If Mary was the mother of God...

[Rumpelstiltskin]

No, he didn’t. At least not on this point.

Jesus is truly the seed of Mary, and not merely of the Holy Spirit. It’s plain as day, all spelled out in that Genesis passage if no other.

What is plain, is you are going against the teachings of the Bible. Because the Bible clearly said, the conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. Did the Bible say, the seed of Mary?..please show me the verse. Let’s not put words into the Bible when its not written. Its not something that a worker of light would do.

Matthew 1:20 "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Again, what purpose the pregnancy, labour and birth if Jesus was not truly Mary’s seed? Why not just zap the fully-formed babe into her arms - she was certainly ready to love and rear Him no matter the method of His arrival!

You asking me or asking God? Please do not go against biblical scripture and then put in a counter assumption to prompt an answer. For example, if you tell me you are a woman, but I doubt that you are can I ask you “if you are a woman why do you spend so much time on the PC and not doing your housework?” - That would be a ridiculous question because if I don’t believe you, then that’s that. I don’t believe, I don’t go on and make an assumption and challenge your position based on my limited knowledge of you.

.

 

[sixofseven]

What is plain, is you are going against the teachings of the Bible. Because the Bible clearly said, the conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. Did the Bible say, the seed of Mary?..please show me the verse. Let’s not put words into the Bible when its not written. Its not something that a worker of light would do.

Matthew 1:20 "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[LilyM]

What is plain, is you are going against the teachings of the Bible. Because the Bible clearly said, the conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible said, the seed of Mary?..please show me the verse.

Pleasure. Genesis 3:15 - almost universally recognised by Christians of all stripes as a prediction of Christ’s victory over Satan.

‘I will put enmity between you and the Woman, and between your seed AND HER SEED. He [Jesus] shall crush your head ‘he’ must refer to Jesus since no other born of woman has crushed Satan’s head or can crush Satan’s head] and you will bruise His heel’.

Seed of woman victorious over Satan = Jesus. Woman therefore = Mary. Jesus was Mary’s seed. In every sense of the word her son. AS WELL AS being conceived by the Holy Ghost who came upon her and overshadowed her.

Matthew 1:20 "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

And where does it say ‘from the Holy Spirit ALONE’??? A child generally has TWO parents, not just one. So it’s entirely possible, and indeed plausible, for Him to be both conceived of the Holy Ghost AND seed of Mary. Just as He is both God and Man.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Where’s Mary ?. And how do you know this seed refers to Jesus? You mean Satan bruised the heel of Jesus??? When???

 

[PeaceSerenity]

But Christ also proceeded forth accordingly to the likeness of Eve: thus Eve came forth from a father without a mother (“from the rib”), so Christ came forth from a mother without a father (she “knew not a husband”). Just as the first Adam brought forth from Eve without the participation of a woman, so Mary brought forth Christ without the participation of a man. Eve appeared only by the “seed” of a man, and Christ appeared only by the “seed” of a woman. The means whereby Eve and Christ came into being are identical: both received human nature by the power of God from one sex. At first the woman (Eve) did so from a man, and thereafter the man (Christ) did so from a woman. Thus Christ received the nature of the first Adam, the nature of all mankind, or the whole Adam from Mary, who gave Him this nature of Adam. For this reason as Adam said of Eve so can we say of Mary, and through her even of Christ: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Through the Virgin Mary our nature exists in Christ, the Second Adam (Genesis 2:21, 23; Luke 1:34).

• Protopresbyter Michael Polsky

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Pleasure. Genesis 3:15 - almost universally recognised by Christians of all stripes as a prediction of Christ’s victory over Satan.

‘I will put enmity between you and the Woman, and between your seed AND HER SEED. He [Jesus] shall crush your head ‘he’ must refer to Jesus since no other born of woman has crushed Satan’s head or can crush Satan’s head] and you will bruise His heel’.

Seed of woman victorious over Satan = Jesus. Woman therefore = Mary. Jesus was Mary’s seed. In every sense of the word her son. AS WELL AS being conceived by the Holy Ghost who came upon her and overshadowed her.

And where does it say ‘from the Holy Spirit ALONE’??? A child generally has TWO parents, not just one. So it’s entirely possible, and indeed plausible, for Him to be both conceived of the Holy Ghost AND seed of Mary. Just as He is both God and Man.

3 faults there.

1 - The verse in Genesis never mentioned Mary, never mentioned Jesus.
2 - Jesus never had His heel injured by Satan. (according to that verse)
3 - The Bible says Holy Spirit. Full-stop. Adding on = curse.

If we follow your mode of interpretation, then a huge floodgate would be opened because…you are putting in personalities where it is not mentioned, by-passing the passage where it says a certain activity happened (when it did not), and then adding on what is not written regarding additional contribution by ‘others’.

That is not obedience. That is making claims on behalf of God.

 

[LilyM]

Where’s Mary ?. And how do you know this seed refers to Jesus? You mean Satan bruised the heel of Jesus??? When???

Think about it for just half a second. What other human - seed of woman - could possibly crush Satan’s head (in other words DESTROY him) apart from Jesus?

And WHAT other woman could possibly be meant? Eve? But how is Jesus Eve’s seed if not by virtue of being Mary’s seed? If He isn’t Mary’s seed then He’s also not ANY woman’s seed, including Eve’s, because He’s not human at all.

Bruising the heel of Jesus? Let’s see, Jesus’ own disciples betraying and abandoning Him would be a pretty bad bruise for starters. What about the emotional anguish He suffered in the Garden, or on the cross, that caused Him to cry out ‘My God, my God, why have you ABANDONED me?’ Yup, that’s a pretty significant ‘bruise’ right there.

For that matter, what about the literal physical wounds and bruises He suffered in the scourging, the crowning with thorns, the crucifixion (including the torment of a nail LITERALLY driven into His feet? )

And I beg to differ - it’s YOU who have added to scripture, literally, by adding the word ‘alone’ onto the end of that sentence ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’. No such word ‘alone’ was written into scripture.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Think about it for just half a second. What other human - seed of woman - could possibly crush Satan’s head (in other words DESTROY him) apart from Jesus?

And WHAT other woman could possibly be meant? Eve? But how is Jesus Eve’s seed if not by virtue of being Mary’s seed? If He isn’t Mary’s seed then He’s also not ANY woman’s seed, including Eve’s, because He’s not human at all.

Bruising the heel of Jesus? Let’s see, Jesus’ own disciples betraying and abandoning Him would be a pretty bad bruise for starters. What about the emotional anguish He suffered in the Garden, or on the cross, that caused Him to cry out ‘My God, my God, why have you ABANDONED me?’ Yup, that’s a pretty significant ‘bruise’ right there.

For that matter, what about the literal physical wounds and bruises He suffered in the scourging, the crowning with thorns, the crucifixion (including the torment of a nail LITERALLY driven into His feet? )

And I beg to differ - it’s YOU who have added to scripture, literally, by adding the word ‘alone’ onto the end of that sentence ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’. No such word ‘alone’ was written into scripture.

Lily, where something is not explicitly written, and a person assumes a position on its behalf. Then the onus is on the person to SHOW validity of that assumption.

Otherwise you are doing the same thing that muslims are doing by saying that muhammad must be the last prophet because he is like Moses. (sure, in what way???..I beg to differ).

You are trying to prove your point by showing possible exclusions, not the point per se. Like I said, I can say you are not a woman because you spend so much time on the PC. But am I proving anything? Nothing.

You must prove your assumption to be valid. Because its not written, no christian is obliged to believe.

.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

You must prove your assumption to be valid. Because its not written, no christian is obliged to believe.

.

From Luke 1:

29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

It says “you will conceive”, not “a baby will appear in your womb”. Mary is a part of the conception process, Jesus was not implanted, but rather conceived in/by Mary through the Holy Spirit.

 

[LilyM]

Lily, where something is not explicitly written, and a person assumes a position on its behalf. Then the onus is on the person to SHOW validity of that assumption.

You are trying to prove your point by showing possible exclusions, not the point per se. Like I said, I can say you are not a woman because you spend so much time on the PC. But am I proving anything? Nothing.

My dear Rumpel.

As Sherlock Holmes, that master of logic and reasoning, said, ‘when the impossible (in this case EVERY other interpretation than mine) has been eliminated, then what remains (my hypothesis), however improbable, must be the truth.’

What I’ve done is just that - eliminated all the impossibilities. The impossibilities in this case being all other interpretations of that passage.

I’ve been like a doctor testing someone who is ill, not just for every illness that we know of, but for every illness that actually EXISTS. And eliminating every illness in existence except one. It’s perfectly reasonable in the circumstances to conclude that that one illness MUST be the one the patient suffers from, since all alternatives have been eliminated.

The onus on a fellow doctor would be to establish that there IS some illness which exists but hasn’t been tested for. That’s not true in my case - I’ve considered the ENTIRE category of ‘seed of woman’, without exception, and none of them could possibly fit that passage except Jesus, and the entire category of ‘woman’ without exception, and no woman could possibly fit that passage except Mary.

So, my dear Rumpel, it’s for YOU to propose alternatives that are within the realm of possibility. To find some other human who could be the ‘seed’ and some other woman who could be the ‘Woman’.

Your analogy is absurd, by the way. Have you done as I have done - eliminated ALL other possibilities? For example the possiblity that I might be a housebound female? Or the possiblity that I might be a female who actually works with computers and therefore is surrounded by them and can spend a lot of time on them?

Have you demonstrated that it’s IMPOSSIBLE - literally impossible - for any woman, without exception, to spend as much time on the PC as I do? Like I’ve demonstrated the only POSSIBLE interpretation of that Genesis passage refers to Jesus and Mary?

 

[campeador]

Sources of Dogma 2, Catechetics Online:

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 431

Ecumenical III (against the Nestorians)

The Incarnation

[From the epistle II of St. Cyril of Alexandria to
Nestorius, read and approved in action I]

111a For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and made flesh, nor yet that it was changed into the whole man (composed) of soul and body but rather (we say) that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man, not according to the will alone or by the assumption of a person alone, and that the different natures were brought together in a real union, but that out of both in one Christ and Son, not because the distinction of natures was destroyed by the union, but rather because the divine nature and the human nature formed one Lord and Christ and Son for us, through a marvelous and mystical concurrence in unity…For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holy Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; but being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone flesh birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh.** Thus [the Holy Fathers] did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Mother of God.**

emphasis added

 

[moondweller]

[John 18:36

In that verse He is saying that His Kingdom is not of this world system (Gk: kosmos). This world system of spiritual darkness which crucified Him. He’s not saying that His kingdom is in another world.

Would you please clarify? Is Jesus King of Heaven or no?

[/QUOTE]

 

[moondweller]

Sources of Dogma 2, Catechetics Online:

emphasis added

Yes, but keep it IN CONTEXT.

 

[campeador]

Yes, but keep it IN CONTEXT.

The context is the early Church Fathers “did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Mother of God.”

Why? Because she was the Mother of God…

 

[sixofseven]

Rumpelstiltskin, regarding ‘the woman’ in Genesis being Mary and her seed being Christ

St Justin Martyr ( 120-165 AD) was the first Church Father to draw an explicit comparison between Eve and Mary: "For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should…overshadow her, and therfore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, and answered, “Be it done to me according to Thy word.” "

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (135-202) from his work ‘Against Heresies’: "for this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impending the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: "Thou shalt tread upon th easp and the basilisk; thou shalt trample down the lion and the dragon.(Psalm 91:13) Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter 23 # 7.

The catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that Genesis 3:15 is called the Protoevangelium, first gospel, the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of her seed.

The enmity between the woman (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) is the same emnity between her seed (Christ) and the serpent’s seed (Sin).

Do you have any other suggestions for this passage?

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

From Luke 1:

29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

It says “you will conceive”, not “a baby will appear in your womb”. Mary is a part of the conception process, Jesus was not implanted, but rather conceived in/by Mary through the Holy Spirit.

The bible is right. Conceived IN Mary’s womb. Luke 1:31
The bible is right. Conceived BY Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20.

If something is put IN your hand BY another, does that thing originate from you or that person?

.

 

[campeador]

In that verse He is saying that His Kingdom is not of this world system (Gk: kosmos). This world system of spiritual darkness which crucified Him. He’s not saying that His kingdom is in another world.

You’re trying a strawman. The Greek word kosmos refers to ‘this world’ as as opposed to the afterlife (Heaven), not some ‘other’ world. In other words, a literal translation of the text is appropriate. Jesus is implying His Kingdom is in Heaven, thus making him King of Heaven. No other rational conclusion can be drawn.

The Man Christ Jesus is not now reigning as King in heaven.

The Man Christ Jesus? :whacky: Are you implying that the God Christ Jesus is? Why make a distinction at all? Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Rumpelstiltskin, regarding ‘the woman’ in Genesis being Mary and her seed being Christ

St Justin Martyr ( 120-165 AD) was the first Church Father to draw an explicit comparison between Eve and Mary: "For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should…overshadow her, and therfore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, and answered, “Be it done to me according to Thy word.” "

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (135-202) from his work ‘Against Heresies’: "for this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impending the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: "Thou shalt tread upon th easp and the basilisk; thou shalt trample down the lion and the dragon.(Psalm 91:13) Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter 23 # 7.

The catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that Genesis 3:15 is called the Protoevangelium, first gospel, the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of her seed.

The enmity between the woman (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) is the same emnity between her seed (Christ) and the serpent’s seed (Sin).

Do you have any other suggestions for this passage?

I’m not suggesting anything. But I have a habit of reading the Bible and taking it at face value unless otherwise purposefully described.

Your contention is in Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush ** your head, and you will strike his heel."

Read the entire passage and you will see that everything described there-in is happening TODAY. Man has to toil for food, woman has to suffer birth pangs, serpents are wiggling on ground, wife listens to husband etc etc. NONE of it is prophetic. Serpents bite people’s heels and men crushes them. Who is the woman? The mother of these men.

We don’t have to read between the lines for this.
.**

 

[sixofseven]

The bible is right. Conceived IN Mary’s womb. Luke 1:31
The bible is right. Conceived BY Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20.

If something is put IN your hand BY another, does that thing originate from you or that person?

.

Sorry to get a little graphic here, but I am currently pregnant. This child was conceived in me by the COOPERATION of myself and my husband. Are you saying that my child does not originate from me because it was put IN my womb BY my husband?

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Sorry to get a little graphic here, but I am currently pregnant. This child was conceived in me by the COOPERATION of myself and my husband. Are you saying that my child does not originate from me because it was put IN my womb BY my husband?

Are you bearing Jesus Christ?

Your child will be a child of sin just like we are all in sin. Your child is a child of a human. Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of GOD. There’s a vast difference there. Firstly because there is no co-operation between God and Mary the way that you had with your husband. Saying there is, is desecrating the name of God.

Don’t compare apples to peas.

.