Mary was just a vessel

  • Thread starter Thread starter kristanl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benidict said:
actually i have. from the time of moses, betrothel has taken on several forms. it used to be that a young man would take a young woman. give her a promisary token. perhaps a piece of jewelry of some kind, then take her to his tent and sleep with her. they were then betrothed. if you look at the law of moses such things were not forbidden in the prohibited sexual practices. it was later that the practice was discontinued. after the authority God had set up on earth declared it to be wrong. also it was the authority God set up, at the time. the jewish priest who discontinued poligamy. again nothing wrong with it in scriptures. ( sola scriptura friends. lol!) but the authority he set up at the time declared it to be discontinued. so betrothal in jewish custom, has changed over the millenia. and there is also secular studies by authors such as christopher knight and michael baigent who contend Mary had taken vows to remain a virgin. also martin luther, john calvin ,and i believe zwinglie never doubted her lifelong virginity. worth checking out.
Click to expand...
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.Cathloic Bridge
 
benidict said:
again nothing wrong with it in scriptures. ( sola scriptura friends. lol!)
Click to expand...

That’s not exactly accurate. Paul said bishops and elders where to be the husbands of one wife.​

Also:
Deut. 17:
14 ¶ "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’
15 "you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
16 "But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’
17 "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.
 
Dokimas said:

That’s not exactly accurate. Paul said bishops and elders where to be the husbands of one wife.​

Also:
Deut. 17:
14 ¶ "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’
15 "you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
16 "But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’
17 "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.
Click to expand...
hi dokimas, wasnt quoting paul. you were asking about jewish customs of betrothal. also the verse you quote has to do with kings who were bound by this. just a priest could not marry a former harlot. the priest was bound to that law. also there were laws dealing with poligamous marriages, whereas if one of the women were loved less than the other and the husband could not treat them with equality. then the womans firstborn son,who was loved less, could by the law, claim the inheritance. have you ever read every mans talmud. or any of the mishnahs. you may find them interesting reading. also anything you can find from the rabbinical sages is brilliant.🙂
 
Bill_Pick said:
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.Cathloic Bridge
Click to expand...
ok, thx bill, i thought that i had read that somewhere. im not that familiar with zwingli. think i may read up on him. appreciate the clarification. thx:)
 
the word “just” should never appear any where near the name Mary. She is our queen of Heaven and earth.
 
benidict said:
hi dokimas, wasnt quoting paul. you were asking about jewish customs of betrothal. also the verse you quote has to do with kings who were bound by this. just a priest could not marry a former harlot. the priest was bound to that law. also there were laws dealing with poligamous marriages, whereas if one of the women were loved less than the other and the husband could not treat them with equality. then the womans firstborn son,who was loved less, could by the law, claim the inheritance. have you ever read every mans talmud. or any of the mishnahs. you may find them interesting reading. also anything you can find from the rabbinical sages is brilliant.🙂
Click to expand...

Please note my comments came because you said that there was nothing in Scriptures against multiplying wives.​

I know the Deut verse was for kings. Still your comment was that nothing in Scriptures was against multiplying wives.​

BTW, other than those two place in Scripture, I’d agree with you.
 
PAboy57 said:
the word “just” should never appear any where near the name Mary. She is our queen of Heaven and earth.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understand you. We know the Bible teaches that Jesus is the King of kings. You believe Mary is the Queen of queens?
 
Dokimas said:
Let me see if I understand you. We know the Bible teaches that Jesus is the King of kings. You believe Mary is the Queen of queens?
Click to expand...
There are no other queens. She is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. The “Crown of Creation” too. :yup:
All the best for the Mother of God!

+JMJ+
 
Dokimas said:
Let’s look at the verse in the NT that you think means Mary had made such a vow.

Luke 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

The verb ‘do know’ is in the present active indicitive. This indicates, as I understand, that to that moment in her life she is a virgin. It does not indicate anything about the future. According to the law, if she was not a virgin and her husband to be found out, she was to pay a heavy price, was she not?
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that Mary’s question is a reply to the angel’s declaration:

“You will conceive in your womb and bear a son.”

The angel is referring to an indefinite future moment; he gives no indication that Mary will conceive the child at the present time. So Mary can’t possibly be telling the angel that she is still a virgin until now. The simple present tense is being used to signify a permanent condition, not an instant of time. If I tell you that I do not smoke, that means I never smoke and have no intention of ever starting. Whether I do start smoking after all is irrelevant. Mary was betrothed to Joseph at the time the angel appeared to her, so if she had intended to have conjugal relations with him in the near future, when the child may be legitimately conceived in accord with Mosaic Law, she wouldn’t have asked the angel: “How shall this be?” Most likely she would have asked: “When will this be?” The question she does ask can be paraphrased: “What do you mean?” The angel then proceeds to explain the miraculous nature of the conception and birth of the child, which Mary never expected as a pious Jew.

Nice try, but no cigar. :hey_bud:

PAX :heaven:
 
Dokimas said:
Let me see if I understand you. We know the Bible teaches that Jesus is the King of kings. You believe Mary is the Queen of queens?
Click to expand...
We believe that Mary is the Queen Mother (Gebirah) of all the queen mothers of the kings of the house of David in the eternal kingdom of heaven.

And the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.
1 Kings 2, 19

“Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1, 31-33

They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11

And, of course, Mary is the heavenly Queen of all queens of all nations by virtue of her divine maternity.

PAX :harp:
 
Good_Fella said:
We believe that Mary is the Queen Mother of all the queen mothers of the kings of the house of David in the eternal kingdom of heaven.

And the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.
1 Kings 2, 19

“Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1, 31-33

They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11

And, of course, Mary is the heavenly Queen of all queens of all nations by virtue of her divine maternity.

PAX :harp:
Click to expand...
Let’s put a crown on this. 🙂

“A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Revelation 12:1)
 
Whoever believes that Mary is just a “vessel” would they agree that their own biological mother is just a “vessel” as well? No their own biological mother is a person with dignity because every mother is made in the image of God.

Bearing this in mind how much more dignity does Mary have that God decreed He should form flesh from her own body? It is the blood of mary that flows through Christ’s veins. In the Bible we find Mary saying “behold from now on all generations shall call me blessed”. You are acting against the Bible itself if you call Mary just a “vessel”. Rather you should be saying with the angel “Blessed are you among women!”

To say Mary is just a vessel is illogical and unscriptural.

God bless,
 
Dokimas said:

Please note my comments came because you said that there was nothing in Scriptures against multiplying wives.​

I know the Deut verse was for kings. Still your comment was that nothing in Scriptures was against multiplying wives.​

BTW, other than those two place in Scripture, I’d agree with you.
Click to expand...
maybe we ought to start another thread for this conversation. anyhow. dont know if you have the right interpretation for this, may be wise to consult someone who is jewish,or knows more about the mosaic law than you or i do. but were not davids Wives considered a blessing from God. cannot give you chapter and verse right now, but will research it. lets start another thread. but anyhow. given how the reformers viewed Mary and how they also delclared her to be ever virgin and Mother of God. how come many of the movements that came out of these reformers deny this?😉
 
Dokimas said:

Mary was the vessel; she took care of baby Jesus; she ‘mothered’ Him as He grew up. However, she wasn’t a mother in the way a women’s ovum is fertilized by a sperm. She carried the Lord as a seragate, which makes her a vessel.​

She was quite a vessel, but she wasn’t the Mother of God. God didn’t need a Mother.
Click to expand...
Please do not tell this to Jesus, and why did Jesus have a Mother if He did not need one ???
 
Good_Fella said:
Bear in mind that Mary’s question is a reply to the angel’s declaration:

“You will conceive in your womb and bear a son.”

The angel is referring to an indefinite future moment; he gives no indication that Mary will conceive the child at the present time. So Mary can’t possibly be telling the angel that she is still a virgin until now. The simple present tense is being used to signify a permanent condition, not an instant of time. If I tell you that I do not smoke, that means I never smoke and have no intention of ever starting. Whether I do start smoking after all is irrelevant. Mary was betrothed to Joseph at the time the angel appeared to her, so if she had intended to have conjugal relations with him in the near future, when the child may be legitimately conceived in accord with Mosaic Law, she wouldn’t have asked the angel: “How shall this be?” Most likely she would have asked: “When will this be?” The question she does ask can be paraphrased: “What do you mean?” The angel then proceeds to explain the miraculous nature of the conception and birth of the child, which Mary never expected as a pious Jew.

Nice try, but no cigar. :hey_bud:

PAX :heaven:
Click to expand...

Of course she was telling the angel she was a virgin ‘til now’. She was confused about becoming pregnant without ‘knowing a man’.​

Of course she didn’t expect it. What woman would expect to become pregnant Supernaturally?
 
Bill_Pick said:
Please do not tell this to Jesus, and why did Jesus have a Mother if He did not need one ???
Click to expand...
Maybe you didn’t read all the posts I’ve done on this issue. I distinguish betwee Mother and mother. Mother of God implies that she had a place in the creaton of God. God was never created. The Human form Jesus took needed a mother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top