Home  >  Community  >  The Vendio Round Table  >  Just curious...


<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>
 This topic is 2 pages long: 1 new 2 new
 profe51
 
posted on December 24, 2004 07:14:11 AM new
Not trying to start a row or anything

Very specifically, do you believe in the immaculate conception of Jesus?


____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
 
 NearTheSea
 
posted on December 24, 2004 08:13:26 AM new
Yes, but don't ask me why, its faith I believe.

(BUT! I always wondered if Joseph really believed her LOL! ok my bad, couldn't help it! )

Merry Christmas!!
 
 Libra63
 
posted on December 24, 2004 08:43:27 AM new
Yes I do believe it was. Mary was a virgin all her life.

We know, at least I do, that God created the universe and sent Jesus to preach the gospel.


_________________
[ edited by Libra63 on Dec 24, 2004 08:44 AM ]
 
 profe51
 
posted on December 24, 2004 08:55:27 AM new
Mary was a virgin all her life

I used to think that too Libra...but Matthew mentions four brothers of Jesus, and "sisters". Were they all immaculately conceived, or is Matthew incorrect?

The nuns never gave me a straight answer on this one
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
 
 Libra63
 
posted on December 24, 2004 09:37:37 AM new
Joseph had children so they are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Mary was a virgin all her life. We know that Jesus had a brother Joseph, but not necessarily the son of Mary.
Joseph was chosen by God to be the father of Jesus. Probably you were to young to question those nuns but I am not catholic so I don't know their teachings.
_________________
 
 CBlev65252
 
posted on December 24, 2004 10:58:13 AM new
To put it simply, "no". The Bible is too full of contradictions. "Mary was a virgin all her life". How do you know this besides by taking the Bible's word for it? If we were to take the Bible as all truth, then we're all related and we've been committing incest for centuries. Where did the wives of Adam and Eve's sons come from? If it was Adam and Eve that helped to populate the Earth, then they had to all commit incest, did they not? I'd rather not believe that. However, the way we behave toward one another from time to time helps to cement the idea that we're all related. We act like family sometimes with our petty fighting and such.

The one thing I keep in my head at all times is that the Bible was written by man and that it's open to interpretation. I'm not an athiest, but I don't put much stock in the Bible either. I do, however, have respect for those who hold the Bible dear so don't start blasting me apart on that one.


Cheryl

"Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many stupid leaders."
-Sloan Wilson
 
 replaymedia
 
posted on December 24, 2004 11:19:15 AM new
If you really want to get "historical" about this subject, check out The Infancy Gospel of James right here http://alpha.furman.edu/~smatthew/canon/infancyjames.htm

Explains a LOT about Mary & Joseph. This was written about the same time as the Canonical gospels, but it was decided not to included it in the regular Bible compilation for political reasons. I'm not saying it's true, but it's an interesting read.

And if you want to get REALLY wacky, do a Google for the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas".
[ edited by replaymedia on Dec 24, 2004 11:28 AM ]
 
 replaymedia
 
posted on December 24, 2004 11:27:41 AM new
" If it was Adam and Eve that helped to populate the Earth, then they had to all commit incest, did they not?"

Let's leave evolution (which I do in fact beliebe in) out of the picture for a moment and take this story at face value:

1) Adam & Eve were the FIRST humans. Nowhere does the Bible say that god didn't make hundreds or thousands more later on. Cain & Abel took their wives from some of the later creations.

2) Argument #1 is supported by the statement that when Cain was driven out, he went to live in another settlement. Settlement? Of people?

3) Incest is looked upon as a bad thing nowadays, but if you read Genesis and many old books, you will read about people "marrying within their tribe". Yup. It went on all the time. There are two reasons this could have been acceptable.

A) Adam & Eve lived for thousands of years. The next geneerations lived for 500-900 years. The next generations lived for 200-600 years. After Noah, man was limited to 120 years. People today generally make it to baout 80. If you take these numbers as truth, this DOES show degradation in the genetic line.

B) Keep in mind, that statistically, if you marry your first cousin, you still only have a 1 in 10 chance of having a birth defect. 'Defective' children were of abandoned or otherwise disposed of, so they generally didn't enter the gene pool. The problems only really start to pile up when you do generation of generation of inbreeding like the old royal families of Europe.



--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!

http://www.replaymedia.com
 
 crowfarm
 
posted on December 24, 2004 11:31:42 AM new
"""""The problems only really start to pile up when you do generation of generation of inbreeding like the old royal families of Europe."""""




Ya, and then ya get (or beget) George W. Bush. Inbreeding at it's worst.



 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on December 24, 2004 01:16:17 PM new
Good question Prof. Sometimes I wonder if there were hallucinogens going around in that time. There were a lot of visions and dreams taking place, so it's hard for me to understand what was real and what was a vision (in Bible stories). (Hope that makes sense.)

What are your thoughts about the immaculate conception?

 
 etexbill
 
posted on December 24, 2004 01:52:51 PM new
Only crowfarm could work George W. Bush into a discussion of the Immaculate Conception.

Crowfarm, go get some figgy puddin' or fruitcake or somethin' and lighten up.

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year.
 
 calamity49
 
posted on December 24, 2004 02:19:58 PM new
Yes, I do.



Calamity

 
 maggiemuggins
 
posted on December 24, 2004 02:29:58 PM new
Well.... perhaps not immaculate, but definitely squeaky clean... Maggie
 
 profe51
 
posted on December 24, 2004 04:24:29 PM new
Joseph had children so they are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Mary was a virgin all her life. We know that Jesus had a brother Joseph, but not necessarily the son of Mary. Joseph was chosen by God to be the father of Jesus.Probably you were to young to question those nuns but I am not catholic so I don't know their teachings.

I wasn't too young to question the nuns Libra. As I said, they never could give me a straight answer, and neither have any of the other religious scholars and teachers I've asked. The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the bedrock tenets of the catholic faith, as it apparently is of yours, too. Unfortunately, Jesus' birth is only mentioned in two of the gospels, and only one of them makes a big deal out of the immaculate conception. That Jesus had siblings is pretty much unassailable. That they were Joseph's kids by some other women is simply not supported by scripture, and doesn't make any sense culturally, unless he was a widower, which the bible also does not say. No Jewish man of the time with a living wife or ex-wife would remove her children from her. It just wasn't done. I personally think the old "They were Joseph" kids", is an attempt by religious leaders to explain things, and somehow keep Mary more holy. Too bad they can't quote you chapter and verse where it says that. To me, there is nothing more holy than a mother, whether it's your mom, or the mother of god. I've never understood how being a virgin makes any woman more special in the eyes of god.

Here's a quote from Matthew regarding Jesus' kin:

"Is not this the carpenter's son?," the Jews asked, "is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?... " (Matt. 13: 55, 56)

The Greek from which the King James version was translated used the word "adelphos" in the above passage to describe brothers and sisters, and it is a word which in Greek is used to connote flesh and blood brothers and sisters, not step relatives or brothers in the sense of pals or associates.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
[ edited by profe51 on Dec 24, 2004 04:25 PM ]
[ edited by profe51 on Dec 24, 2004 04:25 PM ]
 
 replaymedia
 
posted on December 24, 2004 08:31:32 PM new
"That they were Joseph's kids by some other women is simply not supported by scripture, and doesn't make any sense culturally, unless he was a widower, which the bible also does not say."

I *DID* quote the scripture that supports it. Read "Infancy James" as described previously. Thereare many old gospels that explained a lot of things that were not included in the Canonical Bible. That doesn't make them any less legitimate or historical, just lesser known.

And it's also made clear in both the regular Bible and many other documents of the time that at the very least James WAS a real brother (or at least a half-brother) to Jesus.

The more I get into the political and cultural history of the Bible the more fun it gets.

Whether you believe Jesus was a divine being or not, he WAS a real live historical person who really existed. Learning and seperating the truth and the myths is really fascinating. There are a lot of closed minds out there on both sides of the issue. Somewhere between the fundamentalists and the atheists is the truth.


--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!

http://www.replaymedia.com
 
 Libra63
 
posted on December 24, 2004 10:37:18 PM new
Taken from a website:......

Some who accepted the ancient tradition that Mary was “ever virgin” believed that these “brothers” were actually half-brothers of Jesus; sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. He was therefore a widower with children when he took Mary who was with child into his home. There were no subsequent marital demands since Joseph was elderly. Joseph made no appearances during Jesus’ ministry since he was already deceased. Mary raised Joseph’s children. This was the theory of Epiphanius, an Eastern Church father.

This is what I learned I am not Catholic but Methodist.
_________________
 
 yeager
 
posted on December 25, 2004 12:59:20 AM new
replay says,

Adam & Eve lived for thousands of year

So is thousands of years, 2,000 or 100,000 years. Can you be more clear on that please. Is there any birth or death certificate on these folks? Is this a proven fact, or just another belief?

How was it ever established that Adam and Eve lived that long?

As Cheryl has said, too many contradictions in the bible.


Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.

Work to keep Church and State separate! http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

President Bush...get ready for more failed policies.

Work to protect Civil Rights!
 
 profe51
 
posted on December 25, 2004 04:28:40 AM new
Replay, when I said "not supported by scripture" I should have more correctly said not supported in the bible. I know there are many apocryphal works that weren't included by those who assembled the bible. Many of those writings were written during or immediately after Jesus' time, while the gospels of the bible came along quite a while after his death.

Kraft: I don't accept the immaculate conception. As a kid it bothered me, and was the first thing that caused me to question Christian dogma. It was also probably what sparked my interest in religion to begin with. Since only two of the gospels mention his birth and only one puts much emphasis on Mary's pregnancy, I never could figure out what made it such a big deal.

Virgin conception or some other kind of miraculous birth was a fairly common myth about heroes around the time of Christ. I think it was used as a way to make him more acceptable to the Roman population, in order for the new faith to spread. Jesus' first adherents were Jews, and most considered themselves Jews, not members of a separate faith. As the faith spread towards Rome, it became necessary to create a Messiah who was more acceptable to the Roman population. Less political, less militant, less "Jewish", and more miraculous.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
 
 replaymedia
 
posted on December 25, 2004 04:44:54 AM new
Actually, there is PLENTY of contradiction in the Bible. I particularly like MARK, in which Jesus is just a guy. No special birth, no mention of his family (except one passage where they think he's crazy). No immaculate conception. No virgin birth.

He's around 30 years old when he meets up wih John the Baptist and the "Spirit of the Lord" came down and more or less POSSESSED him. It's more like he was God's CHOSEN or ADOPTED son, not the more literal human version.

Mark is the oldest of the Biblical Gospels. It's very clear that Matthew and Luke copied MUCH of their text for their own copies of Mark. Mark has the most weight of the four main gospels in my own opinion.

--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!

http://www.replaymedia.com
 
 profe51
 
posted on December 25, 2004 05:04:40 AM new
..just a guy

I like Mark for that reason too. He responds to lots of situations with genuine human emotions.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
 
 crowfarm
 
posted on December 25, 2004 07:02:28 AM new
I was taught as a Catholic that Jesus' purpose was to die for our sins. Immaculate smaculate...... too much is made of his birth ....the celebration with drunkeness and football games......when his death and resurrection (Easter)were SUPPOSED to be the "biggies".
Wonder how it changed? Christmas just got better PR ?

 
 Libra63
 
posted on December 25, 2004 09:29:26 AM new
"...the celebration with drunkenness and football games......"

Well crowfarm many don't think of Christmas like that. I am one of those. Although I am a die hard Packers fan I did not get drunk and I did not watch the game. I went to Church. According to the congregation and their wearing attire there were many Packers fans at church so they also missed the game. In fact I haven't had a drink in approximately 33 years. When our daughter was born I took on a responsibility and it was not to get drunk it was to raise a child.

People make Christmas what they want and of course the non believers will use it to get drunk. Just another day off and a stupid way to protest. Were you one of those? Just checking.


_________________
 
 crowfarm
 
posted on December 25, 2004 09:59:52 AM new
Oh, I get it, Lala, with your "reasoning", if YOU don't get drunk and watch football then NOBODY does!
Well, of course, how silly of me to think otherewise with proof to the contary!

I got BIG news for you MANY believers get drunk and watch football on Christmas.

Now, would you care to address the TOPIC?

 
 Libra63
 
posted on December 25, 2004 10:49:34 AM new
I hate to inform you I was addressing the topic until you came in and said and I quote"
the celebration with drunkenness and football games
Do you ever have selective reading. You were the one that said that, please read your post above, and I was telling you how I spend my Christmas and what it means to me.

I have no idea what you problem is with me but I am sick of your lies and what you say I post. Please reread this thread and see where I went off topic. When someone starts an interesting discussion you come in and right away call people names. A topic never stays on course because you have to change it in some way or other. Remember I am not the only one that thinks that.

I guess you are the only one that can get off topic. Well you showed your true colors in this one crowfarm.

Please reread your previous post and correct the spelling that is so unlike you to miss spell. (otherewise and contary) Ya right.

Now you have gone and spoiled this great discussion. I bet you feel really really good. But then again what would an atheist do.




_________________
 
 crowfarm
 
posted on December 25, 2004 11:35:45 AM new
Libra says, "But then again what would an atheist do."


I don't know but I bet Jesus would get drunk and watch football



In fact , after trying to "reason" with you, he'd be changing water into Jack Daniels as fast as he could!
[ edited by crowfarm on Dec 25, 2004 11:58 AM ]
 
 davebraun
 
posted on December 25, 2004 12:32:30 PM new
Does anyone believe in the Easter Bunny? How about the Boogie Man. Zombies?

 
 crowfarm
 
posted on December 25, 2004 12:44:34 PM new
Dave...all three ! But zombies are my favorite! Elves, too! but only if they're virgins.




[ edited by crowfarm on Dec 25, 2004 12:45 PM ]
 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on December 25, 2004 01:03:11 PM new
Prof, I wasn't joking when I mention hallucinogens. Although we all think of everyone being pure and holy back then, many plants were used as medicine and it makes me wonder if it's a possibility. The 2 main things the Bible is based on are the immaculate conception and Jesus rising from the dead. Without those 2 things, Christianity would have no basis, imo.

 
 fenix03
 
posted on December 25, 2004 01:16:02 PM new
::Although I am a die hard Packers fan I did not get drunk and I did not watch the game::

You missed a hell of a game Libra! Pass heavy and close. Ferguson would have been a big help but just thankful he is ok. That was one truly ugly hit he took last week.


~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
 
 cherishedclutter
 
posted on December 25, 2004 02:13:27 PM new
"Very specifically, do you believe in the immaculate conception of Jesus? "

I think you are confusing your terms, profe.

The immaculate conception (at least in Catholic doctrine) refers to the belief that Mary's parents were without sin when she was conceived. Yes, I believe that.

If you meant "do you believe in the virgin birth?", yes I believe in that too. I've had a harder time believing that Mary remained a virgin throughout her married life. I see no point to that.


 
   This topic is 2 pages long: 1 new 2 new
<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>

Jump to

All content © 1998-2024  Vendio all rights reserved. Vendio Services, Inc.™, Simply Powerful eCommerce, Smart Services for Smart Sellers, Buy Anywhere. Sell Anywhere. Start Here.™ and The Complete Auction Management Solution™ are trademarks of Vendio. Auction slogans and artwork are copyrights © of their respective owners. Vendio accepts no liability for the views or information presented here.

The Vendio free online store builder is easy to use and includes a free shopping cart to help you can get started in minutes!