Posted on 12/25/2014 12:25:15 PM PST by Jan_Sobieski
Speaking to a group of Christian clergy at the Easter Prayer Breakfast he hosted at the White House on Wednesday, President Barack Obama referred to Jesus Christ as “a son of God.”
“It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace,” Obama said of Easter, which is this Sunday. “And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured--not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
What a bizarre un scriptural extrapolation!
She was uttering a statement IN THE moment...that she had never Biblically "known" a man so was confused as to how she could be with child.
To make that into a vow is to change the meaning of scripture. Not a Christian thing to do.
There was no vow to violate.
Poor Mary, the things attributed to her that make no sense and actually show a great disrespect for her are legion unfortunately.
Of course she did not "know" a man, she was a good follower of God and not married.
It is not speculation that Mary was committed to virginity. It is a logical implication right there in her question to the angel.
Not logical at all.
I explained the logic behind her question up above a few lines.
As for Mary’s perpetual virginity: It was the universal belief of the Church from the beginning. That is proof [???] that it is true, because Christ promised that the Church would be preserved in the truth.First of all, by Chruch you mean the Catholic denomination, right?
Id didn't start until about the 3rd or 4th century.
The only "church" that was around was the Body of Christ made up of every true follower of Jesus. Same yesterday, tomorrow and forever.
Is some one states something like above, "It was the universal belief of the Church from the beginning. That is proof..." it is the opinion of the person saying it, nothing more.
Although, yes I guess I can accept that it was the universal belief of Catholicicm from the beginning of that belief system, centuries after Jesus walked the earth.
It was NOT "the universal belief of the Cchurch from the beginning"
That also has been shown to be false. The ECFs were not in "universal" agreement on this extra-biblical topic or any other for that matter that the rcc clings to.
This "belief" is based on the protoevangelium of james, a book rejected by the early church. It is the first recorded account of this false belief. It was not written by James, the step-brother of Christ.
So here we have another untruth based on false doctrine being propagated by the leadership of the rcc.
Mary’s question to the angel makes no sense unless she had made a vow of virginity. She was already married. If she expected to have relations with her husband in the near future, her question to the angel makes no sense.
Your assertion that Mary was speaking only of the PRESENT MOMENT has no basis in the text. The angel did NOT say that she WAS ALREADY pregnant.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-mary%E2%80%99s-perpetual-virginity
Dude....do you read the text or just repeat the talking points?? Is this really what they teach priests in catholic seminaries???
The context of Matthew 1 and Luke 1 will put things in perspective.
There is no vow of chastity in anything Mary said.
When she was told she was going to have a baby she knew she and Joseph had not engaged in sexual intercourse as they were not living together as husband and wife...she also knows they hadn't been having sexual intercourse period nor had she had it with anyone else.....so she's trying to figure out how this is going to happen.
This speaks to the upbringing that both Joseph and Mary had. They were honoring the Law and not committing adultery. Joseph is described as a righteous man by Matthew. We know Mary had a strong upbringing in the things of God by her knowledge of the Scriptures.
Then Gabriel tells her how it will come about. He also tells her Elizabeth is pregnant as well.
When Mary hears this she tells Gabriel, "behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word."
Now we turn to the story in Matthew for a timeline and background of Joseph and Mary's relationship.
Matthew 1:19 (NASB)
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
Same verse except in Douay-Rheims
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
They were considered to be married for all practical purposes except in actual practice. However, we gather from the text they were not living together as husband and wife.
Matthew 1:20 the angel tells Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife.
Matthew 1:24 notes they actually married.
NASB
And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
Douay-Rheims
And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.
Instead of hurling abuse, how about sticking to the subject?
Read Luke’s account. Mary is, by our standards, already married. She has just been told by the angel that she is to conceive and bear a child.
THE ANGEL HAS NOT TOLD HER SHE IS ALREADY PREGNANT. NOR HAS HE TOLD HER SHE IS GOING TO BE PREGNANT WITHIN MINUTES.
Her question to the angel makes no sense if she expects to be engaging in relations with her husband in the near future.
I ask you two questions and you call that abuse?? Man, you've got a thin skin.
Re-read Matthew 1 and Luke 1 together...draw out a timeline of what's happening and you'll understand the context of the situation.
By our standards doesn't count in understanding their relationship.
I agree that in their culture they were considered to be married in everything but actual practice. That is clear from Matthew.
Matthew is clear they were living apart when Mary became pregnant. He is also clear they then completed the ceremony and began living as husband and wife.
Matthew is also clear they consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.
Having children would be keeping in line with God's command to be fruitful and multiply. With them being the godly people they were they followed through on this command.
The context is the key to the whole thing.
Huh?
Helps if you read the text. Read it....it’s there.
Are you talking about “until”?
To you, yes. It would take a lot of deliberate semantic gymnastics to prove that with scriptures. I already asked you for chapter and verse about Mary giving her consent, and you have nothing. So I don't expect to see a scripture proving the "speculation" of a vow either. Hint, it's unBiblical.
She was already married. [You added in another post "by our standards."]
Our standards have nothing to do with it. The standards of the day do though.
I'm not going to spend time explaining the whole process, but here is the condensed version.
Back then it was customary to be espoused for from 3 to 12 months, and then move into a house and start having marital relations.
Espousal was like a contract, and was as binding as marriage, in fact was the first phase of a marriage back then.
But no sex yet. Which was cool, because of the events that took place.
If she expected to have relations with her husband in the near future, her question to the angel makes no sense.
I can't read her mind, can you? There was no indication on her part, or for that matter, on my part that would include "near future" for consummation with her Husband Joseph. She was going to be soon impregnated by the Holy Spirit. That was in the near future.
Your assertion that Mary was speaking only of the PRESENT MOMENT has no basis in the text.
Sure it does. Read my past posts. She plainly stated "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"--Luke1:34.
Which meant she had not ever had relations with a man. Pretty clear. Like I said before, she was a bit confused. Can't blame her, it was some pretty heady stuff for a young girl.
The angel did NOT say that she WAS ALREADY pregnant.
Gee, no kidding. What an off the wall statement, makes no sense. Come on, you didn't think I thought that, did you???
I think it would be good for you to study up on some subjects before you post your interpretations of scripture.
And also history. Like history of marriage back at the time in which Joseph and Mary were married.
Oh your link? No thanks. I have been studying this stuff in depth for years and don't have any desire to be thrown off track with the things you seem to be required to learn/believe.
Taking a clue from the Berean Jews to learn scriptural truths. And to discern what is and isn't true. Like they did with Paul.
Believe me, I doubt she was thinking about Joseph at that time. Can you imagine what it would be like to have an ANGEL OF THE LORD right there talking to you?
Joseph had nothing to do with her question.
Our FRCatholics miss no opportunity to raise their precious, FALSE M-ry any chance they get.
(What% of catholics VOTED for obama???)
Catholics can play all the word games they want. The truth is that Catholics worship Mary.
CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
So congratulations Catholics, it's official. Catholics and Muslims serve the same god.
Yet Catholics will come in here and deny. It seems they are ashamed of what their church teaches yet without hesitation defend. It's stunning to say the least.
"No one ever finds Christ but with and through Mary. Whoever seeks Christ apart from Mary seeks Him in vain." St. Bonaventure
"Holy Scripture was written to Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary." St. Bernard
"What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan." Pope Pius Xl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.