Mary- other children

[dennisknapp]

John 1717 wrongly alleges…as usual…

“Spouse of the Holy Spirit” Luke 1:34-35 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

"Daughter of God? Are ya kidding? Aren’t ALL believers the sons and daughters of God? Of whom Mary was inarguably the very first.

You must not believe the Bible then…because it says:

Colossians 1:19: “For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,”

John 1:1-5 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

You cannot comprehend it and cannot adequately explain it because it is a spiritual reality (Just like the trinity).
But Mary DID bear God in her womb…you are the one that is espousing heresy…Nestorianism to be exact… See this tract on this ma(name removed by moderator)age.
catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: “God-bearer” or, less literally, “Mother of God”). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos (“Christ-bearer” or “Mother of Christ”).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate (“in the flesh”).

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism (5th Century)

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

So…There ya go. My only advice is from scripture:
2nd Timothy 2:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”

Pax vobiscum,

Good stuff CM!

Peace

 

[MaggieOH]

John1717:

MaggieOH:

and who is employing extra-Biblical doctrine? Here is a list that is not verified by Scripture:

1. Sola Scriptura
2. Sola Fide
3. Sola Gratia
4. Once Saved Always Saved
5. the Rapture

Actually all of the above are verified by Scripture! It is your belief in extra-biblical doctrine that has clouded your vision!

Wrong again. There is not one of those doctrines that I have listed that are verifiable by Scripture - especially doctrines 4 and 5. We are not going to experience a pre-Tribulation rapture. We will not have a situation like that described in the Left Behind series.

All of the above are traditions of men. They did not exist prior to the Reformation and numbers 4 and 5 did not exist prior to the nineteenth century.

All of these doctrines have a few things in common:

1. they were not taught by Jesus and the Apostles;
2. they lead to misinterpretation of the Scripture;
3. they seek to deny the Truth of Scripture;
4. they are not Christ oriented;
   5 they are selfish because the centrepiece of these doctrines is “me” alone.

Again you are incorrect on all counts! But aren’t you a little off-topic?

Nice attempt at the dodge here. You have not provided any proof that says otherwise, because every single one of those doctrines is based upon the twisting of Scripture, and it is the same with the pathetic attempts of those who are following the neo-Helvidius heresy.

Of all the points that I made here, I would like to highlight number 5 because I remain convinced that all of those doctrines are extremely self-centred. It is “are you saved”; or “I am going to heaven because I said the sinner’s prayer and I do not have to do anything else to get there” or “all I have to do is point to Jesus and I will not be convicted of my sin”. In every single case it is “me” that comes into play. There is no mention of love of neighbour etc.

You’ve got to be kidding! The Marian doctrines are an attempt to elevate Mary not Jesus!!! They make Mary into another Christ! Jesus was sinless, Mary is sinless. Jesus was a virgin, Mary is Ever-virgin. Jesus is the Redeemer, Mary is Co-Redemptress. Jesus is the one Mediator, Mary is Mediatrix. Jesus is bodily assumed into heaven, Mary is bodily assumed into heaven.

It seems that there’s a pattern here!
:yup:

Now here comes the crunch, and you have made the biggest boo boo in your comments that proves to me that the understanding that you have of Scripture is extremely limited.

You wrote “JESUS IS ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN”. Well you got that very wrong. Jesus who is God, ascended into Heaven, He was not assumed into Heaven. The Ascension into Heaven is proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Mary was assumed into Heaven, both body and soul were taken into heaven. She was assumed because she is not God and she needed the assistance of the angels to have her body reunited with her soul.

Wow that was one big stuff up.

Maggie

 

[Benadam]

John1717:

You are so blinded by your indoctrination that you can’t see the truth when it stares you in the face! Praying to the dead is condemned by Scripture. Mary is physically dead whether you believe it or not! She cannot hear your prayers nor the millions said to her each day. She is not omniscient and is powerless to help you. Prayer is to be directed to God ALONE!

I would like you to demonstrate just one attribute or power that isn’t natural and human that Catholics give to Mary.

 

[sfp]

John1717:

…got to be kidding! The Marian doctrines are an attempt to elevate Mary not Jesus!!! They make Mary into another Christ! Jesus was sinless, Mary is sinless. Jesus was a virgin, Mary is Ever-virgin. Jesus is the Redeemer, Mary is Co-Redemptress. Jesus is the one Mediator, Mary is Mediatrix. Jesus is bodily assumed into heaven, Mary is bodily assumed into heaven.
It seems that there’s a pattern here!
:yup:

You obviously know nothing about what the Church actually teaches. The Church teaches that “everything good in Mary, COMES FROM JESUS, not the other way around.” Did you know this? Do you care to know this?

John, are you after the truth, or do you just want to try to “prove people wrong?”

 

[MaggieOH]

John1717:

You are so blinded by your indoctrination that you can’t see the truth when it stares you in the face! Praying to the dead is condemned by Scripture. Mary is physically dead whether you believe it or not! She cannot hear your prayers nor the millions said to her each day. She is not omniscient and is powerless to help you. Prayer is to be directed to God ALONE!

Sandra,

Mary fell asleep. She is not physically dead because no one can find her tomb. She was taken up to Heaven, and like all of the cloud of witnesses, that is all of the souls of the saints that reside with God in Heaven, Mary is first among these saints.

However Sandra, you are getting off topic again. I know how much you love to try and get a subject off topic.

Maggie

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

Wrong again. There is not one of those doctrines that I have listed that are verifiable by Scripture - especially doctrines 4 and 5. We are not going to experience a pre-Tribulation rapture. We will not have a situation like that described in the Left Behind series.

All of the above are traditions of men. They did not exist prior to the Reformation and numbers 4 and 5 did not exist prior to the nineteenth century.

Nice attempt at the dodge here. You have not provided any proof that says otherwise, because every single one of those doctrines is based upon the twisting of Scripture, and it is the same with the pathetic attempts of those who are following the neo-Helvidius heresy.

Of all the points that I made here, I would like to highlight number 5 because I remain convinced that all of those doctrines are extremely self-centred. It is “are you saved”; or “I am going to heaven because I said the sinner’s prayer and I do not have to do anything else to get there” or “all I have to do is point to Jesus and I will not be convicted of my sin”. In every single case it is “me” that comes into play. There is no mention of love of neighbour etc.

Now here comes the crunch, and you have made the biggest boo boo in your comments that proves to me that the understanding that you have of Scripture is extremely limited.

You wrote “JESUS IS ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN”. Well you got that very wrong. Jesus who is God, ascended into Heaven, He was not assumed into Heaven. The Ascension into Heaven is proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Mary was assumed into Heaven, both body and soul were taken into heaven. She was assumed because she is not God and she needed the assistance of the angels to have her body reunited with her soul.

Wow that was one big stuff up.

MaggieIt’s right in your face and I never thought of it that way

Sola scriptura… my scriptures and the rest of the sola’s

The other doctrins are the extreme opposite You save me once you always save me

you always save you take too

This shows judgement unbalanced by the tides of emotion. In conversation it is expressed mostly by the words ‘all’ nothing’ ‘always and never’ ‘everyone and no one’ and in these false doctrins ‘you or me’ instead of ’ you and me’ there is no expression of the uniting term ‘us’ like the catholic doctrins that are characterizd by that word and the word ‘participate’

 

[mtr01]

Redbandito:

Dave, you make a common exegetical mistake here. You cite a verse, and then misrepresent it. It does not say repetition of prayers is wrong, it says “vain repetition of prayers” is wrong. There is a difference. In fact, the Angels in Heaven REPEAT over and over again in a hymn of praise, “Holy, Holy, Holy”. Jesus gave us the “Lord’s Prayer” to pray. Was Jesus contradicting himself? OF COURSE NOT! It is not the repetition that is bad, it is the doing it in vain. You are right that God wants prayers to be from the heart. That does not exclude prayers of repetition. In fact, these can help us say exactly what we mean in a way that we may not be able to express ourselves. The point is Dave, you misinterpreted Scripture “to your own destruction” as St. Peter tells us in his epistle.

For anyone who questions the repetition of prayers, I’d suggest they check out Psalm 136, from the inspired Scriptures.

 

[selvaraj]

Joseph was a widower and father of two sons before he marrys Mary. Please visit Proto evanglium of James.

 

[MaggieOH]

selvaraj:

Joseph was a widower and father of two sons before he marrys Mary. Please visit Proto evanglium of James.

Joseph was not a widower before he married Mary. The Protoevangelium of James is not necessarily an accurate account of the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

Also, the Scripture denies this proposition since:

1. Alphaeus is named as the father of James the Less, Judas Thaddeus, Joseph and Simon
2. The other Mary is named as their mother.

Now someone did point out that if the other Mary is the mother of the brethren of the Lord, then Joseph cannot be their father, since that would mean that he was not a widower… if you see what I mean.

It is better to stick with what is written in the Scripture, because it is very plain from reading Scripture alone that Mary had only one child - Jesus.

Maggie

 

[Mickey]

John1717:

It is proper to call Mary “the mother of Jesus,” but not “the mother of God.”

Hello J1717,

Your posts are both humorous and sad to me. Humorous, because your theology is so twisted, that it has become comedy. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif Where do you get your interpretations? Your posts are also very sad because apparently you used to participate in the fullness of truth, but have sadly fallen away and adhere to the doctrines of men. :crying:

In response to your theology on the denial of Our Blessed Mother, The Ever Virgin Mary, and The Mother of God, I only have three words for you.

NESTORIUS, NESTORIUS, NESTORIUS!

 

[Axion]

John1717:

Once again, my friend, you are wrong! God, in His divinity, cannot be conceived and born any more than He can die.

It cannot therefore be said of Mary that she bore God(and hence, bears the designation “mother of God”), any more than it can be said of the Jews that they killed God. Jesus in His humanity had a mother; Jesus in His divinity was "without father or mother; without genealogy, without begining of days or end of life!

This is a seriously heretical statement since it denies the incarnation, and the divinity of Jesus. By denying both of these things, it also denies the atonement and the redemption. For only by God dying for our sins can the price of all the sins of the world be paid.

Can a man’s death pay the price of the sins of the entire world? No.

Was Jesus two separate persons as you allege - one who had no Father and no mother???

These are the pits of heresy and denial into which you fall by trying to demean the Virgin Mary. Such statements as you have posted above deny the very essentials of Christianity - The fact that God became man and died for our sins.

I fail to see how someone can deny anything so central to the Christian faith, and then dare to come to this forum and try to correct Catholics on their theological views!

 

[oudave]

sfp:

You are clearly ignoring Jesus’s audience. He was speaking to a world of people immersed in fighting paganism. He is condemning worshipping pagan gods in the common way it was done at the time.

Open your minds for a second…

Matthew’s gospel is very clear on condemning repetitious prayer “AS THE HEATHENS” do. This is condemning the practice of the pagans which were very common at the time…

They would pray repetitious prayers hoping that the gods would hear them, then they would go on living however immoral they wanted (since the repetition was thought to “appease” the gods"). There was no connection between their prayers and actually living morally.

Jesus was not condemning ANY repetitious prayer. how do we know this…because read what he tells us to do TWO VERSES LATER…

He gives us the most perfect prayer…the Our Father, and tells us to “PRAY THIS WAY…” So, if repetitious liturgical prayer is being condemned, then why does Jesus then tell us to go praying using THAT prayer?

I will also say, that if any Catholics out there are praying Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers, and then thinking that this somehow “appeases” God, and you then have the right to go live however immorally you want, then you are doing exactly what Dave is accusing…but the CHURCH DOESN’T TEACH THAT, Dave.

Dave, how many times do you think is too much to tell God you love Him? Do you think that He will be ticked off if you repetitiously tell Jesus…

I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…I love you, Jesus…

Is that condemned by Jesus? Do you REALLY think it is? If not, and I trust you agree it’s not, then how is this any different than good liturgical prayers with a good message and meaning? You see, we agree that private prayer is ALSO very important, however we can often be very selfish when we pray…it can turn into just constant “requests” from God without giving proper praise and thanks.

This is why we feel that the liturgical prayers, handed down for centuries, is so important, to. You can’t improve the words of great liturgical prayer.

Hi
I don’t dissagree that we should pray the Lords prayer, but the Bible doesn’t say ‘‘Pray this way’’ it says ‘‘Pray in this manner’’. The key word here is ‘‘manner’’ meaning form, custom or fashion. He doesn’t say to pray these exact words. This is also an outline to be used in prayer. He starts out addressing God the Father, then ‘‘Hallowed’’ meaning to be Holy. Then allowing Gods will in our life, thanking him for taking care of our needs, forgivness and helping us to stand up to temptation. God knows our nature and when we do things very repetitive its easy to lose interest, be honest with yourself, have you ever been thinking of something else when you pray the rosary? I know iv’e found it hard to concentrate sometimes when I pray . Besides God wants us to pray from our hearts, even though he already know what we need. We need to open our hearts when we pray. God will bless us if we do that.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.

 

[Mickey]

oudave:

Hi
I don’t dissagree that we should pray the Lords prayer, but the Bible doesn’t say ‘‘Pray this way’’ it says ‘‘Pray in this manner’’. The key word here is ‘‘manner’’ meaning form, custom or fashion. He doesn’t say to pray these exact words. This is also an outline to be used in prayer. He starts out addressing God the Father, then ‘‘Hallowed’’ meaning to be Holy. Then allowing Gods will in our life, thanking him for taking care of our needs, forgivness and helping us to stand up to temptation. God knows our nature and when we do things very repetitive its easy to lose interest, be honest with yourself, have you ever been thinking of something else when you pray the rosary? I know iv’e found it hard to concentrate sometimes when I pray . Besides God wants us to pray from our hearts, even though he already know what we need. We need to open our hearts when we pray. God will bless us if we do that.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.

What does this post have to do with the Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God?

 

[hlgomez]

Mat 6:7

And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Oudave,

Have you ever look more closely to the statement of the Lord above? Notice the word “vain” before the “repititions”? It is implied by the Lord that vain prayers repeatedly prayed is indeed in vain!

Now, I assume you read the Gospels many times. Have you ever came across the parable of the Lord about the person who keeps knocking at the door of his friend asking for something in the middle of the night? Until the friend got up and give him what he wanted because he was annoyed at his asking him and knocking at the door? He must have been irritated by the noise and repeated asking.

And what about the OT? Let’s read what the Book of Samuel said about Hannah who kep on praying to the Lord with her lips babbling, and asking that she be given an offspring for she was barren? I bet you, she kept repeating the same words all over again for many years (not days) and she got what she wanted for the Lord answered he prayers.

I’ll pray for your enlightenment. And by the way, didnt’ Jesus himself taught us the Our Father? And we keep on praying that same prayer many times over?

Pio

 

[sfp]

Mickey:

What does this post have to do with the Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God?

Although I agree some of these posts are way off-topic, it is not reasonable to assume that we can discuss Mary’s perpetual virginity without also discussing very important issues that are essential to understand if one is to accept the church’s teaching on Mary…

especially topics such as…

1. church and papal authority
2. asking for the saints to pray for us
3. the unbibilical concept of sola scriptura and the history of how we got the Bible
4. History of the Church and the importance of knowing what the Church Fathers taught
5. ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages

If these guys can’t understand or learn about the above concepts and realities, they are never going to accept the “possibility” of Mary’s perpetual virginity, since it is very easy to mis-interpret the meaning of God’s written Word if we rely on ourselves alone.

I don’t think we should be so quick to jump on them when they want to go there.

(you guys correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just my opinion)

 

[Mickey]

sfp:

Although I agree some of these posts are way off-topic, it is not reasonable to assume that we can discuss Mary’s perpetual virginity without also discussing very important issues that are essential to understand if one is to accept the church’s teaching on Mary…

especially topics such as…

1. church and papal authority
2. asking for the saints to pray for us
3. the unbibilical concept of sola scriptura and the history of how we got the Bible
4. History of the Church and the importance of knowing what the Church Fathers taught
5. ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages

If these guys can’t understand or learn about the above concepts and realities, they are never going to accept the “possibility” of Mary’s perpetual virginity, since it is very easy to mis-interpret the meaning of God’s written Word if we rely on ourselves alone.

I don’t think we should be so quick to jump on them when they want to go there.

(you guys correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just my opinion)

Agreed sfp. Sorry.

 

[hlgomez]

Oudave, John 1717, Xavier, etc.

Here’s what contained in the Rosary:

1. You begin with the Apostle’s Creed
2. Say one Our Father
3. Say 3 Hail Mary’s
4. Say the “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit…”
5. Say the 5 Mysteries of the Rosary, and as you say every prayer, you meditate upon it:
   a. Joyful Mysteries - The Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the Finding in the temple
   b. Sorrowful Mysteries- the Agony in the Garden, the Scourging at the Pillar, the Crowning with Thorns, the Carrying of the Cross, the Crucifixion
   c. Glorious Mysteries - The Ressurection, The Ascension, The Descent of the Holy Spirit, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin
   d. Mysteries of Light - The Baptism of the Lord in the River Jordan, the Wedding Feast at Cana, the Proclamation of the Kingdom, the Transfiguration, the Institution of the Eucharist.
6. At every end of each prayer of the mysteries you say the Glory be…
7. Then the Salve Regina.
8. Concluded with the prayer to the Father. “Oh God, whose only Begotten Son…”

The above is just a brief summary of this beautiful prayer.
I really wish you guys will be more familiar with the prayers before you rush into judgement this beautiful prayer of the Gospels.

Pio

 

[sfp]

Mickey:

Agreed sfp. Sorry.

No problem at all, I just thought I’d throw that out there…you’re not the only one.

We do need to reel it in and make the connection between these concepts as it relates to the Blessed Mother, so that it’s not just meaningless “veering-off.”

 

[reggie]

When the Angel Gabriel says to Mary that she will bear a son. Her response is “How will this be, seeing I know not a man?”
Now why would she ask this question? As a woman engaged, it was reasonable for her to expect that she and Joseph would have children. I am sure that as a Jewish girl she was aware that there are many examples in the OT when the Lord promised a child to a couple or a woman and He always delivered.

Note that the question comes before the angel tells her that the Spirit of God would overshadow her. Does it not make you wonder why then she would have put the question to him in such a way?
She at first doesn’t understand that this child would be God Himself. She accepts that He will be holy and all that the angel says about Him. Her only question is ‘how will this happen as I know not a man’. It is not until after this question that she is told.

The church offers as a possible interpretation that though Mary was engaged to be married, she had no intention of having relations with her future husband. Women were to be married in those days. All women, and if a women were widowed, she was expected to be married again. We don’t know all of the details of her or Joseph’s life. They are not important. The Scriptures give us all that is necessary for our knowledge and salvation.
Through the decades and centuries, the church has studied upon Scripture and has always interpreted it in light of the OT and Tradition. The doctrine of the Trinity is never explicitly stated in the Bible, and yet you accept the Catholic Churches teaching on that. In a way, I guess you could call all protestants cafeteria Catholics!

 

[mark_a]

reggie:

When the Angel Gabriel says to Mary that she will bear a son. Her response is “How will this be, seeing I know not a man?”
Now why would she ask this question? As a woman engaged, it was reasonable for her to expect that she and Joseph would have children. I am sure that as a Jewish girl she was aware that there are many examples in the OT when the Lord promised a child to a couple or a woman and He always delivered.

Note that the question comes before the angel tells her that the Spirit of God would overshadow her. Does it not make you wonder why then she would have put the question to him in such a way?
She at first doesn’t understand that this child would be God Himself. She accepts that He will be holy and all that the angel says about Him. Her only question is ‘how will this happen as I know not a man’. It is not until after this question that she is told.

The church offers as a possible interpretation that though Mary was engaged to be married, she had no intention of having relations with her future husband. Women were to be married in those days. All women, and if a women were widowed, she was expected to be married again. We don’t know all of the details of her or Joseph’s life. They are not important. The Scriptures give us all that is necessary for our knowledge and salvation.
Through the decades and centuries, the church has studied upon Scripture and has always interpreted it in light of the OT and Tradition. The doctrine of the Trinity is never explicitly stated in the Bible, and yet you accept the Catholic Churches teaching on that. In a way, I guess you could call all protestants cafeteria Catholics!

Hello Reggie,

No argument here, I just want to be sure I’m properly tuned in. So-

• Gabriel tells Mary she will have a son.
• Mary assumes Gabriel is telling her that she is already with child and replies “how can this be?”.
• Then Gabriel explains the deal to her.
• Then Mary, having planned to remain a virgin (and obviously childless) after Joseph’s and her marriage, says “let it be done to me according to His will”. In other words Mary gave her consent for her life plans to be altered for the will of God.

Is this about right?

You know, when a person stands back and looks at the believability of the whole mystery of God, believing Mary’s perpetual virginity is a relatively miniscule detail that seemingly wouldn’t get so much debate.