Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Standing Up]

Writing a detail that was not included in Scripture is not necessarily a contradiction of scripture.

Scripture says Mary delivered and wrapped the baby. PoJ says the midwife did. It's a contradiction. Plus there are others, not the least of which has to do with the afterbirth. Why does the midwife (not Salome) believe Mary was a virgin after the baby appears?

If that were the case, then the four Gospels contradict each other. Just look closely at the four very different narratives describing the Resurrection of Christ in each of the Gospels. You should see what I mean.

Different subject, but no, they don't contradict as regards Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

 

[truefiction1]

So was Jesus 100% God or some part man/ some part God?

If He was 100% God in Flesh, then it would only mean his Spirit was God. The Spirit of Man was too weak to even withstand the presence of God including Moses who could only look at God's back.

It made 100% sense to say, John 14:12-18, "
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

So if He's 100% God, then no mankind participation would be necessary. If Man was necessary the immaculate conception could be saying, "Mary being a goddess/something of the nature." If He's 100% God but had to come to in the flesh for the sake of undoing what Adam did then he had to come back 100% pure.

So the work of his conception was 100% Holy Spirit. In that way, He would conquer the World and temptations that faced man from a God's Perspective not from Man ... for him to have been 100% sinless.

More so, it explains why He was able to be Human at the point of death. For him to have left his Church with the Holy Spirit, He knew He needed to leave us 100% pure too through the cleansing of His blood and the Salvation by Grace using his Holy Spirit.

The LORD Could have never been anything man!!! because the Spirit is either God's or of Evil. The Holy Spirit comes to lives in the heart because that's where everything is. In fact, Mary must have been under 100% surveillance of the Holy Spirit (sorry I don't know if that's okay). But the conception was GOD's alone.

The same way he breathed his Image into the clay to form man, the same way he breathed His son into flesh. Don't suggest something like Goddess!!! The LORD left us his HOLY SPIRIT as our Helper so that we won't be like Orphans!

John 14:16-18, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will bec in you.18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

The Word of God is both 100% God, and 100% man.

 

[truefiction1]

Scripture says Mary delivered and wrapped the baby. PoJ says the midwife did. It's a contradiction. Plus there are others, not the least of which has to do with the afterbirth. Why does the midwife (not Salome) believe Mary was a virgin after the baby appears?

The Church does not claim that all details in the book are accurate, we merely know parts of it to be true based upon experience, as I explained in my prior post.

Different subject, but no, they don't contradict as regards Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

If you take each account and compare them, there are glaring differences between some of the Gospel narratives. Skeptics cite many of these differences as proof that the resurrection is a hoax. My point is that just because an apocryphal work contains inaccuracies, it does not necessarily make the entire work false. The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15), knows that some information found in the story is accurate even though some might not be.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Church does not claim that all details in the book are accurate, we merely know parts of it to be true based upon experience, as I explained in my prior post.



If you take each account and compare them, there are glaring differences between some of the Gospel narratives. Skeptics cite many of these differences as proof that the resurrection is a hoax. My point is that just because an apocryphal work contains inaccuracies, it does not necessarily make the entire work false. The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15), knows that some information found in the story is accurate even though some might not be.

I know it is a silly question but what is PoJ?

 

[truefiction1]

I know it is a silly question but what is PoJ?

It's the "Protoevangelium of James", which is an early Christian book that was written sometime in the second century. The Church decided that it did not belong in the Bible, but recognizes that some information contained in it is true.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It's the "Protoevangelium of James", which is an early Christian book that was written sometime in the second century. The Church decided that it did not belong in the Bible, but recognizes that some information contained in it is true.

Ok. Gotcha. Do you know why it was not included?

Edit: nevermind. I just found out that it was excluded because it was not of apostolic origin (i.e. James did not write it).

Is it true that the PoJ said that the child Jesus killed people out of anger and then resurrected them or was the the Po Thomas?

 

[truefiction1]

Ok. Gotcha. Do you know why it was not included?

The Church was extremely cautious about which books belonged to the Scripture and there were strict protocols. The authorship (who really wrote it) was a critical factor. The Church was somehow well aware that this book was not really written by James, the Lord's brother.

 

[truefiction1]

Ok. Gotcha. Do you know why it was not included?

Edit: nevermind. I just found out that it was excluded because it was not of apostolic origin (i.e. James did not write it).

Is it true that the PoJ said that the child Jesus killed people out of anger and then resurrected them or was the the Po Thomas?

I think that might have been the Thomas. It's not in the PoJ. Read for yourself if you have time. It's rather short http://www.asu.edu/courses/rel376/total-readings/james.pdf

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think that might have been the Thomas. It's not in the PoJ. Read for yourself if you have time. It's rather short http://www.asu.edu/courses/rel376/total-readings/james.pdf

Thanks. I will look at it.

 

[Standing Up]

The Church does not claim that all details in the book are accurate, we merely know parts of it to be true based upon experience, as I explained in my prior post.



If you take each account and compare them, there are glaring differences between some of the Gospel narratives. Skeptics cite many of these differences as proof that the resurrection is a hoax. My point is that just because an apocryphal work contains inaccuracies, it does not necessarily make the entire work false. The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15), knows that some information found in the story is accurate even though some might not be.

So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.

 

[prodromos]

So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.

The New Testament was a product of the Church, not the other way around.

 

[Standing Up]

The New Testament was a product of the Church, not the other way around.

There are a variety of OT canons, so I'd agree different churches did their part. But for NT, I believe the apostles like Paul and John assembled it, rather than leave it to simmer uncooked for some 400 or 1400 years.

 

[truefiction1]

So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.

Scripture is to be read from within Holy Tradition which is the Life of the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church, which is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15). The Church is not above Scripture, they belong together.

 

[truefiction1]

There are a variety of OT canons, so I'd agree different churches did their part. But for NT, I believe the apostles like Paul and John assembled it, rather than leave it to simmer uncooked for some 400 or 1400 years.

The Ecumenical council at Nicea in the year 325 (I think) is when the Church officially decreed the Biblical canon for the Church. There were quite a few writings produced by various Christian sects, some heretical but claiming Apostolic authorship.

 

[justinangel]

Had Adam not sinned, Christ would have incarnated, and we would have been united to Him without needing to die to the death into which we are born as a consequence of Adam's sin, in whom we now ARE born. Because of Adam's Sin, Christ died in our stead, putting the death that is our life to death in His Body, and Resurrecting Human Nature IN HIMSELF to Divine Life that death cannot any longer cause to die...

In both the East and West, this question is purely a matter of theological speculation. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae III, q. 1, a. 3) follows St. Augustine in stating that the Divine Word would not have become incarnate had Adam not sinned: "“Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come" ( De Verbo Apost. 8, 2). However, the Angelic Doctor qualifies his statement with this: “And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.” St. Albert the Great (Aquinas' teacher) believed that the Divine Logos would have become man even if Adam hadn't sinned: "I believe that the Son of God would have become man even if there had been no sin…Nevertheless, on this subject I say nothing in a definitive manner; but I believe that what I said is more in harmony with the piety of faith” (III In Sententiarum d. 20, a.4). Still, he was humble enough to own that this was a matter for the Magisterium to definitively resolve. The Church Doctors St. Francis de Sales and St. Lawrence of Brandisi believed likewise. Here's food for thought: If the unconditional incarnation of Christ is correctly believed, then the creation of the Mother of God is also an event not occasioned by sin.

Theosis is not a process...

"Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

"In Eastern Orthodoxy deification (theosis) is a transformative process whose goal is likeness to or union with God. As a process of transformation, theosis is brought about by the effects of katharsis (purification of mind and body) and theoria ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to Eastern Orthodox teaching, theosis is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Orthodox_theology)

Do the EO define the word process differently?

Romans 5, 12

The Greek text does no say "IN WHOM" but "THROUGH WHICH" [DEATH]...

Here he is writing AS one knowing the Law TO those knowing the Law...
Indeed, he is referring to himself historically prior to Christ...

The Latin text reads:

Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.

'It was through one man that guilt came into the world; and, since death came owing to guilt, death was handed on to all mankind by (through) one man. (All alike were guilty men;'

I don't see what difference that makes in the larger context. 'Well then, one man commits a fault, and it brings condemnation upon all; one man makes amends, and it brings to all justification, that is, life. A multitude will become acceptable to God through one man’s obedience, just as a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became guilty. The law intervened, only to amplify our fault; but, as our fault was amplified, grace has been more amply bestowed than ever; that so, where guilt held its reign of death, justifying grace should reign instead, to bring us eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 5:18-19). All human beings are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned. The Gentiles aren't exempted either because they haven't received the Mosaic Law. 'For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel' (Romans 2:14-16).

I'm unsure if I understand you correctly, but do you interpret the phrase “death spread to all people in whom [Adam] all sinned" to mean that death spread to all people with the result all sinned? I've come across a few EO authors who interpret it this way. What they imply is that our mortality and fear of death compel us to sin. Like the old saying goes: "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Our craving for transient pleasure obstructs the attainment of theosis. But this interpretation is problematic. By his transgression, Adam did not only transmit death to us, but also sin. The Pelagians, whom St. Augustine contended with, claimed that St. Paul meant only physical death was transmitted to us through Adam. However, if we consider the phrase "by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners" in v.19, then according to them the passage should read "many were made mortal" instead of sinners. I'm afraid sinner does not mean mortal; nor does sin mean death. Verse 12 corresponds with v.19. Adam has brought both sin and death to the human race - death being the consequence of sin.The phrase in v.12 should not be taken as resultative in force, but rather causative in force: death spread to all people because all sinned. Some infants do in fact die, because they certainly will sin without exception when they're mature enough. Heck, they aren't even old enough to know what death is, let alone sin. Original sin does not have the character of personal guilt (reatus culpa); nor does it presuppose that we have lost the divinely created goodness of our human nature. But we are born guilty by association (reatus poena). Even though Adam brought death into the world, we are also responsible since we all sin.



Justinius Angelus

 

[justinangel]

Actually the little that Rome knows of Mary's life they received from the Church in Jerusalem. Everything else they've come up with is pious speculation.

Pure pious conjecture.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

Who founded Constantinople? I forget the name of the Eastern Roman emperor.



J.A.

 

[truefiction1]

Pure pious conjecture.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

Who founded Constantinople? I forget the name of the Eastern Roman emperor.



J.A.

Irenaeus spoke thus of Rome because Rome was not in error at that time. Context is important when understanding the fathers. In our current situation Irenaeus himself would not agree that his saying here would apply to Rome any longer, because Rome herself has broke with Apostolic Tradition.

 

[supersoldier71]

The New Testament was a product of the Church, not the other way around.

"Whose son is the Christ?"

Both Testaments are the products of the Living God, working through that earthly agency, for that season and that purpose, to His glory and His alone. It's a shame that agency lost sight of that.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

100% God, and 100% man

For Jesus to have been 100% God and 100% Man it would make the immaculate conception fallible but from this angle...

If the LORD used Mary's ovum in the conception of Jesus, Jesus would have still been 100% God but also 100% man. (Mary must have been 100% "man" for the purpose of the Cross to be fulfilled,)

Therefore, Jesus defeated the wages of sin at his crucifixion (He crucified the flesh) and defeated the power of death when He rose. Man from then on through the gift of the Holy Spirit was given the gift of being incorruptible, imperishable and immortal.

Mankind is at last (FREE)!!!

 

[prodromos]

There are a variety of OT canons, so I'd agree different churches did their part. But for NT, I believe the apostles like Paul and John assembled it, rather than leave it to simmer uncooked for some 400 or 1400 years.

Interesting tradition you have there, not one I see much support for in history, unless you have something to enlighten us in that regard?