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!
And from a cultural standpoint, three incidents support Catholic and especially the Orthodox tradition.
1. Jesus told John to care for his mother. Why should he do this if he had three brothers?
2. Jesus’ brothers tried to boss him around. No, with Joseph dead, the oldest brother becomes head of the family, and younger brothers would not do such a thing. Again, this hints they were older brothers.
3. When Jesus went missing at age 12, both Mary and Joseph went to look for him. But if there were younger siblings, why did Mary take them on such a dangerous journey to Jerusalem in the first place, let alone go tramping around Jerusalem with a baby or toddler who needed supervision and or breast feeding?
Finally, outside of western Europe, extended families are the norm. The reformers projected their own cultural bias into their interpretations which you quote,
As one with a scientific background, I think this is peudoscientific nonsense.
poppycock. more mythology from the Roman Church seeking you elevate Mary far beyond anything found in scripture
“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.”
LOL!
From:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894651/
Fetal microchimerism
Initial publications of the relatively recent discovery of fetal microchimerism occurred in the late 1970’s.....
....Transfer of fetal hematopoietic pluripotent progenitor cells begins in the fourth or fifth week after fertilization and continues throughout the pregnancy [17-22]. The presence of fetal microchimeric cells can be detected for up to 30 days in the maternal postpartum blood stream [23]....
....Microchimerism can be portrayed as a legacy of pregnancy that persists for decades via fetal cell engraftment in maternal bone marrow or other tissues [11-14].....
....Fetal cells were also shown to proliferate in consecutive cell cultures and were detected in maternal tissues as long as 27 years postpartum [29]....
Not pseudoscience.
Love, O2
tagline,tagline,tagline
Mitochondrial DNA
What’s your point
79. ἀδελφή adĕlphē, ad-el-fay´; fem. of 80; a sister (nat. or eccles.):—sister.
80. ἀδελφός adĕlphŏs, ad-el-fos´; from 1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς dĕlphus (the womb); a brother (lit. or fig.) near or remote [much like 1]:—brother.
81. ἀδελφότης adĕlphŏtēs, ad-el-fot´-ace; from 80; brotherhood (prop. the feeling of brotherliness), i.e. the (Christian) fraternity:—brethren, brotherhood.
[STRONG, J., A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible 1, 8.]
Here's another source on Adelphos:
81 ἀδελφός (adelphos), οῦ (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc.; ≡ DBLHebr 278; Str 80; TDNT 1.144—1. LN 10.49 brother, male sibling (Mt 4:18); 2. LN 11.23 fellow believer, a male and/or female, believer in the believing community (Ro 8:29); 3. LN 11.25 fellow Jew (Ac 22:1); 4. LN 11.57 fellow countryman (Ac 2:29), see also prior; 5. LN 11.89 neighbor(Mt 5:22) note: these entries may overlap in verses and entries...
[SWANSON, J., Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament),.]
It can be cousins, but the term is clearly broadly applied.I don't think its necessarily cousins in all instances. It might be simply "neighbor" or simply "kinsmen" but if we understand adelphos as simply cousin in every passage that also makes sense because Hebrew has no word specifically for "cousin." Adelphos is clearly a broadly used word for kinsmen and cousins and not one narrowed to blood brothers only.
Thus that is the best reading of your references: (Matthew 12:46-47) (Matthew 13:55)(Mark 6:2-3)(Luke 2:6-8)(John 2:12)(Acts 1:14)(1 Corinthians 9:4-5)(Galatians 1:19)
[Notation from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible]
Matt 12:46 his brethren: The NT often mentions Jesus’ brethren (13:55; Mk 3:31; 6:3; Lk 8:19; Jn 2:12; 7:3; Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19). The Church maintains, however, that Jesus’ Mother, Mary, remained a virgin throughout her life. These so-called brethren of Jesus are thus his relatives but not children of Mary. Four observations support the Church’s tradition: (1) These brethren are never called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (Jn 2:1; 19:25; Acts 1:14). (2) Two names mentioned, James and Joseph, are sons of a different “Mary” in Mt 27:56 (Mk 15:40). (3) It is unlikely that Jesus would entrust his Mother to the Apostle John at his Crucifixion if she had other natural sons to care for her (Jn 19:26–27). (4) The word “brethren” (Gk. adelphoi) has a broader meaning than blood brothers. Since ancient Hebrew had no word for “cousin”, it was customary to use “brethren” in the Bible for relationships other than blood brothers. In the Greek OT, a “brother” can be a nearly related cousin (1 Chron 23:21–22), a more remote kinsman (Deut 23:7; 2 Kings 10:13–14), an uncle or a nephew (Gen 13:8), or the relation between men bound by covenant (2 Sam 1:26; cf. 1 Sam 18:3). Continuing this OT tradition, the NT often uses “brother” or “brethren” in this wider sense. Paul uses it as a synonym for his Israelite kinsmen in Rom 9:3. It also denotes biologically unrelated Christians in the New Covenant family of God (Rom 8:29; 12:1; Col 1:2; Heb 2:11; Jas 1:2)
[MITCH, C., “Introduction to the Gospels”, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco 2010) 29-30.] Its a fairly flimsy argument you made, because no where in extent sources of later letters by Christian writers were people asserting that Mary had other sons. Not one of your passages claims them to be the sons of Mary just to reecho my prior source. The Bible doesn't reference other "sons or Mary or Joseph" anywhere. So clearly Jesus had no siblings.
Exactly! Mary is ever virgin.
Mary comes from the lineage of David; where does Joseph’s linage come from?
We tell you we don’t worship her, we reference the catechism, the church father’s, writings of the Pope, etc but we still hear the broken record of “YOU WORSHIP MARY!”.
At a certain point it’s willful blindness.
What the article and the believers in Catholic stories regarding the biological relationship between Mary and Jesus miss is the FACT that we do not know from scripture if Mary mitochondria was in Jesus’s cells. It is a biological fact that some placental cells, cells made by the gestating person, would be surviving in the uterine lining of the mother of the baby, even in surrogacy pregnancies.
Can you give us another example of your extreme ignorance of Scripture?
You must be a Catholic.
Applying divine attributes to Mary... praying to Mary... placing hope of salvation on Mary...
I don’t know YOUR heart, but the Catholic writings on Mary are sure as heck worship, no matter what words they like to use.
How about you start referencing the Bible as a Catholic document, since it would not even be available to you without the Catholic Church?
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.”
Why is that? Because its our Bible.
And while I’m at it, why pray to Mary at all? Why not pray directly to God? You have the great gift of direct access to the Father with your prayers. Why do you think that you need to pray to Mary instead?
PFFFHAHAHAHAHA. What a load of garbage.
Three facts for you:
1:Catholics didn’t even have an infallible canon until after Luther’s death.
2: Luther never “removed” any books from the Bible; read his Bible translation. He included those seven.
3: Luther’s Catholic contemporaries were also debating the removal of those seven books from canon.
You really should stop believing Roman Catholic propaganda.
1.
Untrue, since prior Church councils always listed official canons of scripture. As far as I know those were official. “Infallible” doesn’t mean the list didn’t exist prior to the them being declared “infallibly of the Canon.” The before they were so “infallibly declared the list from Trent was an exact copy of the list of official canon from the Council of Florence, 1442, we’ll before Martin Luther.
2:
With the notation that they were apocrypha, but I’ll let that one go, nonetheless His list comes from the Catholic Church.
3: Which wouldn’t even be considered had they not been included from ancient lists of the Bible promulgated by preceding Church councils.
you should really stop believing protestant propeganda
Try to not conflate The Ekklesia, Body of all believers (like a student body of a college), and the Body of Christ, with the man-made ORG known as Catholicism.
1: I said “infallible” which didn’t come until Trent. So in other words, you are incorrect in your assertion. Facts suck, don’t they? Heck, the Catholic canon was only approved with a vote of 44%. So much for unity among the so-called one true church, eh?
2: So what? He still translated and included them. Still told people to read them. He literally did nothing that other Catholic scholars weren’t already doing at the time
3: Considering that official “Catholic” Bibles were including things like the Gospel of Nicodemus at Luther’s time, the only thing I can reply to your assertion is a hearty LOL.
Stop swallowing the propaganda; you can be Catholic without having to spread blatant lies from catholicapologetics.com
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.