H
- Status
H
Harry1941
Guest
Arcana Coelestia 250,.Genesis 3: Verse 15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall trample upon thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel. Every one is aware that this is the first prophecy of the Lord’s advent into the world; it appears indeed clearly from the words themselves, and therefore from them and from the prophets even the Jews knew that a Messiah was to come. Hitherto however no one has understood what is specifically meant by the “serpent,” the “woman,” the “serpent‘s seed,” the " woman’s seed," the “head of the serpent which was to be trodden upon,” and the “heel which the serpent should bruise.” They must therefore be explained. By the “serpent” is here meant all evil in general, and specifically the love of self; by the “woman” is meant the church; by the “seed of the serpent,” all infidelity; by the “seed of the woman,” faith in the Lord; by “He,” the Lord Himself; by the “head of the serpent,” the dominion of evil in general, and specifically that of the love of self; by to “trample upon,” depression, so that it should “go upon the belly and eat dust;” and by the “heel,” the lowest natural (as the corporeal), which the serpent should “bruise.”
The Holy Bible concerns the Lord and His church on earth and the church in heaven, not about Mary.Mary signifies the church after the Lord rose from death. he church is called moher. In that sense, she is the mother
Harry:wave:
H
Harry1941
Guest
Jesus said from the cross, when He sew HIs mother and the descilple whom loved, Woman behold thy son, and to John, behold thy Mother. Jesus given us His church as our mother, not Mary. We are children of the church, Mary signifies the Christian Church, which was started by the Lord Himself. In Acts, Mary was never prayed too, until after the Council of Nice in 325AD.
Harry:wave:
Harry:wave:
C
CaptFun
Guest
Were Jesus’ words: A Contradiction? Or a Redirection (from the physical to the spiritual)? Or an ADDED EMPHASIS embellishment?
A Contradiction? - Must this be interpreted in THAT manner? When people cry “Hosanna to the son of David!” He doesn’t whirl about on the donkey and do a take down on David. And certainly He does not “DIShonor His mother” in violation of the commandment.
Per Mary, the other two persons of the Trinity (and He Himself) are elsewhere in this very Gospel (Luke) seen to be honoring her in ways unequalled before or since. The Father sends an Angel who praises her as “full of (God’s) grace” or “highly favored” and announces the greatest news mankind had ever received up to that time. The Spirit comes upon her and she conceives the Son of Man. The Word of God becomes the Son of God, and the Son of Man within this same womb that the woman in Luke 11:27 blessed in her praise.
The Spirit then reveals to Elizabeth the truth about Mary and her unborn child in Luke Chapter 1. FILLED with the** Spirit **Elizabeth cries out in a loud voice
42 cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?
44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
45 Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."
Place Luke 1:45 (here) NEXT to Luke 11:28 and Jesus’ redirection and embellishment of the woman’s (true but rather earthbound insight) becomes more clear. Mary is seen to BE not merely a chosen vessel who was lucky in having an intimate relationship with Jesus fall into her lap (womb) and the joy of nursing the Son of God at her breasts … no … she WAS (more importantly than his listeners would suspect) a perfect example of: hearing, believing and obeying.
This is not a “warning off” from Mary - but “on the contrary”
some additional information about his mother that is even MORE important to His listeners there. They CAN have a similarly fulfilling intimacy with Him by DOING what Mary did! Hearing the word of God, (believing it and) obeying it.The woman’s words are also less of an absurd “Hey everybody, if you think HE’S great - you should get a load of His mother!” or even a more plausible by still Mary directed “What a fine job your mother did in raising a fine boy like you!” sentiment that might give HER more credit than Jesus for the (wonderful) way He turned out!
Was it MORE like: “What a marvelous person you are! Your mother must feel so proud of you. And privileged to have been so close to you. How I’d like to have been that woman, so intimately close to you!” A bit of a “Hosanna” to Jesus, and because she is a woman, she “raises her voice” (a bit like the holy spirit filled Elizabeth in Luke 1:42) and speaks the word “blessed” about Mary and her womb (of which Jesus is the fruit). She does not equate Mary to Jesus, nor does Elizabeth.
And the same sort of thing holds for Matthew 12:46 -50.
It was not bad that Mary and his relatives sought to see Him. Nor was the well meaning person who gave the info to Jesus that they were present – doing something wrong. He probably thought he was being polite. And that Jesus would want to know.
He may have interrupted Jesus’ speaking to the people with this “news” however.
And Jesus used the moment to amaze the crowd by NOT uprooting those who had drawn close to Him in favor of his blood relatives … but again emphasizing His desire that THEY, his listeners could draw close to Him and (again) in “doing (God’s) will” they would be as close to Him as His brothers, sisters, mother. He was lifting UP His “hearers” not chastising His mother. Who after all was here once more “seeking” Him as we Christians are all to do.
He did not dishonor her. At this point in His ministry He had left home, and while He was (and IS) still her Son … He was now about His Father’s business, the work of salvation and drawing all people to Himself.
Interestingly Mary’s interceding at the miracle at Cana marked the resumption of His public ministry – which she had inadvertently “delayed” at the Temple when He was 12 by desiring Him to come home.
D
dmar198
Guest
- There were prayers to Mary before 325 A.D. and one example of that is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (Beneath Thy Protection) prayer, which is a Christian liturgical prayer that is found in liturgical writings as early as 250 A.D. How do you as a non-Catholic explain that?
- The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Mary because she is identified as the mother of the seed. That’s not the Church, that’s Mary.
- Your interpretation of John 19:25-27 as a giving of the Church does not take all the evidence into account. Why do you say “not Mary” when it explicitly says it was Mary that He gave?
- “The Holy Bible concerns the Lord and His church on earth and the church in heaven, not about Mary.” – I suppose it’s also not about Abraham or David or Moses or Elijah or Jacob or Joseph or Isaiah then? How do you deal with the fact that Mary is talked about and has several complete chapters about her, if there’s nothing in the Bible that concerns her and if nothing in it is about her?
H
Harry1941
Guest
The Chriatians in 250AD, should have been praying to the Lord only, and not to Mary, for protection… If Peter and John were alive, they would had stop to it. It didn’t go to Mary’s head, that she gave birth to the Son of God. She was just the child bearer, nothing else.
Harry:wave:
A
april32010
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
Two isolated and privately interpreted verses from all of scripture do not a refutation make.
Consider John 1:1-3. All - everything - that was created came into being through Christ. OK, so far? You, I and everyone and everything came into being through Christ, the Word. Creation first existed as a conception in the divine intellect before it was given substance. Thus, Mary was first conceived of in the divine intellect before she was brought to flesh, right? So, reflecting again on John 1, Christ conceived of Mary and gave her flesh so that she could conceive of Him in her womb and give flesh to Him. This is the genesis of your and my salvation. It is not a Catholic, or even an Eastern Orthodox idea - it is God’s idea. We simply note it and honor God’s creation of Mary because God honored Mary first.
How utterly strange that so few others do.
H
Harry1941
Guest
The word woman in the Holy Bible signifies “church” The Lord gave us His church as our mother,not Mary.
Apocalypse Revealed, Revelation 1:1
And a great sign was seen in heaven, signifies revelation from the Lord concerning His New Church in the heavens and on earth, and concerning the difficult reception and resistance to its doctrine. By “a sign from heaven” is here meant a revelation concerning things to come; and by “a great sign seen in heaven” is meant a revelation concerning the New Church, for “the woman clothed with the sun,” which is the subject treated of in this chapter, signifies that church. “The male” which she brought forth signifies its doctrine; her being pained to bring forth signifies its difficult reception; “the dragon desiring to devour the male” and afterward “he persecuted the woman,” signifies the resistance it meets with. These things are meant by "a great sign was seen in heaven.’ “A sign” is mentioned in the Word of things to come, and then it is revelation; it is also spoken of truth, and then it is testification; and it is also spoken of the quality of any state or thing, and then it is manifestation. “A sign” is spoken of things to come, and then it is revelation,
No Mary mention here, but if you still want to put Mary here, it still signifies a church. Mary, being a woman, signifies a church. Wait until you read about the woman in Revelation 17.
When we read the Holy Word of God in this world, it is the natural sense.The angels read it in the spiritual sense.The spiritual sense is what makes the Holy Word, Holy and Divine. If the Word of God had no spiritual sense in it , than why did Jehovah in the Old Testament commanded Isaiah to go naked three years,and why did He comand a Prophet a marry a whore. Should us men go naked and marry whores. What does it mean?
Harry:wave:
po18guy
Well-known member
First: you are violating the cautions in the bible with each privately interpreted word off of your keyboard. Or, did Emanuel Swedenborg authorize the private interpretation of scripture? If he did, by what authority did he do that? And, if he did not, by what authority are you doing so?
F
Father_Read
Guest
Concerning the title of this thread: “Do Catholics give Mary too high esteem?”, whenever someone tells me that Catholics take the concept of honoring Mary too far, I always ask them, “Then tell me how far should we go? What are the ways that you, as a Christian, honor Mary?” I have yet to get a straight answer. As a matter-of-fact, I usually get no answer at all, and the people I’m speaking with act as if they had never considered it before (which is probably the case).
Most Protestants admit me to me that Mary is deserving of honor because she is the mother of Jesus. But that seems to be so much “lip service.” I’m a convert, and in my past experience as a Protestant (belonging to several different churches over many years), “honoring” Mary meant getting a school girl to dress up like her for the Christmas pageant, and then completely ignoring Mary until the next pageant rolls around. That hardly seems to do justice to the idea of true veneration.
Pax et Bonum,
-Fr. Read
Most Protestants admit me to me that Mary is deserving of honor because she is the mother of Jesus. But that seems to be so much “lip service.” I’m a convert, and in my past experience as a Protestant (belonging to several different churches over many years), “honoring” Mary meant getting a school girl to dress up like her for the Christmas pageant, and then completely ignoring Mary until the next pageant rolls around. That hardly seems to do justice to the idea of true veneration.
Pax et Bonum,
-Fr. Read
F
Father_Read
Guest
The general consensus among Scripture scholars (including Catholic ones) is that Revelation has different levels of valid interpretation. Its rich, apocalyptic symbolism can allow for a single passage to teach more than one thing. In light of this, the mother described in Rev. 12 can be both symbolic (i.e., Israel or the Church) and a literal person (Mary). I will now give a biblical outline for the latter:
In Rev. 12 there are four key figures:
1) A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Rev. 12:1, RSV)
2) A great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. (Rev. 12:3, RSV)
3) A male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. (Rev. 12:5, RSV)
4) Michael. (Rev. 12:7, RSV)
So we have a woman, child, dragon and Michael. Let us examine how they are treated as persons in the Book of Revelation.
Michael
Michael the Archangel is clearly treated in Revelation as a person, as is the case when he comes up elsewhere in the Bible.
The Dragon
Does Revelation treat the dragon as a specific person? Yes, he is Satan:
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. (Rev. 12:9, RSV)
The Child
Does Revelation treat the child as a specific person? Yes, he is Christ:
And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:14-15, RSV) (Note the iron rod reference in 12:5)
So Revelation is clear that the figures of the child, Michael and the dragon are individual persons. Once again, when I say this I am not ruling out the possibility of there also being acceptable symbolic interpretations, I’m only saying that Rev. 12 does, indeed, allow for a literal interpretation from a biblical standpoint.
Moreover, it is worth pointing out both the child and the dragon are described with symbolic imagery (i.e., the dragon seven diadems, the child is destined to have a rod of iron, etc.). So symbolic imagery in Revelation associated with a figure does not necessarily indicate that the figure is not supposed to be considered from a literal viewpoint.
Based upon all this, it is perfectly valid to likewise interpret the woman to be an individual person. Because the child she gives birth to is specifically identified as Christ, the only possible identity we can ascribe to her (when in keeping with this particular type of literal interpretation) is Mary.
Pax et Bonum,
-Fr. Read
F
Father_Read
Guest
It is not an “either…or” proposition, but a “both…and.” Our mother is both the Church and Mary. Keep in mind that the Church is ultimately not a thing, but a union of people. In light of this, Mary is the mother of every Christian, and here is my rationale for stating this:
- As Christians, we compose the body of the Church:
“…so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”
(Romans 12:5, RSV) - Christ is the head of the Church:
“He is the head of the body, the church”
(Colossians 1:18, RSV) - Christ has a mother, Mary:
And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
(Luke 1:30-31, RSV) - Deduction: The mother of the Head of the Church (i.e., Christ) is likewise the mother of the body of the Church (i.e., Christians).
-Fr. Read
H
Harry1941
Guest
Emanuel Swedenborg got the authority from the Lord. “The second coming of the Lord is effected by means of a man to whom the Lord has manifested Himself in person and whom He has filled with His Spirit, that He may teach the doctrines of the New Church from the Lord by means of the Word.” (TCR 779).
Swedenborg, Servant of the Lord
The Heavenly Doctrines, written by Emanuel Swedenborg, are also an uncovering and revealing: “In order that the Lord might be continuously present with me, He has unfolded to me the spiritual sense of His Word, wherein is the Divine truth in its very light, and it is in this light that He is continually present. For His presence in the Word is by means of the spiritual sense and in no other way … The sense of the letter of the Word is like a cloud, and the spiritual sense is the glory, the Lord Himself being the Sun from which the light comes. Thus the Lord is the Word” (TCR 779).
The sense of the letter of the Word, is the natural sense of the Word. Every Christians believes this sense of the Word is Holy, because the Lord had spoke it. But many of do not know that there is a spiritual sense, that is hitten in the Word.They are call heavenly secrets.
Swedenborg did not do signs and miracles,because it makes people depending on miracles to have faith.They believe for a while, but after a month goes by, they are back to their evil self again, seeking after signs and miracles. My faith is in the Lord and His New Church.
Harry:wave:
S
SonCatcher
Guest
So why Emanuel Swedenborg and not Joseph Smith?
Sorry, Harry, there is no new scripture. The Holy Spirit has led the Church faithfully since the time of the Apostles and “the gates of death shall not prevail” against her.
po18guy
Well-known member
Strangely enough, just as the original “Bible Students” of Charles Taze Russell consider the offshoot Jehovah’s Witnesses to be heretics (isn’t that just rich!) the Swedenborgians are to some degree “proto-Mormons” as they share some aspects of belief. They, of course, consider the LDS to be a rip-off of the religion founded by Emanuel (“God with us” - get it?) Swedenborg.
The more attuned to the spiritual realm you are, the more you can see that a worldly spirit influences certain natural leaders through the ages to depart from revealed truth. Their egos took over from that point.
M
Memaw
Guest
You will believe all this, but you won’t believe what Jesus Christ taught ??? God Bless, Memaw
H
Harry1941
Guest
The LDS doctrine is false, because it believes in the trinity of three Divine persons. Joseph Smith never read Swedenborg correctly. He took parts of Swedenborg’s writings, to start his false church.
Harry:wave:
M
Memaw
Guest
I do believe we’ve gotten off the original topic.
po18guy
Well-known member
Yes! He should open a thread about how he is saved - but only through Emanuel Swedenborg. Preferably, one that points out how ridiculous Catholics are for believing that Marey is part of our salvation.
- Status