COSMO@TRIUMFER (02/09/90)
>>I don't care one bit what His race/color was, as long as the genetically >>inert holanderic gene (the only chromasome guaranteed to be passed from >>father to son) came from David. >Let's not forget He got his genes from Mary, and not Joseph. :-) Good point; I'd forgotten about that. It used to bug me how Jesus could have been a male when He didn't have a human father, since you can only get the Y chromosome (aka the holanderic gene) from a male. I studied the antenicean period of church history in University (from a Christian) and therefore was aware that it wasn't until a couple hundred years A.D. that it became entrenched that 'virgin' meant 'no sex'. Also he said it was more or less presumed at the time that a couple could or would have sex between the time they were betrothed and the time they were married, but that the girl would be dealt with as though she were a girl who'd not had sex until the ceremony (sort of like how a lot of girls will wear white at a wedding even though... you know, it's for social order). However, I've learned to stop worrying about all that, and just leave it at 'God can do anything He wants'. David
dl2y+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Donna Marie Lewis) (02/10/90)
>I studied the antenicean period of church history in University (from a >Christian) and therefore was aware that it wasn't until a couple hundred >years A.D. that it became entrenched that 'virgin' meant 'no sex'. Also >he said it was more or less presumed at the time that a couple could or >would have sex between the time they were betrothed and the time they >were married, but that the girl would be dealt with as though she were >a girl who'd not had sex until the ceremony (sort of like how a lot of >girls will wear white at a wedding even though... you know, it's for >social order). If this is true, how come Mary was confused by Gabriel's message ? As she says " How can this be, since I do not know man ? " ( This wording may not be exact) Maybe " virgin " didn't mean what it means now, but " knowing " is a common Biblical expression. By the way, I checked out canonization,as I promised in my last posting, and it is held to be infallible, unless my friend, one of our parish priests, is wrong or I misunderstood him. Sorry I took so long to reply. Between classes, work, and my parish activities I've been too busy to post a lot. Yours in Christ, Donna Marie Lewis Cor ad cor loquitur - " Heart speaks to heart " Gaudete semper - " Rejoice always "
COSMO@TRIUMFER (02/10/90)
>>I studied the antenicean period of church history in University (from a >>Christian) and therefore was aware that it wasn't until a couple hundred >>years A.D. that it became entrenched that 'virgin' meant 'no sex'. Also >>he said it was more or less presumed at the time that a couple could or >>would have sex between the time they were betrothed and the time they >>were married, but that the girl would be dealt with as though she were >>a girl who'd not had sex until the ceremony (sort of like how a lot of >>girls will wear white at a wedding even though... you know, it's for >>social order). >If this is true, how come Mary was confused by Gabriel's message ? As >she says " How can this be, since I do not know man ? " ( This wording >may not be exact) Maybe " virgin " didn't mean what it means now, but " >knowing " is a common Biblical expression. Yes, that's a valid point, and it obviously doesn't leave room for doubt. This makes you wonder how a professing Christian with a Phd would speculate in class that Mary wasn't really a 'modern sense' virgin (and I just know I shouldn't say this, because, like I said, I don't really worry about it and I do presume that God can do anything He wants, and whoa boy, just watch the literalists freak out and flood the list with corollerated quotes) but he said that most of the Gospels weren't written down until, at the very earliest, about AD 100, and that a bit of elaboration may have crept into the oral tradition to make the story more interesting, special, and exciting to new converts. But don't freak out. The only reason I said this was so you could understand how my prof justified his statements. I didn't say I took it seriously. It's just information, and simple information can't hurt you unless you're all messed up and can't center and reconcile yourself with God, which none of you seem to be having all that much trouble with. Peace David
dl2y+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Donna Marie Lewis) (02/10/90)
Sorry if I sounded " freaked out. " You may not take it seriously, but
I have run into many who might, and seeing such things upsets me. Also,
in working on a presentation for one of my classes, I am working with a
student who knowing, but apparently forgetting for a moment, that I am a
Roman Catholic, said in response to a query that no one reads one
author's works because he is dead, replied, " After all, God is dead,
and people still read the Bible. " This freaked me out somewhat, but I
restrained myself, mostly because we had work to do and an argument over
religion would have cost us time. I merely replied , " Watch it. I might
choose to take offense at that. " Afterwards, I knew I should have
gotten into a debate, so I was upset with myself, and I'm afraid I took
it out in my posting. This was uncharitable of me, and unfair to you.
Yours in Christ,
Donna Marie Lewis
Cor ad cor loquitur - " Heart speaks to heart "
Gaudete semper - " Rejoice always "