- This topic has 164 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
okay, I looked it up in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. You are right – it refers to M & not to JC. That was major news to me! (I was going to write “chiddush”, but that didn’t seem like the appropriate word to use). And here, I was always thought I was educated.
Thanks for the clarification! But..it doesn’t take away from Abba_S’s point at all in any case.
I’m also not sure what the difference is – it sounds to me like immaculate conception and virgin birth mean the same thing – they just use one to refer to one and the other to refer to the other.
I’m also not sure what the difference is – it sounds to me like immaculate conception and virgin birth mean the same thing – they just use one to refer to one and the other to refer to the other.
The only difference is that Christians refer the birth of Miriam the mother as the Immaculate Conception while they call the birth of JC the son to be the Virgin Birth. Both of them didn’t have fathers.
Abba, that was my impression. So it’s really a technical/semantics issue and does not change anything you said. It was certainly no different than someone making a spelling or grammatical error – both of which are very common in the CR.
After about 4 minutes of research, I have determined that the source of confusion here is in the term “Immaculate Conception” (notice the capitalization).
The term doesn’t refer to a general phenomenon, rather a specific event. The belief is that both Mary and Yoshke were conceived without a father, but the term “Immaculate Conception” refers specifically to the conception of Yoshke
I feel funny discussing Christian theology, but immaculate conception has nothing to do with being “born without a father” that is a separate belief.
Immaculate Conception refers to the Conception of MARY not yoshke. (Though many Christians misunderstand this too)
No reason to do to much googling. Wikipedia imagines well.
OK according to Wikepedia Immaculate Conception refers to the Conception of MARY and Virgin Birth refers to yoshke. I am sorry for using the wrong term for JC
okay, I looked it up in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. You are right – it refers to M & not to JC. That was major news to me! (I was going to write “chiddush”, but that didn’t seem like the appropriate word to use). And here, I was always thought I was educated.
…
I’m also not sure what the difference is – it sounds to me like immaculate conception and virgin birth mean the same thing – they just use one to refer to one and the other to refer to the other.
The only difference is that Christians refer the birth of Miriam the mother as the Immaculate Conception while they call the birth of JC the son to be the Virgin Birth. Both of them didn’t have fathers.
Abba, that was my impression. So it’s really a technical/semantics issue and does not change anything you said. It was certainly no different than someone making a spelling or grammatical error – both of which are very common in the CR.
“4 minutes of research,” “according to Wikipedia,” “Webster’s
Unabridged Dictionary…” And you all, except Ubiquitin, still
think they believe Yoshke’s mother didn’t have a father either.
To quote Wikipedia, “the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal biological means,” in other words, from a man.
The term means that the Christian theological concept of “original sin”
did not apply to her – from conception, she was kept “immaculate” of it.
And on that note, maybe we should return to the original topic of discussion. As inappropriate as I found it, I am finding this topic more inappropriate (my own posts included).
Bottom line: Most people in the world are nuts, and the fact that an idea is universally accepted means NOTHING! Without Torah, there is no hope.
As Comlink-X said:
Virgin Birth: The birth of Yoshke without his father making contact with his mother.
Immaculate Conception: the conception of Mary (Yoshke’s mother) without the spiritual stain of the “original sin” (i.e. Adam and Chava eating from the Etz HaDas).
In case anyone is interested, the post “And on that note, maybe we should return to the original topic of discussion. As inappropriate as I found it, I am finding this topic more inappropriate (my own posts included).”
was written in response to my own previous post which has not yet been posted.
In case that post does get end up getting posted, I realized after I wrote it that I misread what Comlink wrote, so my post didn’t make sense anyhow. Maybe it should just be deleted.
“And on that note, maybe we should return to the original topic of discussion. As inappropriate as I found it, I am finding this topic more inappropriate (my own posts included).”
Lol I was quite shocked at all you tzadikim here going on about this weird topic. I thought maybe being comfortable with christianity was an american thing.
Person1 -thanks for the compliment (if I was included in the “tzadikim” – not sure who you were referring to). I didn’t know I was a Tzadeikis.
In terms of the topic, you may be right, but I think it is a bit of a grey area. It probably depends how deep the conversation gets. It started out innocently enough – there is nothing wrong with pointing out that most people in the world are crazy – but then it kind of took on a life of its own.
In terms of the original topic, though, I gave it some thought and decided that I think that it is inappropriate. I know that this was already brought up and the moderators said that it was a joke. I do not know if that is true or not, but whether or not it is the case, I think the whole topic is inappropriate if you think about what people are really saying.
There’s nothing anymore wrong with discussing the original topic than discussing eating kitniyos on Pesach. Some Jews do it and some Jews don’t. For both kitniyos and polygamy. Indeed, it is probable that changing the custom to start eating kitniyos for an Ashkenazic Jew is more difficult than for an Ashkenazic Jew to start practicing polygamy like Teimani Jews do.
Either way, having a serious discussion either about the original topic or about kitniyos is certainly northing wrong with.
I was going to mention in my previous post that I realize that some people think that they are discussing this the way they would discuss any halachic issue, but I happen not to think that is the case, imho. There are no practical ramifications so there is no reason to be discussing this in the CR.
I find it hard to believe that this is being discussed for l’sheim shamayim reasons (and this is coming from someone who has been accused by the moderators of being naive), but only the people themselves can really know what they are thinking (if they are honest enough with themselves). I think that people should think about what their intentions are and why they davka chose this topic to discuss.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.