The American Spectator

Stuart Koehl| 12.22.09 @ 6:48AM

Those so-called "scholars" who insist that a proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 should be "a young woman shall conceive" ignorantly rely upon the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament, but that text was not extant or used in the first centuries BC/AD; rather, it was compiled between the fourth and ninth centuries AD, and differs substantially from the most common versions of the Old Testament used by Jews both in the Holy Land and the Diaspora.

By the first century BC, most Jews no longer spoke Hebrew, which had become a lingua sacra. In Judea, Galillee and Mesopotamia, Aramaic was the common tongue, while elsewhere Jews spoke Greek. The most widely used version of Scripture was the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation, compiled in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC.

The Evangelists, wishing to reach the widest possible audience with their Good News, used the LXX as Scripture--more than 90% of all Old Testament references in the New Testament are verbatim from the LXX.

And the word the LXX uses in Isaiah 7:14 is "parthenos", which is Greek for "virgin".

Now, there was no definitive canon of Jewish Scripture in the first century. Alongside the LXX there were other Greek translations, as well as Aramaic translations, and a number of Hebrew variants as well, some of which follow the LXX, other which resemble the proto-Masoretic. The important fact is the Church considered the LXX to be divinely inspired and used it as its definitive Old Testament.

From a scholarly perspective, one has to consider that the LXX is at least four centuries older than the earliest possible version of the Masoretic text, and therefore, the LXX may in fact convey the older tradition. Moreover, the Masoretes quite consciously were interested in undermining Christian apologetics based on interpretations of the Old Testament, so they had every incentive to choose words that would undermine what had become, by the second century AD, the universal Christian belief in the virgin birth.

Big Leo| 12.22.09 @ 2:33PM

I was going to reply exactly as you did first and better. You saved me a heap of writing. I have a M.Ed. and a D.D. and can read Biblical Greek and Hebrew, and you are right in every particular.

Andrew| 1.6.10 @ 6:25PM

I am among the "so called scholars" who "ignorantly rely upon the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament" whom, you presume, is not correctly informed despite my learning that the text was not extant nor in use in the first century AD. As a scholar, it would be difficult to overlook that point. However, one fact y0u overlook, a point that a responsible scholar would not overlook, is that the Qumran scroll of Isaiah, dated prior to the first century AD reads "Almah", which agrees with the Masoretic text. Thus, the Hebrew textual tradition from BC to AD agrees on the reading Almah, which means "marriageable woman" or "married woman up to the birth of the first child." Hence, that part of your argument falters on the facts.

Also unmentioned in your post is that the Septuagint itself had several versions and only one of them reads "parthenos" or "virgin", the others read "gyne" or "woman", offering a rather generic translation in the trajectory of meaning indicated by the Hebrew textual tradition going back to times prior to the first century AD. It should also be pointed out that the writing of the Septuagint is usually noted to span from about 100 BC to 100 AD. This part of your argument also falters on lack of precision.

Only the Eastern churches consider the Septuagint to be inspired scripture. This was not a view accepted in the West. Again, a lack of precision.

It would help to get these facts correct, much more helpful would be to lose the stereotyping typical of populist apologetics. I think you do a disservice to your readers to present the "straw man" argument, thus distracting one from the views of other faith-filled and faithful scholars, from the facts, and from the Church's foundational teaching regarding the dogma.

But with respect to the dogma of the virgin birth, I am not one of the nay sayers that you stereotype as among the "so called scholars." I fully believe the dogma as taught by the Church. The interpretative problems of the Isaian text aside, the dogma does not rest on the literal sense of Isaiah, after all, the prophecy by Isaiah does not reveal the virgin birth. The prophecy is seen by the New Testament writer Matthew particularly but in his own way Luke also to be fulfilled. Matthew alone explicitly relies on the Septuagint's Isaian text. Luke comes at representing the fulfillment of Old Testament promises differently but makes the same assertion. The revelation of this truth is not by Isaiah but by the event itself, which is faithfully and authentically re-presented by the living Tradition of the Church and the virgin birth infancy narrative claims of Matthew and Luke. These tradents are accepted by the Church as correctly preserving and transmitting the nascent faith of the Church, to which I gladly submit.

Reviseme| 12.22.09 @ 6:55AM

In his second decade of president for all people,Barry will have rewritten all text to show that Mary was artificially inseminated. Bibles swill be banned. Happy Ramahannukwanzmas.

Grant| 12.23.09 @ 9:28AM

What makes you think His Nibs, our Dear Leader, will permit any literacy at all?
1. Psychoactive drugs and video will be the only communication.
2. The Death panels will kill off anyone with any knowledge of Western Civilization.
3. Only lesbians will be permitted to reproduce, and then only by parthenogenesis.

Stuart Koehl| 12.22.09 @ 6:58AM

People may say or write what they want. Governments and rulers may dictate. But truth is self-authenticating. It remains true, whether it is believed by all or by none. It certainly does not require ratification by Barack Obama. And in the end, Truth is a person, not an abstraction, and His will cannot be gainsaid.

A great and glorious Christmas to all.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 5:13PM

That's right.

Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth?" (Jn. 18:38). When Truth was standing right before him.

~"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

Darin| 12.22.09 @ 7:08AM

If Jesus had been conceived by a man and woman, he would have inherited the sinful nature (which is passed on through the seed of the man). For Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice for our sins, he could neither have that in-born sinful nature nor have committed any sin. Denying the virgin birth is denying the divinity of Jesus. Such people can take that up with him when they face him at the great white throne of judgement.

Further, the geneology of of Joseph traces back to a curse being put on one of his ancestors (Coniah). "No descendent would ever sit on the throne of David." (Jeremiah 22:30). Jesus was recognized legally as Joseph's "son" because Joseph was obedient and did not denounce Mary and have her stoned (as was required by the law), but Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Once you understand how remarkable the events of Jesus's birth really were (including the fulfillment of ALL messianic prophecies in the Old Testament), you have to stand in awe of the power of God at work.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 8:21AM

Good post. You beat me to the best point - that the Gospel doesn't really work all that well if Christ is merely human in birth.

JP| 12.22.09 @ 9:16AM

Great points. And I would like to add that Mary was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost and she concieved Christ. The word overshadwed is also used in the OT to describe how God's Spirit overshadowed the Tabernacle on Sinai (Ex 40:35), and the same cloud of God's glory followed the Isrelites when they left Sinai and overhadowed Mt Zion for the Jewish feass (Is 4.5).

The OT also tells us much about how God demanded purity concerning his Tabernacle. If anyone other than a High Priest touched the Tabernacle he would die (I Chron 13:10). God demands a perfectly pure place to dwell. Mary would be no different. She had to be pure and without sin. She was the new tabernacle when the Spirit of God overshadowed her and she became the Bride of the Holy Spirit and Christ's mother.

One final word; in German the word for female virgin is Jungfrau -or young, unmarried woman. So many of these religious journalists try so hard to be hip and chic that they expose thier ignorance.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 10:34AM

You're baiting, but I enjoy the biting.

There isn't any context that even a priest could touch the ark (not the tabernacle, which was a tent). That's why there were the rings on the side - the only way to carry it without touching it was with the rods.

Also, stating that Mary had to be pure and without sin is simply an inference that the RCC is making. We have no direct statement that Mary was sinless (she was "blessed," which doesn't mean without sin).

In fact, it's God - not Mary - who should be praised and held high, because that's what He does to all of us in cleansing us from our sin - He creates in us a "heart of flesh" and redeems us from our sin. Christ, in a sense, dwells inside EVERY Christian because HE makes every Christian pure for His dwelling place (our bodies as His Temple.)

JP| 12.22.09 @ 11:23AM

Yes, but this thread concern's Mary. God prefers to work through humans. And Mary was no different. Christ could have just appeared at age 33 to the world. But He didn't. He humbled himself and came into the world through a Woman, the same way Sin came into the World. But if we know anything about God, it is his demands for purity. He would not allow His Son to enter the world through a impure vessel.

Yes, Christ does dwell in us now -that is after his ressurection. But God, would never choose to put His Son a Child inside an impure vessel. That totally goes against God's nature. Christ is both the perfect human and sinless had to recieve his human nature from someone, and that nature could not have the taint of Adam's Sin. Christ recieved his Divinity from God, but his perfect humanity from Mary.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 11:52AM

You miss the point. Sin nature is passed through the father, not the mother - Mary didn't HAVE to be sinless. Rom 5:12 shows that sin came through Adam (not Eve, who sinned first), and that "all sinned;" one would think that if Mary hadn't, Paul would have produced a caveat.

Saying that God wouldn't be born in a sinful person because of their impurity is a BIG stretch of scripture to something that is a BAD idea. Christ's birth was announced not to the righteous first, but to probable pagans (magi) and dregs of society (shepherds). If it was important that Christ remain in a holy place, then why was He found most often, in His life, in the most unholy sections with sinners?

It has never been theologically important that Mary be sinless. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe she was - but Christ was sinless. THAT'S far more important to our salvation, and what we need to agree upon.

Irenaeus| 12.23.09 @ 1:17AM

(1) Many of the early Christian Fathers are explicit that Mary is the new Eve or the second Eve. Here are words from some:

ST. IRENAEUS (c.140-c.202): "[W]ithout Joseph's action, Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy..." ("Against Heresies" III, 21,5, in Mark I. Miravalle, editor, "Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate - Theological Foundations, Towards a Papal Definition?," Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara, California, 1995, p. 178).

BUT White wrote "the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix [is] completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church...."

TERTULLIAN (c.155-after 220): "Eve believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. The fault that Eve introduced by believing, Mary, by believing, erased" ("The Flesh of Christ," 17, 4-5, in "Patrologiae cursus completus" 2, 827-828, Series Latina (Paris: Migne, 1841-1864) in Luigi Gambero, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought," Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 67).

BUT White wrote "the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix [is] completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church...."

ST. EPHREM OF SYRIA (c.306-373): "Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life" (Op. syr. II, 327, in Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Illinois, fourth edition, 1974, p. 201).

BUT White wrote "the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix [is] completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church...."

ST. AMBROSE (c.337-397) viewed Mary's role in redemption in the context of the Incarnation: "She was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. She was alone and she wrought the salvation of the world and conceived the redemption of all" ("Ep." 49, 2 "Patrologia Latina"(Migne), 16, 1154, in Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp., "Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary," The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982, p. 20).

BUT White wrote "the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix [is] completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church...."

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430): "-but plainly she is [in spirit] Mother of us who are His members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that Head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very Head" ("Holy Virginity," 6, 6, in William Jurgens, "The Faith of the Early Fathers," (vol. 3), p. 71, brackets in Jurgens).

Telling word "cooperated." And in a sermon Augustine preached: "Both the sexes should recognize their own dignity, and both should confess their sins and hope to be saved. Through woman, poison was poured upon man, in order to deceive him, but salvation was poured out upon man from a woman, that he might be reborn in grace. The woman, having become the Mother of Christ, will repair the sin she committed in deceiving the man" ("Sermo," 51, 3; "Patrologia Latina" 38, 334-335, in Gambero, op. cit., p. 230).

BUT White wrote "the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix [is] completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church...."

ST. CHRYSIPPUS OF JERUSALEM (399-479): In a homily, he presented the Eve-Mary parallel and antithesis in a clever way, with these words from the devil: "'How does it happen that the instrument which became my helper in the beginning is now opposed to me? A woman brought it about that I should take the human race into tyranny and a woman has thrown me out from tyranny. The ancient Eve exalted me, the new one threw me down.'" ("Oratio in sanctam Mariam Deiparam," in "Patrologia Orientalia" (Migne), 19, 340-341, in O'Carroll, op. cit., p. 102).

(2) The New Testament strongly implies that Mary is the new Eve or the second Eve. I'll limit myself just to the Gospel attributed to St. John here:

The Gospel and the apocalypse attributed to St. John always presented Mary in connection with the disciples (Laurentin, A Short Treatise, p. 37, footnote 21) and never described her as Mary (Frederick M. Jelly, O.P., Madonna: Mary in the Catholic Tradition, 1986, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana, pp. 59-60). The Gospel treated the relationship of Mary with the Savior's Passion and framed Jesus's ministry with the scenes of Cana and Calvary. In both scenes the Gospel called the Virgin the mother of Jesus whereas Jesus addressed her as Woman, an unusual title for a son to address to his mother in Semitic custom. Woman as a form of address was neither unusual nor disrespectful and occurs in the New Testament apart from Cana and Calvary (Mt 15:28, Lk 13:12, Jn 4:21, 8:10 and 20:13) (O'Carroll, Theotokos, p. 96). A son, however, would properly use Mother to address his own mother (Laurentin, A Short Treatise, p. 36).

The Cana wedding episode has an extremely significant place. The Prologue (Jn 1:1-18) of John's Gospel precedes a seven-day structure (Jn 1:19-2:11):

In the beginning... (Jn 1:1): In the beginning was the Word....
Day one (Jn 1:19-28): John the Baptist baptised at Bethany.

The next day... (Jn 1:29).
Day two (Jn 1:29-34): Jesus came towards John the Baptist.

The next day... (Jn 1:35).
Day three (Jn 1:35-40): Jesus called Andrew.

The first thing... (Jn 1:41).
Day four (Jn 1:41-42): Andrew found his brother Peter.

The next day... (Jn 1:43).
Day five (Jn 1:43-51): On his way to Galilee, Jesus called Philip who found Nathanael.

On the third day... (Jn 2:1).
Day seven (Jn 2:1-11): On the third day was a wedding at Cana in Galilee.

The first thing... in Jn 1:41 probably means the first thing the next morning (Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., eds., The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968, vol. II, p. 426). A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible indicates a manuscript variation reading Early in the morning... rather than The first thing... ; this variation supports the next morning interpretation (The New Jerusalem Bible, Doubleday, New York, New York, 1985, pp. 1746-1747, footnote aa). On the third day... in Jn 2:1 is widely understood to mean three days (that is, the day after the morrow) following the meeting on the fifth day with Philip and Nathanael (Brown, Fitzmyer, and Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. II, p. 427; Jelly, Madonna, p. 59; O'Carroll, Theotokos, p. 95). This harmonizes well with the thought that [w]oman echoes Gn 3:15 (I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers...) and places Mary as the New Eve at the beginning of the new creation (O'Carroll, Theotokos, p. 96).

The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited, also in John 2:1, suggests that Mary was assisting the host family; this would explain her knowledge of the embarrassing shortage of wine (O'Carroll, Theotokos, p. 95). Mary's report that 'They have no wine' (Jn 2:3) elicited the mysterious reply from Jesus: 'Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet' (Jn 2:4). Some of the Fathers saw the first part of the reply as a rebuke and puzzled over the meaning of hour. Yet the passage shows not a drop that Mary understood herself to have been rebuffed. Had she been reproached, she would not have immediately instructed the waiters to '[d]o whatever he tells you' (Jn 2:5). Moreover, the working of the miracle, his first, would have been a very striking about-face by Jesus, especially so very, very soon - but still, ahem, not immediately - after the "rebuke". The Greek Fathers thought mostly of Jesus's hour as the beginning of miracles, but St. Augustine, followed by St. Thomas Aquinas, thought it referred to the hour of Christ's death and glorification (O'Carroll, Theotokos, p. 96). The interpretation is still unsettled. Modern interpreters belong to either of these camps, with a third or fourth camp occupied by those who understand Jesus's reply as a question: Has not my hour come? or see hour as both the beginning of miracles and the moment of death (ibid.). We learn of the amazing execution of the miracle and that [t]his was the first of Jesus's signs: it was at Cana in Galilee. He revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, but they stayed there only a few days (Jn 2:11-12). Note that the Gospel does not indicate that Mary believed in Jesus as a consequence of this sign, clearly implying that she already did so (ibid.).

Irenaeus| 12.23.09 @ 1:19AM

Oops. I meant to edit that. Sorry.

Irenaeus| 12.23.09 @ 1:29AM

My larger point is that Mary was created in a state similar to the state of Adam and Eve before they ruptured their relationship with God. Here's that 19th century beacon, Cardinal John Henry Newman:

Mary may be called a daughter of Eve unfallen. You believe with us that St. John Baptist had grace given to him three months before his birth, at the time that the Blessed Virgin visited his mother. He accordingly was not immaculately conceived, because he was alive before grace came to him; but our Lady's case only differs from his in this respect, that to her grace came, not three months merely before her birth, but from the first moment of her being, as it had been given to Eve (A Letter to the Rev. E.B. Pusey, D.D., on His Recent Eirenicon, Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1866, pp. 49-53, in Sr. E. Breen, ed., Mary-The Second Eve, p. 12, italics in Breen).

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 8:22AM

Here's the problem - every point in scripture that talks about sin being taken away is explicit that it is Christ alone. Period. You can point to passages that mention Mary and try and squeeze out certain matters, but the point that needs to be dealt with is that in EVERY direct reference to sin being dealt with, it's just Christ.

"Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Two - the early church got a LOT wrong. Even Augustine (who I hold in higher esteem). Most of Paul's writings were written to correct errors in the early church, and to present certain ideas of church fathers as "getting it right" is a bit of a stretch.

Third, what are the consequences if I don't accept Mary as coredemptrix?

Jeremiah| 12.23.09 @ 9:00AM

Briefly, Ryan...and going backwards.

3) Though I have developed a profound devotion to Mary, and though I respect the intentions of some who disagree with me, I find it a serious error on the part of those who are trying to get Mary named 'co-redemptrix'. Christ is our - and her - sole redeemer, period. The people who are lobbying for that title think it will correct the abuse of some other Christians who treat Our Lady with indifference and contempt. Rather, it would be the equal and opposite abuse - and so we would have two abuses rather than one. And let me be clear: the RCC does not recognize the title of co-redemptrix for her, even though there are those lobbying for that title.

2)You are partly mistaken here. Paul corrected nothing of the early Church fathers because he was one of the earliest of the Church fathers. But you are dead right that most of Paul's epistles carried correctives to peoples who thought that they could interpret the Gospel (Good News, not Scripture) for themselves. That was the reason for apostolic authority. The term, 'Church Fathers', refers to early teachers in the Church who WERE writing with apostolic authority to, like Paul, correct misinterpretations and define the true faith.

1) On this, you are right on target. I quoted earlier John 20:22, 23 in which Christ gave his apostles authority to forgive sins. But when those apostles do so in the sacrament of confession, they are acting solely as lawfully appointed ambassadors of Christ. It is solely through His power that sins are forgiven - and if any priest tried to offer reconciliation in his own name, rather than Christ's it would not constitute a valid sacrament and would be a supremely grave sin on the part of the priest..

Irenaeus| 12.24.09 @ 1:18AM

Hi Ryan,

You wrote in your first point: "[I]n EVERY direct reference to sin being dealt with, it's just Christ. "

My reply: I'll let Cardinal Newman clarify the qualifications. In 1866, Cardinal Newman distilled the belief of the Fathers :

Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us. It was in Adam that we fell; though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural privileges which were bestowed upon him as our first father. Yet though Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards the race, she had a place of her own; for Adam, to whom was divinely committed the naming of all things, entitled her [i]the Mother of all the living[/i], a name surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity; but further, as she thus had her own general relation to the human race, so again had she her own special place as regards its trial and its fall in Adam. In those primeval events, Eve had an integral share. [i]The woman, being seduced, was in the transgression[/i]. She listened to the Evil Angel; she offered the fruit to her husband, and he ate of it. She co-operated, not as an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and personally in the sin; she brought it about. As the history stands, she was a [i]sine-qua-non[/i], a positive, active cause of it. And she had her share in its punishment; in the sentence pronounced on her, she was recognized as a real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she suffered accordingly. In that awful transaction there were three parties concerned - the serpent, the woman and the man; and at the time of their sentence, an event was announced for the future, in which the three same parties were to meet again, the serpent, the woman and the man; but it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam: [i]I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed[/i]. The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or son He is, is His mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seem to me undeniable; but at all events, (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration (Newman, in Sr. E. Breen, ed., [i]Mary-The Second Eve[/i], p. 2).

In your second point, you wrote: "Two - the early church got a LOT wrong. "

My reply: Catholics and Orthodox typically are bound by a "consensus patrum," that is, a consensus of the Fathers, but not by an outlying opinion, that is, by an opinion of one or more Fathers that may not have been in general agreement with those other early Christian Fathers viewed as orthodox. Clearly, there was a consensus that Mary was the new Eve. And that consensus is biblically grounded. Now what that means is the task of theology.

In your third point you asked: [W]hat are the consequences if I don't accept Mary as coredemptrix?

My reply: I'm unsure about the consequences except that I think it defies a consensus patrum. Read the post above about St. Augustine describing Mary as the "cooperator" or St. Chrysippus having the devil identify Mary as the undoer of what Eve did.

In 1954, Father William G. Most clarified some quite relevant theological terms (I leave aside any dispute regarding merit in this discussion) as follows:

For the sake of precision, theologians today commonly distinguish between the objective and the subjective redemption. The objective redemption is the payment by Christ of the price of our salvation, through His merits and satisfactions, culminating in the sacrifice of Calvary, by which a boundless treasury was set up, to which treasury nothing was to be added in future ages. The subjective redemption is the application to men of the fruits of the objective redemption.

It is clear, then, that the term merit will have a somewhat different sense, depending on whether it applies to the objective or the subjective redemption. Only Christ and Mary merited in the objective redemption. When anyone else merits, he does not contribute to this once-for-all acquisition of the treasury; rather, he merely obtains that graces be drawn from that treasury and distributed.

Furthermore, Mary's cooperation in the objective redemption may be called both remote (mediate) and proximate (immediate). Her remote cooperation is the divine motherhood. Her proximate cooperation is her service as the New Eve on Calvary (William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, p. 259).

Peace out,
Irenaeus

Darin| 12.22.09 @ 10:51AM

The comment from JP seems to indicate he believes in the concept of "immaculate conception," meaning Mary was without sin (and thus "pure"). Mary was not sinless either before or after Jesus was born. She was born as others are born and was chosen by God, much like Moses, Ruth, David, Isaiah, etc. were chosen by God. This is why the geneologies of both Joseph and Mary are found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 (Joseph descended from David via Solomon, Mary descended from David via Nathan). If I misunderstood JP's comment, I apologize. Just wanted to clarify this point.

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 2:11PM

You did not misunderstand good old JP's comment. He believes you are not a Christian, but a Judas betrayer if you are not a Roman Catholic. JP is hugely mistaken.

Dan| 12.22.09 @ 6:36PM

Isn't JP capable of speaking for himself? Or, because Margie can divine the meaning of scripture, she can also tell us what JP means? Talk about hubris.

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 7:01PM

Hello Dan-O. You and your Catholic friends are the arrogant snobs who say us lowly Christians cannot be saved and are Judasas since we don't belong to the RCC. So buzz off.

Jeremiah| 12.22.09 @ 7:25PM

Margie, please...I have never heard a Catholic say that Protestants can't be saved. In the old days, I often heard some Fundamentalists say Catholics can't be saved (and that was among the nicest things they said about Catholics).

Seriously, I've been growing rather fond of you, Margie. You strike me as being utterly sincere about wanting to do what is right and just. I get the sense that, in your life, you have had more than your share of sorrows and hurts.

There are times you have made ad hominem attacks on Catholics. Now you see disagreement as an ad hominem attack on yourself and what you believe. In this glorious time of year, just abide with Him, neither giving offense or taking it.

When His disciples complained that a man they didn't know was healing people in the name of Jesus, Christ told them that whoever is not against Him is with Him. (Yes, I know this seems to contradict another passage where Jesus says just the opposite. It does not - and I won't belabor to explain right now - just consider that in this context the differentiation between spirit and flesh is critical).One cannot cast out demons in the name of Christ and be against Him. Let us enjoy Christmas and worship our common Lord in this wonderful season without going to war over our differences.

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 8:40PM

Not true. What I "attack" is doctrine that isn't Biblical, and I'll never stop.
Unlike Catholics I never say you have to be any Religion to be saved. But Catholics purport to have a corner on that. Just read yesterday's thread.
The Bible says "For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Rms. 10:13.
And this~ "For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.." 2 Tim. 2:5.
My stance is that the Pope is a sinner like the rest of us and has no power to forgive sins.
That is not an ad-hominem attack, but the truth.
I doubt that you are growing fond of me as I've seen no tell tale signs of that. (Maybe I'll give you the benefit of the big doubt)..
But what I have seen are many accusations of my "arrogance" etc. because I dare to be in opposition, and quote corresponding Scripture.
It takes two to tango. Iron sharpens iron.
Touche!

David T.| 12.22.09 @ 10:36PM

Margie--Jeremiah is a prophet who speaks the truth. I am a convert to Catholicism, and never have I known Catholics to engage in Protestant bashing the way Protestants attack Catholics with such vituperation. As for the Pope's being as sinner, he would surely agree and thank God for the hope of redemption we have through the Lord Jesus Christ, who founded his church on the Rock of St. Peter and gave him and his sucessors the power to loose and bind here on earth and the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.
Emmanuel--"God with us." Merry Christmas

Margie| 12.23.09 @ 9:51PM

Yeah he's a prophet and I'm Mary.

Jeremiah| 12.22.09 @ 10:50PM

Well, gosh, Margie there are millions of Catholic books that bear the imprimatur (a certification that they are not contrary to faith and morals). I ask you to give me a single citation from a single one that says only Catholics can be saved. Just one. And please, not an "I heard from some Catholic friends..." Give me a single, real citation properly referenced. And when you can't please drop that line of attack.

And who in heavens name says the pope is without sin? The most holy popes have gone to confession once a week or more frequently. Infallibility has nothing to do with that. As for the power to forgive sins, read John20:22, 23 ("...whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained...") It is unbiblical to maintain that Christ did not give His apostles authority to forgive sins. That is a fact.

And yes, there is an affection I am developing for you that is real. The more I read what you write, the more I see there is a brittleness to your certainty. I suspect you are more involved in protecting a safe zone for yourself than in attacking others. When something comes that you have not considered, it scares you and so you seem to attack, but are really protecting your own safe zone. It is the sort of thing that someone who has been badly hurt - either by a Catholic or a fundamentalist - does.

Let me ask you this...please pray for me. I believe your prayers are sincere and that sincere prayers are always responded to (in God's own time, not ours). If I have erred in either facts or charity, God will move on me. If you have, he will move on you. If we both have, He will move on us both. So your prayers on my behalf would do us both good. Thanks and Merry Christmas.

Margie| 12.23.09 @ 9:52PM

You don't fool me.

Joe Dee| 12.24.09 @ 10:38PM

Margie, do you have any idea how mean-spirited you are coming off? You challenge Jeremiah, he answers you kindly and thoroughly, and challenges you. You don't respond at all except to insult him. I'm sorry, I'm not Catholic but he seems awfully Christian to me and well able to site scripture to respond to you. You're just coming across as mean and bitter because he answers all your questions well and Biblically. Why won't you answer him with a tiny bit of the kindness and completeness he answers you with? If he is what a serious Catholic is, I owe an apology to a lot of Catholics. I'm not ashamed to say it. Thankfully, I know the meanness you treat him with is not how a serious Protestant is. If I didn't, I would have to be thinking about changing churches.

Margie| 12.27.09 @ 11:08AM

Hello Mr. "Joe Dee"
I see you have come to jump on the bandwagon again, as on the other thread.
You don't fool me either.
I apologize for nothing as I have no need to. You're a fake phony fraud.

Tony in Central PA| 12.23.09 @ 8:18AM

Margie, I'm a Catholic and would never say something like this about nonCatholics. Most Catholics wouldn't say things like this and none of us should. That goes both ways, though. I have been told more than once I was headed for hell because I belonged to an " apostate church ". I don't think God is pleased by any of this.

David T.| 12.22.09 @ 10:56PM

Darin--Are you so sure Mary was a sinner like the rest of us? Why does the Angel Gabriel address her as "Full of Grace"? Jesus himself is the only other person in Scripture to whom this phrase is applied. Could it be that God granted Mary special favor to be the spotless Ark of the New Covenant who would carry the Son of God in her precious womb? Ponder these things...

Irenaeus| 12.23.09 @ 1:44AM

Darin,

Your words are so different from those of St. Sophronius (died 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the last of the early Christian Fathers and one of the greatest exponents of Mary's primacy of excellence. He almost stated the Immaculate Conception in western terms:

[start of quote from St. Sophronius] Others before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed 'beforehand' by purifying grace as were you... And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God's gifts as you were; no one shared God's grace as you did (St. Sophronius, In SS Deip. Annunt. 22 Patrologia Latina 87c, 3248, in O'Carroll, _Theotokos_, p. 329, "beforehand" italicized and ellipsis in O'Carroll). [end of quote]

Compare that with these words of Pope Pius IX's dogmatic decree on the Immaculate Conception pronounced in 1854, more than twelve centuries after St. Sophronius:

{start of quote from Pope Pius IX] "...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, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin...[end of quote].

L. Ross| 12.22.09 @ 10:42AM

The sinful nature is passed on through the seed of man. Specifically, it is encoded into the Y chromosome.

Just kidding.

Dan Sipes| 12.24.09 @ 9:56PM

Amen! Now this brother knows what he is talking about. This knowledge comes from being in God's Word and we as Christain should all know this.

Appleby| 12.22.09 @ 7:11AM

My sainted Daddy always said that the sure sign of a lie is the phrase *Well, EVERYBODY KNOWS...*

I have been the beneficiary of too many improbable and indeed unbelievable situations to take the wizened, shrivelled, pinch-mouthed view that only those things I can do are possible.

Bill| 12.22.09 @ 7:56AM

As the Gospel says... with God all things are possible. Man in his own wisdom is a fool. Truth will always shine through and evil defeated. God is the creator and continues to bind himself to his creation and fill it with his presence. For those of us in the Christian Community we Rejoice and are filled with the Peace that only can come from God.
Rejoice and be filled with the Joy of Christmas ... a joy that extends through out life.
Merry Christmas

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 8:24AM

Reductionists are right...to a point. Virgin births can't happen.

That's why it's called a Miracle. It's something that occurs not through natural processes...and there's nothing in scripture, or in any part of the Christian faith, that states that something HAS to happen through merely physical processes.

The Virgin Birth is NOT treated as a commonplace event in scripture. It's bizarre. Mary and Joseph and Isaiah knew it was bizarre...that the birth of the Messiah would come through special circumstances.

John Schuh| 12.23.09 @ 12:32AM

In one of the aprocryphal texts, which one I do not remember. there is a passage that describes how Joseph outside the cave while midwives attended to Mary and how at a certain moment time "froze" and nothing moved and light emitted from the cave. It was as though he were out of his own body, observing all this. This is how unique the event was: it was the moment when the world was born again.

ds80| 12.22.09 @ 8:47AM

Pea-brains, the whole lot of them.

*Hooray* for The General Judgment ... at which point they may sing a different tune.

Irenaeus| 12.24.09 @ 1:34AM

ds80,

Your post reminds me of words of a Catholic permanent deacon I heard in the 1980s. The deacon reported that he was reading an abcedarian book - one with an entry under each letter of the alphabet: one under a, one under b one under c, ..., and in that order. He said, perhaps with an equal mixture of humor and fright, that the entry under h was about hell. It read: "Some people do not believe in hell. Some day, they will."

Irenaeus

Irenaeus| 12.25.09 @ 2:47PM

I am also reminded of that peculiar saying: "There are no atheists in hell."

cuban pete| 12.22.09 @ 9:40AM

All I know is that I was blind and now I can see.
Merry Christmas to all.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.22.09 @ 12:14PM

Cuban Pete
I just could not help it. I heard this song for the very first time the other day.
Everyone: ENJOY...AND LAUGH WHEN YOU CATCH THE JOKE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 2:16PM

Me too, pecos pete, me too.
Praise God.

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 2:58PM

oops.. cuban pete!

Al Adab| 12.22.09 @ 4:21PM

Pete, Margie, Ken:

Well done gang. Merry Christmas to all.

Margie| 12.22.09 @ 4:46PM

Thanks Al Adab~ Merry Christmas to you and God bless you.

Mike| 12.22.09 @ 9:55AM

The translation debate between "Virgin" and "Young Lady" is very popular amongst Protestants. When I attended a Baptist university, the Hebrew translations were relied upon as absolute truth. It is nice to see this thoroughly rejected here in the comments section.

Also, has anyone else noticed the National Geographic "specials" on Jesus and the birth? This translation discussion is also used to say that Jesus had brothers and sisters, therefore Mary did not remain a Virgin. The "special" and others completely ignore the historical understandings of Mary and her Virginity. Most of the confusion is based in anti-Catholic or anti-Christian arguments.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 10:36AM

It's Traditional, not Historical. Anything that states that Mary remained a Virgin is extant and suspect. Seriously - there's a pretty good argument that can be made that she didn't.

Mike| 12.22.09 @ 10:40AM

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120).
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

Jeremiah| 12.22.09 @ 11:31AM

When I was coming into the RCC, I remained unpersuaded for a while of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I knew that, in ancient cultures, the terms 'brother' and 'sister' often referred to any close relatives, particularly cousins. But it seemed to me it could just as easily have referred to actual brothers or sisters. Then, while reading the Gospel of John, something jumped out at me that completely convinced me Jesus had no actual brothers or sisters as we use the term today. (John 19:26, 27)

Jesus lived in an honor culture, yet he left His mother in the care of the disciple, John. This would have caused an intolerable division in His family, for in such cultures care of the widowed mother falls to the next oldest son - and it is not (as all modern rules seem to be) a suggestion. For such a situation to be true and there still to be brothers, it would mean that Jesus and James (who is most often cited as 'brother' of the Lord) would have had to be blood enemies at the time of Christ's death - and that Mary had utterly rejected James as well. But that is clearly not the case.

As for the virgin birth, it is not really an argument about the virgin birth at all. It is a subtle argument about whether there is a God. If there is God, He is author of all natural law. But He is master, not subject. If He chose to have a virgin give birth, it would, of course, be done according to His word. If there is no God, then, of course, a virgin birth is impossible. Thus, the argument over the virgin birth is a subtle attack on the existence of God, at its heart.

Tony in Central PA| 12.22.09 @ 12:22PM

Jeremiah, this very subject came up in one of my RCIA classes as well. The passage you mentioned from John's account of the Crucifixion of Jesus giving his mother to the disciple was also raised. The question of its literal versus figurative nature was raised. The priest leading the class cautioned against an overly literal interpretation, especially given that John's Gospel, at least stylistically, appears to be the least literal of the four Gospels. Many of then people in the class weren't persuaded and saw it as evidence that Jesus had only stepsiblings. Given Jewish culture, it doesn't appear to make sense if it is literally true and that Mary had other children after Jesus.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 11:42AM

Several things:

Proto-James isn't Canonical, and it seems that giving it such authority is a BAD idea. It doesn't even seem that officially it is given such status, but the ideas it gives have held weight.

Second, even Protestants believe in Christ's half-brotherhood...because His father wasn't Joseph, thus making any other siblings half-siblings.

Third, it gives an unBiblical view of sexual relations (that I think Catholicism holds) between a man and wife as somehow "unholy." At least, that's my perception. There is no overt statement that there is something wrong with sex between a husband and wife in scripture. NOWHERE in scripture is virginity equated with holiness.

Fourth, the tradition that Mary was sinless gives her undue position in Christianity. Yes, she is special, and especially blessed to have borne our Saviour; however, we are commanded only to pray to God, and no other being. For me, this is the GREATEST problem with Catholicism, and why I don't think I could ever accept it. Scripture is overtly clear that we need no intercessor other than Christ, that He hears His children, and that He and He alone fulfills our needs.

Mike| 12.22.09 @ 12:04PM

Ryan -

Catholics do not worship Mary or other saints. Mary is the greatest of saints because she said yes to God and bore His Son.

We "pray", which means to ask for their prayers. Do you ever ask friends or church members to pray for you? Is that intercession?

Misconstruing Catholic worship like that defeats your argument and turns off Catholics.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 3:13PM

There's a stark difference in asking present, living, breathing people for their prayers and deceased saints who we have no basis of being certain that they hear us.

Maybe I am wrong in my observations, but the surface sure does appear that it is appeals made directly to Mary or some other deceased Saint, with the expectation that the prayer will be answered by them, and not by God directly.

Also, there is no Biblical basis that a Christian who has "fallen asleep" hears and presents prayers to God as an intercessor.

Here's the other side of the question - do I sin when I pray directly to God?

Jeremiah| 12.22.09 @ 5:04PM

How is your final question related to the point at issue at all? No Christian Church maintains it is a sin to pray directly to God.

Here's the authentic other side of the question from your perspective - do you sin when you ask friends or fellow church members to pray for you, since there is only one mediator. If you do not, then there is no disagreement between us as to whether it is good to ask for the prayers of others. Our only disagreement then is whether those who have passed on are still included in the communion of the faithful. We say yes; you say no. Okay, I can live with that.

Having said that, though, you are right that some Catholics abuse the gift of example and inspiration that the saints are to us - and pray to them as if they are demi-gods. When you rightly object to that, I agree with your objection

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 8:12AM

I think you hit on what I don't hear many uneducated Catholics state - that it's simply a request to the larger Christian community for prayers. Your last statement is something that the RCC, at least on the surface, doesn't promote all that much, at least in Protestant eyes.

My first statement was pretty much trying to hit home that appealing to deceased saints is simply unnnecessary - particularly in the light that it looks like so many people ask Mary to pray for them that she's got quite a load to place before the Father, when we are called simply to go to His feet ourselves.

I don't even debate that those who have passed on are still included in the communion of the faithful - I simply debate that they're presenting our prayers to God for us.

Jeremiah| 12.23.09 @ 9:24AM

Hi Ryan. Two quick examples of where we are commanded to pray for each other are Ephesians 6:18 and James 5:16. Mutual prayers for each other within the communion of the faithful are necessary. Again, our disagreement is only about who is encompassed in that communion.

And Ryan, thank you. I appreciate the seriousness and integrity of your arguments - and I appreciate the integrity with which you give consideration to serious arguments from our side. Jewish tradition called non-Jews who were particularly notable for their Godliness , sense of justice and commitment to truth a 'righteous man.' It was a particular title, not just a description.

Having been Protestant, I know exactly what you mean about how certain things appear to Protestant eyes. Back in those days I would occasionally challenge some of my cradle Catholic friends on points of Catholic doctrine I could not accept. Every one of them always agreed with me. After I studied seriously and came into the Church, I went back to many of them and explained that we had both misunderstood the Catholic teaching on the points - and explained what authentic teaching was. Again, every one agreed with me - and almost all were delighted to find it was not what they had thought it was, either. Some errors are due to Protestant misunderstanding of certain teaching - others are because so many Catholics are so poorly catechized and don't understand authentic teaching themselves. The latter is a point I have made with some force to more than a few Church authorities. We can't much expect others to understand what we believe when so many of our own don't.

Dan| 12.22.09 @ 6:42PM

You are wrong. Nobody expects Mary or any other saint to perform any action other than pray for us: "ora pro nobis". Catholics believe the Nicene Creed which states that we believe in the "communion of saints"...this may not be Biblical but it is certainly part of our Tradition. Which, if my Baptist deacon friend is to believed, even Baptists believe that.

Why would praying directly to God be a sin?

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 8:13AM

It isn't...it's just that it doesn't seem that Catholics do it, in Protestant eyes.

John Schuh| 12.23.09 @ 12:44AM

Did your mother cease to be your mother when she died? We Catholics believe in the communion of the saints, which says that the Church includes all who have lived since the time of Christ. Some are more holy than others, which means they are closer to God. This is true even of the living, so we turned to them for help. But the saints--the holy ones of God--how could they cease loving us?

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 8:14AM

Where in scripture are there varying levels of holiness?

Tony in Central PA| 12.22.09 @ 12:36PM

Ryan, Catholics hold Mary as the most redeemed human ever. For Catholics, that means she was redeemed by Christ from original sin before she was born. We hold that our fallen nature relating to original sin is what leads us into sin in this life. It may sound like a cop - out to say this, but we believe this is possible because God isn't limited by the universe's laws of time like we humans.
I guess the natural question would be why was this necessary ? My understanding is that God and sin simply cannot coexist together, so in order for Mary to have Jesus, she had to be without sin. I'm certainly not a theologian, but its my best understanding at this point of how to explain some of the Catholic beliefs relating to Mary. You may not agree, but I hope this cleared up some of the fog.

Ryan| 12.22.09 @ 3:17PM

How can one be redeemed from more sin than another person? Where in scripture are there "levels" of redemption from sin?

It really doesn't clear it up, mostly because there's no direct basis in scripture for making the claim that Mary had to be perfect. I do see where you're getting at, I just don't see how it works - particularly in light of Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." Outside of the inference about Mary that Catholicism makes, no mention is made that she has some sort of exceptional status in the remainder of the NT, even in those books written by Apostles.

Tony in Central PA| 12.22.09 @ 3:56PM

Ryan, original sin is something we are born with. its part of our fallen human nature. As far as I know, most mainline Christian denominations hold to this. Personal sin results from the choices we make via free will, but our fallen nature tends to orient us toward sin.

I think we're probably coming to the end of the line for this discussion, because I think we've come down to the premise of sola scriptura. Although Catholics most certainly believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, we obviously don't hold to the belief as some denominations do that it contains the sum total of the faith. This does explain some of the differences regarding Mary. Catholics have a strong traditional component going all of the way back to the first century that is often most apparent in the liturgy. The liturgy is something that is deeply unappreciated and misunderstood at times, even by Catholics.

Historically, I think sola scriptura has some big problems. I think they would be interesting to discuss, but I think they might be bit too long to get into here.

Jeremiah| 12.22.09 @ 4:28PM

Ryan, I'm not going to try to beguile you from your belief in 'sola scriptura.' That teaching was initiated 500 years ago by Martin Luther and is obviously well-established in many Protestant denominations. But for those of us who are Catholic, the New Testament is part of the deposit of faith, the apostolic teaching from the beginning. It is especially authoratative - and our Catholic forbears decreed it to be so when the various Councils canonized these particular writings to constitute the New Testament. But it is not all of the apostolic teaching. No authoratative Catholic teaching may be contrary to the New Testament - but the canonization of the New Testament in about 400 A.D. did not freeze in time the apostolic teaching - nor contain all that was taught. As I have said before, Christ did NOT give the apostles a New Testament and tell them to go found a church - or churches. He commissioned some as His apostles and gave them real teaching authority. It was from them that the New Testament was both written and commissioned. Certainly, sola scriptura could not have worked for the first four hundred years of Christianity, because there was no scriptura (except, of course, for the Old Testament).

When you ask 'Where does it say that in Scripture?' it is a non sequitur in Catholic ears. We are glad you accept the Catholic authority to have commissioned the New Testament, but do not agree with you that that is the only authority the Church had. Now, if you want to argue that something is contrary to Scripture, then we have a basis for discussion. I understand that you accept nothing but Scripture as teaching authority. If you understand that we regard it as the linchpin of a larger teaching authority, we can have productive discussions.

The Immaculate Conception is not found in Scripture, but is part of the authoritative Catholic teaching. It posits that Mary, alone of the human race, was created without the stain of original sin so that when Our Lord came to us, He would come through a pure vessel. One of my favorite titles for her is 'Ark of the New Covenant.' We are agreed that that doctrine is not to be found in Scripture - but neither is it contrary to Scripture. That does not prevent an advocate of 'sola scriptura' from believing it, but it does prevent them from believing it is important.

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 8:07AM

I get the debate against Sola Scriptura, but I think that it's a position that the RCC is sometimes so adamant against, that can lead to either harmful contradictions and errors with tradition at worst to stating some things as essential to the faith (veneration of Mary in the present discussion) that aren't necessary and over-complicate matters.

Maybe that's more of what I am driving at. There's a rule that isn't necessarily scriptural that holds a lot of water - the most simple explanation is often the best - and I think that the RCC has, at times, surrounded itself with what it sees as matters of import, and those of us who are Protestants simply want to say...

"It's not that hard."

Jeremiah| 12.23.09 @ 9:34AM

Gotta hit the road, be with family now. I look forward to more provocative - and productive discussions. Of course, we disagree on some things, Ryan. But if I were a Jew, I would call you a 'righteous man.' Ah heck, even though it doesn't carry as much significance from a Catholic, I'll call you a righteous man anyway. Merry Christmas!

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 11:41AM

Any righteousness we have is only given through Christ - and Merry Christmas!

Tim| 12.22.09 @ 10:41AM

"If scientists in the 21st century can manage it, is it really such a stretch to say that God 2,000 years ago would have been up to the task?"

Why even bother trying to swathe faith in science? You end up with a dubious science fiction story.
I am sure that when God makes a miracle He does not bother to dress it up in psuedo science like a writer for Star Trek .

Mike| 12.22.09 @ 10:54AM

citation:
http://www.catholic.com/librar.....Virgin.asp

Danmcn61| 12.22.09 @ 11:06AM

Thank you, Stuart Koehl. I will use your information to refute the nonbelievers I know the next time this issue comes up (and, living in the bluest of blue states, it comes up a lot!)

Tony in Central PA| 12.22.09 @ 12:02PM

Can a highly improbable event qualify as a miracle ? If God created the universe, does that mean he actually breaks his own laws in order to accomplish miracles ? Just a couple of theological bones to chew on.
As far as a virgin birth being scientifically impossible, I'm not so sure. I have read that approximately 1 in 20,000 males are XX, instead of the usual XY chromosome males. Maybe we have somebody on this site who knows more about genetics and can comment on the veracity of this and whether it makes human parthenogenesis a very unlikely but possible event.

MikeBee| 12.22.09 @ 12:28PM

To me, it is a bigger stretch of the imagination and of scientific evidence (or, at least as big a stretch) to believe that we are going to all burn up due to Global Warming, than to believe in the virgin birth of Mary. Seems to me that if environmental wackos can believe in the Global Warming theory of the destruction of mankind that Christians can be allowed to believe in a virgin giving birth.......

What's more important to me, though, is that God, who is all-powerful, created everything, and really didn't need to do so, stuffed everything that is himself into a human body, just so that He could know what things are like for us here on earth, and so that He could redeem us and show us the way to live. What other religion's god has done such a thing? What other religion's god has so much compassion, empathy, understanding, and love for His subjects as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? He could have just let us all rot; we really all deserve that, anyway. But, regardless of whether or not we care a whit about Him, God loves us enough to die for us.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.22.09 @ 12:36PM

Mr. Koehl, Thank you.

I inadvertantly got into an argument with an Roman Church member here the other day.

I wrote to him that there were several "parallel" traditions from the earliest days after the Resurrection.
One of course was the Septuagent in Greek,which was a much more complex and nuanced language than Latin could be. Several early Christian "Confabs" demonstrated this reality and wound up splitting the largest factions in the early "State supported" churches ie: between Rome and Constantinople.
I maintained also that the traditions behind what is now called the Baptist community began among Jesus' disciples.
A. Believer's Baptism (heh submerged)
B. The priesthood of every believer (the right, the honor, and the responsibility directly to God for one's needs, and to pray for others directly to God in Jesus' name)
C. The Office of the Holy Spirit inspiring scripture, and Immanence in the world today.

I choose to believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
...a unique birth in history. Merry Christmas!
Oh and in case you missed it above, see when you get the "Joke"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Thoughts?

Linda| 12.22.09 @ 1:14PM

I found this article very inciteful and the comments interesting. I am not as learned as many who have written here, but here are my thoughts. There are many who truly believe if God decides a woman will be a virgin and conceive a child, it will be done. Others look to science and analysis to prove their is no such thing as a virgin birth. This again points to the word - faith. There are some things that require faith - either you have it or you don't. The resolution to this argument will only be put to rest by our deaths and enlightenment. However, Jesus Christ himself was obedient to his mother and performed his first miracle at the wedding feast of Canaan. We all know the story. The feast was going on and they ran out of wine. Mary the mother of Jesus asked Him to do something. Christ then ordered the servants to fill the jars with water. The water was turned into wine and the feast continued.

There is a special bond between a mother and son and Jesus and Mary were and are no different. What about the appearances by the Blessed Mother in Fatima, Lourdes and also on American soil at Guadaloupe? Are these people lying. As for me, I know in my heart and in my life what being close to the Mother of Christ has meant. During her life Mary experienced the exhileration of his birth, fear for his life, the loss of her child for three days and then finding him in the temple speaking and answering questions, the happiness of family life during his years of childhood and manhood. She shared in his suffering watching him, scouraged, crowned with thorns and forced to carry a wooden cross through the streets to his ultimate place of death. She followed him to that hill and stood at the foot of the cross watching her Son going through an agonizing death and receiving Him in her arms when his lifeless body was taken down from the cross. Through her joys and sorrows, she honored her Son - she honored the Father. Many believe the Son gave her to all mankind as He was dying on the cross to help us all. I can only tell you what I know in my own life and from my own experience that the Blessed Mother walks with us all and helps us as we go through the joys and sorrows of our own life. Hail Mary, full of grace....

Darin| 12.22.09 @ 1:37PM

Be very careful taking any sort of an attitude of elevating Mary. Such is the path to setting her up as a goddess. Instead, view her as we view other prominent people in the Bible.

Moses gave us the first 5 books and received/passed on God's laws. Moses was just a man. Ruth chose to remain with Naomi and follow her back to Israel, where she later married Boaz and became the grandmother of David. Ruth was just a woman. David was annointed king and called a man after God's own heart (even after he committed adultry and had the husband murdered). David was just a man. Saul first persecuted Christians (including being present at the stoning of Stephen) but later repented, chose to follow Christ, and changed his name to Paul and ministered to the gentiles. Paul was just a man.

Linda| 12.22.09 @ 3:32PM

I do not need to elevate Mary. She was chosen by God to be the mother of the Christ, the Son of God. It was God who elevated her.

Tim| 12.22.09 @ 4:23PM

I'm with you Linda.

David T.| 12.22.09 @ 11:20PM

This is the best comeback I've ever read on these pages.

Tony in Central PA| 12.23.09 @ 8:07AM

All I can say is " Wow ! ".

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 12.22.09 @ 1:28PM

This is really very simple. Either one takes Almighty God at His word or one doesn't. If don't take God at His word, be sure you know what you are doing.

Licinius Macer| 12.22.09 @ 1:39PM

"Historians are trained to suspect collusion of sources: if two accounts line up too neatly, then one is likely based on the other and thus less valuable. It's better to have two divergent accounts -- even wildly divergent accounts -- of the same event to serve as confirmation of the details where they agree."

Someone who can assert such errant nonsense obviously knows nothing about historical methodology.

Big Leo| 12.22.09 @ 2:39PM

While my bachelor's degree is in history, I spent seven years as a policeman. When two accounts of an incident are completely identical, I smell a rat. When there's some reason for the accounts to be identical, I smell an even bigger rat. Just compare Custer's account of his actions against Wade Hampton in the Battle of Gettysburg. Both officers had a reputation for accurate observation (despite all the fables about Custer's incompetence). When you read the two accounts, it's hard to see if they were in the same battle, yet the basic facts are all there in both narratives.

By the way, it's 'arrant' nonsense.

MikeBee| 12.23.09 @ 11:22AM

Big Leo, and Licinius Macer, you're BOTH right! Licinius is pointing to the confirmation of historical information by two or more sources, which is absolutely essential to the validity of an historical assertion. But Big Leo is hinting at what is called the science of Heuristics, which attempts to consider the entire historical context, including applying doubt to two sources which seem to collude with one another a bit too much. Both are absolutely necessary in determining historical truth.

Eric Smith| 12.22.09 @ 1:59PM

Hebrews 11 explains the faith necessary to please God. It is fun to read through these comments and discern who pleases God and who doesn't.

KyMouse| 12.22.09 @ 2:54PM

The Isaiah 7:14 prophecy is pretty much meaningless if the gal being mentioned is merely a young woman, not a virgin. A "sign" stands out from what is around it -- a young woman having a baby isn't remarkable; there are young women all around the world having them right now. The sign was to be something unheard of, something that stood out, and that sign would be a virgin having a baby.

Mary, a young Jewish woman, played an important role in the incarnate life of Jesus by giving birth to Him, but canonical Scripture is silent about her after His death and resurrection. If she served any other purpose, such as being Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix or Queen of Heaven, or praying for us sinners now and in the hour of our death, etc., the writers of the later epistles surely would have pointed out those roles and exhorted us to show some level of devotion to her. They don't. Therefore, ALL of my worship, devotion and veneration is reserved for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As the ad men used to say, accept no substitutes.

Milesdei| 12.22.09 @ 3:32PM

Ryan suggested above that "stating that Mary had to be pure and without sin is simply an inference that the RCC is making."

No. The belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception has been present in the Church since the sixth or seventh century. It has its origin in the "folk piety" of the laity in the Eastern (Greek Orthodox) Church and had migrated into the Western (Roman Catholic) Church by the ninth century. In the 1854, Pope Pius IX recognized it as an infallible teaching of the Universal Church. So it was not a "top down" kind of thing, but rather a "bottom up."

Second, the Protevangelium of James can also be regarded as a literary expression of folk piety, taking as its model the "romantic novels" of late antiquity. As has been noted, it is NOT canonical and thus cannot be cited as a textual warrant for Catholic Christian belief. What's interesting is the discernment of the Church's leaders: though both the Immaculate Conception and Protevangelium of James are both expressions of lay piety, only one corpus of belief is sanctioned by the Church. The other is recognized as an important historical artifact that sheds light on the variegated nature of early Christian belief.

edward del colle| 12.22.09 @ 4:14PM

dudes, jesus, even if there was a historical jesus, first that wasn't his name, he had no concept of virgin births, we only know that many religions have the virgin birth fable, that's what is! the synoptic gospels are all in contradiction on so many points and written by other people at later times than the events in dispute that they are not capable of authentic matters. nor did this christ have any concept of the trinity or even institutionalized religion the source today of war in the mind, in the heart , in family and in the world. so, please, without fully reading the epistles of the above sanctimonious people, stop using these openings to talk up what you think is the one true religion! there are none.

Tim| 12.22.09 @ 4:24PM

This is what a college education does to you, dude. Bong hit beatitudes.

roadmaster| 12.26.09 @ 12:08PM

Good one! LOL!

David T.| 12.22.09 @ 11:15PM

The Virgin Birth of Christ is unique in the annals of history. There are stories of "gods" coming to earth to impregnate (i.e., rape) virgin girls, but nowhere except the Bible will you find a story of a virgin actually conceiving and having a child without first "knowing" a man. It's a miracle, dude!

C.K. Amos| 12.23.09 @ 12:02AM

Hey, dude, if Christ Jesus could open the eyes and heart of Christian-killer Saul of Tarsus and remake him into the Apostle Paul--and just a regular dude like me-- there's hope for you, dude.

By the way, you're right: There's no one true religion. Christianity is a faith, one's personal relationship with the Messiah.

Here's praying you see Him.

MikeBee| 12.23.09 @ 11:38AM

It is NOT religion which has been the source of many wars and killings throughout history. Get it right: it is IDEOLOGY which has been the source of wars and killings. In fact, the greatest numbers of killings, historically, have occurred during the twentieth century A.D., all enacted by those who have espoused the philosophy and ideology of Communism (refer to: The Black Book of Communism, Harvard Press). Supporters of the myth of religion-killings often point to the Crusades as evidence of their belief. However, the Crusades were more of a political battle than a religious one. Ardent supporters of the Muslim faith like to promote the enforcement of their religion's tenets via political change and the establishment of Sharia law in governments. Europeans of the time didn't want this, and European leaders of the time were threatened by this, so they kicked the bums out, sending them back to the middle East where they came from.
Christianity and other religions are responsible for too many acts of compassion and improvement to civilization to be charged with mass killings. The rejection of the idea of slavery came really from the Christian concept of equality of all before God and because of God. The idea of the establishment of a government only by the consent of the governed (who are the actual rulers) also stems from Judeo-Christian ideals. No, Edward, you and the far left liberals who like to promote this idea of religion being responsible for the deaths of many throughout civilization are simply ignorant of history.

Al Adab| 12.22.09 @ 5:35PM

Seems to me that given the fact of the Resurrection all the rest is easy. Why doubt?

Rick| 12.22.09 @ 5:54PM

Geez...
Relying on 1st century stories to establish miracles is not more valid than relying on second hand hear-say: it's all made up.

Al Adab| 12.22.09 @ 6:08PM

Rick,
Did you ever read Socrates, or Plato? Maybe Ceasar or Cicero? Where did those manuscripts come from? Herodotus or Thucidydes?

Sorry sir, but the made up argument holds no water. How we chose to deal with it remains a matter for each of us nonetheless.

roadmaster| 12.26.09 @ 12:22PM

If you think it's made up, why are you wasting your time on this thread?

Many non-believers over the centuries have attempted to make a case against the virgin birth, resurrection etc. and came away converted Christians.

How does that happen? They were no doubt as smart, or smarter than you or me, yet in trying to disprove something, came away with faith that it was true....

Richard Baker| 12.22.09 @ 8:16PM

"The fool in his heart says there is no God." I'll believe the Bible. However, liberals fight for the Moslem to do any damn thing he pleases without question, right?

philfl63| 12.22.09 @ 8:17PM

I have a good question. Why are these "intellectual philosopher-kings" so distraught about what other people believe? If they think that believers are ignorant bumpkins, why all the hoopla over events that transpired 2000 years ago? Why would they be so upset, waste so much of their time, and try so hard to disprove something that to them is utter myth and nonsense? Why are they so threatened? I know the answer. They are "men" who have voids where there are supposed to be souls. Darkness hates the light and will do everything it can to destroy the light. These "men" are pathetic, lost creatures who have only their pitiful intellects to comfort them. Small comfort.

John Navratil| 12.23.09 @ 10:26AM

Because to believe in something other than they denies them the authority over the lives of the believer.

Tom| 12.22.09 @ 8:19PM

Very interesting article and comments. I will tell you up front that I am Presbyterian but I will also tell you that I do not agree with the "progressive" thinking of some. I had some bad dealings with some Roman Cathlic priest but I shrugged it off.
Here is what I believe with all my heart.
I believe in The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit. I also believe in the communion of saints.
Yes, our church does believe in saints.
1. God is all powerful and everlasting. Maker of heaven, earth and all living things.
2. Jesus Christ, our Savior was born of The Virgin Mary
Jesus Christ paid for our sins thru his death and that He conquered death with His resurection.
I also believe that the true church is Christ and only thru Him can we be saved.
Yes, there are many Christian Churches but to me they are just differant ways to celebrate the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We all believe The Holy Bible and the teachings of Christ.
If there are any misspelled words, sorry, never said I was a good speller.
God Bless All

Jeremiah| 12.22.09 @ 11:46PM

I am so glad to have discovered this site - and that it covers serious religious issues fairly regularly. And I am so pleased at all the commentors who, whether I agree with them or not, obviously take the matters seriously. We have become a little community here (okay, a bit of a bickering little community, but one nonetheless - "...where two or more are gathered in my name..."

I am grateful to be able to read the considered comments - and particularly from the regulars on the religious threads. Thank you JP, Tony in PA, David T., Ryan, Margie, Old Texican and KY Mouse - and all the occasional commenters, for so enlivening some of my evenings.

God Bless and Merry Christmas! (And the dude who cited the 'bong beatitudes' -great comeback, Tim - is perfectly free to have happy holidays if he prefers)

Ryan| 12.23.09 @ 2:38PM

Likewise, merry Christmas!

JP| 12.23.09 @ 9:46AM

And a Merry Christmas to you, Jerimiah.

Margie| 12.23.09 @ 2:11PM

Even though it's Christmas time I feel more like it's Thanksgiving because I feel so thankful to God (through Christ) who gave us all the Founding Fathers, and Pilgrims who went before us by His will, to give us this wonderful free country and the the freedom to practice whatever Religion we choose.
I just pray it is Christ that will be found by everyone!
God bless everyone.
Amen.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.23.09 @ 4:11PM

Hi Margie
Over the last few months...I have fallen in love with you.
Just keep on keeping on, lady.
Da Judge

Margie| 12.23.09 @ 10:00PM

Thanks for the encouragement.. I'm truly glad you're my brother in the Lord.

lay123| 4.2.10 @ 2:39AM

hi

lay123| 4.2.10 @ 2:40AM

hello

www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.2.10 @ 4:56AM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

karen| 4.2.10 @ 6:49AM

Not only are www.herveleger-outlet.comsuitable attire for most occasions they are also a very comfortable form of for men. The fabric they are usually made from is flexible and comfortable with plenty of ‘give’ in the cheapwww.us-chaneloutlet.com if you need to stretch, zcount jordan shoes they have a collar to protect your from the sun if you are likely to be spending time outdoors and they have buttons at the if the weather should turn a bit chilly.

karen| 4.2.10 @ 6:56AM

Not only are www.herveleger-outlet.comsuitable attire for most occasions they are also a very comfortable form of for men. The fabric they are usually made from is flexible and comfortable with plenty of ‘give’ in the cheapwww.us-chaneloutlet.com if you need to stretch, zcount jordan shoes they have a collar to protect your from the sun if you are likely to be spending time outdoors and they have buttons at the if the weather should turn a bit chilly.

asdfasd| 4.7.10 @ 9:26PM

iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 2:18AM

Would you be so understanding if two or three armed KKK members treated black voters in the same threatening way? Hmmmmm?

And if not, why not, Sue? Careful, your ugly liberal bigotry toward white folks is showing. Shame on you, hypocrite.