GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Natural and Normal ?  (Read 2467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Natural and Normal ?
« on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 11:11:53 »
it seems it is most natural and normal to be married and increase and multiply - so a bit like Mary how about Jesus - wincam

Christian Forums and Message Board

Natural and Normal ?
« on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 11:11:53 »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #1 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 13:20:12 »
Mary was a human being like us and so was married and had children, but Jesus is God in human form and His purpose was to die for us and rise again to save us. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #1 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 13:20:12 »

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #2 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:01:32 »
Mary was a human being like us and so was married and had children, but Jesus is God in human form and His purpose was to die for us and rise again to save us.


oh yeah - excuses. excuses. so He was not really fully human - wincam 

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:32:11 »
I guess neither was Paul  ???

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:32:11 »

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #4 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:38:17 »
I guess neither was Paul  ???


yes but Paul's was caused by a thorn - wincam

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #4 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:38:17 »



Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15981
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #5 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:50:55 »
Mary was a human being like us and so was married and had children, but Jesus is God in human form and His purpose was to die for us and rise again to save us.


oh yeah - excuses. excuses. so He was not really fully human - wincam

There are no excuses. You don't need to be snarky and dishonest about what Chosen's post said.

Jesus sole purpose was to come to die so that mankind might be saved.

Mary was given no such purpose.  She was to be the vehicle to bring us Jesus and to be His mother.  She was also to be Joseph's wife and fulfilled that role completely as well..or else she would have been in sin.
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 14:53:12 by MeMyself »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #6 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 15:30:25 »
Mary was a human being like us and so was married and had children, but Jesus is God in human form and His purpose was to die for us and rise again to save us.


oh yeah - excuses. excuses. so He was not really fully human - wincam
 
Excuses for what? The fact that he didnt marry or have children?
So you dont believe in the divinity of Jesus or what His purpose for coming here was then?
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 15:32:58 by chosenone »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #7 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 15:31:31 »
I guess neither was Paul  ???


yes but Paul's was caused by a thorn - wincam

  Pauls what was caused by a thorn?

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #8 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 17:57:34 »
it seems it is most natural and normal to be married and increase and multiply - so a bit like Mary how about Jesus - wincam
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?

Offline Rella

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4304
  • Manna: 620
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #9 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 18:34:37 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?


AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #10 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 20:40:37 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?


AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................


You are extrapolating on this issue. No one really knows for sure, so perhaps we should really leave this one for the afterlife when we will find out the full unvarnished truth.  I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?

Online Texas Conservative

  • 1st Day Texas Conservativite
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8538
  • Manna: 352
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #11 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 20:56:14 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #12 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:12:07 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?


AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................


You are extrapolating on this issue. No one really knows for sure, so perhaps we should really leave this one for the afterlife when we will find out the full unvarnished truth.  I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?
 

yes we do know for sure.

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:17:34 by chosenone »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #13 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:17:23 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

What, you can't see the parallel between God and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and then  Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant while bearing God Incarnate into the world? Her being the Ark and Jesus (God Incarnate) being the Covenant? Isn't Jesus the "new covenant" between the Creator and man?
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:27:05 by Ladonia »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #14 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:24:08 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?


AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................


You are extrapolating on this issue. No one really knows for sure, so perhaps we should really leave this one for the afterlife when we will find out the full unvarnished truth.  I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?
 

yes we do know for sure.

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation


Sorry, but we don't. Everything we believe is based on faith. From the idea that a virgin could actually give birth all the way to a man called Jesus being raised from the dead. I haven't seen any of these things and neither have you, yet we believe because of faith. 

It's the same thing with the way we interpret the Scriptures. I have faith that the way orthodox Christianity interprets them to be correct, as you have faith that the way you interpret the Scriptures to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither of us were there to interview the actual participants.

As for the term "firstborn son" let me explain something. I can be correctly called my mother's "firstborn son" since she had no other children after me. So even if she had no children other than Jesus, it would also be correct to call Jesus the Blessed Mother's "firstborn son". Understand?
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:41:34 by Ladonia »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #15 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:27:43 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?


AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................


You are extrapolating on this issue. No one really knows for sure, so perhaps we should really leave this one for the afterlife when we will find out the full unvarnished truth.  I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?
 

yes we do know for sure.

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation


Sorry, but we don't. Everything we believe is based on faith. From the idea that a virgin could actually give birth all the way to a man called Jesus being raised from the dead. I haven't seen any of these things and neither have you, yet we believe because of faith. 

It's the same thing with the way we interpret the Scriptures. I have faith that the way orthodox Christianity interprets them to be correct, as you have faith that the way you interpret the Scriptures to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither of us were there to interview the actual participants.


Sorry but this verses is clear and easy to understand even for a child. 
Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

Either you trust Gods word or you dont.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #16 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 21:48:10 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?


AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................


You are extrapolating on this issue. No one really knows for sure, so perhaps we should really leave this one for the afterlife when we will find out the full unvarnished truth.  I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?
 

yes we do know for sure.

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation


Sorry, but we don't. Everything we believe is based on faith. From the idea that a virgin could actually give birth all the way to a man called Jesus being raised from the dead. I haven't seen any of these things and neither have you, yet we believe because of faith. 

It's the same thing with the way we interpret the Scriptures. I have faith that the way orthodox Christianity interprets them to be correct, as you have faith that the way you interpret the Scriptures to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither of us were there to interview the actual participants.


Sorry but this verses is clear and easy to understand even for a child. 
Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

Either you trust Gods word or you dont.


Ah, I see. So when Jesus says in another part of the Scriptures that: "This is my Body and This is my Blood" as regards Holy Communion, then we can believe that He means what He says and that the Eucharist is indeed the real "Body and Blood" of Christ. Thanks, I am glad to see we are on the same page here. As you so succinctly said before: "Either you trust God's word or you don't".
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 22:12:52 by Ladonia »

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #17 on: Sun Sep 20, 2015 - 23:58:59 »
what is this about?  You don't agree with the RCC that Mary was forever a virgin?

AND neither do the  Catholic Bishops insist on this....

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS SAID THIS REGARDING Mathew 1:25 from "their" Catholic Bible.

see: http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1/

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.

* [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Therefore the only conclusion is that certain Catholics are very open to the idea that Mary did have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born.

When I refer to the virgin Mary it is with the knowledge that she got pregnant as a virgin and then gave birth to Jesus. No question she was the Virgin who birthed Jesus.... After that she became a wife and mother.

NKJV translated this way...

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Again... Mary was the virgin who gave birth to Jesus. After he was born Joseph knew him. They were husband and wife raising a son.

A son who is called her "FIRSTBORN" which tells us that there would have been a second and possible third or more born.

MARY WAS NOT A PERPETUAL VIRGIN. EVEN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE DOES NOT SUGGEST THIS. AND THE CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DO NOT INSIST ON IT..... BECAUSE THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW.....

So get over it................

You are extrapolating on this issue. No one really knows for sure, so perhaps we should really leave this one for the afterlife when we will find out the full unvarnished truth.  I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?
what is this supposed to mean?

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #18 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 01:00:01 »
yes we do know for sure.

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation)
Sorry, but we don't. Everything we believe is based on faith. From the idea that a virgin could actually give birth all the way to a man called Jesus being raised from the dead. I haven't seen any of these things and neither have you, yet we believe because of faith.

you might not know and those who believe like you might not know, but  those of us who read and believe God's word do know.  We believe His word  is true.


It's the same thing with the way we interpret the Scriptures. I have faith that the way orthodox Christianity interprets them to be correct, as you have faith that the way you interpret the Scriptures to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither of us were there to interview the actual participants.

As for the term "firstborn son" let me explain something.  I can be correctly called my mother's "firstborn son" since she had no other children after me.   So even if she had no children other than Jesus, it would also be correct to call Jesus the Blessed Mother's "firstborn son". Understand?
yes, you let someone else tell you what it says.  Others don't.  Like the Bereans, we check what we are told against what God says in His word.  We read and study it for ourselves.

Did  your mother give birth to any children before you?

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #19 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 01:11:46 »
Sorry but this verses is clear and easy to understand even for a child. 
Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

Either you trust Gods word or you dont.
Ah, I see. So when Jesus says in another part of the Scriptures that: "This is my Body and This is my Blood" as regards Holy Communion, then we can believe that He means what He says and that the Eucharist is indeed the real "Body and Blood" of Christ. Thanks, I am glad to see we are on the same page here. As you so succinctly said before: "Either you trust God's word or you don't".
and here once again, you believe what you are told it means.  You won't understand it because you don't bother to read verses in context.  You just do what you are taught and pull a verse out here and there and insist it means what you want it to say.  It doesn't.  There's more to that chapter than Catholics want to admit - or try to understand.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6185
  • Manna: 122
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #20 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 01:14:44 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

What, you can't see the parallel between God and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and then  Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant while bearing God Incarnate into the world? Her being the Ark and Jesus (God Incarnate) being the Covenant? Isn't Jesus the "new covenant" between the Creator and man?

If you want to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, because she carried Jesus...then you must be able to tell what item in the original Ark represented the covenant.
See, problem is that God's covenant was not inside the Ark. It was the Ark itself that represented the covenant.

Unless you are saying that Mary herself represents the covenant, the comparison does not fly.

It should also be said that Gods covenant did not enter the world through the Ark. The covenant was in place hundreds of years before there even was an Ark. The Ark has never been the carrier of God's covenant, and neither was Mary.
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 01:17:37 by AVZ »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #21 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 02:00:42 »
Sorry but this verses is clear and easy to understand even for a child. 
Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

Either you trust Gods word or you dont.
Ah, I see. So when Jesus says in another part of the Scriptures that: "This is my Body and This is my Blood" as regards Holy Communion, then we can believe that He means what He says and that the Eucharist is indeed the real "Body and Blood" of Christ. Thanks, I am glad to see we are on the same page here. As you so succinctly said before: "Either you trust God's word or you don't".
and here once again, you believe what you are told it means.  You won't understand it because you don't bother to read verses in context.  You just do what you are taught and pull a verse out here and there and insist it means what you want it to say.  It doesn't.  There's more to that chapter than Catholics want to admit - or try to understand.

Yes I know, we are wrong on this one, our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters are wrong on this one, even  Martin Luther was wrong on this one, as was every Christian believer for hundreds upon hundreds of years was wrong on this one until the enlightenment came upon us. When exactly did this enlightenment happen again? 1600's? 1700's? Was it the 1800's? Which Christian sect and what man came up with this new particular interpretation ? Come on, pick one, I'm sure you have the answer written somewhere.
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 02:17:01 by Ladonia »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #22 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 02:12:04 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

What, you can't see the parallel between God and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and then  Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant while bearing God Incarnate into the world? Her being the Ark and Jesus (God Incarnate) being the Covenant? Isn't Jesus the "new covenant" between the Creator and man?

If you want to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, because she carried Jesus...then you must be able to tell what item in the original Ark represented the covenant.
See, problem is that God's covenant was not inside the Ark. It was the Ark itself that represented the covenant.

Unless you are saying that Mary herself represents the covenant, the comparison does not fly.

It should also be said that Gods covenant did not enter the world through the Ark. The covenant was in place hundreds of years before there even was an Ark. The Ark has never been the carrier of God's covenant, and neither was Mary.

Mary was the Ark, the "carrying vessel". (You folks always describe her as God's vessel) In the OT the Covenant was the inscribed 10 Commandments, (and in the Book of Hebrews it says it carried a few other things). You know, so the covenant is that which bound the Jews to God, as in the same way Jesus (He who was carried by Mary) now binds us all to God. No? It all seems plausable to me.
« Last Edit: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 02:18:15 by Ladonia »

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6185
  • Manna: 122
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #23 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 02:36:01 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

What, you can't see the parallel between God and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and then  Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant while bearing God Incarnate into the world? Her being the Ark and Jesus (God Incarnate) being the Covenant? Isn't Jesus the "new covenant" between the Creator and man?

If you want to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, because she carried Jesus...then you must be able to tell what item in the original Ark represented the covenant.
See, problem is that God's covenant was not inside the Ark. It was the Ark itself that represented the covenant.

Unless you are saying that Mary herself represents the covenant, the comparison does not fly.

It should also be said that Gods covenant did not enter the world through the Ark. The covenant was in place hundreds of years before there even was an Ark. The Ark has never been the carrier of God's covenant, and neither was Mary.

Mary was the Ark, the "carrying vessel". (You folks always describe her as God's vessel) In the OT the Covenant was the inscribed 10 Commandments, (and in the Book of Hebrews it says it carried a few other things). You know, so the covenant is that which bound the Jews to God, as in the same way Jesus (He who was carried by Mary) now binds us all to God. No? It all seems plausable to me.

The items in the Ark were: Ten Commandments, Aaron's staff, jar with manna, bronze serpent.
See, none of these items represented the covenant or were even related to them.
In fact the Ark did not carry anything that bound the Jews to God.
The Jews were bound to God by His promise. God selected them from the nations. It was God's one-sided covenant with Abraham that bound the Jews to Him.
The Law did not bind anything to God. The Jews were bound to God hundreds of years before they were given the Law.

The Ark is totally irrelevant in the connection the Jews have with God. It was nothing more but a representation of the old covenant.
Shortly after Jesus' death you see the Ark disappears and has never been found. Its gone. It has no use anymore.

Now, also realize that during its existence the Ark has been violated (defiled).
It was taken out of the temple and brought to the battle where it was captured and stored in Dagon's temple.

So if you really want to compare Mary to the Ark...then you should also allow Mary to be "defiled".
Catholics keep on claiming that it is unthinkable that God would allow Joseph to "defile" Mary...but yet God allowed the Ark to be defiled.
So how?

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #24 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 03:40:48 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #25 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 05:56:18 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #26 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 05:58:47 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

What, you can't see the parallel between God and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and then  Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant while bearing God Incarnate into the world? Her being the Ark and Jesus (God Incarnate) being the Covenant? Isn't Jesus the "new covenant" between the Creator and man?

If you want to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, because she carried Jesus...then you must be able to tell what item in the original Ark represented the covenant.
See, problem is that God's covenant was not inside the Ark. It was the Ark itself that represented the covenant.

Unless you are saying that Mary herself represents the covenant, the comparison does not fly.

It should also be said that Gods covenant did not enter the world through the Ark. The covenant was in place hundreds of years before there even was an Ark. The Ark has never been the carrier of God's covenant, and neither was Mary.

Mary was the Ark, the "carrying vessel". (You folks always describe her as God's vessel) In the OT the Covenant was the inscribed 10 Commandments, (and in the Book of Hebrews it says it carried a few other things). You know, so the covenant is that which bound the Jews to God, as in the same way Jesus (He who was carried by Mary) now binds us all to God. No? It all seems plausable to me.


Your knowledge of the Ark seems quite limited, especially when creating a parallel with Mary as being the ark of a new covenant. Go and read the chapters where God commands the Ark to be built and see if it's purpose still lines up with your mariology.

Offline AVZ

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6185
  • Manna: 122
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #27 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 06:00:00 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

That argument swings both ways.
Do you think it is possible Mary did not remain a virgin?

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #28 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 06:00:54 »
The new ark of the covenant?   rofl

What, you can't see the parallel between God and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and then  Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant while bearing God Incarnate into the world? Her being the Ark and Jesus (God Incarnate) being the Covenant? Isn't Jesus the "new covenant" between the Creator and man?

If you want to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, because she carried Jesus...then you must be able to tell what item in the original Ark represented the covenant.
See, problem is that God's covenant was not inside the Ark. It was the Ark itself that represented the covenant.

Unless you are saying that Mary herself represents the covenant, the comparison does not fly.

It should also be said that Gods covenant did not enter the world through the Ark. The covenant was in place hundreds of years before there even was an Ark. The Ark has never been the carrier of God's covenant, and neither was Mary.

Mary was the Ark, the "carrying vessel". (You folks always describe her as God's vessel) In the OT the Covenant was the inscribed 10 Commandments, (and in the Book of Hebrews it says it carried a few other things). You know, so the covenant is that which bound the Jews to God, as in the same way Jesus (He who was carried by Mary) now binds us all to God. No? It all seems plausable to me.

The items in the Ark were: Ten Commandments, Aaron's staff, jar with manna, bronze serpent.
See, none of these items represented the covenant or were even related to them.
In fact the Ark did not carry anything that bound the Jews to God.
The Jews were bound to God by His promise. God selected them from the nations. It was God's one-sided covenant with Abraham that bound the Jews to Him.
The Law did not bind anything to God. The Jews were bound to God hundreds of years before they were given the Law.

The Ark is totally irrelevant in the connection the Jews have with God. It was nothing more but a representation of the old covenant.
Shortly after Jesus' death you see the Ark disappears and has never been found. Its gone. It has no use anymore.

Now, also realize that during its existence the Ark has been violated (defiled).
It was taken out of the temple and brought to the battle where it was captured and stored in Dagon's temple.

So if you really want to compare Mary to the Ark...then you should also allow Mary to be "defiled".
Catholics keep on claiming that it is unthinkable that God would allow Joseph to "defile" Mary...but yet God allowed the Ark to be defiled.
So how?

If we are going to talk about things being "defiled", maybe it was because God himself was not in the Ark, only things. When coming to earth He clearly wanted a pure and holy vessel to contain Himself, so he chose a virgin. Why didn't he choose a whore?

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Manna: 124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #29 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 06:06:47 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

That argument swings both ways.
Do you think it is possible Mary did not remain a virgin?

With God anything is possible. We only believe what each of us believes by faith and that encompasses the whole of the Christian story. The Mormon believes his version, as does the JW, as does the AOG member, as do you and I. That's it in a nutshell. On the day of our passing from this world the veil will be lifted from each of our eyes and we will then know for sure.

Offline Rella

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4304
  • Manna: 620
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #30 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 06:45:43 »
I have  a question though. Do you think that God  have wanted to use the new Ark of the Covenant (The Blessed Mother) for any other purpose other than to bring himself into the world?

Do you think that being betrothed to Mary, as a perfectly normal heterosexual man  (as far as we know) and loving Mary ( as far as we know) that Joseph would live a lifetime without?

He was told by an angel she was pregnant and he accepted that fact, though the laws at the time would have permitted him to put her away from him. But he did not want her in disgrace. That was a choice he made.

Also the laws of that time would have permitted him to divorce her for withholding.

Yes, I believe God chose Mary for her purity. But I also do not for a minute believe that He expected her
to not be therefor her husband after Jesus was born.

Yes, certainly when we finally cross over we will know for certain but as many have translated that which was written far closer to the birth of Jesus then we are now.... and those translations all point to
Joseph waiting until she (Mary) had given birth to Jesus...

I am just saying he was a man. And would have been extremely strange to live with her as her husband and not... especially when Holy Scripture seems to suggest otherwise.

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #31 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 06:56:00 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

God is perfectly able to enable a human being to give birth to His son, after all He IS God.  However He also tells us in the above verse that Mary had normal sexual relationship with her husband. Do you believe what God says or not? 

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #32 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 07:04:34 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

That argument swings both ways.
Do you think it is possible Mary did not remain a virgin?

With God anything is possible. We only believe what each of us believes by faith and that encompasses the whole of the Christian story. The Mormon believes his version, as does the JW, as does the AOG member, as do you and I. That's it in a nutshell. On the day of our passing from this world the veil will be lifted from each of our eyes and we will then know for sure.
 

We do know for sure, God has told us.

Offline wincam

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Manna: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #33 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 07:10:07 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

That argument swings both ways.
Do you think it is possible Mary did not remain a virgin?

With God anything is possible. We only believe what each of us believes by faith and that encompasses the whole of the Christian story. The Mormon believes his version, as does the JW, as does the AOG member, as do you and I. That's it in a nutshell. On the day of our passing from this world the veil will be lifted from each of our eyes and we will then know for sure.
 

We do know for sure, God has told us.


sure, we know for sure, for God has told us via Scriptures, Tradition, Church Fathers, early Christians etc - wincam

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30577
  • Manna: 536
  • Gender: Female
Re: Natural and Normal ?
« Reply #34 on: Mon Sep 21, 2015 - 07:35:38 »
How hard is this verse to understand???????

Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

A virgin giving birth? Come on, how could such a thing happen? Really, if that can be believed than anything else can also be possible.

That argument swings both ways.
Do you think it is possible Mary did not remain a virgin?

With God anything is possible. We only believe what each of us believes by faith and that encompasses the whole of the Christian story. The Mormon believes his version, as does the JW, as does the AOG member, as do you and I. That's it in a nutshell. On the day of our passing from this world the veil will be lifted from each of our eyes and we will then know for sure.
 

We do know for sure, God has told us.


sure, we know for sure, for God has told us via Scriptures, Tradition, Church Fathers, early Christians etc - wincam

God has told us via His word.
Matthew 1:25
25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The Lord is salvation

 

 

     
anything