Some Questions About Mary

[WaterSong]

I've asked these questions before on various forums and have received various answers (that I can't really remember) but I really want to know what you guys think.



1. What if Mary had said that she didn't want to give birth to Jesus?

God is Omniscient. Therefore, he knew Mary would not refuse.

2. Why was she a virgin and did she have to be for the prophecy to come true? (The Bible states that she had other children though.)

She did have other children the old fashioned way and with her husband Joseph. However, when God begat himself upon her she was a virgin, as all unmarried women were to be in those times. And she was also forgiven her sins prior to that. The scripture says Mary was highly favored by God. She was therefore the receiver of divine favor, or grace.
It was God's grace that was the beginning of the new covenant with humanity, and our salvation from sin. As such the first sinner put in God's grace was she who would be the mother of Jesus. How else would he be born? A savior born of a sinner? Doesn't work.

 

[n2thelight]

Why are you afraid to respond to my post #122??

There is NO need to start a new thread as I dealt DIRECTLY with the OP, which asked the following question:
"2. Why was she a virgin and did she have to be for the prophecy to come true? (The Bible states that she had other children though.)"

So, if you can't respond - just say so and we'll move on from there . . .

Afraid?!,never that , !! See post 130 ,and we can go from there..

 

[farouk]

I don't believe people can be born again in baptism. I didn't say that. I believe that only after you are born again - ie received Jesus as your Saviour - do you need to be baptised. I don't count what they call infant baptism.

"You say that there are Catholics in your family who are not born again
But if they are Catholics they are baptised believers."

Yes, my husbands brothers married Catholic girls but although they and their three daughters were all baptised as babies and went to church they do not have the same relationship with Jesus that we do and are definitely not filled with the Holy Spirit.

It's all religion instead of relationship. We could never talk to them about Jesus, they just got embarrassed. Just like my sister does who was brought up CofE like me. I was 'baptised' as a young baby, went to church, got confirmed etc but even though I would have said I was a Christian and knew about Jesus I didn't come to really know Jesus until I was 35 and His Holy Spirit revealed the truth to me and I was born again of the Spirit and became a true Christian. Then I got baptised for real. As far as I'm concerned this is the only way to be born again whatever religion or faith you might belong to.

I'm sorry you thought me post was nasty, but it wasn't meant to be. Sometimes people's posts just come across that way because of the restrictions of online debate.

@Pearl The new birth (John chapter 3) has indeed nothing to do with water baptism, which is instead a symbol for the believer, Acts 2.41.

 

[n2thelight]

Jesus told you in John 3:3-5
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
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?

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. (KJV)
A poor translation - better is born from above or born anew

Born of water and of the Spirit - baptism in water; what Paul calls in Tin 3:5 "the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit," (NAB).

Paul gives us the same theme of death and new life (born again/ born anew) in Col 2:12-13
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And even when you were dead [in] transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions
And in Rom 6:4
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.

That is why Jesus told the apostles in Mt 28:19 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit," and said in Mk 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"

Actually you have it wrong except the born from above part, that you have right, but the wrong meaning.
Simply means to be born of woman

 

[n2thelight]

Devin Wintch said: ↑
OK I see your point. So then this leads me to the question of this: Why does God require Mary to remain a virgin? Why not bless her and her husband with children after Jesus is born? What in your belief says God does not want to bless them in that way?
Click to expand...



Exactly!

See this the kind of question I was trying to respond to ,the question of weather she remained a virgin should be another topic..

I think IMO ,He did it to show His power and also Christ could not have an earthly father.
Do a study on the hell Christ had to go through before He was even born. He had to come through a perfect bloodline ,that's why satan attempted to destroyed that line , since the Garden .Don't get the meaning of perfect twisted as explained from the below

Genesis 6:9 "These are THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH; Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Hoah walked with God."

The term, "and perfect in his generations," is referring only to his ancestry. Does it mean there was no sin in them? No; for we know sin came into this world through his ancestors, because the Bible clearly tells us of the sins of Adam and eve in Genesis 3, and Enos in Generation 4:26. Both Noah, and his wife came from families which are recorded in the scriptures, as not mixing with the fallen angels. Neither of them had a drop of angels blood in their veins.

The word "generations" in the Hebrew text is # 8735 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, and comes from the Hebrew prime; "Toledoth", and means family tree, or history. When we take "family history called "perfect", in the Hebrew text it is called "tamin", that family is "without blemish as to breed, or pedigree".

This verse does not speak of Noah's moral perfection, but tells us that he and his family had preserved their pedigree, and kept it pure, inspire of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels, [their children were called "Nephilim"].

To come into the daughters of THAT man Adam was the reason of Gen 6 ,in which satan tried in that Garden ,it wasn't a piece of fruit

 

[Pearl]

Jesus said "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
Jesus didn't say be saved and then get baptised.
Belief + baptism = salvation

Peter wrote: "This prefigured baptism, which saves you now" (1Pet 3:21)
That clearly states that baptism saves you.

If you believe something different then you are in denial of scripture.

Jesus said "“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." (John 3:5)
It by water [baptism] and Spirit that we are born again/ born anew/ born from above..

If you believe differently please provide some scripture to back up your opinions. I haven't seen you provide any yet.

Mungo, I was born of the Spirit at my 'conversion' when I became born-again as Jesus came to live in me giving me the New Life. And then by my own choice in obedience to God I got baptised properly.

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Infants don't decide to follow Jesus or to be baptised. You have to choose for yourself. It's absolutely wonderful when you get that new life of Jesus within you and really get to know Jesus not just know about him.

I think it make it too easy for all Catholics to think they are born again because they were baptised as infants. It has denied them the right to choose. Salvation/new birth requires us to choose Jesus. And babies can't do that. They also can't repent. I do know some Catholics who have left the Catholic church with their priest's blessing after they decided to follow Jesus and be baptised.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Afraid?!,never that , !! See post 130 ,and we can go from there..

Okay - let's have an HONEST recap:
YOU asked the following regarding the belief that Mary didn't have any children other than Jesus:

Why is it important to you that she didn't?

So, in post #122 - I gave you a comprehensive Biblical explanation showing the OT Type and NT Fulfillments regarding the Ark of the Covenant and Mary and asked you to respond to THAT.

Instead - you repeated the same, tired nonsesne about the "brethren" (Adelphoi) of Jesus that I debunked way back in post #84. I suggest you RE-read that post as well as post #122 and TRY to address them.
Otherwise - just admit that you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Devin Wintch said: ↑
OK I see your point. So then this leads me to the question of this: Why does God require Mary to remain a virgin? Why not bless her and her husband with children after Jesus is born? What in your belief says God does not want to bless them in that way?
Click to expand...
Exactly!
See this the kind of question I was trying to respond to ,the question of weather she remained a virgin should be another topic..

ALL of this was already addressed in post #122.
Yup - the SAME post that YOU keep dodging . . .

 

[farouk]

Mungo, I was born of the Spirit at my 'conversion' when I became born-again as Jesus came to live in me giving me the New Life. And then by my own choice in obedience to God I got baptised properly.

@Pearl The Scriptural way, indeed, by God's grace.

 

[Pearl]

@Pearl The Scriptural way, indeed, by God's grace.

farouk, you are a blessing.

 

[farouk]

farouk, you are a blessing.

Oh, thank-you. Good to encourage one another in the Scriptures, @Pearl .

 

[Marymog]

Gotcha ,but the meat of the OP was in the form of a question

Thank you. I agree with you that the meat of the OP was in the form of a question.

The OP also made the false statement that Mary had other Children. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that so that I why I have an issue with the OP. If that part was left out all would be good.

Mary

 

[April_Rose]

Whether Mary had her own biological children or stepchildren she definitely had other children.

 

[n2thelight]

Thank you. I agree with you that the meat of the OP was in the form of a question.

The OP also made the false statement that Mary had other Children. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that so that I why I have an issue with the OP. If that part was left out all would be good.

Mary

But Mary did have other children, however I agree it should had been left out. That's why I said it would derail the OP ,as that was a very good question

Oh! , and nowhere in scripture does it say she didn't.

 

[April_Rose]

But Mary did have other children, however I agree it should had been left out. That's why I said it would derail the OP ,as that was a very good question

Oh! , and nowhere in scripture does it say she didn't.

I don't really think that it's derailing the thread all that much.

 

[farouk]

I don't really think that it's derailing the thread all that much.

@April_Rose You're right; especially since there is a lot of error out there on the subject.

 

[historyb]

@April_Rose I want to say sorry if I bad to you on this topic. We Historic Liturgical Christians get attacked here and we are always on the defense. For us Liturgical Christians this place is like the home of Voldemort :)

 

[April_Rose]

@April_Rose I want to say sorry if I bad to you on this topic. We Historic Liturgical Christians get attacked here and we are always on the defense. For us Liturgical Christians this place is like the home of Voldemort :)

Lol you can't see Voldemort on here it might offend some people. You're fine though. :)

 

[n2thelight]

I don't really think that it's derailing the thread all that much.

Only reason I say it does is because the focus is now on if she remained a virgin, rather than why she had to be, Also if she or could have said no.

That to me was the most interesting part of the OP

 

[yeraa]

Only reason I say it does is because the focus is now on if she remained a virgin, rather than why she had to be, Also if she or could have said no.

That to me was the most interesting part of the OP

but you europeans killed that innocent christ ? didnt you ??