A Leo Question

B

Big J

New Member
Something just occurred to me. (Yeah, I'm slow.) You said that it was likely the virgin Mary had no sex organs.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]maybe not even the anatomy for sex
Click to expand...

So...how could she then give birth? I mean...to quote Monty Python..."Where's the foetis going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"

Not trying to be a jerk...I'm just curious.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Big J @ Nov. 02 2003,12:21)]Something just occurred to me.  (Yeah, I'm slow.)  You said that it was likely the virgin Mary had no sex organs.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]maybe not even the anatomy for sex
Click to expand...

So...how could she then give birth?  I mean...to quote Monty Python..."Where's the foetis going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"

Not trying to be a jerk...I'm just curious.
Click to expand...
Dear Big J,

My inspiration here is the notebooks of Anne Catherine Emmerich.  She described the nativity.  there was a bright light and then the Baby Jesus was down on the floor of the Cave.  Mary did not dare touch it because it seems so Perfect.  But when Jesus began to make a little fuss, She quickly scooped Him up.

You see, Mary was beyond the Curse -- that "woman would have pain in giving birth".  Anne Catherine Emmerich had said she had seen the nativity in Vision many times -- and it never varied -- her vision was being guarded or euphemistic out of some sense of Spiritual discretion.  the Baby just came out in the light.

Also, there was the Marriage.  The Priests together with the essenes knew who Mary was and arranged Her marriage with Joseph as the Chosen Person from the Line of David to be Her Spouse.  Well, in every other marriage they would have done the old 'virginity check' either of the Bride or of the bridal sheets afterward.  They deliberately foreswore this in Mary's case.  They all just knew that it would be different for Her.

But, yes, that Mary absolutely did not have even the appearance of having ordinary female genetalia -- that is a wild guess on my part.  But since form follows function and She has no "function", I will stick to my conjecture that Mary had no 'form'.
 
so according    to this, Mary did not birth Christ, rather God created Him on the Stable floor (wonder what she carried to term then, or maybe did she just not notice the pain....)

And for your 'Bridal Check'  Even if the sheets came back clean, it was the husband's decision on whether or not to 'return' the wife.

Again, I need Bible verses for your 'no form.'  Your arguement against the existance of scriptures proving purgatory fails here.  This would/should have been something documented!  I mean, a woman without genitial!  That's big news.  As well, if Mary had been conceived by a virgin, would not the Gospels mention it?  They take the time to mention that Christ was conceived by a virgin...
 
So you're saying Mary really didn't give BIRTH to Christ? He just ....appeared... in some light.....

That's not a mother, that's an observer of another miracle.

And ah, refrain from that language while you're here, eh?

Van
 
Afterthought:

Y'know, Leo, I've found this odd repeating pattern in your way of thinking.

Everyone who is in the Catholic church can recieve revelation, yet Paul had the same thing happen to Him, and you totally deny any truth in that. Seems a bit odd to me.

You just brush it off as Paul trying to twist things to his own way of thinking, yet so many of the Catholic "seers" and popes, PARTICULARLY POPES, have done that throughtout the centuries and you still seem to stand by them!

So, why is it that Paul seems such an unlikely canidate for revelation, yet all of these stigmatists and "mystics" and such are so much more credible?

Anne Catherine did such blasphemous things as PRAYING for the dead. That's almost Mormonistic.

She also encouraged invoking saints on their "Feast" days because they gained power? Dead saints gaining more power in heaven? Thats..Uh..Yea. That's almost voodoo-ish, summoning up dead souls on certain days.

Anne also said that Christ suffered from a wound to His shoulder more than any of his other wounds. Seems the gospels would have mentioned this, don't you think?

Another thing...Do me a favor and explain this quote, and please tell me where she finds THIS reckoning to be true?
"Then I had the sweet assurance that Mary is the Church; the Church, our mother; God, our father; and Jesus, our brother." - Anne Catherine herself

The only part of THAT I find to be true would be that God is our father. Christ is our saviour, not our brother. Mary is NOT our mother and is CERTAINLY NOT the church. And let's say she was, just because I'm sure you'll try to explain that away as something else. In Revelation, does Christ not "marry" the Church? If Christ married the Church, according to Anne, He'd be marrying his own mother. Sorry, not buying it.

"O who can tell the beauty, the purity, the innocence of Mary! She knows everything, and yet she seems to know nothing, so childlike is she. She lowers her eyes and, when she looks up, her glance penetrates like a ray, like a pure beam of light, like truth itself! It is because she is perfectly innocent, full of God, and without returns upon self.None can resist her grace."

Number one, only God knows everything. Are you then, as a Catholic who follows along with the Saints, saying that Mary is equal to, or is a god?

We cannot resist her grace? I didn't know she gave it to us. I just thought her Son did. Anyone else with me on that one?

Also, according to a good Catholic friend of mine, Anne supposedly had exceptional reasoning skills from BIRTH. She also could speak liturgical Latin from her first Mass? Hey, I'm no one to criticize that, maybe she was just one of those genius-children. But reasoning from birth? That seems odd.

Heck, I think I'm about to start a post all its own about the supposed Saints from Catholic heritage. You've been asking us to explain things away from our faith, and we have. Is it too much to ask that you do the same for us as Protestants? I think not.

Thanks Leo,
Van
 
This just gets better and better. After just a handful minutes, I've already found an odd difference between what every Catholic I've ever met, including you, has said.

On www.catholic.org, you will find this quote in their FAQs area.

"Do Catholics pray TO saints?

We pray with saints, not to them.
Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person?

You may have chosen someone you could trust, or someone who understood your problem, or someone who was close to God. Those are all reasons we ask saints to pray for us in times of trouble.

Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church."

Hmm, well the latter part of that answer there is erroneous information to my point, but...The first part is what gets me. To sum it up, www.catholic.org says that Catholics do NOT pray to saints! Maybe they should put out a flyer or something, cause they must be the only Catholics that believe like this. OR MAYBE NOT! Because with a little more searching, on the same site, I've found a prayer to a saint.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=21
(You'll find it at the bottom of the page)

It just appears that they can't decide WHAT they believe about prayer. TO the saints, or WITH the saints? Or not to the saints at all?

Yea.

Van


I'm getting sleepy. Tomorrow is Sunday. It's 2:10 am. Maybe I should stop reading and go to sleep. -_-
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Nov. 02 2003,12:46)]so according    to this, Mary did not birth Christ, rather God created Him on the Stable floor (wonder what she carried to term then, or maybe did she just not notice the pain....)

And for your 'Bridal Check'  Even if the sheets came back clean, it was the husband's decision on whether or not to 'return' the wife.

Again, I need Bible verses for your 'no form.'  Your arguement against the existance of scriptures proving purgatory fails here.  This would/should have been something documented!  I mean, a woman without genitial!  That's big news.  As well, if Mary had been conceived by a virgin, would not the Gospels mention it?  They take the time to mention that Christ was conceived by a virgin...
Click to expand...
Dear Kidan,

Are you kidden, ha ha.

No, Mary was large enough with Child. One Inn Keepers wife along the way thought that Mary would be problem -- having a baby and so she made her husband send Joseph and Mary away. Sure enough the family fell under a curse (those darn Angels looking on sometimes hold a grudge even is no one else does), and when Jesus visited some 32 years later, they realized who he was (the angels appearing to the shepherds and the Three Kings made it all a memorable event for those miles around) and begged His pardon and he healed the lazy selfish hostess of the disease that crippled her for decades. So Mary was noticeably big.

But once again Protestants who are saved by Faith demonstrate that they have no Faith. In a Spiritual Birth obviously the Baby just goes from being inside to being outside -- no muss, no fuss.

And Kidan, obviously the Gospels don't mention alot of stuff. Have you looked at a book lately. 2 or 3 hundred pages. How big is each Gospel. The Bible is composed of a couple dozen pamphlets. There's practically nothing to it. The Major Teachings and a few mile stone events. That was all that survived. Why? It was the Age of Oral Transmission. People did not read books. The Printing press was fourteen hundred years away. All the important stuff was Taught -- the Word of God was the Spoken Word.

So we arrive at a Paradox. The Same Catholic Church that gives you your Bible -- the Only Thing you will Believe, also give you the Teachings -- the Only Thing you Won't Believe.

If you are saved by Faith, then you are Damned. Because you don't have Faith in anything. I tell you a dozen Times that Our Lady Herself is telling us all this, and you keep up the Thomas routine. Well, on the Day of Judgment the Good Lord will show you a long list of how many times you were pointed to the Truth and you could only come up with one stupid objection after another. Thoughtless objections! I didn't have to blink before I knew the answers to your idiot questions. You better hope the test for Heaven isn't an intelligence test.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Nov. 02 2003,2:12)]This just gets better and better.  After just a handful minutes, I've already found an odd difference between what every Catholic I've ever met, including you, has said.

On www.catholic.org, you will find this quote in their FAQs area.

"Do Catholics pray TO saints?

We pray with saints, not to them.
Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you when you were having a hard time? Why did you choose to ask that person?

You may have chosen someone you could trust, or someone who understood your problem, or someone who was close to God. Those are all reasons we ask saints to pray for us in times of trouble.

Since saints led holy lives and are close to God in heaven, we feel that their prayers are particularly effective. Often we ask particular saints to pray for us if we feel they have a particular interest in our problem. For example, many people ask Saint Monica to pray for them if they have trouble with unanswered prayers, because Monica prayed for twenty years for her son to be converted. Finally her prayers were answered in a way she never dreamed of -- her son, Augustine, became a canonized saint and a Doctor of the Church."

Hmm, well the latter part of that answer there is erroneous information to my point, but...The first part is what gets me.  To sum it up, www.catholic.org says that Catholics do NOT pray to saints!  Maybe they should put out a flyer or something, cause they must be the only Catholics that believe like this.  OR MAYBE NOT!  Because with a little more searching, on the same site, I've found a prayer to a saint.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=21
(You'll find it at the bottom of the page)

It just appears that they can't decide WHAT they believe about prayer.  TO the saints, or WITH the saints?  Or not to the saints at all?

Yea.

Van


I'm getting sleepy.  Tomorrow is Sunday.  It's 2:10 am.  Maybe I should stop reading and go to sleep.  -_-
Click to expand...
Dear Vaneze,

 What do expect after 400 years of kicking Catholic butt.  Are you Proud.  You made them surrender!  Now they are like puppets and they say whatever it is that will keep Prots from declaring war against them, depriving them of their civil rights, economically boycotting them.  So they tell you what you want to hear.

Now use your silly brain.  What is really the distinction between praying 'with' and praying 'to'. Nothing, huh.  But with one answer you feel like they kissed your butt, and the other answer says KISS MINE.




watch the language please-Nspire
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Nov. 02 2003,1:34)]Afterthought:

Y'know, Leo, I've found this odd repeating pattern in your way of thinking.  

Everyone who is in the Catholic church can recieve revelation, yet Paul had the same thing happen to Him, and you totally deny any truth in that.  Seems a bit odd to me.

You just brush it off as Paul trying to twist things to his own way of thinking, yet so many of the Catholic "seers" and popes, PARTICULARLY POPES, have done that throughtout the centuries and you still seem to stand by them!  

So, why is it that Paul seems such an unlikely canidate for revelation, yet all of these stigmatists and "mystics" and such are so much more credible?

Anne Catherine did such blasphemous things as PRAYING for the dead.  That's almost Mormonistic.

She also encouraged invoking saints on their "Feast" days because they gained power?  Dead saints gaining more power in heaven?  Thats..Uh..Yea.  That's almost voodoo-ish, summoning up dead souls on certain days.

Anne also said that Christ suffered from a wound to His shoulder more than any of his other wounds.  Seems the gospels would have mentioned this, don't you think?  

Another thing...Do me a favor and explain this quote, and please tell me where she finds THIS reckoning to be true?
"Then I had the sweet assurance that Mary is the Church; the Church, our mother; God, our father; and Jesus, our brother."  - Anne Catherine herself

The only part of THAT I find to be true would be that God is our father.  Christ is our saviour, not our brother.  Mary is NOT our mother and is CERTAINLY NOT the church.  And let's say she was, just because I'm sure you'll try to explain that away as something else.  In Revelation, does Christ not "marry" the Church?  If Christ married the Church, according to Anne, He'd be marrying his own mother.  Sorry, not buying it.

"O who can tell the beauty, the purity, the innocence of Mary! She knows everything, and yet she seems to know nothing, so childlike is she. She lowers her eyes and, when she looks up, her glance penetrates like a ray, like a pure beam of light, like truth itself! It is because she is perfectly innocent, full of God, and without returns upon self.None can resist her grace."

Number one, only God knows everything.  Are you then, as a Catholic who follows along with the Saints, saying that Mary is equal to, or is a god?

We cannot resist her grace?  I didn't know she gave it to us.  I just thought her Son did.  Anyone else with me on that one?

Also, according to a good Catholic friend of mine, Anne supposedly had exceptional reasoning skills from BIRTH.  She also could speak liturgical Latin from her first Mass?  Hey, I'm no one to criticize that, maybe she was just one of those genius-children.  But reasoning from birth?  That seems odd.

Heck, I think I'm about to start a post all its own about the supposed Saints from Catholic heritage.  You've been asking us to explain things away from our faith, and we have.  Is it too much to ask that you do the same for us as Protestants?  I think not.

Thanks Leo,
Van
Click to expand...
So! Mary is no Mother of yours, huh? Well I guess that means you're not my sister in Christ. Great! that was holding me back. Now if I ever met you I'd smack your face. You are the enemy! Remember that as you prepare for the Day of Judgment. Dress warm.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Nov. 02 2003,12:49)]So you're saying Mary really didn't give BIRTH to Christ?  He just ....appeared... in some light.....

That's not a mother, that's an observer of another miracle.  

And ah, refrain from that language while you're here, eh?

Van
Click to expand...
Oh, so now Mary isn't even Mother of Jesus any more. You know there is only one word in the english language that can describe you. But I don't need another warning.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Now if I ever met you I'd smack your face.  You are the enemy!  Remember that as you prepare for the Day of Judgment.
Click to expand...
Now THAT'S the love of Christ.



Now tell me are you saying that the three magi visited on the day of  His, well according to you, it's not a true birth, so I guess we'll have to  call   it decension?  Especially since Herod's decree about the slaughter of the babes implies between two and three years.  And why on earth would the angels hold a grudge (especially  since angels tend to not act on their on will, but rather the will of the Lord) against the Inn Keepers?  After all, those Inn Keepers took pity on Mary and Joseph, and allowed them to  stay in the inn's stables after they (and all the other Inns in Bethelehem were booked up for the nite. You would think they'd be happy with those inn keepers for giving Mary and Joseph shelter.

It seems to me that the more you speak, the more you walk away from the text of the Gospel and scriptures, relying more and more on 'Revelations' that do not correspond with existing Scripture (what you accuse Paul of).  According to your definitions that puts you about the same level as us Protestants.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh, so now Mary isn't even Mother of Jesus any more. You know there is only one word in the english language that can describe you.  But I don't need another warning.
Click to expand...
Actually  it was you   that said it, when you deny her actually giving birth  to Christ.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]No, Mary was large enough with Child. One Inn Keepers wife along the way thought that Mary would be problem -- having a baby and so she made her husband send Joseph and Mary away.
Click to expand...
They sent them away because there was no room in the inn. Why was there no room you ask this should explain.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]This birth date rotates with the Jewish calendar, so that means
that next year, 2004, it will be on a different date on our Gentile calendars. It might be easier to remember to simply say that Yeshua's (Jesus) birthday is approximately the first day of the feast of Tabernacles
(Booths, Succoth, Ingathering).

This explains why there was no room at the inn for Joseph and Mary. A multitude of Jewish pilgrims from all over the Middle East had come to Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, as God required (Deu. 16:16). Bethlehem, which was only a few miles outside of Jerusalem,(5 miles to be exact) was also overflowing with visitors at this time because of the Feast.

The feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) is called "the season of our joy" and "the
feast of the nations". With this in mind, in Luke 2:10 it is written:

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good
tidings of GREAT JOY (the season of our joy) which shall be to ALL
PEOPLE (the feast of the nations)"
Click to expand...
 
I thought the reason they had problems finding room in the inns was because Rome was calling for a census, and that people were gathering together in Bethlehem and other cities to sign up for the census.
 
Well, Leo, I just find it amazing you find NO difference in praying TO saints and praying WITH saints. You said there was no difference. I really honestly mean nothing by this, outside of what I say. THE WORD "TO" IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WORD "WITH". THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Did you actually COMPREHEND what I typed, or did you just overlook it?

It appears to me that whenever you have no where to go, you simply just shrug it aside as the Protestants attacking the poor, poor Catholics.

Y'know, if it IS true that the Catholics are "conforming" to Protestant beliefs just not to make anyone mad, that's just one more reason on MY already long list of reasons not to believe or follow the Catholic church. If they can't even stand up for what they believe in, I will certainly not stand with them.

Do I think that the protestant movement has affected the Catholic church? Sure. Do I believe that we forced them and "kicked their butts" ?
Nope. You cannot force anyone to do anything, at least in the way of changing what you believe. I think Christian martyrs throughout history have proven this.

Van
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Malohaut @ Nov. 02 2003,9:10)]I thought the reason they had problems finding room in the inns was because Rome was calling for a census, and that people were gathering together in Bethlehem and other cities to sign up for the census.
Click to expand...
Good call

Leo I would like to know where you research your information ... you claim to be Catholic but a lot of the ideas you through out are foreign to me and having been on Catholic retreat teams for the past 5 years that really surprises me ... If you wouldn't mind just saying where you find some of these things I would be greatly appreciative
 
Back to the topic at hand, being Mary and her having sexual organs and whether or not she actually gave birth to Jesus.

First of all, Mary DID carry Jesus as a normal mother would carry a child.

Luke 1:30-31 (NKJV) - "Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus."

Right there, we know that Mary did conceive of a child inside her womb.  Whether she gave natural birth could be debated, depending on your interpretation of the Bible.  But Luke 2:6-7 says, "So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered.  And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."

My interpretation is that she delivered the baby herself, "her firstborn Son" then wrapped him in cloths and laid Him in the manger.  It says that SHE laid Jesus in the manger, not God.  As for this depiction of a vision of light shining down upon the manger means nothing but God looking down on His son and shining his light upon Him for all to look at.  The light could also represent focus on the one that is important in the scene (kind of like a spiritual spotlight).  Though, whether or not Mary went through natural birth or some sort of miraculous teleporting birth does not matter in the grand scheme of things.  We only need to know that Jesus is our Lord and savior.  The birth is just an example to show that Jesus is the Messiah, not the focal point of His life.

As for Mary having sexual organs....did not Jesus have brothers?  Yes, Jesus was born to a virgin, but after His birth, Mary and Joseph had other children.

Matthew 12:46-49 -- "While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."

Note, there were two sets of brothers here.  The first set of brothers were those born to his mother Mary.  The second set were his disciples, or those who follow Him and does the will of the Father.  This same story was repeated in Mark 3 and Luke 8.

Again, in Acts 1:13-14, Jesus' brothers were mentioned again...

"And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. "

Therefore, if Mary had other children, then she had to have sexual organs, unless they were adopted.
 
On the contrary, without an actual birth (as opposed to the beam of light Star Trek birth) then would Jesus be a truly human child? A major aspect of Christianity is that since Christ was fully human, He understands the temptations and problems that we face, becuase He faced them, and overcame them.
 
Oh, and by the way, just who are Jesus' brothers....

Matthew 13:54-56 -- "When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"

Therefore, Jesus had brothers as well as sisters. Just a little tidbit. If you have any more questions, please reference the Word of God.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Nov. 03 2003,7:24)]On the contrary, without an actual birth (as opposed to the beam of light Star Trek birth) then would Jesus be a truly human child?  A major aspect of Christianity is that since Christ was fully human, He understands the temptations and problems that we face, becuase He faced them, and overcame them.
Click to expand...
Excellent point Kidan. The whole light beam deal reaks of Eutychianism, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 405 and officially deemed heretical in 451.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top