Virgin Mary

Festus · 13-02-2015 05:10PM

Deranged96 wrote: »

Grand, but that doesn't really answer my question

Perhaps you didn't ask the question in a way that would give you the answer you want

Deranged96 wrote: »

Explain the Devil to me

In what way? From what perspective - psychiatric, sociological, biological, chemical?

Deranged96 wrote: »

Which brings me back to questioning why there's a devil?

Without knowing what you are looking for I cannot give you much more than I already have.

Your question is really one for the Devil himself.

Safehands · 13-02-2015 05:31PM

Festus wrote: »

But they are not equal because dark does not exist. Light exists physically, dark does not.

If you disagree show me dark overpowering light. Show me an instrument, tool, anything, that I can point at light and make light turn into dark.

A black hole!

hinault · 13-02-2015 05:33PM

silverharp wrote: »

I dont buy that, I'd imagine that any senior catholic official today would hardly go a year without mentioning Mary at some stage, the silence is glaring. But back it up again, why didnt Jesus talk about his own birth and his mother? If Jesus isnt recorded revealing these momentous facts to his followers/public then the obvious conclusion that it was added in later as the virgin birth was a common idea in Roman and Greek lore.

You don't appear to except that St.Paul was silent also about the biographical details of the life of Jesus Christ.
Why so?

Deranged96 · 13-02-2015 05:47PM

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't ask the question in a way that would give you the answer you want.

According to yourself good can exist independently of evil.
My question is: Why does God let the devil have power on earth?

hinault · 13-02-2015 05:47PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think it is extremely unreasonable, because you have to apply the same logic to earlier generations as well.

If Mary had to be perfect to produce a perfect Jesus, then it logically follows that Mary's parents would have to be perfect to produce a perfect Mary.

Ah, but hang on. Then it would require that four perfect grandparents were required to produce Mary's two perfect parents. And, of course, that in turn would require eight perfect great-grandparents etc.

So your 'reasonable' argument necessitates an ever-increasing number of perfect immaculately-conceived ancestors stretching all the way back to the beginning of humanity.

I don't agree.

If we accept that God can do anything and everything, it is entirely possible that He can create, in perfection, Mary, without having to perfect Mary's parents.

The Bible makes no comment about the perfection, or imperfection, of Mary's parents.

There are writings, which are not included in the Bible, which tell of Our Lady's parents, St.Anne and St. Joachim.
Those writings tell of a visitation by the Angel Gabriel who said that St.Anne would bear a child.

Harika · 13-02-2015 05:48PM

Festus wrote: »

What was His reason for that action?

Edit: Because he is evil!

Festus wrote: »

It is true that if there was no evil on Earth there would have been no need for Jesus to have come to us but there is evil on earth. Where does it come from?

If you believe that god created everything, then it comes from him aka god.

hinault · 13-02-2015 05:49PM

Safehands wrote: »

And that, dear folks, is exactly what happened. Every baby in the world is conceived "immaculately" ie; without original or any other sin on their perfect little souls. They are born as sinless, beautiful babies.

Each baby born has no trace of personal sin

However each baby born bears Original Sin

hinault · 13-02-2015 05:55PM

Harika wrote: »

I know people that might object that god is good. He might proclaim himself good but who would call someone who drowns nearly the whole earths population good? .

You being one here who objects to the fact that God can only be good?

The righteous die. Christian history shows that many righteous people did as martyrs.
God allowed them to die too.

hinault · 13-02-2015 05:58PM

Safehands wrote: »

A black hole!

A black hole is visible.

Harika · 13-02-2015 06:15PM

hinault wrote: »

A black hole is visible.

no, a black hole is not visible, it can only be observed indirectly.

Nick Park · 13-02-2015 06:15PM

hinault wrote: »

I don't agree.

If we accept that God can do anything and everything, it is entirely possible that He can create, in perfection, Mary, without having to perfect Mary's parents.

So, to follow that logic, it is entirely possible that He can create, in perfection, Jesus without having to perfect Mary. Isn't it?

So your argument "it it reasonable to assume that God, being perfect, would require the earthly mother of God's Son to be also perfect" is obviously unreasonable.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Festus · 13-02-2015 08:00PM

Harika wrote: »

If you believe that god created everything, then it comes from him aka god.

This is true, God created Lucifer but when He created him he was a good angel. He wasn't created evil. He chose evil.

hinault · 13-02-2015 08:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So, to follow that logic, it is entirely possible that He can create, in perfection, Jesus without having to perfect Mary. Isn't it?

So your argument "it it reasonable to assume that God, being perfect, would require the earthly mother of God's Son to be also perfect" is obviously unreasonable.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

If you accept that God can do anything and everything. I do.
Do you?

Harika · 13-02-2015 08:02PM

Festus wrote: »

This is true, God created Lucifer but when He created him he was a good angel. He wasn't created evil. He chose evil.

And who created evil?

Festus · 13-02-2015 08:04PM

Harika wrote: »

no, a black hole is not visible, it can only be observed indirectly.

It is not not visible if it can be observed.

hinault · 13-02-2015 08:07PM

Harika wrote: »

no, a black hole is not visible, it can only be observed indirectly.

http://www.universetoday.com/116780/astronomers-poised-to-capture-image-of-supermassive-milky-way-black-hole/

Festus · 13-02-2015 08:31PM

Harika wrote: »

And who created evil?

Interesting question. Is evil some thing that can be created?

Or is it something that is chosen out of free will?

Manach · 13-02-2015 08:38PM

Not directly answering the current discussion (my science skills are more eartly) but more towards the original post, the concept of the Virgin Mary acts as a conduit to God. The scope of the latter is so vast that to paraphrase early Church theologians, anyone claiming on know to know this absolute truth is mistaken. Instead (this point raised by William Buckley) as a waypoint exists to add a directional path, so to the familiar concept of a mother being the first teacher is a waypoint to the divine.

Harika · 13-02-2015 08:50PM

Festus wrote: »

It is not not visible if it can be observed.

not not?

Anyway on the posted link you see how it would look like, but take in consideration that you don't see the black hole as it does not submit light, you can see the effects it has on the light coming from behind.

silverharp · 14-02-2015 01:27PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't appear to except that St.Paul was silent also about the biographical details of the life of Jesus Christ.
Why so?

just to clarify , Paul mentions Mary but its terms of her being a normal woman and normal birth. Thats a positive statement that he is not aware of the virgin birth or any of what would be called the christmas story. Paul's writing are the earliest. Like any legend they will grow over time and there is a certain progression with the later writings containing more miracles etc. The first Gospel writer Mark doesnt even mention the birth story and now we 40 odd years after Jesus. You have to wait for the later Matthew and Luke for that

hinault · 14-02-2015 09:35PM

silverharp wrote: »

just to clarify , Paul mentions Mary but its terms of her being a normal woman and normal birth. Thats a positive statement that he is not aware of the virgin birth or any of what would be called the christmas story. Paul's writing are the earliest. Like any legend they will grow over time and there is a certain progression with the later writings containing more miracles etc. The first Gospel writer Mark doesnt even mention the birth story and now we 40 odd years after Jesus. You have to wait for the later Matthew and Luke for that

You're putting a lot of weight in St.Paul.

Paul doesn't make any reference to a normal birth.

If I recall correctly Mary is not mentioned by name by Paul throughout the NT. In fact there is only one reference to Mary in all of Paul's NT writing and that one reference is made in single verse to the conception of the child sent by God.

Galatians 4:4 is the verse.

I still hold that Paul deferred to the Gospel writers to assert Mary's role in the redemption of Man.

Safehands · 15-02-2015 12:06AM

hinault wrote: »

Each baby born has no trace of personal sin
However each baby born bears Original Sin

So Hinault, where do you think that original sin in a baby, comes from?

hinault · 15-02-2015 03:13AM

Safehands wrote: »

So Hinault, where do you think that original sin in a baby, comes from?

The existing bond between God and man was broken, by humanity, at a given time.

The Bible teaches that the bond was broken by Eve and Adam, at a point in time.

The first step to try to re-establish the bond between each individual person and God is through baptism.

After that it is up to every single individual to try to maintain that covenant with God.

silverharp · 15-02-2015 10:09AM

hinault wrote: »

You're putting a lot of weight in St.Paul.

Paul doesn't make any reference to a normal birth.

If I recall correctly Mary is not mentioned by name by Paul throughout the NT. In fact there is only one reference to Mary in all of Paul's NT writing and that one reference is made in single verse to the conception of the child sent by God.

Galatians 4:4 is the verse.

I still hold that Paul deferred to the Gospel writers to assert Mary's role in the redemption of Man.

From around 50ish AD, he recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. in Galatians 4:4, he writes "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

a few years later, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes, "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

Given that Paul is setting out a lot of doctrine it would be important for him to highlight the virgin birth because its huge in christian terms right? the fact that he writes in a way where the obvious conclusion is that he hasnt heard of the virgin birth story is telling.

As for putting a lot of weight on Paul , well its important because his writings are the earliest, but could just easily back it up earlier and ask why doesnt Jesus talk about it as the whole nativity story which should have been the centre of his upbringing? and in fact arent there some references to his family thinking he is mad which is not exactly how you would behave around a deity you knew who had come to shake things up.

Nick Park · 15-02-2015 10:28AM

silverharp wrote: »

Given that Paul is setting out a lot of doctrine it would be important for him to highlight the virgin birth because its huge in christian terms right?

No, not right.

In early Christianity the virgin birth was seen as something that happened, but it was no more huge than turning water into wine, walking on water, or feeding the 5000. It was not significant in the forming of doctrine as was, for example, the cross or the resurrection.

Some biblical scholars would see the reference in Galatians 4:4 as referring to the virgin birth as something that was assumed by both Paul and his Galatian hearers - but since it was not in dispute there was no need to labour the point.

After all, in a culture where everyone was known by being born of their father (eg Peter's real name was Simon bar Jona - Simon the son of John) Jesus was 'born of a woman'.

Safehands · 15-02-2015 04:20PM

hinault wrote: »

The existing bond between God and man was broken, by humanity, at a given time.

The Bible teaches that the bond was broken by Eve and Adam, at a point in time.

The first step to try to re-establish the bond between each individual person and God is through baptism.

After that it is up to every single individual to try to maintain that covenant with God.

The Bible does teach that in Genesis. But as we have shown, the Genesis account of creation is not true. It is a myth. So, that being the case, original sin is a myth.

hinault · 16-02-2015 02:01AM

Safehands wrote: »

The Bible does teach that in Genesis. But as we have shown, the Genesis account of creation is not true. It is a myth. So, that being the case, original sin is a myth.

You haven't shown anything, safehands.

You're perfectly entitled to not accept whatever you choose.

Peregrinus · 16-02-2015 02:19AM

Safehands wrote: »

The Bible does teach that in Genesis. But as we have shown, the Genesis account of creation is not true. It is a myth. So, that being the case, original sin is a myth.

This seems absurdly simplistic. In the first place, "myth" does not necessarily mean "not true". In the second place, the fact that the creation account offered in Genesis is, admittedly, not true doesn't mean that the view of the human condition which it is told to illustrate has no validity. None of the events in Pride and Prejudice ever happened and none of the characters lived; does that mean that what the novel has to tell us about the condition of being female in Britain in the nineteenth century is completely bogus? Little Red Riding Hood never was attacked by a wolf; does that mean that little girls can go unaccompanied into the forest with impunity?

I think you're mistaking the factuality of the story with the reason that the story is told. You're not the first to make that mistake, but you're in some fairly embarrassing company.

Peregrinus · 16-02-2015 04:40AM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, not right.

In early Christianity the virgin birth was seen as something that happened, but it was no more huge than turning water into wine, walking on water, or feeding the 5000. It was not significant in the forming of doctrine as was, for example, the cross or the resurrection.

Some biblical scholars would see the reference in Galatians 4:4 as referring to the virgin birth as something that was assumed by both Paul and his Galatian hearers - but since it was not in dispute there was no need to labour the point.

After all, in a culture where everyone was known by being born of their father (eg Peter's real name was Simon bar Jona - Simon the son of John) Jesus was 'born of a woman'.

The Gal 4:4 reference could be an allusion to the virgin birth, though perhaps that's a bit of a stretch. It could be intended to emphise the humanity of Jesus ("God sent his Son, born of a woman . . . so that we might receive adoption.")

But, yes on the weakness of the argument from silence. Paul is all about the cross and the resurrection; in his focus on this he ignores huge areas of great theological interest, including but by no means limited to mariology . Arguing from this that he does not know of them is like arguing that, since Richard Dawkins writes almost exclusively about evolutionary biology, he knows nothing about, say, cellular biology or ecological biology. He may or may not know of them; all we can legitimately conclude is that he has chosen to write about something else.

Safehands · 16-02-2015 02:16PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This seems absurdly simplistic. In the first place, "myth" does not necessarily mean "not true". In the second place, the fact that the creation account offered in Genesis is, admittedly, not true doesn't mean that the view of the human condition which it is told to illustrate has no validity. None of the events in Pride and Prejudice ever happened and none of the characters lived; does that mean that what the novel has to tell us about the condition of being female in Britain in the nineteenth century is completely bogus? Little Red Riding Hood never was attacked by a wolf; does that mean that little girls can go unaccompanied into the forest with impunity?

I think you're mistaking the factuality of the story with the reason that the story is told. You're not the first to make that mistake, but you're in some fairly embarrassing company.

The comparison with Red Riding hood is quite good. She was beguiled by a bad wolf and we all know what happened. Yes, we can learn from this, as well as many fairy tales. We can also learn from the story of Adam, but to burden every living person with a "sin" emanating from a fairy tale, is just wrong. That person, Adam, was part of the fairy tale, and he was never anything more than that. So Original sin is the result of a fictitious character's actions and based on those actions we have the Immaculate Conception, a dogma of the Catholic faith, we have the sacrament of Baptism, to wash away an imaginary sin. We had Limbo too, and all of the horrors associated with it. I know that there is more to Baptism than just that, but that is the essence of it.
I would have no argument with anyone who wants to present original sin as a symbolic story about man's ability to do wrong. It is not though. Ultimately, Mary's virginity is inextricably linked with a fairy tale.

Virgin Mary

Comments