Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Removing Jesus
White Horse Inn ^ | June 1, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7

Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).

If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14).

In short, He is the sinners’ Savior, and He came to earth to pursue them, not to avoid them (1 Timothy 1:15). To find sinners, He became a man like us. Not a man like us in all ways but sweat and dirt. Not a man like us in all ways but meconium. He became a man like us—”touched with the feeling of our infirmities”—in all ways but sin (Hebrews 4:15). And as if it were not enough that His feet were soiled to walk among us, He stooped even further and soiled His hands as well (John 8:6). Thus Jesus truly condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, say our Roman Catholic acquaintances, such condescension must have its limits. There is only so much stooping God can do without soiling Himself beyond what He can bear. Sure, He fixed his tabernacle among His people, but God ministers at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9), and that tabernacle is Mary. And such a tabernacle would need to be sinless. But aside from having a sinless mother, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, being sinless, the womb of Mary was a step up, not a step down, from Heaven. He actually did not, and could not, condescend all the way to our level, say the Roman Catholics:

“The womb of Mary—I will not call it womb, but temple; … the more secret tabernacle, … Yea verily above the heavens must Mary’s womb be accounted, since it sent back the Son of God to heaven more glorious than He had come down from heaven.” (St. Maximus, Homily V)

Thus, while it is true that Jesus “humbled” Himself to become man, He did not so humble Himself that He actually came down from heaven. No, by the testimony of Rome’s saints, He actually went up into Mary’s womb! So aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was actually higher than the heavens that He had left behind, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, for the fact that He was raised in a perfectly sinless home. Someone as holy as Jesus could not come this far and then live in a household contaminated by the sins He had come to take away. Therefore, Joseph must have been preserved from sin, too. The Apparition of Joseph in 1956 assured Sister Mary Ephrem that “immediately after my conception … because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father …  I was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest stain on my soul.” So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, for the fact that His cousin, John the Baptist, the herald of the King, also lived a life without sin. This “acceptable belief,” as you can read here, is freely accepted as true by Roman Catholics. As one member of the Catholic Answers forum explains, “It is crystal clear from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was baptized within his mother’s womb … [and] was free of all sin from that point on.

So widespread is this “pious belief,” that even Pope John XXIII in 1960 taught the logical implications of it: namely that Joseph and John the Baptist must have been assumed bodily into heaven, just as Jesus and Mary had been. “So we may piously believe,” said John XXIII, that the grace of assumption into heaven, so recently and infallibly declared for Mary in 1950, was also granted both to John the Baptist and to Joseph (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 52 (1960) 456). So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, and a sinless cousin, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, the fact that all of the apostles were sinless, too. That this is “acceptable belief” in Rome is evidenced from another writer at the Catholic Answers forum, who holds that not only the apostles, but many, many Roman Catholics led perfectly sinless lives after encountering Christ:

“What is being said is that they led sinless, blameless lives with the help of God’s grace. … Not only the Apostles, but many Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, desert fathers, Confessors and other members of the Church led sinless, blameless lives.”

So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, and sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

Except, of course, that His maternal grandparents must have been “profoundly pure” as well. Consider this pious tradition of the conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne. If Mary was housed in her mother, Anne, and Mary was the tabernacle, then that would make Anne “the inner sanctuary in which was formed the living tabernacle which was to house the Son of God made Man.”

It is thus difficult for Roman Catholics to picture in their minds that Mary had been conceived through normal, biological, copulative processes, including the physical pleasure and all of the attendant physical intimacy between man and wife. So taught Christopher West in his lecture, Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima:

“In the east, do you know how they depict the Immaculate ConceptIon? …  The icon is of a chaste embrace between Joachim and Anne, with the marriage bed behind them. How is it possible that their marital embrace led to the immaculate conception, if their hearts had not also in some way been made profoundly pure.”(59:30-1:00:40)

It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. West that Mary might have been conceived in an intimate sexual embrace, her parents lying down in bed, naked, enjoying the sheer physical pleasure that, as Paul wrote, was the “proper gift of God” to each of them (1 Corinthians 7:7). No, their hearts had to be “profoundly pure,” and that level of purity does not countenance the horizontality of unashamedly pleasurable marital sex.

So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, and “profoundly pure” maternal grandparents, Jesus was born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.

The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save! We see this in the march of Roman Catholic tradition that is constantly expanding the circle of sinlessness that surrounds this Man who, so we thought, had come to dine with sinners, touch lepers and be worshiped by prostitutes. Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one?  Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother, a step-father, a cousin and two grandparents who were as eager to be cleansed of their sin as the harlots and lepers? To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable. So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that to approach Him to be cleansed, one must already be clean.

But this not the only way Rome separates Jesus from the sinners He came to save. We are all too familiar with Mary’s alleged role as “mediatress.” Yes, Roman Catholics tell us, there is one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), but despite His incarnation, Jesus’ divinity is still a hindrance, not a help, to His mediation. Read as Roman apologist William Most cleverly transitions from Jesus being “the answer,” to Mary being the much better answer, because her humanity makes her better qualified than Jesus to mediate on our behalf:

“How then can I understand God, how [to] know what He wills, how to deal with him? But In Jesus we have the answer. … Yes, but His heart is the heart of a Divine Person. However, her heart is purely, entirely human, … So her Immaculate Heart can and does assure us we have in heaven an Advocate whom we can understand, who understands us, who loves us to the extent that like the Father, she did not spare her only Son, but gave Him up for all of us” (Most, William G., Mary’s Cooperation in Our Redemption)

But even this cannot be sufficient for Rome, who ever strives by remarkable ingenuity to separate sinners further from their Savior. It is true, says Rome, that Mary is the Mediatress of all graces, and every grace that flows to us from Jesus comes through Mary. But every grace from Mary must necessarily flow through Joseph. In his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church, Fr. Domenico, makes the case:

“It seems fitting then that by his intercession St. Joseph should now obtain all the graces that Our Lady dispenses to the human race. …  these grace come through Mary first, and then through St. Joseph who obtains them only through her. …  all the other saints rely on St. Joseph in their intercessions, just as St. Joseph relies on the mediation of Our Lady.” (True Devotion to St. Joseph, 381, 383, 400).

One Mediator can never be enough, nor two, nor three, so far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome.

But there is yet another way Rome separates Christ from sinners, and that is by reducing Jesus’ death on the cross to merely a symbolic gesture. It was hardly necessary to die and bleed, they say, but Jesus did it anyway—not to pay for sins, but to demonstrate the horror of sin. So taught Fr. William Most:

“Really an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation. Yet to show the horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He agreed, to go so dreadfully far.” (Most, William, Eschatology).

That is completely contrary to the Scriptures (Hebrews 2:14-17, 9:22), for “it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren … to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,” for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Yet as it turns out, in Rome, the real sacrifice of Jesus was not what He offered on the cross at all, but the bread He offered the night before in the Last Supper. That, we are told, was the real sacrifice:

“Those who crucified Christ did so at the sixth hour. But Jesus our High Priest immolated the lamb which He took towards the evening [the night before], when He celebrated the paschal banquet with His disciples and imparted to them the sacred mysteries.”

Indeed, Rome teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was not an offering for sin. They do not hide this, but say it proudly and openly as the Catholic Legate demonstrates:

“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives.”

Thus does the religion of Rome nullify the incarnation and “make the cross of Christ of none effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17)—as if Paul had not said we have access to the Father by the blood of the cross (Ephesians 2:13-19), and Peter had not said Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree ” (1 Peter 2:24-3:18), and as if Hebrews did not instruct us that Jesus is “mediator of the new testament … by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions” (Hebrews 9:15). Rome would have Him mediate the new covenant, without blood, without death, without the cross and without suffering for our transgressions, for “an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death” would have sufficed.

Couple this with the visions of Mary, and what we find is an utter and absolute denial of everything the incarnation was to accomplish. The visions of Mary teach Roman Catholics that it is Jesus Who is angry at them, and that Mary is holding back His wrath, and she is suffering for them—contrary to Romans 5:9 which assures us that “we shall be saved from wrath through him.”  The visions of Mary also teach that it is Jesus Who needs to be consoled by our sufferings—contrary to 2 Corinthians 1:5 which assures us that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” Compare these Scripture verses, above, with what the apparitions of Mary teach (Both of these visions and messages, La Salette and Akita, have the ecclesiastical approval of the Roman religion):

“If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it. How long I have suffered for you! If my Son is not to cast you off, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing.” (Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France to Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu, 1846)

“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates.” (Apparition of Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, 1973)

So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that we are told that Jesus is angry with us, and that we must suffer to console Him and save Him from His Father’s wrath! Is not the sum total of Rome’s doctrines a material denial of the incarnation?

Consider Rome’s teachings in light of John’s instruction in his first epistle. 1 John is an exquisite magnification of the incarnation, “which we have heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1). If we have sinned, there is a Mediator for us, for “we have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1).  “God … sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” and “your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” (1 John 2:12, 4:10). “He was manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:1). All these speak of an incarnation that provided us with one Mediator, provided us with one propitiation for our sins, and let us boldly approach Him (1 John 4:17) not because we are without sins (1 John 1:8-10), but because He Himself has made propitiation for them. “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). But Rome denies this record. The Serpent attempted to prevent the incarnation from occurring (Revelation 12:4), and failing that, now every effort is made by Rome to undo all of the benefits to be gained from it.

Did Jesus come in the flesh to seek and save sinners? Rome responds by surrounding Him with as many sinless people as possible to make Him distant an inaccessible to those who need Him.

Did Jesus come in the flesh to make a propitiation to the Father? Rome responds by relegating His sacrifice to the background—merely a profound gesture that was not strictly necessary—and making the real sacrifice an unbloody one the night before the crucifixion, when He “offered” bread for sins of the world.

Did Jesus come in the flesh to die, making peace through the blood of His cross? Rome responds by teaching that every sin Jesus pays for just makes the Father and Jesus angrier and angrier, and it is we who must, by our sufferings, make reparation for sin and thus save Jesus from His Father’s wrath.

Did Jesus become a man to be a Mediator between God and His people? Rome responds by adding as many mediators as possible between Jesus and sinners, as if His incarnation had failed, and left Him incapacitated, unfit and unable to serve.

Was Jesus “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9)? Rome responds by saying He was made higher than the heavens, so high is Mary’s womb above the children of men. The leisure of a palace, they say, instead of the humiliation of the cross, would have sufficed as a reparation.

Like the disciples, Rome would send away the unclean (Matthew 15:23), keep the simple from approaching Him (Luke 18:16), and rebuke Jesus for dying on the cross (Matthew 16:22)—for Rome has “taken away the key of knowledge,” not entering themselves, and hindering those who would (Luke 11:52).

When John wrote, “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3), he did not write this as an isolated formulaic incantation. He did not write this as if the mere recitation of the Nicæan Creed was sufficient as a substitute for faith in what had really been accomplished in the incarnation. John wrote this in the context of an incarnation that guaranteed to us a propitiation for sins and the favorable disposition of our heavenly Father, that provided us an Advocate who took on flesh to represent us and intercede before Him, that comforted us with an assurance of pardon for our sin through an accessible Savior Who hears us when we call upon Him. All these things are in practice denied by Rome, and we are offered no peace, no security, an angry Father, an angry Son, an endless line of mediators and a Savior unable to sympathize with our weakness, unapproachable and inaccessible except by those who are already “whole” and already “righteous.”

We hold therefore that when John wrote, “he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10), it is proof that the religion of Rome, at its core, is a rejection of the incarnation, for Rome has done all in its power to nullify it and make God a liar. Does Rome recite the Nicæan Creed? Well did Isaiah speak of her:

“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13).

The priests of Rome honor the incarnation with their lips, but by removing Jesus from sinners, they have denied the incarnation, and have removed their hearts from God.

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: hotelsierra; mariolatry; saints; tradition; transubstantiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-285 next last
To: MHGinTN; teppe; StormPrepper; Normandy; WilliamRobert
The Mormons teach that Jesus was the product of sexual reproduction.

But will ANY of them have the gonads to discuss it??



Mormons deny the virgin birth of Mary:

   

The Mormon Church Teaches That:

  • Our God is an exalted man of flesh and bone
  • He physically lives with His many wives near the star Kolob
  • Worthy Mormon men can also become Gods, like Him
  • Our God is one of many Gods and serves a God of His own!
  • God came down to earth in the flesh and was the physical father of Jesus
  • You should not trust the Bible in this matter. It is wrong.
  • Trust their prophets.
  • Read what the Mormon leaders say about our Savior and the Virgin Mary.
   

How can Mormons claim they believe in the virgin birth if God had sex with Mary?

They change the definition of the word virgin. Mormons feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had sex with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the Mormon 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:

  • "For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).

In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin.

  • By "Virgin birth", Mormons mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!
   

B. Gods Must Have Wives

C. Mary And God Were Married

D. Joseph was Her Second Husband

E. The Bible Is Wrong

F. God Is A Man

G. An Act Of The Flesh

H. Not Of The Holy Ghost

I. Bruce R. McConkie, deceased member of the 12 Apostles (d.1985) and leading LDS theologian, writes in Mormon Doctrine:

 
From here --->  http://www.bible.ca/mor-god-had-sex-with-mary.htm

161 posted on 06/27/2015 5:13:23 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Constantine had nothing to do with Christian Eucharistic theology. He did legalize Christianity and gave public buildings to Christians as houses of worship,

Sound like a VERY big 'something' to me!

162 posted on 06/27/2015 5:15:27 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That comes with understood repsonsibilities and privileges, one of which is sex.

The words "Hot Springs tonight!" had long been washed off of the donkey's side by the time they Holy Couple arrived at the stable...

163 posted on 06/27/2015 5:16:55 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
You’ll notice nobody’s in error about the meaning of the term “Mother of God” except that it is NOWHERE found in Scripture.
164 posted on 06/27/2015 5:17:41 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
He can not just bilocate, He can omnilocate. <>Physically?

Got any DATA?

165 posted on 06/27/2015 5:18:51 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The Catholic presumption that Mary took a perpetual vow of virginity as a young girl presumes ...

Rome 'presumes' an awful lot of things that are NOT found in the bible.

This is why I do NOT follow all of it's teachings.

166 posted on 06/27/2015 5:21:14 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Thank you. I learned a lot. There are not very many Mormons around here. In fact, a SBC bought the Mormon church next door and connected the two.


167 posted on 06/27/2015 6:26:04 AM PDT by MamaB (Heb. 13:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The paradox about Mary's engagement to Joseph, followed by her impregnation by the Holy Spirit, is that, from worldly sense, it could be said that she's cuckolding innocent Joseph. I can't see it that way --- it would be gravely dishonorable --- and it seems the key is that she was not (in the full sense) married to Joseph (their union was not consummated), nor had she ever intended to consummate it.

Therefore she was not violating his exclusive conjugal right.

There is textual support for that understanding, as you know, because there it is at

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3304228/posts?page=56#56

Hannah, Sarah, Samson's mother --- they all assumed that when they got marvelous news that they were going to become pregnant, it meant they would of course get pregnant by their husbands. "Whoa, what??! How am I going to get pregnant? How can this be?" is not a question that occurred to them. It would have been rather bizarre if it had. They had spouses, and they knew where babies come from.

But that was Mary's reaction. The only possible explanations are, either that (1) she did not know that marriage to Joseph meant sexual union and, consequently, an expected pregnancy (she "didn't know where babies come from") or (2) though betrothed to Joseph, she was committed to virginity and expected no pregnancy.

Is there any other explanation for Mary, a young, betrothed woman, being "troubled" and surprised when she was told that she would bear a son?

168 posted on 06/27/2015 7:29:57 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
It's that omnipotence thingy.

Romans 1:20
"Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made."

169 posted on 06/27/2015 7:41:58 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Since the world's creation,GodÂ’s eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen.- Rom 1:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: metmom

When a religion is hallmarked by magic thinking, any imagination can be made dogma.


170 posted on 06/27/2015 7:43:52 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

But the concept is there; just as the word “Trinity” is found nowhere in the Bible, but the concept is there.


171 posted on 06/27/2015 7:44:33 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - Luke 1:43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Ah, I see your point!


172 posted on 06/27/2015 7:44:48 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
For Constantine to provide legality, houses of worship and civil protection to Christians IS actually pretty important, but that doesn't make Constantine a Catholic theologian. It makes him a wise though unbaptized, pagan ruler who knows how to keep civil order.
173 posted on 06/27/2015 7:48:37 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lord, save Your people and bless Your inheritance; give victory to the faithful over their adversary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Excellent post ..

Therefore, if one is going to go by the conjugal rights angle, The Holy Spirit would have been impregnating a woman whose conjugal rights were already spoken for, thus making, (and I'm sure the RC's will jump all over this one) the Holy Spirit and Mary both adulterers in having some sort of conjugal relationship with an already legally. married woman.

I believe Joseph Smith thought the Holy Spirit had intercourse with Mary ...

174 posted on 06/27/2015 8:03:58 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; metmom
As for Mary, she had a serious reason to abstain with Joseph, because it was God who had a conjugal right to her.

I wondered how Joseph felt about this ???

Catholics have a strange view of sex.. it is not considered a sacred type of of Gods relationship with the saved ... it is a function with which to have children.. One poster here told me that if a couple uses birth control the sex is nothing but "mutual masterbation" ...I always thought the reason for the "perpetual virginity" nonsense was the men that developed it did not like the thought of a man in the same vagina that had given birth to Christ.. never mind that it was he that created it ...

175 posted on 06/27/2015 8:12:00 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
http://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help/

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/anxiety/obssessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd.htm
176 posted on 06/27/2015 8:27:54 AM PDT by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“nor had she ever intended to consummate it. “

Ah the mind reading! Does the RM know about this?

:-)


177 posted on 06/27/2015 9:08:19 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“Lastly, the “ever-virgin” argument boils down to, “The Church believes this because the Church has always believed this.” “

And yet I await any evidence that the Church EVER believed this before 100 ad... how’s it coming?

If the Church didn’t believe it before 100 ad, it is a later invention - of pagan origin. So far, there is no evidence to demonstrate the original church ever believed it.

Best.


178 posted on 06/27/2015 9:11:05 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Well said!


179 posted on 06/27/2015 9:17:21 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“I always thought the reason for the “perpetual virginity” nonsense was the men that developed it did not like the thought of a man in the same vagina that had given birth to Christ.. never mind that it was he that created it ... “

I think there is a better answer.

The human heart craves a relationship with God.
Once paganism crept into the Roman church and turned the glorious Gospel of Grace into a system of religious works, there was no more intimate relationship.

It was a celestial hamster wheel of sacraments, stations, genuflection, rote words, mumbled songs, etc.

At the same time, there arose the pagan infusion of multiple demigods - including the Demigoddess Mary.

You may not be “good enough to have a relationship with God that allows you to know and approach Him securely in that relationship, but fortunately (!), you can approach the Demigoddess Mary and she is good enough to hook you up with God. He can, after all, never resister her!

To be a demigoddess, you must have no sin, you must not be defiled by common urges or desires (sex, orgasm, etc.). You must be above humanity, but lower than God. You must have superpowers to hear everyone simultaneously. You must be able to perform miracles yourself. There are shrines to you. You are now a co-redemtrix. You will rule over the sun and moon and stars.

Pagans were comfortable coming into the Roman church with its syncronism and pagan rituals. Catholics accepted them. Here we are.

It is sad.


180 posted on 06/27/2015 9:18:44 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-285 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson