jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Mar 31, 2008 13:48:12 GMT -5
G1982
ἐπισκιάζω
overshadow:
episkiazō
ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo
From G1909 and a derivative of G4639; to cast a shade upon, that is, (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively to invest with preternatural influence: - overshadow.
The scene is seen in Luke.....most are familiar with it....but that same overshadowing happened in other places too as seen in this scripture:
Luk 9:33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
Luk 9:34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 1, 2008 11:46:08 GMT -5
Ok I think I understand, but why is KJB getting fired up about the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary? It's interesting I guess, but what get's that one fired up about that verse?
|
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 1, 2008 12:58:36 GMT -5
I think it was Marcie who asked a question and I answered it. Don't see where KJB got fired up about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingjamesbond on Apr 1, 2008 21:05:53 GMT -5
Nope.....not fired up at all. I was not only focused on the overshadowed......I looked at the entire quote from Jacee; Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. I am not suggesting anything natural here. Was a supernatural event.Yeah....I agree with Jacee. It was the work of God. It was not the work of Mary. Any woman can have a baby. Just ask the billions and billions of women in world history that have had them. Only a woman that has been overshadowed by God can do what Mary has done. She became pregnant and she did nothing at all to become pregnant. So much for her and her husbands works. It was supernatural.....hence the glory to God and not to Mary. Just my thoughts..........  KJB |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 1, 2008 22:10:06 GMT -5
The way you say it KJB, sounds like Mary was just the womb that Jesus came from. But she is more than that...
Luke 1:28
And the angel being come in, said unto her:
"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
She is no where near God, but she is pretty special. I dont see how people talk down about her. She is clearly spoken highly of in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingjamesbond on Apr 1, 2008 22:23:42 GMT -5
cradlecathlic27,
I dont say Mary was just a "womb" that Jesus came from.
I know she was a woman. She was a human being made in the image of God just like you are.
She is not more that you are.
She is a woman...and you are a woman.
Was she blessed by God? Absolutely! No doubt! No question!
She was a woman blessed by God!
Yes....she was VERY blessed. A VERY blessed woman.
The LORD was with her.
It was not because she was born immaculate...or that she was sinless...or that she was perfect...or that she was (something of her own virtue).
She was blessed because god blessed her.
I dont talk down about her.
I see her as your equal as in human nature and being.
Mary was no better or worse than you.
I do see that God had blessed her.
His blessing was out of His nature and perogative and had nothing to do with her nature or merit.
That means if she received blessing...which she did.....it was all because of Him.
If anyone calls her blessed.....that is great!
But GOD did the blessing.
She deserved nothing good at all............and God blessed her.
KJB
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 1, 2008 23:09:35 GMT -5
I agree, she was just a normal women that God blessed. But since God picked her amongst all the other women, she must be more special. She is Jesus's mother, pretty special to me. To me that is how i see it. I respect your opinion on her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 3, 2008 19:31:21 GMT -5
I'd call it SuperNatural Human Blood. And it wouldn't be "just" like ours. Remember, He didn't bleed "just" blood when He was pierced, but He bled blood "and" water. When He sweated upon the Rock at Gethsemone, He didn't sweat water, but blood. For the Jews, water signigied Spirit. Jesus' "blood" was clearly not "just" human blood, but the blood of The Holy Spirit and of Mary. And again...if we were to just go by His actual "blood", then it would be Mary's blood because Jesus had no biological father to create new blood from Mary's. All Jesus' blood came from one compillation...that of Joaquim and Ann (Mary's parents) which created a new and unique bloodline for Mary (as happens with all humans except Jesus who had no man to create a new bloodline for Him, but only a woman). It was only Jesus' blood because Mary gave it to Him. He didn't have His "own" blood. That would require the contribution of a biological father to create a new bloodline. Since that never happened, the blood Jesus was given from the flesh of His Mother was pure Marian blood (and nobody else's). But we are "procreated" from the combination of the bloodlines of our parents. That didn't occure with Jesus. Jesus was made man (not created, not procreated) "of" the flesh of Mary. Like Eve was made "of" the flesh of Adam. Eve too had no combination of parental blood. God made Eve "out of" Adam. God made Jesus "out of" Mary. As sin was brought forth through Eve (the physical result of Adam), sin was deleted through Jesus (the physical result of Mary). I don't see a case why they would. Alllllll DNA tests would show traces back to a common ancestor. But, DNA tests done on Jesus would show no biological father. It would only show the blood of one physical donor to the creation of Christ...Mary. No...God brought life to mankind as Jesus gave us life too. Eve never created. Eve only procreated (the same power all mankind has). However, Mary brought forth eternal life through her womb as chosen by God to do so. God never picked Eve to bring forth life...that part was already done by God. Eve was given the power to "procreate". Dogs and ants can procreate too. Some animals can even procreate by themselves (give birth to offspring without the opposite sex needed). But only one woman gave birth to a human being without a male donor and with all of her flesh and blood...Mary. Even Eve's offspring were a combination of both Adam and Eve's bloodlines to form a new bloodline with their offspring. But not Jesus. Jesus' bloodline was not new. His was Mary's. Mary's was a new bloodline started by Joaquim and Ann, but Jesus' was "not" a new bloodline. It was Mary's bloodline reproduced in Him. It takes two human beings to submit the biological matter to procreate another human being, but God only needed one human being to bring forth His Son Jesus...God only needed Mary. No...without Jesus' saving grace, He too would've died because of Eve's curse as a Man. Remember, all who died up until Jesus redeemed them were dead and were "not" in heaven (Matthew 27:52). If there would've been no Eve, there wouldn't even be any Jesus...nor would there be a need for Jesus' salvation for there would be no sin. ;D Just making conversation. I for one am learning alot with our exchange and it's expanding my appreciation for Jesus' work. The difference was in Mary...Mary was pure from the get go. Mary was created pure. Her everything was pure. So there was a difference. Eve was created pure too, but unlike Mary, she fell to temptation. Mary didn't. Jesus could've never have come out of Eve...Eve was sinful. So her flesh was cursed. Mary was not sinful. Her flesh was pure. Of course, God wouldn't use sinful flesh to create a sinless Man...much less, His own Son. Remember, Scripture calls Mary saved by God (not by Jesus). His blood being 100% Mary's then makes Mary's nature "acceptable" too then, right? Mary was (is) sinless. She is the Immaculate Conception. This was revealed to us by the same men who God chose to reveal the canon of The Holy Bible. Never. Mary is pure human. Jesus was formed of a human being to form His Human Nature. If that was God's will, yes. Just as it happened with Jesus...it was God's will that it happen. So if God (since we're dealing in hypotheticals here) willed it, then yes. The text on cleanliness......would that also apply to women or not?[/quote] The text on cleanliness (in the context that Jesus was speaking on) included all man (I don't recall Him differentiating between the sexes). U2 brother. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 3, 2008 19:37:38 GMT -5
I acknowledge that she was a very special woman and had a very special role in God's plan...but I will never pray to her or thru her. And you never have to and it's not a tenet of Christianity for one to do so. Question: How do you think Jesus would feel for those who love His Mother with so much love (as most Christians do)? Also, have you ever asked your pastor to pray for you? Then you prayed to him. To pray literally means to ask something of someone. Literally. Prayer means request. So whether you know it or not, you have already prayed to men. You just might not pray to Jesus' Mother and again...that's ok too. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 3, 2008 19:47:12 GMT -5
Marcie (right?)- I think maybe the reason some protestants ignore Mary is because they are so opposed to the RCC praying to her and thru her. I am very opposed that also, lol, but I do know that she was a VERY special woman and had a more important role in life than any other women (except maybe Eve as a second place) in history. Those who do should put away what they were misindoctrinated with in their particular religion and just stick strictly to The Bible. If every Christians went by what The Holy Bible says, we'd all be on the same page. So, if we all have the same Bible with a 10% difference, why aren't we on the same page? Because of that 10% difference and because of all the new religions created based on that f10% difference. That was an extremely honest and beautiful answer on your part. I think we all just learned from you Emily. If I might say this...study the life of Mary not from a religious perspective (Catholic), but from a historical perspective. Read the first few chapters of Luke several times. First, focus on Jesus' place in it. Then Mary's. Then Mary's parents. Then her family (aunt Elisabeth, cousin John, etc...). Which besides Jesus out of all those characters stands out to you? As a Christian, there would be two for me (while all were pious and great persons of God). John and Mary. I'm sure you have no problem revering John The Baptist. But read up on Mary from a strictly historical point of view to find out what Jesus' Mother was like. She is the first Christian, the first Believer, the first to be Baptised by The Holy Spirit, the first to preach Christ, the first to know Jesus, the first to touch Jesus, the first to have Jesus "in" her (not only spiritually, but literally physically). Take away all of the Catholic love for her and none of those things can be denied for they are all Biblical truths that set her apart from all other human beings in Scripture...especially for Christians. Again, remove Catholic reverance of Mary and just read the Bible as a Christian. God Bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 3, 2008 20:07:02 GMT -5
I agree, she was just a normal women that God blessed. But since God picked her amongst all the other women, she must be more special. She is Jesus's mother, pretty special to me. To me that is how i see it. I respect your opinion on her. I think that anybody who is blessed by God "loses" their "normal" status. I think she was special "before" God blessed her...hence, earning God's blessing. I seriously doubt that God would use normal to bring forth His Son. Remember the dirt that God used to form Adam? That dirt was just dirt until God touched it. once God touched it, it became man. What was it that made that dirt special before God touched it? The fact that God chose it first to touch. Was Mary "just dirt" before God touched her? Would God use "just" a normal human being to contribute it's flesh to the formation of His only Son? Or would God form a human being "perfect" physically in it's mother's womb (Ann) so that the resulting virgin would be the perfect contributor to His Son's formation? You do know that it is God who forms us in our mother's wombs, right? God doesn't form us sinful...that is a result of the flesh He uses. To believe that God would use a sinful Mary to bear His Son would be to say that God, being God, having all power and perfection would allow the formation of the flesh of His Son's Mother to be stained by original sin and that He would bring forth His Son? Why would God use cursed flesh to form His Son from? God (in my understanding of Who God is) wouldn't use anything bad (cursed flesh) from which to create something good (Himself in the form of a Man). He wouldn't use a rotten tree to bear a good fruit...according to Jesus, that is impossible. And we all know what The Holy Bible calls Jesus, right? Jesus is "the fruit" of Mary. What does that make the tree that bore the Good Fruit that is Jesus? A "good" tree. Good cannot inhabit the same space as evil...ever. So the tree that bore the fruit of Christ has to be a good tree... Luke 1:42 "And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." |
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 4, 2008 1:36:34 GMT -5
Like Eve was made "of" the flesh of Adam. Eve too had no combination of parental blood.
Can't figure out how to quote here yet, but Cephas you said this on page 2. I can't go any further with reading until I see how you respond to this.
I say Eve was a clone of Adam. The reason why I say that is because in the male is both the x and y cells of the 23 chronosomes. x is female and y is male.
God took a rib and what I believe He did is that He took the RNA, not the DNA of the blood marrow and created a woman from that x cell of the males chromosones.
Remember, in the woman is all x cells in the 23 chromosones. Adam was created with both x and y.
However, Mary was born of a natural father and mother and would be just like we are. Unless you can prove that she was born without sin. And in that case she would live forever and not die. She would have to be like Eve was before Eve sinned. And that is not the case.
Only Jesus (plus His church, His body) is supernaturally born of God. I believe there was a godly sperm from Holy Spirit implanted supernaturally when He overshadowed Mary. After all, He is the person of the trinity who carried out the Word of God in all creation.
A spiritual being combined with a physical being ....and we who are born of spirit are penetrated also in our spirit, by that spiritual seed which gives us eternal life with God. Perhaps when we are born again, we have that same overshadowing...and we are new creations of God.
That is Sonship.
Why do Catholics not speak of this? It is scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 1:49:26 GMT -5
First of all, if those are my words, could you please quote them exactly as I stated it? Written as you wrote them, they make no sense to me either.
If she was a clone, she'd be a male (not a female).
She would've been a genetic duplicate.
We know she couldn't be a clone if she was female and the donor was male.
Mary referred to herself as saved by God and Gabriel called her "full of grace" (something that would be impossible if she was a sinful person). She was free of sin (see my reply to KJB where I detailed all the scriptural evidence for this Christian belief of 2,000 years).
godly sperm? Wow. You notice how I purposely left the "g" uncapitolized too.
Was there godly sperm when others mentioned God forming them in their mother's wombs too? Because you do know that God forms all of us in The Womb, right? The Prophets even wrote this...that God formed them in the womb.
God doesn't need physical matter to make something happen. All He has to do is to "will" it into being. Why would God need sperm? That would mean that he'd have sexual reproductive organs. To reproduce with whom? He's the creator, not the procreator.
It was Catholics who revealed how Mary's conception took place. What you stated never existed in Christian history.
But I look forward to your Scriptural references (especially the ones with godly sperm).
I've never even heard Protestants state what you just stated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 1:50:36 GMT -5
Oh yeah, when was this belief first revealed to Christianity?
Scriptures, historical references...thanks.
|
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 4, 2008 2:06:26 GMT -5
I was using genetics Cephas as a possibility...not stating a fact. It is the RNA of cells that would be used for cloning female, not DNA. I can not prove any of this...just as you can not prove Mary was sinless. Theory only.
My question on why Catholics do not speak of this....is the born again experience. And that my friend is proved by scripture. If you want I will return with them. The new birth is what Jesus said that all who received Him receives the abilty to become...... Sons of God. And that is what Peter saw when Jesus said to him, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you.
It is the rock of faith....in Jesus Christ which once received brings deliverance from sin....and nothing can come and take one off that rock. Born of God....children not slaves...a new kingdom with heavenly rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 8:55:02 GMT -5
Isn't a clone produced from a cloned DNA? Not RNA? Isn't the RNA a byproduct of the DNA? You can't produce a biological duplicate from the RNA, only the DNA, right? I proved Mary was sinless with Scripture. We don't have to. We know it. It's part of the faith, but not a basis of The Faith. With universal Chrisitanity, we don't focus a few religious traits, but speak about all of them. One is born again during Baptism. We don't have to wait until we are adults to be born again. We are born again since birth as most Catholics are Cradle Catholics (baptized literally months after being born). Upon baptism, that's when one is born again. I can't believe you haven't spoken to a Catholic about baptism. Well, I guess that's one of the limits of dwelling among a closed minded group of believers. Welcome to a forum where you "will" talk to Catholics about being born again.  How did you get that "men being baptized brings them into the fold of God" when God revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah when it wasn't mentioned at all in that whole passage? What God revealed to Peter was that Jesus was The Meassiah...that it was "Jesus" Who is the Son of God. youtube.com/watch?v=nVDotEw9vZEOk, now slow down cowgirl!  You just made a Gumbo of different unrelated beliefs there. Now, in Matthew 16:18, Jesus called Simon the "Rock". Jesus never mentioned Peter's faith because it wasn't Peter that revealed that Jesus was the Messiah, but God Who revealed it. That proclamation wasn't Peter's own faith, but it was God's revelation made directly to Peter (that is, according to what Jesus said, that it was God who revealed that to Peter...remember, Jesus said no man revealed this to him...Peter himself is a man so he couldn't have come up with that himself, therefore, it wasn't Peter's faith, but God's revelation "to" Peter that Jesus was addressing showing who God had chose for Jesus to found His Church upon; which by the way Peter did go on to be the first leader of The Christian Church). Remember, it was God Who told Peter this...Peter didn't come up with this belief on his own...that's why Jesus called Simon "Rock" In Aramaic it's Cephas (pronounced "Ke-Fah"). In Greek, Petros (aka Piedra in Spanish, Peter in it's English translation as a name, not an object). When Jesus said "you are a rock" He literally said "you are Cephas". Jesus never said that it was the words that came out of Peter's mouth that He would give the Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven to. I doubt Jesus would place a group of words the authority to run His Church. Words are just sounds floating in the air. Plus, Satan believes that Jesus is The Messiah...is he "saved"? Or what about The Demons that have that rock-like faith that Jesus is The Messiah, are they saved? Faith alone does not save...even Jesus preached this. Jesus said that it's not what you say you believe that brings you into a relationship with Him, but what you actually "do". Besides, Romans 2 teaches us that even non-believers (those who do "not" have The Law) can be justified to God (receive salvation) if they live The Word of God that is written in their hearts, right? Sounds like another thread, don't you think? Why don't you go ahead and start it since you brought it up. |
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 4, 2008 10:32:46 GMT -5
Yeehaw! This cowgirl will be back....lol
God can take any cell and make it what He wants. It's the cloning process that I was theorizing, might of been the way He did it. And it would be RNA, not DNA. Just a theory...unproved....much like your theory on Mary.
You did not prove anything with scripture.
But, will be back later this evening with scriptures concerning the new birth. And baptism....and the Rock Jesus.
oh and that line I copied and pasted from page 2 was not rewritten. Is what you posted.
Still don't know how to make a quote here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 11:37:26 GMT -5
Ride on! ;D
So God would do things according to man's limits and understandings? This from the same God who formed everything out of nothing?
That just makes no sense whatsoever. You're trying to bend God to your limits of understanding instead of just accepting that the same God who made men out of dirt would have to meet your requirements.
Fact is, when God made man out of dirt, did He clone him from soil? No. So, when He made woman out of man, did he clone the woman? Absolutely no. She is a female. A clone is an exact replica or genetic duplicate.
Just as God used dirt to make man, he used man to make woman. Each, being different from the other in totality.
I did. Gabriel called Mary full of Grace. It is impossible to be in God's grace while being a sinner and since Jesus hadn't made the sacrifice to wipe away anybody's in, Mary had to be sinless in order for Gabriel to praise her as "full of grace" (or being in God's favor...no sinner can be in God's favor before the sacrifice of Christ could wipe away their sin...unless they had no sin to begin with).
If you look at the two top bars, the quote tab is the one that is two tabs from the right hand side on the lower set with the paper and blue arrow pointing to the right.
Highlight your words desired and click on that tab and Walla!
|
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 5, 2008 15:59:24 GMT -5
Ok my whole point in bringing this up is to show how we can make strange doctrines out of theory....and is why we need to stick to scripture. God breathed word....
With this in mind is scripture:
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
There was a conception in her womb.
G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.
Was according to what we would call a natural birth, being that there was a mother, and a father. How Holy Spirit did this in immaterial or He would of explained it to us. So we take this on faith.
So who or what kind of human was Mary?
It is not in the scriptures that she was full of grace. The account with Gabriel is in Luke.
Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
I looked in every bible even the one with the apopcrypha. Not there...so I went to the greek.
Luk 1:28 και2532 CONJ εισελθων1525 V-2AAP-NSM προς4314 PREP αυτην846 P-ASF ειπεν3004 V-2AAI-3S χαιρε5463 V-PAM-2S κεχαριτωμενη5487 V-RPP-NSF ο3588 T-NSM κυριος2962 N-NSM μετα3326 PREP σου4771 P-2GS
G5487
χαριτόω
charitoō
khar-ee-to'-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.
Who is full of grace?
Joh 1:14 And2532 the3588 Word3056 was made1096 flesh,4561 and2532 dwelt4637 among1722 us,2254 (and2532 we beheld2300 his846 glory,1391 the glory1391 as5613 of the only begotten3439 of3844 the Father,)3962 full4134 of grace5485 and2532 truth.225
G5485
χάρις
charis
khar'-ece
From G5463; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): - acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).
Action of Holy Spirit upon the heart. That comes with the new birth.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
so easy even one severely retarded can understand, believe and receive. The key though is are we willing to put away all our thoughts about this and just believe and receive?
What babe can do this? What newborn babe can make a decision to believe and receive?
A child which would die before baptism is already covered by blood shed. A one time event never needed to be repeated.
Water comes after this new birth.
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Apr 5, 2008 16:04:21 GMT -5
Jesus said "suffer the children to come unto me" I believe that His word still stands
much love-----------knuckle
|
|
