C
campeador
Guest
It seems your argument is with the early Church Fathers who “did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Mother of God.”
- Status
R
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
To bear does not directly mean to conceive for birth. It also means to just carry.
L
LilyM
Guest
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
sigh this is my last post here since my last one was ignored, and there is clearly no headway being made here, and I will be unsubscribing upon this posting.
Firstly, re-read intro to logic.
Jesus = God
Mary = Jesus’ Mother (as stated again and again in scripture, very plainly in multiple contexts)
therefore, according to logic, (if A=B and B=C then A=C) Mary is the mother of God. Unless you want to deny the divinity of Christ, I can’t understand how you can claim this.
Lastly,
Why do you think scripture chose the word “conceived”. Conception means that time when a sperm is joined with an egg and new life is created. There was no sperm in this case, the “sperm” was the holy spirit. (not to get too biological here) God did not zap a zygote into Mary’s womb, but used one of her ovum to be the egg of this process. Jesus was genetically Mary’s child. He had to be, in order to have been of the davidic line (and abraham’s line) that the prophets fortold for millenia. It also fulfills the fact that was was fully human (he had human DNA that came from Mary). Jesus was fully man and fully God, conceived BY the holy spirit (as a woman conceives BY her husband)
To deny any one of these points is to deny the prophets that foretold him coming through the entire new testament. Go back and reread these phophesies, and you will see that trying to claim that Jesus was not fully human (that means being conceived by the ovum of mary and the holy spirit) is to give in to heresy that has existed from the foundation of the church.
Good luck, all.
S
sixofseven
Guest
My addition in red above.
You said “if something is put IN your hand BY another, does that thing originate from you or that person?” implying that it doesn’t originate from the one it is now in. That’s what I was comparing.
There is absolutley cooperation between God and Mary - albeit not in the physical way of my husband and I - it is through this cooperation that Jesus(God) became man, He took on flesh though not sinful, He took on human DNA, He felt the same things we do, was tempted by the same things we are and experienced life (hunger, tiredness, sorrow, joy, pain, suffering, celebration, sympathy, heat, cold…) as we do.
He humbled himself to take on human form so that he could redeem us to the Father. He took on that flesh through Mary.
Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Mary. Fully God and fully human.
L
LilyM
Guest
Ah, but if something is put IN my hand BY another, does that thing afterwards BELONG to me or to that other person? Or perhaps to both of us? Depends - on whether it was actually intended to be a permanent gift to me or a mere temporary loan. Or else something INTENDED to belong to both of us - as a couple would intend when they jointly purchase a house or a car.
God doesn’t take back what He gives unless the recepient proves unworthy, which certainly isn’t true of Mary. He gave her the gift of a son. One who was to be her son as well as His. Just as we all are BOTH the children of our biological parents AND children of God.
There’s no ‘either/or’ in the matter, but a case of ‘both/and’. Children have two parents, and so belong to both father and mother.
S
sixofseven
Guest
Very well put:thumbsup:Ah, but if something is put IN my hand BY another, does that thing BELONG to me or to that other person? Or perhaps to both of us? Depends - on whether it was actually intended to be a gift to me or a mere temporary loan. Or something INTENDED to belong to both of us - as a couple would intend when they jointly purchase a house or a car.
God doesn’t take back what He gives unless the recepient proves unworthy, which certainly isn’t true of Mary. He gave her the gift of a son. One who was to be her son as well as His. Just as we all are BOTH the children of our biological parents AND children of God.
R
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
Thanks. By your admission here-in, Jesus Christ did not come from Mary.Ah, but if something is put IN my hand BY another, does that thing afterwards BELONG to me or to that other person? Or perhaps to both of us? Depends - on whether it was actually intended to be a permanent gift to me or a mere temporary loan. Or else something INTENDED to belong to both of us - as a couple would intend when they jointly purchase a house or a car.
God doesn’t take back what He gives unless the recepient proves unworthy, which certainly isn’t true of Mary. He gave her the gift of a son. One who was to be her son as well as His. Just as we all are BOTH the children of our biological parents AND children of God.
Like you said correctly, put there BY someone else. Whether she now owns it or not is another matter…what is clear however by your admission is that she was not the source of it.
Problem solved.
.
S
sixofseven
Guest
:banghead:On that note
:sad_bye:
Z
Zooey
Guest
Nestorius!
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
Nestorius!
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
Nestorius!
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
[SIGN1]
Coming soom to a Thread Near You:
Nestorius: The Heretic Who Will Not Stay In His Grave
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
[/SIGN1]
L
LilyM
Guest
Think again. What part of my statementThanks. By your admission here-in, Jesus Christ did not come from Mary.
Like you said correctly, put there BY someone else. Whether she now owns it or not is another matter…what is clear however by your admission is that she was not the source of it.
Problem solved.
.
could you possibly have failed to understand? The child Jesus was absolutely son of Mary every bit as much as son of God. Not ‘given to’ her. MOTHERED by her. Truly her son. I never said nor believed otherwise, I was simply making the point that even IF your beliefs are true it STILL doesn’t mean Mary is not Jesus’ mother, or not Mother of God.
If that snippet isn’t enough, the fact that I’ve just spent a
whole page of posts talking about how He was HER seed should’ve given you a clue. Point being - if a child ‘belongs’ to a woman, which Jesus did to Mary, what relation does that make her to the child? Answer: MOTHER. Does it matter if someone else gave her the child or not (NOT that I believe God merely ‘gave’ Jesus to Mary)? Not a bit. If the child belongs to her she is its mother.
Ignorant misunderstanding is one thing, but this last post goes well beyond that. You, sir are completely insulting my intelligence and integrity by assuming my beliefs are other than what I have over and over again professed them to be.
You, sir, are calling me either a liar, or else someone who is too stupid to accurately tell you what I believe, and I can assure you I am neither.
R
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
Of course it matters !. If the child is given unto her, then she is not the source of the child, but merely a bearer.
I fully understand your refusal to admit that the child was given unto her. But what is un-deniable is the Bible says that the conception of Jesus is BY the Holy Spirit. That effectively means it was given unto her because there was no ‘partnering’ of the Spirit (which would constitute blasphemy) and therefore not a consequence of any of her action(s). It was put IN her.
You can choose to dis-believe what the Bible says so clearly. Its fully your choice.
- If a baby is conceived by someone and you did not do anything with the person, then how can you be said to have contributed ANYTHING to that birth? At best a bearer, but nothing more.
L
LilyM
Guest
And we’ve come full circle again.
It doesn’t matter in the sense that in every possible scenario Mary was inescapably His mother, and He was inescapably her child. She was His mother and He was her son. Full stop. And that applies whether the child was given unto her or not, whether she was the source of the child or not, whether Jesus was conceived purely by the Holy Spirit or not.
And it also doesn’t matter in the sense that He, Mary’s son, was inescapably God as well. The Magi and the shepherds bowed down and adored and worshipped Him because He was God. Even as a newborn babe in Mary’s arms. And if in Mary’s arms, then also in Mary’s womb, for there was no sudden magical change in Him at the moment of His birth. He was then what He had been at the moment of His conception - both God and Man. Both son of God and son of Mary.
Well then your understanding is a bit lacking. By your understanding the Trinity is then blasphemous - the Spirit is certainly ‘partnered’ with Father and Son in the Godhead. And the Incarnation is blasphemous - for the Spirit was ‘partnered’ with a human body in the person of Jesus. Seems to be an awful lot of blasphemy going on by your logic.
Sccuse me of blasphemy - certainly there was One other who was accused of blasphemy several times during His life, when He presumed to forgive the paralytic’s sins, in front of the Sanhedrin and on other occasions. Many who heard His truths disbelieved Him because they couldn’t comprehend, just as you do mine.
I don’t at all disbelieve that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Not in the least particle. I’d sooner disbelieve that I was conceived of my own biological father.
However, I was ALSO conceived of my biological mother. AND I was also conceived of God the Father (who alone gave me my soul). So there was definitely some ‘blasphemous’ partnering going on there between my parents and God at the moment of my conception!
In like manner Jesus was indeed conceived of BOTH the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary. Try to understand this - because without understanding you have only half the picture. Just like those Jews who accepted Jesus as a great teacher but accused HIM of blasphemy when He went further, because He dared to suggest their understanding of God was limited, as yours is.
By the way, a woman who gives birth to a child who she biologically has nothing to do with is nonetheless that child’s mother. You think no bond is formed between a woman and a babe to whom she gives her own life blood and who she nurtures within her womb for nine months? The child for whose sake she endures hours of agonised labour? They have a BLOOD bond - the surrogate mother’s own blood actually goes into the child’s bloodstream, via the placenta, to nourish the child while it is in her womb. That’s a serious bond regardless of what happened before the pregnancy or what happens after the birth.
And such women are called MOTHER regardless, hence the term ‘surrogate mother’ or ‘birth mother’. They aren’t ever just called ‘that womb that I was implanted in’.
R
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
That’s why Mary was absolutely correct to call herself a Servant of God. It was not merely a relative position of being a caring mother humbling herself to care for her child that prompted her to say that. Also, the child was not yet even born for her to perform that role for one to try to wrestle it to extend its meaning to that.
.
.
R
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
**May I ask ‘Of what role did Mary play in that conception’ visavis in relation to God ?
- Please defend your recommendations/assumptions with biblical scripture.**
Un-married wife? Cannot be. God never ‘partnered’ her…that would be blasphemy.
Mother? Cannot be. God existed before she did.
What was her role, or what did she contribute to that conception? Really…nothing. Just a bearer. The only reason why Elizabeth called her the ‘mother of my Lord’ was really just a relative term. Not that she was really the conceptual mother of the Lord because that would be impossible.
.
L
LilyM
Guest
I’ve told you umpteen times. Clearly you suffer from short-term memory loss or something.
If Genesis 3:15 isn’t biblical scripture, I don’t know what is. If ‘Mother of my Lord’ (which is literally synonymous with ‘Mother of my God’, since in His humanity Jesus had no form of lordship over Elizabeth whatsoever) isn’t biblical scripture, then you must be reading some completely different Bible.
Please feel free to ADEQUATELY and RATIONALLY defend your attempted alternate application of the Genesis verse. Do your best to show me why you are to be believed.
Start by telling me who these other seeds of women are that you vaguely allude to - how exactly they crush Satan’s head as you vaguely allude that they do - who exactly the women are that you vaguely allude to - the women whose seed they are.
Please, do your best to defend any possible alternate meaning of ‘Mother of my Lord’ while you’re at it - you’ve not even touched that verse thus far. Please, tell me WHAT form of human authority did Jesus have over Elizabeth such that Mary, as mother of His humanity, could be mother of Elizabeth’s Lord? In what possible sense of the word was He Elizabeth’s LORD except that He was her God - even recognised as such whilst in Mary’s womb?
What the HECK does ‘relative term’ even mean? As it stands in your post it’s pure gibberish.
T
Tietjen
Guest
It’s kind of like casting pearls before swine huh?
Matthew 7:6:
I do not truly believe that the OP and/or Moon are denying Mary’s role as Mother of God because they enjoy argument. They are simply unable to help themselves as it (at this time) is not meant for them to understand. I don’t blame a child who reaches for a hot plate of being disobedient. The child is simply unable to comprehend the truth of the matter. That’s no reflection of the child’s intelligence as he, at an early age, is not able to understand that touching the plate will cause him to become burned. The Catholic Church is the older sibling of these younger Protestant babes. We walked with God before the mere thought of them existed. We have already come to grips with all of these Truths in our Councils, Dogmas, Scriptures, etc. They are still trying to find many of these things. Perhaps, God willing, these two (and many other Protestants) will be open to hearing and learning Truth in the future. Until then, go with God Rumpel and Moon. Your older sibling (the Church) will be here when and if you should have a legitimate question rather than a sarcastic uncharitable one as posed by the OP who suggests that Catholics should think of Mary as our Grandma. LOL, so cute and at the same time so very sad.
L
LilyM
Guest
Nothing cute about it. If we WERE dealing with children here I’d be right with you. But we’re not, we’re dealing with adults. And we have the right to expect a certain level of ability as a result.
For example, an adult understands that a bald assertion such as ‘God has no mother’ isn’t in any way going to cut it as an argument. An adult understands that such assertions must be backed up, either with evidence from scripture or other sources, or at least a reasoned chain of thought showing the premises upon which they built that conclusion. And that repeating the assertion umpteen times doesn’t constitute evidence or proof.
That they don’t understand these things shows not a lack of understanding of sophisticated religious thought, it shows a lack of basic reasoning ability. How hard is it to understand that if a=b and b=c then a=c? How hard is it to understand that if you want someone to believe that a=c then you’ve got to show that a=b and b=c and not just keep repeating over and over that a=c.
V
VetA
Guest
lol i broke my promise not to comment because your sign made me lolNestorius!
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
Nestorius!
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
Nestorius!
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
[SIGN1]
Coming soom to a Thread Near You:
Nestorius: The Heretic Who Will Not Stay In His Grave
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif
[/SIGN1]
R
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
If you notice, you are the one who has the responsibility to show the validity of your claims. I don’t have to defend anything because…
1 - The Bible NEVER said Mother of God.
2 - The Bible NEVER said the seed in Genesis 3 refers to Jesus.
3 - The Bible NEVER said the woman in Genesis 3 refers to Mary.
4 - The Bible NEVER said Mary is the Queen of Heaven
5 - The Bible NEVER said God could be born by a woman.
Show me the above 5 points to be false and you will prove yourself right. Its as simple as that. If you cannot, it just shows that you’re talking out of context (basically no case) and you are not a follower of the teachings of God as written in the Bible.
.
- Status