Mary was just a vessel

[Dokimas]

Jesus’ human nature is from the humanness of His mother … Why did God decide to enter into humanity in this way is a mystery … but that is how He disided to … It is you who have determined that God - only used Mary as a ‘vessel’ like an incubator … but that denies the humanity of Christ … making Him purely God …

as another poster informed you by so doing you are flling into heresy … There were two heresies:

1] that Jesus was not truely God - that God ‘used him’ - dwelling inside him - leaving the body of Jesus just prior to his death on the cross - leaving only the man Jesus to die. [after all God is immortal - and can;t truely die]…

Another:

2] that Jesus was just God and not human … because God id God and man is man … he just looked like a person …

The early Christian’s looked at these novelties when they presented themselve, compared them to the what had been handed down, wrestled with the Mysteries … Trinity - One God, Jesus - Man and God … out of this reflection, study and discourse by the Christian community came the declaration that Mary was the “God Bearer” the Theotokos …

Here we are some 1800 years later and the arguements and heresies are the same … remonds me of the old saying “nothong is new under the sun” …

I would recommend you look at the controversies around the various heresies …

And then tell me - why is it that the original reformers would find your view of Mary - used as a vessel - a tool, much like an incubator to be foriegn to the Christian faith? …

Because they would you know … they believed in Mary as perpstual virgin, the Mother of Jesus and the Christ …

Jesus was God and Human. Where’s the heresy?

 

[Dokimas]

ill pray for all of us dokimas. OH MY JESUS, FORGIVE US OUR SINS, SAVE US FROM THE FIRES OF HELL, LEAD ALL SOULS TO HEAVEN ESPECIALLY THOSE MOST IN NEED OF YOUR MERCY. AMEN.

Thank you and Amen from me as well.

 

[guanophore]

Well, if one is to follow this example completely, then Mary was not perpetually virgin, because Solomon’s mother was not.

You are right, of course, but what I am referencing is not the childbearing, as many of
David’s wives had offspring. What I am referencing is the role of the Gebirah - the Queen Mother. She derived her role entirely from the King. Mother’s of other children at court, even son’s of the King, if they were not on the throne did not have this role.

 

[benidict]

That’s not very helpful cuz I can’t find where humans can tell other humans what one day is sin and the next day is not sin. God doesn’t change His mind.​

Paul made it clear we can’t tell each other what to eat and what not to eat. There is a grave warning here.

1 Timothy 4:
1 ¶ Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

they did not tell us what we could eat or not eat. just what day to abstain. and there was a good reason for this. just cant quite remember what it was. i came along, long after this was lifted. also some of our protestant friends do not believe in wearing wedding bands or any kind of jewelry. but in certain countries the adultry rate is so high they allowed their members to do just that. even tho it goes against there churches teachings everywhere else.

 

[benidict]

You probably did a great job. Thanks.​

It does baffle me, however, how a man-made ordinance can be a sin if broken. Where in the Bible does it say that humans determine what is sin and what is not? I thought that was God’s job because He created us, not we ourselves.

ok ill try this out. remember the authority Jesus gave his apostles. " what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosend in heaven." since we have apostolic succession, the magestrium can and has enacted laws for specific times and places and durations. that is their right. just as now with the possibility of the Anglicans coming into the Church. their priest will be allowed to be married. that is Romes right, as the head of the Church with the apostolic authority they hold.

 

[kristanl]

I have acknowledged Mary bore Jesus, God the Son. She was the vessel God use to come into this world as a Human. I have maintained this all along. What I’ve also said is there is, IMO, a difference between being the mother of Jesus, God the Son and being the Mother of God. IMO, being the Mother of God implies she played part in creating God as all biological Mothers play a role in the creation of a human. God was not created. The Human form He took was created; did the Holy Spirit us one of her ovum, I’m not sure or, and this is my leaning, did He place the whole holy seed in her womb?

The logic is simple:

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, you are really denying the incarnation. When the eternal Son of God became man, he assumed a human nature. Thus he could be born of a woman just as we are.

Luke 1:43- Elizabeth calls Mary “mother of My Lord.” In the NT, Lord refers only to God.

Matthew 1:23- “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, (which means God with us).

Luke 1:35- “the child to be born will be called holy, the son of God.”

Galatians 4:4- “when the time has fully come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman.”

Early Church Fathers:

St. Iganatius of Antioch (110) : “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan….”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (180-199) : “The Virgin Mary… being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.”

Note that when the Church Fathers call Mary the Mother of God, they presume Christians take it for granted. They don’t see any need to explain and defend this belief as if it were in any way controversial.

Mary’s title of Mother of God was not rejected until 429. In that year a bishop named Nestorius promoted the heresy that Jesus is two distinct persons, and that Mary is the mother of the human person only. In 431, the Council of Ephesus condemned this heresy. It did not surface again in Christianity until after the Reformation.

Saying Mary is not the Mother of God, implies that Jesus is either not God, or he is two persons, both of which are heresies.

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given to her that no one can grasp them…. Not only Mary the mother of Him who is born but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” – The Works of Luther

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor… Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” – Calvini Opera

Some claim that because Mary could not have given Jesus his Divinity , she cannot properly be called his Mother. This is a serious error. Jesus is ONE person. A person is a unity. That is why we say a person is born, not a nature of a body. Our parents did not give us our souls (they were created directly by God), only our bodies. However, we never say our mothers gave birth only to our bodies. Rather, they gave birth to us!

The more important a person is in Christ’s mission, the greater honor he has in heaven. This is why, in heaven, the Apostles have such high places (Luke 22:29-30). Mary gave Jesus his body, which was the instrument of our redemption. She carried him in her womb, nursed him, clothed him, fed him, and protected him. Mary consented to the Father’s will for Jesus.

 

[Dokimas]

ok ill try this out. remember the authority Jesus gave his apostles. " what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosend in heaven." since we have apostolic succession, the magestrium can and has enacted laws for specific times and places and durations. that is their right. just as now with the possibility of the Anglicans coming into the Church. their priest will be allowed to be married. that is Romes right, as the head of the Church with the apostolic authority they hold.

Nice try but I don’t accept that the church can say something is sin and then change its mind especially something that is not sinful in the Bible.

 

[kristanl]

Good point.​

Why would she have to be perpetually a virgin unless it was sinful to have sex with her husband? If it is sinful, then why are catholic women supposed to have children, having sex with their husbands?

The point of calling Mary Queen Mother is not to say she had other children. It is to state that she is our mediator and interceder.

Mary as the NT Queen Mother

The OT kings clearly prefigured Jesus Christ, the NT King of Kings (Revelation 19:16). Jesus, descended from King David. Therefore, the kings of Judah, who were from David’s line, especially prefigure Jesus’ kingship. Luke 1:32 says, “the Lord God will give to him [Jesus] the throne of his father David. “

The wife of the king of Judah was not the queen. The queen was the king’s mother. She was known as the Queen Mother. She had great honor and authority in the kingdom.
1 Kings 2:19-20 “So Bathseba went to king Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; and he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought the king’s mother; and sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her: “make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.”

The Queen Mother served as the king’s confidant and advisor. The Queen Mother had an official position; she had to be deposed in order to be removed (1 Kings 15:13). The Jewish idea of Davidic kings would have naturally included the king on his throne with the queen mother at his right hand.

Jesus, the NT Davidic King, does not have a wife. His mother would be the NT Queen. This is exactly what Revelations 11 and 12 describe. A Woman (Mary) gives birth to a son (Jesus) who will “rule all the nations” (12:5). Jesus is a new Solomon. Just as Solomon rules over other kings (2 Chronicles 9:23-26), Jesus is the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16)

Just as Solomon built a temple housing the Ark of the Covenant, Jesus builds an eternal temple housing a new Ark of the Covenant in heaven (Revelation 11:19). And just as King Solomon enthroned his queen mother at his right hand, Jesus enthrones Mary as his Queen Mother; “A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1).

Any king of the household of David would be expected to have a queen mother. That’s what Mary is: the Queen Mother of the Messianic King. We can now appreciate the role Mary is playing as the NT Queen Mother.

 

[Dokimas]

The logic is simple:
QUOTE]​

I agree it seems to be simple logic; I just come up with a different understanding than the words you use imply.

 

[Bill_Pick]

You probably did a great job. Thanks.​

It does baffle me, however, how a man-made ordinance can be a sin if broken. Where in the Bible does it say that humans determine what is sin and what is not? I thought that was God’s job because He created us, not we ourselves.

LOL, Well you got it now DoKimas you said you are “Baffie” I do not need to be the one but you have been Baffie from day one or the day you left the Church,And we need to talk about the K of C one of these dayn and yes I will pray for you,you may remember this one All Saints days

ALL SAINTS’ DAY
As the daylight hours diminish and the chill in the air announces that winter is not far away, the month of November begins with the celebration of All Saints Day (November 1) and All Souls Day (November 2).

We read in the Book of Revelation: “There was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands” (Rev. 7:9). Saints come in all shapes and sizes. Some are famous for their religious piety, religious fervor or outstanding witness to the Gospel; others came to public notice for theiir heroic fortitude in martyrdom; some might be aptly described as cantankerous, ambitious and worldly. And since the tradition of honoring special people after their deaths h as its roots in the very earliest Christian times, the lives of the saints also embrace many hundreds of years of world history and all the varieties of human activity that can be imagined. The Feast of All Saints remembers not only the “official” saints, that is, those officially pronounced as saints by ecclesiastical authority, but also the countless number of holy, saintly people who lived lives worthy or praise. Included in this group are those people we personally knew; people who had an impact on us because of their religious fervor and witness to Gospel living and values. Some saints are remembered by name, but most are unknown to us. Known or unknown, honored or forgotten, they have one great thing in common; during their lives, all helped to announce the reign and kingdom of God. The idea of holding one feast to celebrate all holy women and men seems to have been born in the early centuries of Christianity. All Saints Day is a celebration perfectly suited to autumn. As we draw towards the end of the agricultural year, we celebrate God’s great harvest of all people throughout history who have shown love, joy and service to others. That is why All Saints and its holy eve, Halloween, are made bright with autumn fruits, vegetable and flowers. That is why it is customary to celebrate with apple-bobbing and pumpkin carving and other harvest games. And that is why All Saints’s Day is begun with a night of trick-or-treating. People give and receive hospitality, the hallmark virtue of the saints.

The number of canonized saints is relatively small. All Saints day is more than a remembrance of the good, saintly people who lived on earth. This feast celebrates our hope to one day join the saints in heaven. It inspires us to imitate the example of Christian living remembered in the lives of saintly people.

Hope you like it,it is okay, right

 

[benidict]

Nice try but I don’t accept that the church can say something is sin and then change its mind especially something that is not sinful in the Bible.

ok, point taken. let me try a different route. do you eat steaks medium well or rare. the apostles had an injunction against the eating of blood. also do your women cover their heads when they pray. the apostle paul stated they should. personally i dont eat my steaks rare or medium well, do to personal preference, but apparently these rules were set up by the apostles for the day in which they lived. no dogma or doctrine came out of these. so apparently at that time, if you ate meat with the blood in it. or a woman prayed with her head uncovered, it would have been a sin at that time. correct? the apostles had this authority. later on thru apostolic succession some of these bans were apparently lifted. the sucessors of the apostles, had the same authority to do this.

 

[Dokimas]

ok, point taken. let me try a different route. do you eat steaks medium well or rare. the apostles had an injunction against the eating of blood. also do your women cover their heads when they pray. the apostle paul stated they should. personally i dont eat my steaks rare or medium well, do to personal preference, but apparently these rules were set up by the apostles for the day in which they lived. no dogma or doctrine came out of these. so apparently at that time, if you ate meat with the blood in it. or a woman prayed with her head uncovered, it would have been a sin at that time. correct? the apostles had this authority. later on thru apostolic succession some of these bans were apparently lifted. the sucessors of the apostles, had the same authority to do this.

Good point. I don’t have a good answer. This doens’t mean I agree with your belief that those after the 1st century had the same authority.​

Actually I’m not sure the meat/blood and the head covering was a sin issue.

 

[benidict]

Good point. I don’t have a good answer. This doens’t mean I agree with your belief that those after the 1st century had the same authority.​

Actually I’m not sure the meat/blood and the head covering was a sin issue.

fair enough. cannot prove it was a sin issue, but i think it can prove an authority issue, especially in the context that was provided in acts. circumcision was done away with for gentile believers. also it is my understanding the teachings of the Blessed Mother came from these same apostles. so it may be worth a very close look, by our protestant bretheren. some of whom agree with us on her. God bless you and yours:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

• IMO, being the Mother of God implies she played part in creating God as all biological Mothers play a role in the creation of a human.

This is the trouble, Doki. Your “IMO” and the implications you are taking constitute a departure from the Apostolic faith.

Your view of motherhood is deficient, which has already been pointed out to you, but in no case is in appropriate to assume or imply that Mary (a creature) played any part in His eternal state.

• God was not created. The Human form He took was created; did the Holy Spirit us one of her ovum, I’m not sure or, and this is my leaning, did He place the whole holy seed in her womb?

No, He was begotten. Yes, the human form He took used flesh of her flesh. This is the teaching of the Apostles. Her seed is the seed mentioned in Genesis, whose offspring is at enmity with the devil.

The mental kniptions you are doing were all done in the early Church, and the term Theotokos was created to respond to them. I think you should read more about it. Once you understand this doctrine was developed to explain the Son, it is easier to accept.

 

[guanophore]

Good point.​

Why would she have to be perpetually a virgin unless it was sinful to have sex with her husband? If it is sinful, then why are catholic women supposed to have children, having sex with their husbands?

There is nothing inherintly sinful about sex. God created sex, and created human beings to enjoy and reproduce with sex.

the issue about reproduction is probably off topic, as is having sex with husbands.

Persons who make a vow of virgninity break their vow if they go back on it after the fact. It is considered a sacrilege to take a sacred vessel (one that has been consecrated to sacred service) and return it to regular daily use. This is why the Jews were so scandalized when invaders would take the sacred vessels from the Temple, and use them for wild drinking parties. It is an insult to the Sacred Service to which they are dedicated. There is nothing inherintly wrong with drinking wine out of a goblet, either. To use a consecrated goblet is an insult.

 

[Dokimas]

This is the trouble, Doki. Your “IMO” and the implications you are taking constitute a departure from the Apostolic faith.

Your view of motherhood is deficient, which has already been pointed out to you, but in no case is in appropriate to assume or imply that Mary (a creature) played any part in His eternal state.

No, He was begotten. Yes, the human form He took used flesh of her flesh. This is the teaching of the Apostles. Her seed is the seed mentioned in Genesis, whose offspring is at enmity with the devil.

The mental kniptions you are doing were all done in the early Church, and the term Theotokos was created to respond to them. I think you should read more about it. Once you understand this doctrine was developed to explain the Son, it is easier to accept.

Thanks for your opinion and that of your church.​

At least I’m willing to admit it’s my opinion. I’ll find out one day if it’s God’s truth.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus was God and Human. Where’s the heresy?

That depends upon what you consider that He “emptied” of Himself. The Arians said that He emptied out His divinity. The Gnostics said that He was not really human.

If you accept that He was fully God,and fully man at one and the same time, then you receive the Apostolic Teaching, which is that He emptied Himself of His divine perogatives.

 

[guanophore]

Nice try but I don’t accept that the church can say something is sin and then change its mind especially something that is not sinful in the Bible.

This is not what happened. You are making a mistake. This belongs on another thread. You are confused.

 

[guanophore]

Hope you like it,it is okay, right

Awesome post, but you are required to cite your sources.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Thanks for your opinion and that of your church.​

At least I’m willing to admit it’s my opinion. I’ll find out one day if it’s God’s truth.

DoKiams Most all your answer are just that a opinion