Posted on 08/26/2020 1:41:57 PM PDT by MurphsLaw
The scientific word is “microchimerism”. It is the transfer of cells from the baby’s body into the mother’s body and the transfer of cells of the mother’s body in the baby’s body. These cells of the baby remain in the mothers’ body after birth. Very interesting indeed when considering the relationship between Jesus and his mother Mary.
The microchimerism website says,
“Microchimerism is the harboring of small numbers of cells that originated in a genetically different individual.
During pregnancy some cells traffic from the mother to the fetus and from the fetus to the mother. Surprisingly, a small number of the mother’s cells persist in her offspring, including into adult life. And a small number of cells from prior pregnancies persist in mothers many years later. It has only recently become apparent that naturally-acquired microchimerism is common in humans.”
(http://www.microchimerism.org)
The new scientific discovery of microchimerism informs us that some of the cells of the God-Man Jesus remained in the body of Mary. At his gestation and after his birth, Jesus left microscopic bits of his own divine cellular being inside his mother. Was Mary then a tabernacle of the Divine? Yes, not only during the pregnancy but also forever after.
Smithsonian Magazine informs us, “This cellular invasion means that mothers carry unique genetic material from their children’s bodies, creating what biologists call a microchimera, named after the legendary beasts made of different animals. The phenomenon is widespread among mammals, and scientists have proposed a number of theories for how it affects the mother, from better wound healing to higher risk of cancer.”
We speak of Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Old Covenant in the Old Testament contained 1) the Word of God inscribed on stone, 2) an urn of manna, and 3) Aaron the High Priest’s rod that budded (Heb 9:4).
Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and in her womb was 1) the Word of God inscribed on flesh, 2) the real bread which came down from heaven, and 3) the real and ultimate, eternal High Priest.
But science now informs us that Mary was the Ark of the Covenant that carried God Himself not only for nine months but for the remainder of her existence. Mary was — and indeed still is — the Ark of the New Covenant and the repository of the Divine.
What other woman has this relationship with God in the flesh? She is the beloved daughter of the Father, the chosen mother of the Son, and the chaste spouse of the Holy Spirit. What other woman has such a relationship with the Trinity?
And now that science has discovered microchimerism, we realize now that May is perpetually the tabernacle of the Divine. As a Protestant, I thought Mary was non-essential and not important. Catholics made too big a deal of Mary. Boy, was I wrong. I love being a Catholic!
THAT is strictly a Catholic opinion that ignores/changes scripture.
I believe you are correct sir. Mary and Joseph had a ton of kids. 😁🤣 That means they had to do the evil deed. They had sex. 👍😁
“If our Bibles contained those seven books, the Catholics would have removed them at Trent and started screaming that Luther was adding to the Bible.”
Excellent point!
And here is as plausible an explanation as ny of the catholic stories: perhaps the embryonic Jesus was / is the first union of Adam’s seed and Eve’s seed, brought forth to implant in the womb of Mary! By being given life support while in MAry’s body, Jesus is lawfully descended from David through Mary.
See post 116, got a better explanation I’m all ears.
Also, you know for a fact that one of Mary's ovum was not used.
These “secret things” along with the status of Mary's virginity after the birth of Jesus are non-sequiturs.
It has been shown that contrary to the typical strawman of sola fide that faith is alone, Luther held that it is effectual life-changing obedient faith that justifies.
For Scripture teaches that it is regenerating, heart-purifying (10:43; Acts 15:7-9) Abrahamic faith that is counted for righteousness, contrary to RC teaching of salvation thru becoming actually good enough to be with God, thru Purgatory. But you just ignore refutations and proceed to paste more parroted prevaricating propaganda.
To the CONTRARY- I can show you in Scripture where the bible says salvation is NOT by Faith alone....(James 2:24)
To the contrary, salvation is NOT by Faith that is alone, and if James 2 is teaching that Abraham was not justified when he believed God who promised to do what Abraham could not, but instead was justified when he offered up Issac, then James is contradicting both Moses and Paul.
Paul, for his part, is dealing with the issue of justification by merit (which is what Catholicism teaches by teaching it is grace thru merit) and with the Law being the prime example of that (Galatians 3:21) as in Romans 4 (while Titus 3:5 just says "not by works of righteousness that we have done") , vs. grace thru effectual faith, while in essence James is dealing with what kind of faith justifies, that of one that goes with works, as Luther formally taught, and not an inert faith.
And Adam was clearly fully human, but only had DNA from God the Father, so there’s the connection between fully Man and fully God.
Meanwhile all can you argue is that you have hints of perpetual Marian virginity (PMV) but which is no basis for being a doctrine. And if Mary never consummated a marriage - an exception to the norm - then it would be highly atypical (an exception to the norm) that the Holy Spirit would not state this. For the Holy Spirit characteristically notes exceptions to the norm even among lesser figures.
From extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), speed (Asahel), sterility (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), birth by a virgin (Mary), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), uncharacteristic singleness (Paul and Barnabas), and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, the surpassing grace and labor and suffering of Paul, the lack of genealogy of Melchizedek, etc., to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.
And note that marriage is described as two sexually becoming one (if fact, not intending to have children is grounds for annulment in RC law), and in regards to only known possible non-consummated marriage, the Holy Spirit was careful to state David did not "know" Abishag who closely ministered to him. (1 Kings 1:4)
Meanwhile, in contrast to the Catholic exception to the norm, we have the explicit statement that Joseph "knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25)(Mt. 1:25)
Here, true to form, in order for Catholics to argue for an exception to the norm, they must resort to arguing for another exception to the norm, that the Greek word for "til" (heōs) does not mean that a terminus is inferred, but a continuity, which is an exceedingly rare occurrence.
Meaning that the Spirit of Christ does not provide any clear support for this Catholic exception to the norm, and which requires presupposing other exception to the norm.
Trade: Here's another source on Adelphos
The most natural way to understand "brothers" is that the term refers to the sons of Mary and Joseph and thus to brothers of Jesus on his mother's side. To support the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity, a notion foreign to the NT and to the earliest church fathers, Roman Catholic scholars have suggested that "brothers" refers either to Joseph's son's by an earlier marriage or to sons of Mary's sister, who had the same name [...]. Certainly "brethren" (adelphos) can have a wider meaning than male relatives (Acts 22:1). Yet it is very doubtful whether such a meaning is valid here for it raises insuperable problems. For instance, if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of "brothers" in this pericope, despite McHugh's best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT [...]. — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
More as regards adelphos, the Greek has words it can use for cousins (suggenēs”, “anepsios”) or other kin (Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom .9:3; 16:7,11,21, and anepsios: Col 4:10), which are different from the word for brethren (“adelphos”) which often refers to biological siblings.
One debater states that
“Adelphos and adelphe are used 368 times in the NT.
91 times it means sibling.
22 times it means countrymen.
12 times it means fellow man.
243 times it means spiritual sibling.
However, the reality is that the dispute about PMV cannot be determined by the use of adelphos alone, due to the lack of precision, while the principal of exceptions and the context in which adelphos is used play a strong role. While adelphos can also often mean brethren in the larger sense, when adelphos is used with a parent (not necessarily named), or when one is named as a brother of someone then that it is less likely to be used in the wider sense, (avoiding duplicates: Mt. 1:2,11; 4:18,21; 10:2; 14:3; 17:1; Mk. 5:37; 15:40; Jn. 11:2;
The often mentioning of “His mother, and his brethren” together, along with the naming of 4 brethren strongly suggests immediate family, rather than extended, and thus some resort to another scenario, that these brethren were because Joseph was a widower with sons from a previous marriage*. There is no reason to resort to this explanation except to disallow Scripture from contradicting a tradition of men, contrary to the most reasonable meaning, that of a normal consummated marriage, resulting in children.
Matthew 13:55-57: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. " Meanwhile unlike here, Luke 7:12 makes note of the case when a man was “the only son of his mother.”
"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. " (Galatians 1:19)
"And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. " (Mark 3:32)
"After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. " (John 2:12)
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. " (Acts 1:14)
Rather than the weight of Scripture warranting PMV, instead it flows from doctrine close to that of demons (1Tim. 4:1-3) which certain so-called "church fathers" held, as shown in post 247. (perpetual Marian virginity)
*The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, In the Apocryphal Gospels, the attempt is made to supply what the canonical Gospels omit. They report that Joseph was over eighty years of age at his second marriage, and the names of both sons and daughters by his first marriage are given. As Lightfoot (commentary on Galatians) has remarked, “they are pure fabrications.” Theophylact even advanced theory that they were the children of Joseph by a levirate marriage, with the widow of his brother, Clopas. Others regard them as the nephews of Joseph whom, after the death of his brother Clopas, he had taken into his own home, and who Thus became members of his family, and were accounted as though they were the children of Joseph and Mary. According to this view, Mary excepted, the whole family at Nazareth were no blood relatives of Jesus. It is a Docetic conception in the interest of the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. All its details, even that of the advanced age and decrepitude of Joseph, start from that premise.
Any Christian who uses “science” in an attempt to buttress the validity of their beliefs is sorely lacking in faith....according to me, a nobody.
Good points.
Best point made this night! Adam had no mother! and yet he was human, the first human. Eve was the second human and she had no mother and was not conceived via sexual union!
How on earth did you get that out of his comments?
Because that's a really weird conclusion to arrive at from what mrobisr said.
And just what is the polemical import of this statement? That the instruments of preservation and ratification of holy writ are to be believed in all such judgments, and dissent is wrong? If not, then why this statement?
There are plenty of apocryphal and Gnostic versions of the Bible that could have made it into the official list of scriptures, but the Church insisted for well over a thousand years before your Martin Luther even thought to remove his seven, because “reasons.”
You mean the RC canon of Scripture was settled early on, and thus Luther was disobedient is not affirming 7 books as Scripture? And that he did not include deutercanonical books in his translation, and established the canon for Protestantism?
With the notation that they were apocrypha, but I’ll let that one go, nonetheless His list comes from the Catholic Church. Which wouldn’t even be considered had they not been included from ancient lists of the Bible promulgated by preceding Church councils
So?
In Genesis, did Adam gestate in a womb?
In case you did not noticed, Jesus did, hence the point was a fallacy.
Again, these “secret things” are non- sequiturs concerning the bigger picture.
Apparently it was an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
That simply is not that of addressing created beings in Heaven who can heard multitudinous mental prayers - an attribute only God is shown to possess. And nowhere in Scripture do we see any believers engaging in prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH), or instructed to do so, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers , and of this being a most basic practice, and despite there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for it since the Fall, yet the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven. Meanwhile, from what I recall, any two-way communication btwn created beings in Heaven and earth required both to somehow be present in the same location, and was not that of asking them to intercede to God for them.
read Revelations and ask why the prayers sent to the Saints, such as Mary, are offered up to God as sweet, pleasing incense.
elders and angels offering prayers (Rv. 5:8; 8:4,5) in memorial - like as in Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15; 16:9, "an offering of memorial" cf. Num. 16:9, - is not that of them being addressed in prayer, nor does it indicate that they had heard them previously, nor is it described as being a regular postal service, but it is one of the things which is a preclude to the final judgments upon the earth, testifying to the persecutions of the saints by the devil and world that it fit to be punished. For when "He maketh inquisition for blood, he remembereth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the humble. (Psalms 9:12; cf. Genesis 4:10) and before judgment God brings forth testimony of the warrant for it, which includes the cry of those martyred souls under the altar in Rv. 6:9, and with odors representing prayer, akin to Leviticus 6:15, "burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the Lord." (Leviticus 6:15)
That’s interesting I’m not really sure where you are trying to go, but I’ll be waiting eagerly for this explanation.
Well you see, since Mary is the Ark, and the Ark went inside the tabernacle (Ex. 40:2-3; Heb. 9:3-4) and "it's what's inside the tabernacle that is worshiped," then..
Thanks Daniel that says it all, lol.
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.