Reparation is called for another Anti-Jesus and Mary blasphemy
#21
(06-22-2012, 01:03 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-21-2012, 09:30 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Verhoeven’s take on the life of Jesus Christ discounts all of the miracles that inform the New Testament. That includes the immaculate conception (refers to the Incarnation, not Mary's), and the resurrection. Verhoeven doesn’t believe any of them happened.

The Immaculate Conception always and only properly refers to Mary's being conceived without original sin.

What you're thinking of is the Virgin Birth.

I think Vincentius was making that point. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, to the uneducated non-Catholic, the Immaculate Conception ' always and only' refers to the Virgin Birth of Christ.
Reply
#22
(06-23-2012, 03:21 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-22-2012, 01:03 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-21-2012, 09:30 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Verhoeven’s take on the life of Jesus Christ discounts all of the miracles that inform the New Testament. That includes the immaculate conception (refers to the Incarnation, not Mary's), and the resurrection. Verhoeven doesn’t believe any of them happened.

The Immaculate Conception always and only properly refers to Mary's being conceived without original sin.

What you're thinking of is the Virgin Birth.

I think Vincentius was making that point. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, to the uneducated non-Catholic, the Immaculate Conception ' always and only' refers to the Virgin Birth of Christ.


I love when people present that understanding to me. It's amazing how many crumble at logic when you are able to bring the concept to their level, especially using science (which recently proved the relationship between the doctrine of the Eucharist and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary). I'm currently writing a piece which shows the perfection of integration with all Catholic doctrine as opposed to the Protestant, et al view.

Reply
#23
(06-23-2012, 02:29 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 03:21 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-22-2012, 01:03 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-21-2012, 09:30 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Verhoeven’s take on the life of Jesus Christ discounts all of the miracles that inform the New Testament. That includes the immaculate conception (refers to the Incarnation, not Mary's), and the resurrection. Verhoeven doesn’t believe any of them happened.

The Immaculate Conception always and only properly refers to Mary's being conceived without original sin.

What you're thinking of is the Virgin Birth.

I think Vincentius was making that point. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, to the uneducated non-Catholic, the Immaculate Conception ' always and only' refers to the Virgin Birth of Christ.


I love when people present that understanding to me. It's amazing how many crumble at logic when you are able to bring the concept to their level, especially using science (which recently proved the relationship between the doctrine of the Eucharist and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary). I'm currently writing a piece which shows the perfection of integration with all Catholic doctrine as opposed to the Protestant, et al view.

What?... and how?   Huh?
Reply
#24
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2006/0...ct-mothers

Baby cells stay in a mother when she conceives, no matter if she aborts, miscarries, or delivers.

Since Our Lady gave birth to Christ, conceived by the Holy Ghost, she retained cells of His Body, which is/are joined in hypostatic union to His Divinity.

Ergo, Our Lady was a walking tabernacle, as all are when receiving Holy Communion. But the accidents of bread break down, while the mother retains those cells, that element of body, for life.

She couldn't have sinned, for this would have been God allowing, nay, encouraging, the standard of perfect to fall by saying yes to Him. He set her aside, full of Grace, with ability to sin but knowing she never would for she was the New Eve who would crush the Serpent's head instead of listening to the words coming out of his fetid, hissy mouth.

Had she been born in sin, God Himself would have been knowingly placing in Our Lady the judgement of death on herself by inhabiting her womb, which He Himself was the blessed fruit of and is. Just as anyone who takes into themselves the Eucharist and His Real Presence, unworthily, is consuming unto death and not life.

God can't start the giving of life to the world's souls by corrupting perfection by default. Mary retained the cells of Christ. What loving Son starts His Mother out with an eternal handicap? Not God.
Reply
#25
(06-23-2012, 02:49 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2006/0...ct-mothers

Baby cells stay in a mother when she conceives, no matter if she aborts, miscarries, or delivers.

Since Our Lady gave birth to Christ, conceived by the Holy Ghost, she retained cells of His Body, which is/are joined in hypostatic union to His Divinity.

Ergo, Our Lady was a walking tabernacle, as all are when receiving Holy Communion. But the accidents of bread break down, while the mother retains those cells, that element of body, for life.

She couldn't have sinned, for this would have been God allowing, nay, encouraging, the standard of perfect to fall by saying yes to Him. He set her aside, full of Grace, with ability to sin but knowing she never would for she was the New Eve who would crush the Serpent's head instead of listening to the words coming out of his fetid, hissy mouth.

Had she been born in sin, God Himself would have been knowingly placing in Our Lady the judgement of death on herself by inhabiting her womb, which He Himself was the blessed fruit of and is. Just as anyone who takes into themselves the Eucharist and His Real Presence, unworthily, is consuming unto death and not life.

God can't start the giving of life to the world's souls by corrupting perfection by default. Mary retained the cells of Christ. What loving Son starts His Mother out with an eternal handicap? Not God.

Wow, that's a lot to digest! I've never heard of this before. This deserves some more thought, but it sounds beautiful.
Reply
#26
Verhoeven tried to make this film in the past, and the financial backing dried up because it's a sure fire money loser. Christians will boycott the thing, and non Christians will yawn with disinterest. If it does get made, then this will be a good opportunity for Christians to have a public debate about the nature of Christ, and He who is and why He came to earth. The same thing happened with LAST TEMPTATION, which in comparision to the sounds of this picture, was fairly tame(at least the tormented Christ at the center of that film was supposed to be the Son of God, and performed miracles, including the raising of Lazarus).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)