Friday, December 23, 2005

From Slate
The secular pundits go out of their way to defame Our Lord and Our Lady at the time of the observance of his birth on earth: a variation on the pagan-Roman slur that he was the bastard of a Roman soldier
When Mary responds to the angel's good tidings in Luke, one translation of her speech is, "How can this be, I do not know a man?" But in the Greek, the word for man is anthropos, which also means "husband."
Which is how some modern mistranslations render it, I understand. Now you can see the false teaching behind that editing. As a sound priest said when he told me of this, over 15 years ago (yes, you’re really hip, Slate), Mary’s being immaculate didn’t mean she was stupid: of course she knew that she could conceive without a husband and so asked the angel how it could be without a man involved.
Can a loyal Christian believe that Christ was not born of a biological virgin?
Perhaps it's worth posing a different question: Why is church authority so intent upon Mary's virginity as a historical fact?
Time to play on post-Protestant Anglo-America’s reflexive anti-Catholicism. The big, bad church is hiding the truth! Sure.
Would Jesus be any less God's son if he had an earthly father? The central message of the Gospel is that God raised up and redeemed his servant from death by crucifixion—the Roman style of execution reserved for the lowest of the low. Why couldn't God have sent the same message of divine solidarity with the world's outcasts by making a Messiah out of a man whose conception was also taboo?
God is perfect. Man in his natural state is obviously not — read the news here and elsewhere for easy proof of that. To deny that Jesus is and always was God is to not be Christian.
Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment