Assumption Of Mary

[White Knight]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1146536' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:19 PM']
When the angel says to Mary "hail mary, full of grace" in Luke 1 that is an indication of the immaculate conception.
[/quote]


Good point, never thought of it like that before, however, I would just believe that the Immaculate Conception wouldn't have to be Biblicially based but rather based on Common Sense.

I mean Jesus was Born All God, and All Man, so He had to have a perfect body coming into this world, so it makes perfect sense for Mary our Mother to be without any trace of Original Sin, because she had to be the pure vessel in order to Bring Christ into this world without being stained by Original Sin for both of them.

I know you and I aren't agureing but I'm just merely throwing my point out there.

God Bless You. have a Blessed Advent, and have a Merry Christmas.

Edited December 22, 2006 by White Knight

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1147193' date='Dec 21 2006, 10:30 PM']
Agreed. St. John wrote his own work, I think...he lived long enough and it's quite clear that all his attributed writings come from the same mind. As for the other authors...there's nothing wrong with saying that other books, such as the synoptic Gospels, were written by disciples of those whom the Gospels claim. Afterall...the titles are "the Gospel according to..." not "the Gospel written by..." Any accounts which were handed down to those who wrote them are still according to those who handed them down.
[/quote]

Now I'm not saying anyone here has done this, but the conversation made me think of it:

It always shocks me in a "this is kind of backwards" way when [i]Catholics[/i] get all uptight about the authorship of certain parts of Scripture. If the Gospel of John happened to be written within a Johannine school by people who sat at his feet and had heard him preach to them, but was not actually written by John himself, Catholics ought to see that as [i]proof[/i] of the Church's teaching. Certainly the Holy Spirit worked in the Apostles, but the Holy Spirit also works through the Church.

If the Gospel of John, which both Catholics and Protestants agree is infallible, was written in a Johannine school that was situated in a larger context of local churches established by John, that only goes to show that there is a much greater connection between the Apostles and the Church then Protestants typically like to admit. Catholics should have no problem with the notion that the infallible teaching of John, which he preached orally, was infallibly preserved by the church to which he preached and then later written down.

Its the Protestants for whom this issue is problematic, not Catholics :

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[scardella]

I hope e-bones didn't get scared off...

[exquisitebones]

i am still here, just reading, and trying to absorb it all

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='exquisitebones' post='1147411' date='Dec 22 2006, 10:46 AM']
i am still here, just reading, and trying to absorb it all
[/quote]
You are not alone, sister!!!!! I do the same thing

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1147377' date='Dec 22 2006, 12:16 PM']
Now I'm not saying anyone here has done this, but the conversation made me think of it:

It always shocks me in a "this is kind of backwards" way when [i]Catholics[/i] get all uptight about the authorship of certain parts of Scripture. If the Gospel of John happened to be written within a Johannine school by people who sat at his feet and had heard him preach to them, but was not actually written by John himself, Catholics ought to see that as [i]proof[/i] of the Church's teaching. Certainly the Holy Spirit worked in the Apostles, but the Holy Spirit also works through the Church.

If the Gospel of John, which both Catholics and Protestants agree is infallible, was written in a Johannine school that was situated in a larger context of local churches established by John, that only goes to show that there is a much greater connection between the Apostles and the Church then Protestants typically like to admit. Catholics should have no problem with the notion that the infallible teaching of John, which he preached orally, was infallibly preserved by the church to which he preached and then later written down.

Its the Protestants for whom this issue is problematic, not Catholics :

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]
While it may be proof to you, it is offensive to me. It smacks of the misguided attempts by liberal [ read unorthodox and unfailthful] theologians to downplay the historicity and authenticity of scripture in the manner of Mr Brown. Its the Gospel according to John , not John & Co.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1145094' date='Dec 18 2006, 04:09 PM']
Exactly. It reminds me of why sola scriptura is erroneus and full of error.
[/quote]


No offense, but that might actually be the most redundant thing I've ever read.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1158306' date='Jan 7 2007, 06:20 PM']
No offense, but that might actually be the most redundant thing I've ever read.
[/quote]
Redundant AND repetitive! :




:

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1158332' date='Jan 7 2007, 06:35 PM']
Redundant AND repetitive! :
:
[/quote]


DOTE (Thinking Homer Simpson!!!)

[journeyman]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1147316' date='Dec 22 2006, 03:57 AM']
Good point, never thought of it like that before, however, I would just believe that the Immaculate Conception wouldn't have to be Biblicially based but rather based on Common Sense.

I mean Jesus was Born All God, and All Man, so He had to have a perfect body coming into this world, so it makes perfect sense for Mary our Mother to be without any trace of Original Sin, because she had to be the pure vessel in order to Bring Christ into this world without being stained by Original Sin for both of them.

I know you and I aren't agureing but I'm just merely throwing my point out there.

God Bless You. have a Blessed Advent, and have a Merry Christmas.
[/quote]


I heard - and I don't remember whether it was a Catholic or Protestant bible study on the radio - that original sin passed through the male ancestors to the children - probably Protestant, since that interpretation does not require Mary's Immaculate Conception - but the discussion point had more to do with Christ's incarnation than Mary's status, so I may have mis-applied the point

[Veridicus]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1158485' date='Jan 7 2007, 08:53 PM']
I heard - and I don't remember whether it was a Catholic or Protestant bible study on the radio - that original sin passed through the male ancestors to the children - probably Protestant, since that interpretation does not require Mary's Immaculate Conception - but the discussion point had more to do with Christ's incarnation than Mary's status, so I may have mis-applied the point
[/quote]

I'm somewhat overstepping my bounds on this particular topic, but I'm pretty sure somewhere in the last few years of school I've read that some philosophies posited that females played a less important role in the synthesis of the offspring than their male counterparts. That is, before our common understanding of egg + sperm = zygote = baby, people speculated that baby was ultimately the product of the male sexual product alone (they didn't KNOW that the woman donated an egg...) and the woman was the growing chamber where the child was formed. This understanding of the development of offspring would lend itself assertion that original sin is passed corporally by the male progenitor because the female doesn't actually contribute to the flesh of the child.

If I'm way off on this, someone PLEASE correct me...philosophy really isn't my thing, but I seem to remember hearing this somewhere.

[SRMiller]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1158485' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:53 AM']
I heard - and I don't remember whether it was a Catholic or Protestant bible study on the radio - that original sin passed through the male ancestors to the children - probably Protestant, since that interpretation does not require Mary's Immaculate Conception - but the discussion point had more to do with Christ's incarnation than Mary's status, so I may have mis-applied the point
[/quote]

I was taught that in the Baptist church. Don't know anything else about it, though.