Posted on 10/06/2010 7:56:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Overall, Catholics liked the movie "The Nativity" but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name." I don't think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass." Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:
WHO CARES?!
weirdos.
I’ll tell ya who’s causing who pain. YOU are causing ME a pain in my head. So Knock it off!
I agree, why does it matter?
Yes, but is it really a confirmation of that happening?
One can just easily say in response, “The Protestant/”Reformed”/non-denominational/what have you quest to pull down Mary into a normal sinful human being is neverending.” I mean, just on the fact that this person bore, lived with, and raised a perfect person who is both human and divine ought to tell you something about that person! Even she acknowledged, “Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name” (Luke 1: 48-49).
Indeed. This is the kind of question and debate you'd find on "ask the imam.com".
Thats why i said “semi-divine”. I think describing a woman utterly free of sin as “semi-divine” is reasonable. And why the case of the vapors about potential “blasphemous attacks”? I couldn’t have been more respectful in the way i wrote that comment. I specifically said i was NOT insulting whatever belief Catholics hold about Mary. Anyone using MY words as a starting place to attack catholics is a moron.
At best, i insult the guys 650 years later, thinking about things no decent man would ever think to worry about.
“Nope. She’s human, but without sin. This whole can of worms sets up blasphemous attacks on Catholic beliefs, but also those of the Eastern Orthodox, who hold the same belief.”
You deny Mary is divine, but then contend that questions about her constitute blasphemy. Blasphemy is criticism of a faith’s beliefs about divinity so criticisms or questions about Mary should not be considered blasphemy unless you consider Mary divine. I’m confused.
Nope. That would be confusing her human nature.
That’s a common mistake, caused by the fact that the terms “brother” and “sister” in the New Testament simply do not mean what we mean by those terms. They also denote various degrees of cousin-hood or in-law relation.
For instance: James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas/Jude are not sons of the Virgin Mary but of Clopas and his wife Mary/Maria.
Mary the wife of Clopas is the “sister” of Mary the mother of Jesus, which makes the “brothers” actually Jesus’ cousins (or possibly even more distant relatives).
In another place, St Paul refers to the apostle James as the Brother of the Lord - but this James is the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Mary or Joseph.
The key to all this confusion: the New Testament wasn’t written in Modern English. Most translations use “brother” when (if they had been written for modern sensibilities) they should have used some word like “relative”.
How can you say she is without sin when the Bible contradicts that? I am asking this question sincerely and without malice.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Is that true, about His half-brothers?
WTF does this have to do with Faith? Seriously a repulsive question.
I agree wholeheartedly. Her subsequent virginal or non virginal status is of no import. I should think there is a lot bigger ‘faith’ issues to worry about than this.
From blasphemy:
2: "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable"
I'm using that second definition.
You contradict yourself. Catholics do not believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary possesses a "semi-divine nature".
But i will freely question the ability of a man who lived 650 years later to speak authoritatively on the topic.
Then you no doubt feel the same about John Calvin, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli who also believed in and taught of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary during the 16th century.
I think this is becoming circular. I don’t see anything in the new testament saying Jesus birth was anything but normal. This despite the fact that several other miracles at that time were recorded.
I don’t think that degrades Mary in any way, or impacts Jesus message. So that works for me,, thats my official interpretation on the matter.
They are useful constructs to use when discussing matters which simply cannot be put under a magnifying glass: e.g. Hillary's moral limits, what sort of miracles Jesus could do, and so on.
Perhaps blasphemy is more general but I have always thought blasphemy was when a person of a particular faith criticized the beliefs of his or her own faith. For example, I do not consider myself guilty of blasphemy when I question the existence of Allah or Krishna. Nor do I consider people not of my faith ridiculing what is sacred in my faith blasphemous because they never believed it was sacred in the first place. Uncouth, ignorant, or deluded, maybe, but not blasphemous.
kk
“Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name” (Luke 1: 48-49).”
That is a beautiful passage of scripture that speaks wonderfully of a young woman who loved the Lord. It does not say that she was without sin however.
David was called a man after God’s own heart and he was not without sin.
No one is trying to demean the role of Mary. She was blessed. But the Bible is clear that Jesus was the only perfect one.
I agree.
I really didn’t want to open this thread but curiosity got the best of me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.