A very beautiful image of the immaculate conception is contained in Zechariah 3.
🧵
When it comes to the immaculate conception, there seems to be a significant problem: one cannot be born without original sin without the grace of the incarnation. But the in order for the incarnation to happen, there has to be a sinless woman to bear God. How does we solve this?
According to Bl. John Duns Scotus, and as recieved as official Church teaching in Ineffabilis Deus, Mary was able to be concieved without sin on account of the foreseen merits of Christ.
But is there any biblical precedence for this?
We actually find a very similar situation in the books of Ezra and Zechariah.
According to Ezra, after the return from the Babylonian exile, the Jews sought to rebuild the temple. In order to consecrate the temple, they needed a ritually clean high priest.
In the vision of Zechariah, we see that Joshua the high priest in filthy garments being accused by Satan. He is ritually unclean. Now ordinarily it would be easy for the high priest to cleanse himself through sacrifice. But in order to do that, he needs a consecrated altar…
Thus the Jews are in a catch-22. They cannot consecrate the altar without a ritually pure high priest, and they cannot cleanse the priest without a consecrated altar.
So what happens? The Angel of the Lord, the preincarnate Christ, comes and gives Joshua pure vestments.
Thus, the later merits of the cleansing ritual are applied beforehand by direct divine intervention. A beautiful image of the immaculate conception.
Sts. Zechariah and Joshua, pray for us!
Most Holy Theotokos save us!
I’ve been very fascinated by this story in Zechariah ever since I read about it in A House for My Name by @PLeithart. I just realized the connection with the immaculate conception a few days ago (although Leithart would probably disagree with my application.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m listening to an interview with a scholar who argues that there is no evidence of persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.
After nearly an hour, she clarifies that her argument is that they were killed for refusing to offer sacrifices to the emperor, not for being Christian…
The absolute state of modern scholarship…
I’m not even exaggerating. Her book is titled “The Myth of Persecution.” Here is her explanation of that “myth”:
Basically “The Romans didn’t kill them for their faith, they killed them because they found their faith annoying.”
How does this woman have a degree from Yale and a position at a prestigious university?
.@redeemed_zoomer Please stop making stuff up about Bonaventure and Scotus. Both affirmed natural theology and thought we worship the same God as Jews and Muslims. Yet you portray them as disagreeing with Thomas in your video.
I will reply with proofs from Scotus, but plenty could be found in Bonaventure as well.
It is well known that Scotus thinks the existence of God can be known through natural reason. For example, see Ord. I d. 3 q. 1 n. 5
In Ord III d. 23 q. un. n. 6-7, Scotus gives the example of a Jewish child who even believes in the Trinity and incarnation on account of being taught it, but believes it only on acquired faith and not on infused faith, and so is not saved.
Throughout every age of the Church, there have been many converts to the Catholic faith from the Jewish people. I want to highlight many notable ones. I will only include those who have passed to the next life. This list is by no means exhaustive.
First, we should remember that all the saints of the Old Covenant are Catholic saints. Furthermore, all of the Apostles were Jews. Aside from St. Luke, every other author of scripture was from one of the tribes of Israel. Finally, Our Lord and Our Lady are themselves Jews.
Furthermore, the first 15 bishops of Jerusalem were all Jews. This was the center of the Jewish Catholic community, as is recorded in places like Acts 21. After the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Jewish Catholics were scattered and the community seems to have quickly disappeared.
In some recent threads, I showed that the biblical requirements for the messiah match better with Jesus than those laid out by the Rambam.
But that was easy mode. Let's see how the prophet Daniel predicted the exact year of the messiah would die to end sin!
A thread🧵
In the book of Daniel, Daniel receives a series of visions of 4 kingdoms. These kingdoms are traditionally identified by Jews and Christians as Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, and Rome.
According to Daniel 7, one like a Son of Man comes and destroys the fourth kingdom and establishes his own, everlasting kingdom. This is a clear reference to the messiah in 2 Samuel 7.
According to Christians, one of the most clear prophecies of Jesus in the Hebrew Bible is Isaiah 53. However, many Jews dispute that this passage is not about the messiah. Let's take a look at the book of Isaiah to see who is right.
A thread 🧵
In my last thread, I argued that the messiah is central to scripture. He is the promised seed who will undo the curse of Genesis 3
By 2 Samuel this seed has been narrowed down to the line of David. A seed from this line will sit upon the throne "forever"
If you opened 1 Kings for the first time, you would think this king would be Solomon. He builds a house for God's name. However, we see Solomon, and then many kings after him, lapse into grave sin.
In my last thread, I put forward a response to the Rambam's arguments for why Jesus is not the messiah.
However, I think the divide between Christians and Jews is deeper. We have different conceptions of what a messiah is. So here is a defense of the Christian view.
Thread🧵
Although world peace will come about in the time of the messiah, Jews understand the messiah to be primarily the national leader of the Jews. He will not perform any great miracles or change the nature of things.
However, Christians understand the messiah to heal all the sins of the world and fulfill the very reason for creation. While he comes from the line of David, his national kingship of the Jews is secondary to his universal salvation.