Immaculate Conception

[miamited]

Hey! Who put jasonc down their in Ft. Pierce in charge? Hope you had a safe and satisfying Christmas with your wife.

God bless you both,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hey! Who put jasonc down their in Ft. Pierce in charge? Hope you had a safe and satisfying Christmas with your wife.

God bless you both,
Ted

I don't live in st.lucie county .I just have to travel through it to get to doctors or family in lake o.
We upper class denizens of the former northern half of st.lucie told ft.pierce where to stuff it in 1925 .

You know that as Indian river county .I live close to the county line . Believe me it's changed alot since your days .the old jai alai is razed .you wouldn't recognize indrio road or orange avenue west of city limits or okeechobee Blvd .Sears town is gone .

 

[WIP]

Hi wondering


I'm not sure that anyone's really too confused about 'when' it happened. I think the confusion is in 'how' it happened. As I've asked here, there could be some necessary (to God) reason that the embryo of Jesus was fully formed in heaven or by the 'hands' of the Holy Spirit and then that already fertilized zygot is attached to a woman's womb. Not a whole lot different than egg fertilization techniques outside of the womb today, but of course, without all the medical personnel and equipment.

If that's the case, then there is no sin nature in Jesus because he would have no human DNA or blood or anything that would genetically tie him to either his mother or father.

If, on the other hand, Mary was ovulating and the Holy Spirit used some God made sperm to fertilize the egg, then Mary's standing in sin might make a difference to some, although I don't think it does.

I remember the question coming up many years ago and I did some study on it and it seems that even if God fertilized one Mary's eggs, there is no blood passed from a pregnant woman to her fetus. The food and oxygen in the blood are transferred through the placenta. They seem to pass through the placenta without the two bloods ever mixing to withdraw the necessary oxygen and food for the fetus.

It's a really marvelous and wonderfully skillful and wise design that the two bloods would never mix. And why would that be of importance in the birth procedure?

God bless,
Ted

There is another option - God spoke and it was so. We tend to keep looking at it as something that had to have physically happened with a male sperm impregnating a female egg but with God anything is possible. In Luke it is described as, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you." (NKJV)

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

Oh yea, I remember Indrio Rd was just a little two lane straight speedway, if one felt so inclined. King's Hwy was another one. The Jai Alai sat alongside it out in the boonies.

 

[miamited]

There is another option - God spoke and it was so. We tend to keep looking at it as something that had to have physically happened with a male sperm impregnating a female egg but with God anything is possible. In Luke it is described as, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you." (NKJV)

Hi WIP

Except that God describes it differently. He tells us that the Holy Spirit came over her. That's God talking, so I don't think He considered that just telling us that He said it was so and it was so, would suffice. As you've copied from the Scriptures, the explanation is a bit more involved than God sat on His throne and commanded, "Let that young woman be with child!!"

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most High will overshadow you". There seems to clearly be some kind of physical attachment or at least a working relationship within arms length that allowed the Holy Spirit to accomplish this task of Mary becoming pregnant with child.

However, you could be right, but I don't understand or read it that way.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo

I am certainly not looking for any kind of fight or ugliness in this matter.



About my statements on the subject here, you responded:


With all respect and deepest sincerety, can you point out the Scripture that is in yours?

God bless,
Ted

My response was to wondering concerning what Catholic teaching is.
As such it does not require scripture.

 

[Mungo]

Me? I'm fully, completely convicted and decided on the matter.

God bless,
Ted

If you are fully, completely convicted and decided on the matter then you must think yourself infallible..

 

[jasonc]

Hi jasonc

Oh yea, I remember Indrio Rd was just a little two lane straight speedway, if one felt so inclined. King's Hwy was another one. The Jai Alai sat alongside it out in the boonies.

Indrio is fourlaned west of kings hwy to 95 ,kings hwy is fourlaned from indrio to the turn pike in parts .the smell and sights of the orange groves are gone and the fruit stands . Butterfield drugs in city limits is long gone and also Norris bbq ,dinos grille is gone and a host of old restaurants.

 

[Mungo]

Hi again Mungo

Look, I'm just going to make a couple of points here.

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, the Savior of the human race was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Let's look at was this claim actually says. We declare, pronounce and define...
Ok, so this is some group telling me that they are speaking out in support of something and also to define that something. Right?

...that the doctrine which holds that the most BLessed Virgin Mary,...

What is it that they are attesting to: that there is a doctrine that has been established which 'hold's some things about the blessed virgin, Mary. Their proclamation has something to do with some doctrine concerning Mary.

...in the first instance of her conception,...

I'm honestly not even sure what that means. Did Mary have a 'second' instance of conception? Did she go through her mother's womb and out her birth canal...twice?

...by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God...

Agreed! Mary was honored to carry His Son, the vessel of His salvation, through pregnancy and his childhood. That she was given that honor and privelage by the grace of Almighty God is an absolute and unwavering truth.

...in view of the merits of Jesus Christ...

Again, not really sure what that means. In view of the merits of Jesus Christ. I mean, honestly I often stand and mentally consider and 'view' the merits of Jesus Christ. He is the Lord!! But I'm really not sure what is being conveyed here. It doesn't seem to really be any clearer if we put the phraseology together: by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.

...the Savior of the human race,...

This is a statement defining 'who' Jesus is and I have absolutely no challenge to any claim that Jesus is the Savior of the human race.

...the Savior of the human race was preserved free from all stain of original sin...

More descriptive phraseology of 'who' Jesus is.

...is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Ok, Yes, Jesus is the Savior of the world sent by God and so we're all shaking our head yes, yes, but then we forget that this isn't talking about Jesus! This is trying to get people to believe that because Jesus was special in all those ways, then his mother must have been, too.

Naaaaah!!!

Please note my friend that in all of that entire piece of your 'doctrinal thesis', there is not one single piece of Scriptural evidence offered to suppor it...either. OK?

God bless,
Ted

If you looked to the link where the dogma is defined then you would find plenty of scripture.

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP

Except that God describes it differently. He tells us that the Holy Spirit came over her. That's God talking, so I don't think He considered that just telling us that He said it was so and it was so, would suffice. As you've copied from the Scriptures, the explanation is a bit more involved than God sat on His throne and commanded, "Let that young woman be with child!!"

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most High will overshadow you". There seems to clearly be some kind of physical attachment or at least a working relationship within arms length that allowed the Holy Spirit to accomplish this task of Mary becoming pregnant with child.

However, you could be right, but I don't understand or read it that way.

God bless,
Ted

"There seems to clearly be some kind of physical attachment or at least a working relationship within arms length that allowed the Holy Spirit to accomplish this task of Mary becoming pregnant with child."

I guess that's where our viewpoints differ. I don't believe it does. I relate it to the creation narrative. It seems very similar to me.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Scripture tells us that God informed Mary that she would conceive despite the fact that she had never had sexual relations with any man. God said it would happen and it did. Does it really have to be a point of contention as to how it came about?

 

[Mungo]

I never heard of it.
Would you easily put up a link?
Otherwise I'll look for it.

Levels of Papal Authority in the Roman Catholic Church - CatholicCitizens.org

By Fernando Ocáriz Braña, On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council Official documents of the Catholic Church have evolved and differentiated over time, but commonly come from four basic sources: […]

catholiccitizens.org

 

[miamited]

I relate it to the creation narrative. It seems very similar to me.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Scripture tells us that God informed Mary that she would conceive despite the fact that she had never had sexual relations with any man. God said it would happen and it did. Does it really have to be a point of contention as to how it came about?

Hi WIP

Yes, and even there we are given a concept that the Holy Spirit hovered close in to the earth to protect it and do the work, maybe? to form it over the next few hours/days.

Does it really have to be a point of contention as to how it came about?

Oh, I don't think it's a point of contention. This discussion has been working on the issue of Mary and her somehow having also been immaculately conceived as Jesus was. In that discussion a few of us got to discussing the 'how' Mary became pregnant. So a few possibilities have been tossed out there. That's all.

Yes, ultimately Mary was pregnant because it was God's will for her to be so. But when such a physical change comes over our physical bodies as a woman being pregnant who is a virgin...people wonder how it happened, as in how did that embryo get attached to that uterine wall? It is, of course all speculation, just as the understanding of Mary being somehow immaculately conceived herself, is also a course of speculation.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

HI Mungo

If you looked to the link where the dogma is defined then you would find plenty of scripture.

Oh, I've looked at them and read them and I'm fairly familiar with the subject matter. My only complaint was that you were dissing me for not including any Scriptural reference regarding a claim I was making about a particular belief that I hold and your doing the exact same thing.

If you are fully, completely convicted and decided on the matter then you must think yourself infallible..

I'm not really clear on how my statement supports your conclusion. Why would someone who is fully convicted of some faith matter, then think that they are infallible? Could you give me your work on that? No, I don't think, actually I know, that I am not infallible, and yet I'm still fully convicted on this matter.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Mungo]

HI Mungo

I'm not really clear on how my statement supports your conclusion. Why would someone who is fully convicted of some faith matter, then think that they are infallible? Could you give me your work on that? No, I don't think, actually I know, that I am not infallible, and yet I'm still fully convicted on this matter.

God bless,
Ted

If you think you could not possibly be wrong thern IMO you must think you are infallible.

 

[Mungo]

HI Mungo

Oh, I've looked at them and read them and I'm fairly familiar with the subject matter. My only complaint was that you were dissing me for not including any Scriptural reference regarding a claim I was making about a particular belief that I hold and your doing the exact same thing.


God bless,
Ted

No I wasn't. I was giving the Catholic definition. The evidence to support that claim was the link to the actual papal statement.

You were giving your opinions on doctrine with no supprt whatsoever and those claims required some scriptural evidence.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,



Come on man! The word God uses to describe Mary is merely 'blessed and highly favored'. She was just a Jewish woman, much like Abraham and Daniel and Ezekiel and so many, many other people that God used to bring about His promise. Mary was one of them. Certainly she is portrayed as a godly, believing woman who apparently honored God's law, as she claimed never having broken the law in any kind of sexual relation. Just as we find in any descriptions of the other people who served God in His work to bring about His promise, they are usually told to us as having been people who honored and worshipped and obeyed God, somewhat better than the general public.

Sorry for delay. At my computer now and I can type!

So you say that Mary is merely blessed and highly honored.
Wish God could say that about me!
The more modern bibles have a, perhaps, more correct translation which is FULL OF GRACE.

I don't think Mary was JUST a Jewish woman like Abraham and Daniel and so on...although I do think Abraham was at the top of your list...She was the Mother of Jesus. Now I hate to say Mother of God because God has no mother and we tend to think of God Father - however, technically, Mary was the Mother of God if we want to believe that Jesus is God.

I think she was more than a woman who honored God' law, I think God specifically picked her and prepared her for this all-important role.

I think we protestants don't give Mary enough honor.
You know how the command is to honor your mother and father.... It's different than love.
I think we don't honor Mary enough.

I agree fully with your last sentence.

All this stuff about Mary being somehow related to or particularly righteous and free of sin, is all just made up by those who have found some measure of comfort in their faith to be able to say to us, "I've talked with the mother of God."

Come on Ted, you're too intelligent !

As far as I can find in the Scriptures, God determined Mary to be a worthy created person to carry out her part of His great plan of salvation. Just as God found Noah and Abram and Jeremiah and Elisha and David to be the human participants to tell the stories of how God worked in and through their lives. Daniel is not 'immaculate'!

OK. I get your point.
And, yes, Daniel was not immaculate because he didn't have to carry God in his body.

Yes, Jesus had to be born without the natural sin nature that God's word says that all of us share with Adam. But that sin nature passes through the male.

I've heard that - the sin nature passes through the male.
But Jesus didn't have an earthly father.
And I'm not sure the first sentence is right...haven't thought of it.
But we're speaking of Adam, I guess.

It may be why men have a 'Y' chromosome, although that is purely speculative on my part But I firmly believe that the 'natural sin nature' that the Scriptures tells us is passed down through the ages, is passed through the male line.

Sounds reasonable.

I support that with the fact that Jesus said that it came down from Adam, and never even mentions Eve's part in it.

Eve was deceived - but it was Adam that was responsible.
The Edenic Covenant was made with Adam, not with Eve.
Plus, Paul also says so.

However, in order to really make any real and known to be true claim of the matter, we would need to know 'how' God impregnated Eve. Did the Holy Spirit place an already fertilized ovum in Mary's womb or did the Holy Spirit somehow fertilize one of Mary's eggs?

LOL
You're like one of those fussy theologians!
Like, we don't have enough to discuss!!
Does it make a difference to you?
I don't think it would make a difference.

If the Holy Spirit implanted an already fertilized egg that originated from God in Mary's womb, then the argument of her having any human sin nature to pass to the baby is mute.

Isn't it mute anyway since Joseph was not the father? (according to your theory).

That means that if we somehow, today, found a drop of Jesus' blood and did a DNA test, we'd be scratching our heads as to his parentage.

God bless,
Ted

I got left at the bakery.
Why would we be scratching our heads?
Mary was the mother,
God was the father.
No?

 

[miamited]

Hi Mungo

Well, just for laughs, and to make sure I was familiar with what you were providing as proof, I went to your link. You start off with somehow defining grace, although I don't ever see anything from the Scriptures that says God's grace makes Mary's birth somehow special. It just says what the Scriptures say, that when the angel greeted Mary he told her that she was full of grace. Then it goes on about how grace isn't really a good translation of the word, but there is no translation that says the world should be understood as 'everybody who has God's grace is immaculately born. Ok, so Mary was under God's grace. Quite frankly, out here in protestant land we all believe that we are under the umbrella of God's grace, but certainly Mary seems to have enjoyed more. Doesn't make her immaculately concieved.

Beyond that, I'm not much interested in reading several thousand words of Catholic doctrine that really isn't backed up all by Scripture but rather by a lot of squirming ideas.

Just as Adam and Eve were created immaculate so it is fitting that the new Adam (Jesus) and the new Eve (Mary) should be immaculate.

Well, it may seem to some to be fitting to some, but God's word doesn't confirm that it is. BTW, there is also not a single piece of Scripture that refers to Mary as being the new Eve. That's also a made up concept. Mary was just a Jewish girl living in Israel who mothered a half dozen children or so. Eve was given her name because she was the mother of the entire human race. Each and every one of us, who are believers in the word of God, know that our ultimate mother is Eve. She birthed the first children on the earth who then birthed all the others.

Then we started over with Noah, but Eve was still the mother of Noah, also. But there is no Scriptural evidence that God sees Mary as some new Eve.

Then we find that a lot of sources on your rather convoluted detective mission aren't Scriptural at all. A great many of them are just things that some council determined or some person of high personage within the Catholic hierarchy decided some piece of Scripture must mean. Listen friend, that's exactly the same thing that happened in Israel. All the people put their faith strictly in what the corporate body of the leading men of Israel's faith community said was the right thing to do, and Jesus came and shot about half of it down. They also, as even Paul writes, distort and dispute the word of God.

The Jews had sat in their councils and decided how far a person could walk on the Sabbath, without any Scriptural evidence that there even was any restriction on walking as God defined the Sabbath. God just said that it shall be a day of rest for us. I'm also fully convicted and confirmed that He didn't mean we had to stay within 40 feet of our bed all day.

A group of men arguing that this must mean this and that must mean that, without apparently a clue, of what God's word was telling them. Your sources include, but are not limited to:
Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370). (Get this!! A nativity hymn is equal to Scripture. Some song/ballad that someone wrote about the Scriptures, now becomes the Scriptures. Really???)

Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446) . writes: "As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." But where does he find in the Scriptures any support that God formed Mary without the stain of sin? He just assumes it is so and tells you to believe it!!! Well, I'm sorry, but I try to stay closer to God's word than that.

So anyway, we're all good to go. You can believe that Mary was immaculately conceived based on Bulls and Dogmas and homilies and papyruses if you like. I'm going with what God's word says. Mary was a young (possibly 14-16 year old) woman living in Nazareth, according to the account of the place of the angel's visitation to her. She was just a young Jewish woman who had found and fallen in love, or was somehow conscripted, to be married to a man named Joseph. She had parents and she was born in the same manner as every other child up to that point, as far as can be determined from the Scriptures.

God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph,

There is absolutely no mention of Mary or her background or her birth or anything about her that would allow one to make a Scripturally supported argument that Mary was immaculately conceived just as her first child was.

God bless,
Ted

 

[jasonc]

Hi Mungo

Well, just for laughs, and to make sure I was familiar with what you were providing as proof, I went to your link. You start off with somehow defining grace, although I don't ever see anything from the Scriptures that says God's grace makes Mary's birth somehow special. It just says what the Scriptures say, that when the angel greeted Mary he told her that she was full of grace. Then it goes on about how grace isn't really a good translation of the word, but there is no translation that says the world should be understood as 'everybody who has God's grace is immaculately born. Ok, so Mary was under God's grace. Quite frankly, out here in protestant land we all believe that we are under the umbrella of God's grace, but certainly Mary seems to have enjoyed more. Doesn't make her immaculately concieved.

Beyond that, I'm not much interested in reading several thousand words of Catholic doctrine that really isn't backed up all by Scripture but rather by a lot of squirming ideas.

Just as Adam and Eve were created immaculate so it is fitting that the new Adam (Jesus) and the new Eve (Mary) should be immaculate.

Well, it may seem to some to be fitting to some, but God's word doesn't confirm that it is. BTW, there is also not a single piece of Scripture that refers to Mary as being the new Eve. That's also a made up concept. Mary was just a Jewish girl living in Israel who mothered a half dozen children or so. Eve was given her name because she was the mother of the entire human race. Each and every one of us, who are believers in the word of God, know that our ultimate mother is Eve. She birthed the first children on the earth who then birthed all the others.

Then we started over with Noah, but Eve was still the mother of Noah, also. But there is no Scriptural evidence that God sees Mary as some new Eve.

Then we find that a lot of sources on your rather convoluted detective mission aren't Scriptural at all. A great many of them are just things that some council determined or some person of high personage within the Catholic hierarchy decided some piece of Scripture must mean. Listen friend, that's exactly the same thing that happened in Israel. All the people put their faith strictly in what the corporate body of the leading men of Israel's faith community said was the right thing to do, and Jesus came and shot about half of it down. They also, as even Paul writes, distort and dispute the word of God.

The Jews had sat in their councils and decided how far a person could walk on the Sabbath, without any Scriptural evidence that there even was any restriction on walking as God defined the Sabbath. God just said that it shall be a day of rest for us. I'm also fully convicted and confirmed that He didn't mean we had to stay within 40 feet of our bed all day.

A group of men arguing that this must mean this and that must mean that, without apparently a clue, of what God's word was telling them. Your sources include, but are not limited to:
Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370). (Get this!! A nativity hymn is equal to Scripture. Some song/ballad that someone wrote about the Scriptures, now becomes the Scriptures. Really???)

Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446) . writes: "As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." But where does he find in the Scriptures any support that God formed Mary without the stain of sin? He just assumes it is so and tells you to believe it!!! Well, I'm sorry, but I try to stay closer to God's word than that.

So anyway, we're all good to go. You can believe that Mary was immaculately conceived based on Bulls and Dogmas and homilies and papyruses if you like. I'm going with what God's word says. Mary was a young (possibly 14-16 year old) woman living in Nazareth, according to the account of the place of the angel's visitation to her. She was just a young Jewish woman who had found and fallen in love, or was somehow conscripted, to be married to a man named Joseph. She had parents and she was born in the same manner as every other child up to that point, as far as can be determined from the Scriptures.

God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph,

There is absolutely no mention of Mary or her background or her birth or anything about her that would allow one to make a Scripturally supported argument that Mary was immaculately conceived just as her first child was.

God bless,
Ted

I submit that het mother would be quite aware of this . The temple know as she would know and act as God himself would on earth .

What a can of worms . Yet nothing . A person that full of God wouldn't be hidden and unnoticed .

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

Wish God could say that about me!

me too!

I don't think Mary was JUST a Jewish woman like Abraham and Daniel and so on

Fine! I'm all ears. What Scriptural support can you offer that she was really more special to God than any of these others? More importantly, what Scripture can you provide to prove that she was immaculately conceived, herself?

Isn't it mute anyway since Joseph was not the father? (according to your theory).

Well, only if the sin nature is only passed through the father as I propose, but I'm trying to get some understanding that this entire issue, beyond what God's word says about it, is pure speculation. Just like I responded to Mungo:

Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446) . writes: "As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."

There's no Scriptural support that God formed Mary without any stain of sin. It just can't be supported by the Scriptures. That idea can only be supported if we trust that some group of folks who have studied God's word are actually understanding it correctly, but that's all speculation, too. We know that David tells us that we are all formed by God in our mother's womb, but that applies to all of us. That in the case of the forming of Mary that God somehow made here specially sinless, is pure speculation.

I got left at the bakery.
Why would we be scratching our heads?
Mary was the mother,
God was the father.

Right! And I suppose you just have a sample of God's DNA in your back pocket with which to compare? I'm saying, that if the implantation of the zygot is as I have proposed, then even if we had Mary and Joseph's DNA, it would not match either of them.

You're like one of those fussy theologians!
Like, we don't have enough to discuss!!
Does it make a difference to you?
I don't think it would make a difference.

Well, you may see it that way, and certainly I do tend to be fussy when it's concerning God's word and the claims that people make about what it actually says over what somebody sitting on the toilet ruminating over it, says that it says. Look read it for yourself. Show me!! That's all I'm asking. Show me where the Scriptures say that "God formed Mary without original sin"! Show me that and I'm in.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi wondering

Right! My point. We neither can be dogmatic as to 'how' exactly Jesus was born without sin. We just know that God's word professes it and that means I believe it. I can't tell you how God mashed our Sun together either and hung it where it is in our solar system. But what I know is that God's word professes that He did make our sun, the earth and everything that exists in our universe and I, therefore, believe.

Similarly, I'm all in agreement that Jesus was sinless from the moment that he began to exist as a human person, and that is declared in the Scriptures. All this stuff about Mary being sinless or also somehow immacuately conceived in her mother's womb, uhh that's more like the rules the Jewish leadership made up to show how we should honor God's Sabbath. It just can't be proven through the Scriptures.

Does it mean anything to you that Mary was described as being full of grace? (Luke 1:30)
Does something full have room for anything else?
Elizabeth called Mary blessed amount women. Luke 1:42

People read words of God's affirmation to someone and his angels lauding praise upon them and immediately think that they must have somehow been born into their life on this earth through some special method. Surely this person didn't have parents who had intercourse one day and the mother came up in a month carrying a child. NO! Not at all!! They were carried down by a gentle breeze in a reed basket with downy fluffy wrappings by the Holy Spirit.

Moses had the sinful nature.
Surely we don't believe all the occupants of the Hall of Faith were born miraculously?

There were very godly men and women in Israel that didn't have to be specially conceived. John the Baptist stands out. There are actually a number of places in the Scriptures where we might 'fill in' some of 'how' an event came to be. How did Sarah have a child? Scriptures tell us that she was past the age of childbearing. Immaculately conceived?

yes/no

yes - miraculously conceived.
no - immaculately conceived.

John the Baptist, as I've mentioned, was special from birth and also had an angel visit his parent/s. He had a very, very important role in the life of God's Son here on the earth. His life, according to the testimony of the angel that visited his father, was all planned out by God before John was even born. He was born with God's Spirit. Nobody has ever been attested in that way in the Scriptures. Immaculately conceived?

yes/no

no.

Just some things to consider about this issue of someone other than Jesus, having an immaculately conceived beginning.

God bless,
Ted

I used to have a problem with this too, you know: There is none righteous, no not one.

But as I thought about it from time to time, I would have to agree that it makes sense that the being or body of Christ had to be held by an immaculate person. I mean, could you imagine Jesus being birthed by someone with a sinful nature?

God is a reasonable God. This just seems to make sense to me.