• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Christianity [OT] The Word became flesh and dwelt among us

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
This was before Mary was pregnant. Elizabeth is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit and he is praising Mary for whose mother she will be. Isn't her being filled with the Holy Spirit a sign that Mary is worth the praise? Sure, no-one should call her equivalent of God but she is still very much praiseworthy. According to the Bible, even Elizabeth's yet unborn child leaped for joy in her womb when Mary arrived! Praising Mary is all about praising the one she gave birth to.

I personally don't think you have to pray for Mary or that you have to praise her. But I don't think praising her is wrong either.
There is more to that event:
https://www.thescottsmithblog.com/2017/08/whats-really-happening-at-visitation.html

Not the most organized writer, but decent as a quick look. Catholic teaching has gone in depth with this for centuries. One only need cease being lazy (or judgmentally preemptively ruling it out) and bother themselves to read why we teach what we do. The Church provides many resources to do so, and much of them aren't even bound by copyright because they are so old.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
And that’s your misunderstanding me. Of course I still need a Saviour. Christ came and did it, proving it could be done and we’re supposed to be following in his example. Without Christ there would be no example therefor no Saviour. Did he not say we would do things greater than he? And no I’m not saying I’m without sin, I’m saying He didn’t come as a free pass for us to keep sinning. That’s not what he taught. Isn’t there a verse about continuously sinning and ending up worse off because of it? Then there’s one about a dog going back to it’s own vomit. And again, where is the repentance if you keep sinning? I’ve sinned plenty but the closer I get to Christ the more I understand how wrong it is and the less I want to sin because I’d rather satisfy God than myself.

And you don't think the people who go and talk to a priest after sinning aren't doing the same as you? Do you think they don't want to sin less?

Each time you sin remember how you have accused of Catholics of being hypocrites when they confess their sins and later sin again. You are no different from them until the day you sin no more - and that is a day that will not happen until you die. Sure, you probably sin less than before, but so do devout Catholics. They are not asking for forgiveness and later sinning again because of some "free pass thinking" any more than you are whenever you ask for forgiveness and later sin again.


“Sure, no-one should call her equivalent of God”

The Catholic Church™️Calls her THE MOTHER of God. It really doesn’t get clearer. It’s openly blasphemous. I’m starting to believe that that’s why the world falls for so much nonsense. If you can teach the world that Christ is God when he never said that or the Bible never says that, somehow elevate Mary to the queen of heaven which again is nowhere in scripture, then the sky is literally the limit with these people BUT through the grace of God, they still failed with that garbage because I don’t buy it and many others don’t either nor will we ever accept it.

I have explained you the "Mother of God" thing already but you don't listen. They praise Mary for being the mother - as in giving birth to Jesus - in this physical world. They praise Mary for being the one who God chose to give birth to Christ. Mary is the one who probably spent more time with Christ in this world than anyone else. Besides, you have already tried to explain "the Word was with God and the Word was God" by saying Christ was given the title of God but that he wasn't God. If this is so and Christ has the title of God, what is wrong with saying Mary is the mother of God?

In that passage from the Bible I wrote in my last post you can see Elizabeth - filled with the Holy Spirit as it said in the Scripture - calling Mary "the mother of my Lord" even before Mary was pregnant! Would you go and say to Elizabeth that "nah, she's not the mother - she's more like a surrogate"?

And you talk about "the queen of Heaven" not being mentioned anywhere in the scripture, but looking at this thread we can see how much stuff you have pulled from outside the scripture too. You don't want to hear the early church fathers' interpretations of things but you gladly accept all kinds of Gnostic teachings that go way off from being consistent with the Bible.

Look, I would be ok with your theories and all kinds of odd interpretations and would gladly be willing to read your views on things, but the way you keep on being arrogant and borderline obnoxious towards the fellow believers all the while shining your own person by implying you are someone who is more filled with the Holy Spirit and has more understanding of the Scriptures than the others and sins less than the others really doesn't make it easy for me. You might not mean to set a tone like that in your posts, but that's how they sometimes come off as. I would say this to the Catholics too who imply one 100% has to be a Catholic to be a Christian. None of us is Christ. While we should aim to live a Christ-like life, none of us is as Christ-like to be able to call out who is worse than we are. Sure, we can and often should be calling out sin, but taking it to a level where one's denomination and the details of the set of one's beliefs makes one call others more sinful than he is and using that to make some judgment calls of the destiny of others goes way beyond trying to help each other out with our walk with Christ.
 
No I’m not going to listen because it’s absurd. Christ was before Mary. Whether you want to call him the Son of God or God himself, she can’t be the mother of either as BOTH existed before she did. To call her blessed is fine as you could also consider us blessed as we come to know Christ ourselves.

As far as sin is concerned, I in no way put myself in a better light than any who bears sin because my sins are just as bad or worse than others and I know I deserve nothing. But I can definitely say that to be able to take your sins to someone as well as offerings for sins to someone would almost nullify the reason Christ came here. He was the offering and already beared our burden. I’m almost certain where when it says confess your sins to men it means past sins as yes none of us are without sin but the salvation comes in knowing Christ and in truly knowing him and the power of the spirit you should learn that the spirit is mightier than the flesh and sin no more. Look over all the scriptures where he Himself speaks of sin. It’s pretty clear that those who saw him and his miracles were not to sin again or the pain and suffering would be greater. The evil one wants us in continuous agony and separation. That’s where temptation comes in.
 
Last edited:

Bolivar687

Banned
We go to confession because it's what the Lamb intended.

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18) and commissioned a priesthood (Lk 10:1). At Pentecost, he gave them the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22), the power to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), and the discretion on whether or not to use it. The Sacraments are moments when Heaven and Earth kiss, and you will never hear sweeter words than the words of absolution and healing the priest says at the end of a Confession. The only greater feeling is the next time you receive the Lord in Holy Communion in a state of grace. And Communion is not a metaphor - the original Greek testified that the Lord is referring to the physical act of gnawing and chewing (Jn 6:53).

This is the beauty of participating in the Church of Christ, his Apostles, their students and their successors. Our faith is not an abstraction built on our subjective interpretations of half-remembered passages, based on how we feel on any given day. It's a real, personal relationship with God, carried out and lived through the joy of the Sacraments.
 
Last edited:
Only Jesus (God) can forgive sins against the father.


John 20:23 refers to human-to-human interactions. Someone steals something, you forgive them and don't begrudge them. But your forgiveness of them does not grant them salvation. Only Jesus can do that as intercessor.

Jesus preached a crucial message about forgiving our brothers, as God forgave us. We stand in grace, and He expects us to keep our hearts pure toward others, not holding grudges or harboring a spirit of unforgiveness, especially after He gave us such undeserved love and forgiveness at such a high personal cost to Himself! Jesus said those who have been forgiven much, love much (Luke 7:47). He expects us to forgive others 70 times 7 times (Matthew 18:22). We are also told that if we are praying but hold something against anyone, we are to forgive that person so our relationship with God is right and righteous! Colossians 3:13 says, “Forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” We know we are His if we love our brothers and don’t hate them or have unforgiveness in our hearts (1 John 2:3-6; 3:14-19; 4:16-21). Forgiveness is a key to showing we indeed have eternal life inside us, according to these passages. If we say we love God but hate our brother, we are liars and no truth is in us. So, our forgiveness of others is a major indicator of true fellowship with God. God looks at the heart and actions, not mere words. Jesus stated while on earth, “These people come near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” So, it’s important we have a living, genuine faith: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers” (1 John 3:14).

From here.
 

Airola

Member
No I’m not going to listen because it’s absurd. Christ was before Mary. Whether you want to call him the Son of God or God himself, she can’t be the mother of either as BOTH existed before she did. To call her blessed is fine as you could also consider us blessed as we come to know Christ ourselves.

One more time:

It does not mean that Mary has given birth to God in Heaven. It does not mean God was ever born. It does not mean God was not there but when Mary gave birth he suddenly was.
It means Mary gave birth to the physical incarnation of God. It doesn't mean Christ wasn't there before Jesus was born. It means Jesus Christ became to this world through the womb of Mary, thus making Mary the mother of who she gave birth to. And that happens to be someone who people think is God. God existed before Mary gave birth to Jesus. Christ existed before Mary gave birth to Jesus. But the fact is that at one point in time the physical Jesus Christ did not physically exist on Earth and at another time the physical Jesus Christ physically existed.

Besides, what did Elizabeth mean when she called Mary the mother of her Lord (remember, she was filled with the Holy Spirit so she wasn't lying)?
 

VAL0R

Banned
John 20
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Matthew 16
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 18
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.
20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
21 Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.
 

VAL0R

Banned
It's very simple to understand how Mary can be Theotokos, God bearer, Mother of God. Sax can't understand childishly simple and basic theological concepts without distorting them beyond recognition. I'll try to explain the Mother of God as I would to one of my children.

- God has always and eternally existed as a Trinity (three divine persons [we call Father, Son and Holy Spirit], yet one divine essence, one being, one God).
- God existed always and eternally as spirit, without matter or form.
- God created the material universe.
- God entered the material universe as a human being.
- To accomplish this, God added a true human nature (body and soul) to the eternal divine nature.
- Now and forever the second person of the Trinity (the Son) has both a divine nature and a human nature. Two natures in one person, inseparable.
- Now and forever God not only has divine attributes, but also human ones, such as matter, form, body, etc.
- This divine God-man, Jesus, entered our world physically by being placed into the womb of his human mother, a virgin named Mary.
- Because Mary was the mother of Jesus (who is both truly God and truly man, having both natures in his one person) she is properly understood to be the Mother of God. To perform any action toward the man Jesus Christ is to perform an action toward a divine person, literally God. So to kiss his feet, is to kiss the feet of God. To nurse him as a baby was to nurse God. To be the mother of Jesus is to literally be the Mother of God.

It's 100% logically consistent. There is no contradiction or logical absurdity. If God is all powerful, He can add another nature to the divine nature.
 
Last edited:
Here again, in regards to sin

“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”

And on Mary, I’ve already quoted this but whyyyyyyy would Christ himself, who some of you consider God himself, call Mary “Woman” here? That puts her on footing with any other woman that walked the planet.

“And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.””
‭‭John‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭

When you say “Hail Mary, full of grace”, didn’t Christ come to give us grace? Isn’t he our grace?
 
Last edited:

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm glad this thread exists. But I'm not at all convinced that disputing doctrinal differences is the way to go. Last time we tried this the whole thread eventually degenerated into one guy proselytising to himself for page upon page upon page.

So I'll put a shout in for 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (Revised Standard Version, just because it is the one I most use):

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo′e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

That's not to say that there can't be differences of opinion, but it is a big call against factionalism. We have much more in common than the minor things that divide us, we do no service to God or to the world by quarreling in public or by seeking to exclude others. The Christian church is a broad one, it is not exclusive, we all err, none of us knows all the answers.

In support of which, I attend whichever church happens to be closest to wherever I live (at present it is the Baptist church about 200 yards away) and, well, essentially trivial doctrinal differences have no real effect on the way we worship, the way we live, the way we treat others and the way we treat ourselves.

In particular, there seems to me to be something particularly perverse about digging up centuries-old disputes to lob stones at each other.
 

Airola

Member
And on Mary, I’ve already quoted this but whyyyyyyy would Christ himself, who some of you consider God himself, call Mary “Woman” here? That puts her on footing with any other woman that walked the planet.
“And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.””
‭‭John‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭

Yet directly before the quote of Jesus the scripture says "the mother of Jesus."

She is called "the mother of my Lord" and many times as "the mother of Jesus" or "Mary, his mother" or in other ways.
 
Yeah. It’s a contrast. His word vs the writers word. As I asked before, if that’s his mother then who’s the woman that gives birth to him before the world was and before he was snatched up to God’s throne? It’s not Mary I’ll tell you that much. I mean how often does he call God “Father”? Not once does he simply call him anything less.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
I'm glad this thread exists. But I'm not at all convinced that disputing doctrinal differences is the way to go. Last time we tried this the whole thread eventually degenerated into one guy proselytising to himself for page upon page upon page.

So I'll put a shout in for 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (Revised Standard Version, just because it is the one I most use):



That's not to say that there can't be differences of opinion, but it is a big call against factionalism. We have much more in common than the minor things that divide us, we do no service to God or to the world by quarreling in public or by seeking to exclude others. The Christian church is a broad one, it is not exclusive, we all err, none of us knows all the answers.

In support of which, I attend whichever church happens to be closest to wherever I live (at present it is the Baptist church about 200 yards away) and, well, essentially trivial doctrinal differences have no real effect on the way we worship, the way we live, the way we treat others and the way we treat ourselves.

In particular, there seems to me to be something particularly perverse about digging up centuries-old disputes to lob stones at each other.

Great post.
I tried to talk about something like that in post #76.
At that time it was aimed a bit more towards those who hold the Catholic Church as the be-all-end-all of the churches, but soon after that this thread became a one man attack against the Catholic Church and Catholics as a whole - which is definitely not healthy for a Christianity [OT] either.


Yeah. It’s a contrast. His word vs the writers word.

You don't think someone could be called as a woman and a mother at the same time? Isn't that what all mothers are? Women?

As I asked before, if that’s his mother then who’s the woman that gives birth to him before the world was and before he was snatched up to God’s throne? It’s not Mary I’ll tell you that much. I mean how often does he call God “Father”? Not once does he simply call him anything less.

An archetype, a symbol?
Catholics would probably say it's supposed to represent Mary.

Jesus doesn't talk about this "Revelation mother" either at all, yet you believe she is the mother of the Son of God (she is also called as a woman - not a mother).
Jesus also calls himself the Son of Man. If he is the Son of Man and the Son of God at the same time, would that mean he says God is Man?

And what did Elizabeth mean with "the mother of my Lord?"
She was filled with Holy Spirit when she said that.
 
Last edited:
A surrogate can still be considered a “mother”. The woman in revelation can’t be Mary as it’s specifically talking about the time before earth as it mentions the war in heaven and evil being cast out. I think that section is titled “woman” and Christ never speaks of her because it’s not something everyone can understand but if an entire church has a misunderstanding of who the mother is then it needs to be understood.

It could also be that she was written out to elevate Mary above her. The more I explore original text, the more I believe the Holy Spirit was never a masculine spirit. Wisdom is not a masculine spirit. One of those is the mother of Christ.

“And the Lord said, “To what then shall I liken the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, saying: ‘We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not weep.’ For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by all her children.””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭7:31-35‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
A surrogate can still be considered a “mother”. The woman in revelation can’t be Mary as it’s specifically talking about the time before earth as it mentions the war in heaven and evil being cast out. I think that section is titled “woman” and Christ never speaks of her because it’s not something everyone can understand but if an entire church has a misunderstanding of who the mother is then it needs to be understood.

It could also be that she was written out to elevate Mary above her. The more I explore original text, the more I believe the Holy Spirit was never a masculine spirit. Wisdom is not a masculine spirit. One of those is the mother of Christ.
‬‬

Jesus was in Mary's womb. Mary gave birth to him. Is that something you don't accept either?
What else is a person who gives birth than a mother to what is born? The definition of a surrogate does not fit anywhere in that equation.

Ok, how about this...
Christ has two mothers. One mother is the mother of his divine essence and the other is the mother of the physical incarnation of that divine essence. Not that I believe in that, but couldn't that be possible in however you are interpreting the scripture?
 
His spirit didn’t come from Mary as it was here before anyone. If he was the child of Mary, then James would also be of the same spirit. He’s not as God only has one Son. So although Christ has “brothers and sisters” from Mary, those were only brothers and sisters in the flesh. Think about it. All of Mary’s other children would be of adultery as they came after Christ and were of a different Father. This isn’t the case as all Mary did was carry the child that was placed there by the spirit.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
His spirit didn’t come from Mary as it was here before anyone. If he was the child of Mary, then James would also be of the same spirit. He’s not as God only has one Son.

What? I don't believe Mary was forever a virgin. I believe James and the other brothers were conceived in the same manner as regular people are. He had a biological mother and father. James would not be of the same spirit.

Do you believe people in general get their spirits from their mothers?

So although Christ has “brothers and sisters” from Mary, those were only brothers and sisters in the flesh. Think about it. All of Mary’s other children would be of adultery as they came after Christ and were of a different Father. This isn’t the case as all Mary did was carry the child that was placed there by the spirit.

You are really stretching things here. Mary wasn't married to God or the Holy Spirit. She was married to Joseph. By your logic Mary would be an adulterer nevertheless. Actually by your logic Mary should be the wife of God or the Holy Spirit.
 
You’re not getting it. If Mary is the “mother of God”, again, whether that be God himself in the flesh somehow, or mother of the Son of God, wouldn’t it be more blessed that Mary had no kids after Christ was born? Why would God have let anyone else defile the one that bore the one that He calls His son and was sent to take the sins of the world away? Doesn’t scripture say the woman who can bare no children is more blessed than the one that can?

The Bible isn’t a storybook. It’s an account of things that happened and that will happen. If you’re going to give someone the title of “mother of God” and the Bible is scripture from God, then when you start peeling layers back they’d better make sense according to His law.

If Christ was truly Mary’s son, then how were any children born after Christ, let alone by another man, still as blessed as they were? You’d have to accept that Joseph isn’t the Father. Which is easy for everyone to understand for some reason yet you can’t separate Mary from the equation in the same way. Virgins don’t have births. That was the miracle. To take it a step further, she may not have even been producing eggs considering her engagement with Joseph. Scripture says both the Holy Spirit and God would give Mary the child.

Mary had to still have had some sin as she was human and there would have been no reason to send Christ into the world if there was one who was sinless. Since we all understand Christ was here before the world began and was with God during creation, then we can all understand that his spirit was unlike any other spirit that has come into the world as He is the Only Son of God. He didn’t even call Adam, first of creation His son as he came from dust.

Mary and Joseph’s children differ from Christ. You could almost even say that whoever her first child was after Christ was her true first born. You can’t be the mother of God yet also be the mother of regular children of flesh. It doesn’t make sense. That’s how she’s made a normal woman. Blessed yes but anything more than that is man made. Scripture should tell you as much.
 
Last edited:
You’re not getting it. If Mary is the “mother of God”, again, whether that be God himself in the flesh somehow, or mother of the Son of God, wouldn’t it be more blessed that Mary had no kids after Christ was born? Why would God have let anyone else defile the one that bore the one that He calls His son and was sent to take the sins of the world away? Doesn’t scripture say the woman who can bare no children is more blessed than the one that can?

The Bible isn’t a storybook. It’s an account of things that happened and that will happen. If you’re going to give someone the title of “mother of God” and the Bible is scripture from God, then when you start peeling layers back they’d better make sense according to His law.

If Christ was truly Mary’s son, then how were any children born after Christ, let alone by another man, still as blessed as they were? You’d have to accept that Joseph isn’t the Father. Which is easy for everyone to understand for some reason yet you can’t separate Mary from the equation in the same way. Virgins don’t have births. That was the miracle. To take it a step further, she may not have even been producing eggs considering her engagement with Joseph. Scripture says both the Holy Spirit and God would give Mary the child.

Mary had to still have had some sin as she was human and there would have been no reason to send Christ into the world if there was one who was sinless. Since we all understand Christ was here before the world began and was with God during creation, then we can all understand that his spirit was unlike any other spirit that has come into the world as He is the Only Son of God. He didn’t even call Adam, first of creation His son as he came from dust.

Mary and Joseph’s children differ from Christ. You could almost even say that whoever her first child was after Christ was her true first born. You can’t be the mother of God yet also be the mother of regular children of flesh. It doesn’t make sense. That’s how she’s made a normal woman. Blessed yes but anything more than that is man made. Scripture should tell you as much.


Catholics don't believe Mary had other children.
 
The believe James is from Joseph's prior marriage or that they are "spiritual" not literal brothers.

“It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

All of these scriptures point to siblings.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-James.html

There’s on where Christ says something about James specifically though. Still looking for it.
 
Last edited:

VAL0R

Banned
To say to your mother, "woman," in ancient Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) was not disrespectful. It was a cultural thing. Mary requested Jesus do something about the wine running out, and he called her "woman," saying his time had not yet come, but what did he do? He obeyed his mom and made wine from water, despite thinking it was premature to reveal himself! That's incredible if you think about it. The God-man is like "it's not the best time mom" and she's like, "please, they need help" and he basically says, "OK, mom." And the narrative gives away that Mary thinks he will do exactly as she asks (despite his suggestion it was untimely), because she tells the servers, "do whatever he tells you", i.e. "my son's about to do something to make this situation better, help along when he does." She expects that he will answer her, because she knows how much he loves are respects her. After all, won't Jesus obey the law to "honor thy father and thy mother" more perfectly than any man whoever lived? He was a wonderful son and she anticipated his helping her.
 
Ok it was the gospel of Thomas in this quote

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

But this James is said to be an older brother which brings the whole Joseph having another wife into question but Mary is still called James mother as well. 😩Listen all I know is Christ is the Son of God, God is the Father and Mary isn’t as important as some make her as scripture mentions Christ born of someone other than Mary that was a female before creation 🤷🏽‍♂️

To say to your mother, "woman," in ancient Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) was not disrespectful. It was a cultural thing. Mary requested Jesus do something about the wine running out, and he called her "woman," saying his time had not yet come, but what did he do? He obeyed his mom and made wine from water, despite thinking it was premature to reveal himself! That's incredible if you think about it. The God-man is like "it's not the best time mom" and she's like, "please, they need help" and he basically says, "OK, mom." And the narrative gives away that Mary thinks he will do exactly as she asks (despite his suggestion it was untimely), because she tells the servers, "do whatever he tells you", i.e. "my son's about to do something to make this situation better, help along when he does." She expects that he will answer her, because she knows how much he loves are respects her. After all, won't Jesus obey the law to "honor thy father and thy mother" more perfectly than any man whoever lived? He was a wonderful son and she anticipated his helping her.

Mockery so thick I can taste it. All I can say is where there’s smoke there’s fire and you’re going to want to be on the side of those pulling people from the fire and not burning in it. I mean Why would the mother of god be someone’s second wife? 😩
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
You’re not getting it. If Mary is the “mother of God”, again, whether that be God himself in the flesh somehow, or mother of the Son of God, wouldn’t it be more blessed that Mary had no kids after Christ was born? Why would God have let anyone else defile the one that bore the one that He calls His son and was sent to take the sins of the world away? Doesn’t scripture say the woman who can bare no children is more blessed than the one that can?

"But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
1 Timothy 2:15

Why would you even think that Mary would be defiled by having other sons? That is solely your own thinking. Not scripture.
 

VAL0R

Banned
Mockery so thick I can taste it. All I can say is where there’s smoke there’s fire and you’re going to want to be on the side of those pulling people from the fire and not burning in it. I mean Why would the mother of god be someone’s second wife? 😩

Just to address the "second wife" thing. First, nobody thinks Mary had sexual relations with God, only that God miraculously placed Jesus in her womb. I mean, some ignorant heretics (much like yourself) do, but it's not anything like mainstream. It's Kooksville stuff. Also, Catholics do not think that Mary ever had sexual relations with a man. Catholics believe she is "ever virgin." The references to brothers and sisters of Christ can mean, in the Koine Greek, cousins, which is how Catholics interpret it. Catholics believe that Joseph, Jesus' adopted Father, and Mary, had a celibate marriage.
 
Except I’m not the heretic. I’ve been called a heretic to my face and laugh just as I do with your e-mockery. Where do you get sexual relations from? I’ve already made it clear that Mary was nothing more than a surrogate and the miracle was in the Virgin birth. Your antics are starting to bore me.
 

VAL0R

Banned
Bore you!? You've been spamming this thread with your goofball heretical doctrine and conspiracy theories that are antithetical to Christianity, non-stop for days.
 
Since you deemed it necessary to created a Catholicism thread under the guise of Christianity I kinda had to keep watch. Checks and balances you know. I didn’t even get an answer to my last question. How you can pray “Hail Mary, full of grace” when Christ is our grace. 🙄
 

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Okay I'm jumping in here a bit because I see a bit of confusion with everyone in regard to Mary. Sax is actually more accurate in some of his concerns than some others here, although his gnostic confusion is preventing him from understanding Christ's nature and he's coming out to unbiblical conclusions when he realizes the problems with a nestorian view.

How you can pray “Hail Mary, full of grace” when Christ is our grace. 🙄
Because that is the point. It was no human who first called her that, but Gabriel is the one who originally said "Hail, full of grace" to her, as though that was her name in heaven. This was because of her immaculate conception, which was by the grace of Christ retroactively applying to her entire being for every moment of her existence. This is only possible, in view of Ephesians 5:25-27 and Titus 3:5-6, if she was the first perfection of the sanctified state through the Holy Spirit that all of the people of God eventually obtain. This is also how she was the new ark of the covenant but did not die from such intimate connection with his divinity as everyone ever did from touching the ark of the covenant. She was indeed espoused to the Holy Spirit, but it was in this manner wherein all of us are espoused to the Holy Spirit and wherein all earthly marriage is only a dim reflection of the true marriage, which is the bride of Christ unto him by the Holy Spirit.

And no, this does not mean Mary is his mother and his bride, not any more than he means we are his brothers and his bride. Our heavenly union with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is not in competition with or parallel to earthly marriage, but earthly marriage is only a kind of metaphor through which we understand the spiritual events. The Bride is all of us collectively, yet Christ is the firstborn of many brethren which is what we are to him, and we sons of the Father, and all of this is accomplished through the Holy Spirit, through whom we are also made into Christ's likeness. We can understand this metaphor of earthly marriage through Matthew 22:30 where Jesus says we aren't given or taken in marriage in heaven, which was after he was tested with a question about the heavenly relations of someone who is widowed and remarried several times on earth, and Ephesians 5:32 where Paul says the likeness of earthly marriage unto Christ's marriage and unity with the Church is a profound mystery. And you know if Paul of all people just has to leave it at "profound mystery" it may be beyond articulation! Nonetheless, after speaking about the unity of man and woman in marriage, he says he was talking about Christ and the church.

Now I know Sax you have serious issues with all this, since you can't seem to comprehend the distinction between person and being, so the flat rejection of Trinitarian necessity here will lead you into some oddball conclusion, but scripture makes it clearly necessary for all statements in it to be true at once. I can tell from your pattern of posting here that you will feel compelled to share what ways you justify getting out of it to yourself, but just so you know I will not be paying attention or responding to any such thing after last time with the "God is a title" nonsense. I am only clarifying the Catholic understanding of Mary here, not wasting any more time on your rejection of the trinity.

But away from that tangent, let's focus on the fact she is espoused to the Holy Spirit and that is how she gave birth to Christ despite his divine nature, and this relation isn't part of some double marriage in view of her earthly marriage to Joseph. However, Christ also has human nature, two natures in one person. She brought forth Christ in the flesh, making her perfection of the spiritual marriage greater than it has been accomplished with any other created being, and in respect to this her earthly marriage with Joseph was unlike most earthly marriages; in the flesh dimmer than other marriages but in spirit and love far brighter. She did not bear children by him, which is exactly why she asked Gabriel in Luke 1:34 "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" even though she was by this point married to Joseph. If their marriage was as any back in that day, the presumed way that you would be having kids would be by having relations with your husband when you are brought under his roof. That option is clearly not in place here, since she does not think of "You will bear a son" in the manner as it applied to Abraham, but she did believe Gabriel, so she simply asked how it would be done since she wasn't planning on breaking any vows but children only came one way so far as she knew.

When Joseph learned she was pregnant he sought to divorce her quietly, why quietly? Because he was a widower who took a vow of celibacy himself, and thought she had done so as well, which is why she was a suitable wife for him. So for her to become pregnant was thought to be a result of sin in regards to her (I like to think he would presume her a victim before an adulteress), but because he didn't plan to have any children with her the possibility of cheating was not a deep personal offense, but he had a merciful attitude and wanted to protect her from the punishment that presumptions would impose on her. This type of relationship as well as these dangers from people presuming the pregnancy was from sin is precisely why he was a perfect earthly husband for her. His job was to protect her and Jesus from the results of false assumptions, and to not seek from her what she was not to have with any man. And here is where Sax is correct, that it would be seen as defilement of the holy temple of her body through which Christ entered the world if she would bear children by any man, since mankind's seed carries sin. The Church Fathers believed this.

However, where Sax is wrong is thinking Jesus was just materialized from spirit in her womb with divine DNA or something. Jesus didn't just come from spirit, since Romans 1:3 says Jesus descended from David according to the flesh. In fact, this had to be in order for him to be the Messiah. So as Mary was a descendant of David, Jesus actually took everything of his flesh from Mary, and that is another reason for belief in the immaculate conception, because her DNA had to have been cleansed from all stain of sin since Jesus would take his body from hers. This is also another way wherein Mary is the redemption of Eve. For where Eve came from Adam's flesh and then by sin defiled mankind, Jesus came from Mary's flesh and by perfect sacrifice saves mankind.

Also VAL0R's description of the Wedding at Cana is also spot on. However he left out the fact that him calling her "woman" was in part to express the result of beginning that road. When he starts his ministry, his role as savior of mankind becomes the foreground and his role as her son goes to the background. Likewise, her role as his mother starts to go into the background, and her role as the new Eve and mother to all comes into the foreground. This is why he uses that Hebrew saying "what is that to me and to thee?" since he was pointing to the effect it would have on both their lives. He could do it, but it wasn't his time yet, so it didn't have to be his time. It could "not be their problem" and be fine, but the amazing thing is that with this question he left it in her hands, and she decided they would together commence his work of redeeming the world, and he followed her wishes. I even think of this question to her like a bittersweet inside joke. This is also why at the cross he says to John "Behold your mother" because it is in the perfection of his work that the perfection of her role is established. She is now fully "woman" in the redemptive sense, the work of cooperation with his grace unto the world initiated with her pregnancy now brought to completion, and she is not just his mother, but through perfect cooperation and unity with his work of grace unto the world, also mediatrix and mother to us.
 
Last edited:
I can’t find a translation where Gabriel says Hail full of grace but when you continue you get to here.

“And the angel answered and said to her, “ The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭1:35‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is espoused to Mary. Isn’t it said what’s bound on earth is bound in heaven or something like that? Again, Mary then wouldn’t be able to have two husbands especially one human, one spirit. The spirit is spirit whether in heaven or on earth. I’ll agree with the Christ being born of flesh part but only as that was to fulfill prophecy. His spirit was still from before creation and born before creation. Is it not said that flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God? We were never meant to have flesh. Adam nor Eve had flesh as we consider it to begin with. The flesh they gained after falling differed from the “flesh” they were created with.

Another reason I don’t think the Holy Spirit is espoused to Mary is I’m really starting to believe the Holy Spirit is the feminine. Again whether it’s the Shekinah or wisdom I haven’t exactly put together yet but even the symbol of a dove is seen as feminine. The very first place a dove appears in the Bible is a feminine.

“But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Remember a dove also appeared at Christ baptism along with the voice of the Father from heaven.

I mean if what’s on earth is supposed to reflect what’s in heaven, wouldn’t it make more sense that it’s Father Son and Mother rather than 3 male spirits? Sorry to keep beating you over the head with revelation 12 but it’s a woman giving birth to Christ before creation. The whole story is laid out right there. If this is indeed the truth could you imagine the condition of the world today versus what it is now being completely out of balance? There’s a perception of a patriarchy that possibly never existed in the first place and now we have extreme feminism because women have no connection to a spirit and the only one they do have a connection to is responsible for the downfall of man.
 
Last edited:

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
"Hail, full of grace" is the Douay-Rheims translation and all protestant bibles departed from that, debatably due to malice. The word used there (κεχαριτωμένη) is only used there in the entirety of scripture, so some people take license to make it say whatever they want. Some presume the root is connected to the Greek word for "favor" not "grace" because of a similarity between those two. However, the decision in the D-R is based on the Latin Vulgate, which is a translation from 1000 years prior. St. Jerome not only had much better resources for determining which Greek word was the root here, but he had the words of all the Church Fathers in how they spoke of this passage and of Mary. Rather than proper scholarly method and humility and desire to pass on the faith that was handed down to us through the apostolic succession, the Protestants just thought they could look at the manuscripts afresh all on their own over a thousand years later and conclude more accurately than those who actually lived in those times and still spoke that Koine Greek and originally formed Christianity. I trust St. Jerome's research on this one.

"Isn’t it said what’s bound on earth is bound in heaven or something like that? Again, Mary then wouldn’t be able to have two husbands especially one human, one spirit."
Not a problem since the Holy Spirit is God and so that espousal is of the ultimate divine nature, the same by which Christians are the Bride of Christ yet are also very often married on earth. Also, that principle of things bound on earth being bound in heaven is about universality of divine law and how natural law is not some weird parallel to it but subject to it. The principle is not things always being exactly the same in earth and heaven. Many earthly things are only metaphorical shadows of heavenly things.

The Holy Spirit is referenced to in feminine ways, just as the Father refers to himself by motherly ways at times. It seems that God transcends all of this but the way he communicates gender of himself is to teach us about various dynamics of creation in relation to him. As far as the linguistic gender of different words, that is a really poor way to derive hints. Many languages have gender assigned to any random thing, and it doesn't always have to do with something being a masculine thing or something being a feminine thing. The Holy Spirit has been referenced to with words of male, female, and neuter linguistic gender. But in terms of direct pronouns John 16:7-8,13-14 has male reference in regard to the Holy Spirit, as well as Romans 8:16. The Holy Spirit also plants in us the seed of life, with is a very male thing to do.

Also, don't worry, you aren't "beating me over the head" with Revelation because your interpretation is so comprehensively absurd I'm completely ignoring you every time you bring it up because I'm not going to waste my time attempting to sort it out for you when you have already made up your mind (and when you've thoughtlessly handwaved my past offerings on topics you were settled in) in so many different directions removed from the actual content and context of the text as you tunnelvision into your personal interpretation of like two elements in it (out of dozens) and eisegetical extrapolations rather than doing any proper study of its connection to the rest of scripture. I am more than done playing that game with you and am only responding in regard to Mary because you haven't fully gone that way with this topic yet but several people are arguing in different directions here and missing potential touchpoints of at least understanding each other's view of her.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
When Joseph learned she was pregnant he sought to divorce her quietly, why quietly? Because he was a widower who took a vow of celibacy himself, and thought she had done so as well, which is why she was a suitable wife for him. So for her to become pregnant was thought to be a result of sin in regards to her (I like to think he would presume her a victim before an adulteress), but because he didn't plan to have any children with her the possibility of cheating was not a deep personal offense, but he had a merciful attitude and wanted to protect her from the punishment that presumptions would impose on her. This type of relationship as well as these dangers from people presuming the pregnancy was from sin is precisely why he was a perfect earthly husband for her. His job was to protect her and Jesus from the results of false assumptions, and to not seek from her what she was not to have with any man. And here is where Sax is correct, that it would be seen as defilement of the holy temple of her body through which Christ entered the world if she would bear children by any man, since mankind's seed carries sin. The Church Fathers believed this.

I agree with you on most of what you wrote but this part of Mary being a virgin forever and Joseph having a vow of celibacy too is nonsense to me. And especially when some Catholics say rejecting this idea would be rejecting salvation, then it's even bigger nonsense. As if the work of salvation hangs on that thread. Like, where is the work of salvation really? Isn't it in that a fallen man understands he is fallen and in desperate need of savior and finding the savior in Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection? When you start adding up more things you must do and believe you will leave behind a pile of doctrines that leave Christ's work under everything - and is the very thing that causes bickering within Christians themselves and does not encourage anyone from outside of faith to step in to the faith.

The idea of eternally virgin Mary first goes through the hoop of concluding she saying "she does not know a man" means she will not ever know a man. To me the idea of the siblings of Jesus being stretched into them being cousins or whoever else is the clearest sign of there being an unnecessary leap of faith done into pure guesswork and then trying to fit the rest into that idea.

I don't, however, believe that believeing Mary is eternally virgin or that Jesus didn't have biological brothers would make anyone lose their salvation either. It's just an issue of what we can understand about the details of Biblical history. To me it's very clear though that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but that's where things that are clearly true end what comes to her virginity.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps all that is left out because Mary was never meant to be a focus beyond the Virgin birth anyway. Doesn’t a woman become ritually unclean once she starts to have her period? Again, you have to go through all these things and when you do, outside of the birth and her relationship with the messiah, that’s all there is. Was Mary left to preach the gospel? No.
 

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I can understand coming to that conclusion from a sola scriptura perspective. As for why these things became dogma, it is because of how many used teachings about Mary as back doors for heresies about Christ in the early times of the Church.
 
Ok let’s go back to the Hail Mary prayer. If Christ himself left us the perfect prayer to use in “our Father who art in heaven”, what use is anything else outside of prayers of appreciation for the things he does for us or praying for those who need prayer?
 

Bolivar687

Banned
The Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Israel

Really good scriptural foundation for what Jesus was proclaiming as the Kingdom. However, the article is really about American protestants and evangelicals who misuse faith to justify their Zionism. There are a lot of good reasons to support Israel, but the dispensationalist mindset about the rapture is a really problematic one.
 
Last edited:
GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUTTA HERE WITH *THAT* MESS 😂 unnnnnnnnnbelievable. Full on JW status. Can I subscribe to your monthly publication?

You realize while it’s not our job to judge those outside of the church we can surely judge those in it? 👋🏽
 
Last edited:

VAL0R

Banned
The chances that our resident heretical hot-take guru, Sax, actually read that article before running his mouth are about the same as my being rushed up to heaven alive in a chariot of fire after lunch today.
 
Flee from your mother, the whore and seek the Son of the Father.

“Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement. But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.” Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.””
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭17:1-18‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory. And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.” And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭18:1-8‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
 
Last edited:
you do realize that God and ONLY God has the power to send His son so there are not one but two issues there. One, Christ was already the sacrifice to end sacrifice so there’s no need, and two making the claim that Christ is manifest among the mass would elevate the person performing the mass to the same level as God as ONLY God can send the Son?
 

Bolivar687

Banned
you do realize that God and ONLY God has the power to send His son so there are not one but two issues there. One, Christ was already the sacrifice to end sacrifice so there’s no need, and two making the claim that Christ is manifest among the mass would elevate the person performing the mass to the same level as God as ONLY God can send the Son?

Which is exactly why the Prefaces, the Sanctus, and the Eucharistic Prayers to God are the most elaborate and scriptural movements of the mass. You're playing games with semantics and it's taking you places far removed from the Gospel.

John 6:48-66 is very clear - you cannot achieve salvation unless you eat of the bread of life, the body of Jesus Christ. When the crowds asked him to clarify what he meant, hoping he was speaking in metaphor, he doubled down and insisted on the necessity of physically gnawing and chewing on his flesh to achieve eternal life. Many followers left because they couldn't handle that reality, much like you yourself today will say and believe anything, so long as you do not have to partake in Christ's design for your salvation.

In the final night with His disciples before the Paschal Mystery, he showed them, the nucleus of the apostles and the highest echelon of his hierarchical church, how to prepare the bread of life, commanding them to distribute this feast as part of their priestly vocations. Even as early as1 Corinthians, one of Paul's first letters, the teachings are clear on what the Eucharist is, why it was so important to eat it, and the need to respect just how serious the celebration really is.

You deny the New Testament when you deny the Eucharist, just like you deny Christ when you deny His Church.
 
Last edited:
You deny the father when you deny his son. And eating of the flesh is partaking and believing in the word of God. The Catholic Church is indeed the whore of Babylon and it’s truths are all lies.
 
https://churchpop.com/2015/12/30/in...ic-ice-chapel-the-worlds-southernmost-church/

The 7 mountains that revelation 17 speaks of is 7 continents. You guys really need to start considering this “religion” you follow. The simplest way I can explain it is if you were in the darkest place in your life and God saw it fit to show you His love, mercy and grace and someone gave you a bible or you just happened across one and read it for yourself, you’d be lead by truth. There are no nuances, no allegories, no linguistic juggling that would lead anyone reading the Bible for themselves to believe Christ is anyone but the Son of God. Saying that you need someone to help you understand the simple message of the Gospel would make God, the creator of heaven and earth and all life on it seem incompetent Oh and btw I found a direct reference to the Son in the Old Testament.

“Surely I am more stupid than any man, And do not have the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom Nor have knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know?”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭30:2-4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
 
Top Bottom