D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
I am thinking that Mary did not fully understand, realise that Jesus is the Messiah until after the ressurrection. When do you think Mary fully believed in Jesus as the Christ, Messiah?
- Status
H
homewardbound
Guest
She had to have known it and believed it when she was pregnant with Jesus. If not, then why did her cousin Elizabeth state she(Mary) was the Mother of our Lord? If not then did she fully realize it I think she HAD to have during the finding in the temple when, at twelve years old, Jesus was preaching to the priests.
I think she definitely knew long before the ressurection.
I think she definitely knew long before the ressurection.
K
Kuriakos
Guest
I don’t think she really understood until he began his ministry. I’m sure she had suspicions and perhaps thought he would be something lesser, like a prophet, but I highly doubt she was certain til later in his life.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Gabriel described to Mary an amazing sequence of events – akin to the Shekinah glory cloud coming down upon the Ark of the Covenant in the OT, which was the sign of God’s presence with his people. I think Mary knew that her child would be more that a prophet; that he would be the actual Son of God.
Elizabeth’s words to Mary make clear that both the one who spoke to Mary (through the angel) and the babe in her womb are somehow both Lord – the God and Savior of Israel. Perhaps she did not have a Thomistic understanding of the Trinity, but she knew her baby was not just a man, even a great one.
In light of this, listen to Our Lady’s Magnificat:
“Mary did you know?” I think yes!
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Hi homewardbound, the phrase, “mother of my Lord” in the gospel is not referring to Mary as “Mother of my God”, it in context is simply referring to lord as meaning “master” nothing more. The error of taking lord here to mean God comes from misunderstanding the meaning of Jewish names-titles. My name is Daniel which means simply “God is judge” that does not make me God, the judge of mankind.
We know for example, that when Jesus was left behind in the temple that his parents did not understand Jesus’ mission on earth.
Luke 2
40And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
41Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
44But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, **Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? **behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49And **he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? **
50And **they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. **
51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: **but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. **
52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
In Luke 2, verse 49 Jesus tells his parents that he was doing his Father’s business. verse 50 tells us that his parents did NOT understand the meaning of Jesus’ words. But, in verse 50 Mary hid Jesus’ saying in her heart to ponder their meaning which tells me that Mary at this time did not fully understand the meaning and signifance of his words.
If you do not know about Mohammads’ violent and immoral life, get a copy of this muslim book and read for yourself.
Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad by Ali Dashti (Author), F. R. C. Bagley (Translator)
We know for example, that when Jesus was left behind in the temple that his parents did not understand Jesus’ mission on earth.
Luke 2
40And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
41Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
44But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, **Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? **behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49And **he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? **
50And **they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. **
51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: **but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. **
52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
In Luke 2, verse 49 Jesus tells his parents that he was doing his Father’s business. verse 50 tells us that his parents did NOT understand the meaning of Jesus’ words. But, in verse 50 Mary hid Jesus’ saying in her heart to ponder their meaning which tells me that Mary at this time did not fully understand the meaning and signifance of his words.
If you do not know about Mohammads’ violent and immoral life, get a copy of this muslim book and read for yourself.
Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad by Ali Dashti (Author), F. R. C. Bagley (Translator)
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Fidelis;…I think yes! :slight_smile: [/QUOTE said:
F
Fidelis
Guest
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel. You did not address anything that I wrote. You simply dismissed it with a irrelevant point that, BTW, mitigates against ANY use of Scripture (including your own).
Instead, you go into the tired anti-Catholic clap-trap which tries to down-play Mary’s significance. It is clear this is why you started this whole thread – a very childish and deceptive tactic of the type that turned me off from “Bible Christians” and straight back into the Catholic Church. I wanted no part of people that had to resort to such tactics.
Next time be honest and, if you can’t ask a sincere question, at least say what you mean up front. To paraphrase Gollum, “I like my anti-Catholicism raw and wriggling!”
H
HailMary
Guest
Can you give me one example in Scripture where the word, “lord” is used in the way your definition claims it to have been used when St. Elizabeth spoke those words?
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
Yes, I would like to see in scripture where the word “lord” is used to simply mean master! Surely you have MORE examples to use other then the passage where Elizabeth, calls the child (Jesus) in Mary’s womb “My Lord”.
Please, give more examples from Scripture where the “lord” means simply “master” and NOTHING more.
Thank-you,
and God Bless.
Mommyof02green
L
LilyM
Guest
Surely Mary could know that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, as she was told by Gabriel, without knowing the details of what his future life and tasks would be. Thus she could be confused at his words in the Temple without necessarily not believing in him. After all, the same happened with the Apostles.
T
tdandh26
Guest
This is the most proposterous question I have ever heard! Have you ever read the fathers Dan? Have you read the passage where Gabriel visits Mary? Did you know that Jews had a profound understanding of the scriptures, and Mary was no exception.
The very fact that she was conceiving as a virgin points to a passage she would have known well concerning the messiah. Gabriel himself calls Jesus the Son of the Most High. He tells her about how Jesus will save his people. Do you think that she would not have heard that the messiah was to be a light of revelation to the gentiles?
Do you really think even if all this passed over the head of the most blessed and grace filled human being ever created by God, that Jesus would not have informed her completely?
What was the point of Gabriel asking Mary for her consent to such an enormous task if she was ignorant of all that was to happen to the messiah. Not only did she say yes to giving birth to Christ but also to the immense suffering that she would have to suffer as she watched her Lord and son be tortured and killed in a most horrible fashion. She said yes to God in taking part in plan of salvation.
Without Mary, Daniel you would have no chance of salvation. Without her “be it done unto me according to thy will” we would still be under the penalty of one womans sin. But as it is, One Most Blessed Woman has participated in Gods plan freely and helped to set us free.
She alone was created without sin and therefore she alone could have given birth to God the Son.
Now leave my Mother alone and rather than blast her every chance you guys get, why not offer thanks to God by thanking Him for such a wonderful gift as Mary Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, and Mother of the Church.
The very fact that she was conceiving as a virgin points to a passage she would have known well concerning the messiah. Gabriel himself calls Jesus the Son of the Most High. He tells her about how Jesus will save his people. Do you think that she would not have heard that the messiah was to be a light of revelation to the gentiles?
Do you really think even if all this passed over the head of the most blessed and grace filled human being ever created by God, that Jesus would not have informed her completely?
What was the point of Gabriel asking Mary for her consent to such an enormous task if she was ignorant of all that was to happen to the messiah. Not only did she say yes to giving birth to Christ but also to the immense suffering that she would have to suffer as she watched her Lord and son be tortured and killed in a most horrible fashion. She said yes to God in taking part in plan of salvation.
Without Mary, Daniel you would have no chance of salvation. Without her “be it done unto me according to thy will” we would still be under the penalty of one womans sin. But as it is, One Most Blessed Woman has participated in Gods plan freely and helped to set us free.
She alone was created without sin and therefore she alone could have given birth to God the Son.
Now leave my Mother alone and rather than blast her every chance you guys get, why not offer thanks to God by thanking Him for such a wonderful gift as Mary Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, and Mother of the Church.
T
tdandh26
Guest
Hey lily,
I have always thought that the reason Mary kept this scene in her heart is that she alone could fully realize the immense paradox that was occuring right before the eyes of the Jews.
That is, that He who dwelt in the Holy of Holies,( that place which they could only enter once a year) was seated in the midst of them. The Creator of all was asking His creatures questions. All this while they had no idea who He was.
L
LilyM
Guest
I think I see what you’re getting at - she (they) may have been confused as to WHY it was happening, and perhaps HOW it was happening, and yet still clear about WHAT was happening 
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
She certainly didn’t understand Him during all of His ministry.
What is not clear is at what point - if at any one in particular - she passed from giving ready OT obedience to the Will of God - as in Luke 1 & John 2 - to a specifically “Christian” way of thinking. This is a bit like asking “Was Jesus a Christian ?”I doubt one can really draw any hard-and-fast boundaries here: I think she grew gradually, as most of us do. But that is only a guess. Her interior life is in some ways even more hidden than that of her Son; I think that the Baptist’s words - “I must decrease, but He must increase” - go double for her; she is nearer the Sun, so we see less of her than of John or Jesus
I suspect you are right. ##
B
But_for_Grace
Guest
not to interject, but let’s go back to what Gabriel said to Mary, “Hail Mary, Full of Grace” So exactly how full is full?
How full makes an angel of God address her as being full of grace? is it a fullness consisting of all the graces, a few to an extrodinary degree? if this is the case, why call her “full of grace” is a glass of water full if it has several drinks of water in it? of course not, but to use the same metaphore, Mary, like the cup, was overflowing. She is full of grace exactly as the angel of God proclaimed, exactly as the scriptures declare. Is it any small wonder that this fullness should include the gift of faith? or shall we forget that faith is a gift of the Spirit, a grace given to us by God. Mary knew and believed before she obediently submitted to God saying behold the handmaiden of the Lord.
How full makes an angel of God address her as being full of grace? is it a fullness consisting of all the graces, a few to an extrodinary degree? if this is the case, why call her “full of grace” is a glass of water full if it has several drinks of water in it? of course not, but to use the same metaphore, Mary, like the cup, was overflowing. She is full of grace exactly as the angel of God proclaimed, exactly as the scriptures declare. Is it any small wonder that this fullness should include the gift of faith? or shall we forget that faith is a gift of the Spirit, a grace given to us by God. Mary knew and believed before she obediently submitted to God saying behold the handmaiden of the Lord.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Which is all of a piece with the insistence that Abraham’s children are not those who are circumcised in the flesh, but those who are circumcised in heart.
“The flesh profits nothing” (John 6) - bodily descent from Abraham is undercut completely, by Jesus’s insistence that his mother & brothers are those who do the Will of God; this lesson is reflected by St. Paul & St. John, and by the other Evangelists.It may well have been shocking to hear such talk, but that would not make it untrue; this is something we need to learn too, IMO: Jesus threatens our religious securities, and our family ones (it’s amazing that such a family-Breaker is thought of as a guarantor of the stability of the family
)He is not affirming the family - not even His. He is redefining it, by counting as His family those who do the Will of His Father. The family is itself a good thing - so it can become a correspondingly hideous idol; and that is simply not on: nothing, not even the family, not even the family of Jesus Himself, is allowed to stand in the way of His uncompromising, total, unreserved, self-forgetting, self-sacrificing, universal, perfect obedience to His His Father in Heaven.
He also universalises His family - anyone can be his kin, if they have the same attitude as He does: His zeal for His Father’s Will; relationship to God is no longer by descent from Abraham. Jesus’ universal mission starts in His family, but cannot be confined to it.
ISTM that Daniel is saying things we Catholics need to hear - what we don’t like, may be just what we need to be told. It is not at all dissing Mary to insist that Our Lord’s Love for her is not the supreme motive for His acts - it wasn’t. She is not important enough for that - only the Father of Jesus, the God by Whose grace she became the mother of His Beloved Son, is *that *important.
To put it another way: the fact that even His Love for Mary could not be allowed to get in the way of Jesus’ utter dedication to His Father’s Will, allows Jesus’ Love for Mary to be great - yet even so, it is not allowed to be supreme. It can have a high place - provided it is not given the highest place. No creature is worthy to be loved with that total unbounded devotion - that love is so great, that God alone deserves it, because it is the Love of the Heart of the man Who is God. It would not make sense for God Incarnate to give to Mary, a creature, that Love which God alone can receive. For Jesus to prefer His mother to His Father, would make God an idolater (!)
Jesus was tempted to avoid the Cross by Peter - Peter surely did not mean to voice a temptation Jesus recognised as satanic, but that is how Jesus took what Peter said; even those closest to us can be stumbling blocks to us, with the best of intentions. It is a miracle, nothing less, if Mary was not as great a danger to her Son as Peter was, and surely not the least of her graces. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
About Luke 1.28 & the rendering “full of grace”:
there’s a problem with translating kecharitōmenē as meaning full of grace in a unique manner, as the RCC takes it, because- charitōo also appears in Ephesians 1.6 - it’s hard to believe no one has noticed this; my apologies if this has been done to death already
- if Mary is “full of grace”, why is not plerē charitos the text ? This is not quite a fatal objection - a thing can often be said in more ways than one - but it has some weight.
The verse goes thus:
“to the praise of His glorious grace which He echaritōsen on us in the Beloved”.
The problem is: if a form of charitōo in Luke means one thing in Luke, why does a form of the same verb not mean the same thing in Ephesians ? Would it not follow that the Ephesian addressees of the writer are “full of grace”; or that the Lucan passage should be translated as “graced/favoured one” ?
The problem is not only with translating the linguistic features of the passages in a consistent manner; the grace given to Mary has received a lot of theological attention, in a way that the grace received by the Ephesians has not; the word has associations in Luke which it does not have in Ephesians. But this would not explain just how the words are to be translated.
IMO, the Lucan passage might be translated as “Rejoice, favoured one/you who are favoured - the LORD is with you/the LORD-is-with-you” one assumes there is an allusion to the Emmanuel-oracle in Isaiah 7; given the likenesses between Matthew’s & Luke’s Nativity-narratives, this seems likely]
This translation would allow the action of God to Mary to get the emphasis it deserves; for “the year of the LORD’s favour…” (see Isaiah 61 & Luke 4), & the saving acts of JHWH (those in Christ included) have their beginning in the favour of God to those He favours: this is a Divine initiative which God initiates, it comes from Him; His activity, not that of the recipient, is the true cause of it. And it is something He freely, “arbitrarily”, gives - not something that we can (so to say) attract. Favour is something that people in the OT “find before”/“in the sight of” God - people no more important, as far as man sees, than Mary, who is describes in that way in Luke 1.30. The scene in Luke 1 - with the “angel of the LORD”, the favoured yet awe-struck human being, the message of joy & encouragement - is very much in the manner of similar scenes in the OT, such as the experience of Gideon in Judges 6.11-24, esp. v. 12:
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD [is] with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
*If *such a translation is at all accurate, then we could without difficulty use the same translation in Eph. 1.6 - alternatively, maybe “full of grace” could be used in both places.
To translate the word in the one way both times (the only times charitōo appears in the NT) does not demean Mary: to receive grace at all, is an amazing privilege.
There is a greater “fullness” than any creature enjoys; that of Christ:
- John 1.14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
- John 1:16 And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.
- Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
If Mary is “full of grace”, it looks as though she may be as powerful to save us as Jesus; which is another reason to doubt that translation. ##
H
HailMary
Guest
M
Memaw
Guest
AMEN to that, it is amazing what they can do with a few words when taken out of context and made into their own opinion.
2
2ndGen
Guest
When did she know?
Luke 1.
As soon as she heard it told to her.
She believed without questioning.
Period.
Perfect Christianity from The Perfect Christian.
Luke 1.
As soon as she heard it told to her.
She believed without questioning.
Period.
Perfect Christianity from The Perfect Christian.
- Status