Some examples of ECF's (spanning from AD 235 to AD 733).....

[Radical]

By stated that Jesus denies his mother you have called him a sinner.

That’s ridiculous. By saying that Jesus denied his mother, Tertullian used a phrase to describe the nature of Christ’s response as recorded at, Matt 12: 48-50, Mark 3: 33-35, and Luke 8: 21. Tertullian wouldn’t have envisioned that Jesus would sin, so he wouldn’t have been calling Jesus a sinner. Further, I think it shows quite nicely how he would have envisioned that Mary could sin…in his day, it seems that Mary had yet to be elevated above the rest of mankind (at least in Carthage) and was lumped in with his brothers who did not believe in him.

 

[jam070406]

That’s ridiculous. By saying that Jesus denied his mother, Tertullian used a phrase to describe the nature of Christ’s response as recorded at, Matt 12: 48-50, Mark 3: 33-35, and Luke 8: 21. Tertullian wouldn’t have envisioned that Jesus would sin, so he wouldn’t have been calling Jesus a sinner. Further, I think it shows quite nicely how he would have envisioned that Mary could sin…in his day, it seems that Mary had yet to be elevated above the rest of mankind (at least in Carthage) and was lumped in with his brothers who did not believe in him.

The previous poster is correct. You are claiming Jesus dishonored His mother, in public none the less!

 

[Radical]

First, it’s a leap to lump in Mary with those that didn’t believe and wanted to seize Him?

not really…at verse 21 it states that his family thought he was crazy and wanted to take charge of him and when his his family (that makes to trip to grab him) is listed, Mary is included.

Are you actually putting forth the idea that Mary denied she gave birth to God as man??

I am putting forth the idea that her understanding wasn’t perfect. At 12 Jesus chides her by asking, “Didn’t you know that I had to be in my Father’s house?”…and she still didn’t understand. Luke 2:50. At the wedding he corrects her by saying his time hadn’t come yet. John the Baptist, after he had baptized Jesus and after he identified Christ as the Lamb of God, still wondered if Jesus was truly the one (Matt 11:2) …and even then Christ said that there was no one born of a woman who was greater than John (Matt 11: 11) I guess we shouldn’t expect more from Mary (being someone born of a woman) than we saw in John the Baptist.

Second, Jesus is telling the people around that Mary so perfectly followed the will of the Father that she was chosen to be the mother of God. Did He have more then one mother?

Nice try, but you have it all wrong. At Matt 12: 49 Christ points to his disciples (and not Mary since she’s outside) and declares, “Here is my mother…”

. He’s actually exhaulting her as an example to follow because they weren’t following the Fathers will.

No, he is elevating his disciples (those possessing a spiritual relationship) above those who possess only a blood relationship. I suggest that you take a better look at the 3 passages dealing with the incident

 

[Nicea325]

Well then if that is the case, why would God step into the world at all and and allow His Son touch sinners, eat with them, heal them, and die for them? If you carry this logic, Jesus should have never entered the world at all.

Why would God allow this? So He could redeem us, plain and simple.

Phil 2

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The fact that He chose Mary to bear Jesus is just part of that. Mary is a blessed woman, a Christian, and a great example for Christians.

But you take it too far with the fact she had too be sinless to preserve Jesus in someway.

On the contrary,you do not take it far enough. To many non-Catholics Mary is just any ordinary Jane Doe.Mary is the one who said yes to God and gave birth to the Son of God. Second of all, her sinless was not done to “preserve” Jesus. Jesus was not an item,but God-big difference. The problem I encounter from many is there failure to understand typology from the OT.

 

[Radical]

The previous poster is correct. You are claiming Jesus dishonored His mother, in public none the less!

I am claiming Jesus did what is stated in the gospels namely:

**While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.**Matt 12: 48-50 NIV

If you think correcting the person who informed Jesus that his mother and brothers are outside by identifying his disciples as his mother and brothers (instead of going along with the assertion that his actual mother and brothers, by way of blood, were outside)…should be classified as a sinful dishonouring of his mother by Jesus, then take it up with God, b/c that is what he did.

 

[jam070406]

not really…at verse 21 it states that his family thought he was crazy and wanted to take charge of him and when his his family (that makes to trip to grab him) is listed, Mary is included.

That verse does not mention Mary. Nor does it say Mary thought He was crazy.

I am putting forth the idea that her understanding wasn’t perfect. At 12 Jesus chides her by asking, “Didn’t you know that I had to be in my Father’s house?”…and she still didn’t understand.

So, Jesus dishonors His Mother by chiding her in the temple too? I thought you were trying to prove Mary sinned but you make Jesus sin. How is being concerned about the whereabouts of the child Jesus a sin?

Luke 2:50. At the wedding he corrects her by saying his time hadn’t come yet. …

So He dishonors her again here? No!
He didn’t correct her, He did what she requested even though His time had not come.

John the Baptist, after he had baptized Jesus and after he identified Christ as the Lamb of God, still wondered if Jesus was truly the one (Matt 11:2) …

I wasn’t aware John The Baptist was at the Annuciation!? But Mary was… and the angel Gabriel told her she would carry the Savior.

…and even then Christ said that there was no one born of a woman who was greater than John (Matt 11: 11) I guess we shouldn’t expect more from Mary (being someone born of a woman) than we saw in John the Baptist…

Jesus meant John was the greatest of all the prophets. Did John carry the Word of God in his womb? John leaped with joy at the sound of Mary’s voice.

Nice try, but you have it all wrong. At Matt 12: 49 Christ points to his disciples (and not Mary since she’s outside) and declares, “Here is my mother…”

So you’re saying Mary is not included as a disciple that did the Father’s will?
Why was Mary chosen to carry the Word made flesh?

No, he is elevating his disciples (those possessing a spiritual relationship) above those who possess only a blood relationship. I suggest that you take a better look at the 3 passages dealing with the incident

Mary was the only one with a blood relationship. And you are suggesting that the Mother of God didn’t have a spiritual relationship with Jesus?

 

[jam070406]

I am claiming Jesus did what is stated in the gospels namely:

**While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.**Matt 12: 48-50 NIV

If you think correcting the person who informed Jesus that his mother and brothers are outside by identifying his disciples as his mother and brothers (instead of going along with the assertion that his actual mother and brothers, by way of blood, were outside)…should be classified as a sinful dishonouring of his mother by Jesus, then take it up with God, b/c that is what he did.

No, I think you are misunderstanding the situation and digging yourself a hole by picking and choosing verses as proof texts. You’re all over the map.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am claiming Jesus did what is stated in the gospels namely:

**While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.**Matt 12: 48-50 NIV

If you think correcting the person who informed Jesus that his mother and brothers are outside by identifying his disciples as his mother and brothers (instead of going along with the assertion that his actual mother and brothers, by way of blood, were outside)…should be classified as a sinful dishonouring of his mother by Jesus, then take it up with God, b/c that is what he did.

I must say it’s something to see people who claim no impact on one’s salvation to believe or disbelieve in Mary’s sinlessness or perpetual viriginity continue to state it as fact that those who do believe are wrong???

I believe you would agree that Jesus was the perfect Jew?? As an example of a perfect Jew, there is no way Christ would have broken the commandment to honor His mother.

Now, addressing your last paragraph, do you not think those that stated His ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ were outside knew that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, through His Holy Spirit? Christ taught in many parables and revealed Himself in His time. This was not His time to reveal Himself fully, or the crucifixion would have taken place much sooner than it did. Secondly, what implications would it have been for Mary if Christ announced, those are not my brothers and sisters, by blood? You can’t think of the event in today’s time and culture. Things were very much different then. As for Christ teaching parables and not revealing Himself at every condemnation, accusation and questioning, do you think it was an example of Christ lying?

 

[KathleenGee]

Radical,

It is interesting you reject all the Early Church Fathers, but uphold Tertullian, a former pagan who converted in middle age to Christianity, but who turned to Montanism and was excommunicated…

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

The first point is that Mary is God’s creation. It is God Who made Mary sinless.

Sin is not like dirt. Sin separates us from God. Mary was created in perfect union with God, but a creature like us. Jesus received His DNA, His body and blood from Mary. Jesus could not reside in sin.

So as God created Mary sinless, it is outside our wishing she did or didn’t. The fact of her immaculate conception was debated by the Church for 1,800 years…until Mary appeared to Bernadette. The parish priest asked Bernadette to ask the lady her name, and Mary said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”.

The only thing God hates is sin. Only God can forgive sin because in essence sin is our decision against God. We cause the break through sin in our relation with God. Mary never broke created broken or vulnerable to sin.

When it comes to virtue, we have to lift the bar. We can’t of ourselves. But we have Mary, Model Par Excellence for us to align with who is the risen bar…she is the short ladder to Jesus, if we go through her to Him.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Radical,

It is interesting you reject all the Early Church Fathers, but uphold Tertullian, a former pagan who converted in middle age to Christianity, but who turned to Montanism and was excommunicated…

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

This is exactly what I was wondering. Why turn to someone that is not considered a Saint unless your agenda is to misuse the information? Even when dealing with the ECFs one can come to recognize truth and realize that even then a Church authority is needed to guide. They serve as evidence, not proof. The ECFs protestant’s choose to lure unsuspecting Catholics into are from heretics usually. They utilize heretics to prove their position. I’m using the term heretic for them because that is the term used for them in the Church during that time. I’m not sure how else to put it. Someone have a better way to put it so as not to get in trouble?

 

[KathleenGee]

Different fruit grow on different soils…like to like…but I don’t think Radical would go anywhere in the direction of Tertullian…just that he is not drawn to our faith.

Also, Tertullian did the best work while still a layman after his conversion, before he was ordained a priest. I really liked what he wrote about just the love of Christians towards one another helped others convert…but really, that is an emotive observation that is not based on the tenants of one’s faith. People being nice to each other…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Radical,

It is interesting you reject all the Early Church Fathers, but uphold Tertullian, a former pagan who converted in middle age to Christianity, but who turned to Montanism and was excommunicated…

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

The first point is that Mary is God’s creation. It is God Who made Mary sinless.

Sin is not like dirt. Sin separates us from God. Mary was created in perfect union with God, but a creature like us. Jesus received His DNA, His body and blood from Mary. Jesus could not reside in sin.

So as God created Mary sinless, it is outside our wishing she did or didn’t. The fact of her immaculate conception was debated by the Church for 1,800 years…until Mary appeared to Bernadette. The parish priest asked Bernadette to ask the lady her name, and Mary said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”.

The only thing God hates is sin. Only God can forgive sin because in essence sin is our decision against God. We cause the break through sin in our relation with God. Mary never broke created broken or vulnerable to sin.

When it comes to virtue, we have to lift the bar. We can’t of ourselves. But we have Mary, Model Par Excellence for us to align with who is the risen bar…she is the short ladder to Jesus, if we go through her to Him.

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Kathleen, Whose flesh did Jesus come in the likeness of?

 

[KathleenGee]

…if I understand your point…God defined Christ’s gender, but Jesus received His flesh and blood from His mother…she was created sinless by God the Father.

 

[Radical]

That verse does not mention Mary. Nor does it say Mary thought He was crazy.

yah, we have covered that already. Mark 3 mentions that his family 1) thought that Jesus was out of his mind and 2) went to get him…and next time his family is mentioned (at its arrival to get him), Mary is numbered among them. She was along for the ride, and therefore it is quite likely that she was also among those who thought he was crazy.

So, Jesus dishonors His Mother by chiding her in the temple too? I thought you were trying to prove Mary sinned but you make Jesus sin.

no, that bit was about her rather limited understanding and about Jesus’s practice of correcting her (from at least age 12 onward).

How is being concerned about the whereabouts of the child Jesus a sin?

never said it was

So He dishonors her again here?

didn’t say that either.

I wasn’t aware John The Baptist was at the Annuciation!?

nor did I say that either…John identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God and savior of the world at John 1:29…so it seems that he knew the same truth that Gabriel told Mary

But Mary was… and the angel Gabriel told her she would carry the Savior.

yah, that truth…that Jesus was the savior

Jesus meant John was the greatest of all the prophets.

WRT Mark 3:21 you want to stress that Mary wasn’t included by name, but here you want (and need) to exclude Mary (from those born of a woman) even though no such exclusion exists in the passage…may I recommend some consistency?

Did John carry the Word of God in his womb?

did John have a womb?..but, if John did the will of the Father, then (according to Christ), he would have been Jesus’s mother (and brother and sister).

John leaped with joy at the sound of Mary’s voice.

I am sure that there were occasions where Jesus was joyous at seeing Mary, too…and so your point is? John baptized Jesus…still Jesus was his Lord.

So you’re saying Mary is not included as a disciple that did the Father’s will?

I am saying that Mary wasn’t among the disciples that Jesus pointed to and identified as his mother etc. Dance around it all you want, but three gospels record that Jesus rejected the identification of Mary as his mother and instead identified his disciples as his mother etc.

Why was Mary chosen to carry the Word made flesh?

b/c she found favor with God…likely b/c of her righteousness and her foreseen faithfulness. Kinda of the same answer one has for why God chose Abram or Moses or David or …John the Baptist (who we have seen also had a moment of doubt).

Mary was the only one with a blood relationship.

that is your assumption, but not mine

And you are suggesting that the Mother of God didn’t have a spiritual relationship with Jesus?

I am suggesting that 1) Tertullian held that, at that time, Mary didn’t believe in Jesus and that 2) Tertullian’s argument is founded on scripture and quite possibly correct. Further, I am suggesting that 3) given Tertullian’s position, it is rather unlikely that the Christians in Carthage (at Tertullian’s time) believed that Mary was sinless. Finally, if the belief in Mary’s sinlessness stemmed from the apostles or Mary’s contemporaries it is unlikely that 4) the teaching would have gotten lost on the way to 2nd century Carthage and that 5) it would be totally absent from the earliest Christian writings (even though it would have been of great use against Gnosticism). As such, I am suggesting that the bettter conclusion is that the idea of Mary’s sinlessness is a man-made invention.

 

[Radical]

I must say it’s something to see people who claim no impact on one’s salvation to believe or disbelieve in Mary’s sinlessness or perpetual viriginity continue to state it as fact that those who do believe are wrong???

Hey, you don’t have to believe that the earth is round to be saved either, but if you want to declare that the earth is flat, I just might take the time to tell you that you are wrong.

I believe you would agree that Jesus was the perfect Jew??

by whose definition? by those in the seat of Moses?

As an example of a perfect Jew, there is no way Christ would have broken the commandment to honor His mother.

as I said just above, dance around it all you want, but three gospels record that Jesus rejected the identification of Mary as his mother and instead identified his disciples as his mother etc. Further, just as Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, he is also Lord of the Law. It was lawful to good on the Sabbath (even if it violated the law) and it was lawful to teach good (clarifying who were his mother, brother etc.) even if (you think) that it violated the law (b/c it dishonored Mary by rejecting the identification of her as his mother).

Now, addressing your last paragraph, do you not think those that stated His ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ were outside knew that Christ was the only begotten Son of God, through His Holy Spirit?

we don’t know…I expect some of those inside with Christ would have heard. As indicated above, John the Baptist would have known by that time.

Christ taught in many parables and revealed Himself in His time. This was not His time to reveal Himself fully, or the crucifixion would have taken place much sooner than it did.

well, he had already been publicly identified as the Lamb of God, savior of the world…so I don’t think it would necessarily have resulted in an early crucifixion…but his purpose seems to have been something different than identifying himself as the Messiah at that time on that day.

Secondly, what implications would it have been for Mary if Christ announced, those are not my brothers and sisters, by blood?

This has nothing to do with his purpose that day…his purpose was to show the greater importance of the spiritual relationship.

As for Christ teaching parables and not revealing Himself at every condemnation, accusation and questioning, do you think it was an example of Christ lying?

of course not.

 

[Radical]

Radical,

It is interesting you reject all the Early Church Fathers, but uphold Tertullian, a former pagan who converted in middle age to Christianity, but who turned to Montanism and was excommunicated…

He was excommunicated? Augustine and others sure held him in high regard. In any event, if one wants to know what the church first believed, one looks to the earliest sources. Joe only provided ECFs telling us what the ECFs came to believe (and not what they first believed). For information on what Christians of the late 2nd century believed, Tertullian is about as good as it gets.

The first point is that Mary is God’s creation. It is God Who made Mary sinless.

I agree with the first sentence, but see no good evidence for the truth of the second.

Jesus received His DNA, His body and blood from Mary.

we don’t actually know this…presumably he had a Y chromosome that he couldn’t have received from Mary

Jesus could not reside in sin.

Some think that Jesus went to hell. We know he ate with sinners. It is not as if Mary’s sinful nature could somehow pollute Christ’s purity…corrupting sin doesn’t travel down an umbilical cord.

So as God created Mary sinless, it is outside our wishing she did or didn’t. The fact of her immaculate conception was debated by the Church for 1,800 years…

debated for 1800 years? It wasn’t even considered during the first centuries…

…until Mary appeared to Bernadette. The parish priest asked Bernadette to ask the lady her name, and Mary said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”.

That was a vision, a delusion or a fabrication…I am not betting on vision.

When it comes to virtue, we have to lift the bar. We can’t of ourselves. But we have Mary, Model Par Excellence for us to align with who is the risen bar…she is the short ladder to Jesus, if we go through her to Him.

If the NT ever recommended the use of that short ladder I might think that you were on to something, but in contrast, the NT declares that there is one Mediator and One Way to God, and it ain’t by use of a short ladder…It is extremely telling that the first church just didn’t give Mary any significant role in salvation (or anything else) after she gave birth and helped raise Jesus…IMHO it is beyond unbelievable (if she actually possessed the importance that you attribute to her).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

well, he had already been publicly identified as the Lamb of God, savior of the world…so I don’t think it would necessarily have resulted in an early crucifixion…but his purpose seems to have been something different than identifying himself as the Messiah at that time on that day.

Really? So those who announced His ‘siblilngs’ knew He was the only begotten Son of God, through His Holy Spirit? I don’t think you really believe that.

He had another purpose, establishing His Church.

It appears whatever a Catholic says here, in your opinion, is wrong.

I will end on how mistaken I think you are to think that Christ would have not honored His mother, thereby breaking one of the 10 commandments.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

…if I understand your point…God defined Christ’s gender, but Jesus received His flesh and blood from His mother…she was created sinless by God the Father.

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

According to this verse the flesh that you say Jesus came in the likeness of is sinful flesh.
That flesh would be Mary’s flesh.

 

[joe370]

Rom.8
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

According to this verse the flesh that you say Jesus came in the likeness of is sinful flesh.
That flesh would be Mary’s flesh.

Richard, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; this verse is about Jesus who was/is sinless, but was sent to the world in the likeness of sinful flesh; this passage has nothing to do with Mary. Forget the catholic church for a moment. Doesn’t your heart tell you that the woman that gave birth to God, might have been the exception to the rule: all have sinned?

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

I misunderstood your point because Jesus did not receive sinful flesh. What was happening was he was coming to remove the condemnation of the flesh – that leads us to sin.

And – Mary was created by God to be the Mother of Christ. She was called. She had free choice. And she was asked and answered with her fiat, ‘Yes’.

Mary was conceived without sin. Christ could not be in a sinful womb.

She did not know man. She was in prayer when the Angel Gabriel came. That setting is a reflection of her virginal desire to be only for God. There were numerous early Christians who experienced such profound liberation and restoration of their dignity, that they chose to remain as virgins.

Can’t we expect even more from the woman chosen to be Christ’s mother?

Again, you have to look at the faith of the people. The Bible is only one part. It is incredible how much Catholics and Protestants think alike in the general understanding of Christianity, but reject the apostolic faith because of the Eucharist and Mary, and ecclesiastical authority.

You have to see how the Word of God was implemented into the faithful who remained with Christ…following the faith of the Apostles who remained with Him. There is only One Bread and One Body…fractured parts (Protestants) need to be healed and returned to the whole.

The implementation part, the integration of the Word of God into life…OK, we have the Word of God, now how do we live the Word of God out?..this is now the response of the believers in the Church…this is Tradition – supported by the Holy Spirit to insure the true intent of Christ through His apostles.

Remember, it took 1800 years to define the Immaculate Conception. Our Lady of Lourdes was asked her name and she called her self that. And Mary began to make her work on earth known by helping Christians within 200 years of her passing here on earth. So we have seen 1800 years of the Blessed Mother’s help on our behalf in every generation through various means, and her interventions caused the Church to begin to think more about her.

When the faith of one baptism, one Shepherd, one Body returns, we will have a restored Church now being crucified in the world. All that people find lacking in it will be restored because then we will have all the gifts of every member.

What the Catholic Church is missing is you, Richard.