Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will give you some credit- it takes creativity to come up with an interpretation in which Mary asks Jesus to perform a miracle, He does so, and claim He did not obey.
But just because its creative doesn't mean its right
Yes it is amazing the lengths people go when they can't accept Christ like our friend Freddy here, but Christ ran into people like thatOT typologies are never useless. But the shadow is always imperfect whereas the fulfillment is perfect. Hence Solomon, the "son of David, the anointed one" lied to his mother. Christ, the "son of David, the anointed one" honors his mother, fulfilling God's commandment to do so perfectly.
If you believe a steward of the wedding would call unfermented wine the "good wine", then you are living in a land of make believe. And I'm content to leave you there. But the things people have to make up and the lengths they would go to are always interesting...
Jesus certainly answered her request that He do something about the lack of wine supply, but He didn't do it the way Mary wanted it. That was the whole point. But please do keep trying to mock me. I'm not surprised in any way by your creative attempts to justify your Marian idolatry.
OT typologies are never useless. But the shadow is always imperfect whereas the fulfillment is perfect. Hence Solomon, the "son of David, the anointed one" lied to his mother. Christ, the "son of David, the anointed one" honors his mother, fulfilling God's commandment to do so perfectly.
If you believe a steward of the wedding would call unfermented wine the "good wine", then you are living in a land of make believe. And I'm content to leave you there. But the things people have to make up and the lengths they would go to are always interesting...
Scripture says nothing about the way Mary wanted it done or that somehow Mary and Jesus wanted different things. You are reading things into Scripture that aren't there so you can justify a claim that the overwhelming majority non-Catholics wouldn't even make.
And the fact that you call Catholics idolaters of Mary only shows your lack of understanding of what Catholics believe. It's a debunked accusation, and quite frankly its ignorant. You cannot find a Catholic who puts Mary or any Saint ahead of God, because to do so is to cease to be Catholic.
Yes it is amazing the lengths people go when they can't accept Christ like our friend Freddy here, but Christ ran into people like that
Placing American English communication standards on Greek writing? if that what it takes to prove your point....I guess you gotta do it.
Here are some excerpts from Alfonso deLigouris work, The Glories of Mary....
. 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517
And do you really think that Jesus would make intoxicating wine for people who were already drunk? His creation of the wine was perfect, just the way it was meant to be from the beginning, not some old fermented wine that leaves people drunk. This is why Jesus' wine was "good wine".
I've seen the lengths at which Catholics would go to in order to elevate their pagan Marian goddess. They're lost in their infatuation with their imaginary version of Mary.
. 1
* On the third day there was a wedding* in Cana* in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.a
2
Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
3
When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine.
4
* [And] Jesus said to her, Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.b
5
His mother said to the servers, Do whatever he tells you.c
6
* Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings,d each holding twenty to thirty gallons.
7
Jesus told them, Fill the jars with water. So they filled them to the brim.
8
Then he told them, Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.* So they took it.
9
And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom
10
and said to him, Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.
11
Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs* in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.e
12
* After this, he and his mother, [his] brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days.*
This is utter baloney. Making such a statement makes a lie of your claim to have studied Greek and Hebrew. One of the great difficulties in translating is precisely because expressions are anything but universal. For example. in Greek, to ask someone how they are, the exact translation in English is "What are you doing?". Ask someone that in English and see if they answer regarding whether they are well or not.The communications and expressions are universal in all languages, not just English. I've studied Greek and Hebrew and it rules of expression are the same. It's not just an "American" thing.
I disagree. Mary urges Jesus to perform His first miracle, though Jesus said that His hour had not come, He listened to Mary.
Mary was given to John to be his Mother at the cross, and us Catholics believe given to all followers of Christ as our Mother.
Mary had a place in the upper room with the Apostles when the Holy Spirit descended upon them.
Not to mention the Angel Gabriel's greeting given to Mary and all generations calling her blessed.
These along with all of the Biblical typology pointing to Mary as the New Eve,
the Ark of the New Covenant,
and yes- the Queen of Christ's Kingdom,
I believe shows Mary as quite influential.
In the Davidic Kingdom the the Queen served the King as well. The King had the ultimate authority, as does Christ. The Queen was at the service of the Kings authority, as we believe Mary is at the service of Christ's authority.
I do find an interesting parallel, at least from my perspective, that in the OT Davidic Kingdom we find the King, having the ultimate authority, honoring the Queen's request, and in the NT we find Jesus honoring Mary's request to perform Hid first miracle.
And do not forget when Mary said these things, she also said that "from hence forth all generations shall call me blessed."
Yes I remember our discussion. I apologize for never getting around to answering the video. Perhaps I can respond with a video myself:
Revelation 12: Who Is the Woman Clothed with the Sun? - YouTube
And I must put my foot in my mouth in regards to a comment I made earlier. I said something along the lines of it being nonsense to think the woman was the Church. I rescind that comment and apologize
However, given that in Revelation a single symbol takes on multiple meanings, I find it hard to deny that Mary is at least one of the meanings of the symbol of the woman, along with her being a symbol of Israel and the Church.
God bless.
Scripture itself refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus more than a dozen times. Are you professing that Scripture is in error in doing so?I interpret this verse like everyone except Catholics do.
'Woman what have I to do with you?' is Jesus dismissing her, showing that he is his own man.
Notice how Jesus doesn't call her mother. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus refer to Mary as his mother
My hour has not yet come means there's was an appointed time for what Jesus had to do and what would happen to him
John 7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
it's like my mother asking me to do something and not doing it, then my father asking me to do the same thing and doing it. I did what my mother asked but it was not because of her that I did it.
John 6;38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Jesus did things by God's own timing not the will of any man or woman.
john 2:4 proves the opposite of what Catholics claim.
The problem with this should be obvious. In the verse he quotes it tells us it has two meanings, in Revelation 12 doesn't. If the woman in revelation had two meanings wouldn't you think it would have told us like it did in Revelation 17:9-10? Did God forget to tell him or did John just forget to write it down? I doubt it.
If you're saying Mary being called blessed makes her in some way unique among God's people it doesn't.
The actual term in Greek (the original language that Luke was written in) is kecharitomene, which is the perfect passive participle of the Greek word charitoo (grace). In other words, kecharitomene means You who have been graced" And when you add the word full to kecharitomene, Gabriel is calling Mary by her new title of You who have been filled with grace. And as anyone knows, when you are full of anything, there is no room left over for anything else..[/QUOTE]
If Jesus is the new Adam then logically the new eve would have to be his bride not his mother, which would be the church.
Consider this: Eve, without sin, let sin (eternal death) enter the world by giving her "yes" to a bad angel, Satan. Mary, without sin, let Jesus (eternal life) enter the world by giving her "yes" to a good angel, Gabriel.
Mary has been regarded as the New Eve since the earliest centuries of the Church by the Church Fathers.
The ark of the covenant flowed with the very power of God. The Israelites brought down the walls of Jericho by walking around the city with the ark for seven days. One guy who touched it died.
One woman in Mark 5:25 touched Jesus and was instantly healed. No miracle is ever attributed to Mary in the scriptures.
You mean the woman who touched Jesus didn't die like the person who touched the Ark? Good thing Mary remained "untouched".
The Ark was not to be worshipped (Jesus is to be worshipped), but giving it great reverence did not take anything away from the worship of God. But to irreverence the Ark was a grave sin indeed- as you alluded to when the man touched it. Remind you of how Catholics treat Mary?
Also the ark of the covenant contained the word of God, Jesus is literally the word of God in a human body John 1:14.
If anyone is the new ark of the covenant it's Jesus.
Exactly Jesus is literally the Word of God. The Ark contained the Word of God inside of it. Mary contained Jesus inside of her.
It also contained Manna, bread for earthly life, and the rod of the high priest. The Ark wasnt these things, but contained them. Jesus is the bread of eternal life and the eternal priest. Again Mary contained Jesus.
Mary has also been regarded as the Ark of the New Covenant since the Early Church.
like Jesus said, he has many mothers, so there should be several queens in heaven not just one. Jesus says he has made us kings and priests (Revelation 1:6) so if there are many kings there should be many queens.
He did not have many literal mothers.
We are all at the service of Christ's authority. The problem you haven't gotten passed is that she called herself a handmaiden of the Lord and neither the angel or anyone one else say she is anything else.
That's because I agree that she is indeed the handmaiden of The Lord. This doesn't mean she cannot also be Queen. As I said the Queen served the King in the Davidic Kingdom as in the Heavenly Kingdom.
The Truth About Mary and Scripture: MUST SEE! - YouTube
maybe since some Christian Communities lack Sacred Tradition, they have problems understanding the complexity of ScriptureI don't see why that matters at all. There are many symbols in Revelation that aren't explicitly defined for us- if they were we wouldn't be arguing about it. John happened to tell us what the seven heads symbolized, and it shows a symbol can take more than one meaning.
maybe since some Christian Communities lack Sacred Tradition, they have problems understanding the complexity of Scripture
since they have no Apostolic Sucession, no Sacred Tradition... all they have is their own intelect and a book, so if something is not clear to the dimmest among us, it can not be what the Bible is trying to say
You appear to be the one going to lengths. You read this:
And interpret it as:
Mary said, "Hey Son we are out of wine, make them some more so they can get drunk."
To which Jesus replied, "I rebuke you for saying such sinful things, I shall make them grape juice instead."
And you also fail to realize wedding feast lasted for days if not weeks. So just because they needed more wine doesn't mean everyone was getting drunk.
This is utter baloney. Making such a statement makes a lie of your claim to have studied Greek and Hebrew. One of the great difficulties in translating is precisely because expressions are anything but universal. For example, in Greek, to ask someone how they are, the exact translation in English is "What are you doing?". Ask someone that in English and see if they answer regarding whether they are well or not.
She is the only one to be called "full of grace" anywhere in scripture.The actual term in Greek (the original language that Luke was written in) is “kecharitomene,” which is the perfect passive participle of the Greek word “charitoo” (grace). In other words, kecharitomene means “You who have been graced" And when you add the word “full” to kecharitomene, Gabriel is calling Mary by her new title of “You who have been filled with grace.” And as anyone knows, when you are full of anything, there is no room left over for anything else..[/QUOTE]
“And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28) Douay Rheims Version
This is where Catholics get their “Hail Mary, full of grace” prayer from. Now in most translations it says “Rejoice, highly favored one” (NKJV) or “Greetings, you who are highly favored!” (NIV)
The point of showing you these differences is NOT whether it’s wrong to translate this as “full of grace”, but rather to show that this statement from the angel Gabriel is merely a greeting, and should NOT be looked at as a basis for praying to Mary. Also, the phrase “full of grace” or “highly favored” comes from the Greek word “khar-ee-to’-ō” (χαριτόω.
It should be noted that, the term “Kecharitomene” is translated in the Latin Vulgate as “gratia plena”, meaning full of grace. However, all modern versions of the Bible which translate from the original Greek, and NOT from the Latin, translate “kecharitomene” as “highly favored one” “highly favored” “favored one” “favored woman”. All these variations are closer to the original Greek term than the Latin Vulgate term “full of grace”. Even the most recent up-to-date Catholic versions which also translate from the original Greek have translated kecharitomene as “favored one” (NRSVCE, NJB “you who enjoy God’s favor”, NAB, not to be confused with NASB). The actual way of saying full of grace in Greek is “playrace khareetos” (plērēs charitos, πλήρης χάριτος.
But again, the real issue is not that the Latin Vulgate got it wrong, but rather what does “full of grace” actually mean?
For Catholics, “full of grace” means, “transformation of the subject by favor or grace; plenitude of favor or grace; of a singular and permanent kind; perfection of grace; extensive and from birth the whole lifelong”
That’s quite a mouth full. Does such a Greek word have that kind of definition? Absolutely Not! Such a Roman Catholic definition is just utter nonsense. All that the Catholics are trying to do is try to come to the false conclusion that Mary never sinned because she was “full of grace”. They reason by saying, “how could Mary have sinned if she was ‘full of Grace’. She cannot sin.” Therefore, in making the declaration that Mary was immaculately conceived, they depend entirely upon this verse only. Essentially, Mary was born without sin because she was “full of grace”.
Yet the truth is that the Greek word “charitoō” does not mean what the Catholics want it to mean. If we want to know the meaning of this word, we must look at it in context. We need only to read what follows in Luke 1:30, where the angel Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”
God has favored Mary. Even Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance states that the Greek root word charitoō means “to endow with charis, primarily signified ‘to make graceful or gracious’ and came to denote ‘to cause to find favor’”. There’s nothing here about “plenitude of favor or grace, or from beginning to end sinlessness, or being without sin” as the Catholics wish to apply all of this to the term “full of grace”.
If we turn to Ephesians 1:5-6 the exact same term is used in Greek. Paul is speaking in reference to what God has given to His own, saying “Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.” (NKJV)
The phrase “made us accepted” or in other translations “freely bestowed favor on us” (HNV), or “graced us” (DRA) is the exact same “grace” term that’s used in Luke 1:28.
My response to the Catholics is this: if you are going to define “full of grace” with such a ridiculous definition for Mary, then you must apply that definition to all believers as well based on Eph. 1:6. Catholics can’t have it both ways.
Scripture also tells us that others were “full of grace”, not just Mary. For example, in Acts 6:8 Stephen is said to be “full of grace” (πλήρης χάριτος(NRSVCE, DRA). In Luke 1:41, Elizabeth is said to be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (DRA). In Acts 11:24, Barnabas is said to be “full of the Holy Spirit” (NRSVCE). And as we all know, the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29, NRSVCE, DRA). And many more in Scripture were “full of grace” especially our Lord Jesus Christ in John 1:14, who was “full of grace (πλήρης χάριτος and truth”. It is only fair, then, to apply the Catholic definition to the term “full of grace” to Stephen, Elizabeth, and Barnabas. But, we already know that the Catholic definition is nothing but a complete myth.
Therefore, the term “full of grace” found in Luke 1:28 simply means that God favored Mary as the context shows in Luke 1:30. Thus, “Full of grace” does NOT mean that Mary was conceived without sin or that she lived a sinless life. Mary was full of grace, and so is every believer. So, Mary's grace was a received grace, NOT grace to bestow to others. She received grace, NOT because of some personal merit, but simply for the sake of free grace. Mary "found favor with God", and thus, her being “full of grace” has nothing to do with being praised for what she supposedly was, immaculately conceived, or for what she supposedly did, living sinless, as Catholics would have us believe. When one is graced by God it glorifies God, not man.
However, some Catholics mistakenly argue that the Greek word “kecharitomene” (κεχαριτωμένηis a noun, and thus, they reason that because this word is used in place of Mary’s name, it therefore is a title or name given to Mary to indicate a characteristic quality of her unique abundance of grace in a supernatural, godlike state of soul. But, the word “kecharitomene” is a feminine verb since Mary is the subject of this verb, and it’s in the perfect passive participle form derived from the root verb “charitoō”. It’s not a noun. The meaning of “kecharitomene” is “endued with grace”. In other words, Mary was given grace by God, grace that she neither earned nor gained, but rather, because God willed that she would be the one to bear and carry our Savior. She was a blessed recipient of God’s grace, NOT the source of grace, so that she could conceive and bear Jesus without the aid of man through the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, the Greek term “kecharitomene” or “kecharitomenos” can be grammatically used to describe any other person without any implication of that person being immaculately conceived or living sinless.
Even Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, concedes that kecharitomene “is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense....This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together.”
Therefore, the phrase, “full of grace” is not evidence for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In fact, even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this, stating that the term kecharitomene “serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma”.
To prove my point even further that the Catholics themselves admit that the term “full of grace” does not refer to the Immaculate Conception, we read in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace. (Volume VII, Page 378)
Consider this: Eve, without sin, let sin (eternal death) enter the world by giving her "yes" to a bad angel, Satan. Mary, without sin, let Jesus (eternal life) enter the world by giving her "yes" to a good angel, Gabriel.
Mary has been regarded as the New Eve since the earliest centuries of the Church by the Church Fathers.
That's because I agree that she is indeed the handmaiden of The Lord. This doesn't mean she cannot also be Queen. As I said the Queen served the King in the Davidic Kingdom as in the Heavenly Kingdom.
Scripture itself refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus more than a dozen times. Are you professing that Scripture is in error in doing so?
Your interpretation (which by no means represents all non-Catholics) places Jesus squarely at odds with the very words of Scripture. It also places him squarely at odds with himself. Matthew 15 "3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' To refuse to even acknowledge her as his mother would most certainly be the height of dishonor.
Your view that Christ refuses to even acknowledge Mary as his mother places him squarely at odds with the words of Scripture itself (for it refers to her quite often as the mother of Jesus), at odds with the commandment of God to honor his mother, and at odds with his own words. Read Matthew 15 and see how he treats the Pharisees who believe they can set aside the commandment to honor one's mother and father for the sake of doing "God's" work.
Jesus originally believed his hour for public ministry was when he was 12.
Yet he was obedient to Mary and Joseph when they curtailed him at that time.
That story in Luke's Gospel is the last time we see Mary and Jesus together prior to the wedding at Cana. That is not a coincidence. The previous time the Gospel speaks of them, Mary is restraining Christ from his public ministry. When Mary asks Christ to help the couple, they both know that this will launch his public ministry (it does) which sets him on the path towards the cross -- his hour.
In Luke's Gospel, when Jesus professes he must be about his Father's business,
Christ honors Mary's request that he return home.
In John's Gospel, when she asks for his assistance and he states that his hour has not yet come,
Mary quietly tells the servants to prepare for the miracle he will perform.
It is a "loosing" of that request of almost 20 years ago to curtain his public ministry, which he honored and obeyed. Please note I am not saying that Jesus required Mary's permission. But he did seek it, for he honored her fully as his mother and as commanded by God.
Jesus obeyed Mary and Joseph and returned to Nazareth, so I'm not sure how you can make the claim that his timing did not follow the will of any man. And your claim indicates that God's own timing would set aside his command to honor one's parents. Again, read Matthew 15 and see the response Jesus gives to the Pharisees who believe they can set aside the command to honor one's parents, even for the work of God.
No, there is another reason that Jesus calls Mary "woman", and when you're ready to have ears to learn, then you will.
No, read what I wrote again then maybe you'll see where you went wrong.
First of all I never said Jesus did not acknowledge her as her mother
Jesus said in Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
He then answers his own question
Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
There is no doubt Mary did the will of God
I think Jesus never referred to her as mother could be because he didn't want people to start elevating her like the woman in Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
But jesus says to her:
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
See above answers.
Funny thing is Matthew 15:3 always comes to mind when I read or hear about what Catholics believe
Where does it say that in the scriptures?
I have read Luke 2 and all it says is Jesus was sitting with the teachers, listened to them and asking them questions
Please do not put thoughts in God's head and words in his mouth.
They didn't curtail anything cause there was nothing to curtail.
Luke 2;51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
He went with them because they were his parents and because he was just a child and was subject on to them. He was honouring the commandment to honour thy father and mother again showing he was following God's will
That is why in Jesus tell Mary in John 2 "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Because he has come of age and is no longer subject unto her
So apparently Mary is wise and discerning enough to know when the son of God should start his public ministry but not wise or discerning enough to know that the son of God would be in the house of God (Luke 2:46) The mental gymnastics here are mind blowing.
The idea that Mary was restraining Christ implies Mary knew better than the son of God, and that Christ was not lead by God but by a mere human being. Sorry but this very idea is so stupidly insulting.
Notice Jesus never performs a miracle until just after he is baptised by John the Baptist? and that his first miracle just happens to be the one we're talking about? That is not coincidence.
Notice what Jesus says in Matt 3
Matt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
Jesus is setting the example of how people would be save. (by water and spirit) John said he baptised with water but Jesus would baptise them with the holy spirit
John 1;29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
This is fulfilment of the prophesy in Malachi 3:1
This is the spiritual start of Jesus's ministry. It has nothing to do with Mary
Going about his fathers business doesn't automatically equate to him having a ministry.
As it states in the verse he was hearing them and asking question, it says nothing about him ministering to them.
Jesus saw that Mary and his father were upset so he returned with them
He was a child and was subject unto them just like any other child has been since the beginning of mankind. This doesn't show Mary had any special authority given to her above any other woman
yes He is no longer a child and no longer subject unto her and is waiting for his hour
She doesn't say that, she says 'Do what ever he tells you'
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. It seems in the mind of a Catholic "Woman, what have I to do with you" somehow equates to: "You're wish is my command" and "My hour has not yet come" somehow equates to: "prepare the servants"
This is a prophecy of John the Baptist in Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
You think maybe Jesus would have been jumping the gun a little bit if he had started his ministry at 12 years old before his messenger who was sent by God to prepared a path for him, before he was baptized and anointed with the holy spirit? I think so
Gods plan didn't interfere with Jesus upbringing cause it wasn't meant to. You're missing the point
Judging but what you've said I doubt very much this supposed reason will be either accurate or correct
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?