D
dennisknapp
Guest
Sorry if I am being too agressive. Its just been a long time since I our last debate. And…I…miss…it…
Peace
- Status
Peace
R
rlg94086
Guest
No problem. The thread’s been hijacked more than once, and, quite frankly, the issue of “other children” isn’t that interesting to me. I would like to see that discussion continued though…Sorry, I was just passing through. I did not mean to steal the thread. Enough from me.
Michael
C
Church_Militant
Guest
John1717 said:
cont’d
M
michaelp
Guest
No, I did not mean it as such. I just did not want for us to point and counter-point on this thread.Sorry if I am being too agressive. Its just been a long time since I our last debate. And…I…miss…it…
Peace
In short . . . you da man!
Nice to talk to ya.
(BTW: My dad’s cancer is gone! No chemo at all. Thanks for the prayers.)
OK . . . I am really not going to post here agian unless it is about Mary and her “other children.”
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Hey Mary had no other childrenNo, I did not mean it as such. I just did not want for us to point and counter-point on this thread.
In short . . . you da man!
Nice to talk to ya.
(BTW: My dad’s cancer is gone! No chemo at all. Thanks for the prayers.)
OK . . . I am really not going to post here agian unless it is about Mary and her “other children.”
Michael
Michaelp and dennisknapp look on new posts
God Bless
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Praise God! May He grant your father continual health and the peace that can only come through Him.No, I did not mean it as such. I just did not want for us to point and counter-point on this thread.
In short . . . you da man!
Nice to talk to ya.
(BTW: My dad’s cancer is gone! No chemo at all. Thanks for the prayers.)
OK . . . I am really not going to post here agian unless it is about Mary and her “other children.”
Michael
God Bless
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Why are you using a modern English translation of the Scripture to prove your point? In the older translations the word used was “brethren”. Also, you leave out the rest of the Scripture that points to the real parents of the four men that have been mentioned by name. Those parents are Alphaeus and the other Mary, his wife.Matthew 12:46-50
“While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You. But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Here Jesus is distinguishing between blood brothers versus brothers of faith. Remember it was someone else who called them “mother and brothers” not Jesus. If the brothers are not literal, then neither is the mother. They cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (anepsios). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother (adelphos).
**Matthew 13:55-56 **
***“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ***His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” Notice that it is implied that these brothers and sisters are members of His own household!
You have a difficult task because Mary DID have other children!
With regard to “His own household”, well the English translation in front of me, the Christian Community Bible, Catholic Pastoral Edition, translates this to read as “hometown”, which is more logical than a translation that uses “household”.
This of course is the problem with English translations, where the translators are deliberately changing words to suit their biases. I will point out again that you need to understand the language of the time to see exactly what is implied.
The Aramaic language (the language of Jesus) did not have a word for cousin, and that is why the word for “brother” is used. It also includes all of the other relatives that we, in English identify as aunt, uncle, cousin, sister-in-law etc.
The problem with modern translations and interpretations is that a lot of this sense of the Scripture has been removed and replaced with wording that changes the meaning of what is written. This has impoverished our understanding of the Scripture.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Church Militant:
. The Book of Isaiah is divided into three books, and there is sufficient evidence because of the time period to determine that there were three different authors.
The Book of Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon. Several of the Psalms attributed to David came from a later period:
“By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down, and we wept as we remembered Zion”
Hmmm… now besides being turned into a very catchy song by Boney M, this Psalm was written during the exile in Babylon.
Portions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not written by Moses because they refer to events that occurred after his death. This also includes references that were made concerning the possibility of having a future king :yup:.
Also, the Books of the Kings and Chronicles are uninspired as they consist of a history of Israel during a time of formation as well as during the period when we see the rise and fall of the Davidic Kingdom. Now the Books of the Maccabees are also historical because they contain information on the struggle of the faithful remnant against the Greeks, who were determined to destroy their religion and force the people to worship false gods. The Books of Maccabees also explain the reason for the Festival of Lights known as Hannuka. The Book of Esther, likewise, is historical and it explains the reasons behind the Purim. The events described in both books are real events and in the case of the Maccabean Wars, we know that this happened because of the existence of the Maccabean games, as well as the feast known as Hannuka. The Purim is also celebrated each year by the Jews.
Maggie
I have to add a comment here
. The Book of Isaiah is divided into three books, and there is sufficient evidence because of the time period to determine that there were three different authors.The Book of Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon. Several of the Psalms attributed to David came from a later period:
“By the rivers of Babylon, where we sat down, and we wept as we remembered Zion”
Hmmm… now besides being turned into a very catchy song by Boney M
, this Psalm was written during the exile in Babylon.Portions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not written by Moses because they refer to events that occurred after his death. This also includes references that were made concerning the possibility of having a future king :yup:.
Also, the Books of the Kings and Chronicles are uninspired as they consist of a history of Israel during a time of formation as well as during the period when we see the rise and fall of the Davidic Kingdom. Now the Books of the Maccabees are also historical because they contain information on the struggle of the faithful remnant against the Greeks, who were determined to destroy their religion and force the people to worship false gods. The Books of Maccabees also explain the reason for the Festival of Lights known as Hannuka. The Book of Esther, likewise, is historical and it explains the reasons behind the Purim. The events described in both books are real events and in the case of the Maccabean Wars, we know that this happened because of the existence of the Maccabean games, as well as the feast known as Hannuka. The Purim is also celebrated each year by the Jews.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
John1717 said:**Many people claim to believe in Jesus but is their belief mere intellectual assent or are they true believers? Does the daily pattern of their life show that they truly believe in Him or do they live differently on days other than Sunday? Do they trust in Jesus Alone **as their all sufficient Savior or do they believe that something else is necessary to have eternal life? Do they trust in Mary, the Saints, sacraments, the Church or their good works to get to heaven? Do they trust that Jesus’s one time offering on Calvary’s cross was sufficient or do they believe that the sacrifice of the Mass is necessary?
Please ask yourself these questions and then I would like you to answer a question for me–"How do you intend to get to heaven?"
You are right, many people do believe by assent alone. They are the ones who claim to believe in Jesus by using intellectual reasoning, and they do not have true faith in everything that is written in the Scripture. They worship the Bible in the manner of worshipping a false idol, and then they make false statements about others.
The topic about going to heaven does not belong in this thread. Perhaps you would like to open your own thread rather than hijacking all of the other threads.
Maggie
C
Church_Militant
Guest
4. Many lists exist of the books of the New Testament at the beginning of Christianity. Almost all of them Only mention in common, the 27 books found today in the New Testament. Though a few may have thought that some apocryphal books might have been inspired, this was not at all a consensus opinion. Who cares…this is not the point of this discussion. Many of the non-canonical books are good historical documents and can help us see what was going on at that time. HOWEVER…the writings of Ignatius of Antioch are verified as authentic writings of a valid bishop…his writings, along with some others, give us insight into what the early believers really taught and believed and practiced. No one would use them in place of canon, but they are the writings of the disciple of St. John the apostle, so I’d say that his opinion would have some merit and weight for guidance. It’s a historical fact that Luther DID remove 4 books from his German NT. Look it up. Why would anyone wanna follow such an example?
5. It was not the Roman Catholic Church that gave us the canon. The Canon was established by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ that established – through the Holy Spirit – which books of the Bible should be In the Bible. That is why you can find some letters of Paul mentioned in the New Testament but not included. Yeah? Okay…show me just where in the NT or the WHOLE Bible there is a list given of just what is inspired? It’s not there because the apostles didn’t concern themselves with all this. This is a pretty obvious Chicken/egg question…but since the church was in existence long before the NT was begun it’s obvious that you are wrong and that the members of the early church (Namely SOME of the apostles and evangelists) did indeed give us the NT, and since Ignatius wrote using the name Catholic for the church only about 8 years after St. John died, you’re wrong again. The Catholic Church DID give us the canon of scripture.
God did not get lost.DUH! It is just that some of those letters (of the Apostles that were not included in the Bible) were not to be considered part of scripture. The last living Disciple was John, who lived(You mean died dontcha?) to around 90-95 A.D. By then the New Testament books Had been written. He and those who had come before him, were the ones who communicated to the Churches established by the Disciples…which books should be included and which ones should not. You have GOTTA be kidding! If the apostles had left such a directive about what was meant to be canon, wouldn’t THAT be canon too? Where is this all important document? It doesn’t exist and never did exist, but you have just alleged that there’s an inspired table of contents floating around out there that we somehow didn’t manage to include. That just plain makes no sense whatever, no matter how hard you stretch it.
cont’d
5. It was not the Roman Catholic Church that gave us the canon. The Canon was established by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ that established – through the Holy Spirit – which books of the Bible should be In the Bible. That is why you can find some letters of Paul mentioned in the New Testament but not included. Yeah? Okay…show me just where in the NT or the WHOLE Bible there is a list given of just what is inspired? It’s not there because the apostles didn’t concern themselves with all this. This is a pretty obvious Chicken/egg question…but since the church was in existence long before the NT was begun it’s obvious that you are wrong and that the members of the early church (Namely SOME of the apostles and evangelists) did indeed give us the NT, and since Ignatius wrote using the name Catholic for the church only about 8 years after St. John died, you’re wrong again. The Catholic Church DID give us the canon of scripture.
God did not get lost.DUH! It is just that some of those letters (of the Apostles that were not included in the Bible) were not to be considered part of scripture. The last living Disciple was John, who lived(You mean died dontcha?) to around 90-95 A.D. By then the New Testament books Had been written. He and those who had come before him, were the ones who communicated to the Churches established by the Disciples…which books should be included and which ones should not. You have GOTTA be kidding! If the apostles had left such a directive about what was meant to be canon, wouldn’t THAT be canon too? Where is this all important document? It doesn’t exist and never did exist, but you have just alleged that there’s an inspired table of contents floating around out there that we somehow didn’t manage to include. That just plain makes no sense whatever, no matter how hard you stretch it.
cont’d
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until after it was financially sponsored by the Roman Empire, sometime after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Up until that time, Christianity was directed by those who were local pastors, in churches that the disciples had personally established. The Roman Catholic Church is a “Johnny come lately” This is just a piece of anti-Catholic bunk that again does not fit the historical facts. I already showed you that Ignatius shows in his letters that the church was already called Catholic by the death of St. John. deny all you want…you’ve been misled by either liars or really really bad scholarship. BTW…how come St. Thomas died in India preaching the Gospel if all the churches were the ones established by the apostles? What happened to the Ethiopian Eunuch who went home a believer? And alkl the gentiles fromall over the world who were part of the crowd that was converted on the day of Pentecost? Furthermore, even IF the Catholic Church was as late as 325 (which as I said is bunk), it would still predate all the non-catholic denoms by about 1200 years, so that shows that the Catholic Church most certainly NOT a “Johnny come lately” as you allege. This whole allegation is wrong through and through.
The teachings of Christianity pre-date the Roman Catholic church by almost 400 years (the first 400 years of Christianity). Further, the RCC is kind of like the Jehovah’s Witness in their change of doctrines. What a Roman Catholic believed in the 400s (400 A.D) and what a Roman Catholic is taught to believe today…are two entirely Different sets of teachings.
You’ll have to site examples of this baloney, because I happen to KNOW that this is also wrong. Ignatius believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (as did St.Paul if you look in 1st Cor 10 and 11)… All the writings of the early church prove that you are wrong in this allegation. They also believed in apostolic succession, papal authority ,and other characteristically Catholic teachiings that were only rejected some 487 years ago by insubmissive MEN who fell under the sway of civil governments in Germany and England. I don’t think you can support your allegations with facts because they don’t exist. Besides…Why didn’t you do that for all this stuff from the outset. I suspect that the anti-Catholic text thaty you’re quoting doesn’t give them…again…because they just don’t exist. You’ve been misled by liars.
**Until the 1500s, the Apocryphal books had never been canonized by Anyone. Even the Roman Catholic Church had never pretended that they were part of Holy Scripture.This is complete garbage! Quit trying to blame the Council of Trent for something that all the Christian history clearly says wasalready a done deal long before. The canon was finally confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 393 and Pope Innocent I closed the matter in 405, then wrote a letter to Bishop Exsuperious of Toulouse confirming the same 73 book canon that we have today.
Several councils long prior to Trent confirmed again and again this same canon. (2nd Carthage in 419, Council of Florence in 1441, Trent in 1546, and the 1st Vatican Council in 1869.) Every time the questions arose it was again affirmed by thosew who knew what had been affirmed by the early church. But when Luther and Calvin began asking questions to find out just why the Roman Catholic Cardinals were making money from indulgences, why was the Pope persecuting Christians (through the Inquisition), and why were these leaders not held accountable by the Local Church [which is what the Bible plainly says], the Roman Catholic leaders knew that they had been caught, and they also knew that they were dealing with very knowledgeable people. Luther was director of a university system that included Ten universities under the Wittenberg University system. ** Luther was an egotistical man who took it upon himself to both add and subtract from the Word of God. However…he DID believe that Mary was the Mother of God, and in the Eucharist…do you?
All 3 “pillars of the Reformation” shared these beliefs. Oh but they never told you that in your Sunday school class, did they? You need to check out a real and unbiased history of the inquisition instead of all that anti-Catholic stuff you read. They really have misled you.
I hope this answers your question.
It would have if your information had been honest and accurate…
The teachings of Christianity pre-date the Roman Catholic church by almost 400 years (the first 400 years of Christianity). Further, the RCC is kind of like the Jehovah’s Witness in their change of doctrines. What a Roman Catholic believed in the 400s (400 A.D) and what a Roman Catholic is taught to believe today…are two entirely Different sets of teachings.
You’ll have to site examples of this baloney, because I happen to KNOW that this is also wrong. Ignatius believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (as did St.Paul if you look in 1st Cor 10 and 11)… All the writings of the early church prove that you are wrong in this allegation. They also believed in apostolic succession, papal authority ,and other characteristically Catholic teachiings that were only rejected some 487 years ago by insubmissive MEN who fell under the sway of civil governments in Germany and England. I don’t think you can support your allegations with facts because they don’t exist. Besides…Why didn’t you do that for all this stuff from the outset. I suspect that the anti-Catholic text thaty you’re quoting doesn’t give them…again…because they just don’t exist. You’ve been misled by liars.
**Until the 1500s, the Apocryphal books had never been canonized by Anyone. Even the Roman Catholic Church had never pretended that they were part of Holy Scripture.This is complete garbage! Quit trying to blame the Council of Trent for something that all the Christian history clearly says wasalready a done deal long before. The canon was finally confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 393 and Pope Innocent I closed the matter in 405, then wrote a letter to Bishop Exsuperious of Toulouse confirming the same 73 book canon that we have today.
Several councils long prior to Trent confirmed again and again this same canon. (2nd Carthage in 419, Council of Florence in 1441, Trent in 1546, and the 1st Vatican Council in 1869.) Every time the questions arose it was again affirmed by thosew who knew what had been affirmed by the early church. But when Luther and Calvin began asking questions to find out just why the Roman Catholic Cardinals were making money from indulgences, why was the Pope persecuting Christians (through the Inquisition), and why were these leaders not held accountable by the Local Church [which is what the Bible plainly says], the Roman Catholic leaders knew that they had been caught, and they also knew that they were dealing with very knowledgeable people. Luther was director of a university system that included Ten universities under the Wittenberg University system. ** Luther was an egotistical man who took it upon himself to both add and subtract from the Word of God. However…he DID believe that Mary was the Mother of God, and in the Eucharist…do you?
All 3 “pillars of the Reformation” shared these beliefs. Oh but they never told you that in your Sunday school class, did they? You need to check out a real and unbiased history of the inquisition instead of all that anti-Catholic stuff you read. They really have misled you.
I hope this answers your question.
It would have if your information had been honest and accurate…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No…you do since we know from early church tradition that Joseph was a much older widower and that these were step brothers and cousins of Jesus.Matthew 12:46-50
“While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You. But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Here Jesus is distinguishing between blood brothers versus brothers of faith. Remember it was someone else who called them “mother and brothers” not Jesus. If the brothers are not literal, then neither is the mother. They cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (anepsios). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother (adelphos).
**Matthew 13:55-56 **
***“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ***His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” Notice that it is implied that these brothers and sisters are members of His own household!
You have a difficult task because Mary DID have other children!
M
MaggieOH
Guest
There are several excellent sites on the Internet that discuss the issue of the canonicity of the Old and New Testament. The following site has a response from Mark Shea:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
Mark answers all of the common objects and gives very clear reasons why these objections should be totally dismissed as frivolous (my wording)
Maggie
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
Mark answers all of the common objects and gives very clear reasons why these objections should be totally dismissed as frivolous (my wording)
Maggie
T
TheGarg
Guest
You are totally brainwashed, my friend. Who do you think put the bible together…Hmmmmm, lets seee…what Church was around back in 400 AD…hmmmm …I know!! The Catholic Church. The fact is “dude” [CM 2005], that the Catholic Church added ALL the books!The fact is the Roman Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals to the bible in response to the Reformation. They are not inspired and contain many errors.
so here is some reprogramming to help you get back on the right track
:public class TrueBible
{
/*
original bible was put together by the Catholic Church
just incase you didn’t gather that from the previous statements
*/
String theOriginalBible = “TrueBible”. // this is a constant
// variable
if (yourBible != TheOriginalBible) // != means “does not equal”
{
yourBible = “equals reworked version by heretic”;
yourBible = “incomplete, take back to bookstore”;
}
return(for copy of “TrueBible”);
}
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Church Militant:
The other week I heard a good definition for tradition: It is the way of saying that something is hearsay 
Maggie
I disagree with this comment because it is not supported by Scripture. I do agree that it has come from tradition.
The other week I heard a good definition for tradition: It is the way of saying that something is hearsay
Maggie
B
Benadam
Guest
If you look carefully at what is happening among the relationships experienced between Christ and those intimates most effected by Him, you’ll notice that those you claim are ‘blood’ relations are feeling their meaning as members of society is being threatened.Matthew 12:46-50
“While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You. But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Here Jesus is distinguishing between blood brothers versus brothers of faith. Remember it was someone else who called them “mother and brothers” not Jesus. If the brothers are not literal, then neither is the mother. They cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (anepsios). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother (adelphos).
**Matthew 13:55-56 **
***“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ***His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” Notice that it is implied that these brothers and sisters are members of His own household!
You have a difficult task because Mary DID have other children!
This threat finds it’s source in that Jesus is a member of their family making them presumed participants with His movement unless they take control of Him from the authority they would normally have if they represented His closest blood relations present.
They were experiencing profound inner conflict in that they desired to claim authority over Jesus by enforcing rights established by the very reality that was causing them anxiety and from which they were desperate to distance themselves. Jesus recognizes their anxiety and acknowledges it’s dynamic by referencing His relationship to them in the intimacy they claimed for taking control of Him. The polar dynamic of the ‘so called’ blood relations was responded to when Christ added to His words the distance they were desperate for in relation to Himself their ‘brother’ when He pointed out the superiority of spiritual bonds over blood bonds dealing to them a rebuke and a healing in one stroke. Furthermore by uniting them to His mother He was able to say that His *mother *and brothers were those who did the will of His Father covering them from and allowing exposure of, public revelation of their sin against truth and at the same time revealing their sin to themselves.
So, if they were indeed true blood relations having the rights they were wanting to claim and use to take control of Jesus, Mary would not have been able to mediate the situation. Male siblings would not have had to submit to their mother who’s authority through the rights of bloodline wouldn’t have usurped those with the same rights supplemented by those attached to the rights men had over women. Especially when their efforts were to preserve the family from scandal.
The personal interactions within the description of this event reveals that if they were siblings they would have seized control of Jesus and put a stop to His public ministry.
A
Angainor
Guest
Hmmm
… I believe it was the Father Himself who chose to “reduce” His gifts and Mysteries to a human level by sending his only Son to be born as a human, in a stable and laid in a manger.
A
Angainor
Guest
I simply don’t understand the “Ark of the New Covenant” reasoning for two reasons:
- Was Mary carried around on a golden platform carried by priestly attendants wearing shining silver robes? Or did Mary travel to Bethleham on a donkey, get turned away from the inn, and give birth in a stable? The nativity account paints a picture of Jesus being born into an average station in life to average parents. The Ark of the Old Covenant may not have been used to haul grain, but I guarantee you Mary hauled grain home from the market from time to time.
- I do not understand why normal marital relations with her husband would make Mary any less “concentrated” than any other normal human activity. God created us Man and Woman. Marital relations are a part of life.
M
mark_a
Guest
This one just never ends, does it?
Except for the fact that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could be right about Mary, why does her perpetual virginity cause such commotion?
Except for the fact that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could be right about Mary, why does her perpetual virginity cause such commotion?
M
MaggieOH
Guest
To be honest that is a silly question regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus is the New Covenant. He was carried in the womb of Mary for nine months. The Ark carried those things that were sacred to the people of Israel. God came to sit on the throne of the Ark. God was within Mary.
If you say that Jesus was born to normal parents, are you saying that you do not believe that Jesus was begotten from the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin?
If that is what you are saying then why do you call yourself a Christian?
First of all, this is not an issue relating to what is considered to be normal marital relations. There is too much emphasis being placed upon the sexual aspect of marriage, rather than the spiritual and other aspects of Holy Matrimony.
This is not about the sexual act being “consecrated”. Second, it seems to me that those who put up this argument have very little understanding of the Sacred, especially the nature of the Incarnation.
If you believe that Jesus is God, then you need to look to what the Scripture says about the times when God was present with the Ark of the Covenant, at the Tent of Meeting, and in the Temple to even begin to understand that anything that is considered to be impure is not allowed near God.
Third, when Ezekial wrote about his vision of the Temple, there is one section that speaks about God entering by the east gate. It reads:
“Then he led me to the gate which faces the east, and there I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east. I heard a sound like the roaring of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory…” (Ezekiel 43:1-2)
“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: **This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord the God of Israel has entered by it (the gate), it shall remain closed” **(Ezekiel 44:1-2)
The reason for pointing to this verse is based upon the action as well as the command. The Lord entered the world in the Flesh through the Woman (Mary) who bore Him in her womb for 9 months. Since it was the Lord who had passed through Mary (the east gate through which the Lord the God of Israel passed through) then the command that has been given is that the gate shall remain shut and none my “enter” by it.
In terms of the womb of Mary, this means that her earthly husband is forbidden by the Lord to have sexual relations (enter by the east gate) because the Lord has passed through Mary, (the birth process) and the gate must remain shut. It also means that Mary’s womb was not to be used to bring other humans into existence because this would also contradict the words in the Book of Ezekiel, that none shall enter through the gate because the Lord the God of Israel has passed through it.
Maggie
- Status