Mary- other children

[Benadam]

Xavier:

Covenants in the Old Testament were sealed with blood. The term blood covenant comes from these times.
The blood used to seal the New Testament was that of Jesus.
The reason we have the New Covenant is that the old Covenant was insufficent.

The reason for that is the necessity of suffering attached to re-establishing properly ordered human bonds after sin. The covenant re-establishes the bond but untill it does it is the bond.

The bond is what make two into one body. The covenant is an invisible reality that remains an external reality untill internalized as the vows or the ‘Laws’ are fulfilled. Once it is internalized it becomes one with the bodies it binds. Mary and Jesus re-established the maternal bond and reestablished in man the door to re-establish the order lost between man and woman at the fall.
This covenant between the Father and Son takes on an even more profound union with the person of Christ that to say that Christ is the covenant or the bond between man and the Father is completely appropriate. The intimacy betwen covenant and the person is expressed is it’s sign which is blood. The sign that establishes the covenant, Jesus’ blood circulated within Mary’s womb as well. This physical reality that was lived and experienced in the lives of Mary and Jesus can’t be passed by as having no significance unless addressed, by any sincere seeker of Christ.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

No. You are adding to the Scripture with your statement. It is not true outside of the context. The context of the statement was inside of the synagogue. The people in Nazareth were present in the synagogue and no doubt the close relatives (brethren) were also present at the time.

To give a personal example to illustrate this point: At the present time I live in Sydney. Neither my husband or I, or even my children were born in Sydney. People in our situation tend to think of where they grew up as being home. My home is in Melbourne and my husband’s home is in Newcastle or Maitland. When I return to Melbourne to visit my mother I am returning “home” even if I now have my own established home.
That is because I am returning to the area where I grew up. The people in the area know me as the youngest daughter of Mr & Mrs H. If I went for a visit down there and said that I had been granted Divine powers and that the Spirit of the Lord had come upon me to all and sundry, do you think that these people who knew me when I was a child and teenager are likely to believe such a story? NO. They would not, and neither would my immediate family.

Jesus was speaking to the whole of Nazareth because they did not believe Him since they knew that he was THE Carpenter’s son and the son of Mary. They also knew his relatives, especially the ones who were present in the synagogue. Jesus was responding to what they, the townspeople were thinking. Not to his family and kinsfolk.

Maggie

There are prophets that live today. Many are not accepted by their own. Iam not going to argue with you on this if you chose not to accept it then so be it.

 

[deborah1313]

deborah1313:

Queries/Points

1. Who is “we”? For whom are you speaking?
2. Nowhere in scripture does it say that she didn’t die a virgin.
3. The Catholic Church (and for correct English usage, if not out of simple respect, you ought to capitalize the name) does NOT say that Mary was taken to heaven like Enoch. Mary died. Her body was taken to heaven after she died. Have you ever heard of the Dormition of the Virgin?
4. I have never had the great honor to meet the Rev. Billy Graham, but I sure would like to. I honor him for his faith, his service, his dedication. If I met him, you can bet I’d ask him to pray with me and for me. And I would speak to him very respectfully because I hold him in high esteem.

I have never had the great honor to meet Mary, the Mother of Jesus, my Lord and Saviour, but I sure would like to. I honor her for her faith, her service, her dedication. If I met her, you can bet I’d ask her to pray with me and for me. And I would speak to her very respectfully because I hold her in high esteem.

1. Where, in anything that I, personally, have written, or in any Church documents have you gotten the idea that I or the Church, or any other catholic for that matter, thinks that Jesus is imperfect? I have never said anything like that, and you won’t find it in anything published by the Church. To say that Jesus was imperfect is heresy, so you won’t find that in anything written by me, the Church or anyone here.
2. Dave, how did you come to decide the condition of my heart? You said that I don’t trust the Word of God. I do. He died for me. (see John 1.) I also trust the Bible. It is inspired, and I believe St. Paul on the subject(all scripture is inspired by God).

In the love of Christ Jesus,

deborah

Dave, I was wondering if you would respond?
I’m really interested in your thoughts on my comments, and I’m interested in your response to my first point?

 

[deborah1313]

Hey, oudave: Did you get a degree in biochemistry from St. Olaf’s College?

Just curious about your screen name…:tiphat:

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

I enjoy your statement that the Ark contained/contains the Word of God and wholeheartly agree.
I disagree that the law has always been written in our hearts, I suggest this is only a New Testament reality.
I also suggest that the real presence of Christ is in all believers.
I have given these scriptures before and give them again to show my point.

Jn14:23- Both Jesus and the Father will make their home with us.
Jn 15:4-5- Jesus promises to abide in us.
Jn17:26- not only Jesus’ love for us abides in us but he Himself.
2Cor13:5- Jesus Christ is in us.
Gal2:20- Christ lives in us.
Gal4:19- Christ ot be formed in us.
Col1:27 Christ in us.
Jn17:23- Christ in us the Father in Him, having Christ we have the Father.

We do not have the FLESH of Christ in us. We have the Holy Spirit.

The Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Please read John Chapter 6 for some edification.

Otherwise I do not know where you are getting this stuff from but it is shockingly poor theology.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

There are prophets that live today. Many are not accepted by their own. Iam not going to argue with you on this if you chose not to accept it then so be it.

aha,

so you are a member of the Latter Rain movement. They claim to have prophets. They even claim to have an Anointed One. What is his nam? Jay something or the other?

Interesting comment, and it has certainly exposed the errors of what you are stating.

Maggie

 

[Church_Militant]

Here we go again! Must you always appeal to the church “fathers” to support your church’s unbiblical teachings? There are “fathers” on both sides of each issue so this isn’t as helpful as you suggest. These men were not infailible nor did they speak for God, so get off it! It appears that you do not believe that the bible is the word of God because you elevate your tradition above it!

All anyone has to do is compare Catholic teaching with what is contained in the New Testament. If someone who did not have prior devotion to Catholicism, were to read the bible, he would never come up with Catholicism! Where in the bible do you find priests offering sacrifices for sins, clergy forbidden to marry, infallible men, purgatory, indulgences, Mary worship, holy water, statues, etc. Instead, you find numerous warnings against false teachers who would introduce destructive heresies and lead people away from Gospel truth.

---

---

**Is everyone who does not agree with Catholic teaching labled by you as" **Dishonest and anti-Catholic?" Can’t someone disagree because they sincerely believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is not true? It seems that must resort to name calling rather than adequately defending your beliefs! Is it so hard to believe that some “Protestants” could be truly concerned with your eternal destiny?

Do you even know what the Gospel is??? Please tell me "the Good News"

After you reply, could we please get back to the topic of this thread?

1.“UnBiblical teachings”: This would be laughable if you weren’t serious. We have given you not ONLY scripture that supports out beliefs but historic references that show that (despite your allegations to the contrary) the early church fathers not only called themselves the Catholic Church, but that their beliefs were Catholic as well. You refuse to ackowlege that anything we say has any merit which means that your so-called objections are really just your platform to come into a Catholic forum and attempt to prosyletize us.

1. “It appears that you do not believe that the bible is the word of God because you elevate your tradition above it!”: This is ludicrous! We have endeavoured to explain that Scripture must be interpreted by the Living Tradition of the Church which has the commmentary of the early church fathers to help insure that we do not stray from what the apostles taught them. (You can say what you want, but the commentaries in Prot Bibles & books are nothing more than Prot traditions of men that tell you how you should interpret what you read.) Your statement shows that you have not listened to a blessed word that we’ve said. Just because we disagree with your personal interp does NOT mean that we are wrong. You (and your sources) are only men…not the apostles or their early church disciples. Why should we listen to you when your interp is different that the one that we know came to us form the ECF?

cont’d

 

[oudave]

deborah1313:

Dave, I was wondering if you would respond?
I’m really interested in your thoughts on my comments, and I’m interested in your response to my first point?

Hi
I would love to expand on your first point but i’m not sure what ‘‘we’’ you are talking about. I have posted many things lately. Please tell me what thread # it is and I would be glad to respond.

I thought that Catholics believed that Mary was assumed to Heaven, if I am wrong then I’m sorry, I don’t think scripture states anywhere that she was.

Billy Graham doesn’t believe that Baptism in essential for salvation, I do. He also believes in once saved always saved, and the rapture, I don’t believe in those things. I think he is misleading many people and would tell him so if I had the chance and not in a mean way.

With all do respect I think that the pope is wrong in many ways as well and would tell him in a kind way as well.

I don’t believe that I said Catholics believe that Jesus was imperfect, I did say that Catholics believe Mary was perfect, when in fact Jesus says in scripture that he was the only perfect one. I believe that to be true.

I don’t question your heart, I think you are very sincere to your faith. I think that the leaders of the Catholic faith have veered off the path that leads to rightousness. People keep telling me to look at the history of the Catholic church. When I look at the differences we have it starts with oral tradition’s. Most traditions were not officialy added to the CCC until many hundreds of years later. I wrote in another post that if the pope were to come out and say that God had just appeared to him and told him that if every church member would go and dip there head in the Jordan river seven time then they would not have to go to purgatory, you would see thousand and thousands Catholics going to the Jordan jordan. That is what I meant by Catholics following man. I hope that I didn’t affend you in any way as well as answered your questions clearly. May God bless you.
In Him and Him only, Dave.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

3.“All anyone has to do is compare Catholic teaching with what is contained in the New Testament.” According to YOU! I did just exactly this and THAT is why I am Catholic now and will never change again. I believe in absolute truth…and I found it right here.

1. “If someone who did not have prior devotion to Catholicism, were to read the bible, he would never come up with Catholicism!” This is total bunk, because this is exactly what the apostles and their disciples came up with. You have no answers for the passages that you “read around” because they clearly teach Catholicism. (See the thread I created in Apologetics to get into this Passage by passage…)
2. “Mary worship”: You are so incredibly obtuse! How many times do we have to clearly explain this to you and give you all the Biblical evidence for what we believe for you to act like a civilized Christian and (to use you own phrase) “get off it”? Your sad misinterpretation and misrepresentation of our Marian devotion simply means that you are far too narrow minded to even consider what we say. Repeatedly alleging “Mary worship” in the face of our ongoing efforts to explain it to you is one of the marks of anti-Catholicism. If you disagree and have made your case…fine. move on. But don’t sit there and disrupt and hijack the thread with repetitons of the same old rhetoric. The posters on this thread have been VERY patient with you John. Don’t abuse us.
3. “It seems that must resort to name calling rather than adequately defending your beliefs! Is it so hard to believe that some “Protestants” could be truly concerned with your eternal destiny?” It’s not name calling my friend…it’s calling it just exactly what it is. You knew full well that this is a Catholic forum when ya signed up. Your posts don’t show that you are concerned for anyone’s soul…only that you will argue and insult what we believe and reverence because you think we are wrong…and you wouldn’t even think that if someoe else hadn’t got up the pulpit and bashed the daylights outta the Catholic Church and then you got books or materials to support your attacks and came here thinking that you all by your lonesome are gonna “enlighten” us and bring down THE Christian Church that has endured far worse than you (by the grace of God) over the 2,000 years of our history. You’re not NT Christian…you’re “Reformation” Christian and the errors of your faith are less than 500 years old. THESE are the historic FACTS John and all your debate and allegations are nothing in that context. Agree or disagree to your heart’s content…but lay off the Blessed Mother. You’ve had your say…
4. "Do you even know what the Gospel is??? Please tell me “the Good News?” I will not answer this…it’s been answered MANY times in other threads all over this forum. Go find it yourself . This would just hijack the thread and pull us even farther off topic.

Pax vobiscum,

 

[CARose]

Oudave,

I may surprise you with my answer, but actually, if the Pope told me I could skip purgatory by dunking my head in the Jordan River, I would accept that since he holds the Keys to the Kingdom which have been passed down from Peter (not a physical set of keys mind you), that he has the authority necessary to define this Plenary Indulgence (we even have a name for such a concept).

Doesn’t mean I would necessarily go out and follow this specific devotion, but if I were going to make a Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, a visit to the Jordan River just might be in order. And if in so doing, I were remembering the baptism of Christ and doing so in obedience to the Holy Father, who’s to say God wouldn’t appreciate the gesture. And again, if it was an indulgence defined by the Pope, not only would God appreciate it, he would accept it as long as I followed the rest of the rules necessary for any plenary indulgency. I’d have needed to confess my sins, intend to amend my life and receive Holy Communion (I think that’s all). I need to repent from Mortal Sin so that I’m facing Christ head on.

By the way, are you now comfortable with our teachings on Purgatory?

And you realize we disagree with your thoughts that the Pope errs in matters of Faith and Morals! I figure if God wants to make a succession of human leadership avoid error, He can do it. Heck, through God, all things are possible.

That’s what I’ve been taught!

God Bless,

CARose

 

[MaggieOH]

oudave:

Hi
People keep telling me to look at the history of the Catholic church. When I look at the differences we have it starts with oral tradition’s. Most traditions were not officialy added to the CCC until many hundreds of years later. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

This is getting off the topic. However, you have made a statement without providing anything to prove what you are saying. Please open another thread so that we can discuss this with you and challenge what is in fact false information.

MaggieOH

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

aha,

so you are a member of the Latter Rain movement. They claim to have prophets. They even claim to have an Anointed One. What is his nam? Jay something or the other?

Interesting comment, and it has certainly exposed the errors of what you are stating.

Maggie

No not latter day, but I am familar with them.
Any Spirit filled Christian is annointed.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

We do not have the FLESH of Christ in us. We have the Holy Spirit.

The Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Please read John Chapter 6 for some edification.

Otherwise I do not know where you are getting this stuff from but it is shockingly poor theology.

Maggie

We do not have the flesh of Christ in us.
How can you not read my scriptures and not know that we have Christ in us?

 

[Xavier]

Benadam:

The reason for that is the necessity of suffering attached to re-establishing properly ordered human bonds after sin. The covenant re-establishes the bond but untill it does it is the bond.

The bond is what make two into one body. The covenant is an invisible reality that remains an external reality untill internalized as the vows or the ‘Laws’ are fulfilled. Once it is internalized it becomes one with the bodies it binds. Mary and Jesus re-established the maternal bond and reestablished in man the door to re-establish the order lost between man and woman at the fall.
This covenant between the Father and Son takes on an even more profound union with the person of Christ that to say that Christ is the covenant or the bond between man and the Father is completely appropriate. The intimacy betwen covenant and the person is expressed is it’s sign which is blood. The sign that establishes the covenant, Jesus’ blood circulated within Mary’s womb as well. This physical reality that was lived and experienced in the lives of Mary and Jesus can’t be passed by as having no significance unless addressed, by any sincere seeker of Christ.

 

[Xavier]

Benadam:

The reason for that is the necessity of suffering attached to re-establishing properly ordered human bonds after sin. The covenant re-establishes the bond but untill it does it is the bond.

The bond is what make two into one body. The covenant is an invisible reality that remains an external reality untill internalized as the vows or the ‘Laws’ are fulfilled. Once it is internalized it becomes one with the bodies it binds. Mary and Jesus re-established the maternal bond and reestablished in man the door to re-establish the order lost between man and woman at the fall.
This covenant between the Father and Son takes on an even more profound union with the person of Christ that to say that Christ is the covenant or the bond between man and the Father is completely appropriate. The intimacy betwen covenant and the person is expressed is it’s sign which is blood. The sign that establishes the covenant, Jesus’ blood circulated within Mary’s womb as well. This physical reality that was lived and experienced in the lives of Mary and Jesus can’t be passed by as having no significance unless addressed, by any sincere seeker of Christ.

This is where you lose us. And rightly so.
All honor all glory all praise be to you Lord.
You want to give Mary some of the glory that only God deserves.

 

[Xavier]

Tom:

Lk 1:
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Now the angel hasn’t yet told her that the child will be conceived by the Holy Spirit. Logically Mary would have thought that since she and Joseph were “betrothed”, after they came together she would conceive and bear a son as the angel had said. As a previous poster said the logical thing for her to say is “So we’re going to have a boy”.
If she were planning on having a normal sexual life with her husband there would have been no question as to how this would occur. The only possible explanation for the following question she asks if she had no intention of having sex with Joseph, if she had been under a vow of celibacy or virginity. And yes this did occur, that’s what the references to Numbers are about. If she were under such a vow she would naturally ask:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This question of hers makes no sense if she planned to eventually have sex with Joseph. It only makes sense if she did not plan on having sex with anyone.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

Not if Mary understood that she would have this child before her marriage.

 

[Xavier]

oudave:

Hi
We are not adament about getting rid of Mary. Mary was an incredible woman and was looked on with favor by God. The problem is that the catholic church places her importance with that of Jesus. You say that she was sinnless because scripture says that she was full of grace, look up grace in any dictionary and it has nothing that refurs to sinless, as a matter of fact I have heard grace explained from a priest as being unmerrited favor, unmerrited meaning not deserving or unearned. You say she remained a virgin all her life, one problem is that it says nowhere in scripture that she died a virgin. Which brings me to my next point, you say she was taken to Heaven like Enoch, one more problem it doesn’t say that in the scriptures either. Praying to Mary and claiming that she is the intersessor for us to Christ is taking away the importance of Christ. I mean do you think that Jesus is just to busy taking care of the worlds problems that he need someone to take prayers for him. Mary is probably mad at you for making her out to be Jesus’s secretary or thinking that her wonderful son who died for the sins of everyone, including hers (we know this because it is in scripture Rom 3:23 - 5:12) was not perfect. You need to trust more in the word of God and not so much in the falable oral traditions of man.
In Him and Him only, Dave. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

Catholics would say that they dont place as much importance in Mary as they do Jesus.
It is witness that gives them away, let nothing take away the glory and the praise we are to give God alone.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Do you really think that there’s a “finite” amount of love that any human can give in his/ her life, and that if s/he gives some of that love to Mary, some to loved ones on earth, and the rest to God that s/he is somehow depriving GOD?

Don’t you know that the more you give, the more you love?

 

[Xavier]

Tantum ergo:

Do you really think that there’s a “finite” amount of love that any human can give in his/ her life, and that if s/he gives some of that love to Mary, some to loved ones on earth, and the rest to God that s/he is somehow depriving GOD?

Don’t you know that the more you give, the more you love?

It is a question of giving Mary honor that belongs only to God.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But we aren’t giving Mary honor that belongs only to God.
How could we?
She is God’s creation, just like us.
As His creation, she is also the Mother of God Himself.
He made her without the burden of original sin (i.e., “full of grace”)
Thus, she is an example for us to aspire to.
We can’t aspire to be God. Right? But we do want to be the very best that we can be for God? Right?

We honor her, we don’t worship her.
I honor my own mother above all other women on earth. One: she’s my mother. Two: she’s a very holy person.

I certainly don’t worship my mother, though. I don’t confuse her with God, and I don’t give her the honor that goes to God alone.

The Virgin Mary I honor above all other people (save God) in heaven. One? She’s my mother. Two: She is the holiest person–since she carried God Himself in her womb and was trusted to raise Him on this earth–who ever existed, with the exception of Jesus in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To restate, she is the holiest “creation” that ever walked the earth.

I honor her, but it is the honor due a “primus inter pares”, so to speak–a first among equals. You’ve heard the term? Mary is a creation, like me. She is, among created beings, the highest.

But even the highest being cannot aspire to the heights of God, the creator. Him alone do we worship with all our being.

Honoring and attempting to emulate other creations who are holy and righteous only leads us CLOSER to God. It is a good thing to honor the saints who give us good example of how to live for God. But never, never do we equate them with God.