A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[Landon Caeli]

...You see how the very fabric of the faith begins to disintegrate in the absence of the Church.

 

[Darren Court]

I think you would have to have a complete mastery on biblical interpretations, to conclude, without a doubt, that "Son" should equal the same as God. To many people who are not masters in understanding, they might view the term "Son" as being a smaller or lower entity than the father. Or dozens of other possibilities.

...So I'm struggling to see how obvious it is with the verse you cited, Mt 3:16-17 . And if it truly were so obvious, there would have been no need for a counsel on it in the first place.

Simple not true... you don't need ANY mastery on biblical interpretations at all! You actually only need one thing and it's not understanding of Greek, Hebrew or scripture. You need desire.... desire to know the truth no matter what it may be!

The bible teaches that it the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth. Leads us! We don't go rambling all over the planet or scripture that we are not lead to. We cannot even recognise and call Jesus Lord, UNLESS the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. Yet God tells us that He "would that none be lost". So if God doesn't want anyone to be lost and the Holy Spirit can reveal to us the truth, why isn't everyone receiving the truth and being saved as God desires? There are a great many scriptures that speak to this but essence it comes down to our desire. "Seek and you shall find"... could also be phrased "don't seek and you won't find" Ergo if you seek you will find because the Holy Spirit will reveal to you!

Let's explain it this way.... Remember the 3d pictures hidden in pretty patterns that you could only see when you focused in a particular way? It's like that. Everyone who can't see the picture thinks it's a con because they can't see it. Everyone who can see it knows it's true but no matter how hard they try, they'll never convince anyone who can't see it... because they have to see if for themselves!

When you get it, you get it. If you're not seeing Christ almost literally dripping through the pages of scripture you have the wrong focus and I'll never convince you.

Mt 3:16-17 in of itself only demonstrates three beings... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It does not demonstrate they are co-equal or divine. The term "my son" upon deeper evaluation can be seen to me something much more than a created man, but that requires a number of scriptures to be considered, evaluated and understood!

I hope I've made it plain that I cannot ever convince you of this truth, nor will I try. If you are really interested in knowing you know what you must do, starting with a prayer to God to help you put aside any baggage you have in this matter and to reveal nothing but the truth. If you are sincere and then you start reading scripture to discern that truth, I am convinced God will meet you and you will find it.... (and you'll end up being like me frustrated that you can't persuade or show people the truth)

Shalom aleichem

 

[Darren Court]

...You see how the very fabric of the faith begins to disintegrate in the absence of the Church.

No I don't see that at all. I see that men inside the church or outside the church will go wherever they want irrespective of church... and I can prove it!

In the Catholic Church that claims a unique unity of faith among it's members, it's nothing but a lie! Not only can't Catholics agree on many facets of doctrine (and are conspicuously absent in official doctrine on many), many of their members don't even believe the most fundamental Catholic doctrines that make them Catholic. Two thirds of US Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation, one of the key Catholic dogmas required to be a Catholic. In other words, 2/3rd of US Catholics aren't even Catholic!

Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ

Just 31% of U.S. Catholics believe that the bread and wine used in Communion become the body and blood of Christ. Nearly seven-in-ten say the Eucharist is symbolic.

www.pewresearch.org

Disintegration inside the church then!

 

[JoeT]

What? Moving the goalposts again?

The point here was that I said God lives in us and you said that's not true!

I provided you with scripture to show it's true and then you respond about justification to change the subject!

Ah sarcasm, the refuge of those who have ran out of worthwhile argument!

What you saw as 'moving the goalpost' was nothing more than telling you that your ball was still on the 90 yard line. The scripture cited has little to do with "Christ in you" unless you know that Justification in Baptism is where it happens. You cannot have God reside in sin - it just isn't real. You might wish it be true, just as I wish it was warm today, neither is so. One does not breach the walls of heaven by shear will.

We cannot love what we don't know.... agreed
It follows then Mary is the only Apostle that can truly describe the love that God has for us ... absolute rubbish and it goes to prove one thing. That the thing between your ears is malfunction, a feature that is really common!

Not at all rubbish, we've found the "treasure buried in the field"

1) Again NOTHING in scripture supports the idea we need Mary to know God.

Nothing in Scripture refutes the Marian doctrines

2) There are plenty of scriptures that tell us we can know God without Mary, not least because He lives in us (you evaded that reality)

Sure, God can know, but you don't

3) Since Mary cannot speak to us (divination) she cannot actually tell us anything

There is a difference between mystical divination and Divine revelation? Mary is the daughter of the Father, the Mother of the Son and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit there the most connected to the Trinity than any other human. Mary is completely immersed in the Divine Trinitarian family. Mary is the daughter of the Father, the Mother of the Son and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit there the most connected to the Trinity than any other human.

Mary is a woman of hope: only because she believes in God's promises and awaits the salvation of Israel, can the angel visit her and call her to the decisive service of these promises. Mary is a woman of faith: “Blessed are you who believed”, Elizabeth says to her (cf. Lk 1:45). The Magnificat—a portrait, so to speak, of her soul—is entirely woven from threads of Holy Scripture, threads drawn from the Word of God. Here we see how completely at home Mary is with the Word of God, with ease she moves in and out of it. She speaks and thinks with the Word of God; the Word of God becomes her word, and her word issues from the Word of God. Here we see how her thoughts are attuned to the thoughts of God, how her will is one with the will of God. Since Mary is completely imbued with the Word of God, she is able to become the Mother of the Word Incarnate. Finally, Mary is a woman who loves. How could it be otherwise? As a believer who in faith thinks with God's thoughts and wills with God's will, she cannot fail to be a woman who loves. We sense this in her quiet gestures, as recounted by the infancy narratives in the Gospel. We see it in the delicacy with which she recognizes the need of the spouses at Cana and makes it known to Jesus. We see it in the humility with which she recedes into the background during Jesus' public life, knowing that the Son must establish a new family and that the Mother's hour will come only with the Cross, which will be Jesus' true hour (cf. Jn 2:4; 13:1). When the disciples flee, Mary will remain beneath the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25-27); later, at the hour of Pentecost, it will be they who gather around her as they wait for the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14). [Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est , 41]​

What she reveals is not divination but the will of God.

The bible is fundamentally clear (no joining dots, no brain work required) that we can KNOW and HAVE a personal relationship with Christ. If you don't know that and don't know Christ personally then you need to read Mt 7:21-23 that talks about such people who THINK they are saved but are not. Then read John 10:27-28 as just one verse that tells us that a personal direct relationship with Christ is essential for true followers!

Ah, but the mind of man is full of self, subjective, prejudice, relativistic, full of dots, and needing refurbishing to 'see' Jesus Christ in the second Person of the Trinity. Mary then becomes our magnifying glass for us nearsited sheep to find their shepherd.

You missed the point! YOUR claim is that nobody can know Jesus without Mary. Here you accept that she was with him for much of His ministry (which incidentally is assumption because there's scant evidence of it), but in doing so you also accept she wasn't there all the time!

If there was scant evidence that she was with Jesus Christ throughout His ministry, then there is equally scant evidence that she wasn't with Him throughout His ministry.

JoeT

 

[Landon Caeli]

Simple not true... you don't need ANY mastery on biblical interpretations at all! You actually only need one thing and it's not understanding of Greek, Hebrew or scripture. You need desire.... desire to know the truth no matter what it may be!

The bible teaches that it the Holy Spirit that leads us into truth. Leads us! We don't go rambling all over the planet or scripture that we are not lead to. We cannot even recognise and call Jesus Lord, UNLESS the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. Yet God tells us that He "would that none be lost". So if God doesn't want anyone to be lost and the Holy Spirit can reveal to us the truth, why isn't everyone receiving the truth and being saved as God desires? There are a great many scriptures that speak to this but essence it comes down to our desire. "Seek and you shall find"... could also be phrased "don't seek and you won't find" Ergo if you seek you will find because the Holy Spirit will reveal to you!

Let's explain it this way.... Remember the 3d pictures hidden in pretty patterns that you could only see when you focused in a particular way? It's like that. Everyone who can't see the picture thinks it's a con because they can't see it. Everyone who can see it knows it's true but no matter how hard they try, they'll never convince anyone who can't see it... because they have to see if for themselves!

When you get it, you get it. If you're not seeing Christ almost literally dripping through the pages of scripture you have the wrong focus and I'll never convince you.

Mt 3:16-17 in of itself only demonstrates three beings... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It does not demonstrate they are co-equal or divine. The term "my son" upon deeper evaluation can be seen to me something much more than a created man, but that requires a number of scriptures to be considered, evaluated and understood!

I hope I've made it plain that I cannot ever convince you of this truth, nor will I try. If you are really interested in knowing you know what you must do, starting with a prayer to God to help you put aside any baggage you have in this matter and to reveal nothing but the truth. If you are sincere and then you start reading scripture to discern that truth, I am convinced God will meet you and you will find it.... (and you'll end up being like me frustrated that you can't persuade or show people the truth)

Shalom aleichem

I see no purpose in continuing this conversation with you. It's apparent that anti-Catholicism is the agenda, and turning Catholics away from the Church is the goal. It's nothing new...

Everyone knows that there are denominations that exist, whose core doctrines include disproving the Catholic Church. I don't know what it would feel like to be part of a religion whose sole existence seems to revolve around proving another religion wrong -that seems petty to me. It's clear, that this trend has become popular, and has caught on amongst others too, who feel the legitimacy of their own faith depends upon, proving another faith wrong. It's sad.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Rather than write the same thing in my own words, I will paste an article from the late great Dr Walter Martin "The Bible Answer Man" as he was known. Scholar and author of many books, he used to have a radion program where he answered questions from listeners and I was blessed to listen to it daily as a young Christian. He died while in prayer and his body was found with him kneeling in prayer. This article is in response to a Christian Scientist named "Eddy":

The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ

By Walter Martin​

One prominent trait of all non-Christian religions and cults is their pointed denial of the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. Christian Science ranges high in this category on the basis that it unequivocally denies the true deity of our Lord and the triunity of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). Eddy said, and most decisively so, that “the theory of three persons in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Triunity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I AM” (Science and Health, 256). Going beyond this declaration Eddy also wrote: “Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God” (S & H, 361), and she crowned this travesty with the astounding “revelation” that “Life, Truth, and Love constitute the triune Person called God” (S & H, 331). Thus it was that with one sweep of an unblushing pen, a vindictive, ignorant, untrained, and egocentric old woman banished the God of the Bible from her religion forever. It is hardly necessary to examine at length the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ to refute Eddy’s vague ramblings, but it is profitable, we believe, to review those passages of Scripture that so thoroughly unmask the pronounced shallowness of the Christian Science contentions.
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). “Let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7). “Who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8).

Then we could mention Genesis 18 where Abraham addresses God personally as Lord (Jehovah) over ten times; the obvious plurality of the Godhead is strongly implied if not expressly declared by the use of three angels to represent God. The fact that God intended to beget a Son after the flesh and of the line of David by virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:35; cf. Psalm 2:7; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33), that this Son in the likeness of flesh was His eternal Word (John 1:1, 14, 18), and that He is true deity (Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:8–11; Revelation 1:8, 17–18; Hebrews 1:1–4, etc.) and a separate person from God the Father is all indicative of the truth that Jesus Christ was truly the God-man of prophecy and the personal Messiah of Israel. It is fruitful to note also that Eddy recognizes the “true” God not as Jehovah but as “I AM” (S & H, 256), apparently oblivious of the fact that the word “Jehovah” is itself taken from the Hebrew verb form “to be” (Exodus 3:14), literally “I was, I am, I continue to be” or as the Jews render it “the Eternal”—(, the tetragrammaton). Keeping with this vein of thought it will be easily recognized that Jesus identified himself with the same “I AM” or Jehovah—and, in fact, claimed in no uncertain terms that He was that “I AM,” (John 8:58) for which the Jews were ready to stone Him to death on the grounds of blasphemy (John 8:59 and 10:30–33).
As to Eddy’s argument that Jesus was God’s Son, not God, the answer is painfully simple when thoroughly analyzed. The solution is briefly this: Christ was God’s Son by nature, not creation, as we are; hence, His intrinsic character was that of Deity—His attributes were Divine— He possessed “all power,” etc. (Matthew 28:18). He therefore could not be a true Son unless He were truly divine; therefore, He could not be the Son of God at all without at once being “God the Son,” i.e., of the very nature of His Father. The Scriptures declare God’s Son is Deity—“The Mighty God the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6), or the Image of God (Colossians 1:15) Impress of His Substance Radiance of His glory” (Hebrews 1:1–3), etc. Innumerable testimonies as to His divinity are given, far too exhaustive to record here, but evidence nonetheless and beyond disputation. To reduce the Trinity so evident at Christ’s baptism and the Great Commission (“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19) to three of Eddy’s choice terms, “Life, Truth, and Love,” and declare all else “suggestive of heathen gods” (Science and Health, 256) is a prime demonstration of crass indifference to biblical terminology and historical theology—an emphatic Christian Science attitude instituted by Eddy.

John tells us that Christ was by His own admission equal in deity to God the Father (John 5:18; cf. Philippians 2:8–11; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3), yet inferior in position and form during His earthly ministry (John 14:28) as a man. The Eternal Word voluntarily humbled himself,
became human and subject to our limitations, even to the death of the cross, the Bible tells us, but never for a moment did He cease to be what by nature and inheritance He always was and will be, God the Son, second person of the Trinity, eternal Creator and Savior of the sons of men.

Therefore, let us remember most clearly that Christian Science offers a dual Christ, a great man inspired by the “Christ idea” as Eddy would have it, one who never really “died” at all for our sins.

The Scriptures hold forth as a ray of inextinguishable light the deity of our Lord and the Trinity of God. We must therefore be ever vigilant in our defense of the personal Jesus who is our personal Savior, lest the impersonal Christ of Christian Science be allowed further opportunity to counterfeit the Christ of the Bible. This counterfeit, so widely taught in Christian Science, is merely another false theory that masquerades under the banner of the Christian religion and attempts to subvert the true Christian faith

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I see no purpose in continuing this conversation with you. It's apparent that anti-Catholicism is the agenda, and turning Catholics away from the Church is the goal. It's nothing new...

Everyone knows that there are denominations that exist, whose core doctrines include disproving the Catholic Church. I don't know what it would feel like to be part of a religion whose sole existence seems to revolve around proving another religion wrong -that seems petty to me. It's clear, that this trend has become popular, and has caught on amongst others too, who feel the legitimacy of their own faith depends upon, proving another faith wrong. It's sad.

I have never heard of a denomination whose "sole existence seems to revolve around proving another religion wrong." Can you provide an example? No church I have ever attended has gone out of their way to attack the RC church. I have more of an interest in these exchanges because I grew up RC. I was baptized, first communion, confirmation, and catechism classes until I graduated from high school. I even interviewed with two Catholic missionary organizations about becoming a priest with them. My Mom was a devout Catholic. I left because of my own convictions formed which reading the Bible cover-to-cover four consecutive times. I was attending the RC church that entire time and did this totally on my own initiative. I was reading a Catholic Bible and not consulting with any outside resources. While that does not qualify me as an expert on Roman Catholicism, I would say I know more than most Protestants. Naturally, I had to do some deep thinking to conclude I did not find all of what Catholicism taught to be Biblical. I studied and wrestled with all the things we have been discussing. Years later I got the equivalent of an MDiv (Masters of Divinity) in Biblical Studies. I live in Idaho which has the second-largest concentration of Mormons in the country. Roughly 25% of the population here is LDS. We have BYU-Idaho in eastern Idaho. I have spent years discussing faith with Mormons since I live and work with so many.

I don't go out of my way to debate Catholics. I have debated Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I respond to the situations the Lord puts me in. I have no axe to grind with any particular church. I stand on Biblical truth and confront error where I see it. I am no more anti-Catholic than I am anti-mormon or anti-Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not lumping those 3 together but simply making the point that I am not picking on anyone. I just love the Scriptures and have studied them and as Peter said, "Always be prepared to give an answer..." Roman Catholicism is major in this country. If I lived in Russia I might be having discussions with Russian Orthodox members. I obviously interact a lot with Mormons because of where I live. I am not an ex-Mormon and have nothing against them as individuals. They are some of the nicest people I have met. My Catholic mother as well.

I do have strong convictions about RC theology as it was a major topic of study for me given my background. I long to see my RC brothers and sisters turn to the Scriptures for their faith and not the manmade traditions of their church. It's not about proving the RC church wrong but rather standing for the truth of Scripture. I can't speak for anyone else on here but I don't think we are all out to get the RC church. We just want to stand on the Scriptures. We see elements of Catholicism that diverge from Scripture and that concerns us. If you feel picked on, remember that according to your church people like me are lost. I believe in salvation by faith alone. Your church has declared that anathema and the same for any who hold to it. Your church says I am not right with God and am on the path to hell. In times past, people like me were burned at the stake by Catholic inquisitions. I would not feel too picked on if I were you.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I have never heard of a denomination whose "sole existence seems to revolve around proving another religion wrong." Can you provide an example? No church I have ever attended has gone out of their way to attack the RC church. I have more of an interest in these exchanges because I grew up RC. I was baptized, first communion, confirmation, and catechism classes until I graduated from high school. I even interviewed with two Catholic missionary organizations about becoming a priest with them. My Mom was a devout Catholic. I left because of my own convictions formed which reading the Bible cover-to-cover four consecutive times. I was attending the RC church that entire time and did this totally on my own initiative. I was reading a Catholic Bible and not consulting with any outside resources. While that does not qualify me as an expert on Roman Catholicism, I would say I know more than most Protestants. Naturally, I had to do some deep thinking to conclude I did not find all of what Catholicism taught to be Biblical. I studied and wrestled with all the things we have been discussing. Years later I got the equivalent of an MDiv (Masters of Divinity) in Biblical Studies. I live in Idaho which has the second-largest concentration of Mormons in the country. Roughly 25% of the population here is LDS. We have BYU-Idaho in eastern Idaho. I have spent years discussing faith with Mormons since I live and work with so many.



I don't go out of my way to debate Catholics. I have debated Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I respond to the situations the Lord puts me in. I have no axe to grind with any particular church. I stand on Biblical truth and confront error where I see it. I am no more anti-Catholic than I am anti-mormon or anti-Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not lumping those 3 together but simply making the point that I am not picking on anyone. I just love the Scriptures and have studied them and as Peter said, "Always be prepared to give an answer..." Roman Catholicism is major in this country. If I lived in Russia I might be having discussions with Russian Orthodox members. I obviously interact a lot with Mormons because of where I live. I am not an ex-Mormon and have nothing against them as individuals. They are some of the nicest people I have met. My Catholic mother as well.



I do have strong convictions about RC theology as it was a major topic of study for me given my background. I long to see my RC brothers and sisters turn to the Scriptures for their faith and not the manmade traditions of their church. It's not about proving the RC church wrong but rather standing for the truth of Scripture. I can't speak for anyone else on here but I don't think we are all out to get the RC church. We just want to stand on the Scriptures. We see elements of Catholicism that diverge from Scripture and that concerns us. If you feel picked on, remember that according to your church people like me are lost. I believe in salvation by faith alone. Your church has declared that anathema and the same for any who hold to it. Your church says I am not right with God and am on the path to hell. In times past, people like me were burned at the stake by Catholic inquisitions. I would not feel too picked on if I were you.

The post is too lengthy, and Gish Gallopy to respond to. Sorry, I prefer responding to maybe one or two points at a time, or else I'll need to add chapters.

...Try Ellen G. White's The Great Controversy, on a religion revolving around proving another wrong. If a 'prophet'writes a book - that's a teaching. Also see the JW's.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The post is too lengthy, and Gish Gallopy to respond to. Sorry, I prefer responding to maybe one or two points at a time, or else I'll need to add chapters.

...Try Ellen G. White's The Great Controversy, on a religion revolving around proving another wrong. If a 'prophet'writes a book - that's a teaching. Also see the JW's.

I'm sorry if you can only respond to one or two points at a time. Very limiting. Ellen G. White was a heretic. Who cares what she said? The JW's are a cult. Are they your example of a religion that is wholly organized around trashing Catholicism?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm sorry if you can only respond to one or two points at a time. Very limiting. Ellen G. White was a heretic. Who cares what she said? The JW's are a cult. Are they your example of a religion that is wholly organized around trashing Catholicism?

I was hoping we could eventually agree on something - but yes, Ellen G. White is the founder of the SDA Church, who happen to be fellow Christians with us. Unlike JW's, who are actually non-Christian.

...So it actually does matter what Ellen G. White said, and wrote about, where her congregation hold opinions of Catholicism as a matter of their faith.

And the point stands that there are indeed congregations that openly trash Catholicism as a matter of doctrine.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I was hoping we could eventually agree on something - but yes, Ellen G. White is the founder of the SDA Church, who happen to be fellow Christians with us. Unlike JW's, who are actually non-Christian.

...So it actually does matter what Ellen G. White said, and wrote about, where her congregation hold opinions of Catholicism as a matter of their faith.

And the point stands that there are indeed congregations that openly trash Catholicism as a matter of doctrine.

Sorry, I got her confused with someone else. I do consider them Christian but they have some odd doctrines. As for being anti-Catholic, I can't say. I am not too familiar with them. Just their views on the Sabbath.

 

[JoeT]

Rather than write the same thing in my own words, I will paste an article from the late great Dr Walter Martin "The Bible Answer Man" as he was known. Scholar and author of many books, he used to have a radion program where he answered questions from listeners and I was blessed to listen to it daily as a young Christian. He died while in prayer and his body was found with him kneeling in prayer. This article is in response to a Christian Scientist named "Eddy":

The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ

By Walter Martin​

One prominent trait of all non-Christian religions and cults is their pointed denial of the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. Christian Science ranges high in this category on the basis that it unequivocally denies the true deity of our Lord and the triunity of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). Eddy said, and most decisively so, that “the theory of three persons in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Triunity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I AM” (Science and Health, 256). Going beyond this declaration Eddy also wrote: “Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God” (S & H, 361), and she crowned this travesty with the astounding “revelation” that “Life, Truth, and Love constitute the triune Person called God” (S & H, 331). Thus it was that with one sweep of an unblushing pen, a vindictive, ignorant, untrained, and egocentric old woman banished the God of the Bible from her religion forever. It is hardly necessary to examine at length the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ to refute Eddy’s vague ramblings, but it is profitable, we believe, to review those passages of Scripture that so thoroughly unmask the pronounced shallowness of the Christian Science contentions.
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). “Let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7). “Who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8).

Then we could mention Genesis 18 where Abraham addresses God personally as Lord (Jehovah) over ten times; the obvious plurality of the Godhead is strongly implied if not expressly declared by the use of three angels to represent God. The fact that God intended to beget a Son after the flesh and of the line of David by virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:35; cf. Psalm 2:7; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33), that this Son in the likeness of flesh was His eternal Word (John 1:1, 14, 18), and that He is true deity (Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:8–11; Revelation 1:8, 17–18; Hebrews 1:1–4, etc.) and a separate person from God the Father is all indicative of the truth that Jesus Christ was truly the God-man of prophecy and the personal Messiah of Israel. It is fruitful to note also that Eddy recognizes the “true” God not as Jehovah but as “I AM” (S & H, 256), apparently oblivious of the fact that the word “Jehovah” is itself taken from the Hebrew verb form “to be” (Exodus 3:14), literally “I was, I am, I continue to be” or as the Jews render it “the Eternal”—(, the tetragrammaton). Keeping with this vein of thought it will be easily recognized that Jesus identified himself with the same “I AM” or Jehovah—and, in fact, claimed in no uncertain terms that He was that “I AM,” (John 8:58) for which the Jews were ready to stone Him to death on the grounds of blasphemy (John 8:59 and 10:30–33).
As to Eddy’s argument that Jesus was God’s Son, not God, the answer is painfully simple when thoroughly analyzed. The solution is briefly this: Christ was God’s Son by nature, not creation, as we are; hence, His intrinsic character was that of Deity—His attributes were Divine— He possessed “all power,” etc. (Matthew 28:18). He therefore could not be a true Son unless He were truly divine; therefore, He could not be the Son of God at all without at once being “God the Son,” i.e., of the very nature of His Father. The Scriptures declare God’s Son is Deity—“The Mighty God the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6), or the Image of God (Colossians 1:15) Impress of His Substance Radiance of His glory” (Hebrews 1:1–3), etc. Innumerable testimonies as to His divinity are given, far too exhaustive to record here, but evidence nonetheless and beyond disputation. To reduce the Trinity so evident at Christ’s baptism and the Great Commission (“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19) to three of Eddy’s choice terms, “Life, Truth, and Love,” and declare all else “suggestive of heathen gods” (Science and Health, 256) is a prime demonstration of crass indifference to biblical terminology and historical theology—an emphatic Christian Science attitude instituted by Eddy.

John tells us that Christ was by His own admission equal in deity to God the Father (John 5:18; cf. Philippians 2:8–11; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3), yet inferior in position and form during His earthly ministry (John 14:28) as a man. The Eternal Word voluntarily humbled himself,
became human and subject to our limitations, even to the death of the cross, the Bible tells us, but never for a moment did He cease to be what by nature and inheritance He always was and will be, God the Son, second person of the Trinity, eternal Creator and Savior of the sons of men.

Therefore, let us remember most clearly that Christian Science offers a dual Christ, a great man inspired by the “Christ idea” as Eddy would have it, one who never really “died” at all for our sins.

The Scriptures hold forth as a ray of inextinguishable light the deity of our Lord and the Trinity of God. We must therefore be ever vigilant in our defense of the personal Jesus who is our personal Savior, lest the impersonal Christ of Christian Science be allowed further opportunity to counterfeit the Christ of the Bible. This counterfeit, so widely taught in Christian Science, is merely another false theory that masquerades under the banner of the Christian religion and attempts to subvert the true Christian faith

You do know the bible answer man turned Orthodox five or more years ago? added: That would be Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff, Bible Answer Man. No mention of his demise.



JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You do know the bible answer man turned Orthodox five or more years ago? added: That would be Hendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff, Bible Answer Man. No mention of his demise.



JoeT

I haven't listened to that program in decades. I only knew Dr. Walter Martin. What does Hank Hanegraaff have to do with what Dr. Walter Martin wrote on the Trinity?

 

[ralliann]

There are several ways Mary’s perpetual virginity focuses our attention to who Jesus is and what He is. We declare that Jesus Christ is the Messias wholly God and wholly man. Fleshy things like rabbits beget rabbits, not toads, not birds. When corrupt flesh man begets the image of himself, he gets corrupt flesh. We inherit the absence of original justice that was once a part of man’s inheritance. Thus, men inherit original sin through birth. Mary then being incorruptible receiving the grace of justification at birth, never experiences sin. Consequently, when her Son is born he does not contract original sin.

But, what of the new Eve? The seed of the woman, the mother of all the living.
Adam and eve in the blessing of the marital covenant were one flesh. Joseph being married to Mary was one flesh with her. The seed is one of promise.
From the beginning......
Ge 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living

The Incarnation in the womb of the immaculate Mary gives us hope that we might be re-born sons of God in the promised fulfilled in John 1:12; as believers, "not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13)

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

First Adam, 2nd Adam.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[JoeT]

But, what of the new Eve? The seed of the woman, the mother of all the living.
Adam and eve in the blessing of the marital covenant were one flesh. Joseph being married to Mary was one flesh with her. The seed is one of promise.
From the beginning......
Ge 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living

In Baptism we become adopted sons and daughters of God and as such brothers of Christ. Mary then becomes our spiritual mother as we are brothers of Christ. You might recall Eve's progeny are born corrupt condemned to return to the dust of the earth. Eve is indeed the mother of all those who walk the earth and die living in the flesh. The New Eve is mother of all those who are Baptized in Christ's death and walk in spirit and life.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

First Adam, 2nd Adam.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Citing these verses I'm not sure where you're headed. Are you saying that God didn't intend for women to worship Him rather they are mere incubators? Or, are you suggesting that Mary was uber-mom pumping out 28 or more sons and daughters?

In antiquity vows were deep commitment and failure would mean spiritual ruin. "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but an incorruptible one." [1 Corinthians 9:24-25]. It was quite normal for women who made vows to establish an ersatz relationship for support of her physical needs. Since therefore, the Blessed Mary literally saw herself as the handmaiden of the Lord she would not have participated in a relationship that would have been seen as adulterous. Likewise, scriptural ascetic chastity is usually implied by when we read "a just man.” This is said of Joseph one who is righteous not wanting public exposure of his betrothed. (Cf. Matt 1:19). Therefore for the Blessed Mary or St. Joseph not to remain chaste, would have made God, the Blessed Mary and Joseph all participants in an adulterous triangle and St. Joseph being righteous would never had an intimate relationship with Mary.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficialities: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. Come then, whether you are very rich or little known, whether you are poor or living from the work of your hands. Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' (8, 105-9) [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, 37]​

The soul of anybody joined to the word of God is a supernatural marriage, the spiritual substance becomes one. [Cf. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XXII] Mary vowed to join God receiving the Incarnate Word within her, literally and figuratively encompassing the Word of God, the Lord's son. Her oath of fidelity made her the handmaiden of the Lord, i.e. the spousal like relationship with God. But, Mary was bond to Joseph as his betrothed.

If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. If she vowed and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.​

​

But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity. These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father's house. [Numbers 30:11-17]​

Joseph never exercised his right that Mary should bare him children., and became in his own right a just man. "Not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." [Matthew 1:19]. St. Paul the Pharisee of Pharisee taught discipline of faith: "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one." [1 Corinthians 9:24-25]. It was quite normal for women who made vows to establish a relationship. The only conclusion we can draw honoring their dignity is that both Mary and Joseph were chaste.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

In Baptism we become adopted sons and daughters of God and as such brothers of Christ. Mary then becomes our spiritual mother as we are brothers of Christ. You might recall Eve's progeny are born corrupt condemned to return to the dust of the earth. Eve is indeed the mother of all those who walk the earth and die living in the flesh. The New Eve is mother of all those who are Baptized in Christ's death and walk in spirit and life.

Since many OT saints were saved, I would not call Eve's progeny "corrupt condemned to return to the dust of the earth" in any spiritual sense. Physically, yes. Eve truly is the mother of all mankind. Mary is not. She is only the mother of her children which include Jesus. The fact that she bore Jesus does not make her our spiritual mother. God presents Himself to us, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no mother in the Godhead. It was God in three persons who created humanity. God created the first man and woman and designed them to create offspring that would have a mother and a father. Eve was the first mother so we can all trace our lineage back through Adam and Eve but not Mary. There were saints before Mary ever lived. Scripture does not refer to a New Eve.

Citing these verses I'm not sure where you're headed. Are you saying that God didn't intend for women to worship Him rather they are mere incubators? Or, are you suggesting that Mary was uber-mom pumping out 28 or more sons and daughters?

In antiquity vows were deep commitment and failure would mean spiritual ruin. "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but an incorruptible one." [1 Corinthians 9:24-25]. It was quite normal for women who made vows to establish an ersatz relationship for support of her physical needs. Since therefore, the Blessed Mary literally saw herself as the handmaiden of the Lord she would not have participated in a relationship that would have been seen as adulterous. Likewise, scriptural ascetic chastity is usually implied by when we read "a just man.” This is said of Joseph one who is righteous not wanting public exposure of his betrothed. (Cf. Matt 1:19). Therefore for the Blessed Mary or St. Joseph not to remain chaste, would have made God, the Blessed Mary and Joseph all participants in an adulterous triangle and St. Joseph being righteous would never had an intimate relationship with Mary.

You keep misapplying adultery. Adultery is only a sin between two HUMANS. God cannot be a party to adultery. Not even an innocent party. God is not human. God did not marry Mary or take her as His spouse. Those are Catholic ideas not found in Scripture. When you read the account of Joseph, his intent to divorce Mary privately, came BEFORE he knew she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. He came to the only obvious conclusion a man could have come to. His betrothed had been with another man. Because he loved Mary and did not want to see her publicly disgraced he sought to divorce her quietly. I'm sure Joseph was wounded and could not believe his chaste betrothed would do such a thing yet she had not reported being raped and he did not yet realize the miraculous thing that had happened to her. It was only after Gabriel appeared to him and told him what had happened that he abandoned any thoughts of divorcing her.

Gabriel did not instruct him to abstain from consummating his eventual marriage to Mary. Since Mary was with child by the power of the Holy Spirit, it would not be adultery for him to later have relations with his wife. The Holy Spirit did not have to marry Mary! Marriage is for two HUMANS. Not the Holy Spirit and a human. God chose a virgin, betrothed to a righteous man so that God's Son would be born into a loving family with a married father and mother. The possibility of an "adulterous triangle" never existed! That they went on to have their own children is both normal and chaste.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficialities: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. Come then, whether you are very rich or little known, whether you are poor or living from the work of your hands. Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' (8, 105-9) [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, 37]​

The soul of anybody joined to the word of God is a supernatural marriage, the spiritual substance becomes one. [Cf. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XXII] Mary vowed to join God receiving the Incarnate Word within her, literally and figuratively encompassing the Word of God, the Lord's son. Her oath of fidelity made her the handmaiden of the Lord, i.e. the spousal like relationship with God. But, Mary was bond to Joseph as his betrothed.

If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. If she vowed and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.​

​

But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity. These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father's house. [Numbers 30:11-17]​

Joseph never exercised his right that Mary should bare him children., and became in his own right a just man. "Not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." [Matthew 1:19]. St. Paul the Pharisee of Pharisee taught discipline of faith: "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one." [1 Corinthians 9:24-25]. It was quite normal for women who made vows to establish a relationship. The only conclusion we can draw honoring their dignity is that both Mary and Joseph were chaste.

Now you say "Joseph never exercised his right that Mary should bare him children." (emphasis added). Why do you refer to it as "his right" if, as you stated earlier, it would have been an act of adultery against God? Since when is adultery a right? Yes, some women made vows of chastity and then married but we are never told Mary made such a vow. You are assuming she did.

This is all Catholic fiction designed to give titles to Mary Scripture (and God) does not.

JoeT

 

[ralliann]

In Baptism we become adopted sons and daughters of God and as such brothers of Christ. Mary then becomes our spiritual mother as we are brothers of Christ. You might recall Eve's progeny are born corrupt condemned to return to the dust of the earth. Eve is indeed the mother of all those who walk the earth and die living in the flesh. The New Eve is mother of all those who are Baptized in Christ's death and walk in spirit and life.






Citing these verses I'm not sure where you're headed. Are you saying that God didn't intend for women to worship Him rather they are mere incubators? Or, are you suggesting that Mary was uber-mom pumping out 28 or more sons and daughters?

In antiquity vows were deep commitment and failure would mean spiritual ruin. "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but an incorruptible one." [1 Corinthians 9:24-25]. It was quite normal for women who made vows to establish an ersatz relationship for support of her physical needs. Since therefore, the Blessed Mary literally saw herself as the handmaiden of the Lord she would not have participated in a relationship that would have been seen as adulterous. Likewise, scriptural ascetic chastity is usually implied by when we read "a just man.” This is said of Joseph one who is righteous not wanting public exposure of his betrothed. (Cf. Matt 1:19). Therefore for the Blessed Mary or St. Joseph not to remain chaste, would have made God, the Blessed Mary and Joseph all participants in an adulterous triangle and St. Joseph being righteous would never had an intimate relationship with Mary.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficialities: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. Come then, whether you are very rich or little known, whether you are poor or living from the work of your hands. Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' (8, 105-9) [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, 37]​

The soul of anybody joined to the word of God is a supernatural marriage, the spiritual substance becomes one. [Cf. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XXII] Mary vowed to join God receiving the Incarnate Word within her, literally and figuratively encompassing the Word of God, the Lord's son. Her oath of fidelity made her the handmaiden of the Lord, i.e. the spousal like relationship with God. But, Mary was bond to Joseph as his betrothed.

If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. If she vowed and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.​

​

But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity. These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father's house. [Numbers 30:11-17]​

Joseph never exercised his right that Mary should bare him children., and became in his own right a just man. "Not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." [Matthew 1:19]. St. Paul the Pharisee of Pharisee taught discipline of faith: "Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one." [1 Corinthians 9:24-25]. It was quite normal for women who made vows to establish a relationship. The only conclusion we can draw honoring their dignity is that both Mary and Joseph were chaste.

JoeT

Joseph he was betrothed to her and married her.
Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The seed of the woman....I believe this is what Lukes Genealogy may be.
Son of God Son of man

 

[JoeT]

Joseph he was betrothed to her and married her.

True, and this adds to our conversation how?

Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Matthew is tracing Christ's, "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations." [Matthew 1:17]

It was the male pedigree that was important to many of the Jews in the age.

The seed of the woman....I believe this is what Lukes Genealogy may be.
Son of God Son of man

Luke is tracing Christ's pedigree as son of David through the linage of Mary.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Since many OT saints were saved, I would not call Eve's progeny "corrupt condemned to return to the dust of the earth" in any spiritual sense. Physically, yes. Eve truly is the mother of all mankind. Mary is not. She is only the mother of her children which include Jesus. The fact that she bore Jesus does not make her our spiritual mother.

It does indeed make Mary your spiritual mother if you accept that you can be the adopted son of God. [John 1:12]. If you are the adopted son of God you are bother of Jesus Christ when "born again". Those who are "born again" are living when cleansed in the fonts of the Church are the eternally living sons and daughters of Mary. Those remaining sons and daughters of Eve will die in corruption, thus they are not living.

God presents Himself to us, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no mother in the Godhead. It was God in three persons who created humanity. God created the first man and woman and designed them to create offspring that would have a mother and a father. Eve was the first mother so we can all trace our lineage back through Adam and Eve but not Mary. There were saints before Mary ever lived. Scripture does not refer to a New Eve.

Yes, all of man's linage can be traced to a single individual, Eve. But this individual was found unjust and condemned to death, corruption. It's interesting that the creature taken out of the rib of Adam which was called "woman" [Genesis 2:13] reappears as the New Eve as "woman" [John 2:4; 19:26].

You keep misapplying adultery. Adultery is only a sin between two HUMANS. God cannot be a party to adultery. Not even an innocent party. God is not human.

God is a person, three persons to be exact. Adultery is an immoral act between persons.

ADULTERY: Sexual intercourse of a married person and another who is not the wife or husband. Forbidden by the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, it was extended in meaning by Christ, who forbade divorce with the right to remarry during the lifetime of one’s legitimate spouse. [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J, Modern Catholic Dictionary]

If Mary as the "handmaiden" of the Lord had engaged in such intercourse with Joseph, then both would have engaged in an immoral act found in the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. We know however Mary didn't sin so too Joseph as a just man.

God did not marry Mary or take her as His spouse.

Oh, she did declaring herself the handmaid of the Lord. [Luke 1:38] This is reinforced by the fact the Holy Ghost overshadowed her before taking Joseph as her earthly husband. A "state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage." [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J, Modern Catholic Dictionary]

Those are Catholic ideas not found in Scripture.

They are indeed Catholic tradition however the evidence is found in Scripture.

When you read the account of Joseph, his intent to divorce Mary privately, came BEFORE he knew she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. He came to the only obvious conclusion a man could have come to. His betrothed had been with another man. Because he loved Mary and did not want to see her publicly disgraced he sought to divorce her quietly. I'm sure Joseph was wounded and could not believe his chaste betrothed would do such a thing yet she had not reported being raped and he did not yet realize the miraculous thing that had happened to her. It was only after Gabriel appeared to him and told him what had happened that he abandoned any thoughts of divorcing her.

And there you have it, being a just man "while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 1:20]

Gabriel did not instruct him to abstain from consummating his eventual marriage to Mary.

A just man wouldn't need to be told. Eck pointed out that the problem with Protestants is they have no fear of God. For Joseph to have intercourse with Mary would have been desecrating a what God had sanctified, a spiritual suicide.

Since Mary was with child by the power of the Holy Spirit, it would not be adultery for him to later have relations with his wife. The Holy Spirit did not have to marry Mary! Marriage is for two HUMANS. Not the Holy Spirit and a human. God chose a virgin, betrothed to a righteous man so that God's Son would be born into a loving family with a married father and mother. The possibility of an "adulterous triangle" never existed! That they went on to have their own children is both normal and chaste.

Then the Holy Spirit isn't the Father of Jesus Christ? You can't have it both ways.

Now you say "Joseph never exercised his right that Mary should bare him children." (emphasis added). Why do you refer to it as "his right" if, as you stated earlier, it would have been an act of adultery against God? Since when is adultery a right? Yes, some women made vows of chastity and then married but we are never told Mary made such a vow. You are assuming she did.

Let's see, the suggestion here is that Mary is just another milk sow?

This is all Catholic fiction designed to give titles to Mary Scripture (and God) does not.

Only because in you mind.

JoeT

 

[ralliann]

True, and this adds to our conversation how?

Matthew is tracing Christ's, "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations." [Matthew 1:17]

It was the male pedigree that was important to many of the Jews in the age.

Luke is tracing Christ's pedigree as son of David through the linage of Mary.

JoeT

Because we see in scripture the women even with Sarah.
Distinguishing the kings .......promised to Abraham

Gen 17:15 ¶ And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. {Sarah: that is Princess }
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

The women also an allegory for the two covenants

ye not hear the law?
Ga 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Applicable to all in Christ...

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Which agrees with Hebrews, concerning the Royal Priesthood....
Carnal commands disannulled.... not carnal ordinances. No genealogy, no carnal circumcision, no carnal elements.......

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Luke goes according to this.
Lu 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Natural seed vs seed of Promise (kings)
Sinai........
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.