Yes indeed you can be called that. But we are living in the age where Christ has come. It would be strikingly different I believe to say that in the pre Christian era.

The greek word Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. http://www.catholic.com/library/Immacul ... _Assum.asp

You know well TBG what the early fathers had to say on this matter.

I cite Augustine:

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]). http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

JBC

Going back to what Shadowlander brought up on the previous page. It's genetically impossible to be male without the Y chromosome which only comes from the father. So that means that God created genetic material to take the place of the genes Jesus would have inherited from a human father.

I cite Augustine:

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]). http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Fu ... ace.aspJBC

I think you have just stated precisely the difficulty with the Virgin Mary.

Whether or not you believe in the Biblical account of Creation, or whether or not you believe in Evolution, it is absolute nonsense to say that sin is transferred only via male DNA. For man and woman are of the same species and genetic substance, and no ribbing please! If man is more responsible for sin, it is because males thump their chests more and mistake domineering and force for leadership, and the responsibility that usually comes with it.

Now take a look at the Bible account of the Annunciation and everything else. We don't know much about the Virgin Mary, except her descent from King David, the announcement that she was to bear a son, and that she was already betrothed to Joseph, another descendant of King David's. Those were the days when girls as soon as they looked even vaguely nubile, were betrothed to someone or married off. ASAP! In fact that is still the case around those parts. And Heaven Help any innocent 14 or 15 year old who even vaguely looked like she had Broken The Rules of wifely fidelity, even before she was technically a wife. After all, it wasn't all that long after Caesar divorced his wife on the grounds that 'Caesar's wife should be above reproach!'.

So the Virgin Mary might very well have been just as sinful as anyone else by birth. However, the Bible account even points out how she was in Deep Doo Doo! Joseph wanted to 'put her away privately', and most people around that way would be passing the gossip around, thinking that a gentle stoning or sensational trial or something in the News might keep them entertained for a bit. But surely in this case, Heaven did Help her! She can't be held sinful for that particular sin. Not even in the Koran or the Hadith.

You see, the Muslims also venerate the Virgin Mary. If you are to accept that Jesus was something special, even if you don't agree that He was the Saviour, and think He was just another prophet, you still have to exonerate Mary too, in the matter of his birth. And since the Virgin Mary was exonerated by her own husband-to-be, why not say she is sinless? Or in that area that seems to matter so much to so many people? For whatever reason?

On Mary: what I had heard was that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." When Gabriel spoke to Mary, Mary believed God, and it was reckoned unto her for saved-and-sealed righteousness. Mary was the first believer, the first one to have faith in Jesus, to be saved by grace through faith and receive Salvation as Christians use the term. This is why in The Magnificat she rejoices in her "Savior".

(Or would one argue that when you got saved, God didn't cleanse you of existing sins but retained them simply because your biology contains sin nature? As the country-western song "Down the road" asks, were you washed in the Blood or just in the water? Is it "a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, washed in the Blood of the Lamb" or not?)

As I understand it, the Catholic concept of Immaculate Conception is that because of Mary's faith God applied her salvation retroactively to before her birth. She would therefore be holy and able to bear the Christ Child without passing on the sin nature of the child's biological grandparents. But whether she received Salvation before her birth or when she said Yes to God through the messenger Gabriel, she existed in the state of saved grace when she conceived and gave birth.

Obviously there's more detail in Immaculate Conception that our Catholic posters might kindly post, as many Christian believers have children after being saved and yet we pass on sin nature to them. Somehow through God's grace, Mary did not do that.

...

There's a perception outside Christianity that Mary and God had a Zeus-and-girlfriend experience. Or as Brother Price (Frederick K.C. Price, a televangelist with a talent for a quick turn of phrase) put it, "Nowhere in the Bible does it say, The Lord gonna come down here and go to bed with you. Nowhere. Didn't happen. Now here's what it does say," which I borrowed:

In Luke 1:35 the angel Gabriel tells the virgin girl, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” That word, “overshadow” in the koine Greek, well, Price interprets it that the closest English translation is “to envelop in a haze of brilliancy.” If the Gentle Browser has ever seen the old “home movie” test footage of the 1950s nukes, well, that’s a little like it. If a person is standing on the target when one of those nukes goes off, Things Change. And if a person is the target when the Holy Spirit “overshadows” her, Things Change. (Christians figure that a God who can turn a clump of earth into a man and who can turn a rib into a woman can figure out how to change a virgin into a virgin who can bear a child. No physical sexuality was involved, no touchy-feely happened.)

So if Christians believe that God can and did turn a clump of earth into a man --

... and can and did turn a rib from the man into a woman --

... and can and did change a virgin into a virgin who can bear a child --

... then can God bestow upon the virgin believer Mary that state of sinlessness that Eve had before the Fall?

One has to answer the question of whether God can, before moving on to the question of whether God did, and also the question of if so, when (at conception of Mary or at conception of Jesus). I would think more predestination fans would leap at the opportunity to say that Mary said Yes because the perfect grace within her predestined her to say Yes.

In any event, making Mary sinless seems a lot easier than figuring out how Mary could have a sin nature without passing it on to Jesus.

The closest I ever heard to a Protestant interpretation that could compete with it was the idea that sin nature can only be passed on from both parents simultaneously. When there's only one potential parent, there's no possibility of transmitting sin nature, but that's because there's also no baby.

I think someone needs to post clearly formulated doctrines of the Incarnation and of the virgin birth, i.e. what the church has said over the centuries. This is what's missing. I'm reading Athanasius' On the Incarnation tonight, with an introduction by none other than C. S. Lewis. And then I'll skim books on the virgin birth ... and get back with you tomorrow.

In the meantime...

it is absolute nonsense to say that sin is transferred only via male DNA. For man and woman are of the same species and genetic substance

Agreed. Shadowlander and I said something along these lines earlier.

Why does Jesus have a human mother [and not a human father]?
1. In order to be human He must be born. And that can happen only through a woman. Men don't have babies!
2. God is His Father. Jesus is divine!
3. There was a curse on David's throne: “And Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brethren” [Matthew 1]. According to the Scofield Reference Bible: KJV, “This man is called Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24-30, where a curse is pronounced upon him. There it is predicted that none of his seed should prosper sitting upon David’s throne. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, who was descended from Jeconiah, He could never reign in power and righteousness because of the curse. But Christ came through Mary’s line, not Joseph’s. As the adopted son of Joseph, the curse upon Coniah’s seed did not affect Him.”

Genesis 6:2, 4: "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . .There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" [KJV]. I don't think the conception and birth of Christ resembled this at all [assuming "sons of God" = angels, which it may not]. The Incarnation is a supernatural event, even more so than the birth of Isaac ["just" a miracle], which I think in a way foreshadowed that of Christ.

When Gabriel spoke to Mary, Mary believed God, and it was reckoned unto her for saved-and-sealed righteousness. Mary was the first believer, the first one to have faith in Jesus, to be saved by grace through faith and receive Salvation as Christians use the term. This is why in The Magnificat she rejoices in her "Savior."

Agreed! Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” – “In these words Mary recognizes her own need of salvation. She was a sinner who needed Christ as “Savior.” [The Full-Life Study Bible, KJV]

John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” –Jesus borrowed Mary’s flesh in order to be born, to have a human body. But He didn’t take on her nature. Jesus’ human nature was sinless and not because Mary was sinless because she wasn’t. Her parents weren’t sinless either. In order for Mary to be sinless, her parents had to be sinless. So where does it end? Romans 3:23 and 5:12 are for everyone.

What of the angels, are they not naturally perfect? (the ones that didn't fall of course). All that I'm saying is that it is entirely possible and we know from Scripture for a being to be naturally perfect.

God alone is perfect. He alone is complete. He alone is incapable of falling or transgressing. He cannot sin. This is not true of anyone else. Angels are capable of sinning because one-third did. They will be judged, just like human beings. Humans are capable of sinning and they did in Eden. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were not perfect. Why? They were capable of sin. But God is not capable and never will be. This is what we mean by the divine attribute of perfection. There are some things God cannot do and one is committing sin.

As you noted in your verse it says, "Death came to all..." Yet we know that Eliajah was taken up in a chairot of fire, and we know that Enoch walked with God. These two individuals did not 'die' as far as we know from Scripture. Does that prove that verse false? Of course not.

You could also say that God said: "In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." (In relation to eating the forbidden fruit.) Did they literally die that day? No. But they died spiritually. I'm pretty sure that Romans 5:12 is saying that spiritual death spread to all men. We all died spiritually. We all were dead in our sin.

Rom 5:12, 14, 17: the “death” described is both physical and spiritual. Physical death is a consequence of spiritual death, which took place at the Fall in Eden [Genesis 3]. This means all children of Adam are born sinners, including Enoch and Elijah. But God graciously allowed them to escape physical death. Enoch was one of those between Adam and Moses [Rom 5 “For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” What does this mean? “Personal guilt was not imputed. . . .Since physical death from Adam to Moses was not due to the sinful acts of those who die (v. 13), it follows that it was due to a universal sinful state, or nature, and that state is declared to be our inheritance from Adam” [Scofield Reference Bible]. Enoch and Elijah are a type of those living saints who will be raptured [1 Thessalonians 4:15, 17]. What was Enoch’s testimony? “He pleased God” [Hebrews 11] because he “walked with God” [Gen 5:22, 24]. Enoch was still a descendant of Adam, born with a sin nature. Elijah appeared with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration. And what did they talk about with Jesus? “His decease [departure, exodus, death] which He should accomplish at Jerusalem” [Luke 9]. Why is this important? Because without Christ they’re not saved! “These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect” [Heb 11]. Elijah was still a descendant of Adam, born with a sin nature.

Something to think about
When I read “Enoch walked with God and he was not, for God took him” [Gen 5], I cried! Are you walking so close to God that right now, this instant, He would come and fetch you, and take you to heaven to be with Him forever? This is what the rapture is, folks. The dead in Christ shall rise first, and the living shall follow! Jesus will take us to heaven to be with Him forever! So if Jesus came back this instant, would you be ready? He’s coming back for those looking for Him.

Hi all,

TOM has said something that I think is important and is a fact I've been trying to get through and perhaps didn't clearly communicate. Can God do this or not?

TOM also points out another point that I've perhaps not been able to get across as well in that if Mary isn't sinless how can we get around the whole notion of original sin not being passed. Like her I believe the notion that its passed through the male line alone is not really a tenable idea.

You also made an interesting note about predestination. If you ponder the Immaculate Conception it certainly shows God's soverinty doesn't it. Us Catholic folks are free to hold a number of various possible ideas about predestination as long as we stay away from double predestination.

220, I'm sure you will enjoy reading that book. I've never read it myself but I have read some of Athanasius's other works and he great.

Again I think I need to point out that there is a difference between natural perfection of a creature be that creature an Angel or a Man, and the infinite perfection that is God. You can have natural prefection and it does not mean you are somehow divine...you are very much a creature.

As for what Mary said in the magnificat about needing a savior. She is exactly correct. The best analogy I have heard was of thinking of sin like a hole. Now if you save someone from the hole you are their "savior" in a sense. You are just as much someone's savior if you stop them from falling into the hole. That is what happened with Mary. I found a great quote by Martin Luther earlier today that I wanted to share:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lut ... ws_on_Mary

So if Christians believe that God can and did turn a clump of earth into a man --

... and can and did turn a rib from the man into a woman --

... and can and did change a virgin into a virgin who can bear a child --

... then can God bestow upon the virgin believer Mary that state of sinlessness that Eve had before the Fall?

One has to answer the question of whether God can, before moving on to the question of whether God did, and also the question of if so, when (at conception of Mary or at conception of Jesus). I would think more predestination fans would leap at the opportunity to say that Mary said Yes because the perfect grace within her predestined her to say Yes.

In any event, making Mary sinless seems a lot easier than figuring out how Mary could have a sin nature without passing it on to Jesus.

I don't think it is as much a problem as one would think, even though I am an Evolutionist. Take it one step at a time.

So if Christians believe that God can and did turn a clump of earth into a man --

Well really! All life began with a chemical process in the soil of the Earth, in the Water, in the fire of volcanoes, which ended up eventually with not only Man but everything else in between. It is as if the author of Genesis's creation story 'saw through a glass darkly'. What's the problem then? It was astute thinking and a true inspiration on the part of those who did not have the benefit of the current state of human knowledge, to realise that death and life are part of the same life cycle for all of us carbon forms of life, animals, trees and humans alike. But I expect the author of Genesis, the one who first actually put it in writing, had to dwell on Humanity, being one himself. And he had one eye on those up themselves Babylonians etc.....

... and can and did turn a rib from the man into a woman --

Whoever wrote this must have been joking! On the other hand, he - and it had to be a 'he' - probably had one eye on how his compatriots were influenced by the 'up themselves' Babylonian/Assyrians. In my perusal of Ancient History, I didn't notice any womens' rights movements until the women of Rome, in the wake of the Battle of Cannae, refused to pay sumptuory taxes because they weren't allowed representation on the Senate. Funnily enough, it was the likes of the Hebrews, and in particular, Jesus, himself, who started that sort of thing. The Jews had to be the first people on Earth who ever had a regard for social justice written into their religion.

... and can and did change a virgin into a virgin who can bear a child --

In Biology, parthenogenesis is perfectly possible. Even in humans. But the offspring would always be feminine. And then in more primitive forms of life, such as crocodiles, (Can't resist those teeth!) outside temperature does influence whether offspring are masculine or feminine, regardless of genetic material. Presumably that would also apply to monotremes like duck-billed platypuses (platypi?) and echidnas. Maybe other forms of life...(considering).

But anyway, these days we also have developed reproductive technology, despite the Roman Catholic church's doubts about humanity 'playing God'. So why are we astounded that God can do naturally and more effectively what humans have discovered they can do with scientific equipment and knowledge? Some people even believe in spaceships? Why can't such people then believe in God's ability to organise a Virgin birth?

... then can God bestow upon the virgin believer Mary that state of sinlessness that Eve had before the Fall?

Of course He could! Isn't God the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong? Can't a fair dinkum God actually play God? And even asking Mary's permission doesn't mean that the Almighty God of the Universe shouldn't protect her, given what He had in mind. After all, it was and still is considered ethics in that part of the world, for women - not men I notice - to remain virginally pure until their wedding day, and thereafter faithful to whatever partner their fathers oblige them to marry.

So of course Mary has to be sinless. Leave the poor woman alone!

So why are we astounded that God can do naturally and more effectively what humans have discovered they can do with scientific equipment and knowledge? Some people even believe in spaceships? Why can't such people then believe in God's ability to organise a Virgin birth?

Probably for the same reason some people can't then believe in Special Creation ex nihilo.

My goodness, from reading the rest of your post I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, feeling a bit bitter, or just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Methinks the lady doth have a bone to pick.

Concurred — I can’t tell the intent at all either, www. Clarify?

By the way, www, I recall your comment a few pages ago that you reject fundamentalism/fundamentalists, and I meant to say something about that then. In some ways I agree; in others, not so much.

If by “fundamentalism” you mean cultural fundamentalism, with its strict-separatism notions and Pharisaical rules of conduct in addition to Biblical “literalism,” then yes, I fully agree we need to get rid of that.

However, I would ask you: consider avoiding a mindset based on what you wish to not be! Too many Christians, real and professing, are jerking back and forth between extremes because of reaction-based religion. (Hey, that sounds familiar; I think I wrote something similar some pages ago, to no avail. Yet God is in charge of someone’s growth, not me. But at least now no “blood will be on my head.”)

I’ve been guilty of the same kinds of extremes myself — i.e., I don’t want to be like a liberal Christian! So I’d better be as conservative as possible so that won’t happen.

Frustrated at the anti- and extra-Biblical beliefs of cultural-fundamentalist Christians, they swerve to the opposite extreme. Disgusted by their over-discernment, in matters that are not always bad (a la “meat sacrificed to idols,” holidays, music preferences, etc.) they decide that very little or no discernment is even better. Disgusted by fundamentalism’s rules, they overcorrect into “cheap grace” and forget that Jesus is not only the Savior, He is also Lord. If we love Him, we will keep His commandments, and with His Spirit, they are not burdensome.

I have also needed reminding, from Scripture and from others, that avoiding “free willie” beliefs at all costs is not the point of my Christian walk. If a Reformed Christian such as myself were to do that, we might indeed turn into those nose-in-the-air “hyper-Calvinist” types who believes in “double predestination,” as if it were God’s fault, and not man’s, that everyone is by default destined for Hell.

Or such people — I have met them; they turned me off this stuff for years — is glad he’s elect and that’s that, rather than being reminded Scripture certainly teaches action in evangelism and such. God is the One solely to credit for salvation, yes, yet He uses our choices to accomplish His sovereign will.

Instead, with God’s help, I’d rather read and understand the Bible straight on through, ignoring traditions and preconceptions as much as possible so I don’t come to His book with my own agendas, either to support or to avoid. I’d rather seek Him personally and His truth in all its balance and nuance, rather than just fix some problem in my past or in the church.

So, while I’m sure we all have plenty of “fundamentalism” remnants to beat back, for me I don’t want to live my life against that or anything else, as much as for Him and what His Word says.

And by that I mean the cultural-fundamentalism, the un-Biblical, Pharisaical parts that are not required for truly righteous living. However, historically fundamentalist meant merely upholding what Scripture says, reading and understanding it in its original context. (I do not mean “wooden literalism,” which some believe Christians do when they take verses out of context and read every one of them “literally” to apply to them personally; I mean reading a text with good exegesis and hermeneutics, understanding it the way it would have always been understood.) So that kind of “fundamentalism” — since twisted and taken to un-Biblical extremes by those bearing the label — I do agree with.

About the whole Mary thing I have very little to offer, except that at worst it has surely led many Catholics and others to idolatry.

But are Protestants then safe from idol worship? I think not! I have seen plenty of Protestant activists who pick on Catholics for relying too much on tradition and then go right off and do the exact same thing. Dave Hunt is one example: he writes screeds against the Pope and “Mary worship” and whatnot, and attacks Reformed Christians just as fiercely, out of devotion to his free-willie traditions.

Other Christians have un-Biblical “sacraments” they worship way more passionately than any Catholic ever prayed to a saint or bowed to a relic: altar calls, organs, calling drums the literal instruments of Satan, homeschooling, not-homeschooling, teetotaling, KJV-Onlyism, etc.

At best, it seems Mary-sinlessness is a highly peripheral idea. I don’t need to think that Mary was sinless to glorify God, and I know that at least for me, that would actually detract from His glory. Maybe our Catholic friends who are true Christians and redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ have found a way to do this and make it consistent; I just know I couldn’t.

Scripture is at best silent on whether Mary was sinless. However, to me that silence is enough to argue fully, as others have done well here, that she like all of us needed redemption from sin nature.

Neither do I need the Catholic view of sacraments, transubstantiation, i.e., the body of Christ literally present via “time warp” (as a Catholic friend recently phrased it to be) in a sort-of re-presentation of His sacrifice, to understand or be blessed by participating in the sacrament/ordinance of Communion.

Scripture also does not say Christ is actually physically present in the “elements.” Notwithstanding a “time warp” or metaphysical explanation from Catholic theologians as to how this works, it does not work Scripturally and logically to say that Christ — Who to this day is physically in Heaven as well as spiritually there, and with us — could be physically present in the “elements” anyway.

First, there is the seeming addition of some other action, participating in sacraments/Communion as essential to the redemption/justification process. Yet Christ died once for all (the book of Hebrews). Unlike the blood of animal sacrifices, His death is fully sufficient. That’s all I need.

Again, Catholics may believe otherwise and not be personally affected, or think that Christ needs something else to complete the process. Good for them! But a) that wouldn’t work for me, and b) I think we have all met too many Catholics who were convinced it was some action at church in the present, and not Christ in the past, that guarantees forgiveness of sins. Do all Catholics rush to assure such people that no, the Mass is a reminder of a past sacrifice, and not a continuation of that action?

By the way, Lutherans believe similar to Catholics, only with the qualification that Christ is “above, below and within” the elements, if I remember right. They could ponder this question too: How could a physical Christ, even now in Heaven with a physical body, similar to the resurrection bodies His people will receive, be simultaneously present in the “elements” of Communion?

That would detract from His physical nature, which in turn detracts from the Biblical truth that God will redeem His physical creation, not just toast it all and assimilate His people into some “floatey heaven” spiritoid state of being. Yet I understand that historically, anyway, Catholics have overspiritualized and under-materialized (if that is a word) the resurrection of believers to come and the physical New Earth.

Maybe that is not the belief of the Catholic(s) here. I only recall that the Christoplatonic views have been historically the Church’s teaching, including how they see marriage, God-glorifying intimacy in marriage and many related teachings.

These are very different with St. Paul’s (a little Catholic lingo, there!) teaching on the very physical nature of believers’ future resurrected bodies (see 2 Corinthians 5 and elsewhere) and St. John’s description of the New Heavens and the New Earth (Revelation 21; see also prophesies of literal ships, commerce, animals, rivers, cities, etc. in the New Earth, in Isaiah). Nothing in Scripture says what I once subconsciously assumed: that Christ somehow “shed” His glorified body on His way up through the clouds to sit at the Father’s right hand. He will return as the God-Man and (in whatever strange way the One/Three of the Trinity/God interrelate) be that way forever, ruling the New Heavens and New Earth. Wow!

And now, please excuse me while I go try to unbend my head and write a newspaper story.

So why are we astounded that God can do naturally and more effectively what humans have discovered they can do with scientific equipment and knowledge? Some people even believe in spaceships? Why can't such people then believe in God's ability to organise a Virgin birth?

Probably for the same reason some people can't then believe in Special Creation ex nihilo.

Sorry, I should have said UFO's, not to mention other conspiracy theories.

My goodness, from reading the rest of your post I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, feeling a bit bitter, or just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Methinks the lady doth have a bone to pick.

Oh surely not! Now which bone would I pick? The Humerus? (Funny bone)? Or maybe....a Rib? Even that Rib? Now would I really rib (tease)
you? Perish the thought!

If by “fundamentalism” you mean cultural fundamentalism, with its strict-separatism notions and Pharisaical rules of conduct in addition to Biblical “literalism,” then yes, I fully agree we need to get rid of that.

That is what I meant of course. The whole idea of fundamentalism seems to be to stick to labels rather than avoiding them. The other thing about fundamentalism that I dislike is that it usually ends, even if it doesn't begin, with women being rigidly obliged to bow and scrape to their menfolk who then are tempted to take advantage of the situation. You know the ones. They don't think they have to say please and thank you, either.

I'm not too keen on predestination either, as sometimes it seems a way of avoiding responsibility for one's own actions. Understandable when one commits something unintentionally, like Puddleglum discovering that it was a Talking Animal they had been served at Harfang, but all too often a justification to exert authority over someone else. My father thought I was destined to become a teacher when I won a scholarship. I felt that becoming a teacher was just about the last thing I wanted to do. So was I wrong or right?

And I agree that atheists can also tend to fundamentalism, by insisting that a belief in Evolution stops one believing in God, in Salvation, Jesus, or in much of the Bible. I couldn't agree less with Richard Dawkins, for example. In the November issue of Australian Literary Review, a supplement of The Australian, you will find there is a commemoration of C.S.Lewis, accompanying the attached picture. The artist took some liberties with the Narnia chronicles as you will see. Though, he was having a dig at Richard Dawkins, rather than C.S.Lewis, who went out of his way to create characters like Eustace or Digory Kirk, who never denied the facts of the Real World as far as has been discovered. C.S.Lewis often talked of a 'true myth', which makes some sense to me.

Edited to add: I meant to ask if you think that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Also, I asked some posts ago when do you think the Bible was first written? In that post I linked to an online encyclopedia article, and mentioned that I have seen somewhere that 'experts' think that much of the Bible was written about 220 BC, that is to say, about the time of the Maccabean revolt. They arrived at this decision after the finding and analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, writings from the time of Christ and even earlier.

Would you agree or disagree? Why?

This may sound a bit crass. In Genesis 3:15 God says Eve's seed will crush the serpent's head [i.e. Satan]. But I read in Thayer's Lexicon that the Greek word "overshadow" in Luke 1:35 essentially means the "Holy Spirit [was] exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it." I think the Spirit overshadowed Mary's womb and that's all. If God can make a man from dust, and a woman from a man's rib, then surely He can make Jesus without human egg or sperm.

I'm not sure what to think of this, but I'm posting it anyway for everybody to read. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, pp 34, 45-47:

No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father--a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. . . .Not even His birth from a virgin, / therefore, changed Him in any way, nor was He defiled by being in the body. Rather, He sanctified the body by being in it. For His being in everything does not mean that He shares the nature of everything, only that He gives all things their being and sustains them in it. Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body, but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling, 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth' [1 Peter 2]. . . .He formed His own body from the virgin; and that is no small proof of His Godhead, since He Who made that was the Maker of all else. And would not anyone infer from the fact of that body being begotten of a virgin only, without human father, that He Who appeared in it was also the Maker and Lord of all beside?

As for what Mary said in the magnificat about needing a savior. She is exactly correct. The best analogy I have heard was of thinking of sin like a hole. Now if you save someone from the hole you are their "savior" in a sense. You are just as much someone's savior if you stop them from falling into the hole. That is what happened with Mary.

God didn't stop Mary "from falling into the hole" of sin. You ignored the first part of the Luther quote: "Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents." Exactly. She was born in sin, just like the rest of us. What does "savior" mean anyway? Matthew 1 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." Jesus is Greek for "Jehovah saves." Only a sinner needs a Savior. And when Mary called God her "savior" she acknowledged she was a sinner. I think the Holy Spirit purified or sanctified Mary when He overshadowed her, as He did with the Old Testament saints. Isaiah 6 "And he laid it upon my mouth and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin purged." But Isaiah didn't have salvation as we know it. Why? "These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect" [Hebrews 11:39-40]. Salvation = the blood of Jesus Christ. Mary had to wait for her Son's sacrifice on the cross. Only afterward did she know salvation. And she was in the upper room with the 120, seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

On men and women and our sin nature... Eve sinned first, then Adam. And God's curse in Eden was on both men and women as a result. One curse on Eve was the headship of man. "Sin's disorder makes necessary a headship; it is vested in man" [Scofield Reference Bible]. I think this is also why God pronounced the curse on Adam first. Christ is the second Adam, not the second Eve, because of the headship of man not because the sin nature is carried only through the man. And also because Christ came as a man, not as a woman.

On Elijah...

And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, also how he had executed all the prophets with the sword. Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, “So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I do not make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.” And when he saw that, he arose and ran for his life, and went to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there. But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom tree. And he prayed that he might die, and said, “It is enough! Now, LORD, take my life, for I am no better than my fathers!”

You might want to read the rest of the chapter.

Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit.

Other Christians have un-Biblical “sacraments” they worship way more passionately than any Catholic ever prayed to a saint or bowed to a relic: altar calls, organs, calling drums the literal instruments of Satan, homeschooling, not-homeschooling, teetotaling, KJV-Onlyism, etc.

What do you mean? I'm not KJV-only [it is a translation], I like organs as well as other instruments in worship, and while I like and prefer homeschooling, it's just one option. Also, I am a teetotaler [sp?] but I can't force that on others, can I? However, I don't put altar calls in this category. They are biblical and they are serious business. Any evangelistic preacher with sense should give one. That doesn't make it an object of worship or a sacrament.

I may not know as much koine as some of y'all, but this one I know.

"overshadow" [koine] = "to envelop in a haze of brilliancy"

220 wrote:

But I read in Thayer's Lexicon that the Greek word "overshadow" in Luke 1:35 essentially means the "Holy Spirit [was] exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it."

This definition is, well, not wrong, but not right. It is insufficient. It is well-intentioned but may have overly simplified things for the general reader.

The conception was a result of being Overshadowed, not the definition of Overshadowed.

To be fair, the source material that you quoted agrees with my definition before providing yours. Thayer's gives the master defintion of ἐπισκιάζω (episkiazō) as "to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow". But in the detailed entry it goes on to say the "Holy Spirit [was] exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it." And that's where the concern lies.

I think the Spirit overshadowed Mary's womb and that's all.

But not her soul, brain, pinky finger, or appendix? I'm not trying to be unkind, just pointing out that this description is like a forcefield: that only Mary's womb was in the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the rest of her wasn't. (By the way, where was the rest of her at that instant?)

You said yourself that

I think the Holy Spirit purified or sanctified Mary when He overshadowed her, as He did with the Old Testament saints (emphasis added).

If Overshadowed meant "caused her to conceive," and only that, then everyone who had an Overshadowing experience would walk away pregnant. Including the males.

So, no, overshadow is bigger than causing a virgin's conception. It is to envelop in a haze of brilliancy. Our closest fleshly examples would be to be at ground zero of a nuclear blast; to be clothed in and breathing in a fog of shining light; to walk upon the sun. Mary walking away with a Babe was a result of Overshadowing, not the full or sufficient definition of it.

I trust this doesn't sound too grumpy, but I literally dropped everything to make a note of this before the thread moves on. This is one word I know.

TOM, I gave the link to Thayer's Lexicon to let you know where I got the information. I'm sorry if I implied that was the meaning of the Greek word. What I meant was, that is the context for Luke 1:35. I didn't quote everything. Blue Letter Bible online says episkiazo means "to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow." And below that, it cites the Lexicon: "From a vaporous cloud that casts a shadow the word is transferred to a shining cloud surrounding and enveloping persons with brightness" [see Matt 17:5, Lk 9:34, Mk 9:7]. "Tropically, of the Holy Spirit exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it, (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar OT idea of a cloud as symbolizing the immediate presence and power of God): with the dat. Lk 1:35." Of course, I'm just typing out [because I can't copy/paste ] what's on the website and which you could read for yourself...

The information you gave is in Strong's, which I use all the time too. There it says episkiazo means "to cast a shade upon, i.e. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively, to invest with preternatural influence."

EDIT
Did you edit your post? I didn't see the following when I posted my response to you.

To be fair, the source material that you quoted agrees with my definition before providing yours. Thayer's gives the master defintion of ἐπισκιάζω (episkiazō) as "to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow". But in the detailed entry it goes on to say the "Holy Spirit [was] exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it." And that's where the concern lies.

I'm not saying the Holy Spirit didn't overshadow all of Mary. The point is, what was the purpose of His overshadowing her? To create a baby! Where was the "creative energy" needed? The womb! In that sense, the Holy Spirit sort of had a target. What changed when He overshadowed her was something new in the womb, Someone who had not been there before. And I'm emphasizing womb, not fallopian tubes... [Why am I laughing while I'm writing this? This is getting really awkward. ]
/EDIT

Do you guys seriously believe that Mary was sinless? I certainly don't.

In the Bible it talks about Jesus dying for all mankind. Wait a minute, wasn't Mary human? If she wasn't then I would think that some kind of conspiracy went on. It brings thoughts to mind like "what was Mary anyway? an angel maybe?" God isn't a conspirator and he did in fact come to earth as a man. Jesus was a man people. It says in the Bible "even greater things than I do, so shall you do." that was Jesus talking of course. If he was talking to people as God hiding out in the form of man then we are hooped because that would mean essentially that we would have to become God before we could "do greater things". However, if that was God talking to people as a man then we have hope for we are all human and we don't have to become anything else to "do greater things". Getting back on subject; If Jesus was a man then wouldn't Mary need to be no more than human to conceive him?

220, I think we cross-posted.

So as long as I'm here, I might as well note that

Dr.Elwin Ransom wrote:

How could a physical Christ, even now in Heaven with a physical body, similar to the resurrection bodies His people will receive, be simultaneously present in the “elements” of Communion?

As I understand it, you're thinking that because Christ is in His glorified body now, how could it be possible for His natural body to be present in the Holy Feast. Whereas I believe that when Jesus said, "This is My body; this is My blood," I don't think He meant that only the Twelve were getting His actual body and blood, and since then all other believers don't get any. We all have definitions as to when a child is old enough to partake of the body and blood, and we all are expected to take inventory of ourselves before partaking, because none of us see the Holy Feast as Snack Time.

If Jesus' death can apply to all generations, perhaps the notion that Jesus' body could be in the gifts today is not too unreachable.