What did Jesus do to respect His Mother?

[Benadam]

I hope I’m not just repeating something already posted. If so I apologize. Jesus at 12 years of age.

When Jesus was twelve He went to Jerusalem with His entire family. He seems to have decided to begin His mission as He put it " didn’t you know I would be about my Father’s business?" This is significant because at 12 a young man was expected to be ready to take on adult responsibilities. To be an adult member of the community. At 5 the child’s maternal care ended and he began his education under his father. By twelve the child’s education should be complete and he should be ready to begin adulthood. When it was time to go He decided to stay in Jerusalem and begin revealing Himself. Jesus, being perfect was about to begin life under His own authority. In fact His surprise when Mary and Joseph found Him indicates that He considered it already understood that he would do so. That He obeyed His mother and father and remained under their authority untill His mother initiated the start of His mission, an 18 year wait, was a great act of respect.

 

[sandusky]

Eden:

In Galatians 4:4–5 Paul says, “When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Why would Paul think it necessary to emphasize that God’s Son was “born of woman”? On a purely physical level, it is obvious that any man is born from a woman. But Paul is saying something deeper.

No he’s not. Paul is speaking about the personhood of Christ—He’s the Son of God, and He’s fully man.

Eden:

By speaking of the woman, he is alluding to Genesis 3:15, which says, “I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The woman in Genesis 3:15 is clearly Eve, and Paul is drawing a parallel between Eve and the woman from whom God’s Son was born.

How do you figure that?

Where is either Adam or Eve mentioned anywhere in the epistle? Or, where is there any mention of the account of the fall in Genesis, in the Galatian epistle?

There is none, and so, to assert that Paul is drawing a parallel between Eve and Mary is, IMO, pure eisegetical reasoning based upon a presupposition—it’s not interpretation of the text, but spiritualizing of it.

Eden:

In the first place, the text could be translated “from the woman,” even though it lacks the definite article. Greek does not always require the article when it is referring to a specific person. More importantly, Paul emphasizes that Christ came from the woman to show that "we might receive adoption as sons."

That’s the second point; primarily, Christ came to redeem His people from under law which cannot save.

Eden:

In Adam and Eve, the human race lost its sonship, and part of Christ’s mission was to restore that filial relationship with the Father. By saying that Christ was born “from the woman,” Paul is linking both the Son and the woman with Adam and Eve.

How, where are Adam and Eve mentioned anywhere in the epistle?

Eden:

Christ the Son is obviously linked to Adam. The only woman who could be linked with Eve is Mary. So, Paul is saying that Mary participated in the Redemption by giving birth to Jesus in the opposite but parallel way that Eve participated in the Fall of man into sin.

Where in the epistle, or anywhere else, does Paul, or any of the other NT writers say anything that even remotely connects Mary to the office of a “Co-Redeemer?”

 

[Eden]

Sandusky:

**How Can You Say That Mary Is the ‘New Eve’?
**
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312sbs.asp

 

[Benadam]

There is much revealed in what is not said. Sometimes it is what is most important. that is even more so when the source of what is said is divine. When we insist that something be mentioned or obviously pointed too we often miss the most subtle and all encompassing revelation sacred texts offer.

 

[sandusky]

Eden:

Sandusky:

How Can You Say That Mary Is the ‘New Eve’?

Eden, neither you, nor Mr. Howell have dealt with the questions I’ve asked.

Please address my specific questions from post #62.

Mr. Howell says:**Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin… Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death…**Would you cite the inspired, canonical scripture—book, chapter, and verse—where those statements are recorded?

Mr. Howell further says:”Thus Irenaeus says that Eve **‘by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race’ "**Where does revelation make either of those statements?

IMHO, Irenaeus, however well-intentioned Mr. Howell perceives him to be, is deceiving, and being deceived (2 Tim 3:13ff).

Benadam:

There is much revealed in what is not said. Sometimes it is what is most important. that is even more so when the source of what is said is divine. When we insist that something be mentioned or obviously pointed too we often miss the most subtle and all encompassing revelation sacred texts offer.

IMHO, if what you want is divine silence with respect to what you are to believe concerning the Mother of Jesus, then you’re in the right place.

 

[MarcoPolo]

IMHO, if what you want is divine silence with respect to what you are to believe concerning the Mother of Jesus, then you’re in the right place.

I disagree that there is divine silence on the matter. Why wouldn’t you accept revelation via the unanimous Tradition on the matter?? Mary as Eve, and Eve as disobedient virgin is consistent from the beginning, at least starting explicitly with Justin Martyr (who was born in AD 100).

And the typology in Scripture is there for you to see if you have the eyes to see it. But I noticed you have denied typology, demanding explicit “chapter and verse” stating this truth. There is no chapter and verse laying out the canon of Scripture, nor the Trinity, nor sola scriptura, etc…etc… Therefore the chapter and verse demand is specious criteria and your question diffuses itself.

 

[sandusky]

MarcoPolo:

I disagree that there is divine silence on the matter. Why wouldn’t you accept revelation via the unanimous Tradition on the matter?? Mary as Eve, and Eve as disobedient virgin is consistent from the beginning, at least starting explicitly with Justin Martyr (who was born in AD 100).

Those few who mentioned Mary as Eve from your link are hardly a “unanimous tradition.”

Implicit in your idea of “Tradition” is the notion that what the apostles taught orally, differs from what they taught in writing; however, you can’t prove that, but only assert it.

MarcoPolo:

And the typology in Scripture is there for you to see if you have the eyes to see it. But I noticed you have denied typology, demanding explicit “chapter and verse” stating this truth. There is no chapter and verse laying out the canon of Scripture, nor the Trinity, nor sola scriptura, etc…etc… Therefore the chapter and verse demand is specious criteria and your question diffuses itself.

Correct; the proof that I require is “chapter and verse,” and you cannot provide either; my request is insurmountable for you, therefore, you label it “specious.”

Using scripture, anyone can type something to prove anything—that proves nothing—chapter and verse, please.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Those few who mentioned Mary as Eve from your link are hardly a “unanimous tradition.”

I think if you apply yourself you can see more than a "few. Buy a more exhaustive book on the subject and be enlightened…the teaching has been such for almost 2000 years. If you want to deny that, that is your affair.

my request is insurmountable for you, therefore, you label it “specious.”

There’s really no need to go any further with someone who is not willing to see something in Scripture by typology (and rejects God’s revelation in Tradition), when that same person demands a “sola scriptura” answer, which he cannot show in Scripture…

Maybe sometime you can prove to me that Jesus Christ said, “Love thy neighbor.” Oh, and you can’t use the Bible. I don’t allow it. My request is insurmountable for you.

 

[sandusky]

I think if you apply yourself you can see more than a "few. Buy a book on the subject and be enlightened…the teaching has been consistent for 1900+ years. If you want to deny that, that is your affair.

What’s the basis for this “consistent teaching?”

MarcoPolo:

There’s really no need to go any further with someone who is not willing to see something in Scripture by typology, when that same person demands a “sola scriptura” answer, which he cannot show in Scripture…

Your typology is your opinion only; it “proves” nothing.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

Well, when he was 12 and got lost at the temple, he obeyed her after she and Joseph found him. (Luke 2:51) Also, at the wedding of Cana, it was Mary who persuaded him to do his first miracle.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Your typology is your opinion only; it “proves” nothing.

And that is your opinion, which also proves nothing.

And your denial of his typology is your opinin which also proves nothing.

Do you understand typology at all?

 

[sandusky]

JoeyWarren:

And that is your opinion, which also proves nothing.

Not to you, but it does to me, and it may to others reading this thread.

JoeyWarren:

Do you believe in typology at all?

Of course; the NT writers state a number of types of Christ—the bronze serpent, Adam, the Paschal Lamb, Melchizedek.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What’s the basis for this “consistent teaching?”

Others have given you the basis ad nauseum. Now perhaps you can show me that Paul existed. And you are only allowed to use the book of Esther. OK, go ahead. Prove it based on my criteria.

 

[sandusky]

Others have given you the basis ad nauseum. Now perhaps you can show me that Paul existed. And you are only allowed to use the book of Esther. OK, go ahead. Prove it based on my criteria.

Your continual wanting to change the subject is an attempt to disguise your inability to answer my questions, IMHO. :tiphat:

 

[Benadam]

Correct; the proof that I require is “chapter and verse,” and you cannot provide either; my request is insurmountable for you, therefore, you label it “specious.”

Using scripture, anyone can type something to prove anything—that proves nothing—chapter and verse, please.

Why do you require that as a proof of something True?

 

[sandusky]

Why do you require that as a proof of something True?

Why don’t you?

 

[Benadam]

Why don’t you?

Because* I know words are transient symbols attached to concepts. The concepts that the author’s of Sacred Scripture had in mind are what are Holy the particular words used by translators and editors of bibles are if they are given their authentic meaning.*

Also the bible it’self claims there are many things Jesus did and said that are not in it. That all the books in the world could not contain all that He did and said. Meaning that written words are not sufficient to teach everything jesus taught. No?

 

[sandusky]

Benadam:

Because I know words are transient symbols attached to concepts. The concepts that the author’s of Sacred Scripture had in mind are what are Holy the particular words used by translators and editors of bibles are if they are given their authentic meaning.

How have come to know that the RCC is one true church?

Benadam:

Also the bible it’self claims there are many things Jesus did and said that are not in it. That all the books in the world could not contain all that He did and said. Meaning that written words are not sufficient to teach everything jesus taught. No?

So then, you have no faith that the Holy Spirit to have included in the written testimony all that is required of the believer with respect to his salvation?**2 Timothy 3:14-17

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.**Paul has that faith in the H.S.; why don’t you?

 

[Benadam]

How have come to know that the RCC is one true church?

So then, you have no faith that the Holy Spirit to have included in the written testimony all that is required of the believer with respect to his salvation?2 Timothy 3:14-17

**You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, **

**and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

**All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; **

**so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.**Paul has that faith in the H.S.; why don’t you?

Paul in everyn passage you post is refering to Sacred Scriptures being taught. It’s a rare individual who has picked up a bible and come to know Jesus without someone teaching them. Paul speaks of Timothy’s childhood, why? Because Timothy ‘learned’ from his parents. Paul is refering to Timothy as someone who comes from a family grounded in the authentic teaching of scripture, not as someone who picked up a bible as a child and learned on his own what Christ had to come Himself and teach.

Not a single passage refers to Scriptures as something that teaches in of it’s self but something that a chosen teacher (Timothy) can lean on in unforseen circumstances as a sure guide. Why? Because Scriptures will remind Him of what he already learned and with the Grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders be lead by the Holy Spirit as a ‘teacher’ fit to teach authentically the True Faith.

Don’t mistake who Paul is speaking too.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Your continual wanting to change the subject

No, it just went over your head.