Why Did Jesus Have To Be Born Of A Virgin ?

[Major]

When I said the gate swings both ways, I meant that one might say that Scripture easily goes against what you were saying. I can't choose EITHER Tradition OR Scripture. It isn't an either/or scenario, it's a both/and scenario. I recognize both Scripture and Tradition as they are complimentary to one another. Traditions that contradict Scripture is no tradition I will ever hold.

In fact, accepting Scripture as God-breathed (which it is) is also accepting sacred tradition since it is sacred tradition that teaches us the validity of the Bible.

I do understand what you are saying and in fact I understand your thinking. I just do not agree with it.

While it is clearly evident that Scripture argues for its own authority, Scripture nowhere argues for “authoritative tradition equal with Scripture.” It just is not there to find. In fact, the New Testament has more to say against traditions that it does in favor of tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident.

That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

My dear brother. You posted this comment...........
"Even the disciples of the original Apostles of Jesus suggested Mary's sinlessness. This has always been regarded as ancient Christian material."

You will need to post those Scriptures for us.....Please.

I said the disciples of the original apostles. This would be Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Polycarp, etc. They were taught by John, Paul, and Peter.

The passages taught on Mary's sinlessness that is found in the Scriptures would be found in Luke 1. But I think we've discussed this about 100 times already. I know your response and you know mine.

Even with the best intention's one cannot prove Mary is sinless from the Bible.

With all due respect, it's certainly not being disproved. A proof-text out of context is a pre-text, and that's often the response.

The Word of God gives a different story than the traditions the Roman Catholic church uses to validate their dogma of the Immaculate conception. Eve was the only sinless woman who ever existed, until she sinned.But Eve was not born but created from Adam.

Not at all. God has given us the gift of Sacred Tradition which has carried on His Word. This is even found in the Scriptures. (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2)

Consider, Luke 1:34 when the angel Gabriel first appeared to her and announced the savior would be conceived in her womb, she responded, “ how can this be since I do not know a man.” Mary asked the angel what manner of greeting is this. If she was sinless certainly she would have known and understood the things of God, butMary could not understand why she had been selected for this honor.

Friend, you're confusing sinlessness with Godlikeness. Mary was sinless, but she was not God. Her sinlessness didn't come from herself, it was God's grace put on her from conception. When she and Joseph went looking for Jesus for three days, she wasn't unaware of where he was because of her sin -- she was unaware because of her humanity. She was not both divine and human, that is ONLY found in Christ. She was given a special grace as someone who was only human.

Then in Luke 2:49-50 when Mary and Joseph after a day's journey found out that Jesus was missing from their company they went back to find Him. After two more days they found Him teaching in the temple teaching. Mary then asks Jesus why he did not leave with them, they looked high and low for him? His response is, why did you look all over for me? Did you not know that I must be about my fathers business ?”

Ah, you did address this part. Excellent.

Lk.2:50: ........
“But they (both Mary and Joseph) did not understand the words he spoke to them.” Notice in both accounts Mary does not understand the things of God. Someone who is sinless would know God’s ways and not need a explanation. It is sin that corrupts ones understanding of spiritual things. What did they not understand? That Jesus would be about His Fathers business. In this account we see Mary equal with Joseph in not understanding.

Again, when we say sinlessness, we don't mean understanding of all things the way God does. Mary was human who didn't know all things.

Nowhere does the Bible says Mary was sinless or the exception to sin passed on from each generation. For such a miraculous event the Bible surely would have spoken to this issue. IMO, and I am not arguing but simple stating what I understand the facts to be, Catholics do not find this doctrine from the context of Scripture but from making a pretext out of the Scripture from their Church tradition.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you completely. And in fact, I believe you do precisely that in order to defend your position. I don't think you do it maliciously or slyly, but I do think you do this. It's not difficult to do this.

But again it is not apostolic tradition, neither is there any Apostles making that statement that I am aware us. If Mary was conceived without sin then her parents would have certainly known and would have assumed she was to bare the Messiah. The Catholics say she became sinless later in life. This would mean God took someone who has the nature of sin and completely change them to be sinless like Jesus Christ--without a virgin birth. Certainly such a miracle would be mentioned in the Scripture, but it is not! The Bible has no hint of such a thing to occur and actually says the very opposite in no uncertain terms in Romans 3:23------ Accusing ALL of humanity to be under sin except for one, the God/man with the virgin birth, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't know which Catholics say she became sinless later in life, but whichever Catholics say that are speaking out against Catholic dogma because that is not what Catholicism teaches.

There is not one Scripture given in context to show Mary is without sin. However, there is much to show the opposite. In Luke 1:46-47: After she visits Elizabeth and she is blessed she exalts the Lord saying “ My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.' Here Mary is saying that God is her personal savior, only sinners need a savior.

Yes, God was indeed her savior! This is why we as Catholics know that Mary needed a savior -- she said it herself. God saved her from sin by bestowing a special grace to her that she would not be conceived of original sin. God did not choose Mary to be His mother when made flesh after she was conceived, born, and grew up. He chose her long before she was ever conceived, just as each of us have been chosen for something even before God was made flesh.

If I was walking and fell into a pit of mud and you helped me out, you'd be a sort of savior. If I was walking and would have fallen into a pit of mud and you stopped me in my tracks so that I wouldn't fall in the mud at all, you'd still be this sort of savior. Both scenarios required a savior, but only one was given to Mary by the grace of God, because He chose her long, long before she was ever conceived.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I would say threatening to "excommunicate" a person from the Church unless they believe a "tradition" is all about holding people in fear.

Do you know what excommunication is? I ask because a lot of people mistakenly believe it means "kicked out of the church" or "banished, never to come back."

I'll let you answer, but I will say this, it's actually a very charitable action to be taken when needed.

 

[CCW95A]

Do you know what excommunication is? I ask because a lot of people mistakenly believe it means "kicked out of the church" or "banished, never to come back."

I'll let you answer, but I will say this, it's actually a very charitable action to be taken when needed.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Excommunication (Latinex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritualpenalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiasticalsociety. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.

If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christiansociety, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which theexcommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommunicatedpersons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with theexcommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well known verses:

Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,
prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,

i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.

In normal Christianity, if a person does not believe what scripture teaches, then they loose out from the blessing it gives, but in what the Catholic Church does is it forces you to believe something, and if you don't they punish you for it.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Excommunication (Latinex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritualpenalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiasticalsociety. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.

If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christiansociety, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which theexcommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommunicatedpersons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with theexcommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well known verses:

Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,
prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,

i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.

Yep, this is right. Does this seem wrong to you?

 

[Major]

I said the disciples of the original apostles. This would be Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Polycarp, etc. They were taught by John, Paul, and Peter.

The passages taught on Mary's sinlessness that is found in the Scriptures would be found in Luke 1. But I think we've discussed this about 100 times already. I know your response and you know mine.



With all due respect, it's certainly not being disproved. A proof-text out of context is a pre-text, and that's often the response.



Not at all. God has given us the gift of Sacred Tradition which has carried on His Word. This is even found in the Scriptures. (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2)



Friend, you're confusing sinlessness with Godlikeness. Mary was sinless, but she was not God. Her sinlessness didn't come from herself, it was God's grace put on her from conception. When she and Joseph went looking for Jesus for three days, she wasn't unaware of where he was because of her sin -- she was unaware because of her humanity. She was not both divine and human, that is ONLY found in Christ. She was given a special grace as someone who was only human.

"She was not both divine and human, that is ONLY found in Christ. She was given a special grace as someone who was only human."

And that is the root of the question isn't it. There is nothing in Luke 1 to substantiate that belief and actually it can only come from the "Traditions" of men. The problem with that is again Rom. 3:23 where we see that "ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

What must be admitted is that repeatedly, the Old Testament writers, Jesus, and the apostles turn to the Scriptures as their measuring stick, and commend the same to any and all that would follow them.

In addition to all of that, I would encourage you to consider John 14:26..............
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you".

That was a promise given to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit would help the apostles to remember everything that Jesus had said to them. Nowhere does this Scripture state that there would be an apostolic line of successors, and that the promise would also be for them so that "traditions" would then be equal to the Word of God.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html#ixzz3VVsERCKq

 

[Major]

Yep, this is right. Does this seem wrong to you?

It seems to me that it forces the person to accept something he does not actually believe in light of reading the Scripture.

Doesn't that in fact take away a person's freedom of choice?

 

[CCW95A]

Yep, this is right. Does this seem wrong to you?

No, this is wrong!!! If a person in a Church was "doing" something wrong in their actions then yes it is OK, but the Church does not have the right to force someone what to "believe" !

 

[LysanderShapiro]

"She was not both divine and human, that is ONLY found in Christ. She was given a special grace as someone who was only human."

And that is the root of the question isn't it. There is nothing in Luke 1 to substantiate that belief and actually it can only come from the "Traditions" of men. The problem with that is again Rom. 3:23 where we see that "ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

What must be admitted is that repeatedly, the Old Testament writers, Jesus, and the apostles turn to the Scriptures as their measuring stick, and commend the same to any and all that would follow them.

In addition to all of that, I would encourage you to consider John 14:26..............
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you".

That was a promise given to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit would help the apostles to remember everything that Jesus had said to them. Nowhere does this Scripture state that there would be an apostolic line of successors, and that the promise would also be for them so that "traditions" would then be equal to the Word of God.





Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html#ixzz3VVsERCKq

Major, it's come down to that we each believe in two different translations of certain passages.

You shared a link for me to read.
Here is a link for you to read: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

I guarantee you, each of us can read these, up and down, and neither of one us will feel any different. All we will do is say "Thanks for the link. I read it and think it is all flawed."

 

[CCW95A]

Yep, this is right. Does this seem wrong to you?

With this same logic, are there anythings in the Catholic Church you don't believe in, that they are doing?
If there are then you are not being a good Catholic!

 

[LysanderShapiro]

It seems to me that it forces the person to accept something he does not actually believe in light of reading the Scripture.

Doesn't that in fact take away a person's freedom of choice?

No, not at all. People are free to believe anything they want, but that doesn't mean each choice they make will be the right choice. The Catholic Church (which I believe is the Church Christ founded -- I know you don't -- we'll let that be for now) has teachings. If someone rejects the teaching, then they are rejecting what we believe Christ left for us. If that person is rejecting that, then the sacraments -- namely Communion, can't be received until this error is corrected otherwise this person could be causing great harm to his own soul, and of course committing blasphemy to God.

You were in the military, Major. You had freedom to accept orders from your superiors or to reject them. However, by rejecting them, you'd know there would be consequences for your actions, and you were smart enough not to disobey, not just for your sake, but possibly for the sake of others around you.

Freedom of choice doesn't mean whatever we do is OK. It means we have liberties to choose right or wrong, but will have to take responsibility.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

With this same logic, are there anythings in the Catholic Church you don't believe in, that they are doing?
If there are then you are not being a good Catholic!

You'll have to clarify. If you mean do I reject anything the Church teaches, the answer is NO. But I have a feeling you aren't just talking about that. Are you also pointing at behavior of certain clergy or even popes? Because a faithful Catholic isn't only allowed to reject things like that, sometimes it is his duty.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

No, this is wrong!!! If a person in a Church was "doing" something wrong in their actions then yes it is OK, but the Church does not have the right to force someone what to "believe" !

Of course the Church doesn't have that kind of ability to force someone. The Church can't force me to do anything. But it can withhold the sacraments if I don't accept Christ. And they would be right to do this. We're not entitled to our own facts, we're only entitled to our own beliefs, but not every belief is a fact.

If I became an elder of your church and went in during the service and began worshiping a golden calf, don't you think I should be displaced as a member until I am corrected?

 

[CCW95A]

You'll have to clarify. If you mean do I reject anything the Church teaches, the answer is NO. But I have a feeling you aren't just talking about that. Are you also pointing at behavior of certain clergy or even popes? Because a faithful Catholic isn't only allowed to reject things like that, sometimes it is his duty.

You do know behavior is based on "belief". A mans actions is solely based on what he believes to be truth. Wrong actions means wrong believing. If there is any one who is a priest or any other clergy, and they are doing wrong, it is because their belief is wrong. Who are you to listen to, your own conscience or what someone tells you?

 

[Glomung]

Who are you to listen to, your own conscience or what someone tells you?

Depends on who the "someone" is.
In my experience, people's "conscience" is of no value at all, as people following their conscience commit all sorts of evils.

 

[CCW95A]

Of course the Church doesn't have that kind of ability to force someone. The Church can't force me to do anything. But it can withhold the sacraments if I don't accept Christ. And they would be right to do this. We're not entitled to our own facts, we're only entitled to our own beliefs, but not every belief is a fact.

If I became an elder of your church and went in during the service and began worshiping a golden calf, don't you think I should be displaced as a member until I am corrected?

The Catholic Church does force people on what to believe.

In 1620 Pope Paul the 5th forbade anything contrary to the teaching of Mary's immaculate conception to be said publicly under threat of excommunication

 

[LysanderShapiro]

You do know behavior is based on "belief". A mans actions is solely based on what he believes to be truth. Wrong actions means wrong believing. If there is any one who is a priest or any other clergy, and they are doing wrong, it is because their belief is wrong. Who are you to listen to, your own conscience or what someone tells you?

CCW, you aren't even answering the question. We have dogma, doctrine, and discipline. When we have the Church, that means we have the body (both laity and clergy) and we have the magisterium. You'll have to be more direct what what you're asking because there are too many "buts" and "ifs" and grey areas to go around.

Please give me a clear example...or better, give me a bunch of examples so I can offer clarity. Right now, your question is too broad.

 

[CCW95A]

Depends on who the "someone" is.
In my experience, people's "conscience" is of no value at all, as people following their conscience commit all sorts of evils.

Anything you do that is against your own conscience is sin!! If you are not sure if you should do something, that is not of faith, and what ever is not of faith is sin!
This is why we have a conscience in which it warns us when either do wrong or are about to do wrong.

 

[Major]

No, not at all. People are free to believe anything they want, but that doesn't mean each choice they make will be the right choice. The Catholic Church (which I believe is the Church Christ founded -- I know you don't -- we'll let that be for now) has teachings. If someone rejects the teaching, then they are rejecting what we believe Christ left for us. If that person is rejecting that, then the sacraments -- namely Communion, can't be received until this error is corrected otherwise this person could be causing great harm to his own soul, and of course committing blasphemy to God.

You were in the military, Major. You had freedom to accept orders from your superiors or to reject them. However, by rejecting them, you'd know there would be consequences for your actions, and you were smart enough not to disobey, not just for your sake, but possibly for the sake of others around you.

Freedom of choice doesn't mean whatever we do is OK. It means we have liberties to choose right or wrong, but will have to take responsibility.

Fair enough.

Military service really would not apply IMO as those in the military are there under orders and freedom of choice is not in question. We are free to move in and out of any church and that is quite different.

 

[Major]

You do know behavior is based on "belief". A mans actions is solely based on what he believes to be truth. Wrong actions means wrong believing. If there is any one who is a priest or any other clergy, and they are doing wrong, it is because their belief is wrong. Who are you to listen to, your own conscience or what someone tells you?

Personally I do what my wife tells me to do.