Immaculate Conception

[jasonc]

Because there is biological connection. He had all the cell structure and tissue that all other humans have. That's the biology of Jesus. Now, you might question the genealogy of Jesus if he has no human parentage, but I don't think there's much question as to the genealogy of Jesus.

"This is my Son in whom I am well pleased."

Jesus, as far as I've always believed, is the Son of God. He doesn't have any DNA from some other human being as all other children have. But he is 'fully man' by the biology of his body and mind and thoughts and feelings. He is fully human in every way of any other human...except that his DNA didn't come from an earthly ancestor.

God bless,
Ted

No way to know for sure by well the idea of the goel required a family relationship,not a member of the tribe .meaning boaz was a son of Judah in that sense but also a cousin to the deceased husband of Naomi .he had to ask permission to redeem and marry Naomi from the closer kinsmen.

Jesus to redeem man must have some biological relationship .that's my teachings I heard .

 

[miamited]

Hi jasonc

Look, I don't know the 'how' that the Holy Spirit came over Mary and what that relationship actually was as it played out in real time, in real life upon the earth. What I know is that the Scriptures tell me that's how Mary became with child. What I know is that Jesus is sinless. As far as I know that would mean that Jesus could not have had the 'sin nature' that has been passed down from Adam. That likely means that Jesus couldn't have tainted DNA. So God created a fully functional zygot. Pretty much the same thing that He did with Adam except on a much, much smaller scale and earlier on in the birth beginning, that Adam never had.

God had the Holy Spirit place that perfectly made, fully functional, already fertilized zygot, to the uterine wall of Mary, just as it would have happened if she had had a normal sexual relation and an egg had been fertilized. In an earthly way, I suppose it could be described as surrogacy. Where a woman volunteers to merely be the vessel to carry a child to term. A medical person takes an already fertilized egg from some couple whose wife might have some complications with her reproductive system and so they harvest an egg from her and some sperm from him and they shake it all together and then take the fully fertilized egg and just attach to the surrogates uterine wall.

The child that is born in that scenario will not have anything given to him/her by the 'birth' mother. It will all be from the mother and father that are getting the baby. The surrogate is merely a vessel that supplies oxygen and nutrients to the embryo as it develops and grows. That's really how I see the Holy Spirit accomplishing that. God's made two people already with his bare hands, I'm sure He can handle a third where He only has to form a practically microscopic organism. Then He tells the Holy Spirit, and again I have no idea 'how' that works, but He has the Holy Spirit come over Mary and stick thee already formed, fertilized, and perfect embryo to her uterine wall.

So, if my position is correct, then the Catholic church is just blowing everybody's skirts with this idea that Mary had to somehow be sinless because Jesus couldn't have been who he was if she wasn't. Trust me or not, there wasn't any of Mary in Jesus. The Catholic church didn't need to fight this fight, they could have explained it as happening this way and all the glory would still remain on Jesus, but now that has been diminished by the glory they're trying to rob from him for his mother.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo,

You apparently get some sort of enjoyment out of making that ludicrous claim to support your position. Fine.

Of course, there's really the chance that the exact same thing is really going on with the other side of this discussion. However, if you're living your life thinking that just because you can't stick to a conversation with someone because you can't 'correct ' them, you're likely to live a very frustrating life as far as talking to people about faith matters.

God bless,
Ted

Hi again Mungo,

I've gone back over several pages to look at your posts. I see that you have, in one posted the Catholic position on the matter. Now, I have to ask you, did you really think that you were dealing with some bumpkin who had never seen or heard the Catholic position? You really think that you've posted the Catholic position and now if no one excepts it then they are 'know it alls' who cant' be corrected?

Oh, and before you come back with, "that's not what I said. I never used the term 'know it all'.,,save it. If you want to discuss with me this issue of the immaculate conception, then drop the 'Catholic teaching' on the subject, give me the Scriptures references, and we'll discuss each one, one by one.

Now this isn't any promise that minds will be changed, but I'm just amazed that you got into this discussion thinking that you could just throw the Catholic catechism at them, and if they don't want to accept that...I'm done. If that's what you want, then you should likely stick with the Catholic boards. Because out here in Christianforums.net land there are a lot of people who don't buy this big bugaboo that the Catholic organization itself didn't preach or make issue with for about 1,000 years. Then you decide to Ieave off with some, "I'm going to be rude and make some comment that the person is arrogant and beyond correction."

Are you even remotely aware that even the RCC didn't formally codify this understanding until 1661?

In 1661, Pope Alexander VII (r. 1655-67) declared in a papal bull, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, that Mary was conceived without original sin and that the feast of the conception celebrates that fact. This bull would have an impact on the eventual decision to declare the Immaculate Conception a Church dogma.Dec 3, 2021

It wasn't until after 1066 that a monk floated the idea of the immaculate conception.

Eadmer (1066-1124), a monk at Christ Church, Canterbury. England was one of the first proponents of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He discussed it in his book "De Conceptione sanctae Mariae."

So, let's start off with what seems to be historical fact, that no one in the early church seems to have held the position.

Now you, well, you're a staunch Catholic I imagine. You do your hail Marys and Penances and and pay your indulgences and you find a certain comfort in that, When the Catholic organization came up with this idea of the immaculate conception and adopted it as dogma, well you ate it up just like MAGA Trump fan eats up his lies. I look forward to sharing with you if you so choose to.

(BTW, before you get incensed that I used the phrase MAGA Trump fan...It's called a simile.)

God bless,
Ted

God bless,
Ted

I could go though this and explain your errors but I perceive it would be a waste of time because you are not here for rational discussion but to argue for the sake of arguing.

God bless and goodbye
Mungo

 

[WIP]

I could go though this and explain your errors but I perceive it would be a waste of time because you are not here for rational discussion but to argue for the sake of arguing.

God bless and goodbye
Mungo

Actually, having been following along and having been in discussions with miamited myself, your using a copout here. Maybe that's your exit strategy and that's fine but in my experience, miamited is open to correction as I am.

Howevever, your MO has been exactly as how miamited described. You quote from Catholic dogma but rarely, if ever, present your own learned argument to back up your position. I understand your reluctance to think for yourself for you would rather follow whatever the Catholic leadership puts out and that's your choice.

For us, we choose not to follow that but rather it is a belief that we can read and gain understanding directly from the Scriptures themselves through the Holy Spirit. That is not to say that we don't make mistakes and have it all figured out for I personally do not believe it is possible for any of us, including you and the Pope, to have it all figured out, but, I trust that God gives us what we need to know, when we need to know it. For example....

11 "And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."
Mark 13:11 NKJV

 

[Mungo]

Actually, having been following along and having been in discussions with miamited myself, your using a copout here. Maybe that's your exit strategy and that's fine but in my experience, miamited is open to correction as I am.

Howevever, your MO has been exactly as how miamited described. You quote from Catholic dogma but rarely, if ever, present your own learned argument to back up your position. I understand your reluctance to think for yourself for you would rather follow whatever the Catholic leadership puts out and that's your choice.

For us, we choose not to follow that but rather it is a belief that we can read and gain understanding directly from the Scriptures themselves through the Holy Spirit. That is not to say that we don't make mistakes and have it all figured out for I personally do not believe it is possible for any of us, including you and the Pope, to have it all figured out, but, I trust that God gives us what we need to know, when we need to know it. For example....

11 "And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."
Mark 13:11 NKJV

I'm surprised by your comments and consider them unjustified.

 

[WIP]

I'm surprised by your comments and consider them unjustified.

So be it.

 

[BB1956]

Someone help me understand how Mary was sinless.

Please share Scripture only.

Grace and peace to you.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” So how was it that the Roman Catholic Church added this idea to its dogma? Why did a church that claims to have existed for nearly 2,000 years wait until 1854 before making the Immaculate Conception a required belief for all Catholics?

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious.The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.” The fact is that several of the earliest Greek church fathers, such as Origen (185-254 C.E.), Basil the Great (330-379 C.E.) and Chrysostom (345-407 C.E.), expressed views that were contrary to the belief that Mary was immaculately conceived, that is, was free from the stain of original sin. And Augustine (354-430 C.E.), said to be the greatest of the old Latin “Fathers,” expressed similar views.

In his book Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, French Catholic historian Louis Duchesne writes: “The Church of Rome seems to have celebrated no festival of the Virgin before the seventh century.” True, during the fifth century C.E., the Greek-speaking church began keeping a Feast of the Conception of John the Baptist, and, sometime later, a Feast of the Conception of Mary. But, The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “In celebrating the feast of Mary’s Conception the “Christian” Greeks of old, did not think it absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the Feast of the Conception of St. John, to the Orthodox Greeks of our days, however, the feast means very little; they continue to call it ‘Conception of St. Anne’ Anna, traditionally held to be Mary’s mother, indicating unintentionally, perhaps, the active sexual conception which was certainly not immaculate.”

We note, then, that Mary festivals originated in the Eastern, or Greek, Church and that they were not adopted by the Roman, or Latin, Church before the seventh century C.E. And although celebrating a feast of Mary’s conception, the Greek Orthodox Church does not consider her conception to have been immaculate.

The Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that the birth of the Immaculate Conception doctrine was long, and far from painless. It states: “Originally the Church only celebrated the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John’s conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength.”

Yes, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was formulated only after centuries of “dogmatical argumentation.” It took hundreds of years for the “thesis of the theological schools” to ‘gain strength’ and finally be adopted. In their articles on “Immaculate Conception,” approved Catholic reference works contain columns of material under the subheading “The Controversy” or “The Great Controversy.” They speak of “timid beginnings” of the “new feast” in England in the 11th century C.E. After their conquest of England in 1066, the Normans abolished it, considering it to be “a product of insular simplicity and ignorance.” In France, Catholic “Saint” Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) took a public stand against it. In the 13th century, “Saint” Thomas Aquinas, said to be the “foremost philosopher and theologian” of the Catholic Church, opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary on the grounds that Mary was redeemed by Jesus like the rest of sinful mankind.

However, another Catholic theologian and philosopher (John Duns Scotus 1265-1308) came out in favor of the dogma. Scotus was a Franciscan, whereas Aquinas was a Dominican. So throughout the centuries the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was a bone of contention between these two orders of the Roman Catholic Church.

Summing up this controversy, The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The attempts to introduce it [the feast of the Immaculate Conception] officially provoked contradiction and theoretical discussion, bearing upon its legitimacy and its meaning, which were continued for centuries and were not definitively settled before 1854.” In that year Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed that the Immaculate Conception of Mary “is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.”

However, according to the authoritative Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, over 50 Catholic bishops, including the archbishop of Paris, were against the dogma’s being made a required belief for all Catholics. Johann Dollinger, Germany’s foremost 19th-century Catholic theologian, stated bluntly: “We reject the new Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary because it is contrary to the tradition of the first thirteen centuries, which states that Christ alone was conceived without sin.” Dollinger was later excommunicated.

 

[miamited]

Hi BB1956

Thanks for your reply. It seems to be well researched. I'll check some of the facts, but I imagine this is likely a fairly accurate account of the matter as it grew and progressed.

I note that Dollinger was excommunicated and I rather imagine that fact is what throws the fear of God into most of the Catholics today to believe it. Right now, if one doesn't swear allegiance to this doctrine, they risk being excommunicated.

It seems clear that there never was any idea or teaching of immaculate conception in the Scriptures and practice, teaching of such belief for the first 1,000 years.

God bless,
Ted

 

[BB1956]

Hi BB1956

Thanks for your reply. It seems to be well researched. I'll check some of the facts, but I imagine this is likely a fairly accurate account of the matter as it grew and progressed.

I note that Dollinger was excommunicated and I rather imagine that fact is what throws the fear of God into most of the Catholics today to believe it. Right now, if one doesn't swear allegiance to this doctrine, they risk being excommunicated.

It seems clear that there never was any idea or teaching of immaculate conception in the Scriptures and practice, teaching of such belief for the first 1,000 years.

God bless,
Ted

The reason that this topic of the immaculate conception came up to begin with among Catholics is that around somewhere of the 4th century the trinity was ratified by the king of that time so people(bishops, theologians) later on started saying that Mary was the mother of God. So after many centuries of debates and arguments the immaculate conception came into existence since many felt it or believed that since Mary was the mother of God she had to be without sin. There is no evidence however of any of this in the scriptures. Nowhere in the scriptures is it said Mary should be prayed to or that she was the mother of God or that she was without sin.

 

[miamited]

HI BB1956

or that she was the mother of God

Well, I have to say that the idea and proclamation that Jesus is God bothers me to some extent and so I certainly don't see Mary as being the mother of God.

Hope I didn't shake up your system to bad with that.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Mungo]

BB1956
I think you are misleadingly selective in your quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”

There are not categorical or stringent proofs from scripture for many beliefs , otherwise we would not have some many arguments and contradictory beliefs.

Having said the above the Catholic Encyclopedia then discusses Gen 3:15, and Luke 1:28.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious.

But the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the writings of the Early Fathers extensively.

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
• Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
• Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
• Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
• Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
• In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (On Nature and Grace 36).
• Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
• it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
• she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
• she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
• when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
• To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
• Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

And more but it too long for one post.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Mungo

Right! I get that. That's why I looked it up. However, just referring to him as 'Pope' is not in keeping with the doctrines and rules of the RCC proper, according to this guy Lombardi, who is apparently fairly high up the food chain of the Catholic organization.

Maybe they just aren't able to send a cohesive message on the matter.

God bless,
Ted

A Professor is a Professsor even after he retires.
A Doctor is a Doctor even after he retires.
A Pope is a Pope even after he retires...which doesn't really happen.
Only twice in history.

It is even said that there are 2 Popes alive at the same time...
Not a normal event.

(I'm not contradicting Mungo, just trying to explain to you)

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi all,

Doing some further investigative work on this 'immaculate conception' idea.

Seems that this could be why it got made into doctrine in the mid 1800's:

When the woman's role in conception was discovered by medical scientists, the Roman Catholic Church faced a problem. For the first time, Mary was seen to play a direct role in Jesus' conception. Her contribution would have been expected to pass original sin onto Jesus -- an intolerable arrangement because the Church has taught that Jesus was without sin at his birth and during his life on earth.

The Church had two choices:

~ To declare that Mary did not pass original sin onto Jesus at the time of his conception, or
~ To declare that Mary herself was free of sin when she was conceived.

And here we find why some cling to it so tightly:

It is now a required belief for Roman Catholics. In 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed in his Bull Ineffabilis that:

"...We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

So, not believing this account ex-communicates a 'good' Catholic.

Apparently Catholics don't understand the power of their own God. They are held on to the idea that Jesus was somehow genetically attached to Mary. That's probably not true. I'm pretty confident that the Holy Spirit coming over Mary didn't mean that he had sexual relations with her to impregnate her. It's most likely that the embryo implanted in Mary's womb had already been prepared with all the necessary fertilization, however that was achieved. In other words, Jesus' physical body would have had none of either Joseph's or Mary's DNA or anything else.

The Holy Spirit implanted in the womb of Jesus an already fertilized egg and attached it to her uterine wall and from their Mary's body took over and fed the fetus until birth. I'm going with, "if we could have some of Jesus' DNA and some of Joseph's and Mary's DNA, there wouldn't be any match. Whatever DNA we could obtain from Jesus likely came from the hand of God. Just as perfect as His creation.

Trust your God that He didn't have an issue with Mary having never sinned, because that would have defiled His Son. There is none of her in him.

God bless,
Ted
​

Hey Ted,
Didn't even read the above.
It's ridiculous.

Here's why WHATEVER it states is wrong...

Mary was believed to be immaculately conceived right after Jesus' death.
The understanding of science had nothing to do with it.

Most of the ECFs declared that she was IC, some even believed in her perpetual virginity.

But, of course, we Protestants refuse to trust those that were taught by the Apostles.

« If Adam was created with the help of a virgin soil, not yet tilled, by the virtue and power of God (cf. Gn 2: 4b-7), the new Adam also must draw his origin from a virgin soil, by the same power and virtue of God. Mary is this virgin soil from whom Christ became the "first-born".»

IRENAEUS OF LYONS, Against Heresies, III 18,7 I 180AD


“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1 {A.D. 244).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 {A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388).

 

[GodsGrace]

Because there is biological connection. He had all the cell structure and tissue that all other humans have. That's the biology of Jesus. Now, you might question the genealogy of Jesus if he has no human parentage, but I don't think there's much question as to the genealogy of Jesus.

"This is my Son in whom I am well pleased."

Jesus, as far as I've always believed, is the Son of God. He doesn't have any DNA from some other human being as all other children have. But he is 'fully man' by the biology of his body and mind and thoughts and feelings. He is fully human in every way of any other human...except that his DNA didn't come from an earthly ancestor.

God bless,
Ted

If Jesus had no DNA from a human,
then how would He be 100% man and 100% God?

He would be all God and His life on earth does not prove this.
He Himself said it was not for Him to know certain things...like the end for instance.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm quite anti papist ,yet the kinsman redeemer (goel) has to be family to those he redeems how is man redeemed by Jesus if there is no biological connection ?

I won't get hung up on Jesus dna but I believe that mary played a genetic role .Jesus in the flesh was a son of David per prophecy .

This is absolutely correct.

Jesus had to be both MAN and GOD in order to bridge the gap.

 

[miamited]

Hi Mungo

There are not categorical or stringent proofs from scripture for many beliefs , otherwise we would not have some many arguments and contradictory beliefs.

That may be one of the surest statements that you have made. But the question is, as always, which side of any 'argumentative' discussion is correct? You see, in the reality of life, there will only be one way and one truth. It is in these discussions that we try to reach that truth. However, on the protestant boards, which are not subject to the whims and changes of the Catholic organization, we establish our doctrines solely and only on what can be confirmed in the Scriptures. The Scriptures, which are always and forever, in this realm, promised to endure. The Scriptures, which God and His Son and His Spirit have all confirmed is the truth from one end to the other of it.

For a lot of these doctrines being discussed here, we don't have anyone but some man, who a lot of people accept as being God's emissary on the earth, to say that anything he says is true. For me, and what I have, for quite a long time understood through the Scriptures, when we put some man on earth in charge of the things of God...it always gets messed up. This is why there is such a great debate about 'sola Scriptura', between the Catholic organization and Most other christian groups of believers. We aren't prepared, or able to find any proof in the Scriptures, that this plan of our salvation ever included that there would be some human being that would change every few years to tell us what to think about God.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

If Jesus had no DNA from a human,
then how would He be 100% man and 100% God?

Probably the same way that both Adam and Eve were the beginnings of the human race and they didn't bring any DNA from previous generations either. Listen, I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna let some new medical knowledge change what God can do. Yes we now know about DNA and that's a wonderful thing, but now, because we know about DNA, you're asking how that applies to being human.

Well, it doesn't apply just because it got passed down. DNA is what makes our bodies turn out the way they do and surely Jesus' body can't be denied as having been human, just because he didn't share DNA. The Scriptures say that Jesus became man. It doesn't link him to any living person on earth except that he had to come from the line of David, which he did through both of his parents. Do you think that God doesn't see His Son as having come from the line of David just because he likely didn't share David's DNA?

It certainly isn't an argument that sounds logical to me.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

Hey Ted,
Didn't even read the above.
It's ridiculous.

Oddly enough, it seems to only be those fully subscribed to the Catholic organization's dogma and doctrine that feel that way. I've gotten a number of positive responses from non-Catholics.

Often times we get stuck believing what someone has told us, beyond what God has said. We're experiencing that today in our schools of higher education. Young people are being taught and shown and offered as proof, the idea of evolution. What do you think? Does that make evolution true?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi wondering

A Professor is a Professsor even after he retires.
A Doctor is a Doctor even after he retires.
A Pope is a Pope even after he retires...which doesn't really happen.
Only twice in history.

I'm sorry I brought that up in this thread. Now it's being used as a side argument to detract. It was just a curious question and I'm not going to go any further with it. It is not germane to this discussion. I really don't care what you guys call your leaders.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi wondering


Probably the same way that both Adam and Eve were the beginnings of the human race and they didn't bring any DNA from previous generations either. Listen, I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna let some new medical knowledge change what God can do. Yes we now know about DNA and that's a wonderful thing, but now, because we know about DNA, you're asking how that applies to being human.

Well, it doesn't apply just because it got passed down. DNA is what makes our bodies turn out the way they do and surely Jesus' body can't be denied as having been human, just because he didn't share DNA. The Scriptures say that Jesus became man. It doesn't link him to any living person on earth except that he had to come from the line of David, which he did through both of his parents. Do you think that God doesn't see His Son as having come from the line of David just because he likely didn't share David's DNA?

It certainly isn't an argument that sounds logical to me.

God bless,
Ted

I truly don't know what you're talking about.

DNA is known now.
God knew about DNA from the beginning of time.
HE put all that information in there...where else would it come from?

What does medical knowledge have to do with this??
I posted half a page of persons in the 100,s and 200,s that believed Mary was a pure human being,,,
sinless so that she could be the recipient of the Body of God incarnate.

Jesus is LINKED to Mary.
She's HIS MOTHER.