Removing Jesus

White Horse Inn ^ | June 1, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[Mrs. Don-o]

Natch!

[Elsie]

As you assert that Mary 'carried God in her womb...

Rahab 'carried' Mary in HER womb; too.

[MarineBrat]

>It just doesn’t interest me.

>>And yet you’ve read up to reply 53 and have commented.

Indeed... the title of the thread interested me. When I saw the content my feelings were hurt. Christian on Christian fighting is unappealing to me. Houseflies don’t interest me either, but when one hits me in the eye I say “ow.”

[MHGinTN]

Um, no. The womb is an organ. The gametes are the ‘seeds’. Rahab might be considered to have had the genetic line from which Mary arose, through the gametes no the organ.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, is God, and existed before time was even created, and is eternal, infinite, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and He has no beginning and no end. He is one in nature with the Father and the Spirit, One God.

The Word incarnate, is Jesus Christ.

Mary, a human person with a human nature, is a creature, and did not exist until she was conceived in her mother's womb, and is mortal, finite, infinitely lesser than God her Creator, and has the same nature her ancestors Adam and Eve had: a human nature.

Mary did not carry the Trinity Incarnate in her womb. (The Trinity is not incarnate.) She carried the Second Person, the Word incarnate.

One doesn't carry and give birth to a "nature". (Doctor in delivery room: "Congratulations! It's a Nature!"??!) One carries and gives birth to a Person. Since He is God --- a Divine Person --- she carried God.

That does not mean that Mary is the eternal source of the Word, or that she's older than the Word, or that she came before the Word, or that she is equal to the Word's divine nature.

It does mean that He Who always existed, in the fullness of time assumed a human nature, became flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. ("Behold, thou hast prepared for me a body.") She is his genetic mother, His gestational mother, His birth-mother, His legal mother, His nurturant nursing-mother, and his maternal-attachment-social-emotional mother.

In short, she's His mother.

She is His creature and His handmaid and His disciple.

He is her Son, her Baby, her Lord, her little Boy, her God, her Source, her Creator, her Savior.

Any other questions?

I never tire of explaining this.

P.S. the title "Theotokos" = "God-bearer" - "Mother of Gods" was officially approved at the Council of Ephesus, for the explicit purpose of refuting Nestorius, who (as I understand it) said that Jesus did not have a human soul and was thus neither "true Man" nor "true God," but rather He's two different persons in one body: a kind of multiple-personality disorder. The Council said, no, He is one Person.

Thus, historically, the title "Mother of God" was never intended to tell us something about Mary, but rather to tell us something about Jesus: that he is not two different persons.

[MHGinTN]

Have you yet read Hebrews 10?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I not only read Hebrews 10: like the Catholic Church, I base my Christology on it.

BTW, I hope everyone realizea "Mother of Gods" in my last response was a typo. The intended and correct phrase is "Mother of God."

[MHGinTN]

Do you recall the part of chapter ten where the author said the blood of animals could not take away sins? The offerings before were to focus faith upon the body prepared for Him, for by Him, His Body and Blood, is sin dealt with. The author says He did this once for all. Where for it need not be repeated. Jesus said to break the bread and eat it in remembrance of His body sacrificed for us. He offered the cups of Passover wine, not His blood, to be in remembrance of His blood poured out for them/us.

The heresy of transubstantiation is hallmark of mystery religions, of magic, and it is sacrilege. To insist you know when The Christ took upon Himself the body prepared for Him is of the same type of mystery religion. When Mary was told by Gabriel that what is conceived in her womb is holy, it need not be the Christ inhabiting from the first zygote The Christ. The proclamation that what was in her for Him to inhabit dedicates the body for God's purpose. That body gestating in her womb had been planned from the foundation of the Universe. While that body was gestating, The Word existed in complexity far greater than the forming cells.

Each Christian is born from above by God's Life spark in us. We have each had a body prepared for us in the womb of our mothers. We know not where or in what state was our spirit and soul during that gestating time of the 4D body. Could it be that catholicism makes unwarranted assumption in order to fabricate for Mary dignities to which she is not due?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

HI MDO,

” It’s inconsistent for you -— I assume you’re a sola Scriptura guy -— to pencil in that Mary and Joseph had sex, which is not stated in Scripture, and when no Christian even imagined such a thing until 1500 years after the Incarnation.”

It is entirely consistent of me as someone who obeys and respects God’s revelation, to assume that:

1. Mary was an obedient follower of the will of God.
2. ALL married couples are commanded to have sex, except for short periods of time devoted to prayer.
3. Ergo, Mary and Joseph, obedient followers of God, fulfilled His commands with joy and satisfaction.
4. God never commanded Mary to abstain from sex forever in Scripture.
5. Joseph was never commanded to abstain from sex by God, as recorded in Scripture.
6. No record exists in Scripture that says they abstained from sex forever.

In other words, in Scripture, your claim is working from total silence.

However... I’m open to your evidence always. So...

Please show me any written record before 100 ad that demonstrates it was widely taught or believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin (or that she was assumed into heaven, for that matter).

The sources you quote to prove your claim can include any source before 100ad, including:

Extra-Biblical Christian writings
Christian art
Secular writings
Secular art

Have at it sis! I’m rootin’ for you!

As you gather up your sources (which will not fill a thimble, I predict), also remember that just because no believed something doesn’t prove it was true. People have a history of making up things and pretending they are true. So back to the sources and actual facts to prove your case.

AMPU

PS -

“An even large issue, if possible, is that you assume that if a couple doesn’t have sex, it must be because they think sex is dirty and sinful. “

No, if they are obedient Christians, they are only abstaining because they are not able to have sex or they are devoting time to prayer for a brief period.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree with everything in Hebrews 10 and everything in your first paragraph.

The paragraph beginning "The heresy of transubstantiation" is where we part company.

Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Mark 14:22
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”

Luke 22:19
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (KJV)

This was Him. The very same body that formed in Mary's womb. He whom the whole Universe could not contain.

I wouldn't dare say anything but Amen.

[MHGinTN]

"This was Him ""[this bread and wine in the cups]. The very same body that formed in Mary's womb. He whom the whole Universe could not contain."

Now read Luke 22:15-20

And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 21 “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." Was the cup the new covenant? The cup held wine, not blood. The symbolic is used at the SYMBOLIC Passover/ Jews were taught the symbolism represented reality that they were to focus back upon. To twist the symbolic, the sacred symbolism, into a defiance of what God had commanded for all their Generations is sacrilege writ large by catholicism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But she could not be conjugally given to Joseph --- in the full, one-flesh sense --- because she had already been given to God for the exercise of her sexual reproductive capacity. A "good and devout woman" can only give herself to one --- or shall we say, one at a time --- in the conjugal sense unless she is widowed and remarried.

"ALL married couples are commanded to have sex, except for short periods of time devoted to prayer."

This is true in general (this also entails an openness to bear children, i.e. we're talking about honest natural sexual relations, not perverse or contracepted acts) but it does no t require intercourse under any and all circumstances. For instance, if one of the spouses is actively HIV-positive, that would be a just reason to abstain from intercourse; or if the couple had a serious reason to avoid pregnancy (e.g. wife has cancer of the cervix or uterus or some other serious condition.)

Or do you think they are obliged to have intercourse regardless of their particular situation?

Remember that woman in Texas, Andrea Yates, who drowned her 5 children? This was about 10 -15 years ago. She had suffered from psychosis after her 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pregnancies, including hallucinations (both visual and auditory), multiple suicidal attempts and homicidal ideation, and yet her husband thought it was his duty to keep on impregnating er, and her duty to keep on having babies.

I always thought that was wrong, even moreso on her husband's part than on her's, because she was diagnosed psychotic but he was supposedly in his right mind. He knew she suffered by pregnancy-triggered psychosis but kept on having intercourse with her regardless.

So although there is in marriage an exclusive exchange of conjugal rights (the wife's conjugal right to her husband, the husband's conjugal right to his wife) there is not a limitless obligation to have intercourse in marriage.

As for Mary, she had a serious reason to abstain with Joseph, because it was God who had a conjugal right to her.

Just ask, “Who is Jesus’ father?” In terms of the origin of His conception, it’s not Joseph, but the Holy Spirit in one sense, and God the Father in another. (Multiple senses and meanings and applications are common in Holy Scripture.)

If Jesus’ parents were Mary and the Holy Spirit, then by simple analogy it follows that Mary (in this particular sense, and this alone) is the “spouse of the Holy Spirit”.

Don't think that implies that Mary had equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus.

In any case, in no place does the Scripture authorize bigamy, i.e. according conjugal rights to more than one person.

[MHGinTN]

The Mormons teach that Jesus was the product of sexual reproduction. Catholicism is in company of like minds, apparently.

[CynicalBear]

The really sad thing to me is that you appear not to realize that is total twisting of scripture and making up a fable fit for only pagans.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"To twist the symbolic, the sacred symbolism, into a defiance of what God had commanded for all their Generations..."

This makes no sense. If it were not Jesus' blood, Scripture wouldn't portray Him saying that it was. He says it over and over --- He doubles down on the point, even after his listeners have started to vehemently object --- in John 6.

The Jews considered that the Life was in the blood, and they abstained from eating blood because of God's command, not because it was too disgusting, but because it was too sacred.

This is how God prepared them for the astounding gift of the Eucharist: now, the unimaginable is true! You receive God's life because now that's what He wants to give you--- you receive His life-blood! Something you could not have imagined in a million years! And as St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 11,

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord.[Not: "will have to answer for a symbolic offense. Not: "will have to answer for misusing a metaphor".] A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Obviously one who remains unbelieving and says "It's just bread, only bread," you are not discerning the Body.

I don't think we should fight and argue any more about this. We would just be lobbing charges of blasphemy, sacrilege, unbelief, desecration and heresy against each other, and you know as well as I do that it would yield no resolution, but only result in anger and frustration.

As Paul wrote to Titus, (Titus 3:9), "Avoid foolish arguments, genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile."

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, take heed!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Love ya. Same thing right back at'cha.

See #115

We're through, God bless you.

[litehaus]

Except that they didn’t have toilets in 30 A.D.—————

Well maybe not in that region, but the isles out WEST from there had multi story buildings and toilets/running water long before the time of our LORD.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Yeah, I guess there’s some aspects of ancient history that has just not attracted too much of my attention. Of course, reason says there have been some method even then that was a something more advanced than what the bears do.

[CynicalBear]

#115 changes nothing. It was still a sin against the law for Jesus and the apostles to eat blood. Had Jesus eaten real blood and encouraged others to do so He would have been sinning and would NOT have been the sinless sacrifice. The belief in physically eating the flesh of their gods is pagan in origin.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I understand it, the Mormons believe that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, as in, physical genital penetration. Catholics do not believe this.

Glad to be able to clear that up.