Turning Mary into an adultress

[3AngelsMom]

It was brought up on another topic, and I would like to address it on it's own.

The idea that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, is propigated by Catholics here.

Is this universal?

Is this dogma? Doctrine? Some believe it, others don't?

What is the deal?

Sincere Christians want to know.

God Bless

*edited to remove the offensive reference to a tabloid*

[ February 27, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]

 

[thessalonian]

It's not literal as Mary didn't have sex with the Holy Spirit. It is a way of thinking about what happened at the incarnation. That is all that is really important for your gossip column.

 

[Abiyah]

When I lived in Minnesota, from 1968 through 1983,
the people there were really nice -- real good
people, educated, down-to-earth, gentle. Most
would not take an innocent question, asked in
order to receive information, and turn it around into
something ugly.

 

[rufus]

Abiyah, AMEN AND AMEN!!!

Good and very Good.

rufus

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi 3Angels,

The Bible describes the Church (that's you and I individually) as the Bride of Christ. If that is so, does that make each of us an adulterer if we marry in this life?

Mary is an icon, the exemplar of the Church. What we see in Mary is what the Church is on a much grander scale. Two small examples of this are her virginity and her motherhood. Mary is the only virgin mother that we know of. Likewise, the Church is both mother and virgin. She gives birth to believers while remaining pure and holy.

"But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother" (Gal 4:26).

"[H]e might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).

As well, each of us are called to be the Bride of the Holy Spirit. The essence of marriage is the covenant, and the shortest definition of a covenant is the union of two wills. We are called to unite our will to the Spirit, and thus live out our spousal relationship in Christ through Him.

This is just a small inkling of Mariology. The entire breadth of the study of Mary is extremely rich and beautiful.

love,

Carson

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
When I lived in Minnesota, from 1968 through 1983,
the people there were really nice -- real good
people, educated, down-to-earth, gentle. Most
would not take an innocent question, asked in
order to receive information, and turn it around into
something ugly.

Hi Abiyah,

Do you think that the title of the thread reflects innocence?

3AM started this "sex with the Holy Spirit" thing in another thread.

Yes, I agree, it is quite ugly.

Ron

 

[rufus]

Carson Weber, your exegetical method is fallacious and leads you to eisegesis. Many good books and studies on proper hermenuetics are available, if one has a desire to learn.

God bless and lead you to TRUTH!

rufus

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abiyah:
When I lived in Minnesota, from 1968 through 1983,
the people there were really nice -- real good
people, educated, down-to-earth, gentle. Most
would not take an innocent question, asked in
order to receive information, and turn it around into
something ugly.

Hi Abiyah,

Do you think that the title of the thread reflects innocence?


3AM started this "sex with the Holy Spirit" thing in another thread.

Yes, I agree, it is quite ugly.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Trying2,

Amen, Amen, Amen. And my answer was not intended to be offensive. She started the gossip column stuff with her "inquiring minds want to know". Ever heard of the National Inquirer? It's an American Gossip tabloid and that is there slogan and AngelMom knows it.

This incarnation story is a problem, regardless of Catholic doctrine for those who look at the incarnatin in a negative sense. Mary was pregnant, Joseph wasn't the father of the Child. I am sure inquiring minds wanted to know back then also. Mary was not an adulteress but I am sure many looked on her in that way.

Blessings

PS. Abiyah, you assume way to much about me.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"inquiring minds want to know".

That one got right by me!

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

For crying out loud! I am having a really hard time wading through all the attitude to learn anything. Cut it out will ya?!

Carson, I really enjoyed reading your post. Thank you for being so eloquent and giving me something to think about.

As far as I am concerned, Mary was chosen by God. She was highly favored among woman and the mother of God in the flesh. She was an enigma. But always human. How awesome is that?

God bless you all...and take a chill pill will ya? You're all giving me a headache.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Laurenda,

You wrote, "Carson, I really enjoyed reading your post. Thank you for being so eloquent and giving me something to think about."

Praise God! Thank you for the beautiful welcome reception of my message.

God bless you,

Carson

 

[3AngelsMom]

Seriously people, what's your problem?

Carson, I am gonna have to go with Laurenda on this one, you are the only one who actually attempted to answer the question.

I have no malice in this thread.

I see saying that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit as wrong because Mary had a husband.

She was not 'married' to the Holy Spirit in any way shape or form. Not carnally, and not spiritually.

She was married to Joseph and they did INDEED have sex after Jesus was born.

There is scriptural evidence for this.

Thessalonian, the reason I started a thread is because my questions posed to you in the other thread was derailing the original topic.

So what I am doing here is actually an act of politness to the guy who started the other thread.

Why don't you just answer the questions?

I will post them in here for all to see.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Here it is people:

In all it's horrific 'uglyness'

(from the other thread)

Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit SUPERNATURALLY.

That means NOT naturally, which we all know that the NATURAL means of conception is SEX.

Conception is NOT what makes two people married.

SEX is what consecrates a marriage.

I have been married for 3 years and haven't conceived. I am still married though aren't I?

You betcha!

Mary was espoused to Joseph. By placing her in a spousal role with the Holy Spirit, it is implying adultery.

She was ALREADY espoused to Joseph when the Holy Spirit came to her. He told her AND him to get married. Their marriage was consecrated. I would bet my life on it.

It even says that he didn't 'know' her until her days were completed!

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I must say that it is TOTALLY apparent from this verse that they DID indeed have sex, AFTER Jesus was born.

It says UNTIL. (till)

Here is a prime example of another instance of 'until'.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

You see, it is a "once this happens then THIS will happen" sort of wording. The law won't pass until ALL of it is fulfilled, not even one jot. (do you feel the earth under you? Do you see the heaven above?)

Same with Mary and Joseph, he WOULD not know her until she gave birth to Jesus. And JUST LIKE THE LAW, when that time was fulfilled, HE KNEW HER.

Was Jesus born? Then Joseph knew Mary.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Carson,

Firstly, why do always ask such silly questions?

The role of the Christian Church as the Bride of Christ doesn't have anything to do with earthly marriage! Secondly, WE are not His wife yet! We are HIS BRIDE. We won't be His wife until He comes and TAKES us. We are told in the Bible that in the resurrection we will no longer be married to our spouses.

So we see the problem with Mary, who has not been through the resurrection, who is still, married to Joseph, and would be an adulteress if she was to be the spouse of the HS.

You are using this to compare Mary to something that cannot possibly be compared to one person. If WE (the Church) are the Bride, then what is God already doing with a wife? (Mary)

You see the problem?

That Galatians passage is talking about the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and it is referring to the New Jerusalem that is still in Heaven, that will be brought down at the end.

What does that have to do with Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

What exactly is her role as spouse?

God Bless

 

[neal4christ]

Good job, 3AM.

I tried to establish this fact a long while back, but it was reinterpreted and ignored. I am still floored that it is thought by Catholics (is it official dogma?) that Mary remained a virgin.

Neal

 

[neal4christ]

That Galatians passage is talking about the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and it is referring to the New Jerusalem that is still in Heaven, that will be brought down at the end.

This is getting scary, 3AM!

I brought this same point up in another thread just earlier tonight! I was suprised to see the claim the the Jerusalem above was implied to be the church. The church is here on earth, and we are the bride of Christ. It is not the New Jerusalem which is still in heaven.

Neal

 

[Born Again Catholic]

The church is here on earth, and we are the bride of Christ. It is not the New Jerusalem which is still in heaven.[/QB]

Neal then had do you understan Hebrews 12

22But YOU HAVE COME (past tense) to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23and to the assembly[1] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

 

[DanPC]

Neal--
"I am still floored that it is thought by Catholics (is it official dogma?) that Mary remained a virgin." Yes it is official dogma.

Martin Luther thought so--
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)

Athanasius thought the same--

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Jerome thought as much--

"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Augustine thought the same---

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Calvin--
"There have been certian folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is!" Sermon on MT 1:22-25 published 1562

Zwingli--
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Zwingli Opera v.1 p 424.

Neal, BTW did you ever get that box I sent you a month or so ago?
Dan

 

[3AngelsMom]

DanPC,

It doesn't suprise me one bit that the Catholic church fathers agree with you!

But do they agree with the Bible?

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

What do you do with these verses to still arrive at the conclusion you have?

God Bless

 

[neal4christ]

Neal, BTW did you ever get that box I sent you a month or so ago?

Yes, I did, thank you very much! Sorry, I forgot to let you know. I have been very busy, so I haven't read the books yet, but I hope to before too long if school doesn't kill me!

I see you quote different people, Dan, but I am interested in the Scriptures. It is clear in the verse 3AM pointed out that Joseph 'knew' Mary at some point. And I am sorry, but you can't have two separate authorities that contradict one another. If it does not agree with God's Word, then it can't be true.

Neal