Immaculate conception of Mary?

[prodromos]

Gelasium Dectretal (sic) banned the book circa 5th century. Believe EO/RC were one unit then.

The Catholic papcy did not exist then. Was Gelasium Decretal a conciliar decision agreed by the entire Church, or is it something binding on Rome alone?
It is beside the point anyway. The PoJ is not the SOURCE of our Tradition regarding Mary and Joseph but rather is an attempt to record that Tradition.
Do you believe the information recorded in the Gospels only came into existence when they were finally written, decades after the fact? Why the double standard?

 

[patricius79]

I agree that the PoJ is not the source of our knowledge regarding the Blessed Virgin. The Word of God is the source.

 

[Standing Up]

The Catholic papcy did not exist then. Was Gelasium Decretal a conciliar decision agreed by the entire Church, or is it something binding on Rome alone?
It is beside the point anyway. The PoJ is not the SOURCE of our Tradition regarding Mary and Joseph but rather is an attempt to record that Tradition.
Do you believe the information recorded in the Gospels only came into existence when they were finally written, decades after the fact? Why the double standard?

Given what Origen says, I would think PoJames was a later writing, rather than handed down, as was scripture.

Entire church? EO/RC were one at the time. No?

 

[justinangel]

You're under the impression she had made a vow while a youngster, per the PoJames. See Numbers 30:3-5 as the situation. IF true, she wouldn't have become betrothed.

She married her husband Joseph while under her vows. So, of course, she had made a vow before she married Joseph. When Mary was a young girl, she would have needed her father's consent to it. Reread what I wrote:

"In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard of the vow and consented to it, the vow is perpetually binding."

But according to the PoJ, it was Mary's mother Anna who had consecrated her daughter to God when she was born, because until then she had been barren. When Mary was old enough, she must have honoured her parent's wish. I'm sure her father did, too.

IV. 1 'And behold an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Anna, Anna, the Lord hath hearkened unto thy prayer, and thou shalt conceive and bear, and thy seed shall be spoken of in the whole world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I bring forth either male or female, I will bring it for a gift unto the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering unto him all the days of its life.'
Nativity Gospel of James

As it turned out, Mary ministered unto her divine Son Jesus, and him alone. She and Joseph had no children of their own.

If, however, she was betrothed and made an EV vow, obviously Joseph disagreed, thinking to put her away.

If Joseph had heard of the vow after he and Mary were espoused (betrothed), the situation wouldn't be any different. Once he, the husband, heard of it, he would have to forbid it or forever hold his peace. And if he did object to the vow before they got married, Joseph wouldn't have wed Mary. We know from Luke that Joseph didn't disapprove of the vow (Luke 1:27; Luke 1:34). Joseph thought of putting Mary away later because she was with child (Matthew 1:18-19), not because he had just heard of her vow.



Justinus Angelus

 

[prodromos]

Given what Origen says, I would think PoJames was a later writing, rather than handed down, as was scripture.

Most seem to agree that it was 2nd century. My point is that the Tradition regarding Joachim and Anna existed before it was written down, as did knowledge of Mary's assumption after her death, being maintained by the Church in Palestine.

Entire church? EO/RC were one at the time. No?

Yes, Rome was at that time Orthodox. This is long before the forgeries of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine which gave the assumed basis for the claims of universal jurisdiction. The canons of the Council of Nicaea give Rome jurisdiction over the West and not over any other Patriarchs territory, so any declaration by Pope Gelasius only had force within his jurisdiction.

 

[justinangel]

Given what Origen says, I would think PoJames was a later writing, rather than handed down, as was scripture.

The estimated date of the PoJ is 140-170 A.D. Tradition is handed down and then put into writing (Luke 1:1-4). The tradition of the PVM existed before the Quadriform Gospels and the PoJ were written, so it doesn't matter which came first.

Entire church? EO/RC were one at the time. No?[/QUOTE]

The Catholic Church does not consist only of the Roman / Latin rite. "There are three major groupings of Rites based on the initial transmission of the faith: the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Catholic Church today." Not all the East is out of communion with Rome.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Finally, the Gelasium Decretal did not determine the Canon of Scripture. It's an index of what had already been determined by the Council of Carthage (a synod of African bishops) and approved by the Holy See at Rome in the late 4th century.

Session lll

Canon 36

[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.

Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)

"The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (A.D. 787) which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence."

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.php

Gelasius acted under his temporal authority as Bishop of Rome. The GD didn't address all the churches beyond the bishop's temporal jurisdiction. Further, the PoJ wasn't categorized along with the Gnostic gospels. Apocrypha aren't necessarily heretical works, albeit their potential minor errors.



Justinus Angelus

 

[Standing Up]

Most seem to agree that it was 2nd century. My point is that the Tradition regarding Joachim and Anna existed before it was written down, as did knowledge of Mary's assumption after her death, being maintained by the Church in Palestine.

Yes, Rome was at that time Orthodox. This is long before the forgeries of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine which gave the assumed basis for the claims of universal jurisdiction. The canons of the Council of Nicaea give Rome jurisdiction over the West and not over any other Patriarchs territory, so any declaration by Pope Gelasius only had force within his jurisdiction.

Okay. Do recall the "assignment" of territories.

 

[Standing Up]

She married her husband Joseph while under her vows. So, of course, she had made a vow before she married Joseph. When Mary was a young girl, she would have needed her father's consent to it. Reread what I wrote:

"In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard of the vow and consented to it, the vow is perpetually binding."

But according to the PoJ, it was Mary's mother Anna who had consecrated her daughter to God when she was born, because until then she had been barren. When Mary was old enough, she must have honoured her parent's wish. I'm sure her father did, too.

Well another contradiction between PoJ and scripture.

The point is about the vow. If you are right and she took a vow of EV when young, then it makes no sense to believe Mary became betrothed/married.

 

[patricius79]

Well another contradiction between PoJ and scripture.

The point is about the vow. If you are right and she took a vow of EV when young, then it makes no sense to believe Mary became betrothed/married.

Only if one assumes that planning a celibate marriage is an impossibility or is wrong. But of course, many people assume that conceiving the Incarnate God is impossible too.

 

[justinangel]

Yes, Rome was at that time Orthodox. This is long before the forgeries of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals and the Donation of Constantine which gave the assumed basis for the claims of universal jurisdiction.

Rome has always been orthodox. The same can't be said for Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was condemned by the Council of Antioch in A.D. 268 for being a proponent of Monarchianism. Stephen I of Antioch was the Archbishop (Patriarch) between 341-345 A.D. He was leader of the Arian party known as the Eusebians during the Arian controversy and an adversary of Athanasius, who appealed to Rome. Lucius of Alexandria was an Arian who was twice installed as Patriarch of Alexandria, first in 363, during the reign of Athanasius, and then between 373 and 380, competing with Peter ll of Alexandria. Eudoxius, Archbishop of Constantinople (360 to 370) was one of the most influential Arians. Dorotheus was also an Arian Archbishop of Constaninople from c. 388 until his death in 407. Preceding his ascension to the See of Constantinople, Dorotheus had served as Arian bishop of Antioch from 366 A.D. Barbas was an Arian and Archbishop of Constantinople from 407 until his death in 430. Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538) was a Monophysite archbishop who is a saint in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Dioscorus I of Alexandria (441-451) was an archbishop who had embraced Monophysitism. He was deposed at the Council of Chalcedon after Nestorius of Constantinople was. Anthimus I was a Miaphysite (a type of Monophysite) archbishop of Constantinople from 535–536. He was deposed by Pope Agapetus l in 536 A.D. - that's over 200 years before the PI Decretals were apparently written . Shall I go on? I'm afraid all the major heresies originated and flourished in the East as Rome sadly looked on.

The PI Decretals were not produced until the late eighth century. The bishops of Rome claimed universal jurisdiction as early as the first century (Clement l). And they made those claims without any false decretals. Moreover, the ones who exposed their falsity were Catholics themselves. There are two primary explanations for the purpose of the PI Decretals: 1) to increase the temporal power of the Pope in Italy; (2) to justify the universal jursidiction of the Western Emperor in his lands. Anti-Catholic Polemicists, apparently, have synthesized the two theories and come up with their own distinct one to put some thrust into their anti-Catholic agenda - that the Pope has used it to justify his universal jurisdiction. The truth is, he doesn't need forged documents to justify something which the Church has always known to be the case, albeit some contumacious bishops who had a lust for power.

The canons of the Council of Nicaea give Rome jurisdiction over the West and not over any other Patriarchs territory, so any declaration by Pope Gelasius only had force within his jurisdiction.

The Fathers of the Council of Ephesus (431) declared that they were "compelled" to condemn the heresy of Archbishop Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."

The Fathers of Chalcedon (451), after hearing Leo's Tome read, declared: "so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo."

At the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula was repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."

Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, which isn't to be confused with temporal authority concerning practical administrative and disciplinary affairs in the different churches.



Justinus Angelus

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

 

[justinangel]

Well another contradiction between PoJ and scripture.

There can't be a contradiction between the PoJ and Scripture because the latter doesn't affirm that Mary's mother didn't consecrate her to God. However, Mary's question to the angel in Luke 1:34 implies that she did.

The point is about the vow. If you are right and she took a vow of EV when young, then it makes no sense to believe Mary became betrothed/married.

It might not make any sense to you and me. Nor did it make complete sense to Mary until the angel appeared to her and answered her question. Mary was a servant girl residing in the Temple when she made her vow, and at that time I doubt she was even contemplating on getting married. Judith never remarried when she must have made her vow. According to tradition, the Temple priests arranged the marriage so that Mary would have a caretaker to look after her once her parents had died. They chose a just man who would agree on having a chaste marriage. The Eastern church holds that the priests chose an elderly widower, who must already have had adult children who could look after themselves. But we Catholics believe that Joseph was a young bachelor who decided to remain chaste himself, probably out of a strong personal devotion to study the Torah, which could explain why the priests chose him. They must have known him very well. Though it was uncommon for men to do this, some of them did, usually rabbis.



Justinus Angelus





The Presentation of Mary in the Temple

 

[patricius79]

Rome has always been orthodox. The same can't be said for Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was condemned by the Council of Antioch in A.D. 268 for being a proponent of Monarchianism. Stephen I of Antioch was the Archbishop (Patriarch) between 341-345 A.D. He was leader of the Arian party known as the Eusebians during the Arian controversy and an adversary of Athanasius, who appealed to Rome. Lucius of Alexandria was an Arian who was twice installed as Patriarch of Alexandria, first in 363, during the reign of Athanasius, and then between 373 and 380, competing with Peter ll of Alexandria. Eudoxius, Archbishop of Constantinople (360 to 370) was one of the most influential Arians. Dorotheus was also an Arian Archbishop of Constaninople from c. 388 until his death in 407. Preceding his ascension to the See of Constantinople, Dorotheus had served as Arian bishop of Antioch from 366 A.D. Barbas was an Arian and Archbishop of Constantinople from 407 until his death in 430. Severus of Antioch (c. 465–538) was a Monophysite archbishop who is a saint in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Dioscorus I of Alexandria (441-451) was an archbishop who had embraced Monophysitism. He was deposed at the Council of Chalcedon after Nestorius of Constantinople was. Anthimus I was a Miaphysite (a type of Monophysite) archbishop of Constantinople from 535–536. He was deposed by Pope Agapetus l in 536 A.D. - that's over 200 years before the PI Decretals were apparently written . Shall I go on? I'm afraid all the major heresies originated and flourished in the East as Rome sadly looked on.

That is what Dave Armstrong says also:

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

Of course that doesn't count the many years when 1 of the 3 Eastern Patriarchates were heretical, nor the many years when 2 of the 3 Eastern Patriarchates were heretical

I'm not really clear on the Eastern Orthodox objections to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. I was told that they don't believe we are conceived deprived of holiness, but only in a state of "Death", but I was told this death is not merely physical death, but a Death which leads us to sin. So from my perspective it sounds like another way of saying that we are conceived deprived of holiness. I was also told that if Mary is especially protected from sin, then that would deprive the New Eve of holiness. But why would it, when the New Adam was not deprived of human holiness or suffering, even though he--being God--could not sin

 

[patricius79]

There can't be a contradiction between the PoJ and Scripture because the latter doesn't affirm that Mary's mother didn't consecrate her to God. However, Mary's question to the angel in Luke 1:34 implies that she did.



It might not make any sense to you and me. Nor did it make complete sense to Mary until the angel appeared to her and answered her question. Mary was a servant girl residing in the Temple when she made her vow, and at that time I doubt she was even contemplating on getting married. Judith never remarried when she must have made her vow. According to tradition, the Temple priests arranged the marriage so that Mary would have a caretaker to look after her once her parents had died. They chose a just man who would agree on having a chaste marriage. The Eastern church holds that the priests chose an elderly widower, who must have alraeady had adult children who could look after themselves. But we Catholics believe that Joseph was a young bachelor who decided to remain chaste himself, probably out of a strong personal devotion to study the Torah. Though it was uncommon for men to do this, some of them did, usually rabbis.





The Presentation of Mary in the Temple

What a beautiful painting of the Presentation of Mary! Please keep posting these.

 

[Arsenios]

Dave Armstrong says:

All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
That doesn't count the many years when 1 of the 3 Eastern Patriarchates were heretical,
nor the many years when 2 of the 3 Eastern Patriarchates were heretical

This merely demonstrates that the Church IS NOT
Headed by any of its Patriarchs,
But is instead the Body of Christ...
It is Christ Who is Her Head...
Here and now...
On this earth...

Now it is true that in the early years, during and after the fall of Rome, and its removal from Roma, Italia, to Byzantium, the Latin Papacy was the most persecuted Patriarchy on earth. Appointment to Pope was almost a sure sentence of martyrdom, and almost all the Popes were Saints, via the persecutions... So their ontological teaching that the Church is not Headed by a Patriarch of Pope did not come until those persecutions came to a stop, and they believed that it was their Popes themselves who were the Head of the Church on earth, and that Christ was not, but that Peter's Chair had thankfully been retained in Rome to be the Head of the Church Militant... And it was then that they claimed more than the Primacy of their Pope in Church Councils, and grasped for PAPAL SUPREMACY in an attempt to establish the rulership of the Latin Papacy over the Body of Christ. This is an heretical belief and teaching in the eyes of the rest of the Christian Church in the world... And it is one that the Latins hold to this day and hour...

You see, the rest of the Churches all know that their Patriarchs can become heretical, and they still have the Faith of Christ. Rome does not think so of HER Patriarch, the Pope... Hence the thorns or apostacy of Papal autonomous supremacy over Christ's Holy Body, the Church.

"And Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the Age..."

These Holy Words mean that Christ did not leave us a vicar in His Place...

The Church, not the Ruling Patriarchs, let alone just ONE of them, the Pope of Rome, is the Ground and Pillar of Truth...

There have been bad Councils by bad Patriarchs, and they have been rejected by the Church which did not RECEIVE their rulings across time...

And there have been local rulings that have been accepted by the Church across time that have not been determined in Ecumenical Council...

The Church is greater than Her Patriarchs and Popes...

Yet the Latins have believed that the Pope is greater than the Patriarchs,
And that He is also, as the Vicar of Christ, greater than the Church...

Thorny issues, these...

In great need of resolution...

Authority over others is not the basis of this Faith of Christ...

But obedience under Christ sure is...

Unto the Marriage of the Lamb...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What a beautiful painting of the Presentation of Mary! Please keep posting these.

Tradition has it that when she was but 3 years old she was presented, and ran up the steps into the Holy of Holies, where Zacharias, the High Priest, not only permitted her to run, but allowed her to say, and was later murdered by the Jews for having done so, between the steps and the altar, as Christ latter accused them... His holy blood would NOT wash from the stone where he died, as a remembrance to them for their crime in such a holy place...

Arsenios

 

[bbbbbbb]

This merely demonstrates that the Church IS NOT
Headed by any of its Patriarchs,
But is instead the Body of Christ...
It is Christ Who is Her Head...
Here and now...
On this earth...

Now it is true that in the early years, during and after the fall of Rome, and its removal from Roma, Italia, to Byzantium, the Latin Papacy was the most persecuted Patriarchy on earth. Appointment to Pope was almost a sure sentence of martyrdom, and almost all the Popes were Saints, via the persecutions... So their ontological teaching that the Church is not Headed by a Patriarch of Pope did not come until those persecutions came to a stop, and they believed that it was their Popes themselves who were the Head of the Church on earth, and that Christ was not, but that Peter's Chair had thankfully been retained in Rome to be the Head of the Church Militant... And it was then that they claimed more than the Primacy of their Pope in Church Councils, and grasped for PAPAL SUPREMACY in an attempt to establish the rulership of the Latin Papacy over the Body of Christ. This is an heretical belief and teaching in the eyes of the rest of the Christian Church in the world... And it is one that the Latins hold to this day and hour...

You see, the rest of the Churches all know that their Patriarchs can become heretical, and they still have the Faith of Christ. Rome does not think so of HER Patriarch, the Pope... Hence the thorns or apostacy of Papal autonomous supremacy over Christ's Holy Body, the Church.

"And Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the Age..."

These Holy Words mean that Christ did not leave us a vicar in His Place...

The Church, not the Ruling Patriarchs, let alone just ONE of them, the Pope of Rome, is the Ground and Pillar of Truth...

There have been bad Councils by bad Patriarchs, and they have been rejected by the Church which did not RECEIVE their rulings across time...

And there have been local rulings that have been accepted by the Church across time that have not been determined in Ecumenical Council...

The Church is greater than Her Patriarchs and Popes...

Yet the Latins have believed that the Pope is greater than the Patriarchs,
And that He is also, as the Vicar of Christ, greater than the Church...

Thorny issues, these...

In great need of resolution...

Authority over others is not the basis of this Faith of Christ...

But obedience under Christ sure is...

Unto the Marriage of the Lamb...

Arsenios

Thank you for your excellent post.

 

[patricius79]

This merely demonstrates that the Church IS NOT
Headed by any of its Patriarchs,
But is instead the Body of Christ...
It is Christ Who is Her Head...
Here and now...
On this earth...

Now it is true that in the early years, during and after the fall of Rome, and its removal from Roma, Italia, to Byzantium, the Latin Papacy was the most persecuted Patriarchy on earth. Appointment to Pope was almost a sure sentence of martyrdom, and almost all the Popes were Saints, via the persecutions... So their ontological teaching that the Church is not Headed by a Patriarch of Pope did not come until those persecutions came to a stop, and they believed that it was their Popes themselves who were the Head of the Church on earth, and that Christ was not, but that Peter's Chair had thankfully been retained in Rome to be the Head of the Church Militant... And it was then that they claimed more than the Primacy of their Pope in Church Councils, and grasped for PAPAL SUPREMACY in an attempt to establish the rulership of the Latin Papacy over the Body of Christ. This is an heretical belief and teaching in the eyes of the rest of the Christian Church in the world... And it is one that the Latins hold to this day and hour...

You see, the rest of the Churches all know that their Patriarchs can become heretical, and they still have the Faith of Christ. Rome does not think so of HER Patriarch, the Pope... Hence the thorns or apostacy of Papal autonomous supremacy over Christ's Holy Body, the Church.

"And Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the Age..."

These Holy Words mean that Christ did not leave us a vicar in His Place...

The Church, not the Ruling Patriarchs, let alone just ONE of them, the Pope of Rome, is the Ground and Pillar of Truth...

There have been bad Councils by bad Patriarchs, and they have been rejected by the Church which did not RECEIVE their rulings across time...

And there have been local rulings that have been accepted by the Church across time that have not been determined in Ecumenical Council...

The Church is greater than Her Patriarchs and Popes...

Yet the Latins have believed that the Pope is greater than the Patriarchs,
And that He is also, as the Vicar of Christ, greater than the Church...

Thorny issues, these...

In great need of resolution...

Authority over others is not the basis of this Faith of Christ...

But obedience under Christ sure is...

Unto the Marriage of the Lamb...

Arsenios

Hi Arsenios,

I think Christ gave his authority to the Church's leaders, and especially St. Rock (You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church....I will give you keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind, etc) but that there was quite a great number of heretical patriarchs in the East, and I don't think that is because Eastern Christians are inferior, but because--as the Eastern Orthodox Scholar Schmemann says--the early Fathers and Councils unanimously saw Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement. And I think this is because Christ founded the Church on the Succession of Rock at Rome, as St. Augustine says.. I think this is necessary to preserve the unity of the Church in Christ, so that people can have an easy way of determining true doctrine and where the true Church is.

In the case of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Mother of God, our Lady, when we left off I was asking what this spiritual "Death" is that you refer to which causes us to sin. I believe it is the deprivation of holiness (the "stain of sin") which comes from Original Sin, from which the New Eve was naturally preserved and protected from by Her Divine Son, the New Adam.

 

[prodromos]

Well another contradiction between PoJ and scripture.

The point is about the vow. If you are right and she took a vow of EV when young, then it makes no sense to believe Mary became betrothed/married.

Except that as an unmarried, pregnant girl, she most certainly would have been put to death by the Jews.

 

[Standing Up]

Only if one assumes that planning a celibate marriage is an impossibility or is wrong. But of course, many people assume that conceiving the Incarnate God is impossible too.

Don't believe that concept exists in scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Except that as an unmarried, pregnant girl, she most certainly would have been put to death by the Jews.

You're thinking of the woman caught in adultery. Deut. 29:23-27 addresses how Joseph saw Mary's situation prior to the dream. I'm thinking Joseph thought no one could have helped Mary.