The Immaculate Conception

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by InLove

Well-the thread is unwinding, but I don't mind at all--I would like to have more information on this subject, as well--I have never, ever heard of a virgin birth other than that of Christ (and Mary--which I personally discount as either rumor or something worse).

As always, my curiosity is well-intact.

InPeace,
InLove

No, of course we should stick to the original thought. Luna just got me wanting to show all I know in two seconds or less... I think it was a success.

v/r

Q

[InLove]

Interesting--interesting--found the thread on parthenogenesis on the "science" board. Thanks, Q and Luna.

InPeace,
InLove

[precept]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hello,

Would anyone care to enlighten me regarding the subject of the Immaculate Conception? (I think this is the right place to post this? If not, I trust it will be moved to a more appropriate board.)

If there are other threads in the forum that address this question, I have not found them yet.

My question is asked for the purpose of education and understanding, so I hope the thread is a peaceful one.

InPeace,
InLove

This doctrine originated in the second century when Christrianity was led by the Gentile Christian church. From the ranks of Christianity many aberrant factions arose claiming to represent the true understanding of Chrstianity...Gnosticism was one such aberrant Chrstian group.

Gnosticism was rejected by the leading Christian faction, a faction led by the Roman Catholic church, because Gnosticism "merged myths and cults, incorporating a few Christian elements with adaptations of Mithraism, astrology, magical spells, and anything else lying to hand.....Although the Gnostics claimed to offer a higher knowledge than the simple faiith of the church, their teachings were highly mythological and encountered an opposition, no less vehement than that of the church.

Gnostic sects welcomed numerous gospels other than the four which were finally included in the canon, and enjoyed producing 'secret' or apocryphal godpels, acts, epistles and apocaplypses......many of these 'apocryphal' texts portrayed Jesus as a strenous advocate of sexual renunciation. Some developed the reticent traditions of Jesus' infancy to provide stories about Mary's parents, and her (miraculous) birth and perpetual virginity". Illustrated History of Christianity....chapter 1...pp28-29.



precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

This doctrine originated in the second century when Christrianity was led by the Gentile Christian church. From the ranks of Christianity many aberrant factions arose claiming to represent the true understanding of Chrstianity...Gnosticism was one such aberrant Chrstian group.

Gnosticism was rejected by the leading Christian faction, a faction led by the Roman Catholic church, because Gnosticism "merged myths and cults, incorporating a few Christian elements with adaptations of Mithraism, astrology, magical spells, and anything else lying to hand.....Although the Gnostics claimed to offer a higher knowledge than the simple faiith of the church, their teachings were highly mythological and encountered an opposition, no less vehement than that of the church.

Gnostic sects welcomed numerous gospels other than the four which were finally included in the canon, and enjoyed producing 'secret' or apocryphal godpels, acts, epistles and apocaplypses......many of these 'apocryphal' texts portrayed Jesus as a strenous advocate of sexual renunciation. Some developed the reticent traditions of Jesus' infancy to provide stories about Mary's parents, and her (miraculous) birth and perpetual virginity". Illustrated History of Christianity....chapter 1...pp28-29.



precept

I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.

And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary).

Q

[precept]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.

And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary).

Q

Q, your response is another example of those who would rather propagate their fictious imaginings passed off as truth. In my above presents I quoted from no less an authority than the "Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity"...You then summarily dismissed this world recognized scholarship of Christian history as officially published under the world recognized University of Oxford....And what did you offer to refute this scholarly work?...your own delusionary imaginings as follows...." I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.
And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary)."

How ridiculous! What travesty!

You insult your readership as unintelligent and unable to determine fact from fiction!

Use your best weapon! as has been used by your kind for the many past centuries. And as is being used now! Censor truth! Hide it! Burn it!as in past times. Better yet erase it from public view. The errors of the past as well as the present will always surface to your embarrasment!

You have my word!


precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

Q, your response is another example of those who would rather propagate their fictious imaginings passed off as truth. In my above presents I quoted from no less an authority than the "Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity"...You then summarily dismissed this world recognized scholarship of Christian history as officially published under the world recognized University of Oxford....And what did you offer to refute this scholarly work?...your own delusionary imaginings as follows...." I'm afraid that is quite inaccurate. It originated much much later, after the Catholic church was official, Precept. And the Catholic church was not official until well into the 4th and 5th centuries. Nor was it accepted by a great many of Catholics. In fact today it is still not accepted by a great many Catholics.
And for your information...the Church is still lead by Gentiles...

You better take your reference book back for a refund.

Gnosticism had nothing to do with anything human, female or otherwise. They could care less about Miriam (Mary)."

How ridiculous! What travesty!

You insult your readership as unintelligent and unable to determine fact from fiction!

Use your best weapon! as has been used by your kind for the many past centuries. And as is being used now! Censor truth! Hide it! Burn it!as in past times. Better yet erase it from public view. The errors of the past as well as the present will always surface to your embarrasment!

You have my word!


precept

Do I...i don't recall insulting anyone. In fact I don't recall insulting you at all. You on the otherhand, have no apparent problem insulting others in the name of God. I do have a problem with that Precept...

Q

[JJM]

InLove,



Hi umm I think the Immaculate Conception has been pretty well covered but I think I'll just add a little. Mary was sinless for many reasons but I’ll explain a few. The first is Mary's role as the Ark of the New Covenant (I can explain this later if you like) because the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, and the Ark of the OT was supposed to be perfect, the Ark of the NT actually is. It also stems from Mary's role as New Eve. As the old Eve was created without sin and chose to disobey God the new Eve Mary was created without sin and Chose to accept the will if God (the annunciation). Also it is also necessary for the dignity of God that his mother the person who he would actually dwell in and receive flesh from should be sinless.



As for a virgin birth of Mary I've never heard anyone say this. The Catholic Church would definitely say that this is false. The Virgin Birth doesn't need to be clarified because Mary was conceived in a normal way and when it is capitalized it refers to Jesus's Birth. So even if there was another virgin birth in human history you wouldn't need to clarify, just like the Immaculate Conception, when capitalized you know it is referring to Mary's conception not Christ’s even though his was also immaculate. Also there is no such thing as a Catholic sect. There are Catholics and non-Catholics. So some people may believe that St. Anne was a virgin when Mary was conceived but they aren't Catholic.



precept,



What you said is false. While it is true Mary was important to Gnostics to imply that it originated there is wrong.



Quahom1,



Isn't it true that parthenogenesis has never been recoded in Humans?



Also can I ask you something? I mean this with the utmost respect so before I ask just know that. Anyway you seem to be very orthodox in the majority of your beliefs but how do you believe what you do about the origins of the Catholic Church and the origin of its beliefs but still remain Catholic? I mean if I came to the realization that what you say is true not only would I cease to be Catholic but I'd probably also loose all faith in God or at least Christianity.

Also the idea that the Immaculate Conception originated in the 4th an 5th century is false Justin Martyr believed it.

[InLove]

Thank you, everyone, for your contribution to my understanding. While I remain a bit confused and curious about some of the issues that have been discussed here, I now have a much better idea of the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception.

But perhaps most importantly, now when someone tells me that Catholics generally hold that Mary was born of a virgin, I can respond with an educated answer. I really did not think this was the case, but I needed to find out. I am amazed (and frankly, disturbed) that I heard this from a Protestant pulpit, a pulpit where I have heard much truth and wisdom. I plan to discuss this in private with the individual who spoke it. Hopefully, I misunderstood what he said.

Thanks again for the helpful info.

InPeace,
InLove

P.S. I read recently on another board that some members are upset by threads started here (I am paraphrasing) against the Catholic church. Please, I hope no one has confused my sincere questions with "Catholic-bashing!" I am not here to bash anyone, and I hope my posts prove that.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by JJM

Quahom1,



Isn't it true that parthenogenesis has never been recoded in Humans?



Also can I ask you something? I mean this with the utmost respect so before I ask just know that. Anyway you seem to be very orthodox in the majority of your beliefs but how do you believe what you do about the origins of the Catholic Church and the origin of its beliefs but still remain Catholic? I mean if I came to the realization that what you say is true not only would I cease to be Catholic but I'd probably also loose all faith in God or at least Christianity.

Also the idea that the Immaculate Conception originated in the 4th an 5th century is false Justin Martyr believed it.

No offense given, none taken.

I have read of parthenogenisis taking place with humans, but always a female child being the result.

I remain Catholic, because I choose to. I consider the origins of the Catholic church the way I do because I researched the roots and found them. That doen's make Catholisism any less true. My faith in God is not based on my faith in man or man's institutions. Catholosism is my way of expressing that faith. Why would I lose faith in Christ due to possible errors (or not), in the church's beginnings?

Why do I question the church on certain issues? Because I can, and I should. It hasn't weakened my faith by any stretch, it has only made it stronger.

v/r

Q

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No offense given, none taken.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I have read of parthenogenisis taking place with humans, but always a female child being the result.

Oh ok.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I remain Catholic, because I choose to. I consider the origins of the Catholic church the way I do because I researched the roots and found them. That doesn't make Catholicism any less true. My faith in God is not based on my faith in man or man's institutions. Catholicism is my way of expressing that faith. Why would I lose faith in Christ due to possible errors (or not), in the church's beginnings?

I also don't base my faith on a human institution. I base my faith on a divine institution created by God. However if what you say is true no divine institution exists or at least it's not the Catholic Church. And if that is true then the church only has human authority not divine authority, and that’s Luther's premise. So I don’t think it would make any sense to be Catholic if I believed that. But Protestantism (and I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way) doesn't make any sense to me because it has no source of teaching that can be taken infallibly. Because the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and it rejects that church so if you want to throw out one of the books of the bible or throw out another you might as well because you have no reason to keep that book or remove the other, other than the Catholic Church says so. Essentially Christianity without the church is simply agnosticism with a name for God. Because you have no real reason to believe anything thus you can believe anything you want and I can't see a God who calls himself the Truth not caring if anyone actually knows the Truth. So I could become Orthodox but I think the basic difference between them and Catholicism is in violation of The First Council of Constantinople. So if the Catholic Church isn't a divine institution, and it can't be if not instituted by the divine, then for all I can see Christianity isn't true. However I've also looked into the beginning of the church and I'd agree it is true that the early church was a little different than it currently is. However the essentials were there and as I once read in The Russian Church and the Papacy byVladimir Soloviev (I'm paraphrasing) "The Catholic church is like and oak tree, grown strong and tall from a small acorn. Sure an acorn doesn't resemble an Oak tree but that doesn't mean that the Oak Tree wasn't once an Acorn. In the same way Catholics shouldn't deny that their Oak Tree was ever an Acorn and those looking for the Acorn should have enough sense to see the Oak tree standing in front of them." Anyway that’s my take on it .

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Why do I question the church on certain issues? Because I can, and I should. It hasn't weakened my faith by any stretch, it has only made it stronger.



v/r



Q

I also question the church on many issues but if I ever disagreed with it on anything I'd leave if for no other reason then they don't want you to receive communion if you do. However nothing has caused me to loose faith in the church yet. Every once in a while I could logically go either way on an issue and I'll accept what the church teaches but I have yet to see any form of hypocrisy or something that is obviously contrary to history. Well I guess I’m done God Bless .

[Paultoo]

Originally Posted by JJM

I also don't base my faith on a human institution. I base my faith on a divine institution created by God. However if what you say is true no divine institution exists or at least it's not the Catholic Church. And if that is true then the church only has human authority not divine authority, and that’s Luther's premise. So I don’t think it would make any sense to be Catholic if I believed that.

I agree with JJm

But Protestantism (and I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way) doesn't make any sense to me because it has no source of teaching that can be taken infallibly. Because the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and it rejects that church so if you want to throw out one of the books of the bible or throw out another you might as well because you have no reason to keep that book or remove the other, other than the Catholic Church says so. Essentially Christianity without the church is simply agnosticism with a name for God. Because you have no real reason to believe anything thus you can believe anything you want and I can't see a God who calls himself the Truth not caring if anyone actually knows the Truth.

I don't agree. Luther was still practising Catholicism even though he believed that salvation could be achieved without one's working to be saved.

So if the Catholic Church isn't a divine institution, and it can't be if not instituted by the divine, then for all I can see Christianity isn't true.

Why so? Christianity began with Jesus and His disciples; long before there was ever an institution called the Catholic church

However the essentials were there and as I once read in The Russian Church and the Papacy byVladimir Soloviev (I'm paraphrasing) "The[/font][/color][color=black][font=Arial] Catholic church is like and oak tree, grown strong and tall from a small acorn. Sure an acorn doesn't resemble an Oak tree but that doesn't mean that the Oak Tree wasn't once an Acorn. In the same way Catholics shouldn't deny that their Oak Tree was ever an Acorn and those looking for the Acorn should have enough sense to see the Oak tree standing in front of them." Anyway that’s my take on it .

Great analogy.

I also question the church on many issues but if I ever disagreed with it on anything I'd leave if for no other reason then they don't want you to receive communion if you do. However nothing has caused me to loose faith in the church yet. Every once in a while I could logically go either way on an issue and I'll accept what the church teaches but I have yet to see any form of hypocrisy or something that is obviously contrary to history. Well I guess I’m done God Bless .

I agree. If you don't even know what your own church teaches; you could pose an embarrassment for the church by spouting off beliefs and positions not sanctioned by the church. Because you by your actions can neither recognize "acorn" Or Oak tree".



Paultoo

[InLove]

It took me a long time to understand that faith and works go hand-in-hand. Writers like John, James, Paul and others (even some that no one is arguing about yet, and even some who were not and will never be "canonized" understood, and understand this.

It is the reason that Christ got upset with His disciples when they tried to keep the children from bothering Him. Jesus was not just giving us a lovely little fluffy saying about how much He loves the little children. He was saying that everyone must come as a child if they want to truly know Him.

If you argue doctrine to death, is it possible to miss the Truth? At least the wonders of it?

Did I open a can of worms when I started this thread? Or is there fruit?

Okay, sometimes I actually do learn from the inflamed debates. But not as much as I learn from those I asked in the first place. I came here to ask a question about what Catholics believed because I needed to know. I found out. But the people who answered me in honesty have come
under attack because of their answers.

I may not be a scholar in the area of comparitave religion, but I will tell you what I know tonight. I have just attended the funeral service of a four-year-old girl, and her Grandpa is my beloved friend, and as difficult as he can be,
he sang in his love for her, and in his prayer for her,
and played along on his guitar in honor of her, and praised God with his heart.

I urge us all to get a grip and find some perspective that we can talk about in peace. Life may be short, it may be eternal, it may to some roll over and over again. But attacking people's beliefs is, frankly, counterproductive. Act.

I love you all here, and this is an oasis for me. Otherwise, I would not be here, now of all times. Funny, and I don't even know you. Forgive me if I am out of line. I will make my amends as best I am given "on the morrow." I was compelled to come here now, even if I post out of order or something.

InSorrow,
InHope
InJoy,
InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Welcom e to Comparative Religion Paultoo !

I understand where both you and JJM are coming from, and concede that the Church is a divine institution. But the humans running it is a different matter all together

They may be blessed, graced even, but still human.

Its ok InLove. There is no guile or attack here. It's refreshing to read such strong convictions about one's own faith without getting knocked in the head.

v/r

Q

[InLove]

I appreciate your honest answers, Q--thanks.

My head would be aching by now, if not for Love.

Thank you--(I think I will wait a while before I ask any more questions along these lines--but, , I shall return.)

InPeace,
InUnderstanding,
InLove

[InLove]

Wait--no--LOL . Oh, Lord, did I just quote Douglas MacArthur? I promise, it was unintentional.

Anyway, I think Jesus said it first.

InLove, over and out, please, thank you.

InPeace,
InChrist,
InLove