Is Mary the Co-redeemer?

[kaycee]

As I said, the mothers of Kings always have and always have had influence in EVERY kingdom in EVERY age - it’s a matter of basic understanding of psychology and basic knowledge of history, forget scripture!

If you lived in a monarchy and/or had any sort of education in history you’d know that!!!

I was not aware that God was basing the kingom of heaven on pagan monarchy structure.

I seem to recall that It was Not God’s Idea to have a King but the rebellious people.

1 Sam 8:6 But when they said, “**Give us a king to lead us,” **this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. The Queen Mum seems not to have been a big topic either.

 

[Mannyfit75]

As I said, the mothers of Kings always have and always have had influence in EVERY kingdom in EVERY age - it’s a matter of basic understanding of psychology and basic knowledge of history, forget scripture!

If you lived in a monarchy and/or had any sort of education in history you’d know that!!!

I bet you 10 dollars kaycee will “object” your proposal.

 

[LilyM]

I was not aware that God was basing the kingom of heaven on pagan monarchy structure.

I seem to recall that It was Not God’s Idea to have a King but the rebellious people.

1 Sam 8:6 But when they said, “**Give us a king to lead us,” **this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. The Queen Mum seems not to have been a big topic either.

And the great European kingdoms of the Middle Ages and to this day are pagan are they? Queen ‘I’m head of the Anglican Church’ Elizabeth II would be most surprised to hear that!

And God DID give Israel Kings, remember, in spite of his initial objections, so it can’t have been so totally dreadful an idea!

AND Jesus is a King nonetheless. Like I said, pagan or Christian kings alike, the Queen Mum has always mattered and always will, in the Kingdom of Heaven no less than any other.

hands $10 over to Manny - big surprise

 

[Mannyfit75]

And the great European kingdoms of the Middle Ages and to this day are pagan are they? Queen ‘I’m head of the Anglican Church’ Elizabeth II would be most surprised to hear that!

And God DID give Israel Kings, remember, in spite of his initial objections, so it can’t have been so totally dreadful an idea!

AND Jesus is a King nonetheless. Like I said, pagan or Christian kings alike, the Queen Mum has always mattered and always will, in the Kingdom of Heaven no less than any other.

hands $10 over to Manny - big surprise

\

Thanks I’ll save it to buy books on Mary perhaps as a Father’s Day gift for kaycee LMAO, Do you recommend’s Scott Hahn’s Hail, Holy Queen?

 

[theAuthor]

The Queen mothers of Israel’s achievements are not listed because the King was still King. The point was that if you wanted the King to grant something, you could ask the Queen Mother. This gives a Scripural type/shadow for seeking intercession through Mary. As a convert slowly letting go of sola scriptura, even I find this satisfactory. I can’t see why any protestant wouldn’t, especially after the miracle at Cana.

What I have trouble with is the mediatrix of all grace. That sounds like:

Me → Mary → Jesus → the Father, and back again, every time. But Jesus said we can pray to the Father who loves us directly using Jesus name. Ok, so if Mary didn’t exist, then neither would Jesus have become incarnate. But Jesus pre-existed before his incarnation, Mary did not, she is a great creature. So, was there no grace prior to Mary? Surely not.

Actually it just occurred to me that Jesus was not the mother of the God “part of Jesus”, because Jesus as God existed in Heaven from the beginning (John 1:1)…

 

[LilyM]

Actually it just occurred to me that Jesus was not the mother of the God “part of Jesus”, because Jesus as God existed in Heaven from the beginning (John 1:1)…

You were going fairly well up to this point

Assuming that you’re saying ***Mary ***was not the mother of the ‘God’ part of Jesus - absolutely wrong. To say that is to say that Jesus was two different persons, one divine and one human, rather than one unified person, since one person is not separatable into different ‘parts’ in this way.

Jesus is one person, combining INSEPARABLY complete divinity and complete humanity. And Mary is mother of the whole Jesus, as your mother is mother of the whole of you. Even though half your DNA comes from your father (which DNA pre-existed your mother if your father is older than her) and your soul direct from God (who definitely pre-exists your mother!)

Worse, it means you’re subscribing to a heresy called Nestorianism. Which was roundly condemned back in the FOURTH century at the Council of Ephesus.

Now as to ‘mediatrix of all graces’ - Mary is not passive. She doesn’t merely sit back and wait for us to present some of our requests to her. She actively sees humanity’s many needs and out of her love for us is constantly interceding for all of us and all of our needs.

Combine this with the fact that by becoming Jesus’ mother she brings us everything he DOES as well as everything he IS, and you would actually be correct to believe that she does present all our prayers to God and is the vehicle through which all of the answers come back.

In heaven there is no concept of time, remember, so who came before who and who did what before who doesn’t matter. It’s all eternally present to God and to those who share in the Beatific Vision.

 

[theAuthor]

Yeah, I know. “Brain snap”

But still how can she be the mediatrix of all grace, when she is not actually the Mother of God the Father. Was God not gracious in “begetting” Jesus in Heaven? (I don’t know the word for it, but Jesus is begotten not made, and existed in Heaven before coming to Earth, when he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary). It says in John 1:1 that “In the beginning was the Word ( ie Jesus), and the word was with God and the Word was God.” Mary is a wonderful, special creature, but she cannot be older than Jesus. Jesus is the word become flesh, but existed in Heaven before Jesus, therefore cannot be the Mother of the whole of Jesus. Can you explain that.

Having said that, she is indeed the Mother of Jesus, who is God, since the incarnation.

 

[LilyM]

Yeah, I know. “Brain snap”

But still how can she be the mediatrix of all grace, when she is not actually the Mother of God the Father. Was God not gracious in “begetting” Jesus in Heaven? (I don’t know the word for it, but Jesus is begotten not made, and existed in Heaven before coming to Earth, when he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary). It says in John 1:1 that “In the beginning was the Word ( ie Jesus), and the word was with God and the Word was God.” Mary is a wonderful, special creature, but she cannot be older than Jesus. Jesus is the word become flesh, but existed in Heaven before Jesus, therefore cannot be the Mother of the whole of Jesus. Can you explain that.

Having said that, she is indeed the Mother of Jesus, who is God, since the incarnation.

Again, Heaven is outside of our concept of time. In heaven exists only an eternal present - all earthly and heavenly events exist together and equally present in the mind of God, and always have.

So there’s no point in the heavenly scheme of things in which Jesus is/was NOT human or NOT born of Mary, and no point in the heavenly scheme of things in which Jesus is/was NOT sacrificing himself on the Cross.

Hence the verse in Revelation which speaks of the ‘Lamb standing as if slain’ - doesn’t speak of the Lamb post-slaying. His sacrifice is a constantly present event outside of time.

 

[kaycee]

And the great European kingdoms of the Middle Ages and to this day are pagan are they? Queen ‘I’m head of the Anglican Church’ Elizabeth II would be most surprised to hear that!

And God DID give Israel Kings, remember, in spite of his initial objections, so it can’t have been so totally dreadful an idea!

AND Jesus is a King nonetheless. Like I said, pagan or Christian kings alike, the Queen Mum has always mattered and always will, in the Kingdom of Heaven no less than any other.

hands $10 over to Manny - big surprise

Riddle me this batman, when God was King over Israel before Saul, Who was the Queen Mum?

 

[LilyM]

Riddle me this batman, when God was King over Israel before Saul, Who was the Queen Mum?

I answered that in post 227 - obviously you don’t read the posts here Which explains a lot.

And the answer is … drumroll … Mary

She has always existed in the mind of God from all eternity, as we all have. Existing in the mind of God is real existence, his mind being infinitely more powerful than our own.

So Mary has always been Jesus’ (God the Son’s) mother. From all eternity. That’s what the omniscience and eternity (being timeless) of God means for us and for her.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I answered that in post 227 - obviously you don’t read the posts here.

And the answer is … drumroll … Mary

She has always existed in the mind of God from all eternity, as we all have. So she has always been his mother. That’s what omniscience and eternity (being timeless) means.

Are you teasing him?

 

[LilyM]

Are you teasing him?

He didn’t even bother to read my post directly above his own, how could I resist?

 

[Mannyfit75]

He didn’t even bother to read my post directly above his own, how could I resist?

 

[Salamander]

Again, Heaven is outside of our concept of time. In heaven exists only an eternal present - all earthly and heavenly events exist together and equally present in the mind of God, and always have.

So there’s no point in the heavenly scheme of things in which Jesus is/was NOT human or NOT born of Mary, and no point in the heavenly scheme of things in which Jesus is/was NOT sacrificing himself on the Cross.

Hence the verse in Revelation which speaks of the ‘Lamb standing as if slain’ - doesn’t speak of the Lamb post-slaying. His sacrifice is a constantly present event outside of time.

O.K. If Mary is in the Hierarchy, as the catholic church says, or was that you? Why did Jesus not say in Matt 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Mother, Son and Holy Spirit? You said she was the Mother, now what?

 

[LilyM]

O.K. If Mary is in the Hierarchy, as the catholic church says, or was that you? Why did Jesus not say in Matt 28:19 "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Mother, Son and Holy Spirit? You said she was the Mother, now what?

She isn’t a person of the Blessed Trinity. She isn’t divine. If this is what you mean by ‘being in the hierarchy’ then neither I nor the Church have EVER said that she is.

So of course we don’t baptise in Mary’s name. She’s God’s mother, she isn’t God. All of the righteous, similarly, are all children of God by adoption. They too aren’t God, nor divine. And we don’t baptise in their name either . They too, however, have graces and powers bestowed on them by God, including the ability to intercede in prayer on our behalf - AND the ability to be (in a severely limited sense) co-redeemers.

These facts alone should be sufficient proof to you that we don’t treat Mary as being herself divine, rather as being a human as we all are, although a uniquely graced and honoured human.

 

[Salamander]

Those aren’t his brothers and sisters. They are his cousins. There is no Hebrew word for cousins or in Aramaic, therefore the Greek translation of the Gospels used brothers and sisters.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” Who is this “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?”… the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: “James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the “brothers” of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins.

theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm#Perpetual%20Virginity

Another source for your perusal:

This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: apologeticspress.org/articles/2318

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The usual word in the Greek language for “brother” is adelphos. It possesses the same latitude of application that the English word possesses. Hence, it can refer to a person who shares the same religion (a spiritual brother). It can refer to a person who shares the same citizenship—a fellow countryman. It can refer to an intimate friend or neighbor. All of these uses are self-evident, and do not encroach upon the literal use of the term…

At least two assertions have been advanced by those who wish to discount the existence of Jesus’ brothers, and thereby defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. One attempt seeks to broaden the meaning of the Greek word for “brother” to mean “cousin.” According to this view, the “brothers” of Jesus were actually His cousins—the children of Mary’s sister. The assertion that “brother” has this enlarged meaning is made largely on the basis of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother (Gesenius, 1979, p. 27; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:31; Botterweck, 1974, 1:190). For example, Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was referred to as Jacob’s “brother” (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abram’s nephew Lot was said to be Abram’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14,16)…

Additionally, if the phrase “brothers and sisters” means “cousins” in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, then these “cousins” were the nephews and nieces of Mary. But why would the townspeople of Nazareth connect nephews and nieces of Mary with Joseph? Why would the townspeople mention nephews and nieces at all while omitting other extended family relatives? The setting assumes that the townspeople were alluding to the immediate family of Jesus. Barnes noted that to recognize these brothers and sisters as the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary is the “fair interpretation,” and added, “the people in the neighbourhood [sic] thought so, and spoke of them as such” (1977, 1:150). As Matthews commented, “Joseph, Mary, and their children were recognized as a typical family of Nazareth, and when Jesus began his unusual career, they merely asked if He was not a member of this family mentioning their names. If these children were nephews and nieces of Mary, why are they always associated with her and not with their mother?” (1952, pp. 112-113, emp. added).

…oh, and by the way, why did Luke put this in the book (Luke 1:26-28) if Mary was a co-equal with Jesus? Wouldn’t she have already known that Gabriel was coming and what it was about?
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 *Mary was greatly troubled at his words *and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.

 

[LilyM]

They were not Jesus’ brothers!

Remember everyone in Nazareth thinks Jesus is Joseph’s son. It’s quite possible that these are near kin of Joseph - possibly even children from a previous marriage of his. These too would be called Jesus’ brothers if Joseph was thought to be his father!

And remember Nazareth a small town too - Mary and Joseph themselves were possibly kin to each other. Or otherwise their families would have been connected through other intermarriages.

As for Mary being troubled - Jesus himself was greatly troubled at his impending death - troubled enough to sweat blood in Gethsemane and need consolation and comfort from the angels.

Great tasks (and what else does a visit from an angel mean but some great task?) mean great troubles too! So of course Mary was troubled when the angel came.

 

[kaycee]

I answered that in post 227 - obviously you don’t read the posts here Which explains a lot.

And the answer is … drumroll … Mary

She has always existed in the mind of God from all eternity, as we all have. Existing in the mind of God is real existence, his mind being infinitely more powerful than our own.

So Mary has always been Jesus’ (God the Son’s) mother. From all eternity. That’s what the omniscience and eternity (being timeless) of God means for us and for her.

So Mary was the Queen Mother from all eternity. hmmmm, you dont really mean she existed through out all eternity, do you?

What sense is your statement meant as?

 

[Greg27]

So Mary was the Queen Mother from all eternity. hmmmm, you dont really mean she existed through out all eternity, do you?

What sense is your statement meant as?

LilyM was explaining a fairly technical term in Christian theology which comes from St Augustine. St Augustine, who had studied Platonic philosophy, wondered exactly how an immaterial, simple God created a complex and beautifully ordered and harmonius creation of many different parts and beings.

Augustine knew about the Neo-Platonic idea of the highest principle or Being called the One, which Platonists believed contained all goodness, beauty and truth within itself but transcended these attributes in its essence. Augustine also knew about Plato’s theory of forms or ideas, which Plato believed were the uncreated ‘template’ from which all visible things were copies. Philosophers call this the problem of particulars vs universals; if an individual man is wise or just, is wisdom or justice something only one person has just in their individual case, or do they have it by sharing in a universal entity or property of things?

Augustine believed justice, wisdom, etc were universals in the mind of God. Augustine could not except the idea from Plotinus that the universe was made by an impersonal Absolute out of sheer necessity; he felt God was personal and made the universe by an act of concious will and love. Augustine then explained that God created the cosmos, i.e. the Father, through his Son, the Word, who contained all the uncreated archetypes or forms of created things. God willed the cosmos to come into existence, and the Son makes things come into being, and the spirit acts in concert to complete the process. The universe then is an unfolding of the love and perfection in God’s being itself, the Trinity.

The Platonic ideas mean all created things have an archetype in God’s mind, which exist in God’s mind for all eternity. The ideas in God are in a way God, but not in the sense of pantheism (St Thomas explains this in the Summa). This simply means when God brings anything into existence, whether it is any person or the entire universe, it is an act of perfect love and goodness which in no way means God needs any created thing to exist himself. It is an act of will, making something from nothing.

Applying this to Mary then, Mary existed in God’s mind for all eternity along with all patterns of things like spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies, different universes and so on. In our trivial part of the universe, God knew what role Mary would play in salvation for all eternity and also the glory she would have because of her role, but this never made her a fourth hypostasis of the Trinity any more than a spiral galaxy or planet would be. God foreknew and predestined her for her role and also her glorification, but her glorificiation never meant she became or becomes a fourth person of the Trinity. She is an idea in the mind of God, but in the Word, but she is not the Word herself. Christ is the Word and only he is the Word, through whom all things are made.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Another source for your perusal:

This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: apologeticspress.org/articles/2318

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The usual word in the Greek language for “brother” is adelphos. It possesses the same latitude of application that the English word possesses. Hence, it can refer to a person who shares the same religion (a spiritual brother). It can refer to a person who shares the same citizenship—a fellow countryman. It can refer to an intimate friend or neighbor. All of these uses are self-evident, and do not encroach upon the literal use of the term…

At least two assertions have been advanced by those who wish to discount the existence of Jesus’ brothers, and thereby defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. One attempt seeks to broaden the meaning of the Greek word for “brother” to mean “cousin.” According to this view, the “brothers” of Jesus were actually His cousins—the children of Mary’s sister. The assertion that “brother” has this enlarged meaning is made largely on the basis of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother (Gesenius, 1979, p. 27; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:31; Botterweck, 1974, 1:190). For example, Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was referred to as Jacob’s “brother” (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abram’s nephew Lot was said to be Abram’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14,16)…

Additionally, if the phrase “brothers and sisters” means “cousins” in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, then these “cousins” were the nephews and nieces of Mary. But why would the townspeople of Nazareth connect nephews and nieces of Mary with Joseph? Why would the townspeople mention nephews and nieces at all while omitting other extended family relatives? The setting assumes that the townspeople were alluding to the immediate family of Jesus. Barnes noted that to recognize these brothers and sisters as the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary is the “fair interpretation,” and added, “the people in the neighbourhood [sic] thought so, and spoke of them as such” (1977, 1:150). As Matthews commented, “Joseph, Mary, and their children were recognized as a typical family of Nazareth, and when Jesus began his unusual career, they merely asked if He was not a member of this family mentioning their names. If these children were nephews and nieces of Mary, why are they always associated with her and not with their mother?” (1952, pp. 112-113, emp. added).

…oh, and by the way, why did Luke put this in the book (Luke 1:26-28) if Mary was a co-equal with Jesus? Wouldn’t she have already known that Gabriel was coming and what it was about?
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 *Mary was greatly troubled at his words *and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.

You are missing the point. There is no Aramaic or Hebrew word for cousins so the Gospel writers used brothers and sisters.

It was also common for Jews to call cousins brothers. Even Lot was called brother by his uncle Abraham.

The other Scriptural proof text is when Jesus was twelve. His parents brought him to Jerusalem to the Temple, and the only mention there was Joseph, Mary and Jesus. If Mary and Joseph had other children, they would be mentioned. Mary and Joseph could have gotten busy during the 12 yrs they had with Jesus.

Jesus have no other brothers and sisters. You just want to interpret the Gospels as if it was written in today’s context, and you failed to look at the culture and time when the Gospel of Luke and other Gospels were written.