BIBLE ARGUMENT #3
Compare the Greek terms used to describe John’s presumably NON-miraculous birth (no one ever said that Elizabeth was a “virgin”) with Jesus’ supposedly miraculous birth.
ELIZABETH GIVING BIRTH TO JOHN
"But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear gennao]you a son, and you shall name him John.’" Luke 1:13.
"When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child tikto] she gave birth to gennao] a son. "
MARY GIVING BIRTH TO JESUS
"Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear tikto]a son, and you shall name him Jesus.” Luke 1:30-31.
“Therefore the child to be born gennao] will be called holy, the Son of God.” Luke 1:35.
“and she gave birth to tikto] her firstborn son” Luke 2:7.
Interestingly, the root underlying the New Testament Greek term tikto seems to meaning “breaking through water.” It is related to the woman’s water breaking.
So, in Luke’s divinely-inspired gospel, there is not the teeniest, tiniest hint that Mary gave birth in any way different from the way Elizabeth gave birth. In fact, trhe language suggests that they gave birth in the SAME way.
Note that where there IS a difference – in the way Jesus was CONCEIVED – Luke is very careful to point it out.
Conclusion: Mary gave birth the same way Elizabeth gave birth.
BIBLE ARGUMENT #4
Oooooohhhhh, it’s SO important to SO many Catholics that because Mary was immaculately conceived, she have no labor pains in accord with Genesis 3:16, which imposed labor pains on Eve because of the Original Sin.
There are a few problems with this conclusion.
The Church actually affirmatively teaches that at the time of her assumption, just before her assumption, Mary experienced “dormition.” What is “dormition”? Apparently, it’s what we refer to as “flat-lining,” but without any “corruption,” death-generated break-down of the flesh.
NOTE THAT ASSUMPTION PRECEDED BY “DORMITION” IS CLEARLY INFERIOR TO ELIJAH’S NON-IMMACULATE-CONCEPTION-GENERATED ASSUMPTION INTO HEAVEN; ELIJAH EXPERIENCED NO DORMITION!:
“As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.” 2 Kings 2:11. Elijah was talking as he was assumed.
Now, if Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin, and she nonetheless experienced death-like symptoms, at her assumption, characterizing an assumption INFERIOR to that of NON-immaculately-conceived Elijah, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT MARY WAS RELIEVED OF THE OTHER SYMPTOM OF ORIGINAL SIN, LABOR PAINS?
In other words, doesn’t it appear that God was making a POINT of NOT relieving Mary of the symptoms of Original Sin, though she was relieved of the *stain *of Original Sin?
I’ll make the last Bible argument momentarily.