One is in error, and I can prove it.

[Uphill Battle]

Kind of had an epiphany (although, it wasn't exactly something hidden, just something that I never thought of before.)

Either the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church is Proveably in error. Which it is, if either of them TRULY have everything right (which I don't believe) I couldn't tell you, but one is definitely in doctrinal error.

It all hinges on one doctine too.

The Dogma of the immaculate conception. (I didn't post this in Mariology, as it isn't really about Mary.)

RCC espouses as Dogma the IC.
Orthodox denies IC.

They cannot both be right, therefore, one of the two "have it all right" churches is in definite doctrinal error over this single doctrine.

One down, one to go.

 

[Merciel]

One down, one to go.

More than one! You're forgetting the rest of the Christians, who can also be totally wrong.

 

[chucklesgalore]

Lot's of luck finding any church anywhere that has it all right. That would be pretty much like seeing the face of God.

What's sad is that anybody would make the virgin birth an item of doctrine to begin with. The evidence for it is incredibly poor. Only Mathew and Luke mention it at all. Even Paul makes no mention of it whatsoever, as though he knew nothing about it, or didn't find it to be significant. Mathew uses Isaiah 7:14 to support a virgin birth for Christ, however, a closer inspection Isaiah 7:14 and the next few chapters seems rather to be a narrative about the birth of a son (Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz) that was born to Isaiah himself and a prophetess as a sign for a king to go to war. It doesn't have any clear connection at all to Christ. But what we do know is that this virgin birth story of Mathew's occurred during the Roman occupation, and that the Roman's claimed many of their heroes were born of a virgin, like Hercules whose mother was a virgin and his father the god Zeus. Hercules was also called prince of peace, great counselor etc., and he too was said to have been raised from the dead and went back to his father Zeus. The Roman historian Livy who lived just before the birth of Christ wrote a history of Rome that included the story of Romulus and Remus which pictures them as also having been born to a Vestal Virgin, (Silvia), and of a god for a father—Mars.

It might be that Mathew (easily the worst written gospel) was simply trying to keep up with the story-telling trends around him during his times. To believe or disbelieve in the virgin birth is one thing, but that creeds and doctrines would later contain phrasing based on something as fragile as the virgin birth accounts would be the type of sloppy thinking that the church has always been known for.

 

[HisKid1973]

Or they both could be wrong..We are either "born anew" or we're not...He "knows" each of His sheep amongst the tares.pax..kim

 

[Merciel]

Lot's of luck finding any church anywhere that has it all right. That would be pretty much like seeing the face of God.

What's sad is that anybody would make the virgin birth an item of doctrine to begin with. The evidence for it is incredibly poor. Only Mathew and Luke mention it at all. Even Paul makes no mention of it whatsoever, as though he knew nothing about it, or didn't find it to be significant. Mathew uses Isaiah 7:14 to support a virgin birth for Christ, however, a closer inspection Isaiah 7:14 and the next few chapters seems rather to be a narrative about the birth of a son (Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz) that was born to Isaiah himself and a prophetess as a sign for a king to go to war. It doesn't have any clear connection at all to Christ. But what we do know is that this virgin birth story of Mathew's occurred during the Roman occupation, and that the Roman's claimed many of their heroes were born of a virgin, like Hercules whose mother was a virgin and his father the god Zeus. Hercules was also called prince of peace, great counselor etc., and he too was said to have been raised from the dead and went back to his father Zeus. The Roman historian Livy who lived just before the birth of Christ wrote a history of Rome that included the story of Romulus and Remus which pictures them as also having been born to a Vestal Virgin, (Silvia), and of a god for a father—Mars.

It might be that Mathew (easily the worst written gospel) was simply trying to keep up with the story-telling trends around him during his times. To believe or disbelieve in the virgin birth is one thing, but that creeds and doctrines would later contain phrasing based on something as fragile as the virgin birth accounts would be the type of sloppy thinking that the church has always been known for.

When was Hercules ever said to be conceived of a virgin? He was said to be conceived of a god and a woman, but I don't think the way Zeus impregnated Hercules' mother was quite the same way as the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Unless you think the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary.

 

[tulc]

Now remind me here: the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born free of original sin, right?
tulc(just trying to see if I remember this right)

 

[chucklesgalore]

"When was Hercules ever said to be conceived of a virgin? He was said to be conceived of a god and a woman, but I don't think the way Zeus impregnated Hercules' mother was quite the same way as the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Unless you think the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary."

Depends on which of the many legends you read about him as Hercules, Heracles, Herakles, Hercle etc. Not that it matters here. Insert any virgin born pagan deity you like in place of Hercules. There must have been at least a hundred all said to have been born of a virgin mortal woman and a god.

 

[chucklesgalore]

"Now remind me here: the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born free of original sin, right?tulc (just trying to see if I remember this right)"

That's a different doctrine that some sects hold which claims that Mary never sinned throught her entire life.

 

[Uphill Battle]

More than one! You're forgetting the rest of the Christians, who can also be totally wrong.

not forgetting, just highlighting the two who claim to have it all right. (Excluding JW's, and Mormons, I suppose they could make that list to.) Basic point is, none of us have it completely right.

Or they both could be wrong..We are either "born anew" or we're not...He "knows" each of His sheep amongst the tares.pax..kim

I believe they BOTH have error, as does everyone else. The OP just highlihgts that one MUST be wrong.

Now remind me here: the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born free of original sin, right?
tulc(just trying to see if I remember this right)

yes. (God rescued her from original sin at her conception.)

"Now remind me here: the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born free of original sin, right?tulc (just trying to see if I remember this right)"

That's a different doctrine that some sects hold which claims that Mary never sinned throught her entire life.

seperate doctrine... one that RCC/EO share, that Mary was blameless during her life.

 

[Ave Maria]

I believe that the Eastern Orthodox would be the correct one out of the two. Mary was not born without sin and she was not without sin during her life. Only one person was ever without sin from conception to death (and even resurrection) and that was Jesus Christ.

 

[Rafael]

The reason for the virgin birth is actually an important doctrine for understanding the nature of sin and death. Jesus was born of a virgin so that He would not inherit the sin nature from Adam, like all men do. Because Jesus did not have the nature of sin and death passed to Him from an earthly father, He was in communion with God and spiritually alive from the womb and would be able to live His life to become the perfect and spotless sacrifice required by God to make all of mankind holy and sin free before God. He became sin for us and paid the price because He was able to by nature of the Holy Spirit - His father, not Adam.
I don't know why Mary has to be sinless or the reasoning behind that doctrine, but I accept my brothers that would give her reverence for being the person that she was in being obedient to God as a faithfull daughter and bringing the Savior of mankind into this world through her womb and His power. I will let God judge matters of sin or sinlessness in other people's lives and do my best to obey the truth as revealed to me in His word.

Romans 5:17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

2Co 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As I understand it (and I don't claim to know much about the EO), they disagree on this DOGMA because they disagree on the DOGMA of original sin....


There are actually several DOGMAS that they disagree on. The Infallibility of the Pope would probably be the most problemmatic one.


Of course, both say they are rightfully expressing the "deposit of faith" that they infallibly received from the Apostles. Both claim to be infallible in their teachings. So, yeah, there is a point here: it seems likely one or both isn't what it so self-claims?


Thank you for the discussion and for reading my $0.01


May God richly bless you and yours in Christ our Suffering Servant in this holy season of Lent.



Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Benedicta00]

Kind of had an epiphany (although, it wasn't exactly something hidden, just something that I never thought of before.)

Either the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church is Proveably in error. Which it is, if either of them TRULY have everything right (which I don't believe) I couldn't tell you, but one is definitely in doctrinal error.

It all hinges on one doctine too.

The Dogma of the immaculate conception. (I didn't post this in Mariology, as it isn't really about Mary.)

RCC espouses as Dogma the IC.
Orthodox denies IC.

They cannot both be right, therefore, one of the two "have it all right" churches is in definite doctrinal error over this single doctrine.

One down, one to go.

this is an epiphany?

The EO doesn't deny it either. You can go to NewMan99 (I think that's his handle) or the Theresa Little Flower and they can explain it to you fully.

 

[djconklin]

Only Mathew and Luke mention it at all.

How many times does it have to be said before people will believe? maybe for them twice was enough?

Even Paul makes no mention of it whatsoever, as though he knew nothing about it, or didn't find it to be significant.

Paul implies it when he says that Jesus was born of a woman. Paul doesn't have to mentione what he knows everyone he was preaching to already knew--either from the early circulation of the Gospels or from his preaching (3 years at Corinth--how many sermons do we have?) and he points out that Paul is interested in the resurrected Christ.

Mathew uses Isaiah 7:14 to support a virgin birth for Christ

Matthew is using the LXX; when Isa. 7:14 was being translated into the Greek the translators saw this as a Messianic prophecy. We are not told why. No one else questioned it at the time.

 

[Proeliator]

So I'm confused here. Are people in this thread saying that they don't believe that Mary was a virgin? Because it looks alot like many are dancing around it and won't come right out and say it.

 

[chucklesgalore]

"The reason for the virgin birth is actually an important doctrine for understanding the nature of sin and death. Jesus was born of a virgin so that He would not inherit the sin nature from Adam, like all me do."

If God can do anything, it ought to be a no-brainer to let a child be born of anyone, anywhere, without inheriting anything from his parents that God does not wish the child to inherit.

"How many times does it have to be said before people will believe? maybe for them twice was enough?"

A lot more than twice obviously, and more importantly, it needs to be affirmed by both leaders in the church (neither Mathew nor Luke would have been considered in church leadership roles; Peter, Paul and James were the only church leaders in those days), and by writings of the same period outside the church. Neither Philo, nor Josephus, mention anything of a virgin birth either. It seems completely oblivious to everyone from the era except Mathew and Luke, and Mathew's use of the Isaiah text to support his claim was faulty at best and a lie at worst.

"Paul implies it when he says that Jesus was born of a woman."

He's simply implying that Jesus was a Jew, and lived as a human for a time. nothing more. There is nothing whatsoever in this text that implies anything of a virgin birth:

1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

"Paul doesn't have to mentione what he knows everyone he was preaching to already knew--either from the early circulation of the Gospels or from his preaching (3 years at Corinth--how many sermons do we have?) and he points out that Paul is interested in the resurrected Christ."

We have no hints from anyone in the old world outside or the two texts: Mathew and Luke, that anyone else knew or cared about this virgin birth item, let alone that so many people already knew about it that Paul felt no need to mention it. He mentions the death/resurrection even though they probably already knew about that. He mentions it because it's an important part of Christianity. He mentions dying to self, love for others, defending the poor, widow, and orphan, all of which are important as to making us the kind of people worthy to take up space in another world for an eternity. If he didn't mention the virgin birth it's probably safe to say that he either didn't know about it or placed no importance in it. Neither did the other two leaders: Peter and James. I think I can conclude from this that the virgin birth (whether it happened or not) was of no importance to the original church.

Further, Paul goes well out of his way to let people know that Jesus was fully human and of Jewish decent:

Romans: 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6 And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

He points out that it was "through the Spirit of holiness" that Christ became a son of God—not through a virgin birth, and even goes to the trouble of describing to us how Jesus was born through the lineage of his mother (David).

"Matthew is using the LXX; when Isa. 7:14 was being translated into the Greek the translators saw this as a Messianic prophecy. We are not told why. No one else questioned it at the time."

Well that would be strange since the Septuagint doesn't say "virgin" in Isaiah's text. It simply calls her a young woman, presumably engaged to be married. Secondly, we have no idea what the Greek translators were thinking in 200 B.C. (or earlier). It's not like they left us any notes.

If you want to believe in a virgin birth, feel free to. I don't really care one way or the other how Christ got here. He could have hatched from an egg or dropped from a tree or rode in on a rocket for all I care, so long as he came. But making the virgin birth a part of church doctrine is nothing short of astonishing in the bad idea department.

 

[tulc]

But making the virgin birth a part of church doctrine is nothing short of astonishing in the bad idea department

And yet, there it sits clear to some, not so much to others.
tulc(has no problem with the virgin birth)

 

[Uphill Battle]

this is an epiphany?

The EO doesn't deny it either. You can go to NewMan99 (I think that's his handle) or the Theresa Little Flower and they can explain it to you fully.

like I said, I'd never thought of it before. Not an epiphany, just a thought that struck me that never considered before: At least one of the two churches are teaching error.

And when you say go to the Orthodox, I'm sure they would say it is Rome, not them.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So I'm confused here. Are people in this thread saying that they don't believe that Mary was a virgin? Because it looks alot like many are dancing around it and won't come right out and say it.

no, don't believe she is EVER virgin. If someone stated otherwise rgarding the virgin birth, they'd have to explain the biblical record...

 

[tulc]

(I didn't post this in Mariology, as it isn't really about Mary.)

Looks like we're here anyway.
tulc(agree's thread isn't about Mary, but here we are)