Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[avflf]

No end of speculation when it comes to the “Word of God”. Have a look at this: youtube.com/watch?v=sgHUZXgNAWo&feature=related

 

[1beleevr]

First of all - "Early Church Fathers" is a title (like President or Director of Operations)** and therefore can and **should be capitalized.

Secondly, as I pointed out - there is no biblical record of the ACTUAL East Gate being close before OR after Christ.

History tells us that Saladin, Muslim leader had the gate sealed in 1187 because of the prophecy that Jesus would enter through it (as if mere bricks could keep him out).

So - we KNOW that the gate wasn’t closed until more than 1000 years AFTER Christ, therefore, millions of people entered through it after he did. SO, it can be shown that the prophecy in Exek. 44 has a polyvalent symbolism and can be referring to Mary - as the Fathers of the Church said it did.

Game. Set. MATCH].

Actually, it’s more like a draw early church fathers is what they were referred to; I mean one did not say,“Excuse me, early church father, can we talk?” And when does closed not mean closed?:thumbsup:Ezekiel 44:1 says the East Gate was closed, when the man brought him back. Then God, Himself said,“This gate(East Gatewill remain closed, because the Lord God has entered through it!” It is a convenient SYMBOL for Mary though, as is the Ark of the Covenant Nice try though!

 

[1beleevr]

First of all - "Early Church Fathers" is a title (like President or Director of Operations)** and therefore can and **should be capitalized.

Secondly, as I pointed out - there is no biblical record of the ACTUAL East Gate being close before OR after Christ.

History tells us that Saladin, Muslim leader had the gate sealed in 1187 because of the prophecy that Jesus would enter through it (as if mere bricks could keep him out).

So - we KNOW that the gate wasn’t closed until more than 1000 years AFTER Christ, therefore, millions of people entered through it after he did.] SO, it can be shown that the prophecy in Exek. 44 has a polyvalent symbolism and can be referring to Mary - as the Fathers of the Church said it did.

Game. Set. MATCH.

This is an interesting statement, since the consensus among catholics, seems to be that NO ONE entered through the Gate after Christ; also referring to Mary’s womb

 

[Janet1983]

**So, you only trust Janet’s **views?
Is that correct?

No.

 

[Janet1983]

First of all - “Early Church Fathers” is a title (like President or Director of Operations and therefore can and should be capitalized.

You may go ahead and see it this way. I will not capitalize the early church fathers and I wonder how it is possible to raise that much of an issue about it…
I actually wouldn’t capitalize the word “president” all the time either…

Example:

1. The president is the commander in chief over the armed forces. (This is not specific, but about the president in general.)
2. President Obama’s wife is named Michelle. The President has a dog in the White House. (This is specifically about the incumbent president of the United States, President Obama.)

#2 is the title. #1 isn’t…
“Early church fathers” is never used in the latter context, so I don’t capitalize it…

 

[PRmerger]

If God meant to give his son the full experience of being human, I can’t see any reason Jesus would not have had brothers and/or sisters.

It would seem to me to be a mistake to assume what God desired for Jesus in order to fully experience being human.

Having brothers and/or sisters (or* lack* of siblings, for that matter) has nothing to do with whether one fully experiences humanity. (Any more than living in an igloo, climbing Mount Everest, harpooning a whale, deep sea diving or any other human activities that Jesus most likely did not experience!)

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve got it the wrong way around. It is through understanding that faith comes

Fair enough. Both/and.

The point is that your quote comes from 2 verses. A search on just “love” gives you hundreds of hits both in the Old and New Testament. But you seem to zero only on God the Son. On my side I was focusing on God the Father

Ok. So there you go. Again. You get the concept of God as Father from Christianity.

Ah, yes, “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the Lord”; " my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." Standard reply if cornered.

IOW, avflf, are you thinking, “if only those pesky little verses weren’t part of those Holy Scriptures.”?

The wicked that prosper in this life will get their proper deserts in hell after death and the good folk that suffer here go to heaven and that’s that The concept of an afterlife was unknown to the Hebrews at the time of the writing of the Pentateuch and the only promise you get from Jehovah is that you will “live long upon the earth” if you followed his commands. The concept of eternal life came much later as did the concept of Hell as a place of punishment.

Ok.

 

[PRmerger]

You know I was not referring to "the Ancients that had some mythological gods …

I cited those mythological gods as an example to you that the concept that “God is LOVE” is not an idea that came to humanity from reason, but from Revelation.

So when you say, “my god is more God-like than yours”, where *you *get that concept is from Revelation. Christian revelation.

I was talking about the God of the Bible who you say is love only but when love is not enough to explain him when he kills and maims, then the just bit comes out. And when the just bit is not enough out comes God is God and he can do what he likes.

No. That is not what I said at all.

I refer you again to Jimmy Akin’s article.

 

[elvisman]

No.

Well - whose views do you trust?
If you tell me God’s or something like that - by whose authority?
If you tell me the Father’s or the Holy Spirit’s or Jesus’ s - then how about the millions of other Protestants who see things differently than you do? Are they right? Are they all wrong?

You see - this is the tragedy of Protestantism - thousands and thousands of constantly splintering, bickering denominations in which there is no unity.

Not exactly what Jesus had in mind (John 17) . . .

 

[elvisman]

This is an interesting statement, since the consensus among catholics, seems to be that NO ONE entered through the Gate after Christ; also referring to Mary’s womb

Huh?
That’s exactly my point. MANY people entered the ACTUAL East Gate after Christ - so Ezekile WASN’T referrring to that.
He was referring to Mary.

 

[Good_Fella]

Huh?
That’s exactly my point. MANY people entered the ACTUAL East Gate after Christ - so Ezekile WASN’T referrring to that.
He was referring to Mary.

Yes, in principle the gate can refer to Mary even if Ezekiel didn’t actually have her in mind. I’m sure King David wasn’t thinking about the Messiah when he wrote his psalms concerning himself but which prophetically allude to Christ. There are twenty-two specific Messianic prophecies in the Book of Psalms which in the given primary contexts concern the psalmist.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

This is an interesting statement, since the consensus among catholics, seems to be that NO ONE entered through the Gate after Christ; also referring to Mary’s womb

A garden bower in flower
Grew waiting for God’s hand.
Where no man ever trod,
This was the gate of God.
The first bower was red,
Her lips which welcome said.
The second bower was blue,
Her eyes that led God through.
The third bower was white,
Her soul in God’s sight.
Three bowers of love:
Now Christ from heaven above.

Lawrence Hausmann

PAX :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

…
I do however rely on the books in the Tanakh when it comes to the OT.

Evidently the Book of Judith is canonical, since St. Luke refers to it in light of Genesis 3:15:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He (She) will strike at your head, while you lie in wait at his (her) heel.”

And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

"Then Uzziah said to her, “Blessed are you daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.”
Judith 13, 18

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

“Your deed of hope will never be forgotten by those who tell of the might of God.”
Judith 13, 19

“Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.”
Luke 1, 48

“May God make this redound to your everlasting honor, rewarding you with blessings, because you risked your life when your people were being oppressed, and you averted our disaster, walking uprightly before our God.” And all the people answered, “Amen! Amen!”
Judith 13, 20

Then Judith said to them, “Listen to me! I will do something that will go down from generation to generation among the descendants of our race.”
Judith 8, 32

And Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38

Judith never remarried after the death of her first husband and chose to remain continent now that she was specially chosen by God to collaborate with Him in saving His people. As Judith, the Lord’s handmaid, risked her life, so Mary sacrificed hers.
*
“As the human race was subjected to death by the act of a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”*
St. Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

The authority to infallibly define the canon of Scripture lies with the Catholic Church
(Mt 21:33-43).

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Evidently the Book of Judith is canonical, since St. Luke refers to it in light of Genesis 3:15:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He (She) will strike at your head, while you lie in wait at his (her) heel.”

And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

"Then Uzziah said to her, “Blessed are you daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.”
Judith 13, 18

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

“Your deed of hope will never be forgotten by those who tell of the might of God.”
Judith 13, 19

“Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.”
Luke 1, 48

“May God make this redound to your everlasting honor, rewarding you with blessings, because you risked your life when your people were being oppressed, and you averted our disaster, walking uprightly before our God.” And all the people answered, “Amen! Amen!”
Judith 13, 20

Then Judith said to them, “Listen to me! I will do something that will go down from generation to generation among the descendants of our race.”
Judith 8, 32

And Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38

Judith never remarried after the death of her first husband and chose to remain continent now that she was specially chosen by God to collaborate with Him in saving His people. As Judith, the Lord’s handmaid, risked her life, so Mary sacrificed hers.
*
“As the human race was subjected to death by the act of a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”*
St. Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

The authority to infallibly define the canon of Scripture lies with the Catholic Church
(Mt 21:33-43).

PAX :heaven:

Pardon my carelessness. Judith never remarried after the death of her (only) husband. She chose to consecrate the rest of her life to God.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, guan, there are some catholics, who try to tell you that you are going to Heaven or Hell!

Of course you are right. Sadly I have read these posts here on CAF. This behavior is, as is that of many Catholics, not consistent with the teachings of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

As we near the end of this thread, it is clear that Mary’s perpetual virginity, is a moot point!

Well, speak for yourself, 1beleevr. Those of us who have received the whole gospel of Christ from the Apostles don’t consider any of it “moot” or “non-essential”. You can make up these categories and apply them to your own truncated faith if you wish, but this activity is not consistent with what Jesus committed to the Church.

 But what was not definitively proven, was that we must believe in it to be saved:confused:Well, if you are catholic, I guess you do!

Yes. to those whom much is given, much is required. Since God entrusted the whole gospel to His One Church, and His Spirit has preserved His Word in the Church, we have an obligation to hold fast to all of it.

 

[avflf]

Ok. So there you go. Again. You get the concept of God as Father from Christianity.

We are discussing the character(s) of the God(s) of the Bible aren’t we? So I would have to refer to him/them by the titles you use and understand. I don’t know if God is male. How do you know? Has he shown you more than what he showed Moses?

IOW, avflf, are you thinking, “if only those pesky little verses weren’t part of those Holy Scriptures.”?

Have to use them if I’m discussing the book. Could quote from “The Lord of the Rings” but it wouldn’t be relevant here

 

[PRmerger]

We are discussing the character(s) of the God(s) of the Bible aren’t we? So I would have to refer to him/them by the titles you use and understand. I don’t know if God is male. How do you know? Has he shown you more than what he showed Moses?

Well, yes He has, avflf. It’s called the New Testament. And Sacred Tradition.

Have to use them if I’m discussing the book. Could quote from “The Lord of the Rings” but it wouldn’t be relevant here

Indeed.

 

[avflf]

I cited those mythological gods as an example to you that the concept that “God is LOVE” is not an idea that came to humanity from reason, but from Revelation.
So when you say, “my god is more God-like than yours”, where *you *get that concept is from Revelation. Christian revelation.

I grant you that… it must have come by something but definitely not through logic

I refer you again to Jimmy Akin’s article.

Who’s Jimmy? You accept his words as if they are more inspired than those of Holy Writ? Why must you use him and not the Bible itself? All he’s doing is trying to explain away what can’t be explained. You see PRmerger, when one starts believing in something as Holy, without first examining it logically and with discernment, then whenever something unsavory crops up one tends to shut oneself tightly in one’s faith-shell, close one’s eyes, stop one’s ears and pray like hell that it’ll go away.
That’s Jimmy; he believes that Jehovah is Good and beyond reproach so when something is presented that contradicts his preconceived view of Jehovah he has to rationalize it and come up with an explanation that primarily serves to convince himself and, as an after thought, others too.

 

[avflf]

Well, yes He has, avflf. It’s called the New Testament. And Sacred Tradition. .

New Testament? Ah! yes, silly me …he had to be male to go into Mary, right?