Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary and the Problem of Christian Unity
Coming Home Network ^ | Kenneth J. Howell, Ph. D.

Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 861-866 next last
To: lastchance

Mary birthed the man who was God. She was not the Mother of God. God ain’t got no momma! Mary was used by God to bring the Son of God into this world. She is special because God chose her - she wasn’t chosen because she was special.


261 posted on 04/10/2008 12:02:09 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
You are correct. If Jesus was here at the beginning, he needed no “Mother”. It is my belief he showed Himself before His birth also. I believe the angel that stayed with Abraham while Sodom was destroyed was Jesus. I believe Melchizedek is Jesus.

If Jesus is God, then He has been here from the Creation and has the ability to travel through time whenever its required.

262 posted on 04/10/2008 12:04:36 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
The traditions are a reflection of the Scriptures, But it is silly to suppose they have the same authority as that which came directly from the mouths of Christ's apostles.

Some do and some don't. The Catholic Holy Tradition gave you the Holy Gospel.

Those examples I have been shown are veiled and subject to interpretive endeavors.

Like any other scriptural claim, mariological exegesis is necessary to clarify them. This is why the exegesis has to be grounded in the Holy Tradition and not in 19-20c mariophobic fantasies.

263 posted on 04/10/2008 12:06:50 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

To be fair, I feel that incubator was only “part” of her role. I consider her a saint like all believers.


264 posted on 04/10/2008 12:08:57 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: annalex; AnalogReigns; Truthsearcher; Running On Empty
But, significantly, Mary is not among them, -- she shows up later.

Mark 3:21. Was Mary a "relative" or a member of His family?
265 posted on 04/10/2008 12:10:19 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

I separate creation, as to how I respect it, into two groups:
1. Man
2. Everything else. AKA Natural resource.

I separate man, as to how I respect individual men, into two groups:

1. Jesus
2. Everyone else.


266 posted on 04/10/2008 12:10:45 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
Mary was a sinner like everyone else because The Bible says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

The statement in Romans 3 is a generalization, -- read the context. What it says is that as a race, man without Christ is a murderous criminal. But Mary is not without Christ and other righteous people are described in the Bible to whom Romans 3 clearly would not apply.

If one person could be sinless, why would we need a Saviour?

So that we, too, be free from sin.

NO ONE could go to Heaven without the Blood sacrifice of a perfect "Lamb"

Very true. The Catholic Church teaches exactly that.

Mary ... being raptured into heaven without death is made up myth

The Church does not teach "without death". But the scripture says she is in heaven (Apoc 12), and with all the interest in the relics of saints, no relic of the Blessed Virgin was ever found.

The same veneration you give Mary are due unknown people in China and Africa that are murdered everyday for the cause of Christ.

Yes. We should venerate all the saints and martyrs of the Church.

267 posted on 04/10/2008 12:16:25 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

>>How could He have a mother, since He is eternal and the Creator of all things?<<

The answer is quite simple actually. Time flows like a river. Eternity is an ocean. God can inject himself in the past as easy as Dr Brown in Back to the future could inject himself in the past.

Easier actually, because time passage is a mere artifact of Gods created universe. Heaven is a different place.


268 posted on 04/10/2008 12:16:30 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

What is the difference between “birthed” and “mother?”

You probably don’t realize this, but the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared Mary to be “Theotokos,” the “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” This was to clarify that Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity (God), and not just a human man, which was a heresy (Nestorianism) at the time. The doctrine had its origins in defining the nature of Jesus.


269 posted on 04/10/2008 12:17:16 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (“I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: lastchance; Politicalmom
So I am curious why have so many modern day Protestants rejected this teaching?

I am curious why you don't accept all the writings of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.
270 posted on 04/10/2008 12:18:11 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret

You “probably” don’t know what I do and don’t know.


271 posted on 04/10/2008 12:18:35 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Maybe this will make things clearer for you regarding Nestorian heresy and the title Mother of God.

“It concerned the nature of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Nestorius taught that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, not God, the “Logos” (”The Word”, Son of God). The Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros: The “Bearer of God”. Consequently, Virgin Mary should be called “Christotokos,” Mother of Christ and not “Theotokos, “Mother of God.” Hence, the name, “Christological controversies”.

Nestorianism over emphasized the human nature of Christ at the expense of the divine. The Council denounced Nestorius’ teaching as erroneous. Our Lord Jesus Christ is one person, not two separate “people”: the Man, Jesus Christ and the Son of God, Logos. The Council decreed that Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Logos), is complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary is “Theotokos” because she gave birth not to man but to God who became man. The union of the two natures of Christ took place in such a fashion that one did not disturb the other.”


272 posted on 04/10/2008 12:18:50 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

So much of this parsing of words reminds me of the folks 2,000 years ago who spent all their waking hours doing the same and trying to trap the serfs in some way thereby in order to heavy-handedly increase the leaders’ control over them; their so called lofty status above them . . . etc.


273 posted on 04/10/2008 12:19:18 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: annalex

No, they didn't. The Gospel came from words and deeds of Christ, recorded in the writings of the first apostles and disciples, most all of whom were Jewish. They were not "Catholic", nor ever self identified as such.

There was no "catholic church", at that time that the writings were first being widely circulated, and no "Catholic Holy Tradition", at the time of the earliest, and next earliest generation of apostles and followers of Christ. All that "Catholic" labeling stuff, came somewhat later...although the they DID recognize the body of written works, that at the time of the founding of the "RCC", had already been widely circulated, and accepted for some time, as being 'canonical', and accurate.

We can however, thank the exacting, painstaking work of many Catholic monks who preserved it. And I do.

274 posted on 04/10/2008 12:23:33 PM PDT by BlueDragon (here's the thing; do recognize the bell of truth when you here it ring, c'mon and sing it children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret

I believe Jesus could have been a “test tube baby” or actually share Mary’s DNA. Since we have not the DNA evidence, it is pointless to argue unless there is spiritual meaning in the answer. And even then, the proofs used to support one side or the other are what should be disected.

Matthew clearly says to Joseph, “the child conceived in her”. I guess we could argue what “conceived” meant there. But suffice it to say the bible says Jesus was fully God AND fully man. We can argue that till His return and never resolve it. The important thing is that BOTh family lines have the same impact on him as leaven in bread.

Mary is to be revered as ANY person in the bible that was on “Gods side”. No more. No less.


275 posted on 04/10/2008 12:29:28 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

***Yeah, I read that quote. I assume this is some sort of joke post.***

Why would you think it is a joke? St. Irenaeus lived in the last part of the second century. We have his writings as well as writings of all the other Church fathers. We know how the early Church thought because of these writings - in fact, they were all circulated among the churches and until the Church decided the Canon at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, the First Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and the Second Council of Carthage in 419 AD, many Christians thought they were inspired. For example, according to Eusebius in 325 AD, many thought the letters of Paul’s friend, Clement of Rome (4th Pope), should be included in the Canon and that St. John’s Revelation should not. But the Holy Spirit instructed the Council on which books should be included in the list of writings approved for reading at Mass. In other words, which were divinely inspired.

Here is an example of writings of the Early Fathers. These are quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch’s “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” which he wrote on the way to being martyred in Rome, AD 107:

“You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.”


276 posted on 04/10/2008 12:33:39 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (“I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Mary is to be revered as ANY person in the bible that was on “Gods side”. No more. No less.

Quick, somebody inform the Pope. The poor guy don't know what he don't know!

Got any more earth shattering insights, categorical statements and pronouncements, Calvin?

277 posted on 04/10/2008 12:35:22 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("I am like...Dude......do you really....like want the Sex?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; AnalogReigns; Truthsearcher; Running On Empty
21 And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad
...[Sermon about kingdom divided against itself is given]...
31 And his mother and his brethren came

(Mark 3)

The Evangelist describes the doubters as "friends" while Mary appears after the sermon and is described by name.

278 posted on 04/10/2008 12:35:41 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Adam is the Father of all humanity and Eve is the Mother of all humanity.

True.

“Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” 1Corinthians 15:45

A declaration- True, again.

The New Adam is Jesus Christ, who is the Creator of all humanity. Since we have a first Adam and a last Adam, and a first Eve as well, then it stands to reason that we have a last Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary who is known as the New Eve.

Since Eve is the mother of all humanity, then the Blessed Virgin Mary is Mother of us all as well, Our Spiritual Mother.

A supposition on your part. An extrapolation, and therefore subject to more scrutiny.

Scripture typology and the writings of the early Christians bears this out.

Typology is again, an extrapolation, subject to omission and interpretation. I would be happy to entertain such typology if there was at least a major theme within the Scripture to support it.

Why would you expect Our Blessed Lord(who is perfection) to enter the world through a sin stained creature?

The original sin effects the whole of creation, and has been a part of man since the fall in the garden. What evidence have you that Christ in the flesh was without the original sin? And if Christ Himself retained the curse of Adam (succeeding in spite of it), what need is there that His mother should be without sin of any kind?

Can GOD co-exist with original sin in the same vessel, the womb of Mary? That ‘vessel’, Mary, had to be worthy of the ‘Treasure’ she carried, Jesus The Christ, the Word Incarnate.

It is my suggestion that God did indeed exist with the original sin in His own flesh, and succeeded in spite of it. I would further suggest that God could not perfectly and completely be God within the confines of Christ in the flesh, as indicated by the evidence.

With that in mind, The 'vessel' of his entry into the world need not be more than a woman.

Dear Friend,It is your “do it my way” or believe the lies that pastor Chuck or Harry has told you that causes you to be at total odds with Historical Christianity.

Thank you for that, brother! For the way is narrow, and few will find it... It seems to me one should be on the road less traveled.

279 posted on 04/10/2008 12:38:06 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

If you did know, why did you post something that sounded like you were ignorant of the facts?


280 posted on 04/10/2008 12:39:44 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (“I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 861-866 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson