Dec 8th

[meAgain]

Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception

[Inertialmass]

Something a lot stronger than Mexican beer is required in order to swallow a half-man, half-god, part Assyrian, part Egyptian, part Greek, part Hebrew and part Roman virgin insemination and virgin birth folk story as literally true.

[SkunkButt]

That we may not forget Dec. 7 is the day that lives on in infamy.

[Emily]

This.

That we may not forget Dec. 7 is the day that lives on in infamy.

and...

my birthday is in a few days... just sayin'. 

[Boots]

Something a lot stronger than Mexican beer is required in order to swallow a half-man, half-god, part Assyrian, part Egyptian, part Greek, part Hebrew and part Roman virgin insemination and virgin birth folk story as literally true.

nononononono!!

He's FULLY god and FULLY man.  How much of a stronger drink do you need NOW?!?!

[meAgain]

Something a lot stronger than Mexican beer is required in order to swallow a half-man, half-god, part Assyrian, part Egyptian, part Greek, part Hebrew and part Roman virgin insemination and virgin birth folk story as literally true.

Like I posted . . . try not to confuse the Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth.  I mean at least know what your blaspheming for Pete's sake.   

[meAgain]

This.

That we may not forget Dec. 7 is the day that lives on in infamy.

and...

my birthday is in a few days... just sayin'. 

Sure, there are alot of days to celebrate.  I happened to choose the Immaculate Conception.  If you want to honor your b-day start your own thread . . .

[Inertialmass]

Something a lot stronger than Mexican beer is required in order to swallow a half-man, half-god, part Assyrian, part Egyptian, part Greek, part Hebrew and part Roman virgin insemination and virgin birth folk story as literally true.

Like I posted . . . try not to confuse the Immaculate Conception with the virgin birth.

Note that I was very careful to list the virgin insemination part and the virgin birth part of the myth separately, so why would you accuse me of any confusion?

what your blaspheming for Pete's sake.

Try not to confuse the possessive "your" with the contraction "you're" (you are), for Beer Volcano's sake.  This confusion plus the usual conservative befuddlement over the possessive and the plural "s" at the "end's" of "you're" words telegraph to the world a suboptimal literacy level.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

How on earth did you determine 8 December was impregnate a virgin betrothed to another man with holy seman day?

Does the RCC actually teach this wishful fabrication?

[Nam]

How on earth did you determine 8 December was impregnate a virgin betrothed to another man with holy seman day?

Does the RCC actually teach this wishful fabrication?

I know, right? In the Southern US, that's an everyday event but they call it "14 and pregnant but I'm gonna say Jesus 'cause I don't want my daddy killing my boyfriend" Day. Celebrated every day.

-Nam

[meAgain]

Note that I was very careful to list the virgin insemination part and the virgin birth part of the myth separately, so why would you accuse me of any confusion?

I still don?t think you have any idea what the Immaculate Conception means.  It has nothing to do with a virgin being inseminated or a virgin giving birth.  Don?t worry ? it?s a common mistake ? especially among the religious illiterate. 

The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without sin.  It has nothing to do with Jesus or a virgin insemination.  <sigh>

Try not to confuse the possessive "your" with the contraction "you're" (you are), for Beer Volcano's sake.  This confusion plus the usual conservative befuddlement over the possessive and the plural "s" at the "end's" of "you're" words telegraph to the world a suboptimal literacy level.

Wow.  I rarely make this mistake.  It was more of a typo.  And the grammar lesson loses a little when paired with such an erroneous understanding of the topic of this thread ? the Immaculate Conception.  LOL!

[meAgain]

How on earth did you determine 8 December was impregnate a virgin betrothed to another man with holy seman day?

Again, please look up what Immaculate Conception means.  Y?all (that is the correct contraction for ?you all?) really ought to brush up on your religion if you want your slams and so called humor to make sense. 

[Inertialmass]

Your very own CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA admits that our "knowledge" of the myth is based entirely upon apocrypha.   

We'all know just as much and just as little about the contrived folk tale as y'all, which is to say, nothin'.  It was only as recently as 1677 that the Holy See issued the final injunction ordering that Jesus, not to include Mary, was to be the only virgin insemination and the only virgin birth.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm

All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James. Though the earliest form of the latter, on which directly or indirectly the other two seem to be based, goes back to about A.D. 150, we can hardly accept as beyond doubt its various statements on its sole authority...

There arose in the sixteenth century an animated controversy over the marriages of St. Anne, in which Baronius and Bellarmine defended her monogamy. The Greek Menaea (25 July) call the parents of St. Anne Mathan and Maria, and relate that Salome and Elizabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist, were daughters of two sisters of St. Anne. According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9)...     

[Teaspoon Shallow]

How on earth did you determine 8 December was impregnate a virgin betrothed to another man with holy seman day?

Again, please look up what Immaculate Conception means.  Y?all (that is the correct contraction for ?you all?) really ought to brush up on your religion if you want your slams and so called humor to make sense.

True, I am ignorant regarding the dogmas of many religions, yours included.

Wow, you guys (RCC) really build up Mary as a superhuman don't you?

What does history detail about her conception? What does history record of her life outside of the bible?
I am assuming this is all extra biblical?

[Airyaman]

Wait, so not only was a virgin impregnated by a deity, but the resulting child was born only 17 days later??? That is miraculous.

[meAgain]

Wait, so not only was a virgin impregnated by a deity, but the resulting child was born only 17 days later??? That is miraculous.

Staaawwwwwwwwp! Please! 

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY CARRYING JESUS!!!!!!! 

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION REFERS TO MARY HERSELF BEING BORN WITHOUT SIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT ABOUT HER BEING BORN FROM A VIRGIN!!!!

No one in this thread has gotten it right yet.  Your attempt at humor fails because it doesn?t even refer to the Immaculate Conception

[meAgain]

Your very own CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA admits that our "knowledge" of the myth is based entirely upon apocrypha.

Ha,ha,ha, . . . . you mean your myth?  You are proving my point.  You have cited how the Church continues to correct those, just like yourself, who continue to get it WRONG!!!!!! 

You have cited that some false teachings claimed Mary?s mother Anne was a virgin.  They were wrong.  But what is really funny is you still don?t get what we are discussing. 

The passage you cited has NOTHING to do with the Immaculate Conception.  Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to St. Anne because some falsely believed she was a virgin when she gave birth to Mary.  Nor does Immaculate Conception refer to Mary because she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.  Immaculate Conception refers to God saving Mary from sin from the get go.  IOW, Mary was created by God to be without sin, unlike all the rest of us. 

The story is not about Mary?s parents or even Jesus.   
   

We'all know just as much and just as little about the contrived folk tale as y'all, which is to say, nothin'.  It was only as recently as 1677 that the Holy See issued the final injunction ordering that Jesus, not to include Mary, was to be the only virgin insemination and the only virgin birth.

<sigh>  Yes, the Holy See often has to combat falsehoods/heresies that continue to pop up or be proclaimed.  It doesn?t mean those falsehoods/heresies were ever true or taught by the Church at any time.  It certainly doesn?t mean the Church taught that Mary?s mother Anne was a virgin until 1677 at which time they stop teaching it ? LOL!  And once again, that particular heresy isn?t even what the Immaculate Conception refers to. 

[meAgain]

true, I am ignorant regarding the dogmas of many religions, yours included.

Wow, you guys (RCC) really build up Mary as a superhuman don't you?

No.  We build up God as superhuman, uuuh . . .  because He is.  Mary is fully human ? not a God, but she was saved by God and made to be born without sin.  And it is a belief/teaching based on Scripture and proclaimed thru God?s Church.

What does history detail about her conception? What does history record of her life outside of the bible?
I am assuming this is all extra biblical?

I do not know what extra Biblical accounts there are about her.  It would make an interesting read, but not something I would take as free from error. 

You guys really don?t get it . . .

[Nam]

Wait, so not only was a virgin impregnated by a deity, but the resulting child was born only 17 days later??? That is miraculous.

Staaawwwwwwwwp! Please! 

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY CARRYING JESUS!!!!!!! 

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION REFERS TO MARY HERSELF BEING BORN WITHOUT SIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT ABOUT HER BEING BORN FROM A VIRGIN!!!!

No one in this thread has gotten it right yet.  Your attempt at humor fails because it doesn?t even refer to the Immaculate Conception

If Mary was without sin, what the hell was Jesus for? We had Mary.

Sounds like the RCC is sexist. Always needing a man to rule the world.

-Nam

[meAgain]

If Mary was without sin, what the hell was Jesus for? We had Mary.

Sounds like the RCC is sexist. Always needing a man to rule the world.

-Nam

I?m sorry but you are completely clueless as to the topic at hand.  Not to mention your accusation of the Catholic Church being sexist is completely obliterated by the Immaculate Conception.  Mary, a woman, was chosen to be free from sin.  It was declared, ?All generations shall call her blessed?  Within the Church she is above all barring God Himself, and yet you have the audacity to accuse the Church of lowly treatment of women ? LOL!

[Inertialmass]

Reality check:  For at least two generations following the alleged event the Jesus story remained entirely an artifact of pure orality -- a verbally transmitted folk legend;

Jesus' miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit is explicit only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both probably date from the period 80-100 AD, and both were originally anonymous (the attributions to Matthew and Luke were added in the 2nd century). It is widely, though not universally, accepted that both took the gospel of Mark, plus a lost collection of the sayings of Jesus called Q, as their main source material. Mark, which predates them, has no birth story, and the differences between Matthew and Luke are so great that it is highly unlikely either comes from the other or that they shared a common independent source...   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

One morning years ago I stood in a busy workplace hallway happily talking to a female coworker with whom I was only casually acquainted.  Later in the afternoon I was informed that workplace rumor had it that she and I were with child together!  Now if it only takes a couple of hours for this sort of horses**t -- a casual chat becomes fornication -- to develop via uncontrolled orality, imagine how a juicy story morphs and tweaks itself into a self-satisfying cultural myth over the course of fifty and a hundred years.

The part about Mary and her mother Anna was invented even much later, by a bunch of men.  Virginity and sinlessness are confused and confounded throughout the historical development of this myth, by the inventors of the myth themselves;

It is admitted that the doctrine as defined by Pius IX was not explicitly mooted before the 12th century. It is also agreed that "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture".[19] But it is claimed that the doctrine is implicitly contained in the teaching of the Fathers. Their expressions on the subject of the sinlessness of Mary are, it is pointed out, so ample and so absolute that they must be taken to include original sin as well as actual. Thus in the first five centuries such epithets as "in every respect holy", "in all things unstained", "super-innocent", and "singularly holy" are applied to her; she is compared to Eve before the fall, as ancestress of a redeemed people; she is "the earth before it was accursed". The well-known words of St. Augustine (d. 430) may be cited: "As regards the mother of God," he says, "I will not allow any question whatever of sin..."   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Church_Fathers

[Nam]

If Mary was without sin, what the hell was Jesus for? We had Mary.

Sounds like the RCC is sexist. Always needing a man to rule the world.

-Nam

I?m sorry but you are completely clueless as to the topic at hand.  Not to mention your accusation of the Catholic Church being sexist is completely obliterated by the Immaculate Conception.  Mary, a woman, was chosen to be free from sin.  It was declared, ?All generations shall call her blessed?  Within the Church she is above all barring God Himself, and yet you have the audacity to accuse the Church of lowly treatment of women ? LOL!

Mary was a young girl barely old enough to have a life when some deity raped her and produced a bastard son. By the rules of Judaism, they should have stoned her to death for having sex (though not her fault) out of wedlock, and cheating on her betrothed.

And I give a rat's ass about knowing or not knowing the RCC.

-Nam

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Mary, a woman, was chosen to be free from sin.

Where in the bible does it say that?

Or was this one of those things god told the Pope in person?

[Happy Evolute]

Another hilarious thread.

So Mary, in order to be free from "sin" must be immaculately conceived.

This means that her mother must also have been immaculately conceived ... erm, and so on ...

... actually, why am I even bothering with this s**te.

[meAgain]

Reality check:  For at least two generations following the alleged event the Jesus story remained entirely an artifact of pure orality -- a verbally transmitted folk legend;

Yep, as did anything those days.  Logically speaking ? that doesn?t make the story not true. 

Quote
Jesus' miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit is explicit only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both probably date from the period 80-100 AD, and both were originally anonymous (the attributions to Matthew and Luke were added in the 2nd century). It is widely, though not universally, accepted that both took the gospel of Mark, plus a lost collection of the sayings of Jesus called Q, as their main source material. Mark, which predates them, has no birth story, and the differences between Matthew and Luke are so great that it is highly unlikely either comes from the other or that they shared a common independent source...   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

You once again make my position stronger.  The fact that all 4 gospels have different perspectives and sometimes mention the same events and sometimes mention different events makes it even more believable.  If they all gave the exact same account people like you would simply say they all just stole from one another yada yada yada.  Rather wiki mentions the differences were so great that it is highly unlikely they shared a common independent source.  Pointing all the more to divine inspiration and that yeah they weren?t simply working off one old source.   

One morning years ago I stood in a busy workplace hallway happily talking to a female coworker with whom I was only casually acquainted.  Later in the afternoon I was informed that workplace rumor had it that she and I were with child together!  Now if it only takes a couple of hours for this sort of horses**t -- a casual chat becomes fornication -- to develop via uncontrolled orality, imagine how a juicy story morphs and tweaks itself into a self-satisfying cultural myth over the course of fifty and a hundred years.

Sure stories can morph and sometimes stories are based on facts. 

The part about Mary and her mother Anna was invented even much later, by a bunch of men.  Virginity and sinlessness are confused and confounded throughout the historical development of this myth, by the inventors of the myth themselves;

So says you.

It is admitted that the doctrine as defined by Pius IX was not explicitly mooted before the 12th century. It is also agreed that "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture".[19] But it is claimed that the doctrine is implicitly contained in the teaching of the Fathers. Their expressions on the subject of the sinlessness of Mary are, it is pointed out, so ample and so absolute that they must be taken to include original sin as well as actual. Thus in the first five centuries such epithets as "in every respect holy", "in all things unstained", "super-innocent", and "singularly holy" are applied to her; she is compared to Eve before the fall, as ancestress of a redeemed people; she is "the earth before it was accursed". The well-known words of St. Augustine (d. 430) may be cited: "As regards the mother of God," he says, "I will not allow any question whatever of sin..."   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#Church_Fathers

Thank you.  Exactly what I have been saying  . . . just like the early Church Fathers proclaimed and those early First Christians believed it is obvious that Mary was sinless ? it went without question.  Until many years after the birth of Jesus some tried to refute it.  And that is precisely why the Church needed to step in and declare the Truth. 

[meAgain]

Mary was a young girl barely old enough to have a life when some deity raped her and produced a bastard son. By the rules of Judaism, they should have stoned her to death for having sex (though not her fault) out of wedlock, and cheating on her betrothed.

Seen with such a sad worldview.  Mary was not touched or sexualized in any way by God.  She was chosen to be the mother of Jesus, to which she responded, ?Let it be done unto me according to thy word.?  She beautifully accepted the privilege.  Of course I don?t expect those who see children, pregnancy, and motherhood as shackles and enslavement to understand.  I don?t expect those who use the condescending and derogatory term bastard to get it.  Mary & Joseph understood and got it.  They don?t see the world like you.   

[meAgain]

Where in the bible does it say that?

Or was this one of those things god told the Pope in person?

There is great Scriptural evidence to the sinlessness of Mary, but as with anything in Scripture there will be those who say, ?not enough evidence?, or ?I don?t see it?, etc. Heck, you even have your Kevin?s who try to say Scripture did not oppose homosexual acts.  Uuumm . . . ok. 

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Where in the bible does it say that?

Or was this one of those things god told the Pope in person?

There is great Scriptural evidence to the sinlessness of Mary, but as with anything in Scripture there will be those who say, ?not enough evidence?, or ?I don?t see it?, etc. Heck, you even have your Kevin?s who try to say Scripture did not oppose homosexual acts.  Uuumm . . . ok.

More dogma created by men and proclaimed as the Truth^tm? 
I am not surprised there was a mass exodus from the RCC.

[Nam]

Mary was a young girl barely old enough to have a life when some deity raped her and produced a bastard son. By the rules of Judaism, they should have stoned her to death for having sex (though not her fault) out of wedlock, and cheating on her betrothed.

Seen with such a sad worldview.  Mary was not touched or sexualized in any way by God.  She was chosen to be the mother of Jesus, to which she responded, ?Let it be done unto me according to thy word.?  She beautifully accepted the privilege.  Of course I don?t expect those who see children, pregnancy, and motherhood as shackles and enslavement to understand.  I don?t expect those who use the condescending and derogatory term bastard to get it.  Mary & Joseph understood and got it.  They don?t see the world like you.   

Joseph wasn't a child, Mary was. Her brain wasn't developed enough to understand the whole context of the situation and if Biblegod didn't touch her (per s?) how did she get pregnant?

-Nam

[meAgain]

I am not surprised there was a mass exodus from the RCC.

mass exodus?  Ha, ha, ha . . . still going strong . . .