Was Mary a surrogate or did she contribute her seed to Jesus??

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtumnus
But my point to you folks (at least I hope) is not that I'm right and you're wrong, but that if you want to use scripture to prove to somebody their belief is incorrect, you should at least approach it from the position of understanding what the belief actually is. Otherwise your objections are meaningless.

Your point here is that human reasoning is more important than Scripture and should be put on a higher authority than God's actual words recorded in the Scripture.
That is heresy.

I can't quite see how you concluded that. My only point was that if you're going to state a belief is unbiblical, it should be on the basis of what the belief actually is.

When you folks keep saying that the RCC had to invent the doctrine of the IC in order to keep from passing a 'sin nature' on to Jesus, that indicates you have no understanding of the doctrine because the doctrine has no basis in the idea that if she were not sinless then she would pass a 'sin nature' on to Jesus.

When you keep saying that it's proven false because scripture says Mary needed a savior, that indicates you have no understanding of the doctrine because the doctrine has no basis in the idea that Mary was not saved by the merits of Jesus on the cross.

If you want to state that you believe the doctrine is false because the Bible proves Mary did indeed sin, then you're addressing something that would actually be in conflict with the doctrine. If this is what you believe the Bible teaches, rejection of the doctrine on these grounds makes sense.

My only point is that the first two discussions are meaningless. The third is not. To actually bring forth the first two weakens your position because it indicates you haven't done your homework regarding the theology of the doctrine you're trying to dispute.

I am using 'you' in the generic sense here of what's been presented in many posts, not necessarily 'you' specifically.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I have several friends who are Orthodox, and while they do not have the same understanding of the IC doctrine, they do indeed believe that Mary was sinless. My understanding would be that this was defined at the 2nd Council of Nicea prior to the schism and accepted by the Orthodox as being a valid council. Worded something like the "God-bearer" being without blemish.

Honesty, Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to have such a highly developed mariological tradition. In reality there’s only so much one can say before one must acknowledge that while there are certain things we simply cannot fully understand about this or other things, reasoned faith becomes the only recourse.

Was Mary sinless in her life? In short answer, Mary through her attained level of Theosis, as a human being, could have sinned, but chose not to act upon the sin. I play caution here…this isn’t to say that Mary is sinless in the same sense as Jesus, by nature, but rather by free will and resistance to that which is sinful through her Theosis.

So when I referred to Mary as a sinner, it was in reference to her fallen human nature. Her fallen human nature is still our fallen human nature. Mary still felt the weakness of human nature that she couldn’t escape. Even Christ took on our fallen human nature and thus He bridged the chasm that had always existed between Creator and the created, and Christ's human nature submitted to His Divine nature.

I probably choose the wrong words, but I was more concerned with Original Sin or the stain of Adam’s sin in regard to the Incarnation and that Mary wasn’t required to be sinless in order to bear Christ.

In XC
-

 

[mrtumnus]

There is nothing wrong with having a child. Women did it all the time. It was not wrong to conceive. It is not a sin. It seems that you have a wrong understanding of the purpose of the sin offering.

Leviticus 12:6-7 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

It was for her uncleaness that she had to offer a sin offering. When any "unclean" thing was touched an offering had to be made, even the blood that was involved in giving birth to a child. The Bible specifically says in Luke "when the days of purification were at hand..."

Leviticus 12:2-5 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

The "sin offering" she was making (which you say proves she was a sinner) was required because she became pregnant, gave birth to a son which mader her ceremonially unclean for seven days. She then had to wait 33 days to be purified. Once the time period was up, she had to come to the sanctuary to present an offering which would be sacrificed to make atonement and to "cleanse" her.

It seems to me the purpose of this particular sin offering is quite clear. It also is quite clear that if she had never had a child, this would not have been necessary. To say that because she followed the law in this regard is proof that she was a sinner --- exactly what sin again was she guilty of that the sacrifice was in atonment for?

 

[mrtumnus]

Honesty, Orthodoxy doesn’t seem to have such a highly developed mariological tradition. In reality there’s only so much one can say before one must acknowledge that while there are certain things we simply cannot fully understand about this or other things, reasoned faith becomes the only recourse.

Was Mary sinless in her life? In short answer, Mary through her attained level of Theosis, as a human being, could have sinned, but chose not to act upon the sin. I play caution here…this isn’t to say that Mary is sinless in the same sense as Jesus, by nature, but rather by free will and resistance to that which is sinful through her Theosis.

So when I referred to Mary as a sinner, it was in reference to her fallen human nature. Her fallen human nature is still our fallen human nature. Mary still felt the weakness of human nature that she couldn’t escape. Even Christ took on our fallen human nature and thus He bridged the chasm that had always existed between Creator and the created, and Christ's human nature submitted to His Divine nature.

I probably choose the wrong words, but I was more concerned with Original Sin or the stain of Adam’s sin in regard to the Incarnation and that Mary wasn’t required to be sinless in order to bear Christ.

In XC
-

No problem, your words had just left me confused based upon my discussions with other Orthodox. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
The comments I see about her bringing a ‘sin offering’ proving that she was indeed a sinner are extremely problematic. First of all, she was following the Jewish law which she was under.

So to obey God's word; to be obedient to the Word, is a problem to you?

Not in the least. What is problematic is to use this example to say it proves Mary was a sinner. She was following the law as commanded to make this offering, and the reason she was required to make it was because she had given birth to a child. I find concluding from this that Mary was a sinner to be problematic.

 

[mrtumnus]

False, It was for her own purification, not because she had a child. Having a child is not sin. Read Leviticus 12.

Your conclusion proves you haven't studied the Bible.

I read all of Leviticus 12. The purification commanded is the direct result of giving birth to a child. It begins with "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period." It then proceeds to instruct how she is to be "purified" from this uncleanliness by making the sacrifice.

So how is it you're able to make this about not having a child?

 

[DHK]

I can't quite see how you concluded that. My only point was that if you're going to state a belief is unbiblical, it should be on the basis of what the belief actually is.

In many of your own quotes you have used your own reasoning rather than Scripture. You have put your reasoning above Scripture. You are your own worst enemy.

When you folks keep saying that the RCC had to invent the doctrine of the IC in order to keep from passing a 'sin nature' on to Jesus, that indicates you have no understanding of the doctrine because the doctrine has no basis in the idea that if she were not sinless then she would pass a 'sin nature' on to Jesus.

The IC was "invented" in order to teach that Mary would be a sinless vessel in which Jesus could be born. The concept is basically the same, although I believe the RCC believes as I do that the sin nature is passed down through Adam. It is called original sin. I am a former Catholic.

When you keep saying that it's proven false because scripture says Mary needed a savior, that indicates you have no understanding of the doctrine because the doctrine has no basis in the idea that Mary was not saved by the merits of Jesus on the cross.

Everyone is saved by the merits of Christ on the cross--whether looking to the Cross or looking back to the cross. Christ is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The first Messianic promise was given as early as Genesis 3:15 to Eve. Mary is saved the same way that Abraham and Moses and all OT saints were--by faith and faith alone. God has only one plan of salvation. The very word "salvation" necessitates a sinner that needs it. Mary was a sinner that needed salvation, and thus a Saviour.

If you want to state that you believe the doctrine is false because the Bible proves Mary did indeed sin, then you're addressing something that would actually be in conflict with the doctrine. If this is what you believe the Bible teaches, rejection of the doctrine on these grounds makes sense.

Specifically what doctrine here are you addressing--that Mary is a sinner. She is/was. All have sinned and come short of the glroy of God--Mary included. All Scripture points to Mary as a sinner. Why is this a problem for you?

My only point is that the first two discussions are meaningless. The third is not. To actually bring forth the first two weakens your position because it indicates you haven't done your homework regarding the theology of the doctrine you're trying to dispute.

Don't speak so vaguely. Be specific.
First two discussions? Discussion one is...
Discussion two is....
The theology of what doctrine...
Many doctrines have been discussed. Be specific.
What particular doctrine am I disputing? I have argued against many. I can't read your mind.

 

[DHK]

I read all of Leviticus 12. The purification commanded is the direct result of giving birth to a child. It begins with "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period." It then proceeds to instruct how she is to be "purified" from this uncleanliness by making the sacrifice.

So how is it you're able to make this about not having a child?

It isn't. It is about her purification. A woman had to go through a purification process at different periods in her life, not just when she had a child. Study your Bible.
Also, go and read the quote by Jamieson, Faucett and Brown again.

 

[DHK]

Quote:
The comments I see about her bringing a ‘sin offering’ proving that she was indeed a sinner are extremely problematic. First of all, she was following the Jewish law which she was under.


Not in the least. What is problematic is to use this example to say it proves Mary was a sinner. She was following the law as commanded to make this offering, and the reason she was required to make it was because she had given birth to a child. I find concluding from this that Mary was a sinner to be problematic.

You read into the Scripture and falsely conclude that Mary was not a sinner even though the Scripture declares she was. I cannot help you if you reject the preponderance of Scripture that tells us that Mary was a sinner. Rejection of God's Word is a serious thing.

 

[mrtumnus]

What I see in Scripture, though, does not support Mary being without sin - without having sinned - without sinning. She is not set forth at all in Scripture as one to emulate (which I do think she would be if she didn't sin) nor is she even listed in Hebrews 11 - the "Faith Hall of Fame". I don't see any support for this belief. Scripture says that all have sinned - and the ONLY one who lived without sin is Jesus Christ. There is nothing in Scripture that says anyone else lived a life without sin so we cannot say that. If Scripture says all have sinned, and that if we say we are without sin, we lie and make God a liar, then I think we can conclusively say that Mary was a sinner and sinned in her life too.

I can understand the logic in that position Ann. And I would certainly agree that the belief that she is not sinless is not explicitly defined.

I do think there are problems with taking quotes like "all" and applying them to individuals, as it's obvious there are times when "all" is used when this is not the case.

The entire basis for the belief is that it would be against the nature of God to choose to not sanctify his dwelling place. This is seen many times throughout the OT (remember Moses had to remove his shoes because he was on "holy ground'). Given that in the eyes of God his dwelling within Mary is perpetual and eternal, to believe that God would not sanctify her but would rather choose to dwell in a vessel of sin would be considered to be inconsistent with his nature.

However, that does not mean that Mary was not saved by Christ, and that this was not achieved without the grace of God. That to me is a key point that many fail to get.

So, while I understand you and many don't agree, I do hope at least the reasoning for the doctrine is a little better understood at this point.

And if not, at least I tried.

You guys can go back to trying to figure out now if the Bible proves Mary was or wasn't the biological mother of Jesus, and calling each other heretics regarding that though.:wavey:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

By one man's disobedience sin entered into the world... all have sinned.

Mary was not sinless. mrtumnus, you need to study the Word more diligently and steer away from priests that would have you placing Mary in a sinless position to be worshiped.

 

[mrtumnus]

In many of your own quotes you have used your own reasoning rather than Scripture. You have put your reasoning above Scripture. You are your own worst enemy.

The IC was "invented" in order to teach that Mary would be a sinless vessel in which Jesus could be born. The concept is basically the same, although I believe the RCC believes as I do that the sin nature is passed down through Adam. It is called original sin. I am a former Catholic.

Everyone is saved by the merits of Christ on the cross--whether looking to the Cross or looking back to the cross. Christ is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The first Messianic promise was given as early as Genesis 3:15 to Eve. Mary is saved the same way that Abraham and Moses and all OT saints were--by faith and faith alone. God has only one plan of salvation. The very word "salvation" necessitates a sinner that needs it. Mary was a sinner that needed salvation, and thus a Saviour.

Specifically what doctrine here are you addressing--that Mary is a sinner. She is/was. All have sinned and come short of the glroy of God--Mary included. All Scripture points to Mary as a sinner. Why is this a problem for you?

Don't speak so vaguely. Be specific.
First two discussions? Discussion one is...
Discussion two is....
The theology of what doctrine...
Many doctrines have been discussed. Be specific.
What particular doctrine am I disputing? I have argued against many. I can't read your mind.

Discussion1 -- the doctrine of the IC is needed by the RCC so that a sin nature isn't passed on to Jesus. MEANINGLESS because this has no basis in the doctrine and therefore isn't accurate.

Discussion 2 -- the doctrine of the IC is needed because Mary admits she needs a savior. MEANINGLESS because the doctrine is defined on this basis -- Jesus is the savior of Mary.

Discussion3 -- the Bible teaches definitively that Mary did indeed sin. MEANINGFUL. This would be in direct contradiction of the doctrine and where the debate/discussion would lie.

If people want to make inroads, bringing up discussion 1 or 2 actually weakens their position because it shows they don't know the basis for the doctrine they are disputing.

That's all I originally started out to say in all of this. People kept bringing up #1 in particular in the discussion of whether or not Jesus is Mary's biological son. It is baseless and has no merit in the discussion because it's not an accurate portrayal of the doctrine.

Maybe I'm too picky, but if I'm going to take a position, I want to make sure that it is based in some accuracy. I assumed that most of you folks would be the same way.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I can understand the logic in that position Ann. And I would certainly agree that the belief that she is not sinless is not explicitly defined.

I do think there are problems with taking quotes like "all" and applying them to individuals, as it's obvious there are times when "all" is used when this is not the case.

The entire basis for the belief is that it would be against the nature of God to choose to not sanctify his dwelling place. This is seen many times throughout the OT (remember Moses had to remove his shoes because he was on "holy ground'). Given that in the eyes of God his dwelling within Mary is perpetual and eternal, to believe that God would not sanctify her but would rather choose to dwell in a vessel of sin would be considered to be inconsistent with his nature.

However, that does not mean that Mary was not saved by Christ, and that this was not achieved without the grace of God. That to me is a key point that many fail to get.

So, while I understand you and many don't agree, I do hope at least the reasoning for the doctrine is a little better understood at this point.

And if not, at least I tried.

You guys can go back to trying to figure out now if the Bible proves Mary was or wasn't the biological mother of Jesus, and calling each other heretics regarding that though.:wavey:

Why would it be inconsistant with His nature? Did He not choose to come and live perfectly in an imperfect world for 33 years? Is that inconsistant with His nature? Guess what?? It happened.

Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river, a muddy river. Was that inconsistant to His nature?

As I said previously, you need to do some serious studying of God's Holy Word.

 

[DHK]

Maybe I'm too picky, but if I'm going to take a position, I want to make sure that it is based in some accuracy. I assumed that most of you folks would be the same way.

The thread is: Was Mary a surrogate of did she contribute her seed to Jesus? The IC doesn't have to enter into this discussion at all. I don't know who brought it up. I would prefer not to discuss it all. It is a subject for RCC doctrine.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

However, if Jesus did not come from Mary's egg,

He didn't.

then He was not human - not "flesh" as in human flesh.

He was.

He would have been a different flesh just like after He was raised from the dead. That was not regular human flesh.

And you know this because?

We know that because of what He was able to do - walk through a wall.

Where in Scripture does it say Christ walked through walls? I cannot find it.

Before that, He had every effect of an earthly human body - He hurt, He grew, He was circumcised, etc.

He walked on water, He raised the dead, He opened blinded eyes, turned a boys lunch into a supply of food enough to feed thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people.

If Jesus did not come from Mary's egg, then He would not have been from the lineage of David, nor would He have been from Eve's seed.

Mary gave birth to the child did she not? Since seed means posterity or child, and not egg, Scripture is correct. Jesus was of the lineage of David, for Mary gave birth to the child.

It just can't be - then He was not the Messiah.

He was the Messiah... in a body God had prepared for Him. The Word became flesh. The egg was not needed.

 

[DHK]

He didn't.
Mary gave birth to the child did she not? Since seed means posterity or child, and not egg, Scripture is correct. Jesus was of the lineage of David, for Mary gave birth to the child.

You keep affirming this with no Scriptural basis or any other authority but your own opinion, and quite franky you are wrong. Look at Scripture first from the NT

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

What is the NT meaning of the Greek word for "seed"?

sperma sperma sper'-mah
from 4687; something sown, i.e. seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting):--issue, seed. (Strong's)

BTW, it is not used in a figurative way; it is quite literal.
Even the Greek word has a great resemblence to another very common English word used in biology doesn't it? There is no question about the meaning of seed.

 

[mrtumnus]

The thread is: Was Mary a surrogate of did she contribute her seed to Jesus? The IC doesn't have to enter into this discussion at all. I don't know who brought it up. I would prefer not to discuss it all. It is a subject for RCC doctrine.

I can assure you it wasn't me who brought it up. :saint:

Discussing it isn't high on my list either.

However, after seeing it invoked in the debate several times in a way that indicated no understanding of the doctrine, I was compelled to bring that up.

:tonofbricks:

 

[mrtumnus]

Why would it be inconsistant with His nature? Did He not choose to come and live perfectly in an imperfect world for 33 years? Is that inconsistant with His nature? Guess what?? It happened.

Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river, a muddy river. Was that inconsistant to His nature?

As I said previously, you need to do some serious studying of God's Holy Word.

The Jordan river isn't a vessel of sin. Mud is a neutral object sin-wise.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. "For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God."

I do not pray to someone I do not worship.

The Catholics worship Mary every time they go to confession and receive penance.

Hail Mary

A prayer for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.

Traditional version:

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Newer version:

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

The Hail Mary is based (mistakenly) on these passages from the Bible:
Luke 1:28-35, 42-48.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

notice the word offspring? offspring is posterity, child or children.

So you still have not effectively proved me wrong.