Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
If that's the case, you should be equally scandalized that God worked through a mortal being to become flesh, when He has no need of humanity to do anything whatsoever.
I understand why you don't think God has a mother. Logically speaking, it doesn't seem possible. But the Church teaches that since Jesus is BOTH entirely God and entirely man, they are inseperable natures which were given fleshly birth by Mary, His mother. She can't be at once, the mother of Jesus, and not the mother of the second Person of the Trinity (the Son, hence, God). Since Jesus, in becoming flesh, did not lose an ounce of Divinity, the relationship of Mary remains that of mother to both His human and His Divine natures.
The problem is that, if you deny that Mary was the mother of God, you're denying Jesus' divinity, since He (Jesus) is the Word (made flesh). How does it work? We don't know. It's a mystery as much as the Incarnation itself. Since God doesn't reveal all things to us, we have to work from inspiration and negative conclusions to ascertain that the alternative (Jesus is not divine) is a much harder pill than "Mary is the mother of the uncreated Divine", which requires assent to faith because it IS a mystery.
Ok. If you choose not to apply what you know of the human race (being one yourself) then maybe for you I need to appeal to what the bible says about marriage:
1 Corinthians 7: 1 - 5
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Mary was a wife, and all that that implies, biblically speaking.
This is not real complicated, unless one has ulterior motives for making it so.
Thank you for your personal interpretation of scripture.
I can tell you how I read it. I read what is written and I analyze the context. The context in Romans 3 indicates to me that "all" is a literary device of generalization. This is consistent with other scripture that describes some people as "righteous", or "perfect in every way", and not consistent with them being "full of cursing and bitterness", with "feet swift to shed blood", etc.
When in doubt, I check to see how people closer to the apostles understood the passage. This requires familiarity with the writings of the Church Fathers. I also check if the translation is accurate.
You, too, can follow along. The Church has Gospel readings for every day, and I post the Douay and Latin translations every day, followed by the relevant citations from the fathers of the Church. See for example, Jn 6:44-51 and the commentary following for today. You can ask Salvation to put you on the ping list.
Your bible may have sprang from nothing.
The Bible did not.
>>Sacred Scripture says that she is the Mother of the Lord and that all generations will call her blessed. <<
I DO call her blessed in the same way the world would call a lotto winner lucky!
She most definitely WAS BLESSED. WHAT A THING, TO BE SELECTED TO BE THE ONE TO GIVE BIRTH TO JESUS. But that does not make her somehow “better” than anybody else. It makes her very much “blessed”, as any mother would be with their own child, but infinitely more so.
It has nothing to do with anyone’s salvation. Even she, given a free will, could have fallen away. I am not in any way meaning to imply she did, of course. Plese do not infer that.
Marian beliefs do have a very strong theme in the gospels, Mary being second only to Peter in how often she is mentioned.
>>None who are the Mother of God, received Annunciation of that fact from an angel of God, was met by three wise men who came from far away to give exquisite gifts. None who witnessed their son turn water into wine, or heard from his disciples and others of his miracles. None whose son raised anyone from the dead. None who was crucified, died, was buried and later reappeared resurrected. In other words, no, none of my friends have a son named Christ, a Savior foretold by generations past.<<
So you are basically saying she is “special” and 1 Corinthians does not apply to her? The only one special is Jesus. The rest of us are sinners. Yes, even Mary. But she was truly blessed to be the one to bear Jesus, no doubt about it. That has little relevance to WHY he came, nor to her salvation.
I am not scandalized by any of God’s choices. He had no need of Mary and has no need of any man nor anything that man can do. Yet He chooses to use us for His pleasure, His glory, according to His will.
Just because the RCC teaches a doctrine doesn’t make it true. No matter how many times you declare it, God has no mother. It’s a mystery to mankind - how God came in the flesh to live among men to save us from sin. He declares that He has always existed - ergo, He has no mother. When Jesus humbled Himself and came to Earth as a human, He was born of the virgin Mary. She was used by God, glory to His name. She was His servant. When Jesus was still young, He began to reveal to her that she was not His mother in the same sense that other women were mothers of their totally earthly boys. She was the mother of Jesus but she ain’t the Mother of God.
Gentlemen:
Since it’s obvious that you believe the Early Church Fathers’ writings are spurious and that their witness from history means nothing, I will bid you good evening.
nanetteclaret
BTW. I took your advice about the tagline...
I prefer not to speculate about anyone else’s married life. It may be a pastime for others, but not for me.
I quote Byzantine Majority. What variant do you have?
With all due respect Dear Brother,you are basing your beliefs on your OWN interpretations and placing them above the Saints Interpretations ,some of who decided Bible canon
Take for instance Saint Athanasius,who was the first to present the canonized books of the New Testament.
Here is what He said about the Blessed Mother
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).
But hey, I guess you know more that Blessed Saint Athansius?
>>Since it’s obvious that you believe the Early Church Fathers’ writings are spurious and that their witness from history means nothing, I will bid you good evening.<<
That is a shame. I do not mean to say they mean nothing. I merely do not treat them as “gospel”. They are extra-biblical writings by mortal men.
I feel the same about the writings about C. S. Lewis, even though he is my absolute favorite author on Christianity - outside the bible of course.
>>I prefer not to speculate about anyone else’s married life. It may be a pastime for others, but not for me.<<
OK. Then speculate about married life for human beings as created by god and instructed in his word. Read 1 Corinthians.
You are being intentionally obtuse.
That post didn’t interpret Scripture. It called into light several spurious lies taught by the RCC that contribute to the deification of Mary within that organization.
“Vast sums of money are spent on jeweled crowns and lavish clothing for some special statues of Mary.
Well, she IS the ark of the covenant. I suppose she should be just as bejeweled.
corecting tagline
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.