Mary in the Bible

CANA distinction

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Co-mediatrix

>>QU> ...mary that would top what He has done for others...

>CQ> I did not say "top" I said "what he wouldn't do for others", perhaps you recall a story of a wedding feast I believe, where Jesus, at the request of Mary provided fine wine for the guests, even though he had not started His mission yet.

Mary made no "request", but simply observed that "They have no wine." (Jn.2:3p) Jesus refused to refer to her as his mother, but instead said: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." (Jn.2:4p) The servants submitted to Jesus' commandment. Your vain claim that Jesus did something for Mary that "he wouldn't do for others", is obviously false. He did this miracle to manifest his glory, and that the disciples would believe on his name. (Jn.2:11)

And Jesus had already started his ministry nearly 6 months before, when he was baptized of John in Jordan. The "marriage" he was invited to in John chapter 2 took place "not many days" before the "passover" (John 2:12p,13p). Your assumption that his mission had not started yet is in error.

The passage in John 2:11 said: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee..."

He came again into Cana of Galilee in John 4:46, and healed the son of a certain nobleman, and of that, John said: "This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judæa into Galilee." (Jn.4:54)

IN BETWEEN those 2 miracles associated with Cana, Jesus did many other miracles: "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles [plural] which he did." (John 2:23)

Obviously then, when John referred to the miracle of chapter 4 as the "second", he meant the second in Cana, not the second of all the many miracles that Jesus did in every place.

You really ought to remember that Jesus is the Lord and that it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. The Lord can deliver you from the delusions and perversions of catholicism and give you light, if you receive the love of the truth.

The word of faith says, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Amen. --Richard

Mary's SIN

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Catholic Doctrine About Mary

>CQ> If you understand the relationship (as the Early Fathers did!) between the mother, womb, and embryo how could you deny that the sin nature of the mother would be passed on to the child?

In the case of Mary bearing Jesus, there was no seed of man present for any sin to be "passed" on. You ought to believe the truth:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom.5:12)

There was no prohibition against Eve eating of the fruit. The command was unto "the man" (Gen.2:16,17). Sin entered into the world when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil whereof the Lord had commanded him saying, Thou shalt not eat of it.

Mary's husband Joseph was not the Father of Jesus, so there was no sin or "death passed upon" Jesus. The child in the womb is separate from the mother. There was no cause of death in Jesus, before God put our sins upon him, and he received the punishment we deserved.

>CQ> God caused that Mary should be born without the sin of Adam on her soul, that she might be the perfect recepticle of the Perfect Lord.

Such devilish lies are refuted by the pure word of God. Mary was born of the seed of the man "Heli" (Luke 3:23p) and the genealogy is traced all the way back to Adam. Mary knew that she was a sinner and acknowledged the Saviour. Jesus was born without sin because her conception was not by sinful man, but by the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest. You really ought to remember that Jesus is the Lord and turn away from the devilish perversions of catholicism and receive the love of the truth and be saved for Jesus' sake.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1Tim.2:3,4)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph.2:8,9)

The word of faith says, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Amen. --Richard

>CQ> The fact remains the NO ONE in the Catholic Church has claimed divinity for Mary

Idolatrous catholic deceivers refer to Mary as the Mother of God, and as the Queen of Heaven. The word of God condemns the abominable and devilish doctrines of catholicism and their damnation is just.

>CQ> IF Mary weren't sinless then Jesus would have been born tainted with the inherited sin of Adam and we know that he wasn't.

Mary's womb was a wall of separation between her sinful blood and the pure blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus could not inherit the sin of man because he was not conceived of the seed of man.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom.5:12)

>CQ> The sin nature is passed on, my friend, and Jesus would have had it if Mary were in sin herself. Think about it.

There was no seed of man involved in her conception of Jesus for any sin or death to be "passed upon" Jesus. Remember that Jesus is the Lord: Receive the love of the truth and repent. Amen. --Richard

Mary's sinful blood

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Mary's SIN

>>RC> Mary's womb was a wall of separation between her sinful blood and the pure blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus could not inherit the sin of man because he was not conceived of the seed of man.

>CQ> The womb provides NO seperation, indeed, for a good amount of the time, the fetus uses the blood produced by the mothers body

You were darkening counsel by words without knowledge. Observe:

"It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babe's arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the foetus." (ref.#1)

"From the time of conception to the time of birth of the infant not one single drop of blood ever passes from mother to child." (ref.#1)

"The foetal and maternal blood do not come into actual contact. They are separated from each other by the walls of the foetal blood vessels and the epithelial layers of the chorionic villae." (ref.#2)

"The foetal blood in the vessels of the chorionic villae at no time gains access to the maternal blood in the intervillous spaces, being separated from one another by the double layer of chorionic epithelium." (ref.#3)

"When the circulation of the blood begins in the embryo, it remains separate and distinct from that of the mother. All food and waste material which are interchanged between the embryo and the mother must pass through the blood vessel walls from one circulation to the other." (ref.#4)

"As has been said, this interchange is effected by the process of osmosis, and there is no direct mingling of the two blood currents. In other words, no maternal blood actually flows to the foetus, nor is there any direct foetal blood flow to the mother." (ref.#4)

References:
#1 "Chemistry of the Blood", M.R.DeHaan, M.D.
#2 "Textbook of Physiology", Howell; 2nd Edition
#3 "Practice of Obstetrics", William; 3rd Edition
#4 "Nurse's Handbook of Obstetrics", Louise Zabriskie,R.N.; 5th Ed.
(See also, "Artificial Blood", p.28+, April 1991 "Discover" magazine)

The pure and holy blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was produced by the Holy Ghost. There was NO seed of MAN involved in the conception of Jesus for any sin or death to be "passed upon" Jesus. Remember that Jesus is the Lord and quit doubting the pure word of God.

Grace be to them that receive the love of the truth. Amen. --Richard

Zeal and reproach

From a message by a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subject: Whose son is he?

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal.1:19)

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark.6:3)

>>>QU> The context seems to imply that these were Mary's children.

>>RC> Those listed in the verse with Mary were obviously her children. The phrase by the Spirit of Christ, "my mother's children", is a clear enough statement on the matter, but some don't want to believe that.

>CQ> Please provide the reference that says "my mother's children".

In your search for the verse that says "my mother's children", it may be best to stop off at a few other verses on the way, so you get a better idea of the correct interpretation as made known by the Holy Ghost through comparing of the scriptures.

"Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1Pet.1:10,11)

Your attention is called to the fact that the Spirit of Christ was IN the prophets of old; they spoke not of themselves. (cf.Jn.7:17)

"And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." (Acts 8:34,35)

That scripture in Isaiah 53:7,8 is obviously speaking of Christ Jesus. Now look again at what follows the Cana episode:

"After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days." (John 2:12)

Notice that "brethren" are distinct from "disciples". And after Christ later drove out the salesmen and moneychangers:

"And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." (John 2:17)

The Spirit of Christ said: "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." (Psalm 69:8,9 Author's Version 1611 A.V.)

Remember that Jesus is the Lord and receive the love of the truth. Grace be unto thine heart in hearing God's word. Amen. --Richard

And a Curious Questioner responds further--

>>>CQ> I disagree with you here on what this psalm (and its context) are refering to.

>>RC> You disagree with the word of God. The passage in John 2:17 makes it obvious that the passage in Psalm 69 is referring to Christ.

>CQ> No it doesn't. John 2:17 is refering to both the Temple which Jesus had just nicely ransacked, and the Temple of His Body which he would soon sacrifice for our sins.

What the disciples "remembered" (Jn.2:22p) him saying after he rose from the dead, was what he said in Jn.2:19. Jn.2:17 is clearly referring to the disciples recalling what was said by the Spirit of Christ in Psalm 69 as it was written, and verse 17 obviously follows the preceeding verses concerning the physical temple at Jerusalem. He certainly didn't drive sheep and oxen out of his physical body.

Remember that Jesus is the Lord and repent of your wicked rejection of what the Spirit of Christ said by the word of the Lord. May there yet be mercy unto you for Jesus' sake. Amen. --Richard