immaculate conception????

javaboy · 10-12-2008 05:59PM

Des wrote: »

It didn't happen though.

And I reckon the big lad upstairs made sure it didn't happen, Jesus was born to be crucified, end of.

The hypothetical situation you postulate could never have happened.

But if the 'big lad' can just make sure something like that didn't happen, why then didn't He just click his fingers and replicate the same effect that Jesus' death had?

What I'm getting at is if the whole thing was essentially preordained from start to finish, what was the point? Could He not have just "made it so" so to speak?

cornbb · 10-12-2008 06:00PM

Des wrote: »

it refers to the fact that Mary was conceived without sin.

therefore, she is immaculate.

idiots.

Are you being ironic? Sure its all only a bit of craic anyway, its like arguing over the finer points of the plotline of an episode of Coronation St.

anniehoo · 10-12-2008 06:00PM

Rorate Caeli wrote: »

Have you idiots never heard of Wikipedia!? Fryup in particular, ffs.

Mary's parents (traditionally Anne and Joachim) were her biological parents. But the Blessed Virgin herself was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception, hence Immaculate Conception.

She didn't simply never sin (like St John the Baptist, traditionally), but she was not tainted with original sin like all other human beings (apart from her son).

The Immaculate Conception was defined as a doctrine in 1854 but was believed for a long time before that (for example, the fourth century prayer Tota pulchra es).

Our Lord was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit without Mary losing her virginity. This is called the Virgin Birth and is detailed at the start of the Gospel of Luke.

This is celebrated on the Feast of the Annunciation, which is on March 25 -- nine months before Christmas.

Sancta Maria immaculate concepta, ora pro nobis.

Cant argue with that :P

asdasd · 10-12-2008 06:01PM

Only one Roman record mentions him, that of Josephus, but some of his works were forgeries. It is widely thought that the part mentioning Jesus is a forgery.

Its thought that some parts of it were. he mentions jesus as christ. that paragraph is not the entire thing. He also mentions John the Baptist.

Also. Some of the actions of Jesus which are told in the Bible are fairly substantial things, and the fact that they are recorded nowhere else is a fairly good indicator that they are lies.

Not really. Ignoring water in wine etc., Jesus was a small leader of a sect who seemed to be crucified by the Roman authorities ( on the advice of the Jewish co-leaders at the time). Probably happened every second week.

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:01PM

javaboy wrote: »

But if the 'big lad' can just make sure something like that didn't happen, why then didn't He just click his fingers and replicate the same effect that Jesus' death had?

What I'm getting at is if the whole thing was essentially preordained from start to finish, what was the point? Could He not have just "made it so" so to speak?

He could have.

But you know that line in The Matrix, where Agent Smith is telling Morpheus that they tried to create a perfect earth simulation, but the human brain wouldn't accept it.

I reckon there was more than a grain of truth in that.

Rorate Caeli · 10-12-2008 06:02PM

cornbb wrote: »

Are you being ironic?

"For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

javaboy · 10-12-2008 06:02PM

seamus wrote: »

Although I am fairly sure that most of this stuff *wasn't* taught in school. I only became aware of the idea of original sin and the whole immaculate conception thing *after* I shed my religion. Like everyone else, I can remember being taught in school that the Angel Gabriel came to Mary, said she was going to have a baby and then put it in her stomach.

+1. A lot of the stuff was whitewashed over in school. Original sin only got mentioned when somebody else brought it up in class.

javaboy · 10-12-2008 06:05PM

Des wrote: »

He could have.

But you know that line in The Matrix, where Agent Smith is telling Morpheus that they tried to create a perfect earth simulation, but the human brain wouldn't accept it.

I reckon there was more than a grain of truth in that.

I get what your point about the Matrix thing. If He'd clicked his fingers and sin went out the window, it would have been artificial to a certain extent and not had any merit.

Still if the process of Jesus being conceived, born, living the life he did and getting crucified was essentially inevitable, then doesn't it amount to the same thing as clicking His fingers? It's just a more prolonged theatrical version of the same thing.

Rorate Caeli · 10-12-2008 06:06PM

javaboy wrote: »

+1. A lot of the stuff was whitewashed over in school. Original sin only got mentioned when somebody else brought it up in class.

Whether you believe in it or not, Catholicism is our cultural heritage. But rubbish teaching in ostensibly Catholic schools has meant that no one really has a clue anymore, and have never properly learned about what they're rejecting.

It's like the otherwise well-informed Des above saying that Jesus was God and not man. But Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that is quite central to the Faith. I certainly didn't learn it at school.

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:06PM

javaboy wrote: »

I get what your point about the Matrix thing. If He'd clicked his fingers and sin went out the window, it would have been artificial to a certain extent and not had any merit.

Still if the process of Jesus being conceived, born, living the life he did and getting crucified was essentially inevitable, then doesn't it amount to the same thing as clicking His fingers? It's just a more prolonged theatrical version of the same thing.

Indeed.

But we got to see The Passion Of The Christ out of it.

Prof.Badass · 10-12-2008 06:06PM

Des wrote: »

He could have.

But you know that line in The Matrix, where Agent Smith is telling Morpheus that they tried to create a perfect earth simulation, but the human brain wouldn't accept it.

I reckon there was more than a grain of truth in that.

or maybe the writers of the matrix just needed to come up with a lame excuse for the reason our world isn't perfect, if it is indeed only a simulation.

Stercus Accidit · 10-12-2008 06:08PM

An argument about harry potter would have more substance tbh.

asdasd · 10-12-2008 06:11PM

or maybe the writers of the matrix just needed to come up with a lame excuse for the reason our world isn't perfect, if it is indeed only a simulation.

Yeah. that said there are clear christian references throughout. neO is the annoited One, Morpheus is the prophets who foretold him/ John the Baptist. Neo "dies" and comes back stronger. The world is false, and there is a better world out there.( although I would have stayed within). It is slightly off-christianity, since the world they are in totally false and created by evil forces - but that has been a theme of some christian beleifs over time - gnostic for instance.

Also he has magic powers.

stovelid · 10-12-2008 06:12PM

This is all of minor importance. What is far more pressing is the optimum number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Terry · 10-12-2008 06:14PM

Des wrote: »

Only one Roman record mentions him, that of Josephus, but some of his works were forgeries. It is widely thought that the part mentioning Jesus is a forgery.

Also. Some of the actions of Jesus which are told in the Bible are fairly substantial things, and the fact that they are recorded nowhere else is a fairly good indicator that they are lies.

I think lies is a bit too strong a word in this case.

I tend to look at the bible as a book of analogies and myths.

The stories told are basically a guide on how to live your life in a wholesome way.

Now I am aware that some of the stuff is really extreme amd most of it does not apply to the world today, but the world was a different place back then.

The bible was then taken by some to be true and a few power hungry people preyed on the fears of others to exploit them and rule over them with the fear of god.

Up until the past few decades there were plenty of people in this country who still lived in fear of god and the fear they may go to hell.
As a result of this, they devoted their lives to the church and its teachings.

It was through fear, intimidation and lack of proper education that brought many religions to have the effect that they had on the world and it is only in recent time that Western society has realised that these things are wrong and can be ignored.

You can't really live your life completely by the bible anyway because there are so many contradictions in it.

Biggins · 10-12-2008 06:14PM

Rorate Caeli wrote: »

Mary's parents...etc

Sorry, some of us deliberately switched off when someone else started talking about invisible beings and things of superstitious nature.
Apparently, that's our right to do so. I learned that on school too!

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:15PM

Terry wrote: »

I think lies is a bit too strong a word in this case.

I tend to look at the bible as a book of analogies and myths.

The Old Testament, certainly.

The New Testament, the four gospels, Acts of the Apostles are supposed to be accounts of Jesus' life.

They are supposed to be a kind of Biography of The Son of God.

smashey · 10-12-2008 06:16PM

That Joseph dude must have felt like a right eejit. Wife telling him she's pregnant and insisting she's still a virgin and the baby wasn't his.

javaboy · 10-12-2008 06:19PM

Terry wrote: »

You can't really live your life completely by the bible anyway because there are so many contradictions in it.

Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom.

10-12-2008 06:20PM

Des wrote: »

No.

It refers to the fact that Mary was conceived without the ability to commit any sin.

Jesus fúcking christ.

Were you lot thought nothing in school?

cough

asdasd · 10-12-2008 06:24PM

They are supposed to be a kind of Biography of The Son of God.

Most f it seems accurate to the time and place. Does it contain lies, and fantastical elements. Sure, but so does biography of Caesar.

I believe he existed and some of the lies in the New Testament speak to that fact. For instance the anointed one ( Messiah/Christ) was supposed to be born in Bethleham. So the New Testament writers put him there at birth. That is probably false. However you have to ask why a fully made up character would have to then grow up in Nazareth. Nazareth was not mentioned in the prophecies at all. Wouldn't the made up character being born in Bethleham, stay there?

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:28PM

Jesus was called The Nazarean.

members of a small Jewish religious order, originating in the 2d cent. B.C. The chief sources of information about the Essenes are Pliny the Elder, Philo's Quod omnius probus liber, Josephus' Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and (possibly) the Dead Sea Scrolls Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient leather and papyrus scrolls first discovered in 1947 in caves on the NW shore of the Dead Sea. Most of the documents were written or copied between the 1st cent. B.C. and the first half of the 1st cent. A.D.
..... Click the link for more information. . The sect consisted of adult males and celibacy was encouraged. The Essenes lived as a highly organized community that held possessions in common. Ceremonial purity entailed scrupulous cleanliness, the wearing of only white garments, and the most strict observance of the Sabbath. The Essenes believed in the immortality of the soul. Their practice, common among many Jewish groups, of purification through ritual immersion may have been a significant influence on the development of the rite of baptism in the early Christian church. They condemned slavery and prohibited trading because it led to covetousness and cheating; they avoided luxury, abhorred untruthfulness and forbade oaths, with the one exception of the oath a new member took after two years of probation. In this oath, the member pledged piety toward God, justice to men, honesty with fellow Essenes, preservation of the sect's secrets, and proper transmission of its teachings. The Essenes subsisted by pastoral and agricultural activities and handicrafts; they avoided the manufacture of weapons. There is evidence of Persian and Hellenistic influences in the sect's thought. The Essenes' belief in several Messiahs is thought by some to have been a major influence in the development of Christianity. The sect ceased to exist sometime in the 2d cent. A.D

He most probably wasn't from Nazareth at all.

In fact, that town probably didn't even exist 2,000 years ago.

asdasd · 10-12-2008 06:31PM

In fact, that town probably didn't even exist 2,000 years ago.

Pretty remarkable of the new testment writers to invent a whole town as well. That would have worked against them at the time, in terms of selling the thing as authentic.

I am not sure the point of the Essene post is. Clearly christianity is influenced by, and part of, the types of Judaism influenced by greek and other thoughts at the time. Stil did Jesus exist. I say yes.

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:34PM

asdasd wrote: »

I am not sure the point of the Essene post is.

Nazarean is the same as Essene.

It doesn't refer to a person from the town of Nazareth, if refers to a person of the Essene faith.

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:35PM

asdasd wrote: »

Pretty remarkable of the new testment writers to invent a whole town as well.

They didn't.

They called him "Jesus The Nazarean" in their original language, which was mistranslated to "Jesus of Nazareth" later on.

asdasd · 10-12-2008 06:37PM

It doesn't refer to a person from the town of Nazareth, if refers to a person of the Essene faith.

i see. Personally I find it bollocks that the town didnt exist at the time, and one of the same name was founded later for no obvious reason ( existing to this day).

As it a Chrisitan coverup? Wouldnt it have been easier to change the scripture.

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 06:48PM

asdasd wrote: »

i see. Personally I find it bollocks that the town didnt exist at the time, and one of the same name was founded later for no obvious reason ( existing to this day).

No ancient historians or geographers mention Nazareth before the beginning of the fourth century.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages

Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).

Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

asdasd wrote: »

Wouldnt it have been easier to change the scripture.

It didn't need to be changed

Biggins · 10-12-2008 06:57PM

asdasd wrote: »

As it a Chrisitan coverup? Wouldnt it have been easier to change the scripture.

No, they just left anything they dis-liked, out!
When it was being discussed what was going to go into the "official bible", many scriptures/books were left out.
Just like the Book of St Tomas was left out because it stated that Jesus said "God was in everything, not just in the expensively built building to honour him!" and that "money was to be given to the people whom needed it and not to the subsequent false buildings"

That didn't go down too well apparently! I wonder why! :rolleyes:

asdasd · 10-12-2008 07:06PM

That didn't go down too well apparently! I wonder why!

it doesnt seem too different from the rest of the New Testement.

_blank_ · 10-12-2008 07:09PM

It is true that certain writings which could have been included in the Bible were indeed left out because they didn't "fit in" with the church of the time.

But most of these can be read nowadays anyway.

immaculate conception????

Comments