[P-Marlowe]

It is rather strange to me that those who insist that Mary is the "Mother of God" (capital M) are actually arguing that she is not really the mother of Jesus in the genetic sense. Never in my life had I ever thought that Jesus was not genetically related to Mary. While it is true that God could have created an embryo in the womb of Mary with no genetic attachment to her, but then that would not have fulfilled the scripture. The only way the scriptures could be fulfilled is if Jesus were an actual blood relation to Abraham and David.

But then our Catholic friends don't take scripture literally, so why would they take any of the prophecies literally. They are not bound by scripture, they are bound by their catechism. In that sense it is a waste of time to argue doctrine with them. They are "right" because some committee tells them what to think and any deviation is heresy. Scripture is not merely secondary to them, it is irrelevant. There is no need to think. The thinking has been done.

[Forest Keeper]

It is rather strange to me that those who insist that Mary is the "Mother of God" (capital M) are actually arguing that she is not really the mother of Jesus in the genetic sense. Never in my life had I ever thought that Jesus was not genetically related to Mary. While it is true that God could have created an embryo in the womb of Mary with no genetic attachment to her, but then that would not have fulfilled the scripture. The only way the scriptures could be fulfilled is if Jesus were an actual blood relation to Abraham and David.

Amen in all respects, brother. I have never heard of any of this either. It's interesting that you go on to mention the catechism. I still have a ton of reading to catch up on this thread. I wonder now if any evidence is ever offered from a catechism. In fact, even up to the point of your post here, I'm not really sure of what positive "evidence" we've seen in support of their position. :)