Immaculate Conception

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Much of this comes from the Angel Gabriel saying to Mary -
'hail full of grace, the Lord is with you'. If Mary had sin on her soul
she wouldn't be 'full of grace' . Full implies just that .. full ...without
room for anything else.

Mercy-not receiving what we deserve.
Grace-receiving what we don't deserve.

Mary was going to carry Jesus, the Savior in her body. She didn't deserve this privelege nor earn it.

She didn't deserve redemption and salvation but through Christ it would happen.

I don't believe grace and mercy are nouns, they are verbs, actions done by God.

Originally posted by dbrandt
That's confusing and borders on ...

You are welcome to that opinon. However, honestly,
it really isn't confusing and it is straight forward.
Mary is the Mother of God. SHe isn't the mother of a
cow. She isn't the mother of a bug. She's the mother
of God. It's just truth.

The RCC with this statement makes Mary more eternal
than God.

No. The statement makes Mary the Mother of God the Son.
There is no 'more eternal' 'than God. God always was and
always will be. Mary is a created being. She is also the
Mother of God the Son. That's just the way it is.

It's only confusing if you say she's the mother of God the Father,
which the Catholic Church does not do.


[edit on 12/27/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by dbrandt
She didn't deserve this privelege nor earn it.

Of course she didn't 'earn it'. God gives as He wills.
He chose to use her. She chose to accept. He knows
all and sees all - all through time. He knew she's accept.
He redeemed her ahead of time. That's the belief in
this doctrine.

She didn't deserve redemption and salvation but
through Christ it would happen.

Sure. Already covered that. She was redeemed. We all were.
God, who works outside of time, redeemed her before she was
born. He can do whatever He wants.

I see a lot of posts acknkowledge the "Immaculate Conception" as offered by the Roman Catholic Church. There seems to have been a little confusion as to whose conception the RCC refers to when they say "Immaculate Conception".

When "Immaculate Conception" is refered to by the RCC, and some other christian theologies they are refering to Mary's (Mariama/Mariam) conception, not Christ's conception.

Mary's conception is the "Immaculate Conception" because somehow she was born devoid of original sin, which is contradictory to the the belief (bible supported) that all humans have original sin. However, since Mary did not have original sin, then why does she also see Jesus as her savior? If she was without sin, and without original sin, then what did Mary need a savior for? Certainly not her sin. Contradiction, or our failed perception?

Here is a link to the December 8th celebration of the "Immaculate Conception", which states repeatedly that it is Mary's conception, and not Christ's conception which is refered to as "Immaculate Conception".

aloha.net...

Perhaps "Virgin birth" and "Immaculate Conception" are not interchangeable?

Once again I will repeat that the subject of this thread is not a direct reference to the Catholic doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception". The subject deals with Immaculate Conceptions through virgin births in general.



The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus. There is no need for further debate about this, so I ask that we please return to the intended topic of this thread. Thanks.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

Parthenogenesis, then, is our sole focus on this thread.

Which means:
reproduction by the development of an unfertilized ovum, seed, or spore, as in certain insects or algae: it may be induced artificially by chemical or mechanical means.

Now, if this happened once, then there is a chance it happened more than once, being generous in our outlined topic on this thread.

A feat that truly would make the cover of TIME Magazine. Far more amazing than cloning a sheep or a test-tube baby.

A human baby engendered by only one of the standard two haploid gametes--a zygote arising without fertilization! This is actually something that currently doesn't meet what we currently scientifically understand as 'viable for life.' Because instead of the standard coded double helical strand of DNA, there would only be one. And even so much as one extra chromosome can wreak havoc on the biological framework of a human being--and we're talking only half the normal amount with parthenoogenesis.

If this happened in ancient days--then why can't we make it happen today? We can send a man to the moon but a pregnant virgin?

What if we are misunderstanding something spiritual by remaining focused on the carnal?

Originally posted by dbrandt
Do some research, the RCC believes the Immaculate Conception is about Mary and her being conceived without sin, which is not true. As someone else mentioned this is an error of the RCC. That is not the only thing they teach that is corrupt.

I humbly admit my error. I can't believe I spent 30 years as a Catholic and left with such a basic misunderstanding of the phrase. Thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Parthenogenesis, then, is our sole focus on this thread.

Which means:
reproduction by the development of an unfertilized ovum,

You know sometimes you speak in a way that isn't plainly understood. I am not saying this to point out a fault, but sometimes you say an awful lot of words and it winds up leaving your point lost for me.

I'm not so sure the egg was unfertilized. Jesus was placed in Mary's womb. It probably started with a fertilized egg, only without a sin nature passed along.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Parthenogenesis, then, is our sole focus on this thread.

'Parthenogenesis' is literally 'virgin birth.' 'Parthenos' is actually the Greek word for 'virgin' in the NT--and so the modern word I used has its etymology in biblical lingo:
parthenos (maiden, virgin) + genesis (origin).

Which means:
reproduction by the development of an unfertilized ovum,

Originally posted by dbrandt
I'm not so sure the egg was unfertilized. Jesus was placed in Mary's womb. It probably started with a fertilized egg, only without a sin nature passed along.

A 'fertilized' egg is an ovum that has been joined with the male gamete--which is a 'spermatozoa' or sperm, for short. It is literally 'seed.' There can be no fertilized ovum without a seed--the ovum does not become a 'gamete' until after it has been fertilized by the 'seed' sperm. And the only way science knows human life to arise in the human womb is by the joining of two haploid gametes, one from the male and the other from the female.

And since the male's contribution is both a gamete at the very start, and is also absolutely required to turn the ovum into a gamete, too--if it weren't for the obvious lack of incubator (i.e. womb or uterus) then it would be far more feasible, scientifically speaking, to have a male 'virgin' birth--not to mention the fact that the male also donates the gender-determinate XY chromosome.

If God fertilized Mary's ovum, somehow, through the mechanism of the Holy Spirit--it would require that spiritual seed was transformed, somewhere along the way, to the sort of seed we understand, which is made of proteins. Something obtained through the gastrointestinal system, or 'eating.'

Now, as to 'sin nature,' you'll have to define that more specifically, in order to apply that possibility to this scenario. What is a 'sin nature'--in strictly scientific terms?

I don't see God as a magician performing supernatural parlor tricks--in fact 'supernatural' to me, isn't what God is--God is the Creator of nature, and His laws are the principles that provide the framework for the universe in its infinitely superb ability for self-balancing. If God is anything, He is a scientist.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed when an earthquake deepened and lengthened the faultline that forms the basin of the Dead Sea.
It is more than likely that the events told of in Exodus occurred at the same time that the Island of Santorini was catastrophically destroyed by a volcanic eruption that was severe enough to put an end to the Minoan (bull-worshipping) Society. At the northern end of the Mediteranean, it is believed to have caused 200 foot tidal waves throughout the coastline of that sea.
Even the deluge of Noah's day was not 'supernatural' but natural--the melting of the last ice age, causing geothermal upheavals that sank the sea bottoms a bit lower and caused ridges to rise forming mountain ranges--and even the idea of the 'fountains of the deep' has been perhaps validated in these very recent times of being able to monitor siesmograph data during earthquakes--and the recent one in Sri Lanka causing the tsunami yielded a surprising discovery: there are pockets of water trapped under the current continents of Europe and Asia (perhaps the US, too, but I didn't see that mentioned in the article I read). A shift of tectonics could very well allow these pockets of water to readjust along with the continental plates.
We might have proof of that in the next 100 years or so--if the polar ice caps continue to melt (and unless something drastically changes, they will surely melt at an increasingly rapid rate) a large amount of fresh water will be released into the system and will wreak havoc. 75% of the world's fresh water is contained in the polar caps.

In no way am I suggesting God is not all-powerful--to be able to predict these natural cataclysms in those days is surely a miracle on its own. And just because God can manipulate the forces and principles He established doesn't mean there is good cause for it. He knew what He was doing when it was set in order--why should He have to manipulate perfection to do His will? He is the God of order--and I believe (personally) that His wisdom exceeds the point where He'd have to exert control by interrupting what He's already made into perfect clockwork?

Originally posted by queenannie38

Now, as to 'sin nature,' you'll have to define that more specifically, in order to apply that possibility to this scenario. What is a 'sin nature'--in strictly scientific terms?

Well since I'm not a scientist I'll have to give it to you in rather simple terms. A person's natural state in which sin will manifest itself.

Originally posted by queenannie38
Parthenogenesis, then, is our sole focus on this thread.

EXCELLENT information Queenannie. I think the author of the
thread just got confused, as many folks do, in regards to
terminology. Immaculate Conception is a term referring to a
sinless state at the moment of conception - a conception that
includes sex.

Parthenogenesis - sexless conception - it is!

Originally posted by queenannie38
Parthenogenesis, then, is our sole focus on this thread.

Which means:
reproduction by the development of an unfertilized ovum, seed, or spore, as in certain insects or algae: it may be induced artificially by chemical or mechanical means.

I remember watching a TV show about this very subject. And, yes they were referring to Jesus's and other reported virgin births.

I distinctly recall the show interviewing numerous scientists and theologians, along with a complementary gambet of other proffesions.

The scientists proved this phenomenon has happened in nature throughout many creatures in the animal kingdom. They showed how it has happened in amphibians (spelling?), (ie. frogs), and even some mammals, but no known documented cases have shown this to be the case in humans, however scientists and some of the other disciplines seem to theorize it is more than possible. Sorry, but that is all I remember about the show.

seems that queenannie38 (God bless her) seems to have some informative factoids on this subject. Me, i'm admittingly a little ignorant about the subject, but understand the jist of it.

If this happened in ancient days--then why can't we make it happen today? We can send a man to the moon but a pregnant virgin?

Perhaps deityship is a recessive gene? Just a thought.

What if we are misunderstanding something spiritual by remaining focused on the carnal?

By focussing on the carnal, some are not even looking for the spiritual. And if you are not acknowledging what you are looking for, you surely will not find it. (This statement is directed at no one, just restating what queenannie38 said in a way that relates to me and my personal life, and thought i'd share)

I don't believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth AND I don't believe most of what I read in the bible.
That said,,,
I think most posters here are making this whole thing over technical.
You're quoting the bible, a document that has been edited and changed to suit the people doing the editing. To control the people!
Ever Google King James? He was a piece of work.

The facts, if they happened at all, I believe are not quite as impressive as the bible would have you believe...

Just my 2 cents

Beer guy that is why they are called "Miricles"

And I wont get this topic off track by a discussion of the validity of the Bible. I agree the KJV has it's flaws and mis-translations but more modern translations are not as bad as you would like to believe.

I think people are forgetting that it has become very common with artificial incemination and c-section births where a woman can become pregnent, give birth, and still remain a hymen virgin.

The Fact that Jesus Christ was male, (was circumsized) ment the Y chromosome had to come from somewhere.

Originally posted by Jehosephat
I agree the KJV has it's flaws and mis-translations but more modern translations are not as bad as you would like to believe.

I beg to differ--and I do so from personal comparison of the original texts (or rather the oldest available texts) with all available translations including the KJV and all flavors of the modern easy readers in between .

Easy readibility has come at the sacrifice of purity of meaning--and I'm not saying that is retained in the KJV, either--but it is not as distorted, by half, either, in that early translation.

That sacrifice of meaning, subsequently, has led to large-scale misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

And that's probably a big part of why the concept of 'miracles' is belittled and misunderstood--because of religious distortion of literal spiritual truth. Both can be found through the bible--either to use as substantiation or to use as a
personal guidebook. Note the word 'personal.' As far as substantiation, the bible is somewhat of an odd miracle in that pretty much any human idea can be somehow 'proven' with the bible's words. Not the message, but the words.

I think people are forgetting that it has become very common with artificial incemination and c-section births where a woman can become pregnent, give birth, and still remain a hymen virgin.

How do you figure that we are forgetting ? Human male sperm is required for artificial insemination. The method of fertilization is artificial in that case, not the fertilizer, itself. And I don't think it was something common in those days, if at all attempted, with success or otherwise. But I don't know for sure.

So we are still challenged with the idea of an authentic, life-giving, sperm-like substance--that is not human in origin. And God is pure spirit...

The mystery remains.

The Fact that Jesus Christ was male, (was circumsized) ment the Y chromosome had to come from somewhere.

Just the fact that He had a mortal life, in order to be killed by way of tortuous execution, means He had a full complement of 23 chromosomes in addition to Mary's donation of 23.

Where did His other 'life' come from? The one that endured beyond the final effects of the execution and the time spent in the tomb?

The following is what AkashicWanderer is referring to:


To Spill or Not To Spill In Order To Have Children, ...that is the REALLY BIG Question!


But of course it will be attacked, as: "Demons hate the doctrine of Chastity." - Samael Aun Weor


Note: Celibacy and Chastity are not the same thing.

In fact, celibacy is often the opposite of Chastity.



“To stop being demons is the objective of our studies.” - Samael Aun Weor





Regards





[edit on 26-11-2006 by Tamahu]

I had read somewhere but now cant find it that the virgin interpretation was incorrect or mis translated.

Nazorean Teachings: Mariam (Virgin Mary) was not a virgin in the sense of never having been intimate with a man. The term virgin was a mistranslation of the Aramaic word meaning maiden, or young girl. Miriam remained a pure and innocent woman throughout her life but this did not mean she had no relations with the opposite sex. In fact, in Nazorean ideology of the time, to remain unmarried and unwed was a state of impurity and sin in itself. It was taught that only in the union of male and female is Life and the Living Ones to be completely understood. The ideas of a Virgin and celibacy were grafted onto the Nazorean Teachings by Romanizing Christians of later centuries and do not reflect the original tradition of Yeshu, Miriam and Miryai.

Nazorean Teachings: Mariam the Maiden was one of the Twelve Vines of the Bnia-Amin Order on Mt Carmel and therefore was raised in purity and perfection. This did not safeguard her from minor pollutions and certain degrees of human frailty and weakness which were addressed by continual purification rituals. Due to her continual purification and light filled lifestyle, she returned to perfect purity on a periodic basis.

essenes.net...

And here we have for good measure, zeticulan societies explanation of it...

The mother of Jesus did indeed have a Virgin Birth, and correctly ascribed this to a visit from an entity not of the Earth, an entity she called an angel. We would direct the reader to what has been documented extensively about the ability of extraterrestrials to manipulate human births. Jesus was the product of the union between Mary's egg and a man's sperm. Her husband Joseph, an old man, was impotent with old age. She required a donor, but was not the type of woman to be unfaithful to her husband, no matter what the mission. She was assisted in her desire to bear a child, to bear this special child, as both she and Joseph had given The Call to Service-to-Other entities strongly and repeatedly and understood full well the hardships their life might bear because of it. As artificial insemination was an unknown science in those days, the Virgin Birth was explained as best the people knew how. Thus, the story as told is essentially correct.

www.zetatalk.com...