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 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-285 next last
To: Elsie

Natch!


101 posted on 06/26/2015 9:43:45 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To know Thee is complete righteousness; to know Thy power is the root of immortality. - Wisdom 15:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
As you assert that Mary 'carried God in her womb...

Rahab 'carried' Mary in HER womb; too.

102 posted on 06/26/2015 9:43:58 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

>It just doesn’t interest me.

>>And yet you’ve read up to reply 53 and have commented.

Indeed... the title of the thread interested me. When I saw the content my feelings were hurt. Christian on Christian fighting is unappealing to me. Houseflies don’t interest me either, but when one hits me in the eye I say “ow.”


103 posted on 06/26/2015 10:43:26 AM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Um, no. The womb is an organ. The gametes are the ‘seeds’. Rahab might be considered to have had the genetic line from which Mary arose, through the gametes no the organ.


104 posted on 06/26/2015 11:02:50 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; metmom; RnMomof7; CynicalBear; Springfield Reformer; Mark17
The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, is God, and existed before time was even created, and is eternal, infinite, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and He has no beginning and no end. He is one in nature with the Father and the Spirit, One God.

The Word incarnate, is Jesus Christ.

Mary, a human person with a human nature, is a creature, and did not exist until she was conceived in her mother's womb, and is mortal, finite, infinitely lesser than God her Creator, and has the same nature her ancestors Adam and Eve had: a human nature.

Mary did not carry the Trinity Incarnate in her womb. (The Trinity is not incarnate.) She carried the Second Person, the Word incarnate.

One doesn't carry and give birth to a "nature". (Doctor in delivery room: "Congratulations! It's a Nature!"??!) One carries and gives birth to a Person. Since He is God --- a Divine Person --- she carried God.

That does not mean that Mary is the eternal source of the Word, or that she's older than the Word, or that she came before the Word, or that she is equal to the Word's divine nature.

It does mean that He Who always existed, in the fullness of time assumed a human nature, became flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. ("Behold, thou hast prepared for me a body.") She is his genetic mother, His gestational mother, His birth-mother, His legal mother, His nurturant nursing-mother, and his maternal-attachment-social-emotional mother.

In short, she's His mother.

She is His creature and His handmaid and His disciple.

He is her Son, her Baby, her Lord, her little Boy, her God, her Source, her Creator, her Savior.

Any other questions?

I never tire of explaining this.

P.S. the title "Theotokos" = "God-bearer" - "Mother of Gods" was officially approved at the Council of Ephesus, for the explicit purpose of refuting Nestorius, who (as I understand it) said that Jesus did not have a human soul and was thus neither "true Man" nor "true God," but rather He's two different persons in one body: a kind of multiple-personality disorder. The Council said, no, He is one Person.

Thus, historically, the title "Mother of God" was never intended to tell us something about Mary, but rather to tell us something about Jesus: that he is not two different persons.

105 posted on 06/26/2015 11:19:18 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To know Thee is complete righteousness; to know Thy power is the root of immortality. - Wisdom 15:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Have you yet read Hebrews 10?


106 posted on 06/26/2015 11:46:52 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; metmom; RnMomof7; CynicalBear; Springfield Reformer; Mark17
I not only read Hebrews 10: like the Catholic Church, I base my Christology on it.

BTW, I hope everyone realizea "Mother of Gods" in my last response was a typo. The intended and correct phrase is "Mother of God."

107 posted on 06/26/2015 11:59:02 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (To know Thee is complete righteousness; to know Thy power is the root of immortality. - Wisdom 15:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Do you recall the part of chapter ten where the author said the blood of animals could not take away sins? The offerings before were to focus faith upon the body prepared for Him, for by Him, His Body and Blood, is sin dealt with. The author says He did this once for all. Where for it need not be repeated. Jesus said to break the bread and eat it in remembrance of His body sacrificed for us. He offered the cups of Passover wine, not His blood, to be in remembrance of His blood poured out for them/us.

The heresy of transubstantiation is hallmark of mystery religions, of magic, and it is sacrilege. To insist you know when The Christ took upon Himself the body prepared for Him is of the same type of mystery religion. When Mary was told by Gabriel that what is conceived in her womb is holy, it need not be the Christ inhabiting from the first zygote The Christ. The proclamation that what was in her for Him to inhabit dedicates the body for God's purpose. That body gestating in her womb had been planned from the foundation of the Universe. While that body was gestating, The Word existed in complexity far greater than the forming cells.

Each Christian is born from above by God's Life spark in us. We have each had a body prepared for us in the womb of our mothers. We know not where or in what state was our spirit and soul during that gestating time of the 4D body. Could it be that catholicism makes unwarranted assumption in order to fabricate for Mary dignities to which she is not due?

108 posted on 06/26/2015 12:34:43 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

HI MDO,

” It’s inconsistent for you -— I assume you’re a sola Scriptura guy -— to pencil in that Mary and Joseph had sex, which is not stated in Scripture, and when no Christian even imagined such a thing until 1500 years after the Incarnation.”

It is entirely consistent of me as someone who obeys and respects God’s revelation, to assume that:

1. Mary was an obedient follower of the will of God.
2. ALL married couples are commanded to have sex, except for short periods of time devoted to prayer.
3. Ergo, Mary and Joseph, obedient followers of God, fulfilled His commands with joy and satisfaction.
4. God never commanded Mary to abstain from sex forever in Scripture.
5. Joseph was never commanded to abstain from sex by God, as recorded in Scripture.
6. No record exists in Scripture that says they abstained from sex forever.

In other words, in Scripture, your claim is working from total silence.

However... I’m open to your evidence always. So...

Please show me any written record before 100 ad that demonstrates it was widely taught or believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin (or that she was assumed into heaven, for that matter).

The sources you quote to prove your claim can include any source before 100ad, including:

Extra-Biblical Christian writings
Christian art
Secular writings
Secular art

Have at it sis! I’m rootin’ for you!

As you gather up your sources (which will not fill a thimble, I predict), also remember that just because no believed something doesn’t prove it was true. People have a history of making up things and pretending they are true. So back to the sources and actual facts to prove your case.

AMPU

PS -

“An even large issue, if possible, is that you assume that if a couple doesn’t have sex, it must be because they think sex is dirty and sinful. “

No, if they are obedient Christians, they are only abstaining because they are not able to have sex or they are devoting time to prayer for a brief period.


109 posted on 06/26/2015 12:51:00 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I agree with everything in Hebrews 10 and everything in your first paragraph.

The paragraph beginning "The heresy of transubstantiation" is where we part company.

Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Mark 14:22
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”

Luke 22:19
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (KJV)

This was Him. The very same body that formed in Mary's womb. He whom the whole Universe could not contain.

I wouldn't dare say anything but Amen.

110 posted on 06/26/2015 12:57:00 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (O Mary, He whom the whole Universe cannot contain, enclosed Himself in your womb and was made man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"This was Him ""[this bread and wine in the cups]. The very same body that formed in Mary's womb. He whom the whole Universe could not contain."

Now read Luke 22:15-20

And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 21 “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." Was the cup the new covenant? The cup held wine, not blood. The symbolic is used at the SYMBOLIC Passover/ Jews were taught the symbolism represented reality that they were to focus back upon. To twist the symbolic, the sacred symbolism, into a defiance of what God had commanded for all their Generations is sacrilege writ large by catholicism.

111 posted on 06/26/2015 1:44:49 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
But she could not be conjugally given to Joseph --- in the full, one-flesh sense --- because she had already been given to God for the exercise of her sexual reproductive capacity. A "good and devout woman" can only give herself to one --- or shall we say, one at a time --- in the conjugal sense unless she is widowed and remarried.

"ALL married couples are commanded to have sex, except for short periods of time devoted to prayer."

This is true in general (this also entails an openness to bear children, i.e. we're talking about honest natural sexual relations, not perverse or contracepted acts) but it does no t require intercourse under any and all circumstances. For instance, if one of the spouses is actively HIV-positive, that would be a just reason to abstain from intercourse; or if the couple had a serious reason to avoid pregnancy (e.g. wife has cancer of the cervix or uterus or some other serious condition.)

Or do you think they are obliged to have intercourse regardless of their particular situation?

Remember that woman in Texas, Andrea Yates, who drowned her 5 children? This was about 10 -15 years ago. She had suffered from psychosis after her 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pregnancies, including hallucinations (both visual and auditory), multiple suicidal attempts and homicidal ideation, and yet her husband thought it was his duty to keep on impregnating er, and her duty to keep on having babies.

I always thought that was wrong, even moreso on her husband's part than on her's, because she was diagnosed psychotic but he was supposedly in his right mind. He knew she suffered by pregnancy-triggered psychosis but kept on having intercourse with her regardless.

So although there is in marriage an exclusive exchange of conjugal rights (the wife's conjugal right to her husband, the husband's conjugal right to his wife) there is not a limitless obligation to have intercourse in marriage.

As for Mary, she had a serious reason to abstain with Joseph, because it was God who had a conjugal right to her.

Just ask, “Who is Jesus’ father?” In terms of the origin of His conception, it’s not Joseph, but the Holy Spirit in one sense, and God the Father in another. (Multiple senses and meanings and applications are common in Holy Scripture.)

If Jesus’ parents were Mary and the Holy Spirit, then by simple analogy it follows that Mary (in this particular sense, and this alone) is the “spouse of the Holy Spirit”.

Don't think that implies that Mary had equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus.

In any case, in no place does the Scripture authorize bigamy, i.e. according conjugal rights to more than one person.

112 posted on 06/26/2015 2:03:47 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (O Mary, He whom the whole Universe cannot contain, enclosed Himself in your womb and was made man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The Mormons teach that Jesus was the product of sexual reproduction. Catholicism is in company of like minds, apparently.


113 posted on 06/26/2015 2:10:38 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; MHGinTN; metmom; RnMomof7; Springfield Reformer; Mark17

The really sad thing to me is that you appear not to realize that is total twisting of scripture and making up a fable fit for only pagans.


114 posted on 06/26/2015 2:14:06 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"To twist the symbolic, the sacred symbolism, into a defiance of what God had commanded for all their Generations..."

This makes no sense. If it were not Jesus' blood, Scripture wouldn't portray Him saying that it was. He says it over and over --- He doubles down on the point, even after his listeners have started to vehemently object --- in John 6.

The Jews considered that the Life was in the blood, and they abstained from eating blood because of God's command, not because it was too disgusting, but because it was too sacred.

This is how God prepared them for the astounding gift of the Eucharist: now, the unimaginable is true! You receive God's life because now that's what He wants to give you--- you receive His life-blood! Something you could not have imagined in a million years! And as St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 11,

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord.[Not: "will have to answer for a symbolic offense. Not: "will have to answer for misusing a metaphor".] A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Obviously one who remains unbelieving and says "It's just bread, only bread," you are not discerning the Body.

I don't think we should fight and argue any more about this. We would just be lobbing charges of blasphemy, sacrilege, unbelief, desecration and heresy against each other, and you know as well as I do that it would yield no resolution, but only result in anger and frustration.

As Paul wrote to Titus, (Titus 3:9), "Avoid foolish arguments, genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile."

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, take heed!

115 posted on 06/26/2015 2:31:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stop disputing about words. It serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. 2 Tim 2:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; MHGinTN; metmom; RnMomof7; Springfield Reformer; Mark17
Love ya. Same thing right back at'cha.

See #115

We're through, God bless you.

116 posted on 06/26/2015 2:34:42 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stop disputing about words. It serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. 2 Tim 2:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Except that they didn’t have toilets in 30 A.D.—————

Well maybe not in that region, but the isles out WEST from there had multi story buildings and toilets/running water long before the time of our LORD.


117 posted on 06/26/2015 2:35:58 PM PDT by litehaus (A memory tooooo long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: litehaus

Yeah, I guess there’s some aspects of ancient history that has just not attracted too much of my attention. Of course, reason says there have been some method even then that was a something more advanced than what the bears do.


118 posted on 06/26/2015 2:42:05 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; MHGinTN; metmom; RnMomof7; Springfield Reformer; Mark17

#115 changes nothing. It was still a sin against the law for Jesus and the apostles to eat blood. Had Jesus eaten real blood and encouraged others to do so He would have been sinning and would NOT have been the sinless sacrifice. The belief in physically eating the flesh of their gods is pagan in origin.


119 posted on 06/26/2015 2:44:18 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
As I understand it, the Mormons believe that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, as in, physical genital penetration. Catholics do not believe this.

Glad to be able to clear that up.

120 posted on 06/26/2015 2:44:40 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stop disputing about words. It serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. 2 Tim 2:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 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