Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[Asinner]

Adam and Eve were created to populate the earth.. This is why God created them male and female.. This is why God created even the animals.. This is why Noah had to take one of each on the ark.. To once again populate the earth..

Your interpretation puts us on the same level as the animals.

Love,
Christina

 

[Asinner]

And completely within God's ability . . . . .

I see you're maxed out on emoticons, leaving me none.

No one doubts that God is capable of anything He so chooses . . . yet, He chose to be born of a woman. Is this insignificant? I believe it is quite significant, as does most of Christianity.

Love,
Christina

 

[WarriorAngel]

Good Day, WA



Where could I get a copy of the Aramaic text?

I have heard it said he wrote in hebrew, but Aramaic that is a new one one me.

In Him,

Bill

What does that have to do with what God told them to do before the fall.. He cursed them and said that there would be pain in child birth. He told Adam that he would have to work the land. So now what does this have to do with the commandment of God.. They did't rebel until they ate. and this in one of the first commandments that God gave To Adam and Eve.. So them being pure until that time would have obeyed God.. For they were pure..

God made man and woman.. Adam and Eve were to have children to fill the earth.. This was commanded before the fall.. That is why woman was made to be a helper to man.. Male and female He created them.. God said it wasn't good for man to be alone. He wanted them to populate the earth.. So He made female.. How did He create the Female? Out of the rib of Adam..'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.' For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh and the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." What was there to be ashamed of? There wasn't any sin. This is why Adam and Eve were created.. To populate the earth...

Uh . . . hem . . . we’re talking about . . . um . . . . “God” here. He didn’t need a mother to become human. He created humans . . . . .

Any ideas how exactly . . . . .

Not with humans . . . that much we do know . . . .
But, I don't know if they procreate. Do they multiply? That's a good question . . . tho.

Adam and Eve were created to populate the earth.. This is why God created them male and female.. This is why God created even the animals.. This is why Noah had to take one of each on the ark.. To once again populate the earth..

It comes to this;
WE do not know before the fall how God would have the first couple populate the earth.

We do not really know how angels populate...but we do know that Christ told us there would be no marrying and giving in marriage in Heaven.

We know this means there is no sexual relationships in Heaven.

Angels are created by God.

We also know, through the virgin birth that God doesnt need a man and woman to have relations in order for HIM to give a woman a child.

SOooooo, Mary is the Heaven type of what we would have been had we not fallen.

And as the angels, she relied solely on God to give birth, but even moreso, she gave BIRTH TO GOD HIMSELF.

Ya just cant seem to wrap your minds around that awesome task...or at least I can't. I admit it.

Giving birth to GOD is not an everyday ordinary event.

He is beyond touching...and yet He touched Mary. He lived in Mary. He is a part of Mary since He took her human flesh.

SHE is the gate the Lord passed through...that NO man [sinner] shall pass through.

The gate is SHUT! And remains shut.

 

[IamAdopted]

Your interpretation puts us on the same level as the animals.

Love,
Christina

No we are not as the animals..We were created in God image.. To have relationships with Him and with others..God gave man the dominion over all His creation except man.. He was the only created to walk upright and fellowship with God.. Therefore God created them male and female to produce a people for God.. We are the only creatures that were created in Gods image.. We are spiritual beings... Animals are not..

 

[Asinner]

Then they were non-sensical and inapplicable . . . . .

Even at that, they would only have worked in a rhetorical sense if one could say for certain that angels do not procreate with each other . . . .

Good grief ![/charlie brown]

Will we be married in Heaven?

Love,
Christina

 

[IamAdopted]

It comes to this;
WE do not know before the fall how God would have the first couple populate the earth.

We do not really know how angels populate...but we do know that Christ told us there would be no marrying and giving in marriage in Heaven.

We know this means there is no sexual relationships in Heaven.

Angels are created by God.

We also know, through the virgin birth that God doesnt need a man and woman to have relations in order for HIM to give a woman a child.

SOooooo, Mary is the Heaven type of what we would have been had we not fallen.

And as the angels, she relied solely on God to give birth, but even moreso, she gave BIRTH TO GOD HIMSELF.

Ya just cant seem to wrap your minds around that awesome task...or at least I can't. I admit it.

Giving birth to GOD is not an everyday ordinary event.

He is beyond touching...and yet He touched Mary. He lived in Mary. He is a part of Mary since He took her human flesh.

SHE is the gate the Lord passed through...that NO man [sinner] shall pass through.

The gate is SHUT! And remains shut.

This is full of vain phylosophey. God created on man and one woman in the Image of Him.. We are spritual beings.. He gave Adam or man the dominion over all the earth.. He told them to be fruitful and mulitply...

 

[Asinner]

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.(Matt 22:30)

The original state was like the state to which we will return.

 

[IamAdopted]

Mary was the mother of the Human Jesus.. God was the Father of the God Jesus.. It takes two to make one.. Get it?..

 

[IamAdopted]

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.(Matt 22:30)

The original state was like the state to which we will return.

we were not created in Heaven.. We were created on earth...

 

[Asinner]

No we are not as the animals..We were created in God image.. To have relationships with Him and with others..God gave man the dominion over all His creation except man.. He was the only created to walk upright and fellowship with God.. Therefore God created them male and female to produce a people for God.. We are the only creatures that were created in Gods image.. We are spiritual beings... Animals are not..

Exactly. We were created in His Image.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Adopted, you are suggesting then that God [Jesus] is two beings?

He is one Being, just as you are one being.

He is 100% man, 100% God.

And the Garden of eden was a sinless paradise.
Akin to Heaven.

So, the original state of mankind was as it is in Heaven.

 

[Asinner]

we were not created in Heaven.. We were created on earth...

The Garden of Eden was Heaven on earth.

 

[racer]

How did He create Adam and Eve? His Creation?

Well, if He was going to do it all, why did He tell Adam and Eve to "be fruitfull and multiply?

There is also a deeper meaning to being "fruitful and multiplying" than procreation. Is our purpose as humans to procreate? Or is there a deeper purpose?

Our purpose is to worship and serve God by obeying Him. One of His first commandments to man and woman was to “be fruitful and multiply.” So, was/is it our only reason? I don’t believe so. However, clearly it was very important to Him since He told us we must do it.

IamAdopted seems to believe that our purpose is the former, whereas the Orthodox understanding is Theosis and communion with God.

I think you read too much into what IamAdopted is saying.

Marriage was created after the fall to prevent humanity from ceasing to exist.

Where does one find this information? Is it taught in your church? Is it taught in the RCC? I refer you back to my point above. If God intended to do it all, why did He tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply?

Before the fall, Adam and Eve were in full communion with God, walking with Him, and immortal. This is important in understanding why the Theotokos was ever-virgin. Through Christ, humanity is restored to what it was before the fall and Mary is our new Eve who said yes to God and through which Salvation came. Sexual relations is the fallen state. Mary remained Pure just as Eve was before the fall.

If it is so, that before the fall, Eve and Adam were purely spiritual in every manner and way, then sexual relations are not the only result of the fall . . . . the need to eat, drink, sleep, pass human waste, etc . . . . all result form this. Why do sexual relations stand out as more significant consequences? Eve was cursed with pain during childbirth, that is what God put upon her for her part. If she was never intended to bear children, why would He have cursed her with this?

If humans were to be “spiritual,” why did God put upon the earth plants for food and animals beneath men? How would “physical” animals serve “spiritual” men/women?

 

[IamAdopted]

The God part came from God... The man part came from Mary.. I may have the color is my dads hair but the color if my mothers eyes... Jesus has the human of Mary and His Father is God.. When God told Adam that if he ate the forbidden fruit that in that He would die.. Adam died spiritually not physically.. Jesus came to give us this Spritual life Back.. Through being born again... This is what Jesus does.. We are born of His Spirit to once again have fellowship with the Father... Through Christ.. Just as in Adam we have Spiritual death through Christ we have spiritual Life..

 

[Kristos]

In response to appeals to Matthew 1:25:
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
The point of the verse you have cited is plain. It leaves no room for doubting that Christ was not the result of relations between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph—it says nothing about what happened thereafter, one way or the other.
St. Jerome wrote a very detailed treatise on this subject that one can find in several readily available translations—it is titled "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary".
Not only was this view held universally in the Early Church, but the Early Reformers all believed it as well. John Wesley did too.
The NT does it say that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ever moved beyond betrothal. The Bible speaks of St. Joseph's "espoused" wife—but never mentions anything beyond it.

The rite of betrothal, the Traditional understanding thereof is that a betrothal gives a couple all the responsibilities of marriage, but none of the privileges. Once betrothed, one can only break the betrothal with a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple were not permitted to have marital relations until after the marriage ceremony.

In response to the question of whether or not this doctrine only brings glory to the Virgin Mary, and not to God:
This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:
"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).
This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.
The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.
This does not mean that sex is dirty, though the Apostles taught that it was better to remain in virginity—though only those who can accept such a life are called to do so. Certainly some are called to this life, and it is blessed by God.
Why then did the Virgin need St. Joseph? That question is valid even if one believes she had other children later—why did she need St. Joseph to give birth to Christ. The answer is obvious: virgins do not as a rule give birth, and Christ would likely have grown up an orphan had he been born to a single mother.
You said: "Mary had other children. James is called The Lord's brother. The brothers and sisters who came for Jesus while he was teaching are not cousins as catholic footnotes try to make out, like there is no Greek word for brother."
These brothers were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas (as the second century Palestinian Christian history Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord.
Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child".
You said: "There's no need to be that specific. Can't it be understood from several Scripture passages (John 2:12; Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; especially Matthew 13:55,56 and Mark 6:3,4; etc.) that what's referred to are Mary and Joseph's offsprings?"
How do you deal with the Mary who is not Christ's mother but who also just happens to be the Virgin Mary's sister and who happens to have kids with the same names as Christ's brothers? How do you deal with the very early testimony of Hegesippus who states plainly that the brethren of the Lord were the Children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas and his wife Mary?"
See: Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25 The Matthew account has Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark has Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. John has "his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas". All accounts mention Mary Magdalene separately and Matthew mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee (who could not also be married to Clopas). This suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas, who is Mary's sister, is the mother of James and Joses, etc.
[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:11] "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions, with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive), to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with once consent pronounced Symeon, the Son of Cleopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention, to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph." [note: Hegesippus was a 2nd Century Palestinian Jew. Eusebius preserves one of the few fragments left of his works, since he had access to the great library of Ceasarea and of Alexandria—the contents of which were mostly lost later.]

 

[WarriorAngel]

IS being born again through the Spirit and water?

Or is a choice we make by ourselves without the water?

Nevertheless....so you agree HE took the flesh from His Mother?

IS she the 'gate' He passed through?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.

Hi. What about at Pentecost and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us? And when is the "End of the Age"?

Matthew 13:49 so shall it be in the full end of the age, the messengers shall come forth and separate the evil out of the midst of the righteous,

1 Peter 4:7 And of all things the end hath come nigh; be sober-minded, then, and watch unto the prayers,

 

[IamAdopted]

The Garden of Eden was Heaven on earth.

NO the Garden of Eden was where God put Adam and Eve after He created them and gave them the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.. Revelations will show you what Heaven looks like..

 

[racer]

Isn't the Adam and Eve conversation getting away from the topic of the OP?

Forgive me...

It is starting to get a little out of context . . . .

 

[IamAdopted]

In response to appeals to Matthew 1:25:
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"—obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
The point of the verse you have cited is plain. It leaves no room for doubting that Christ was not the result of relations between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph—it says nothing about what happened thereafter, one way or the other.
St. Jerome wrote a very detailed treatise on this subject that one can find in several readily available translations—it is titled "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary".
Not only was this view held universally in the Early Church, but the Early Reformers all believed it as well. John Wesley did too.
The NT does it say that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ever moved beyond betrothal. The Bible speaks of St. Joseph's "espoused" wife—but never mentions anything beyond it.

The rite of betrothal, the Traditional understanding thereof is that a betrothal gives a couple all the responsibilities of marriage, but none of the privileges. Once betrothed, one can only break the betrothal with a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple were not permitted to have marital relations until after the marriage ceremony.

In response to the question of whether or not this doctrine only brings glory to the Virgin Mary, and not to God:
This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:
"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).
This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.
The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.
This does not mean that sex is dirty, though the Apostles taught that it was better to remain in virginity—though only those who can accept such a life are called to do so. Certainly some are called to this life, and it is blessed by God.
Why then did the Virgin need St. Joseph? That question is valid even if one believes she had other children later—why did she need St. Joseph to give birth to Christ. The answer is obvious: virgins do not as a rule give birth, and Christ would likely have grown up an orphan had he been born to a single mother.
You said: "Mary had other children. James is called The Lord's brother. The brothers and sisters who came for Jesus while he was teaching are not cousins as catholic footnotes try to make out, like there is no Greek word for brother."
These brothers were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas (as the second century Palestinian Christian history Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord.
Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child".
You said: "There's no need to be that specific. Can't it be understood from several Scripture passages (John 2:12; Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; especially Matthew 13:55,56 and Mark 6:3,4; etc.) that what's referred to are Mary and Joseph's offsprings?"
How do you deal with the Mary who is not Christ's mother but who also just happens to be the Virgin Mary's sister and who happens to have kids with the same names as Christ's brothers? How do you deal with the very early testimony of Hegesippus who states plainly that the brethren of the Lord were the Children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas and his wife Mary?"
See: Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25 The Matthew account has Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark has Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. John has "his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas". All accounts mention Mary Magdalene separately and Matthew mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee (who could not also be married to Clopas). This suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas, who is Mary's sister, is the mother of James and Joses, etc.
[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:11] "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions, with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive), to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with once consent pronounced Symeon, the Son of Cleopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention, to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph." [note: Hegesippus was a 2nd Century Palestinian Jew. Eusebius preserves one of the few fragments left of his works, since he had access to the great library of Ceasarea and of Alexandria—the contents of which were mostly lost later.]

And where may I ask did all these St."t get there information about Mary.. It had to be apart from the bible because Mary is never listed as such in scripture.. The NT was written in greek. There is a word for brother and also for blood realative.. So do your history.. These men whom claim that Mary was a virgin for all time did not get this from Scripture.. The bible tells us that Mary had other children.. The bible tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters.. We don't change the wording to make it fit theology we want.. We let the scriptures tell us our theology.. So therefore if it is not written it is not so..