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!
Have to cap this at 200...
That is a truly useful calendar.
Thank you.
Invalid argument/strawman. Nowhere did I argue that explicit biblical proof for every doctrine is required, and in fact I argued otherwise. Which you evidence you ignored, as is typical, and thus your verbosity is in vain. Yet since you attempted this fallacy, thus more reproof is occasioned...
Where for example- should Protestant sects have in their Faith practice things like Altar Calls??? The New Testament never mentions an “altar call”. It never has the typical “sinner’s prayer” of evangelicals. It doesn’t mention church buildings. It never uses the word “Trinity.” It never uses the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of “personal relationship with Jesus.”
A logical fallacy/faulty analogy using two dissimilar classes of belief. Customs such as altar calls, “sinner’s prayers” or theological terms are not dogma/required beliefs,but which Rome made the Assumption approx. 17000 years after not doing so. If that was simply a belief that RCs could disagree with then it would be akin to belief in where Eden is. But that customs like a sinner’s prayer (Luke 18:13) and personally explaining the gospel to seeking souls, (Acts 8:27ff) and calls to faith (Acts 10:43) and making provision for ministering to souls (Mark 8:6) is is supported in principal and not opposed Scripture.
Along those lines – where do you find “Bible Studies” in the Bible? Obviously, Christians for centuries did not have a Bible--- and for another millennia it would be too scarce for the illiterate to even need. Or even the skewish “asking Jesus into one’s heart” - or "personal" Lord..…. Unbiblical
No, they are not unbiblical, rather, studying the Scriptures is commended and Jewish children did, (2 Timothy 3:15) and studying was expected (Mark 12:24) and your uncritical reliance upon Catholic Answers apologetic leaves you apparently ignorant of the degree of literacy in the ancient world, and contrary to "Christians for centuries did not have a Bible, no less than Chrysostom exhorted laity to obtain and study the Scriptures, as not being meant just for the clergy. Yet literacy in which which Rome hindered,. and with negative results.
and unnecessary for obvious reasons…
Which is another sophistical strawman, for sola scripture does not hold that it is essential for souls to have a copy of Scripture themselves in order to be saved, nor that they absolutely must to grow if they have faithful teachers of it, and or access to Scripture, for SS preachers often preach salvation to souls that do not have a Bible, at least with them, and missionaries may not even have one or many in the language of the people. However, literacy in Scripture is what we see expected by God and provided by Him,. For while until Moses, God revealed His express will in a quite basic degree to a very limited amount of people, but when He choose to do so to a corporate nation more fully, then He God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Psalm 102:18; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)
And Scripture thus became the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, which estsblished its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And since studying the Scriptures is commended and studying was expected, versus erring "because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God," (Mark 12:24) then just as God provided the pen for preservation, so the greater means to provide for what God wants is Scriptural.
In contrast is the blind reliance upon uninspired men, for while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do.
Thus your polemic is invalid.
For some MORE trivia…. even popular Protestant (and yes- also often Catholic) words or phrases you WON’T find in the Bible (yet developed from..) rapture, invisible church, incarnation, virgin birth, Bible, original sin, fall of man, theology, go[ing] to church, grace alone, [total] depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, spirituality, Scripture alone, pray for guidance, pray for direction, spiritual warfare, and sin nature.
And which is simply more of your vain verbosity, imagining that customs of thelogical terms are the same thing as decreeing dogma under the penalty of heresy for dissent. give it up.
AND....... Faith alone only appears ONCE: James 2:24 [RSV] "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." ... (RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE !) :) So how dare we extrapolate a beleif system and practice on such things NOT identified in the Bible. What's Going on here ?
Do you even read much of my responses that refute you, or simply parroted your prolix prevaricating polemics?
Why do Protestants believe in these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics an uncharitable haranguing for similarly developed doctrine or practices with less Biblical connectivity then accepted Catholic Doctrine- and then worse yet by having Our Savior born of a sinful woman... The real question IS- Why the double standard?
Why do you persist in your desperate recourse to logical fallacy of false analogy?
As far as your year 1700 basis – though the Church BEING CAREFUL to establish Doctrine taking years of deep consideration – and also with the guidance from the Holy Spirit … there are many documented writings- too many to list – of early Church Father’s. Here’s one: In the year 130 the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus wrote concerning a theme common in patristic Marian reflections, that Mary was the "Second Eve": >B> "As Eve was seduced by the speech of an angel, so as to flee God in transgressing his word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the angel's speech, so as to be God within her, being obedient to this word. And though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey him; that of the virgin Eve, the virgin Mary might become the advocate and as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved- a virgin's disobedience by a virgin' obedience."
Do you even read or comprehend much of my responses? The 1700 years referred to (the assumption of) the Assumption, nor the beginning or Marian exaltation. That this is your recourse actually supports what I said.
Martin Luther: Mary the Mother of God Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:...The Immaculate Conception.
And? This is irrelevant unless we looked to and invoked Luther on Mary, for instead, my reference to Luther was due to false claims about SE and the canon which is linked to him.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. WHAT would you say to Martin Luther today ??? That Protestant doctrine developed AWAY from what Luther believed - 500 years ago ??? You see the catch 22 here - yes???..John Calvin:...Ulrich Zwingli..
Another red herring, since who is denying Mary is not be honored, as I have affirmed (a holy, pious, virtuous Spirit-filled praying mothering instrument of God), and classic evangelical commentaries do honor Mary. Thus the sophistry you are engaging in once again is that of the false analogy, that of comparing reproof of the extreme Catholic hyper-exaltation of Mary far, far, far above that which is written, contra 1 Co. 4:6, with honest esteem of this holy women of God whose words and actions and the description of her does not support the demigoddess Catholics have made her into.
One small point: Mary was with the Apostles/disciples on the Day of Pentecost when the born again event began; we may presume she too was born again on that same day by the Holy Spirit entering her ‘separated spirit from the soul’ work of the Word of God which acted upon all who heard and believed in their spirit the Gospel message.
Without Time, events do not occur; without Space a thing does not exist in the Universe God has created.
I wonder, could it be that there were several stair-step aged children in the Joseph and Mary household when they had the Jesus at twelve incident of the temple? If Mary and Joseph were busy keeping track of four or five little ones as they left Jerusalem it is understandable that they would have overlook the presence of the twelve year old who did not require such close watcfhing as the little ones. I can remember taking kids on an outing, the concern focused on the youngest.
That’s right and I doubt the journey was *dangerous*.
They were with a crowd and traveling together. That’s why they did not miss Jesus for the day.
If it were just them and an only child, they NEVER would have not noticed that He was not with them.
Correct. “Brothers and sisters” = cousins in the ancient context.
“Mary comes from the lineage of David; where does Joseph’s linage come from?”
David as well. That’s why he took the family to Bethlehem for Augustus’ census.
Trivia: Bethlehem = House of Bread, as in “I am the Bread of Life.”
If there were several little ones and Joseph died leaving Mary to care for them all, the custom in those times was for first cousins, aunts and uncles to take one or two into their household to raise them, usually the ones older than infants to two years old. That would give strength to the naming of the brothers and sisters who were later named as the children from the households of Mary and Joseph's relatives/cousins. I am focusing on this notion in one of the novels I'm working on, Letters To Tacitus.
Since Jesus was 12 at the time of the incident at the Temple, that obviously means that Joseph died after Jesus became an adult in Jewish culture.
I don’t consider it unlikely that Jesus would have helped raise His siblings, so shipping them out would not have been necessary, although still could have happened if it were part of the culture.
That’s still just a bunch of speculation.
Completely my speculation ... that’s what novels do dontchaknow.
Heck, was just joking.
This thread, like as some other provocative ones you insisted on posting, is not simply about ecumenically discussing beliefs, but is part of the Catholic hyper exaltation of Mary way above that which is written, explicit or inferred, and thus it is provocative, and warrants reproof.
And it is the desperate nature of your attempted polemics that is rightfully
On another note.. had you heard of this "fetal Microchimerism" condition before reading my (original) post? Just curious.
No, but I can see why a Cath would want to latch on to it, while Mary also had the hereditary DNA of sinners, which Catholics do not highlight.
Well, I’m sure you’d agree Christianity is fundamentally provocative. You Also would have to agree not all my posts are provocative.... and for balance, I even receive the ire of some of my rad trad Catholic friends in the forum... and do not fear digging deeper....
No, but I can see why a Cath would want to latch on to it, while Mary also had the hereditary DNA of sinners, which Catholics do not highlight.
Ecumenically speaking, I attempted to show you that Caths share common ground with the Reformation rebels in that we share common ground in the generation of Mary. And if Mary was part of God’s plan for bringing Salvation into this world.... we just feel then that’s something to love and latch onto, without diminishing Christ.
*Veneration....not Generation...... oy vey !
Ol' Stevie was a pitiful Protestant if he thought Mary was "non-essential and not important"! Of course she was both and that's true no matter what flavor of Christian you are. But Catholics DO make too big a deal of Mary, as well.
You mean other than:
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.