Jesus repudiates Mariolatry, Part the Fourth

[mrtumnus]

No need to calling people names or being paranoid - she was addressing me - and agreeing that Hagee is not a reputable source. She then pointed out something else Hagee said - NOT you.

I'm glad you interpreted all of that correctly. Thanks much.

 

[Eliyahu]

Nope - saying God created a miracle.

by turning the Word of God to have flesh.

Nah - that was already flesh. It was a cell. What became flesh was the Word - Jesus, the Son of God.

Yah, that's why there is NO way for Mary to become the Biological Mother. She had nothing more than the flesh to offer to Jesus and you know that None of the flesh from Mary could contribute the formation of Jesus, then she cannot be Biological Mother!

What's the definition of Biological Mother in your term?

3 little letters .... G-O-D

You are eventually pleading with Mystery. If you don't know please keep silence.

No need to calling people names or being paranoid - she was addressing me - and agreeing that Hagee is not a reputable source. She then pointed out something else Hagee said - NOT you.

No, his way of debate is tricky by flattering to the third person.
He could not defend his logic and could not bring any Bible verse to support his own claim. He could not refute my defense, then he insinuated that I am like John Hagee.

What does John Hagee have with this debate?
He could bring some more reasonable argument from the Bible. But he could not ! Then he just insinuated that I deny Jesus is Messiah ! Then he might have accused me as denying Messiah-ship of Jesus.

I don't need anyone's support on this earth, but God knows the Truth and support my belief.

The Truth that the Word of God became flesh is so much important Truth that cannot be denied by any other human theories. It will stand forever, and moreover, Jesus knows whether He took anything from a sinner or not, and that Word became the flesh, the flesh He wore.

You cannot change the Truth by gathering many people !

 

[Eliyahu]

I didn't know before that John Hagee also denied the Biological Motherhood of Mary.

If you can check the record of this BB, you can find that I claimed that the Ovary of Mary was not used for Jesus, since the end of 2004 on this Board.

 

[Eliyahu]

If any Ovum or any particle or any tissue or any cell of Mary was used for the formation of Jesus, it contradicts " Word became Flesh"

If nothing of Mary was used for the formation of Jesus, Mary cannot be the Biological Mother.

There is NO WAY for Mary to become the Biological Mother !

 

[annsni]

by turning the Word of God to have flesh.




Yah, that's why there is NO way for Mary to become the Biological Mother. She had nothing more than the flesh to offer to Jesus and you know that None of the flesh from Mary could contribute the formation of Jesus, then she cannot be Biological Mother!

What's the definition of Biological Mother in your term?

Why could God not have used Mary's ovum to make the Word flesh? Is He incapable? Biological mother is the one who contributes her egg to the child that she will bear. I have a biological mother and an adoptive mother so I'm quite familiar with biological mothers.

You are eventually pleading with Mystery. If you don't know please keep silence.

You are also pleading with mystery. There is no more mystery or faith involved to believe that God used Mary's ovum to conceive Christ.

No, his way of debate is tricky by flattering to the third person.
He could not defend his logic and could not bring any Bible verse to support his own claim. He could not refute my defense, then he insinuated that I am like John Hagee.

What does John Hagee have with this debate?
He could bring some more reasonable argument from the Bible. But he could not ! Then he just insinuated that I deny Jesus is Messiah ! Then he might have accused me as denying Messiah-ship of Jesus.

Isn't there a proverb that says the wicked flees when no one pursues? I don't know why you're hung up on this Hagee thing and thinking that "he" (who happens to be a she) was accusing you of anything. At that point, you were overhearing a conversation that was outside of this discussion - also known as OT (off topic).

I don't need anyone's support on this earth, but God knows the Truth and support my belief.

The Truth that the Word of God became flesh is so much important Truth that cannot be denied by any other human theories. It will stand forever, and moreover, Jesus knows whether He took anything from a sinner or not, and that Word became the flesh, the flesh He wore.

You cannot change the Truth by gathering many people !

No need to. God's Word is pretty clear in this - AND I have to say in the 35 years of being a believer, I've honestly never heard this argument - and I've heard some doozies. It's certainly not in Scripture - nor has it been taught by ANY church leader that I've ever heard of! That makes me kind of question your conclusions here.

 

[mrtumnus]

Also note below here the word a. It doesn’t say HER Son (Mary’s son) but a son. This separation, imo, helps to prove that Jesus is not Mary’s biological son.

Luke 1:28-33
31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Joe, if somebody told you (assume you're a girl for a minute) that you would have a son, wouldn't you assume it would be yours? The word 'a' hardly makes one think -- oh, but it won't be my son. To say "thou shaly conceive in thy womb, and bring forth your son" sounds a little strange.

If the separation you're looking for was intended, I believe it would have said "and bring forth a male child". "Son" by definition implies "mother".

 

[mrtumnus]

Eliyahu, it was never my intent to correlate that specific belief to you. Ann is correct in that I was responding to her comment about John Hagee not being a reliable source for doctrine. It can definitely be difficult to always interpret correctly on a message board though (and even in real life) and I apologize if I left room open for you to think I was directing it towards you personally. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

 

[D28guy]

Ms Mrtumnus :thumbs:........

You said...

"The thing I am obviously not catching here is why people think it's not possible that Jesus is Mary's biological son? Perhaps you could help me with that."

And Joe said...

Ok to give you a quick, and somewhat lazy answer, here it is-

Mary is marred with a sin nature, so our Holy God could not have been birthed by her."

Mrtumnus, why do you think the Catholic Church goes to such great lenghths to manufacture all of these fairy tales about Mary being free of original sin, never commiting sin during her life, her supposed "Assumption" into heaven, etc etc etc.

They MUST find some way, no matter how outlandish, to get...that...sin...nature...out...of...Mary. If Mary contributed biologically to Christ, then Christ would have had a sin nature. He would have been "tainted".

In adition, they must also maintain Mary's "High and Lifted Up" status as "Queen of the Universe" and "Mother of God".


Mary certainly carried Christ. Mary certainly was "found" to be with child, and yet to that point a virgin. And that child was Christ. All of her other children had a sin nature of course, from both Joseph and Mary. Mary was certainly blessed, but even Christ Himself refused to inordinately lift her up.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

mrtumnus said...

"I feel like the cavalry showed up"

And annsi said...

"LOL - I was looking for the little stick horse smilie! To show me coming riding in!"

Oh great. Now the WOMEN are gathering!

And we havent even got the "MEETING of the MEN"...:1_grouphug: ... over with yet!


This is gonna be a real standoff guys, but we WILL prevail!

We...are...MEN!

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

To deny that Jesus was the biological son of Mary is a form of docetism, slice it or dice it, and I've already stated that the John the Evangelist roundly condemns that heresy. As Ann has pointed out, it also flatly contradicts the prophecy given by God Himself in Gen 3:15. Nothing is impossible for God; let's take care to remember that rather than try to hedge Him round with the so-called 'life science' knowledge of fallen men.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

”To deny that Jesus was the biological son of Mary is a form of docetism, slice it or dice it, and I've already stated that the John the Evangelist roundly condemns that heresy. ”

Well....you should know that most of us who are scripturalists tend to sort of laugh off these terms that *men* have come up with to hurl at opponents. We just sort of say "Oh. OK...if you like that term, fine"...and then we just forget about it.

We are *scripture* people. It is the scriptures we concern ourselves with, and people with theological axes to grind dont concern us much.

Regarding your claim, however...

From Wikipedia...

”In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians”

I dont believe any of that nonsense.

”This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, many of whom believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view.”

I dont believe any of that nonsense, either.

”Docetism was an early Christian heresy. The term is derived from the Greek word dokein, meaning "to appear." Docetism proposed that Christ only "appeared" to have a real human body. This belief was a prevalent feature of Gnosticism, which held that matter and spirit are antagonistic. For the Gnostics, salvation consisted in liberation from the bondage of matter; consequently, while accepting Christ as Saviour, Gnosticism could not logically accept a real incarnation. Another common Docetistic tenet was that Christ's sufferings on Calvary were an illusion or that someone else was substituted for Him.”

Nope. None of that, either.



I’m innocent! I’m innocent! Untie me! Please spare me!!!!

Good naturedly,

Mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

 

[Matt Black]

Glad to hear it! But can you not see how denying that Mary was Jesus' biological mother could point one down the slippery slope to docetism? After all, if Jesus was/is not 'flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones', if His flesh was not taken from humanity but from somewhere 'other', to what extent can He be said to be truly human as we are?

 

[mrtumnus]

Ms Mrtumnus :thumbs:........

You said...
Quote:
"The thing I am obviously not catching here is why people think it's not possible that Jesus is Mary's biological son? Perhaps you could help me with that."



And Joe said...
Quote:
Ok to give you a quick, and somewhat lazy answer, here it is-

Mary is marred with a sin nature, so our Holy God could not have been birthed by her."



Mrtumnus, why do you think the Catholic Church goes to such great lenghths to manufacture all of these fairy tales about Mary being free of original sin, never commiting sin during her life, her supposed "Assumption" into heaven, etc etc etc.

They MUST find some way, no matter how outlandish, to get...that...sin...nature...out...of...Mary. If Mary contributed biologically to Christ, then Christ would have had a sin nature. He would have been "tainted".

In adition, they must also maintain Mary's "High and Lifted Up" status as "Queen of the Universe" and "Mother of God".


Mary certainly carried Christ. Mary certainly was "found" to be with child, and yet to that point a virgin. And that child was Christ. All of her other children had a sin nature of course, from both Joseph and Mary. Mary was certainly blessed, but even Christ Himself refused to inordinately lift her up.

God bless,

Mike

The 'red' above would be a great argument Mike if it had any accuracy in any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. However, it doesn't. That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it.

Your theology seems to be that God has no ability to 'restore' nature to its original state of creation by an act of His will. To say that God couldn't use the seed of Mary (so the prophecy is accurate) without Jesus receiving a sin nature places a restriction on the power of God. Do you really mean to imply that God was limited in this way?

Jesus calls himself the "Son of Man" for a reason you know. He is not a separate creation from the rest of humanity. He is a true "Son" of humanity.

 

[annsni]

Oh great. Now the WOMEN are gathering!

And we havent even got the "MEETING of the MEN"...:1_grouphug: ... over with yet!


This is gonna be a real standoff guys, but we WILL prevail!

We...are...MEN!

Mike

See - guys talk a good talk - but while they're bragging about what they can get done when they talk, women are in the back doing it.

 

[Matt Black]

Apparently a woman's work is never done...well, maybe if you organised yourselves a bit better, dears...

 

[BobRyan]

The 'red' above would be a great argument Mike if it had any accuracy in any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. However, it doesn't. That approach wouldn't even be logical. Catholic theology regarding the sinlessness of Mary has nothing to do with removing the 'sin nature' so Christ would not be polluted with it.

Your theology seems to be that God has no ability to 'restore' nature to its original state of creation by an act of His will. To say that God couldn't use the seed of Mary (so the prophecy is accurate) without Jesus receiving a sin nature places a restriction on the power of God. Do you really mean to imply that God was limited in this way?

In the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" we have the RC argument for Mary (a sinless being like Christ) born of a sinful woman (Mary's Mother).

But the REASON that they "needed that bit of story telling" is that they needed Mary to be a "holy vessel" for carrying God.

So you are right that the RCC found a way for a SINFUL being to give birth to THE SINLESS BEING -- MARY!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the Dark Ages the RCC came up with many pejorative terms to refer to the beliefs of the saints - prefixing those terms by "the heresy of ....".

Appealing the the pristine judgment of the RCC in the Dark Ages in it's proclivity for assigning pejorative terms as "proof" that a doctrine is false -- is nonsense!

Trying to "cut-and-paste labels" for cases when they happened to identify an actual error -- and apply those labels to anyone today that you happen to disagree with is also pretty silly.

Matt Quote:
”To deny that Jesus was the biological son of Mary is a form of docetism, slice it or dice it, and I've already stated that the John the Evangelist roundly condemns that heresy. ”

Mike
Well....you should know that most of us who are scripturalists tend to sort of laugh off these terms that *men* have come up with to hurl at opponents. We just sort of say "Oh. OK...if you like that term, fine"...and then we just forget about it.

We are *scripture* people. It is the scriptures we concern ourselves with, and people with theological axes to grind dont concern us much.

Regarding your claim, however...

From Wikipedia...
Quote:
”In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians”

I dont believe any of that nonsense.

 

[annsni]

Apparently a woman's work is never done...well, maybe if you organised yourselves a bit better, dears...

:tonofbricks:

 

[BobRyan]

To deny that Jesus was the biological son of Mary is a form of docetism, slice it or dice it, and I've already stated that the John the Evangelist roundly condemns that heresy. As Ann has pointed out, it also flatly contradicts the prophecy given by God Himself in Gen 3:15. Nothing is impossible for God; let's take care to remember that rather than try to hedge Him round with the so-called 'life science' knowledge of fallen men.

To Deny that the term "Mother of God" is EVER used AT ALL in scripture -- is Biblical.

To Deny that such terms as "Stronger than God" and "Wiser than God" and "instructor of God" and "Queen of the Universe" and "Mother of God" should ever be used by Christians because these are NEVER terms EVER used in scripture -- is a good Biblical argument.

To Observe that the Bible DOES call Mary the Mother of Jesus but NEVER calls Mary "the Mother of God the Son" or "the Mother of God the Father" or the "Mother of God the Holy Spirit" is to observe the care and exact correctness of scripture as compared to the erroneous and faulty errors in the traditions of men that have evolved since then.

As EVEN the OP points out Mary IS the Mother of the human nature of Christ for it has it's "beginning" there -- but "God the Son" NEVER had a "beginning" with Mary.

And as the scripture of this subject title points out -- when Mary IS being exaulted before Christ for her BIOLOGICAL role the CORRECT answer as Given by Christ is "ON THE CONTRARY..."

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

So is Jesus God or not, yes or no?