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)
Check your FReepmail.
And read the Religion Moderator's posting guidelines on his homepage.
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47 “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.”
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ‘His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and ‘brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not ‘His sisters’ here with us?”
John 2:12 “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and ‘His brothers’, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, ‘and with His brothers’.”
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, ‘and’ the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, ‘the Lord’s brother’..
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
Original Word: συγγενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
All error comes down to calling God a liar.
The idea is still around...
Every one of these are; quite obviously; POORLY catechized!
Quite a broad statement.
If a women entered into marriage never intending or allowing for marital relations then i believe it would be grounds for annulment.
Thus Mary came into the world to save Jesus from sins and as many Catholics profess, to her Christ owed His sinless blood to. Which is consistent with the elevation of the Mary of Catholicism, while in Scripture the Lord owes man nothing, and Mary owed her very existence to Christ.
Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
“and have never met one single, solitary Catholic who thought sex between a husband and wife is dirty and sinful.”
Wow! Fantastic.
Finally a Catholic that understands that Mary and Joseph enjoyed the command to have sex as a married couple. That it wasn’t sinful or dirty, but beautiful and wholesome and commanded by God for every married couple. It is refreshing to find someone who isn’t bound by false dogma, at the expense of what God commanded.
Thank you for posting.
“I’ve read a lot of the CCC.”
The CCC is like the “statement of faith” you find in the (c)atholic churches. One can only know if it is accurate by testing the spirits, holding it up to the light of the revealed Word.
I don’t need it because I have Scripture. Now, I don’t always obey THAT (being honest); much less the uninspired writings of ANY men sitting around talking ABOUT inspired Scripture.
Jesus had YOUNGER brothers and sisters. Mary was still alive after the crucifixion. There is zero evidence of Joseph divorcing Mary. What magic does catholicism offer to account for the brothers and sisters of Jesus, WHO WERE YOUNGER THAN JESUS?
Ah, you've made a wild extrapolation there without even pausing to take a breath and notice some huge essential distinctions.
What I did say was that I never met a Catholic who thought sex between a husband and wife was dirty. What I didn't say was that after the Incarnation and Birth of God from her body, Mary and Joseph had sex.
I'm sure you can see the difference here.
Mary had already been overshadowed by the power of the Most High, and given to God to be the mother of the Divine Child. Being already given, she's not going to later consider herself God's "ex," God's divorcee, or God's widow, and thus be free to join herself to another spouse.
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.
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.
That doesn't follow. It doesn't follow for anyone. Especially in view of Mary's extraordinary intimacy with God, that deserves a little more thought, doesn't it?
That's not Biblical. Jesus didn't just "carry" God or any of God's attributes (glory.) Jesus IS God.
"Is." We both know that.
Jesus is God. Mary carried God.
Types and foreshadowings are often multivalent--- that is, they have more than one application. They aren't identical, but they rhyme. So I am in no position to rule out that Jesus was in some sense like the Ark of the Covenant. But He would be MORE like the CONTENTS of the vessel: the manna (He, the Bread of Life), the Tablets of the Law (He, the Lawgiver), the powerful Staff of Aaron (He, the Power of Life itself).
He was the sacred cargo, the portable Presence of God so to speak, so to speak, the sacred entity being carried. And who carried Jesus? His mother, the Ark.
"Mary was not untouchable. There's not one shred of evidence for support of that in Scripture.... Did people die when they touched Mary? How did her mother not die then, if touching Mary resulted in death? "
Nobody said Mary was untouchable. I didn't say that. Types aren't point-by-point duplicates. They suggest, they allude, they "Rhyme". (She was also not made of wood overlaid with gold, and was not carried around on poles, either.)
The idea was "inviolability," which is not the same as untouchability. How could the mother of God's child be given to somebody else in the full sense, in a one-flesh union, if she were already given to God? She was already united with God--- the living God, she was not God's widow! --- and her flesh was given over for the Incarnation of the Son of God. His flesh and human nature were all from her.
"How did people not die when Jesus touched them?"
I never said they would. It's true that the Hebrews believed you could not see God, and live. You could not even touch Sinai, the holy Mountain, when God was present upon its heights, let you die. So, people touching Jesus and living? I must bow my head and say, "A miracle of grace."
The spider is THE Lie: “You shall be as God, knowing good and evil”. The rest are cobwebs proceeding from it. All of it combined stands in unbelief towards what God has SPOKEN.
Ergo making Him out to be a liar.
As you assert that Mary 'carried God in her womb', think about the implications of such an assertion with regard to the 'body' Jesus Christ had when He was with God in the Beginning. Is it possible that Mary carried in her womb 'a' body into which Jesus Christ would come in whatever body form He had in the beginning with God? Being the vessel He would come into, the Holy Spirit prepared a body for The Christ. That does not mean the body was already God in Mary's womb. The Bible even states that very concept with 'behold, though hast prepared for me a body'.
These sorts of though lines are so difficult for a magic mystery religion adherent because they step past learning what the Word of God actually teaches to hide behind the 'it's a mystery I just was never meantr to understand but my leaders might answer that for you.'
Try Hebrews 10:5 and the OT passage Paul was referring to ...
Unless Rome says so.
Mary’s womb carried the body spoken of in Heb10:5 referencing the OT proclamation. Mary did not carry God in her womb.
ALL error is NOT caused by...
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.