Mary- other children

  • Thread starter Thread starter glow8worm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Xavier:
Why are you yelling?
I can hear quite well.
But apparently hard-of-seeing the question.

John 1 - In the begining was the Word. Jesus was pre existant.

So Jesus is God yet not divine—you better check your own teachings.
Nice try. I did not say any such thing.
**When I refer to “JESUS” OR “CHRIST” it is ALWAYS as the GOD-MAN. “Born of the Virgin Mary”.

When I use either of the 2 words above (J C) I am NOT referring to the Trinitarian WORD ONLY, but the INCARNATE WORD, ie AT THE TIME “The Word was made flesh**” (Jn 1, 14)

Here is a more precise ascertion:
The GOD-MAN WITH 2 JOINED NATURES WHOM I IDENTIFY AS JESUS, DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO THE INCARNATION.
THE DIVINE NATURE ALWAYS EXISTED. THE HUMAN NATURE WAS CREATED THROUGH MARY.
BUT the PERSON was eternally, now, and forever, GOD.
This is true before AND after He was “made flesh”.
He did not switch Persons, He joined His Person to the Full Human Nature. At that Moment I refer to that PERSON as JESUS.
Mary is the Mother of that GOD-MAN PERSON,** from the moment of conception… She is not the Mother of a NATURE, but of a PERSON, THE GOD-MAN JESUS INCARNATE.
One cannot “split” the PERSON.
The NATURE DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE PERSON.
but prior to the incarnation, the person existed without the union of his human NATURE… **
Mary cannot be the Mother of a NATURE with no PERSON joined to it. And that is the consequence of your proposal, unless you hold to 2 PERSONS in Jesus., which I don’t see you doing.
I related my story to try to reach some personal level, you seem to be mocking me, is that your intent?
Nice, but you didn’t succeed with me. Sorry. Try another personal story that enlightens.

Finally:
St Irenaeus: 175ad
“If one person suffered and another Person remained incapable of suffering; if one person was born and another Person came down upon him that was born and thereafter left him, not one person but two are proven . . . whereas the Apostle knew one only Who was born and Who suffered” (“Adv. Haer.”, III, xvi, n, 9, in P. G., VII, 928).
Tertullian :
“Was not God (as PERSON) really crucified? Did He not realiy die as He really was crucified?” (“De Carne Christi”, c. v, in P. L., II, 760).
The point was If you cannot accept that Mary is the Mother of a Person, “because” the Person is God. …then how do you accept that the same PERSON as GOD could SUFFER and DIE? For, if “God DIED” then there was no GOD after GOD’S death. Yet, you accept that GOD lives even though Jesus (GOD) died.
Simply put, you believe a greater MYSTERY than the one you deny.
 
40.png
Xavier:
TNT said:
Is Lk inerrant in the Greek, or inerrant in the non-existent hebrew.?
If she spoke in the Jew tongue it would have been Aramaic.
Did Jesus say PETER, PETRA, PETROS, Or did He say CEPHAS, KEPHA In Matt 16:18?

**Where is your Certificate of Interpretation **?
Until then, you are no more than “any other lord”[/QUOT

**JESUS’ WORDS

Not surprisingly, the seven words of Jesus recorded in their original tongue, reflect these two aspects, namely
Code:
         (i)         their essential identity with known Hebrew; yet        

         (ii)        some slight Galilean regional differences*.
Ephphatha – Jesus’ command to the deaf mute to “be opened” (Mark 7:34) – is directly from the Biblical Hebrew phphatha, חתפ, meaning “open”, as found in the standard Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament,[47]. Thus even Bruce Metzger concedes that “‘ephphatha’ can be explained as either Hebrew or Aramaic”[48]. Isaac Rabinowitz is less ambivalent, declaring emphatically that “there are no valid philological grounds for affirming, and there is every valid reason to deny, that ephphatha can represent an Aramaic … form. The transliteration can, indeed, only represent the Hebrew niphal masculine singular imperative … Ephphatha is certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic”.[49]

Likewise, cumi, or cum, in Jesus’ command to the dead daughter of Jairus to “arise” (Mark 5:41). The word comes directly from the Old Testament Hebrew םוק, “cum”, meaning “arise, stand up, stand”, while to this day the modern Hebrew for “get up” is cum.[50] What more appropriate, in the house of a synagogue ruler so familiar with Hebrew, than such a rich Hebrew command: “arise” – not to his Sabbath congregation to rise from their seats, but to his very own daughter to get up from the dead!

Eloi, Eloi (“My God, My God”, Mark 15:34) is clearly related to the Hebrew word used at times for “my God” in the Psalms (cf. יחלא, “my God”, Ps. 18:28; 139:19; יחלא, “My God”, Mk. 15:34). **Astonishingly – given that *Eloi, Eloi *has always been cited as proof of the Aramaic source of the words – we find that the Targum of Psalm 22:1(2) does not begin with “Eloi, Eloi” but “Eli, Eli”, as in the Hebrew.[51] In two ways “Eloi, Eloi” is different from the Aramaic – with “oi, oi” instead of “I, I” and the short “E, E” instead of the long “Ay, Ay” (as in “day”).[52]

Clearly, we must look elsewhere than to Aramaic for its pronunciation. The obvious explanation lies in the **distinctive Galilean accent **which we have noted. That is, in *Eloi, Eloi *we have the Galilean Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1(2) from the Hebrew Bible, carefully recorded with his distinctive pronunciation by Mark. With equal fidelity to what transpired, Matthew dispenses with the accent as such, but still records the same utterance straight from the Hebrew Bible. This alone can account for the seemingly contradictory facts that

Jesus spoke both Hebrew (the Sacred language) and Aramaic. Elizabeth said the word that is recognized as LORD for God, that is ADONAI. It does not mean master. What she said to Mary meant that she was referring to Jesus as GOD.

Why not repeat the words of Mary in the prayer the Magnificat. For she also uses the word “Lord”

“My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour”

Maggie
 
40.png
oudave:
Hi-
This is just my opinion but doesn’t saying 1 Hail Mary and 5 Rosary’s seem like a CHEAP way as pentance for a sin. There is a praise song called ‘‘Here I am to Worship’’ and there is a line in it that goes,
‘‘and I’ll never now how much it cost to see my sin up on that cross’’
I don’t think some people really understand how big a price Christ paid for us, not only was there the physical pain but there was also the seperation from the Father. We as Christians need to HATE sin so bad that it makes us sick when we slip into it. This is just my belief but I think that offering up a few wrote and repetitive prayers is only offering up peanuts to the one who gave HIS ALL.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.:amen:
Since when is repeating what is written in the Scripture cheap? Since when is contemplating upon the mysteries of the life of our Lord, Jesus Christ, something to be considered by rote? Or for matter since when has comtemplating the Scripture, including a contemplation of the death of the torture and then death on the Cross peanuts?

Is this not a cheap shot on your part.

Maggie
 
40.png
Xavier:
Why are you yelling?
I can hear quite well.

John 1 - In the begining was the Word. Jesus was pre existant.

So Jesus is God yet not divine—you better check your own teachings.

I related my story to try to reach some personal level, you seem to be mocking me, is that your intent?
John also says: “The WORD became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” proving that Jesus became like us. The means by which He, who is God, did this was through the Virgin Mary.

Jesus, who is the WORD was with God, and He is God. Jesus was born in the FLESH.

Jesus is the MAN/GOD. Jesus has a human Mother and He has a Father. Jesus is the Only begotten-Son of God. Jesus is the Son of Mary. Jesus is both Son of Man and Son of God. The Mother of this Man/GOD is Mary.

The focus is Jesus who became Flesh, yet at the same time He was Divine. He had all the feelings of man. Angainor is right when he says that Jesus is a man, but he was wrong to de-emphasise that divinity. He did not realize that this was a problem but he now realises that this is so.

Maggie
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Since when is repeating what is written in the Scripture cheap? Since when is contemplating upon the mysteries of the life of our Lord, Jesus Christ, something to be considered by rote? Or for matter since when has comtemplating the Scripture, including a contemplation of the death of the torture and then death on the Cross peanuts?

Is this not a cheap shot on your part.

Maggie
Yeah, I have no idea how you can be such a “Bible Christian” and make such a statement. That’s just wrong, Man… We have not “cheapened” the life, sacrifice, and resurrection of Our Lord. Our contemplation of the scriptures and the life of Christ draws us closer to God. If you ever really DID pray a Rosary or Divine Mercy Chaplet you might just have a clue what you’re talking about, but in this case you have hung yourself with your own rope

Pax vobiscum,.
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif
 
40.png
Xavier:
What next do you want to burn my bible ?:banghead:
If it is the World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses yes, it should be burned. If it is the Scofield Bible, yes it should be burned. If it contains the commentary of Ellen White, yes it should be burned. If it is one of those modern translations that distort the Scripture, twisting its meaning, yet it should be burned.

On the other hand, if it is a Bible that leads into contemplation, and it does not distort what God is saying to us, then No you might be allowed to keep it.

Maggie
 
Lets consider Xavier’s evidence and take it to it’s logical conclusion. He is correct in saying that the Word is preexistent. Wouldn’t the Word of God have to not be a man and the experience of maternal care be erased for Mary to not be His mother? I mean the Word of God came in the flesh wouldn’t you have to say ;’ He came in the flesh but He didn’t stay in the flesh in order to deny He has a mother?’ Was that baby Jesus God? and wasn’t God experiencing Mary’s Maternal care? Wouldn’t you have to take that experience away from God to claim AHe doesn’t have a mother? The unfathonable indeed. God the source of everything all powerfull, love it’self enters into time in the most vulnerable states His image experiences. Imagine God, the source of all love, comes down to live amongst His creations, not as a giver of love, but one in need of it. The faith He put in man. If only we could put that kind of faith in Him. He does something that radical I don’t think I want to take it away. I think it would be insulting to God to say He didn’t have a mother when He stooped so low for us as to have one.
 
Church Militant:
Don’t sing it my friend…bring it… open the thread:D
Still no open thread… He was just here a second ago…
:confused: :rolleyes: :crying: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
So with this faulty logic you deny the Hypostatic Union and therefore you are a follower of Arius and Nestorius. This is neo-Nestorian teaching.
Actually the logic is correct! My point is that when you call Mary the mother of God, which she is not, you ignore Christ’s humanity. This is an attempt to elevate Mary to a position that she does not deserve!
 
40.png
John1717:
Actually the logic is correct! My point is that when you call Mary the mother of God, which she is not, you ignore Christ’s humanity. This is an attempt to elevate Mary to a position that she does not deserve!
Take it up with the church fathers :

Irenaeus

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

“We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God” (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius

“While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid., 14).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God” (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius

“The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

cont’d
 
Gregory of Nazianz

“If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead” (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing” (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

“Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God” (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation” (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?” (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

“This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh” (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

“And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh” (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema” (ibid.).

John Cassian

“Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God” (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

“You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God” (ibid., 2:5).

Council of Ephesus

“We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her” (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

Vincent of Lerins

“Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ” (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).]

It would seem that you do not agree with the historical beliefs of Christianity
 
40.png
John1717:
Actually the logic is correct! My point is that when you call Mary the mother of God, which she is not, you ignore Christ’s humanity. This is an attempt to elevate Mary to a position that she does not deserve!
I think it’s ignoring that God became human to say Jesus had a mother but God didn’t. This removes the divine nature of Christ for the sake of denying Mary her role in Christ’s life
 
40.png
John1717:
Actually the logic is correct! My point is that when you call Mary the mother of God, which she is not, you ignore Christ’s humanity. This is an attempt to elevate Mary to a position that she does not deserve!
That is where you are wrong and that is why I said that you do not understand the meaning of the Hypostatic Union.

Please read my lips (er just read what I have written):

Jesus is the Man-God. He is both human and divine. You cannot speak about Jesus as one or the other. He is both.

At the Incarnation, the Word was made Flesh. This is best described by the words of John the Evangelist:

“In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

The whole of the prologue of John’s Gospel contains a very powerful message: that Jesus is God. It also tell us that Jesus is also human.

The dogma that Mary is the Mother of God is tied to both the humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is neither tied to the Divine Nature of Christ alone, or to the human nature of Christ alone. It is tied to both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Maggie
 
40.png
John1717:
Actually the logic is correct! My point is that when you call Mary the mother of God, which she is not, you ignore Christ’s humanity. This is an attempt to elevate Mary to a position that she does not deserve!
So unbelievably wrong, John. You are truly denying the hypostatic union. Perhaps you should hook up with Xavier and start the “church of nestorius”. 😃
 
40.png
Benadam:
When it is the authority that is put in a position to recieve the only reason possible for non acceptance of dissent would be that it was wrong.

This dynamic is a natural consequence of obedience to authority while there is disagreement. If the dissent is a correction of conscience the obedience of the dissenter will give the issue the credibility that comes from sincere motives. In other words a bond is formed from the obedience and minds open to all possibilities and the Church as a whole enjoys either a more correct conscience or a mistake overcome.

How much ya wanna bet Jesus did it a few times to Joseph and Mary.
It was not Gods will that we should be split.
It was not Gods will that Isreal be split with Judea or that there be a Babylonian exile. They were all consequences for being disobedient to God fo the ruling authorities. What sad is Catholics dont see this.
 
40.png
Xavier:
It was not Gods will that we should be split.
It was not Gods will that Isreal be split with Judea or that there be a Babylonian exile. They were all consequences for being disobedient to God fo the ruling authorities. What sad is Catholics dont see this.
The reformation divided Christ’s Church into 30,000 + fragments. And every time it divides the truth becomes more diluted. What’s truly sad, is that many protestants don’t see this!

:crying:
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
John also says: “The WORD became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” proving that Jesus became like us. The means by which He, who is God, did this was through the Virgin Mary.

Jesus, who is the WORD was with God, and He is God. Jesus was born in the FLESH.

Jesus is the MAN/GOD. Jesus has a human Mother and He has a Father. Jesus is the Only begotten-Son of God. Jesus is the Son of Mary. Jesus is both Son of Man and Son of God. The Mother of this Man/**GOD is Mary. **

The focus is Jesus who became Flesh, yet at the same time He was Divine. He had all the feelings of man. Angainor is right when he says that Jesus is a man, but he was wrong to de-emphasise that divinity. He did not realize that this was a problem but he now realises that this is so.

Maggie
The only thing I disagree with you is highlighted
 
40.png
Xavier:
It was not Gods will that we should be split.
It was not Gods will that Isreal be split with Judea or that there be a Babylonian exile. They were all consequences for being disobedient to God fo the ruling authorities. What sad is Catholics dont see this.
I agree with your statements about God’s will. The division that became termed the reformation was not caused by authorities disobedience to God. There are too many other times in history that authority has been corrected. The term reformation implies a unity that was lost because the dissenters were disobedient to authority. What I’m not understanding is what you are saying Catholics don’t see. I also don’t understand how this has anything to do with the concept of obedient dissent providing a fail safe method of working out differences.
 
40.png
Xavier:
The only thing I disagree with you is highlighted
This will about the 4th time… and 10 posts ago:
BTW: I have “Jesus Words” also… So I must have at least equal authority to INTERPRET THOSE WORDS???
One more time…ready…WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET?

Here, I’ll help you understand the question:
"My authority to INTERPRET THE WORDS in the scriptures comes from _________ who/which had the authority to give it to me"

**There, just fill in the blank.
**Until you answer, you’re not going to be taken seriously, so why proclaim from a pulpit that has no authority???
Think about it…who would say: “All the Church authorized teachers in all Church history were wrong, and you are right, even though you have shown not 1 ounce of authority to interpret scriptures or teach.”
Get serious.
So far you are a “wind of doctrine” and just any other lord".
Next you’ll be wanting to operate without a license…Rule on the Constitution without a Judicial seat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top