Immaculate conception

[zander]

Can anyone shed more light on this?  I was shocked to read that there really is no scripture to state that Mary was a virgin, as Ray has just stipulated.

Is this true?  I mean i have never read it in scripture, but have i missed something?  Was Mary really NOT a virgin, at Christ's birth/conception?

[Becky]

Luke 1:34 (King James Version)

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?


I'm confused too.

[Origen II]

Of course Mary was a virgin at Christ's conception:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 )

After that, her and Joseph had sex and birthed His brothers.

[Origen II]

Luke 1:34 (King James Version)

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?


I'm confused too.

The angel said she would be found with child and Mary simply replied, "How can this be since I haven't had sex?"

[Origen II]

And I don't believe Ray was going against Mary being a virgin...but that Mary was not born sinless.

[Becky]

thanks

[eutychus]

Can anyone shed more light on this?  I was shocked to read that there really is no scripture to state that Mary was a virgin, as Ray has just stipulated.

Is this true?  I mean i have never read it in scripture, but have i missed something?  Was Mary really NOT a virgin, at Christ's birth/conception?

the"Immaculate conception"

is the catholic teaching that mary was born without sin, by grace, because christ could not have tainted blood going thru his body.

this to me is to deny Christ came in the flesh.


"""In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm


peace
euty

[Becky]

I wasn't catholic and havn't research that at all.   wow that's interesting!!!!

[Kevin]

Catholics dont believe that Mary had any more children after Jesus was born. Try to show them all the scripture that says she had children after the birth of Jesus and they will deny it. They also think Mary was taken staight up to heaven that she didnt even die.
I was raised catholic and did all the abominations that comes along with that religion. I came out (dragged out) many,many, years ago.
I remember going to a catholic charismatic function and they had a speaker talking about Mary, They said that Mary was letting people in the back door to heaven :shock: Of course at the time I believed it.
I remember getting annointed with some supposedly tears from a statue of Mary.
All I can say now and do is thank my heavenly Father for having mercy upon me and opening my eyes and revealing His wonderful truth.
Of course when I left the catholic church it caused a war in my family.

[eutychus]

Catholics dont believe that Mary had any more children after Jesus was born. Try to show them all the scripture that says she had children after the birth of Jesus and they will deny it. They also think Mary was taken staight up to heaven that she didnt even die.
I was raised catholic and did all the abominations that comes along with that religion. I came out (dragged out) many,many, years ago.
I remember going to a catholic charismatic function and they had a speaker talking about Mary, They said that Mary was letting people in the back door to heaven :shock: Of course at the time I believed it.
I remember getting annointed with some supposedly tears from a statue of Mary.
All I can say now and do is thank my heavenly Father for having mercy upon me and opening my eyes and revealing His wonderful truth.
Of course when I left the catholic church it caused a war in my family.

im with ya bro:

THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:


St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

[Kevin]

Luke1:46-47   And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, 47-And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Now if Mary was born without sin, why was she confessing that she needed a saviour.
If Mary could see how they worship her she would be astounded and sick.
Of course its not Mary that they are worshipping its the queen of heaven.
All of which is an abomination to our Lord. We need to thank God for those He led out of this religion and pray that He will continue to do so.

[eutychus]

Luke1:46-47   And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, 47-And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Now if Mary was born without sin, why was she confessing that she needed a saviour.
If Mary could see how they worship her she would be astounded and sick.
Of course its not Mary that they are worshipping its the queen of heaven.
All of which is an abomination to our Lord. We need to thank God for those He led out of this religion and pray that He will continue to do so.

kevin,
i questioned t he teachings from the time i can remember, very young. i thank god for my rebelious spirit.

as for the others some of them no not what they do.


 all in its time.

peace
chuckt

[a_child_of_God]

Anyone here ever heard of the book entitled "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. I haven't read the whole thing, but what I have read is pretty interesting.

Ruth

[alucard]

you know.it doesn't really matter if mary was a virgin or not

[theyachtman]

Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

[alucard]

Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).

The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!

"Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences! The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.

The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."

It's interesting to note that the Catholics also tried their hand at textual honesty in 1970 with the New American Bible. The translators desired to translate "almah" as "maiden" instead of the more traditional "virgin." The Catholic Church, however, refused them permission, as they felt it would violate one of their doctrines about Mary. Therefore, they demanded that the word "virgin" remain, even if that was not what the original Hebrew word actually meant!

Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.

[nightmare sasuke]

Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).

The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!

"Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences! The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.

The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."

It's interesting to note that the Catholics also tried their hand at textual honesty in 1970 with the New American Bible. The translators desired to translate "almah" as "maiden" instead of the more traditional "virgin." The Catholic Church, however, refused them permission, as they felt it would violate one of their doctrines about Mary. Therefore, they demanded that the word "virgin" remain, even if that was not what the original Hebrew word actually meant!

Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.

I've noticed Jewish anti-christs use this fact as proof against Jesus fulfilling the prophacies. It's, all in all, interesting.

I like your posts. Keep up the good work!

[eutychus]

Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).

The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!

"Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences! The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.

The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."

It's interesting to note that the Catholics also tried their hand at textual honesty in 1970 with the New American Bible. The translators desired to translate "almah" as "maiden" instead of the more traditional "virgin." The Catholic Church, however, refused them permission, as they felt it would violate one of their doctrines about Mary. Therefore, they demanded that the word "virgin" remain, even if that was not what the original Hebrew word actually meant!

Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.

could you please give reference to where you copied and pasted this?

thanks.

[alucard]

could you please give reference to where you copied and pasted this?
thanks.

sorry but i have a file full of hundreds of pages from many site and various amounts of information and sometimes i can't remember where to find the sites i got some of it from.

[alucard]

I went to a Catholic high school where I had to swallow all kinds of dogma, and we always had to go to mass on December 8 for the immaculate conception (which I never really believed in).  There is absolutely NO scriptural support for Mary being conceived without original sin, or remaining a virgin after Christ's birth, or being taken up to heaven, or most other things that they believe.  But they have two sources for their beliefs:  scripture and tradition.  Actually most of their beliefs come from tradition, and they just twist the scriptures to support it.

you know it's quite funny,i've heard of the cathlic doctrine of mary and her being conceived without original sin and of coarse it has to much contridiction in it to be inspiried by god,but did you know that in the new testament if they didn't want to get right to jesus THAT DOCTRINE WOULD BE IN ALL OF ARE BIBLES!the reason it's not in there becuase they wanted the bible to go like a story,like from genesis to revelation, and they wanted to get to jesus and after that there really wasn't a place for mary's story wich is a false doctrine.and this is why i've been examining some text and criticizing some of them i've even made a post about it"SOMETHING INTERESTING"and there are even more false text that were almost added to are bibles as well.