Was Mary a wife unto God?

[rusra02]

Paul never was a disciple or apostle of Jesus, he was never one among the 12 of Jesus' disciples. He always wanted that Jesus be killed and his companion persecuted. When Jesus went out of Judea, and went out of the Roman influence area, after the ordeal of crucifixion in which Jesus survived, Paul lost hope of catching him and killing him again. Paul faked a vision and self-appointed himself an apostle just to mislead the innocent sheep of Jesus and invented many new creeds which Jesus and Mary never ever believed in. It was Paul's revenge in another way.

Regards

That may be the belief of some, but there is abundant evidence in the Holy Scriptures and historical records that refutes such baseless theories, IMO.

 

[paarsurrey]

That may be the belief of some, but there is abundant evidence in the Holy Scriptures and historical records that refutes such baseless theories, IMO.

No evidence from Jesus and or Mary to support one's point of view . Right?
Paul never remained in the company of Jesus. Paul never meet Mary either. Did he? Pease
Please

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Mary a wife unto God?

No, never, no
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Mary a wife unto God?

No, never, no
Regards

If she was, in which Church/Temple their marriage was solemnized?
Regards

 

[rusra02]

No evidence from Jesus and or Mary to support one's point of view . Right?
Paul never remained in the company of Jesus. Paul never meet Mary either. Did he? Pease
Please

I don't think the Bible says whether Paul met Mary personally. Paul turned from being a persecutor of Christians to one of its staunchest disciples. Paul explains his belief in Christ at Romans 6:9-11; "We know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus."

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think the Bible says whether Paul met Mary personally. Paul turned from being a persecutor of Christians to one of its staunchest disciples. Paul explains his belief in Christ at Romans 6:9-11; "We know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus."

Paul did not meet Mary.
Yet Paul sinned by faking a vision to declare himself a disciple of Jesus which he never was. When Paul said those words, Jesus had gone out of Judea and was still alive.
Regards

 

[Muffled]

Was Mary a wife unto God?

If Mary was not a wife unto god, then Jesus was not son of god, literally and physically.
Is there a Christian who considers Mary a wife unto god? Please
Regards

I believe this is a non-sequitur.

I believe it would not be me.

I believe Jesus is not the son of an incarnation of God.

I believe Jesus is literally God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

No she was only a daughter.

I believe that is so literally but not physically.

 

[Muffled]

But yet she had his kid? Kinky.

I believe that is not as strange today with the introduction of artificial insemination.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe that is so literally but not physically.

If its literally taken them its physical.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think the Bible says whether Paul met Mary personally. Paul turned from being a persecutor of Christians to one of its staunchest disciples. Paul explains his belief in Christ at Romans 6:9-11; "We know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus."

And yet, please consider -- this is wholly new, this is unlike anything at all which Jesus Himself said, unlike anything suggested in the Gospels or Acts. It is an invention of Paul's. You cannot really trace any of the philosophical points Paul makes in Romans 6:9-11 to anything from the first 5 books of the NT.

(Full disclosure: I wrote a fairly major piece at university a lot of years ago on Romans, for a professor who was also a Catholic priest. He gave me an A+, called it "a brilliant piece of exegesis," and wrote on the paper as well: "you're going to Hell." I still have that paper -- think it's funny.)

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In Catholic theology, the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary. The idea is that Mary was born without original sin in order to be fit to carry Christ.

Which rather begs the question "Why couldn't we be born without Original Sin to save all of this need for a Saviour malarkey?", does it not?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Can confirm! My parents are not married! And I can testify that they have produced at least one child.

Can anyone corroborate this testimony?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Every child born is equally innocent and sinless.
All children born under wedlock have "immaculate conception". Please
Regards

That doesn't make any sense...

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Every child born is equally innocent and sinless.
All children born under wedlock have "immaculate conception". Please
Regards

That doesn't make any sense...

It is :
perfectly clean, neat, or tidy.
"an immaculate white suit"
synonyms: clean, spotless, pristine, unsoiled, unstained, unsullied
immaculate - Google Search
It means innocent in other words. Right? Please

 

[rusra02]

And yet, please consider -- this is wholly new, this is unlike anything at all which Jesus Himself said, unlike anything suggested in the Gospels or Acts. It is an invention of Paul's. You cannot really trace any of the philosophical points Paul makes in Romans 6:9-11 to anything from the first 5 books of the NT.

(Full disclosure: I wrote a fairly major piece at university a lot of years ago on Romans, for a professor who was also a Catholic priest. He gave me an A+, called it "a brilliant piece of exegesis," and wrote on the paper as well: "you're going to Hell." I still have that paper -- think it's funny.)

I find it strange you would say what Paul wrote (under inspiration, I believe), has no basis in the gospels. There, Jesus is described as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus resurrection and ascension to heaven are clearly explained in the Gospels. Everlasting life is explained by Jesus also, as the gospels clearly shows. I find your argument unconvincing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I find it strange you would say what Paul wrote (under inspiration, I believe), has no basis in the gospels. There, Jesus is described as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus resurrection and ascension to heaven are clearly explained in the Gospels. Everlasting life is explained by Jesus also, as the gospels clearly shows. I find your argument unconvincing.

Well, I think you might consider what Paul actually wrote about Jesus. Yes, he talks about Jesus' importance, and the importance of his death and resurrection. But what else? What does Paul mention that the Gospels were so concerned with? What would we know about Jesus if Paul's were the only texts to survive? Next to nothing!

Paul says nothing about Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nor his baptism, temptation in the wilderness, teaching about the coming Kingdom of God. Paul never mentions that Jesus ever told a parable, healed anybody, cast out a demon, or raised the dead. Paul seems to have been unaware of the Transfiguration, triumphal entry into Jerusalem, cleansing of the Temple, interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, rejection in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc. Wow!

My own feeling is that Paul, as very much a Hellenistic Jew, was channeling a great deal of the prevailing "mystery religions" of the time, and settled on a character who he never met, never heard speak, never read a word written about him, and whose followers he was for a time persecuting. And in so doing, basically founded a new religion.

As to writing "under inspiration," I can find you texts of so many, many writers who claimed to be inspired by God -- and whose writings you would reject in a heartbeat. How do you come to believe Paul's "inspiration" and not Muhammed's? Your own religious predisposition, of course. But how would you and the Muslim go about convincing a visitor from another world which "inspiration" was actually "from God.?" How would either of you convince me?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, I think you might consider what Paul actually wrote about Jesus. Yes, he talks about Jesus' importance, and the importance of his death and resurrection. But what else? What does Paul mention that the Gospels were so concerned with? What would we know about Jesus if Paul's were the only texts to survive? Next to nothing!

Paul says nothing about Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nor his baptism, temptation in the wilderness, teaching about the coming Kingdom of God. Paul never mentions that Jesus ever told a parable, healed anybody, cast out a demon, or raised the dead. Paul seems to have been unaware of the Transfiguration, triumphal entry into Jerusalem, cleansing of the Temple, interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, rejection in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc. Wow!

My own feeling is that Paul, as very much a Hellenistic Jew, was channeling a great deal of the prevailing "mystery religions" of the time, and settled on a character who he never met, never heard speak, never read a word written about him, and whose followers he was for a time persecuting. And in so doing, basically founded a new religion.

As to writing "under inspiration," I can find you texts of so many, many writers who claimed to be inspired by God -- and whose writings you would reject in a heartbeat. How do you come to believe Paul's "inspiration" and not Muhammed's? Your own religious predisposition, of course. But how would you and the Muslim go about convincing a visitor from another world which "inspiration" was actually "from God.?" How would either of you convince me?

"My own feeling is that Paul, as very much a Hellenistic Jew, was channeling a great deal of the prevailing "mystery religions" of the time, and settled on a character who he never met, never heard speak, never read a word written about him, and whose followers he was for a time persecuting. And in so doing, basically founded a new religion."

Didn't Paul doctor the Gospels? He put things in which Jesus and Mary never believed in and never taught by them. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Muffled]

If its literally taken them its physical.

I believe that depends on what you mean by physical. Is Mary a physical person, Yes. Is Mary a genetic descendant of God, No.

 

[Milton Platt]

We are all the wife of God at the great wedding ceremony in the sky when the church of God, established since the foundation of the world, is joined at the day His people are joined with God.

Rev. 19:7 The Marriage of the Lamb
And I heard a sound like the roar of a great multitude, like the rushing of many waters, and like a mighty rumbling of thunder, crying out: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God, the Almighty, reigns. Let us rejoice and celebrate and give Him the glory. For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. She was given clothing of fine linen, linen bright and pure.” For the fine linen she wears is the righteous acts of the saints.…

Surely, that is figurative, not literal. Otherwise god becomes a polygamist.
And it does not attempt to answer the question the OP asked. Was Mary the wife of god? If so, then she committed adultery with Joseph. If not, then Jesus would be a ******* child. Don't mean to sound harsh, but that would be the correct word in any other instance.