Virgin Mary

RikuoAmero · 23-02-2015 07:07PM

Gunney wrote: »

That argument is one frequently made by atheists. It is illogical as they are using a being they do not believe to exist to argue their case.

However, regardless of what they believe, they cannot answer the question as to how and why evil evolved as without Genesis there is no adequate explanaition for its existence or why evil only affects humans and not the animals.

You're assuming there that we as atheists believe evil to be a thing. As for if we could answer that question - the way you worded that question implies a false dichotomy. Either nothing created or evolved evil...or the christian creation myth as found in Genesis.
Sorry, but your particular creation myth doesn't get a free pass like that.

Gunney · 23-02-2015 07:13PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Rather, there would have been no need for Jesus. So in order for your religion's single most important claim to make sense, christianity NEEDS the Garden of Eden to be true on at least some level, otherwise Jesus becomes the fix for a problem that never happened.

If Evil did not exist in the world, its existence coming from the knowledge of good and evil, then yes, there would have been no need for God to have incarnated Himself as a man.

Fact is, there is evil in the world and it is mans fault.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Notice what you're doing here. You're defending the story as an actual thing that happened by trying to find ANY justification at all for it. However, you didn't think at all about what you wrote because let me quickly point out that an all-knowing God would have no reason whatsoever to conduct experiments like you suggest.

I know what I am doing. Do you see what your are doing? You are saying the Bible is fiction and you are questioning Gods omnipotence. If I didn't know better I would read you as attempting to argue that God does not exist.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm waiting for you to see the massive flaw in your logic here. You say to complete the circle...yet at the start of this paragraph you state that Eve didn't die a virgin, yet for some reason Mary had to be? How is that completing the circle?

Adam and Eve began their lives as sinless. Mary and Jesus are perpetually sinless.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Also has it never once bothered you just why christianity's creation myth gets the cycle of reproduction backwards when it comes to the origin of humans? Look at it...it mentions women being born from men, when we all know it's the opposite. Didn't this trigger any alarms in your head when you first read it?

No. Are you attempting to move this discussion towards an existence of God debate again?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

How does knowledge of how to procreate somehow translate to "We know we should NEVER disobey God"? The one is not connected to the other.

So why did you connect them?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Look up the word synonym please.

I think perhaps you should do that. You're the one who thinks that wrong = evil

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nope, what I and the other atheists are doing is looking at your claims as hypotheticals, imagining that they're real and seeing if they make sense. As for us using the bible, what else are we supposed to use? The bible is what you guys yourself use to justify your belief, since it (supposedly) contains the accounts of your god.

After you look up synonym perhaps you should read the Charter again.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As far as I can see, I can see only comments that say that the story of the virgin Mary doesn't make sense.

and you cannot see how that is not only sexist but also insulting to Christians.

Gunney · 23-02-2015 07:15PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sorry, but your particular creation myth doesn't get a free pass like that.

according to the Charter it does in a thread that ostensibly is discussing Christian belief.

Gunney · 23-02-2015 07:20PM

sioux1977 wrote: »

Personally, even though I'm Catholic, I believe it's likely Mary and Joseph did have other children together - why not, after all? I have often wondered the exact same thing as the original poster, Safehands, asks! There could be descendants of Mary and Joseph alive today, and obviously they don't even know it! Who's to say?

Given the interest in Jesus Christ and His life if He had bloodline brothers and sisters
it would be reasonable to find references in the Bible, but we do not.

As for who's to say? If you are a Catholic you should know that it is for the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church, to say, and it is up to you to accept it.

RikuoAmero · 23-02-2015 07:25PM

Fact is, there is evil in the world and it is mans fault.

Do not say something as a fact when it is one of the very things that is in dispute in this discussion!

You are saying the Bible is fiction and you are questioning Gods omnipotence. If I didn't know better I would read you as attempting to argue that God does not exist.

Really? You're only now figuring out my position? I could've sworn I've called myself an atheist at least a dozen times by now.

Adam and Eve began their lives as sinless. Mary and Jesus are perpetually sinless.

You're still not seeing the point there. You tried to equate Mary to Eve, but made a mistake there. You said it was completing the circle, but the two are different people according to the bible and your religion, with one being sinful and the other being sinless. That's not completing the circle. Unless there's a catholic teaching somewhere that says Eve became sinless later on in life that I don't know about?

So why did you connect them?

I didn't. It was you and/or hinault that tried to make the argument that A & E couldn't be innocent by saying that they were told to go out and procreate.

I think perhaps you should do that. You're the one who thinks that wrong = evil

In the context of the Eden creation story, they are. Knowledge of good and evil is bound up in a magic fruit. Disobeying God is wrong or evil. For you to attempt to refute me, you'll have to explain how disobeying God is wrong, but not evil, even though the bible in many passages says disobeying is both.

and you cannot see how that is not only sexist but also insulting to Christians.

1) I don't care if I'm insulting christians. I'm attacking the ideas beyond your religion, not you as people. Why is it that whenever I'm debating christians, they always equate their religion and its ideas with themselves as people, and thus say that when I attack one, I'm attacking the other?
2) Explain how it's sexist to say "I don't think the story of the virgin Mary makes sense". Being sexist is being disparaging to a particular sex. Not once on this board have I EVER made comments that are disparaging to a sex.

As for who's to say? If you are a Catholic you should know that it is for the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church, to say, and it is up to you to accept it.

Thanks for giving me a good reason to loathe your religion. The "shut up and don't think about these issues yourself, just accept what these other guys say" line. Why is it you never learned history, never learned this was one of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation?

Gunney · 23-02-2015 08:15PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do not say something as a fact when it is one of the very things that is in dispute in this discussion!

The existence of God is not the subject of this thread and while someone can say "the Bible is wrong" or "the Bible is fiction" in an existence of God debate they should be able to prove it. In any discussion on the Virgin Mary the Bible has to be accepted as true or any debate is baseless.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Really? You're only now figuring out my position? I could've sworn I've called myself an atheist at least a dozen times by now.

Wasn't difficult. Your whole approach is based on your atheism. You are making no effort to understand what it is that Catholics believe and why. You seem to be more interestid in stifling the discussion rather than learning.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You're still not seeing the point there. You tried to equate Mary to Eve, but made a mistake there. You said it was completing the circle, but the two are different people according to the bible and your religion, with one being sinful and the other being sinless. That's not completing the circle. Unless there's a catholic teaching somewhere that says Eve became sinless later on in life that I don't know about?

I'm thinking the concepts may be going over your head. You are ignoring the links between Genesis and Revelation, as well as the relationships described in the Gospels regarding Mary - links I should have no need to explain to a Bible scholar such as yourself.
You seem to be so focused on trying to make your atheistic point that you are ignoring whole swathes of Theology and Mariology.
If you cannot see the obvious link between Eve, created free from original sin and Mary, conceived free from original sin what do you want me to do?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I didn't. It was you and/or hinault that tried to make the argument that A & E couldn't be innocent by saying that they were told to go out and procreate.

Maybe if your editting tools allowed you to retain the reference to the poster you are quoting it would help the read back.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In the context of the Eden creation story, they are. Knowledge of good and evil is bound up in a magic fruit. Disobeying God is wrong or evil. For you to attempt to refute me, you'll have to explain how disobeying God is wrong, but not evil, even though the bible in many passages says disobeying is both.

Calling it a magic fruit is being disparaging and is belittling the faith of Christians. Why should I try to explain anything to someone with your attitude to the Bible and Christians.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

1) I don't care if I'm insulting christians. I'm attacking the ideas beyond your religion, not you as people. Why is it that whenever I'm debating christians, they always equate their religion and its ideas with themselves as people, and thus say that when I attack one, I'm attacking the other?
2) Explain how it's sexist to say "I don't think the story of the virgin Mary makes sense". Being sexist is being disparaging to a particular sex. Not once on this board have I EVER made comments that are disparaging to a sex.

Perhaps if you were less interested in insulting Christians and more interested in learning you might gain something

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Thanks for giving me a good reason to loathe your religion. The "shut up and don't think about these issues yourself, just accept what these other guys say" line. Why is it you never learned history, never learned this was one of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation?

You never needed a good reason to loath Catholicism. It is your want as an anti-Christian is all. You enjoy hating Christians as evidenced by your postings.
You seem to be accusing Catholics of having blind faith whenit is your own faith that is blind.

You can question the Magesterium and indeed you must and you must think on what the Magesterium teaches. How else do you get to understand why it teaches what it teaches?

RikuoAmero · 23-02-2015 08:30PM

You are making no effort to understand what it is that Catholics believe and why.

I don't need to make any effort to understand, considering I was born in, raised and educated Catholic for the first eighteen years of my life. I already know pretty much most of it.

Calling it a magic fruit is being disparaging and is belittling the faith of Christians.

Do fruit generally give people knowledge of a certain subject when ingested? No? Then why is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil not considered magic? Do rings generally make people invisible when worn? No? Then why is the One Ring from Lord of the Rings considered a magic ring by Tolkien readers?

Whenever you read a fantasy novel or see a movie that involves a wizard or a witch, they typically use incantations or objects. They may chant spells with nonsensical phrases. There's no scientific reason why saying something somehow causes an effect in reality, but in the context of the story, it does. You recognise such things as being magic, such as Harry Potter pointing his wand and shouting "Expelliarmus!", thus causing his opponent to drop their wand.
However, when I read the bible and I see God doing the exact same thing, such as by saying the Aramaic phrase Abracadabra (it means I create as I speak), somehow christians such as yourself say "No no no no! That's not magic! It's insulting or belittling to say it's magic!" despite the fact there is no difference.

You can question the Magesterium and indeed you must and you must think on what the Magesterium teaches. How else do you get to understand why it teaches what it teaches?

Really? Then why is it you said as a catholic, you have to accept it [what they teach]? If we're allowed think on something that is taught by someone, that includes the possibility of coming to a completely opposite conclusion. Saying "Yeah, go ahead think on it...but you have to accept what we teach" is like saying "You can pick any color you want...as long as it's black". It means you're not really respecting the choice or abilities of the other party.

Speaking of accepting what is taught by the RCC...what about Pope Frankie? He's infamous recently for saying it's "selfish" for people not to have children. Of course the hypocrisy that is a childless man saying this was ignored by him. Should catholics accept such a thinking? Is Frankie speaking ex cathedra here?

Gunney · 23-02-2015 08:53PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I already know pretty much most of it.

You have not displayed that here. Quite the opposite in fact, like most self confessed know-alls

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do fruit generally give people knowledge of a certain subject when ingested? No? Then why is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil not considered magic? Do rings generally make people invisible when worn? No? Then why is the One Ring from Lord of the Rings considered a magic ring by Tolkien readers?

Are we debating the Bible or Tolkien?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Whenever you read a fantasy novel or see a movie that involves a wizard or a witch, they typically use incantations or objects. They may chant spells with nonsensical phrases. There's no scientific reason why saying something somehow causes an effect in reality, but in the context of the story, it does. You recognise such things as being magic, such as Harry Potter pointing his wand and shouting "Expelliarmus!", thus causing his opponent to drop their wand.
However, when I read the bible and I see God doing the exact same thing, such as by saying the Aramaic phrase Abracadabra (it means I create as I speak), somehow christians such as yourself say "No no no no! That's not magic! It's insulting or belittling to say it's magic!" despite the fact there is no difference.

There is a whole thread dedicated to the existence of God. I see nothing above that is related to the Virgin Mary.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Really? Then why is it you said as a catholic, you have to accept it [what they teach]? If we're allowed think on something that is taught by someone, that includes the possibility of coming to a completely opposite conclusion. Saying "Yeah, go ahead think on it...but you have to accept what we teach" is like saying "You can pick any color you want...as long as it's black". It means you're not really respecting the choice or abilities of the other party.

When God says don't do something you are allowed to ponder on why He said that and what the consequences of going against His words are. You can reject His words and His instructions but you cannot escape the consequences.
You are free to accept or reject as you have free will but if you reject the teachings of the Magesterium you are not a faithful Catholic and you are putting your eternal soul at risk.
It's your choice.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Speaking of accepting what is taught by the RCC...what about Pope Frankie? He's infamous recently for saying it's "selfish" for people not to have children. Of course the hypocrisy that is a childless man saying this was ignored by him. Should catholics accept such a thinking? Is Frankie speaking ex cathedra here?

Who is Pope Frankie? Are you just taking another opportunity to show off your bullying skills again - you know, your favourite belittling, disparaging, snide comments?

mdebets · 23-02-2015 09:31PM

Gunney wrote: »

Given the interest in Jesus Christ and His life if He had bloodline brothers and sisters
it would be reasonable to find references in the Bible, but we do not.

Not necessarily, you have always to consider the knowledge and the expectations of the original audience.
Take for example a biography of Pope John Paul II. You probably would nowhere find a statement that he was single and had no kids, because that's the usual for a priest, you don't need to explicitly mention this.
It was similar to Jesus' time that a married couple had (many) children and the original audience of the Gospels knew that, the author wouldn't have to mention it, especially, if (if they existed) they didn't played any part in Jesus' later live. You also don't read anything in the Bible about Jesus' extended family (aunts, uncles cousins, Marys's and Joseph's parents, etc.) even so they were undoubtedly around and they would have lived together with them (at least with some of them). That's simple, they weren't important to Jesus' story.

Gunney · 23-02-2015 10:01PM

mdebets wrote: »

Not necessarily, you have always to consider the knowledge and the expectations of the original audience.

Can you explain Jn 19:26-27?

[26] When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would she need another son if as you contend that she has other sons to care for?
Why would Jesus make this statement from the Cross of all places, and in public?

SharkWhale · 23-02-2015 10:12PM

David hume
Which is more likely. That the whole order of the natural world is suspended or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?

RikuoAmero · 23-02-2015 10:21PM

SharkWhale wrote: »

David hume
Which is more likely. That the whole order of the natural world is suspended or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?

Since you're asking a question of probability here - the second. We know of no confirmed examples of natural law being suspended, but people can and have lied.

hinault · 24-02-2015 01:33AM

Gunney wrote: »

eisegesis - reading into the Bible what is not there. Exegesis is "drawing out". Because of when the Bible was written and that fact that it contains a finite number of words it does not have an obvious answer for all the questions that can be asked. Howewver the answer to almost any questions can be found by drawing from what the BiBle already says and infers.

I've never heard of the term eisegesis. Thanks for the explanation

SharkWhale · 24-02-2015 02:02AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Since you're asking a question of probability here - the second. We know of no confirmed examples of natural law being suspended, but people can and have lied.

Wasnt my question asked, forgot the "". The whole virgin birth seems like an anti women agenda. Also the story of "original sin" and punishments for the "sins". Made up anti women. Anti human stories.

mdebets · 24-02-2015 06:05AM

Gunney wrote: »

Can you explain Jn 19:26-27?

[26] When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would she need another son if as you contend that she has other sons to care for?
Why would Jesus make this statement from the Cross of all places, and in public?

He could have only had sisters, his brothers could have already been dead.

Delirium · 24-02-2015 09:21AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do not say something as a fact when it is one of the very things that is in dispute in this discussion!

The topic of this thread is the Virgin Mary, not whether or not evil arrived in the world as described in the bible.

Everyone please try to keep the discussion somewhat on the topic of the Virgin Mary.

Thanks for your attention.

RikuoAmero · 24-02-2015 10:29AM

SW wrote: »

The topic of this thread is the Virgin Mary, not whether or not evil arrived in the world as described in the bible.

Everyone please try to keep the discussion somewhat on the topic of the Virgin Mary.

Thanks for your attention.

I would argue it is on topic, since that is what the topic of the Virgin Mary is about - her apparently being sinless in a world infected (best word I can think of to use here) by sin/evil.
That's always seemed to me to be one of the more blatant contradictions about christianity and catholicism in particular. They teach that everyone from Adam and Eve on down are born with original sin. I can see why they say Jesus isn't, since they say he's God...but Mary? She's never once described as being divine, and yet somehow she breaks the "born with original sin" rule. It's a handwave.
If evil is in the world, and it's so prevalent to have infected literally EVERYBODY, then why is it that the reason Jesus gets a free pass is because he's (apparently) divine, while this isn't the reason given for Mary? So you don't need divinity then to get around original sin?
In studying Catholic theology, I learned that it is said that when Mary was conceived (through sexual intercourse just like everybody else) God somehow acted on her, at the moment of conception, to keep her free from sin.
If God can do this for one person...why not everyone? I thought sin is a problem so dire that it needs GOD HIMSELF to incarnate as a human to die on a cross in order to fix...yet God can just handwave away original sin for certain people?
It's not logically consistent.
To help those who don't get my point - imagine if the doctrine of the RCC were plotpoints for a TV series. Early in the series, the writers write that humans, ALL humans, are born with original sin. Then later on, they want to introduce this Messiah character, who is born of a pure woman. They say that this pure woman is free from sin and don't really have an explanation beyond handwaving it away with a "Goddidit".
Think of times in TV series where established plot point A is then contradicted by something later on and never satisfactorily explained. Think of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, where Spock explains that Klingons don't have tear ducts...and then later on, in Star Trek The Next Generation, Worf's brother in one episode is seen crying. That is a logical contradiction, but one that isn't really important.
Mary on the other hand would be important, but the best that the RCC can do to resolve this contradiction is Goddidit?

uck51js9zml2yt · 24-02-2015 09:01PM

Where In the bible does it say she was sinless?
Even she refers yo the child in her womb being her saviour.
The only one sinless was Jesus and as a result He was the only one able to Redeem mankind.
Scripture itself says that all mankind has sinned. Was Paul lying?

RikuoAmero · 24-02-2015 09:27PM

Daniella Billions T-shirt wrote: »

Where In the bible does it say she was sinless?
Even she refers yo the child in her womb being her saviour.
The only one sinless was Jesus and as a result He was the only one able to Redeem mankind.
Scripture itself says that all mankind has sinned. Was Paul lying?

It's some convoluted reasoning. As best as I can make it out, Mary is somehow saved from the problem of sin at the time of her own conception because...she'll give birth to the sinless Jesus later on in life and this effect somehow works backwards through time.
It's a two letter acronym in my opinion. "Mary was sinless! How you may ask? What evidence do I have, you ask? Why, the proof is that the sinless Jesus reached backwards through time to shield her from sin, before his own mother was born!"
When you're trying to explain away something magical that you insist happens/ed in the real world, by saying it was due to more magic, that's when you should take a step back and examine what you're doing.

uck51js9zml2yt · 24-02-2015 09:50PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It's some convoluted reasoning. As best as I can make it out, Mary is somehow saved from the problem of sin at the time of her own conception because...she'll give birth to the sinless Jesus later on in life and this effect somehow works backwards through time.
It's a two letter acronym in my opinion. "Mary was sinless! How you may ask? What evidence do I have, you ask? Why, the proof is that the sinless Jesus reached backwards through time to shield her from sin, before his own mother was born!"
When you're trying to explain away something magical that you insist happens/ed in the real world, by saying it was due to more magic, that's when you should take a step back and examine what you're doing.

I got lost at the word "convoluted".

RikuoAmero · 24-02-2015 10:06PM

Daniella Billions T-shirt wrote: »

I got lost at the word "convoluted".

How so?

Safehands · 25-02-2015 11:10AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It's some convoluted reasoning. As best as I can make it out, Mary is somehow saved from the problem of sin at the time of her own conception because...she'll give birth to the sinless Jesus later on in life and this effect somehow works backwards through time.
It's a two letter acronym in my opinion. "Mary was sinless! How you may ask? What evidence do I have, you ask? Why, the proof is that the sinless Jesus reached backwards through time to shield her from sin, before his own mother was born!"
When you're trying to explain away something magical that you insist happens/ed in the real world, by saying it was due to more magic, that's when you should take a step back and examine what you're doing.

All of this is predicated on the story of Adam and Eve being true, which it is not. Therefore we are arguing the same type of logic, the same authenticity as Mr. Spock not having tear ducts. I know this will come as a shock to some people, but Star Treck is about as real as Adam and Eve and Original sin.

Safehands · 25-02-2015 01:25PM

Gunney wrote: »

In any discussion on the Virgin Mary, the Bible has to be accepted as true or any debate is baseless

I think that is why we appear to be going off topic so often, when if fact, discussing the accuracy of the account of creation is very relevant to whether Mary needed to be a virgin or not.

Gunney · 25-02-2015 07:50PM

Safehands wrote: »

All of this is predicated on the story of Adam and Eve being true, which it is not.

The Bible is the word of God so you are calling God a liar. Are you sure you want to do that?

Safehands · 25-02-2015 07:52PM

Gunney wrote: »

The Bible is the word of God so you are calling God a liar. Are you sure you want to do that?

No, I am saying that I don't believe it is the word of God. God would have had his facts right, the bible clearly doesn't.

Gunney · 25-02-2015 08:23PM

Safehands wrote: »

The RC church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. However, if Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, (ever virgin) then could they have been husband and wife, given that a wedding and consummation of the marriage would have been necessary to have been considered a married couple? They were betrothed but when did they actually become man and wife? Would this fact not mean that Joseph was in no way related to Jesus and therefore Jesus was not of the house of David?

Safehands wrote: »

No, I am saying that I don't believe it is the word of God. God would have had his facts right, the bible clearly doesn't.

So is the whole point of this thread your attempt to prove the Bible is in your opinion fiction?

Safehands · 25-02-2015 09:31PM

Gunney wrote: »

So is the whole point of this thread your attempt to prove the Bible is in your opinion fiction?

Its amazing how many opinions people have about Mary's virginity. I don't believe there is any foundation for the premise that she was a virgin when she gave birth.

uck51js9zml2yt · 26-02-2015 01:26PM

Safehands wrote: »

Its amazing how many opinions people have about Mary's virginity. I don't believe there is any foundation for the premise that she was a virgin when she gave birth.

You've every right not to.

For thoseof us who believe the Bible to be the word of God, the virgin birth is spoken of early on when it says "a virgin shall conceive and he shall be called Emmanuel" .Mary herself asks how it can be as she hadn't known a man. Joseph wanted to put her away only to be told the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
The Jews referred to Jesus as being conceived out of wedlock.
I've no problem believing in the virgin birth but part company with an organization that claims she was always a virgin.
Scripture says she did not know Joseph until Jesus was born. It also refers to his brothers James and Jose's.
His mother and brothers also came to see Him.

Scripture also refers to James the brother of Jesus in the epistles.

I prefer the inspired word of God to a tradition.:)

sioux1977 · 26-02-2015 01:30PM

Gunney wrote: »

Given the interest in Jesus Christ and His life if He had bloodline brothers and sisters
it would be reasonable to find references in the Bible, but we do not.

As for who's to say? If you are a Catholic you should know that it is for the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church, to say, and it is up to you to accept it.

Gunney, I see your point, but all I'm saying is that it's something worth thinking about. After all, as far as I know, nowhere in the bible does it say that they DIDN'T have other children. The bible doesn't contain all of the details of Jesus' life. There are many years missing, from the time he was around 12 to the time he was 30. Also, there ARE references in the bible to him actually having biological brothers. The original Hebrew word for 'brother' was different when talking about a biological brother and a spiritual brother. The former is the word used in the Hebrew Bible, and I have a copy of the translation from Hebrew directly into English. (The references can be found in Matthew 13:55,56, and Mark 6:3).

Your comment about the Magisterium ends on quite an stern note - perhaps you didn't mean it to sound that way - but there is nothing in my faith that says I can't ask questions about theology. It's not really a matter of much consequence anyway. I do think it's important, in principle, to ask questions until they are explained to your satisfaction, and make sense to us for the right reasons, instead of blindly following something without questioning it. As a Catholic, I do take guidance from the Church, but as a Christian, I take it from the bible, and that takes precedence over my being a Catholic. Maybe that means I'm not doing it right, but what the hey - I do my best!

silverharp · 26-02-2015 01:34PM

Daniella Billions T-shirt wrote: »

You've every right not to.

For thoseof us who believe the Bible to be the word of God, the virgin birth is spoken of early on when it says "a virgin shall conceive and he shall be called Emmanuel".

You do know that Isiah quote is a mistranslation of the word "young girl" whoever wrote the Matthew gopsel was desperate to show that Jesus was predicted in the Jewish books so it looks a bit more like embellishment rather than being the actual word of God. I might do a thread on it sometime , Matthew is riddled with such errors

Virgin Mary

Comments