporgy

When I introduced the reference to Martin Luther earlier I expected it would show that the early reformers believed there was scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception. Evidently I got that wrong, so let's leave it there.

Moving on...... how about the Angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary? (Hail, full of grace!) To catholics that suggests without sin. ie, the angel meant "full" when he said "full".

How do you guys interpret that phrase?

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

When I introduced the reference to Martin Luther earlier I expected it would show that the early reformers believed there was scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception. Evidently I got that wrong, so let's leave it there.

Moving on...... how about the Angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary? (Hail, full of grace!) To catholics that suggests without sin. ie, the angel meant "full" when he said "full".

How do you guys interpret that phrase?

I interpret it as referring to grace, which in the New Testament refers to God's unmerited and undeserved favour towards men. So, Mary being the recipient of grace is not an indication of her sinlessness or worthiness, but rather that God chose her despite her sinfulness and unworthiness.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I interpret it as referring to grace, which in the New Testament refers to God's unmerited and undeserved favour towards men. So, Mary being the recipient of grace is not an indication of her sinlessness or worthiness, but rather that God chose her despite her sinfulness and unworthiness.

So your interpretation that the Christ you believe in was born from corrupted sinful flesh implies that you believe that the Holy Spirit would see fit to have the Son of Man conceived within corrupted sinful flesh.

[28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. [31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Hail, full of Grace. One cannot be full of Grace if one has any sin.
the Lord is with thee. The Lord hates sin and wishes we turn away from it. How could be abide inside a sinful person.
blessed art thou among women. Of all the women Mary was the only one.

Jesus is also the last Adam.

[45] The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.

From the sinless Adam came the sinless Eve therefore the sinless Jesus could only have come from the sinless Mary.
As Adam and Eve were created sinless and Jesus was conceived sinless, for Jesus to come from Mary's body, as Eve came from Adams, Mary had to have been conceived sinless.

It is a Truth revealed by the Holy Spirit. A Truth long recognised before it became Catholic dogma.

Regardless of whether or not one wishes to question truths revealed by the Holy Spirit, to describe the Mother of God as sinful is an affront to her Son.

santing

Festus wrote: »

So your interpretation that the Christ you believe in was born from corrupted sinful flesh implies that you believe that the Holy Spirit would see fit to have the Son of Man conceived within corrupted sinful flesh.
...
Hail, full of Grace. One cannot be full of Grace if one has any sin.
the Lord is with thee. The Lord hates sin and wishes we turn away from it. How could be abide inside a sinful person.
blessed art thou among women. Of all the women Mary was the only one.

The word "full of grace" is a special word that occurs only twice in the Bible. Actually, only the RCC translations give "full of grace," the greek word charitoō means "indue with special honour: - make accepted, be highly favoured"
The second time is in Ephesians 1:6, where it is said of all believers:

to the praise of the glory of his grace that he has freely bestowed on us in his dearly loved Son. (Eph 1:6 NET)

The words he has freely bestowed should be translated (in comparison with "full of grace") as with which He made us full of grace. Full of grace is therefore a state all the redeemed of Christ have.

We know that Mary offered a sin-offering after the birth of the Lord Jesus. (Luke 2:24). If we check the law on the purification after the birth of a child, we see that the woman was ceremonially unclean after giving birth, the child however was not - there is no sin offering required for a new born baby. So it is completely consistent with Scripture to say that the Sinless One came forth out of a sinfull mother.

Festus

santing wrote: »

We know that Mary offered a sin-offering after the birth of the Lord Jesus. (Luke 2:24). If we check the law on the purification after the birth of a child, we see that the woman was ceremonially unclean after giving birth, the child however was not - there is no sin offering required for a new born baby. So it is completely consistent with Scripture to say that the Sinless One came forth out of a sinfull mother.

That was not a sin offering but an offering for the birth of a Son. The offering was made after the purification. Not because of it. Not during it. Not to lift it.
After it.

Yes the law said she was unclean but look at what the law actually says:

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers. 3 And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised: 4 But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification. She shall touch no holy thing, neither shall she enter into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification be fulfilled. 5 But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, according to the custom of her monthly courses, and she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days. 6 And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin, and shall deliver them to the priest: 7 Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child. 8 And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.

If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days,

Mary did not receive seed as part of the conception of Jesus in the conventional sense. If she had not behaved as other women had there would have been question. She had to be seen to be following the law.There is absolutely no biblical support for her not being in a state of grace and containing any spot of sin.


What the law said of her being in a state of uncleanliness and what it meant in terms of her commiting sin are two completely different things. is it a sin to give birth? The offering she made was a normal general offering and not for personal sin. The Law required it. God commanded it. She obeyed God.

There are many places in the law where it describes being in a state of uncleanliness. If a man lies with his wife and has a discharge he is unclean. Is it a sin for a man to lie with his wife?

If a man touched the carcas of a shrew he was unclean. Was it a sin to touch the carcas of the shrew? What if he had to remove the carcas for hygiene reasons. Not removing the carcas would lead to disease.
If the carcas fell onto on into something that was also unclean. How is it an inanimate object commits sin?


[39] If any beast die, of which it is lawful for you to eat, he that toucheth the carcass thereof, shall be unclean until the evening: [40] And he that eateth or carrieth any thing thereof, shall wash his clothes, and shall be unclean until the evening.


The laws regarding uncleanliness are not about sin.

It is completely inconsistent to state that Jesus had a sinful mother. It is probably a serious sin to say so and to lend support to such an abomnable concept.

What does it benefit Christainity to say such a thing.

Fanny, if you think that worthy of thanks you need more prayers than I thought.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

So your interpretation that the Christ you believe in was born from corrupted sinful flesh implies that you believe that the Holy Spirit would see fit to have the Son of Man conceived within corrupted sinful flesh.

Hold your horses. Who is to say that God cannot make imperfect / "sinful" flesh perfect?

Jesus is both God and man, meaning that He was tempted but that He did not succumb to temptation from a Scriptural point of view?

Also, if Mary can be born "sinless" despite being born of "sinful" flesh, why can't this be true of Jesus?

Unless all Mary's ancestors were all sinless up until the beginning (which we know isn't the case) because we would be all sinless too.

This is logically inconsistent.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Hold your horses. Who is to say that God cannot make imperfect / "sinful" flesh perfect?

For us this is in our future if we a worthy of it. Nor is is related just to the flesh but also to the soul.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also, if Mary can be born "sinless" despite being born of "sinful" flesh, why can't this be true of Jesus?

Because if does not square with the first propehsy of salvation. Genesis 3:15

Jakkass wrote: »

Unless all Mary's ancestors were all sinless up until the beginning (which we know isn't the case) because we would be all sinless too.

This is true which is why Mary's conception required Divine intervention as did Jesus conception.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is logically inconsistent.

Are we discussing this from a scientific perspective or a theological perspective? In theology it is perfectly reasonable, logical and consistent.

philologos

It's logically inconsistent that all men are free of sin, in light of the Fall. This is what is required of your reasoning if you are to say that Jesus could not have been sinless if Mary was not sinless.

You're missing my point.

If Jesus could not be sinless if Mary was not sinless why does the logic fail:
Mary cannot be sinless unless her parents were sinless.
Mary's parents could not have been sinless unless Mary's grandparents were sinless.
[... ad infinitum]

Again! Why did Mary's conception require intervention if God could have equally done this in the case of Jesus?

As for Genesis 3:15 you'll need to explain your point on this.

santing

Festus wrote: »

That was not a sin offering but an offering for the birth of a Son. The offering was made after the purification. Not because of it. Not during it. Not to lift it.
After it.

It is my understanding that the purification finishes with the offering. So without the offering, the purification would not be complete.

Festus wrote: »

Yes the law said she was unclean but look at what the law actually says:
...
If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days,

Mary did not receive seed as part of the conception of Jesus in the conventional sense. If she had not behaved as other women had there would have been question. She had to be seen to be following the law.There is absolutely no biblical support for her not being in a state of grace and containing any spot of sin.

Actually there is no biblical support for what you say, only extra-biblical support. The Bible clearly says that ""None is righteous, no, not one; (Rom 3:10 ESV)" It doesn't say "Except for the mother of the Holy One."

Festus wrote: »

What the law said of her being in a state of uncleanliness and what it meant in terms of her commiting sin are two completely different things. is it a sin to give birth?

There are many places in the law where it describes being in a state of uncleanliness. If a man lies with his wife and has a discharge he is unclean. Is it a sin for a man to lie with his wife?

No, but according to the Law it made you ceremonially unclean, so not capable to be in the presence of God. Looking at the Law, the common principle is the "discharge" and a in the case of childbirth there is a lot of discharge! It is the discharge that needed to set right by offerings - one of which was a sin offering.

Anyway, what I tried to show by quoting this passage was not that Mary was a sinner (although that is true) but that the newborn child was not "ceremonially unclean" although his/her mother was. So it perfectly possible that the Holy One is born from the womb of a sinner (and that's why she was "highly favourite," or the recipient of a lot of grace!)

Festus wrote: »

It is completely inconsistent to state that Jesus had a sinful mother. It is probably a serious sin to say so and to lend support to such an abomnable concept.

Interestingly, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied this doctrine. They still made it to sainthood according to the RC Church. (Although I have my doubts whether Thomas Aquinas was a real Christian).

Festus

santing wrote: »

Interestingly, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas denied this doctrine. They still made it to sainthood according to the RC Church. (Although I have my doubts whether Thomas Aquinas was a real Christian).

Interestingly they did this before it was dogma but unlike you they believed she was wholly free from sin.

If you can get to the point of believing she was free from sin we can progress.

santing

Festus wrote: »

Interestingly they did this before it was dogma but unlike you they believed she was wholly free from sin.

If you can get to the point of believing she was free from sin we can progress.

Well, just show me from Scripture...

Festus

santing wrote: »

Well, just show me from Scripture...

Spoon feeding is not my forte. Seek and ye shall find.

[26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things

[12] I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. [14] He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. [15] All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

Even Scripture says that Scripture is incomplete. The Holy Spirit guides us to truths hidden in scripture or not written. He presents us with Revealed Truths, as scripture says He will.


If you wish to restrict yourself to Scripture alone and ignore the Holy Spirit - well, that's your choice albeit a poor one.

Onesimus

The greek used for ''full of Grace'' in St.Mary's case is ''Kecharitomene'' which means she was endowed with grace in the past tense. Many online greek dictionaries are created by evangelicals and are laced with biased interpretations.

The only other place in scriptures where someone is referred to as being full of grace with a different greek word but same meaning in is in John:1:14 where Jesus is ''full of Grace''

The third place in scripture where someone is described as full of grace is St.Stephen in Acts:6:8 and the exact quote is ''full of grace''. The grace stephen was full of was one of moral conviction.

The scriptures have different definitions of grace, In Mary's case the definition used is in the past tense up to present and future. In Jesus case the reference is eternal and because he is God the greek word takes a different interpretation.

In Stephens case the greek translation is given the definition not of being sinless but of being full of the grace of moral conviction.

Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Like the ark of the old testament in which contained the word on stone ( the ten commandments ) Mother Mary carried the word made flesh. The ark of old was so immaculate and Holy that when uzziah touched it he dropped dead.

God has the power to make Mother Mary exempt from orginal sin in the womb of her sinful Mother. It is argued that God could also have the power to descend to Mary and be exempt from sin and thus she can be sinful and still bear Jesus. It is a straw man argument though. Mother Mary was a sinless human, not God. Jesus is God and thus had prepared Mary to be wholly immaculate for his divine ( not humanly ) presence in her body and soul.

Thus when Jesus descended to Mary's womb, he descended from his throne to his throne as promised by The Father. This is why the angel Gabriel says: ''He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father.

God's throne must be immaculate and free from sin. Mary is that throne to which he descends for she comes from the line of David. She is that heavenly throne created perfectly for God to be in her womb, be delivered and thus ascend to the father and sit on his heavenly throne.

Finally, when Mary offered the sin offering according to the Law, she was just being humble and obedient according to God's law. she is not going to pride herself in front of everyone and say ''I'm the mother of God how dare you make me do this practice.'' she just did it regardless as she was humble and obedient unto all of Gods law, regardless of whether it was a sin offering or not.