immaculate conception (richard)

[_marg]

JAK wrote:
According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.


You wrote: This is incorrect. The immaculate conception has to do with the alleged sinlessness of Mary. You're confusing it with the Virgin birth (or more properly, virgin conception).

I agree with you that JAK is incorrect, that it is not according to immaculate conception doctrine that Joseph wasn't the father. However I agree with JAK that Joseph is not considered the father.


JAK: The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.”

Richard: The Virgin birth states that Joseph was not the biological father but Mary was the mother of Jesus.

Does the doctrine of Virgin Birth state Mary is the biological mother? Does the doctrine get into details that Mary was the biological carrier, that one of her eggs was fertilized or is this a recent apologist explanation of Virgin Birth doctrine?


JAK: The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation

Richard: You're wrong. See for example
Quote:
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp


At what point does Catholic doctrine specify that Mary was the biological mother? Just because the doctrine is that Mary was the carrier does not mean the doctrine specified she was the genetic biological mother. Genetics is only recently understood.

I do think JAK was confused and likely thought you were arguing Joseph was a biological father, when you said "Jesus descended of man". JAK appreciates Mary was a carrier according to Catholic doctrine, but may not agree that doctrine specifically states she was a biological mother. I'm uncertain of that as well.

Conceptually the whole reason for arguing over this, why it is important to some Christians, is so that one can argue Jesus' ancestry goes back to King David a requirement of the Jewish messiah. I don't have the details at the moment but when I looked into this from the Jewish perspective according to Judaism and the O.T. rules Jesus doesn't trace back. For details I'd have to look them up again.

[_richardMdBorn]

My new comments are in bold.

JAK wrote:
According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.


You wrote: This is incorrect. The immaculate conception has to do with the alleged sinlessness of Mary. You're confusing it with the Virgin birth (or more properly, virgin conception).

I agree with you that JAK is incorrect, that it is not according to immaculate conception doctrine that Joseph wasn't the father. However I agree with JAK that Joseph is not considered the father.

But this has NOTHING to do with the RC doctrine of immaculate conception. That doctrine teaches that Mary was sinless. It has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus or who are his mother and father.

JAK: The doctrine is that neither Mary nor Joseph were biologically connected to Jesus. Mary was a “virgin.”

Richard: The Virgin birth states that Joseph was not the biological father but Mary was the mother of Jesus.

Does the doctrine of Virgin Birth state Mary is the biological mother?

The New Testament teaches that Mary was the biological mother of Jesus (see Mat. 1:25).

virgin birth The virgin birth is a religious tenet in Christianity and Islam that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus] If Mary conceived Jesus she is his Mother.

Does the doctrine get into details that Mary was the biological carrier, that one of her eggs was fertilized or is this a recent apologist explanation of Virgin Birth doctrine?

The ancients did not know that a woman’s egg is fertilized in conception. However, they did know that both the father and mother were involved in conception. I’m not sure what relevance this modern scientific knowledge has to this issue.

JAK: The doctrinal claim is that the whole of Jesus was immaculate Conception and birth. Mary was merely the carrier of God’s creation

Richard: You're wrong. See for example
Quote:
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp


At what point does Catholic doctrine specify that Mary was the biological mother? Just because the doctrine is that Mary was the carrier does not mean the doctrine specified she was the genetic biological mother. Genetics is only recently understood.

I do think JAK was confused and likely thought you were arguing Joseph was a biological father, when you said "Jesus descended of man". JAK appreciates Mary was a carrier according to Catholic doctrine, but may not agree that doctrine specifically states she was a biological mother. I'm uncertain of that as well.

the Apostles' Creed professes that Jesus Christ "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary"; the older form of the same creed uses the expression: "born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary". These professions show:
• That the body of Jesus Christ was not sent down from Heaven, nor taken from earth as was that of Adam, but that its matter was supplied by Mary;
• that Mary co-operated in the formation of Christ's body as every other mother co-operates in the formation of the body of her child, since otherwise Christ could not be said to be born of Mary just as Eve cannot be said to be born of Adam;

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

I think the above quote lays it out well. Note that if Jesus is the son of Mary, and Mary had a father, then Jesus is descended of man.

Conceptually the whole reason for arguing over this, why it is important to some Christians, is so that one can argue Jesus' ancestry goes back to King David a requirement of the Jewish messiah. I don't have the details at the moment but when I looked into this from the Jewish perspective according to Judaism and the O.T. rules Jesus doesn't trace back. For details I'd have to look them up again.

Christians argue that Jesus was a literal son of David through the lineage of Mary, and received the right to rule through his legal father Joseph who was also a descendant of David. The following quote is a reasonable summary of the argument (though it’s Isa 16:5 not 6:5).

We hear the words of Nathan the prophet that “Your house and your kingdom
will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (v. 16).
David repeats this promise to Solomon with an important condition – “If your
descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their
heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel” (1 Kings
2.4).

The sons of David – even Solomon, for all his wisdom – turned out to be a
somewhat patchy lot. Nevertheless, the promise wasn’t forgotten. Psalm 89 was
written by “Ethan the Ezrahite” – a wise man from Solomon’s time. He reaffirms
the covenant with David in these terms – “Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness
– and I will not lie to David – that his line will continue forever and his throne
endure before me like the sun; it will be established forever like the moon, the
faithful witness in the sky” (vv. 35-37). We hear it in later Psalms also – as in
132.11-12. This latter concludes with the promise, “Here I will make a horn grow
for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with
shame, but the crown on his head will be resplendent” (vv. 17,18). Also in Jeremiah
33.17.

After Solomon the kingdom was divided between Judah in the south and
Israel in the north. In general the southern kings didn’t stray as far the their northern
counterparts.

Later in the Old Testament we hear the promise coming through in a different
form – “In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it – one
from the house of David – one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of
righteousness” (Isaiah 6.5).

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up to David a
righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the
land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name
by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 23.5-6). When
the yoke of oppression is lifted, “they will serve the Lord their God and David their
king, whom I will raise up for them” (30.9).

“I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend
them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my
servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken” (Ezekiel
34.23-24). My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one
shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will
live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They
and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my
servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it
will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers,
and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling place will be with
them; I will be their God, and they will be my people” (37.24-27).

Hosea records that “the Israelites will live many days without king or prince,
without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. Afterward the Israelites
will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They will come
trembling to the Lord and to his blessings in the last days” (Hosea 3.4-5).

http://peterjblackburn.com/bstud/bscalled1.pdf

Note that I don’t know Peter Blackburn, but his comments here are in line with standard evangelical teachings.

[_Trevor]

But this has NOTHING to do with the RC doctrine of immaculate conception. That doctrine teaches that Mary was sinless. It has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus or who are his mother and father.

For the sake of clarity, perhaps it would be good to add that she was free of original sin. A lot of us here aren't accustomed to lumping that in with the rest of sin.

[_huckelberry]

Jesus was a literal son of David,

There have been a couple questions about the reliability of the geneologies in the Gospels. I found myself considering that the period of time between David and Jesus is more than long enough, over 30 generations, that by Jesus time all Jews in the area would be related to David by probably a large number of different lines of descent each. Jesus being a descendent of David means about the same thing as he was Jewish.

It is long established Christian doctrin that Jesus was both divine and truely human. I think the human part was the obvious starting place . It was the divine dimension which clarified in time in the Christian tradition.

I got the sense from Jaks comments that he saw a doctrine of Jesus not being a real human contained in the Christian faith. The long tradition is that Jesus son of David means that he is a real human like you and me. I think the Catholic Catacism is a good reference for this because it reflects the longest, largest concensus and is careful in its statements.

470Because human nature was assumend ,not absorbed, in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Chruch was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operation of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God. who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from one of the Trinity. The son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Thrinity.

460 The Word became flesh to make us partakers of the divine nature. For this is why the word became man and the Son of God became the Son of man; so that man by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God. For the Son of God became man so that w might become god. The only begotten Son of God wanting to make us sharers in his divinity assumed our nature so that he , made man, might make men gods.

[_JAK]

JAK wrote:
According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Christianity), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah” in Jesus.


You wrote: This is incorrect. The immaculate conception has to do with the alleged sinlessness of Mary. You're confusing it with the Virgin birth (or more properly, virgin conception).

I agree with you that JAK is incorrect, that it is not according to immaculate conception doctrine that Joseph wasn't the father. However I agree with JAK that Joseph is not considered the father.

===

I appreciate the various comments.

The initial, recent discussion began in “…biblical contradictions." My point there was that various groups of Christians interpret scripts differently including the Luke 1: 34-38. I could have been clearer that some Christian groups interpret (and interpret is a key term) Jesus to have been different than other groups interpret him. Various groups today use different biblical scripts to make their own claims. Today, we have many Christian denominations, sects, and cults with different doctrines/dogmas.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (a Roman Catholic bishop 1895-1979) was the author of the World Book article which I cited.

Sheen stated in that same article: “The term Immaculate Conception is often confused among non-Catholics.” Of course what that means is that “non-Catholics” have different interpretations. Thus, it’s easy for the Catholic position to regard different views as “confused.”

A. According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Roman Catholic), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah,” Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church uses the Luke 1: 34-38 as support for their doctrine.

B. The Virgin Mary, in order to be pure enough to become the mother of Christ, was freed from the burden of original sin (miracle). “Her soul was created in the purest holiness of innocence.” (Bishop Sheen)

Who fathers Christ? According to the Luke 1: 34-38, “the Holy Ghost.”

Luke 1:35 “1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Luke 1:37 “For with God nothing shall be impossible.”

Luke 1:34 “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’"

Hence, the Roman Catholic doctrine encompasses two miracles as Bishop Sheen described. It is these texts which are used by the Roman Catholic Church for the invention of the doctrine “Immaculate Conception.” (To be sure the Roman Catholic Church does not regard it as an “invention” as I characterized it.)

Those texts are quoted in two library editions of two different encyclopedias as the basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine. The same idea is expressed on the on-line New Advent which I'll cite below.

To accept the doctrine, one must accept the suspension of laws of biology (by God). That’s what the doctrine requires.

The doctrinal debate is whether the laws of physics/biology were suspended with regard to the “father” of Jesus.

The doctrine (assertion) of “original sin” (from which Mary is exempt) is a claim and is Roman Catholic doctrine as well is doctrine in many Protestant groups. “Original sin” is also a doctrine but is over-written for Mary.

The Immaculate Conception doctrine claims two miracles as I referenced.

Jersey Girl here claims: “Mary was the Immaculate Conception.”

So far as I know, no Christian group claims that. In the World Book article, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen stated this:

“Mary had two human parents.” Hence in the Roman Catholic Church (according to this article), Mary was not the “Immaculate Conception.” Instead, she was the vehicle for the “Immaculate Conception.”

The “Virgin Birth implies a miracle, namely that Christ was ‘conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.’” (Bishop Sheen)

The issue which I raised previously was that of differing interpretations of biblical scripts. It applies to many scripts as I documented here.

Although we cannot replicate books here, we can often find websites of religious groups.

In New Advent we find this:

*The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."* (* indicates text from the on-line Roman Catholic doctrine.) (Bold emphasis added for focus. The entire on-line article from New Advent is quite lengthy in its statement of Roman Catholic doctrine.)
==
Following in the traditions of the Protestant Reformation, we find various interpretations and the citing of biblical scripts to support one doctrine or another doctrine with regard to the reference to “Immaculate Conception.”

Various claims today regarding what the Bible teaches evidence well the diversity of perceptions today. Before people could read and before there were books (or mass printing of Bibles) as we know them, people relied on the hierarchy for interpretation and statements of truth.

JAK

[_marg]

The Immaculate Conception doctrine claims two miracles as I referenced.

Jersey Girl here claims: “Mary was the Immaculate Conception.”

So far as I know, no Christian group claims that. In the World Book article, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen stated this:

“Mary had two human parents.” Hence in the Roman Catholic Church (according to this article), Mary was not the “Immaculate Conception.” Instead, she was the vehicle for the “Immaculate Conception.”

JAK I do believe you are still misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine. By saying that Mary was the immaculate conception it means according to Catholic doctrine she was granted special status, free of sin by the R.C. Church. Yes she has 2 biological parents, she still is considered the "immaculate conception" to the church, that's just the doctrine to grant her special status. Of course I guess so too Jesus is immaculately conceived, but I suppose just to make sure it is clearly understood he had no sin, Mary was given that status as well.

So in my opinion those who are so focussed on this, to the exclusion of other concepts related don't see the forest for the trees.

Do you not see though that according to R.C. doctrine defined, Mary is the "Immaculate conception"?

[_marg]

Sorry Richard for not responding to you, your post was well explained. I might respond, possibly with the Jewish perspective on ancestry of Jesus but atm it is just not a priority.

[_JAK]

The Immaculate Conception doctrine claims two miracles as I referenced.

Jersey Girl here claims: “Mary was the Immaculate Conception.”

So far as I know, no Christian group claims that. In the World Book article, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen stated this:

“Mary had two human parents.” Hence in the Roman Catholic Church (according to this article), Mary was not the “Immaculate Conception.” Instead, she was the vehicle for the “Immaculate Conception.”

JAK I do believe you are still misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine. By saying that Mary was the immaculate conception it means according to Catholic doctrine she was granted special status, free of sin by the R.C. Church. Yes she has 2 biological parents, she still is considered the "immaculate conception" to the church, that's just the doctrine to grant her special status. Of course I guess so too Jesus is immaculately conceived, but I suppose just to make sure it is clearly understood he had no sin, Mary was given that status as well.

So in my opinion those who are so focussed on this, to the exclusion of other concepts related don't see the forest for the trees.

Do you not see though that according to R.C. doctrine defined, Mary is the "Immaculate conception"?

marg,

“Conception” in the doctrine is presented as singular. What specific Roman Catholic source argues for two "Immaculate Conceptions" plural?

The words of Bishop Sheen do not characterize Mary as “Immaculate Conception.”

He characterizes her has a normal human with two earthly parents. The miracle which he characterizes for her is that she is granted freedom from original sin in a singularly way.

My question remains one of a source characterizing Roman Catholic doctrine as regarding Mary as a “conception” of a human as “Immaculate.”

She was declared free from “original sin” by the Pope (Roman Catholic doctrine). What has that to do with her “conception” as a human person?

I’ve cited the Roman Catholic New Advent with description.

What can we find which states Mary was an “Immaculate Conception”? (doctrinally speaking)

And what was Jesus Christ? (doctrinally speaking from the RCC official position)

Bishop Sheen states there are two miracles, only one of which is the "Immaculate Conception." (singular)

CatholicBridge

We have in doctrine and dogma, ambiguity.

JAK

[_marg]

marg,

“Conception” in the doctrine is presented as singular. What specific Roman Catholic source argues for two "Immaculate Conceptions" plural?

I'm only aware of one according to official RC doctrine. I suggested that conceptually Jesus had to have been immaculately conceived given Mary was & the other side of the equation was (a) God.

The words of Bishop Sheen do not characterize Mary as “Immaculate Conception.”

Well let's look at when it became official doctrine 1854. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffabilis_Deus

I won't post the web site, but if you read it you will note it is about Mary's Immaculate conception, not Jesus's.

She was declared free from “original sin” by the Pope (Roman Catholic doctrine). What has that to do with her “conception” as a human person?

It has little to do with her conception as a human, it's only about her being free from sin from the time of her conception.

And what was Jesus Christ? (doctrinally speaking from the RCC official position)

I don't know except it would be a given he'd be free from sin according to R.C. doctrine if Mary is and the father is the Christian God. So that doesn't need to be officially stated. To make him free from sin, they either had to declare he was born without sin, or make Mary be conceived without sin.

Bishop Sheen states there are two miracles, only one of which is the "Immaculate Conception." (singular)

CatholicBridge

I looked at that site and it too talks about Mary being the immaculate conception, something God planned in advance.[/quote]

"But in Mary's case God intervened and protected her from this at the moment of her conception by the merits of Jesus."

We have in doctrine and dogma, ambiguity.

It's all about creating definitions,axioms, not about what is logical.

[_richardMdBorn]

A. According to the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” (Roman Catholic), Joseph was not the father of the claimed “Messiah,” Jesus.

Evidence please for this assertion. Where is this implicit or explicit in the RC teaching of immaculate conception. And please DO NOT use RC evidence for virgin birth in your support for this.