Christian: Mary, Mother of God (Jesus Christ, Earth, gospel, grace)

[Genna]

Originally Posted by Victor

He doesn't bestow sinlessness, He bestows Grace that enables the person to become sinless. In the case of Mary, we believe she responded and accepted God's Grace in a very special way.

I did not say that he bestows sinlessness, I said that he bestows "Grace," and that this Grace helps us to be sinless as you said. You said "Grace can be received at any point of someone's existance." So you are telling me that I can become sinless? Why does the bible say:

1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Do you notice how the writer includes himself as admitting to have sin? He uses the word "we," so how is it possible for a person to be sinless? Forgive me if I am missing something here, I am new to most religions and have a basic understanding of them. Please explain!

[athanasius]

Writer said
However, she's not the source of divinity

My answer

NO one ever said she was the source of divinity. He divine son created her. Our point, and the historical Christian Point(as brought out in the council of Ephesus 431 AD) is simply the fact that Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

There fore Mary is the mother of God. She is not he mother of the Father or the Spirit. That is simply all we are saying. Stop trying to read into everything.


writer said


Too the contrary: she was an experiential and condemned sinner just like the rest of us (Rom 3:23)

My response

Actually reading the context of Romans 3 shows that this is a generalized statement and is not referring to every single person. It is equilivant to saying: “I went to a party and everyone in the world was there”.

We know that not everyone is included in this because part of that “All” that says that all have sinned and fallen short would then have to include Jesus. He is Human. But we know he never sinned. Babies are human, and we know that they cannot sin.

So there are exceptions, And Mary since she is scripturally and historically believed to be the Ark of the New covenant and the New Eve is definitely a exception. Paul is just trying to show that the Jews and Gentiles are equal and both sin and one is not better than the other.


writer said

Jesus' conception was "immaculate"

My answer

To the contrary. The title immaculate conception suggest that a person is “made” free of sin “at” there conception.
Jesus was always sinless even “before” his conception because he is God.

Writer said

This's a needless, and counterproductive, fairytale

Wow the sinlessness of mary isn’t a fairy tale. The Fathers of the church explicitly taught her sinlessness. Sacred Scripture implies it. MIracles, even today, such as Lourdes confirm it.

Of course you wouldn’t believe that because you have limited the word of God to mere scripture alone so you cannot look to the tradition of the fathers or the miracles. Sad really. But then again maybe sola scriptura is the real counterproductive fairy tale.


writer Said

Too the contrary: the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, full of grace and reality; and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father. Wrote the apostle John

My answer

Nothing wrong here. Your right. JOhns Gospel is right. Catholics would agree. But you limit yourself to only that interpretation. Mary is seen in scripture as the Ark of the new covenant as the Gospel writer Luke Shows. Why? She is a typological fulfillment of the ark.

The old Ark carried the word of God, The rod of Aaron, and the Manna from heaven. Jesus is the word of God(JN 1:1), The manna from heaven(Jn 6:48), and he carries a priestly rod of authority(Rev 12:5). If jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant(Which you seem to agree) then Mary who carried this new covenant in her womb would be seen as the new Ark. Simple.

Luke brings this out more in his gospel. John brings this out in Revelation 11:19-12:1. John clearly shows us in 11:19 that the ark of God’s covenant would be seen in heaven...and who is this covenant?

Immedialty after saying this we see its the Women who gives birth to Jesus, hence it is Mary. There is alot more to said on this by the early Christians and it showed in there songs and worship services.

writer said


To the contrary: she hasn't. She, like all believers, awaits His parousia, His return; their resurrection and their assumption to Him

My answer

Again Mr writer since you don’t have the complete word of God in tradition and since you refuse to study the early christian Church and the fathers of the first 6 hundred years. Of Coarse you wouldn’t understand this one.


writer said

When said that she was queen of heaven writer said

To the contrary: she hasn't, never will be individually, and would probably puke at the thought of her being labelled so blasphemously. If she knew about it

my answer

Mary is the queen of heaven. Jesus is the King of heaven. Jesus typologically fulfills the Royal Davidic throne as a son of David(Matt 1:1). All Davidic Kings had Queen Mothers. Mary is his mother.

Therefore she is the queen of heaven. (Revelation 12:1) brings this out nicely when Mary is shown in heaven, the moon under her feet and her head is crowned with 12 stars, representing the 12 apostles and the twelve tribes of isreal. She truly is the queen of the apostles and the new Isreal(The Church). She truly is the Queen of heaven. YOu will find out when you get to heaven mr Writer.

[writer]

34 Romans 3.23 applies to all human beings without exception? Does it apply to Jesus?
After Romans 1:18-3:20 on mankind's condemnation: 3:21-25 the beginning of Paul's section on justification speaks of righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus...the redemption which's in Christ Jesus. Since He's the solution, do u think 3:23 excepts Him?
Given that my post 33, para 3 pointed out Jesus' sinlessness per the NT; do u think i and the NT didn't except Him?

Does it apply to infants?
Not the infant Jesus

36 before they are born.
38 at any point of someone's existance.
By 'born' duz the gentleman mean 'conceived'? Or is the kind gentleman's idea that Mary was sinless in the womb, but then not when she came out?


36 before they are born.
40 we believe she responded and accepted God's Grace in a very special way.
Before she was born? Before she existed?


42 Stop trying to read into everything.
To the contrary: i dint read into Anythin. I simply wrote that Mary's not the source of divinity. Pleze don't read into that.
Thanks

Romans 3 shows that this is a generalized statement and is not referring to every single person. It is equilivant to saying: “I went to a party and everyone in the world was there”.
To the contrary: Everyone but Christ sinned and haz sin

Babies are human, and we know that they cannot sin.
Whether we can't sin or not as babies: we Hav sin. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, wrote David in Psalm 51

So there are exceptions,
To the contrary: the only exception's the sinless man who is God also

And Mary since she is scripturally and historically believed to be the Ark of the New covenant
As member of God's house, Mary's part of God's house, His building

and the New Eve is definitely a exception.
To the contrary: Eve sinned and had sin. Mary too (Rm 3:23)

The title immaculate conception suggest that a person is “made” free of sin “at” there conception.
If that's its meaning: then there's no such thing. Nor would there be. Adam and Eve were created, not conceived, sinless. The Son of God wasn't made sinless. He never was sin, intrinsically

Jesus was always sinless even “before” his conception because he is God.
Amen

the sinlessness of mary isn’t a fairy tale.
To the contrary: it's false

The Fathers of the church explicitly taught her sinlessness.
so-called 'Fathers' r, and were, xplicitly wrong in that regard. Except Augustine, w/ others, who explicitly acknowledged her sin

Sacred Scripture implies it.
To the contrary: Romans 3:23 denies it

MIracles, even today, such as Lourdes confirm it.
Laying aside debating what u call 'miracles,' Elijah, Elisha, and Peter performed miracles and they were born sinners

you have limited the word of God to mere scripture alone so you cannot look to the tradition of the fathers or the miracles.
Where there's conflict or contradiction between tradition and miracles; and God's Scripture: you're correct if you're accusing me of siding w/ Scripture. If you're putting other things or writings on the same plane as Scripture as a teaching authority: then you're doing the same thing as Mormons with their 'other testament of Jesus Christ'

Mary is seen in scripture as the Ark of the new covenant as the Gospel writer Luke Shows. Why? She is a typological fulfillment of the ark.
The tabernacle typifies Christ (Jn 1:14). The ark within the tabernacle typifies God, who's within Christ (Eph 4:32). And who, in Christ, comes to dwell in His believers' regenerated spirit (Heb 10:22; 2 Tim 4:22; 1 Cor 6:17)

If jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant then Mary who carried this new covenant in her womb would be seen as the new Ark. Simple.
Simply temporary. Mary's no longer physically pregnant with Jesus her firstborn. Mary's regenerated human spirit, containing God and Christ's Spirit, carries Jesus, as do the spirits of all His regenerated believers.....eternally

Revelation 11:19-12:1. John clearly shows us in 11:19 that the ark of God’s covenant would be seen in heaven...and who is this covenant?
The same One who is the temple (21:22). God

Immedialty after saying this we see its the Women who gives birth to Jesus, hence it is Mary.
To the contrary: Rv 12:1-17's woman is God's people. Just as in 19:7-8; 21:2. Which is the point of the entire Bible (cf Isa 54:5; Ephesians 5:32; 2 Cor 11:2). Mary didn't flee into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3 1/2 years) after her firstborn ascended (Rv 12:6). Christ Jesus didn't ascend as a baby after He was born (12:5). The man-child in 12:5 is not Christ Jesus directly. Hence that woman isn't Mary individually. That woman isn't Mary, singly. Hence her child is not Jesus, individually. Instead, the man-child, like the woman, is a corporate entity. Here: the stronger part of Christ's mystical Body. Hence: 'man-child.' Taken while the woman, the weaker part (no offence here), is left on the earth. This is seen in 2:25-27 of the same book

you don’t have the complete word of God in tradition
To the contrary: what contradicts Scripture's not word o' God (cf John 10:35)

you refuse to study the early christian Church and the fathers of the first 6 hundred years.
To the contrary: i've studied, and study, them much. That's how i know when they're right; and when they're in error, and who's more accurate when they disagree. In addition, the 1st 600 years of church history, just like the 1,400 since then, is visible not only in history itself, but also prophetically in the Bible including John's Revelation

Mary is the queen of heaven.
Mary, like all deceased believers except evidently Moses, is in the pleasant part of Hades under the earth, awaiting her Lord's return, and resurrection

All Davidic Kings had Queen Mothers. Mary is his mother.
Mary's not in heaven. Nor will she and all other believers be long in heaven; except temporarily: 3 1/2 years or less; after their assumption (rapture) at the end of this age. Christ and His believers come to earth (Rv 17:14; 19:11-14). Take care

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by athanasius

Writer said
However, she's not the source of divinity

My answer

NO one ever said she was the source of divinity. He divine son created her. Our point, and the historical Christian Point(as brought out in the council of Ephesus 431 AD) is simply the fact that Jesus is God and Mary is his mother.

There fore Mary is the mother of God. She is not he mother of the Father or the Spirit. That is simply all we are saying. Stop trying to read into everything.

Actually, I just have to chirp in here. The councils did not give Mary the title Mother of God at all. The title is Theotokos, which means Birthgiver of God. That's why most English speaking Orthodox do not translate the title. Birthgiver sounds odd and Mother of God is a poor translation precisely because it leads to sort of misunderstanding that writer clearly had.

Clearly this title - Theotokos - has nothing to with Mary at all, but rather it is a Christological statement as it says that the child she bore was truly God. If you have a problem with the title (and this is aimed at writer, not you Athanasius) then you either do not understand it or you are not a Christian.

James

[writer]

44 The councils did not give Mary the title Mother of God at all.
'Liz'beth did. And it wasn't so much a title as a fact. How has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Lk 1:43

The title is Theotokos, which means Birthgiver of God.
"Theotokos" can also be applied to any and all believers in, and receivers of (Jn 1:12-13), Christ, who is God. Spiritually (cf Galatians 4:6, 19). Not in the sense of physical pregnancy

Mother of God is a poor translation precisely because it leads to sort of misunderstanding that writer clearly had.
To the contrary of dear James' statement above: it should have been clear to u that writer has no such misunderstanding. In post 33, para 1 i was merely clarifying for anyone interested what 'mother of God' when applied to Mary duzn't mean

Clearly this title - Theotokos - has nothing to with Mary at all, but rather it is a Christological statement
Hence my comment that "Theotokos" can also be applied to any bona fide Christian, spiritually

If you have a problem with the title (and this is aimed at writer, not you Athanasius) then you either do not understand it or you are not a Christian.
If you think i had, or have, a problem with this title, on this thread (and this is aimed at James and Athanasius or whoever else cares): then thas your misunderstanding.
Thanx

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by writer

<44 The councils did not give Mary the title Mother of God at all.>
Elizabeth did. And it wasn't so much a title as a fact. How has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Lk 1:43

<The title is Theotokos, which means Birthgiver of God.>
"Theotokos" can also be applied to any and all believers in, and receivers of (Jn 1:12-13), Christ, who is God. Spiritually (cf Galatians 4:6, 19). Not in the sense of physical pregnancy

<Mother of God is a poor translation precisely because it leads to sort of misunderstanding that writer clearly had.>
To the contrary of dear James' statement above: it should have been clear to u that writer has no such misunderstanding. In post 33, para 1 i was merely clarifying for anyone interested what 'mother of God' when applied to Mary duzn't mean

<Clearly this title - Theotokos - has nothing to with Mary at all, but rather it is a Christological statement>
Hence my comment that "Theotokos" can also be applied to any bona fide Christian, spiritually

<If you have a problem with the title (and this is aimed at writer, not you Athanasius) then you either do not understand it or you are not a Christian.>
If you think i had, or have, a problem with this title, on this thread (and this is aimed at James and Athanasius or whoever else cares): then that's your misunderstanding.
Thanx sir

The only reply you'll get from me to your rather rude and offended sounding post is that you clearly need to brush up on your Greek. Theotokos can only be applied to someone who has given birth to God. This is not metaphorical and hence the only person that can be called that is Christ's mother. If you mean bearer of God (which is quite different) then that is a completely different word, which could be applied (and indeed is) to people other than the Theotokos. Let me see how long it takes you to come up with it.

James

[writer]

Not so at all. I apologize if you found me rude. How exactly so?
For daring to disagree w/ u; or daring to deny your false accusation(s) toward me?
I'm not sorry i can't 'pologize for that.
Hav u read your own posts dearest James?

Mebbe in, or 'ccording 2, your own particular religion, "theotokos" can only be applied to physical birth. Apparently, in history, it only has. But in the apostles' uses of the Greek "tokos" in the New Testament (although they never used the compound "theotokos"), "tokos" has no such limitation. Nor does "Theos;" since Theos Himself, incarnate in His Son, became a life-giving Spirit in resurrection to indwell His elect.
To repeat: maybe according to your tradition or religion "theotokos" has some limited form of 'copyright' in your mind. But, thank the Lord, I'm not bound by your tradition

Take care

[athanasius]

James, I feel your pain and understand your point. YOu James had alot of good points. But Trying to talk to Writer about the true doctrines of Our Lady is like trying to explain something to a wall, as I have found out.

He simply will not be able to understand fully these doctrines becuase he cannot even understand the sources of divine revelation for a Christian(Scripture and Tradition). He limits himself to a box.

That box is scripture alone and even then he limits himself to his own interpretation alone, ignoring the tradition of the fathers and the development of Christian Doctirne that the Holy Spirit has worked over the centuries in the Church. So it really becomes sola Writer.

He is always right, even if the entire early church dissagree with his interpretation of the blessed Virgin. He's always right about how to interpret scripture even if other protestants who go by the bible alone dissagree with him. So Sola Writer is his doctrine.

There is no greek argument you can make, no matter how many Greek Scholars you bring up, he will just deny them and quote a passage from the bible. Sola Writer! I have disproved him using Protestant Greek lexical sources before.

He simply denies he is wrong and says they(the Greek lexical sources) are wrong. He also wouldn't listen to any of the Greek Fathers(Who actually knew Greek first hand) on how they interpet Theotokus. Why becuase well it just isn't in Sola Writer! Well Anyway, James I appreciate your points. Bless you.

[logician]

"There really isn't anything special about Mary other then she was from the line of Adam and David and the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled in her lifetime."

This is utter poppycock as the gospels themselves disagree considerably on their so-called lineages of the supposed Jesus.