Posted on 06/16/2016 9:22:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.
I still don't understand the bit about straw.
That does not equate to or justify changing what the Holy Spirit labeled her with and trying to justify it.
*Mother of Jesus is about who MARY is, not about who Jesus is.
Who Jesus is is very clearly spelled out in Scripture.
If people knew their Scripture and studied it, there would be no question about who He is and there would be no need to change Mary’s title to justify it.
The ONLY people I've ever seen copy-and-pasting the Promises of the Rosary in their posts, are you and related Elsie-istas..
Ell. Cee. Istas.
L.C.-eeestas.
Whatever.
Nice, and I take it as well-intended, but ...weird.
And that degenerate, ill-tempered fat man, Henry VIII. Of course, if Pope Francis had been in office then, he would have granted Henry his annulments as readily as the Vatican issues new commemorative stamps these days.
And on what basis would you even think that Mary and Joseph did NOT have a normal marriage agreement?
After all, when Mary turns up pregnant, Joseph contemplated DIVORCING her.
That tells me they did have a normal marriage agreement. If they didn't, it wouldn't make any difference to Joseph is she got pregnant.
And just why would Joseph enter into a marriage agreement with a woman who had no intention of having sex with him? Whatever would possess him to enter into a not normal marriage arrangement?
I fail to understand what goes on in the Catholic mind that would assign to God sin like adultery for having Mary conceive and bear the Messiah.
The Catholic's problem is that if placing Jesus in Mary's womb were enough for a charge against God of adultery, they you have a god who committed adultery.
Why?
Because Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when the angel came. She was already legally and technically married to him.
God KNEW that. He knew that Mary was technically and legally a man's wife.
God had two choices. Impregnate a single woman or impregnate a married woman. IN EITHER CASE, then, God, by Catholic reasoning, could be charged with sexual sin.
And this nonsense about a *special* marriage arrangement is total assumption and speculation without a shred of support for it anywhere. On the contrary, the more Catholic push it and rationalize, they worse their position becomes because it can be refuted on so many levels.
Your arguments just. don't. work.
Where would God be without the Roman Catholic church to bail Him out cause He did not do a good enough job with Scripture?
That also must explain all their need for correctly *interpreting* the word He gave them.
The Holy spirit isn’t doing a good enough job the voila, here’s the Catholic church to the rescue to *help* Him along.
All of the redefining, clarifying, explaining of the catholic position on Mary and Joseph just illustrates how much catholicosm has confused the issue by ignoring the plain simple reading of the text.
Don’t waste time explaining it to the poster, she doesn’t intend to understand ‘it’.
Nor "Trinity" nor "Incarnation" nor "Gospel According to Matthew" nor Gospel of "Mark" nor "Luke" nor "John."
The Bible (which never uses that name) has no defined chapters or verses. Goshdarn Tradition of Man!
The Bible does not say that the Books of Moses were written by Moses. In fact it does not use the term "Books of Moses." It says nothing of a "Supreme Being." Nor about "my personal Savior". Nor about "atheism". Nor about "divinity," "monotheism," "rapture," nor "evangelical", "evangelisic", or "evangelist."
Nor "theology" nor "Master's Degree" nor "Bible College".
No "Easter" (nor even Pascha or Pasqua or Pesach or Pasko)--- whoa, and nothing on "Sunday Sunrise Service," either.
Nothing on "Sunday".
Nothing on "Sunrise".
In fact, nothing on "Services," period.
Nothing about "Sola Scriptura" or "Five Solas" (why five? Why not six, or four? O Sola Mio!) No "Sinner's prayer", no "personal relationship", no "altar call", no "faith alone" --oops, unless you count the place where it says "not by faith alone," (James 2:24)---
Now I've been checking this all out in my KJV, and this concern has been "laid on my heart" and I wonder if I can really be "fellowshipping" with you if you use all these terms I can't find in the "Bible" (including "Bible")
`
`
`
Then that must mean that these things are not Scriptural either.
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
invincible ignorance
Divine Office
guardian angel
Corporal Works of Mercy
Petrine authority
infallible
heresy
Except that *mother of Jesus* DOES appear in the Bible.
that'll leave a mark.
:D
Hoss
Ya’d think.....
I *do* wish you wouldn't make stuff up and call it "Catholic reasoning". You'd do better to put that in the form of a question, e.g. "Wouldn't it follow from Catholic doctrine that...?"
Why say God had just two choices? There's a third.
Open your Bible and see how the predestination and consecration of Mary are repeatedly foreshadowed in an unbroken chain of types, figures, and prophecies concerning the Incarnation, which necessarily involves Mary, the Mother of the Incarnation.
Right from the beginning (Genesis) God says to Satan , "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; "that" (ipse) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3: 15). So right from the beginning, war is declared between the Seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the Woman: a seed is being prepared which will defeat the ancient Adversary.
What was God doing in the OT? Here's a succinct and summary answer: preparing the seed.
In this Genesis protoevangelium, the Redeemer Himself is mentioned only in relation to "the woman"; He is "the woman's" seed; a very peculiar expression, showing one born in some wonderful manner, not according to the ordinary laws of generation. It points unmistakably to the Blessed Mother and her Child. Thus the two adversaries, whose combats make up the history of the world, are, on one side, the devil, on the other, the woman; and again, the seed of the devil and the seed of the woman.
I could go through the rest of the Bible book by book identifying the prophecies and types (and there is more about Mary in the OT than in the NT) but for now, let me just conclude that Mary's existence was being planned out by God from the dawn of the human race. She was neither an ordinary single gal nor an ordinary married woman, but "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world," a Woman Predestined.
`
And so......?
"So then, by that reasoning, (because a specific word or phrase is not found written down in Scripture it's not Scriptural), the Bible must not be scriptural and the Holy Trinity must not "scriptural". "
That's not my assumption. I accept "Trinity" AND "Incarnation" AND "Mother of God" AND "fellowshipping" with my dear metmom.
I'm not the one who thinks that truth is limited to "Sola Scriptura", remember? I'm a Catholic.
But "a term is illegitimate if it's not in my Concordance" seems to be your assumption, since you are trying to disqualify "Mother of God" because that particular phrase is not found in the Bible.
You're the one who says a phrase HAS to be in the text, ipsissima verba, or it's not really needed or not really legit. That has been your ultimate backup argument against "Mother 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.