Re: Immaculate conception

In article <6HaWj.3417$nW2.2612@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "alooo" <uh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Gumby" <gumby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> > Priscilla H. Ballou wrote:
> >
> >> I can't stand it any more!
> >>
> >> The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of

> >> Mary, not of Jesus.  It involves her being conceived without original
sin 
> >> so she could be the sinless vessel to later bear Jesus.
> >>
> >> The doctrine of the Virgin Birth refers to the origins of Jesus, that

> >> Mary conceived him without there being *** with a man involved.
> >>
> >> Not that I necessarily believe either of these, but the current
frequent 
> >> references which reflect the common misunderstanding of the
Immaculate 
> >> Conception as being the conception of Jesus are driving me nuts, so I

> >> thought I'd do a little eddy-cating.
> >>
> >> Priscilla, picker of nits
> >
> > That's not a nit - that's a gigantic piece of info. that too many
people 
> > get wrong.
> 
> Hell, I never knew that. I like to use correct terminology when blasting

> theologians so thanks for the info. Priscilla. 

Some theologians need a little blasting, so I'm glad I could be of 
assistance!  ;-)

Priscilla