Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Because Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God, it is INaccurate and INappropriate to refer to her as the Mother of God.
Because she did not birth the Father or the Holy Spirit nor did she give being to the divinity of Jesus, all which saying *mother of God* says.
So you're then saying that the Holy Spirit did an inaccurate and inappropriate job of identifying Mary in Scripture.
Because the title of *mother of Jesus* is NOT about identifying Jesus or addressing the Incarnation, it's about identifying MARY.
Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when the Holy Spirit caused her to commit adultery...
The following passage has always been interpreted as evidence of Mary's vow of perpetual virginity and is impossible to explain otherwise:
But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end."Mary was engaged and understood the birds and the bees."How will this be," Mary [who was engaged] asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
Her response only makes sense if she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity, which was not unknown at the time.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The Essenes and Mary's Vow of Perpetual Virginity
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
REPLIES TO COMMON OBJECTIONS:Q: But Jesus had "brothers and sisters".
A: This objection is very easy to answer, since it was common to call cousins "brothers and sisters." Indeed, there was no word specific to "cousin" in ancient Aramaic, hence the New Testament writers felt no need to differentiate between cousins and closer relatives.
This same use of the term "brothers and sisters" referring rather to "cousins" is found in Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22.
If Jesus really had brothers and sisters who were sons and daughters of Mary, why did he entrust his Mother to John the Beloved at his death? Would she not have been cared for by the other children? [further, it is possible that these "brothers and sisters" where children of Joseph by a previous marriage of which he was widowed]
Q: But Matthew 1:18 says, "BEFORE Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." And it would not say BEFORE, if they did not have relations after.
A: The response is simple: We often say things like, "I left the city BEFORE I was able to visit my friend" and we by no means imply that we visited our friend AFTER we left.
Q: But Jesus is called the "first-born son", which implies that there were others.
A: Rather, the words "first-born" are a title which is applied even if there are no other children. It was of great significance in Jewish culture to be the first-born son, and this title was given even before any other children were born and was retained even if no other children were born.
Q: But Matthew 1:24-25 says, "And [Joseph] took unto him his wife [Mary]; and he knew her not TILL she brought forth her first-born Son." And Matthew would not have said TILL or UNTIL, if Joseph had not had relations with Mary after the birth of the Christ.
A: This is certainly the most complicated objection and it requires wisdom to see the truth. St. Jerome explains that, in the Scriptures, the word "until" is sometimes used to designate a fixed time, but also can designate and indefinite time. Hence, Psalm 122:2 states, "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, UNTIL he have mercy on us" ; but from this we are not to suppose that we turn our eyes away from the Lord after he is merciful! Rather, our eyes are fixed on the Lord until he shows us his mercy and, after he is merciful to us, our eyes remain fixed upon him all the more!
And St. Jerome concluded, "Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards." (Adversus Helvid. v)
And this interpretation is required by the other texts of Scripture (namely, her reply at the Annunciation) which indicate that Mary was indeed always a virgin.
When a person dies, their FLESH dies.
Their soul is still alive and goes either to heaven or Hades to wait until it is thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Or are you another Catholics who believes that when Jesus died, GOD died? Did the second person of the Trinity die when His body died?
No, God did not die. He is a spirit infinitely perfect, who always was and always will be. God had no beginning. He always was and always will be. When Jesus died, He experienced the separation of His soul from His body. And while His body laid in the tomb, He descended, and on the third day, He was raised from the dead in His glorified body.
I think I’m beginning to get your point. To use a syllogism, are you saying:
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is the incarnation of God
Mary is the mother of only the incarnation of God
That’s the conundrum Catholics are faced with.
Regardless of what y'all claim is MEANT by something you say, it says what it says and clearly what is says is different than what you say it means.
The very fact that you have to explain what it means, demonstrates that it says something different than what you want.
It says *Mother of GOD*, that GOD had a mother. If God had a mother, then Mary is above Him and He is not eternal and self-existent or omni-anything.
Well, you need to tell the priest on the forum that cause HE'S the one who said that, not me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3378565/posts?page=414#414
"But God DID die on the cross! That's precisely why it MATTERS that Jesus died on the cross!"
BTW, yes.
And that’s what the term *mother of Jesus* tells us.
I have learned redefining words is a hallmark of roman catholicism.
catholiciism has turned the vows on their head, to support the fables fabricated to raise Mary beyond what God has Blessed her. If you insist upon a vow of virginity (perpetual virginity would violate her vows of betrothal to Joseph), it would of necessity be her vow to Joseph that she would remain his until consummation.
The Holy Spirit placed the gestating body of Jesus into Mary's womb WITHOUT A SEXUAL UNION, thus Mary did not violate her vow to Joseph and The Holy Spirit did not violate her vow to Joseph. Jesus opened her womb with his birth, hence the established sacrifice of two turtle doves after His birth.
The assertion of a vow of perpetual virginity is a damnable lie because it would be Mary violating her vow to Joseph in the betrothal. But expecting a catholic steeped in the heresies of the ism is, well, as we see on these threads, a mountain of lies and traditions too high to travewrse. Only God's Spirit can penetrate such deceptions and traditions which hold minds captive. May God grant that some minds are opened with the efforts we expend to explain the Truth to those being lied to in the ism of Rome.
The Truth that Mary had children INSIDE her vows to Joseph only exposes the lies of Rome. It does nothing to sully that Blessed woman's stature in truly Christian eyes, because a true Christian has God's life in the human spirit and will not impugn the honor of Mary OR The Holy Spirit.
I don’t think there’s a word in it’s normal common usage that they accept at face value. Nothing ever means what it says, it means what they say it means.
Upthread a bit I recall someone arguing over the definition of *all*.
Additionally, if she had indeed made a vow of perpetual virginity to the Holy Spirit, then how did she and could she justifying entering into a marriage covenant with Joseph?
Entering into that covenant with him and vowing to him to be his wife when she already had made a previous vow, would make her an adulterer.
Puerile response. Is that all you've got?
You'll need to supply some EVIDENCE to the jury on this one; son.
The late Bruce McConkie, a Mormon apostle and, during his life, perhaps Mormonism's leading theologian, explained things this way: "This universal apostasy began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves; and it was known to and foretold by them....With the loss of the Gospel, the nations of the earth went into moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was universal...[T]his darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored Gospel."[1]
Mormons believe the church Jesus established in Palestine, before its disintegration, was identical to the Mormon Church of today, with ceremonies such as baptism for the dead, a polytheistic concept of God (including eternal progression, the notion that God was a man who evolved into a god and that worthy Mormon males can evolve into gods), and other peculiar Mormon beliefs. The fact that no historical evidence exists to corroborate this position doesn't put much of a dent in the average Mormon's mental armor.
Well; both games ARE played on the same board.
Catholics and Mormons DO use the same bible; with just slightly different additions to it.
Wouldn't be easier to prove that Catholics do not NEED to read?
Watch out!
Continuing along this line of thought can get a person a week's timeout to ponder their sin!
Warning to YOU; too!
Mary the PERFECT woman (in Rome's eyes) did NOT have any hormones in her body.
ALL of god; or only 1/3 of GOD?
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.