In Christ and the Blessed Virgin

I am saying that Christ was ALREADY on His heavenly throne when speaking to David and making that promise about a FUTURE event regarding DAVID's throne.

I am saying that a STEP toward that promise was the requirement that the Messiah be raised from the dead so that such a FUTURE event could take place - and this is what Peter argues.

I am saying that the NEW event - is not Christ seated on the SAME Heavenly throne as He was in the case of speaking to David - but is the Rev 22 event where Christ is seated on the EARTHLY throne that DAVID was seated on - hence "DAVID's throne".

This has been blatantly obvious so far - correct?

You may not agree with it - but the point has been repeated several times.

Combination - of being resurrected AND of David's throne being established on earth once AGAIN and of Christ being seated on it.

Well then, you will have to make a case for that position.

Resurrection is never said to be "David's throne" you will have to try another approach.

It is merely a STEP toward that goal. - Obviously.

Then you are arguing that Davids "Throne" is "Resurrection" - an impossible point to make.

So far - you have not "shown" that.

In Christ,

Bob

Nowhere does Peter say what you are asserting.

 

I know I am backtracking a little here, but I have a question.

HOW can Mary be the Wife of Yahweh, if 'God the Son' is her SON?

HOW can Mary be the Wife of Yahweh, if 'God the Holy Spirit' is the one who concieved in her?

HOW can she be both MOTHER and WIFE at the same time to the same 'God a Trinity'?

I am even trying to figure this out using your 'trinity' and it just doesn't make sense!

Oh yeah, and one more thing. Biblical marriage was consecrated by SEX.

I'm pretty sure that Mary and the Holy Spirit didn't have SEX.

If they did, Yeshua wasn't the Messiah.

Thanks,
Kelly

 

Hi Kelly,

You asked, "HOW can Mary be the Wife of Yahweh, if 'God the Son' is her SON?"

Mary is only considered the bride of the Holy Spirit in an analogous sense, not ontologically. It is metaphorical, not metaphysical to speak of the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit as spousal.

In the Patristic Tradition, Mary is referred to as the daughter and spouse of the Father. She is the mother and spouse of the Son. She is the temple and spouse of the Spirit. Mary is called the spouse of all three persons equally in the Patristic tradition. The reason for this is due to Mary's awesome union with the Godhead due to her immaculate conception. Marriage is the highest friendship, and because our sanctification entails divine friendship, she who is "all-holy" (Gk. Panagia) shares such an intimate friendship with God that, in a metaphorical sense, she is considered His Bride.

For the same reason, the Church is considered God's Bride (Israel in the OT & the New Israel in the NT) in the New Testament, culminating in the marriage supper of the Lamb in the Apocalypsis. What Mary is as exemplar, we are as well - that is - God's Spouse.

 

Boy we knew that was coming, didn't we Kelly..!!

Now let's see if I have this straight......

Mary is an analogous bride; in the metaphorical sense, not to be confused with
metaphysical senses concerning the spousal arrangement. Ontological senses
would distract from one's analogous/metaphorical senses. Patristically speaking,
Mary is the daughter and spouse of One Son/ not the Father/ or was that the
other way around. Yes, temple and spouse of the spirit...What Spirit ? Awesome
unions make for higher friendships/she is all holy because I'm sanctified by friendship.
Panagai is somebody's bride (metaphorically). What Mary is/we are in
the exemplar. Sounds like she's her own Grandma !

I think my senile senses just got seared (metaphysically). Whatever that is.
Sounds ontological doesn't it ?

Has some Martian been dropping leaflets, Carson ?

 

Mars to Earth. Come in Singer.

Hey, here's my Martian view of it, not to be confused with actual and official "de fide" teaching of the Church.

Kelly --

You miss the point entirely by getting all wrapped up in the sexual aspect of marriage. There is much, much more to a marriage than the sexual union.

On this earth, the physical realities we see are indicators of deeper and unseen spiritual truths. For instance, in a marital relationship, it is UNION IN LOVE which is celebrated. Marriage is the joining of two people together in a new relationship, in which they become "one flesh". Now obviously they do not physically become a single body with two heads on top of it, but this wording must relate to the union of two into one, that is, the joining together of mind, spirit, will, and love. People who do not share mutual interests and care for one another generally do not get married. (If they do, it is a living hell on earth, believe me!) Marriage presupposes union. Sexual union is merely the outward and physical manifestation of a union which exists spiritually. This is why, when fights and dissention take place, separate beds are taken until there is repentance and reconcilliation. There can also be deep and profound union in love without any physical expression at all due to age or other factors. Physical sex is just the great outward and seen manifestation of unseen inner reality.

When God created man, He placed a part of Himself into man, called the "image of God." It was His desire to have union with His physical creation, and mankind was that vehicle by which the physical creation joined union with the spiritual world. Through Adam, God would unite Himself to the physical world and intimately bless and love it. He would do this not just by pronouncing blessing upon it, which He had already done when He proclaimed it "good" but by having virtual union in love with it. Adam was the apex point of this union.

In turn, Adam and Eve's sexuality was a picture of the relationship between the three members of the Blessed Trinity, for the Father begat and loved the Word from eternity past, and that love brought forth the procession of the "life giving" Holy Spirit. Life is always the result of love. Love creates, it produces, it nurtures, it makes life. Likewise, as the union of wills between the Father and the Son brought forth this life we call "earth" and "creation", nutured by the Holy Spirit, so the union in love of Adam and Eve brought forth life which were called "Cain" and "Abel".

The union of the Blessed Virgin with God is again a picture of our coming eternal union with God. the Blessed Virgin is the first to experience this, and in a special way in that the spiritual and the physical meet within Her womb to bring forth an new mankind, a new creation, a renewal of the lost Garden of Paradise.

If you really want to begin to understand this, please take a look at this article:

IS THERE SEX IN HEAVEN? by PETER KREEFT

Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and one of the most thought provoking writers I know of. I am currently reading his book "EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT HEAVEN." and am finding it like a great philosophical banquet. Please do yourself a favor and read this article. I think it will help a lot in the questions you asked.

Here is a tad to whet yer appetite:

Happy reading!!

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

Hi Singer,

Mary is an analogous bride; in the metaphorical sense, not to be confused with
metaphysical sense

Correct. For instance, Jesus is the Son of God metaphysically, not metaphorically.

As for the rest of your post, if you don't have anything to say, then don't say anything at all.

 

Yelsew,

You wrote, "Either way it is sheer stupidity to make that connection."

Sheer stupidity? That's strong language, especially for someone who knows so very little about Biblical theology.

With an attitude like that, who could help but just want to explain the rich theological underpinnings of the Wedding feast of Cana to you.

A wedding where only two specific individuals are mentioned. One is the New Adam, Jesus, and the other is his mother who is referred to as "Woman". And, preceding this wedding feast, John's prologue is fashioned off of the opening sentences of the Book of Genesis.. and in the next chapter, John the Baptist describes himself as the best man to the bridegroom.. I would go on, but you're rather, well, closed, and I have better things to do with my time than speak to deaf ears and a mouth that would rather condemn than listen.

[ June 29, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Yelsew --

Did you actually read the whole artice before you made your comments? I don't think so, because the comments you make are out of sync with what Kreeft says in the article.

Just kinda shootin' from the hip, right?

Brother Ed

 

Ed,

God said...

"My Glory I will not share with another"

One is "In Christ" if they are born again, not "In Mary".(who was not a virgin, of course)

God bless,

Mike

 

Hi Mike,

You wrote, "My Glory I will not share with another"

Is God schizo?

Apparently, God shares his glory with his Church, of which Mary is certainly a part.

"And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal" (Rev 21:10-11).

 

Yelsew,

Speaking about ears . . . I am sure you have heard about those who are 'wet behind the ears.'

When I received my B.D. degree I thought I knew about nearly everything in theology, until I continued my studies. I once again had to sit at the feet of 'Gamaliel types.' [Acts 5:34] Our young brother will find that he will really begin to study after he leaves the halls of higher education, and is perhaps a pastor of a flock.

Some of the things some of the brethren are now just considering I was learning at age fourteen from theology books that I found in my Dad's attic.

 

Good point D28 guy....about not sharing Glory.


As for Mary being a part of the church ......ah..so was Hitler so it must
be okay to sign off with:

In Christ and the Dictator Hitler
Singer

 

Hi Yelsew,

Seems you are coppin' a "holier than thou" attitude here sonny boy!

That's quite a delayed response, having already responded to my post once, three hours earlier. Perhaps you didn't get all "riled up" until you re-read my initial post more than once? Or perhaps you're just trying to evoke a response from me since I failed to respond to your initial response? Which is it?

Your perception is incorrect. I'm making explicit the fact that you really aren't concerned with understanding the Catholic faith; this is far from a "holier than thou" attitude. If you remain in the grace of Christ until your death, you may very well hold more crowns in heaven than I. I'm just a sinner, like you.

If, by chance, you think that being holy entails a listening ear, and that my comment suggests that I'm docile while you're as closed as a brick, then I would suggest shooting for holiness; that is, attempting to listen and consider. You'll discover that it elicits friendlier and more productive responses from your Catholic brethren.

Do you think your seminary education

I'm not in seminary. I'm pursuing an M.A. as a layperson at a private university. If I were in seminary, I would be pursuing an ecclesial degree for the ministry, which would include the goal of eventual ordination to the ministerial priesthood - a decision I have not made yet.

pay attention to those who have lived what you are trying to learn!

You're quite demanding. You require what you yourself seem to have little propensity to give yourself.

 

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "God does not relinquish His Glory to another! But He does share his glory with whomever he choses."

Well put. I agree 100% with you. Now, consider the possibility that God chose to share his glory with Mary.