Posted on 12/08/2012 7:18:22 AM PST by HarleyD
Without an Immaculate womb to house the sinless baby Jesus we would have no redemption on the Cross. Remember God doesn’t have time like we do. Mary was forgiven her original sin IN ADVANCE by Jesus because she was chosen as his Mother.
No sexuality was involved — it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Have you read Luke Chapter 1 recently? You might want to again.
**Mother of God**
That phrase is not found in scripture.
**her wish to remain a virgin.**
Where in the Word is that request mentioned?
Why the great effort to refute that Jesus had half brothers and half sisters through Mary? The passage in Luke 8:3 makes no mention of the parents of the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus, that you folks say are cousins.
Mary was given a great honor in giving birth to the Christ-child, but she didn’t make more of God,
didn’t make the soul of the Son,
didn’t raise him from the dead,
didn’t change his body into a glorified body,
or cause him to ascend up to heaven bodily.
She didn’t make him both Lord and Christ either. God did that. (Acts 2:36)
She didn’t even have to do ANYTHING to make herself pregnant. God performed the miracle in her body. She simply accepted his decree with gladness and humility.
Believe whatever ‘traditions’ you want, but I prefer to stick with plain scriptural facts.
**Without an Immaculate womb**
Hmmm....must not have been immaculate after the birth, because after the ‘days of her purification’ she offered to the priest the sacrifices required by the law.
**Mary was forgiven her original sin IN ADVANCE by Jesus**
Chapter and verse please. Mary acknowledged her low estate, and praised God for giving her the honor, but no mention of her being sinless is made. Mary’s blood didn’t mingle or circulate with the babe’s blood.
If you ignore sacred tradition, you ignore the scripture you claim to revere.
If there is no immaculate conception, there is no atonement by Jesus. It’s that simple.
If Mary is not the mother of God, there is likewise no atonement. You really do seem to be missing the critical point.
The Catholic teaching is that Mary is who she is only because Jesus is who He is.
Peace be with you.
The Catholic teaching is that Mary is who she is only because Jesus is who He is.
Peace be with you.
Missing the point? No, for God was IN Christ reconciling himself to the world. Not a ‘second person’ of God crying out to a ‘first person’ of God, while dying on the cross. Diety doesn’t die. The Father IN Christ is what made him God then, is what raised him from the dead, and is what makes him God now.
The book of John shows Jesus Christ teaching that everything he possessed was from the Father; most notably chapters 14,15, and parts of chapters 3,4,5,6,16, and his prayer to the Father in 17.
Your organization takes eating and drinking the ‘flesh and blood’ of Christ literally, yet he explains it’s not the flesh literally at the end of that passage; it’s his words, it’s the spirit that quickeneth. He offers drink from himself in John 7:37-39; not blood, but the drink that is the infilling of the Holy Ghost. For he again points this out in John 14, telling his disciples of the coming of the Comforter, and that “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I IN you.”
Mary’s body housed the babe, but God made the babe pure; the babe’s blood was his, and his alone. Mary didn’t make the soul, didn’t make the Father that dwells in him, didn’t raise the body from the grave and glorify it, and didn’t cause it to ascend to heaven.
Jesus was careful to not elevate her in front of the witnesses, addressing her face to face as ‘woman’. I follow his example. And I certainly don’t pray to anyone that is ‘asleep in Christ’ and waiting for the second resurrection.
Mary most certainly did have a decision in the matter:
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word.
The emboldened words are her positive response in which she said "yes" to God. Mary is not an automaton or a piece of meat. She played an active role in our salvation through her humility. She was the very first follower of Christ.
Mary can be understood as the Mother of God through this simple deduction: Jesus is both God and man. Mary is the mother of both Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the son of man. Therefore, if Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God.
Give my church CREDIT, because it gave to the word the Bible as we know it.
Also :
“Jesus was careful to not elevate her in front of the witnesses, addressing her face to face as ‘woman’. I follow his example. And I certainly don’t pray to anyone that is ‘asleep in Christ’ and waiting for the second resurrection.”
All that CHANGED when at the foot of the cross, Jesus gave his mother to the beloved apostle John as his mother and his mother Mary was given John, meaning that she who was Jesus’s FIRST disciple, would become the spiritual mother of ALL Christian believers.
When I read a number of the responses to threads like these, it makes me wonder, why still the arguments over “details” of Christian scripture? It is stuff like this that simply gives “ammo” to those who attack Christians.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make.
All Mary did was agree with what God's angel told Mary would happen to her. If Mary would have said, "No" would that have null and void God's message.
I would compare Mary's response to Jonah's response. God brought Jonah around to His way of thinking. Had Mary responded like Jonah, God would have brought her around as well.
Mary can be understood as the Mother of God through this simple deduction: Jesus is both God and man. Mary is the mother of both Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the son of man.
Wrong. While Mary might be the mother of Jesus in His humanity (son of man), she is certainly NOT the mother of Jesus in His divinity (son of God). God (and Christ) exist long before Mary ever came into being. This is the flawed reasoning in the Immaculate Conception.
Geez... talk about missing my whole point completely
You need to spend some time reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
You talk abou tthis NONSENSE as if it had real meaning and mattered.
What matters is living your life in a manner taught by God and Christ, not arguing amonsts ourselves over whether mom was doing it with Joseph.
It is something that can never and will never be known- so why discuss it? Are you goign to convince anyone that the way YOU believe is so much better than the way THEY believe?
We feel compelled to ask ourselves: Why did Christ really want to be born of a virgin? It was certainly possible for him to have been born of a normal marriage. That would not have affected his divine Sonship
No, it was not possible for Christ to have been born in a normal marriage as the He would have been tainted with the sin of Adam. Adam broke the covenant with God and his decendants are stained with this brokeness:
Christ had to come to us apart from Adam through a virgin birth.
I have their collection on the shelf. Some of their work is very good. Some, I’m sure, you would not even agree with. And, much of their work on the atonement the Catholic Church has rejected outright claiming they were not well informed. So that is a very weak point.
I’m done. You have no desire to have a meaningful dialogue.
That was a pretty complete rehearsal of heresies recognizable to almost every Christian in the Church’s first millennium and a half. Your peculiar beliefs are, to say the least, way way out there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.