[paraclete]

paraclete,
I think you are missing the point.
Without a virgin Mary there would be no Jesus Christ both God and man to later die for us.
Therefore no salvation.
God is the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE.
He does things His way for His reasons not ours because He loves us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, you miss the point, Mary was a willing vessel, so that's why we called her blessed but your argument holds true for all of Jesus line back to Adam and we know how screwed up he was, he provided the reason why we need salvation. Salvation comes not from Mary but Christ alone. What the whole things shows is that there was only one righteous enough to pay the price and that was Jesus, so let's forget the maryolarty and worship the true savour.

[arcura]

paraclete,
Perhaps the reason to call Mary blessed is the same reason
For me to be called blessed or perhaps even you IF you have been blessed by God.
The bible tells us about Mary. Perhaps you should re-read the annunciation portion where the angel tells Mary that she has been blessed.
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I'll go by what the bible says as quoted above.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

Suggesting that John 6 is metaphoric denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.

No it does not. It is obvious that John 6:53 and 54 are metaphoric. Verse 53 goes like this: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. If that verse is taken literally then that would mean that would mean that every non-catholic individual has "no life in him" meaning he or she is not alive. Is that what Our Lord is saying? Obviously no. That sentence is most obviously not to be taken literally.

Then the next three paragraph what you wrote was true information. But then in the next again you went off track. Here it is:

It’s a good question isn’t it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you’re disagreeable, so let’s continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.

Jesus asked "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? ". He was not saying that to believe in Him belief in Moses was a prerequisite. "Writings" is the key word in that verse. Moses wrote about God's creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah etc. He also wrote about God's covenant with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Moses' writings contained man's fall. God's plan of salvation, God's promise of a Messiah and the Laws. So Jesus was saying that if one does not believe in all these they cannot believe in Him.

Jesus is a descendent of David and the Messiah then we must conclude that Mary is the Mother of God; as her title would indicate as well as exceedingly blessed.

That is what the RC teaches you by their doctrine. The scriptures teaches otherwise. Mary was a blessed lady chosen to give birth to the Messiah. But that does not make her the mother of God. She was a human being, born of a human parents and was married to a man. Immaculate conception of Mary is a hoax spun by the RC and the scripture does not support it. So she was a human being and cannot be called the mother of God.

I’ll go so far as to say, that if Mary isn’t Virgin, isn’t Ever Virgin then there is no Messiah;

Why so may I ask?

The siblings of Christ are shown in the Gospel of Matthew 13:55 are obviously clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom.

It is most certainly not obvious. The verse just states brothers. Now brother can mean clansmen as you say and they can also mean real brothers. Now if you would believe that the bible was not speaking about real brothers it is because RC has woven a doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Only the existence of this doctrine would lead someone look for some other explanation for the word "brother" mentioned there in. In the absence of this doctrine no one would get that meaning out of it.

Looking at it another way is virginity a virtue? It is and it symbolizes purity. However it is a virtue only till the girl is married. If someone tries to be a virgin after she her marriage then it is hardly a virtue. It is in fact a violation of responsibility. This we see in 1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband..

Moreover what is our Lord's view on relationship of husband and wife? The Holy Spirit has revealed this to us through Paul.

1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

If Mary did not have other children it would mean she has violated this.

Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.”

We know that John's father was not Joseph but Zebedee from the scripture. Therefore not taking this literally would be foolish. But why would you not want to take a "his brother and his mother" literally when the scripture does not say that Mary did not have other children?

[I assumed you knew the custom of the Jews with regard to widows. At or near death, the eldest remaining sibling would handover care of his mother and sisters to an immediate male family member for care – usually the eldest of the remaining sons. It would have been a BIG insult for Jesus, as the eldest son of a widow, to hand over his Mother’s care to somebody outside the family. You’re not claiming John was a sibling of Christ too, are you?

Thank you for that piece of information. However the scripture makes it clear that Jesus' brother did not believe in Him while His mother did. So it is only natural that He trusts the care of His mother to someone who believed in Him. After all you know how hostile the situation had been for the apostles in Acts when they went out preaching.

She presents a threat to Protestantism

How?

Deny Mary and you’ve rejected the Messiah, reject Mary and you reject the Three Persons of the Trinity, and refuse Mary and you’ve refused hope of eternal life in heaven. I explain it this way:

How? Scripturally explain this to us.

“I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” (Gen 3:15).

That is BLASPHEMOUS.

Gen 3:15 I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring's heel."

It is not the woman who crushes his head. That Bible is corrupt. No other versions it translated like this. No wonder catholics don't understand many things. Their text book has been tampered with.

... To say that Mary was born with sin means that the ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ resided in filth...

Didn't Jesus Christ come into this world? Is this world not a filthy place? Did he not take all our sins (filth) on Him? So your entire argument goes out of the window. More over "Abraham believe and it was counted as righteousness to him". Even if Mary was a sinful woman she believed and that would be counted to her as righteousness. All I can say is you are mis-taught.

[arcura]

inhisservice,
Sorry, but Joe id correct.
Those passages about Jesus flesh IS food indeed and blood IS drink indeed are to be take literally.
They are the Eucharist and the path to eternal like for as Jesus said about those who partake of it, "I will raise them up on the last day".
It does not mean that others who do not partake can not go to heaven there are other means.
But IT DOES mean that those who do worthily will be in heaven.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Suggesting that John 6 is metaphoric denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.

No it does not. It is obvious that John 6:53 and 54 are metaphoric. Verse 53 goes like this: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. If that verse is taken literally then that would mean that would mean that every non-catholic individual has "no life in him" meaning he or she is not alive. Is that what Our Lord is saying? Obviously no. That sentence is most obviously not to be taken literally.

Then the next three paragraph what you wrote was true information. But then in the next again you went off track. Here it is:

Why sure it's literal, unembroidered. I can see how you can take verses John 6:26-48 (51) metaphorically, but then you're left with verses John 6:52-72 which are emphatically literal; even Protestant writers such as Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others agree it's literal. These verses deal directly to the question, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" How then is this bread “Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead?” It's in the Pascal Lamb, that perfect sacrifice, who was sacrificed and eaten. Like the death that Passed Over the Jew in Egypt, the blood placed on the jambs and headers ward off spiritual death. “He that eats this bread shall live for ever" unless it is meat and blood of the 'sacrificial lamb' the 'real presence'. That takes care of the meat and blood but the bread is also clear John 6:27, 52. NEW ADVENT BIBLE: John 6

When using metaphors to teach, Christ most always explained the metaphors – unless of course it related to the Priestly Kingdom of Moses, this did not need an explanation. Three times he told the Pharisees how to obtain eternal life, once using metaphors. Three times the Jews didn't understand and finally walked off in disgust; as did most of Christ's disciples.

This was foretold in Isaiah, “feed your enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save you, and your Redeemer the Mighty One (Isaiah 49:26). If Christ didn't feed them flesh, then he wasn't the “Mighty One” now was he?

It's a good question isn't it? But we know little of Moses compared to our Jewish brothers, how then will we believe His words? The answer is in the Kingdom, His Church, His teaching Magisterium; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. But, I know you're disagreeable, so let's continue. The miracle of 5,000 isn't as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened sitting on that hillside that day.

Jesus asked "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? “ He was not saying that to believe in Him belief in Moses was a prerequisite. "Writings" is the key word in that verse. Moses wrote about God's creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah etc. He also wrote about God's covenant with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Moses' writings contained man's fall. God's plan of salvation, God's promise of a Messiah and the Laws. So Jesus was saying that if one does not believe in all these they cannot believe in Him.

This was the point, if you don't understand God's Plan given to Moses, unfolded in a Tabernacle (a tent), how then can you begin to understand the spiritualism imbued in the Eucharist. Moses didn't create a Kingdom of 'Pot Washers', it was these hypocrites that inhibited the 'spiritual' growth of Moses' Kingdom. Which should call to mind the metaphor of the fig tree failing to provide Christ with the 'first fruits'.

Jesus is a descendent of David and the Messiah then we must conclude that Mary is the Mother of God; as her title would indicate as well as exceedingly blessed.

That is what the RC teaches you by their doctrine. The scriptures teaches otherwise. Mary was a blessed lady chosen to give birth to the Messiah. But that does not make her the mother of God. She was a human being, born of a human parents and and was married to a man. Immaculate conception of Mary is a hoax spun by the RC and the scripture does not support it. So she was a human being and cannot be called the mother of God.

Yes, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, an Ever Virgin Mary.

If you reject Mary you reject Christ, if you reject His Church you reject Mary. You see, at least figuratively, when Christ handed over his Mother to John, he was handing over His Mother to the Church as John represented the Church. This is why we call the Church our Mother, that is the Mother of our faith in Christ.

I'll go so far as to say, that if Mary isn't Virgin, isn't Ever Virgin then there is no Messiah;

Why so may I ask?

I'll explain:

Failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with original sin and actual sin means that she was a slave to sin as are all of us born of man. The 'Perfect Sacrificial Lamb' would have been born out of a slave to the devil and resided in filth; thus such a person does not meet prophetically and divine requirement for perfection - not my requirement, but God's requirement to send the PERFECT Lamb and the Messiah. Such a person would be a freak of nature (that is spontaneous regeneration) or the seed of man (no God at all). If such occurred it would mean that God created God in the form of Christ, which of course is an absurdity; whatever is created by God cannot be God. Can the uncreated be created? Of lesser importance to dismiss the Ever Virgin Mary is to say that one can be in physical contact with the Fullness of Grace, you might say all Grace Personified, and then return to a life of sin.

JoeT

[450donn]

Yes, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches of an Immaculate Conception of Mary, an Ever Virgin Mary.

If you reject May you reject Christ, if you reject His Church you reject Mary. You see, at least figuratively, when Christ handed over his Mother to John, he was handing over His Mother to the Church as John represented the Church. This is why we call the Church our Mother, that is the Mother of our faith in Christ.

Wait a minute here. YOU have steadfastly claimed that Peter is the father of your religion. Now you claim John and Mary? WHO IS IT?
How can Mary be ever virgin? If she had more than one child? She was married or not? And so you are trying to now claim that she went against mosaic law by not having relations with her husband during her entire married life? Joe, are you making this stuff up as you go along?

[paraclete]

Failing to recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as immaculate, as Ever Virgin, as the Mother of God wounds the Creed in which we profess One God, with three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say that Mary was born with original sin and actual sin means that she was a slave to sin as are all of us born of man. The ‘Perfect Sacrificial Lamb’ would have been born out of a slave to the devil and resided in filth; thus such a person does not meet prophetically and divine requirement for perfection - not my requirement, but God's requirement to send the PERFECT Lamb and the Messiah. Such a person would be a freak of nature (that is spontaneous regeneration) or the seed of man (no God at all). If such occurred it would mean that God created God in the form of Christ, which of course is an absurdity; whatever is created by God cannot be God. Can the uncreated be created? Of lesser importance to dismiss the Ever Virgin Mary is to say that one can be in physical contact with the Fullness of Grace, you might say all Grace Personified, and then return to a life of sin.

JoeT

Joe your argument fails on the Testimony of Christ himself. Why did Jesus need to undergo baptism to fulfill all righteousness? The reason is that he was in fact born into the same situation we're born into and that makes him true man. So how about stop copying the pat answers and start to understand what Scripture is actually saying

[arcura]

450donn,
Are you that mixed up or are you just trying to start an argument.
Peter was chosen to be the first LEADER of The Church, NOT The Church itself.
The Members of The early Church were The Church and trhat included John, the only apostle that was not slain.
Yet today the members of The Church are The Church, what Jesus called My Assembly in Aramaic words.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

paraclete,
Perhaps the reason to call Mary blessed is the same reason
for me to be called blessed or perhaps even you IF you have been blessed by God.
The bible tells us about Mary. Perhaps you should re-read the annunciation portion where the angel tells Mary that she has been blessed.
Luke 1:27  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I'll go by what the bible says as quoted above.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred
This is what the Bible I read from says about the annunciation

27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

I cannot read into that anything other than Mary was a person chosen by God to fulfill a purpose. As I said before a willing vessel and righteous under the Law. It makes it very plain the she is physically the descendent of David and we know that places her in the same situation as the rest of us. So Fred, I'll stick to the Scripture

[arcura]

paraclete,
From where did you scrape up that idea of Christ's baptism.
Please show me in THE BIBLE that says Jesus NEEDED to be baptized to wash away original sin.
Jesus was born sinless though the Holy Spirit and the immaculate Mary who was blessed as the bible says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

[arcura]

paraclete,
Yes, I will also stick to Scripture. There are several different versions of the Bible which choose some different words in translation.
In the version you used are these words "Greetings, you who are highly favored" which are the same as being blessed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

paraclete,
From where did you scrape up that idea of Christ's baptism.
Please show me in THE BIBLE that says Jesus NEEDED to be baptized to wash away original sin.
Jesus was born sinless though the Holy Spirit and the immaculate Mary who was blessed as the bible says.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

I think you should show me in the Bible where it says we have original sin it might also answer your question.

[paraclete]

paraclete,
Yes, I will also stick to Scripture. There are several different versions of the Bible which choose some different words in translation.
In the version you used are these words "Greetings, you who are highly favored" which are the same as being blessed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred they don't choose to use different words, they attempt to get an accurate translation; when the angel said blessed among women he used an entirely different word to that used in the previous sentence or at least that is how it is written in the greek. The root meaning is different one word is associated with grace the other with gifting

[Wondergirl]

"Greetings, you who are highly favored" which are the same as being blessed.

Blessed does not equal sinless.

[arcura]

paraclete,
So you do not believe in original sin past down to us from Adam and Eve?
If so then it is useless to continue with the fact that baptism washes away that an other sins.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

paraclete,
So you do not believe in original sin past down to us from Adam and Eve?
If so then it is useless to continue with the fact that baptism washes away that an other sins.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred you cannot discern what I believe, or do not believe, in, but apparently you are unable to provide the Biblical reference and so choose to shift the debate. This is problem with dogma, Fred, because so much of it is from Man. You just told me you go by Scripture

[JoeT777]

Joe, are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Not at all.

Asceticism isn't a New Testament invention. Various Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today's Church. Some Jews and some Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable. Some came from the Jewish sect of Pharisees, you might say they were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a 'Pharisee, the son Pharisees.' Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary may have lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn't have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. You can pick up on this by noticing little comments in scripture, e.g. 'Joseph was a just man' was no simple eulogy made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” Saint Josemaria Escriva.

Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May he always guard, protect and enlighten families. Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early tradition which included an Immaculate Mary. While we can't rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they tell of the nature of early Christian worship. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it ispseudography. In any event The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. At least it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn't a recent construct.

JoeT

[arcura]

paraclete,
Apparently you do not wish to answer my question.
Where was a question mark at the end of the sentence.
If you want biblical verses I suggest that you look up all the referrerences to the word baptism in the bible.
There is a lot of them and they provide much information, much more than I can take the time to post here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

JoeT,
Thanks much for that Joe,
Pax Christi,
Fred

[paraclete]

Not at all.

Asceticism isn’t a New Testament invention. Various Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. Some Jews and some Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises and fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable. Some came from the Jewish sect of Pharisees, you might say they were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary may have lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn’t have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. You can pick up on this by noticing little comments in scripture, e.g. ‘Joseph was a just man’ was no simple eulogy made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” Saint Josemaria Escriva.

Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May he always guard, protect and enlighten families. Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early Christian tradition which included an Immaculate Mary. While we can’t rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John they tell early Christian worship. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it ispseudography. In any event The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. At least it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a recent construct.

JoeT

More copies Joe would you provide us with your source