Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary, Mother of God
The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 


So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:


The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.
         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.
         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 
         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name
“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.
The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:
When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law,
to ransom those under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons.
As proof that you are sons,
God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying out, “Abba, Father!”
So you are no longer a slave but a son,
and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,
and the infant lying in the manger.
When they saw this,
they made known the message
that had been told them about this child.
All who heard it were amazed
by what had been told them by the shepherds.
And Mary kept all these things,
reflecting on them in her heart.
Then the shepherds returned,
glorifying and praising God
for all they had heard and seen,
just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,
he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; marymotherofgod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 2,541-2,555 next last
To: EnquiringMind

Good thing Paul didn’t feel that way!


181 posted on 01/02/2016 6:48:57 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

DO WHAT????


182 posted on 01/02/2016 6:51:12 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Yeah right. When the rcc says all of our hope is in Mary......that isn’t focusing on Christ.


183 posted on 01/02/2016 6:52:31 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: verga

You should know the greek admits Jesus had brothers and sisters. The others I can excuse even though the context makes it clear.


184 posted on 01/02/2016 6:55:01 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: NYer; metmom; daniel1212; HossB86; Mark17
Can you show us what else Paul orally passed on? Or a source we can reference?

This source cannot contradict anything in the written Word as Paul wouldn't give conflicting instruction.

185 posted on 01/02/2016 6:59:07 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
Are you denying that the other persons of the trinity are God?

They are One God. But Jesus is not the Father and The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. This is Trinitarian belief. Jesus has to be a different person from the Father to be sent by the Father (Gal 4:4). The Father has to be a different person from the Son to be the one who sends. Read the Cappadocian fathers Like Basil the Great or Anthanasius, they understand all this really well. Catholics honor these Eastern Fathers of the Church today.

Which is it? Unseparated, meaning mixed, and unmixed meaning separated.

Both, because He is one person, a hypostatic union. See the Council of Calcedon

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CHALCHRI.HTM

They are essential because your Church teaches that Catholics believe in a false God.

You have to convince me first that you even understand what it means to believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. Your questions indicate you've been unable to explain how His sacrifice on the Cross is efficacious for the salvation of sins.

Because really, if God did not act in the person of Jesus, therefore the salvation of humanity is untenable. But because He does, in the person of Jesus who is the incarnate God, He therefore saves. But the meaning of the incarnation literally means that Mary bore and gave birth to the Son of God. This therefore makes Him the Son of Mary And Mary the mother of God. Because such realities are communicable within in the second person of the Trinity. Its round and round we're going here...The incarnation is the essential reason for the title Mother of God. I'm attempting to explain it to you in many ways.

If you don't believe me, get a degree in Christian theology and come back and explain it otherwise.

186 posted on 01/02/2016 7:02:43 AM PST by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Bayard
You have to convince me first that you even understand what it means to believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. Your questions indicate you've been unable to explain how His sacrifice on the Cross is efficacious for the salvation of sins.

This is pretty humorous; the Catholic Church, for some reason, does not believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is efficacious either; I do -- he paid the price for my sins; I'm saved by grace through faith. Catholics, on the other hand, are taught that you have to do more.... so, personally, I believe the issue here is what you, if you are Catholic, believe: is Christ's death enough? And, if so, why must works be added to this? Works are a natural outgrowth of salvation -- an evidence of it -- they do not aid in obtaining or securing it! If Christ's sacrificial death on the cross is enough, why do Catholics believe in Purgatory -- a final "purging'? Wasn't Christ's death and resurrection enough?

You can attempt to explain it many ways; I have an issue that the term implies that Mary bore GOD. She didn't. She bore Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate. God has no beginning and no end. I have no issue with professing the Trinity -- regardless of your belief, I am a Christian. However, it is the Catholic faith that raises Mary to a level that at best borders on idolatry and at worst IS idolatry. The CCC teaches that Mary is a "mediatrix" completely in defiance of Scripture, much less the very words of Christ himself! I have yet to see you explain this! The same entry indicates that Mary has a saving office. She does not. She cannot save; if she could have saved, there would have been no need for God to send his Son into this world, would he? Again, blasphemy taught as doctrine.

You are focused on the Mother of God issue so tightly that for some reason, you're not seeing why the sources I've listed for you that cause such consternation. CCC 969 is wrong; Mary does nothing to save, to mediate or to benefit. God's Word proves it to be a lie, yet you do not answer as to why it is not a lie. Why not? Does Mother Church trump God himself?

Hoss

187 posted on 01/02/2016 7:22:43 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
There’s also the little matter of matter of Mary being guilty of adultery if she slept with Joseph after giving herself to the Holy Spirit.

Explain Matthew 1:25. As a matter of fact explain what this means in the Catholic version of the Bible. What do you think is meant by marital relations?

Matthew 1:25New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus.
188 posted on 01/02/2016 7:23:09 AM PST by Old Yeller (Obama is winning the war on terror when you realize he is on the side of the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Old Yeller
And what part of that verse says she had any relations thereafter ?

Your reading of that verse is like reading an obituary that says, "Susie had no children prior to her death" and therefore assuming Susie had children after she was dead.

Sorry, any way you cut it there's no proof in Scripture that Mary had other children and given the fact that she accepted the Holy Spirit as the father of Jesus Christ she was therefore already joined with the Holy Spirit and any relations with anyone else thereafter would be adulterous.

Of course, those who take adultery lightly are free to argue whatever they choose to believe based on their faith in their Self and Self Alone which is the only place someone can come up with 99.999% of the trash non-Catholics have to say about Catholics.

have a nice day

189 posted on 01/02/2016 7:29:53 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; Old Yeller
I guess Paul was in error when he wrote this:

Galatians 1:19

19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. NASB

But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. Douay-Rheims

If read in context there are numerous other passages that tell us Joseph and Mary had other children on their own.

The Greek backs this up.

In Luke 2:7 the word prototokon, first among others, is used in describing Christ.

If the good doctor had wanted to indicate no other children would come from Mary he would have used monogenes, to refer to Christ.

The word monogenes means only, only begotten, unique. One of a kind. Definition from HELPS Word-Studies

I think with Luke being a doctor he would know about how couples have other children and if Joseph and Mary had had other children.

190 posted on 01/02/2016 7:52:02 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
You should know the greek admits Jesus had brothers and sisters. The others I can excuse even though the context makes it clear.

let's take a look at one of the verses that protestants like to throw out as defending their position:Mat 1:25 and knew her not until (till) she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. The key word being ἕως
Bible Hub; Strong's concordance 2193/ Thayer's Greek Lexicon 1. the temporal terminus ad quem, till, until (Latindonee,usquedum); as in the best writings a. with an preterite indicative, where something is spoken of which continued up to a certain time:
Notice it specifically says it continued up to a certain time. It does not say or imply that the condition changed afterward.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. Will Jesus's reign end after His enemies are under his feet?
Gen_3:19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Will Adam eat bread after he dies?
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.
How many children did she have after she dies?

Now lets take a look at the issue of "First born" We firs see it when God directs the Israelites to dedicate the first born of man and animals to him: Exo 13:2 Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, as well of men as of beasts: for they are all mine.
If you look at 1 Samuel you will see that Anna dedicated her firstborn Samuel to God.
we see in Colossians Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Jesus is referred to as the first Born of God?
How many other children did God have?

191 posted on 01/02/2016 8:15:55 AM PST by verga (I might as well be playing chess with pigeons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone; Rashputin; Old Yeller
the word prototokon,

Means simply firstborn see my post 184 Colossians refers to Christ as the first born of the Father, Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

192 posted on 01/02/2016 8:29:08 AM PST by verga (I might as well be playing chess with pigeons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone; Rashputin; Old Yeller
the word prototokon,

Means simply firstborn see my post 191 Colossians refers to Christ as the first born of the Father, Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

193 posted on 01/02/2016 8:29:47 AM PST by verga (I might as well be playing chess with pigeons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: blackpacific

Mary had other children as she had normal marital relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus.

There’s nothing in Scripture to support the romanticized fantasy that Mary was perpetually virgin.

The names of Jesus’ brothers are listed in Scripture. Scripture tells us that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus.

What is it with Catholic mentality that thinks that sex between a husband and wife is dirty or sinful?

If Mary was betrhothed to the Holy Spirit then why didn’t the Holy Spirit tells us that in the Scripture He inspired? If she was betrothed to the Holy Spirit, then what was she doing being betrothed to Joseph? That would make her an adulterer. And if the marriage was just to provide support for her while Jesus grew up, then they were both in deception, leading others to think that they were husband and wife while she was betrothed to God.

Mary was human. She was not any more pure than anyone else, she was not sinless, she was not a perpetual virgin, and she was not betrothed to God.

THAT kind of thinking is from Satan.


194 posted on 01/02/2016 8:51:08 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone; HossB86

I’ll get out the popecorn while waiting for an answer for that one.


195 posted on 01/02/2016 8:51:57 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: verga
Ever notice how some folks flounder around and want to split hairs over whether to use the English, Greek, or Aramaic, definition of a word when they disagree with the Catholic teaching regarding a specific verse but totally ignore the fact that the original language didn't even have a word for some things when doing so suits their agenda?
196 posted on 01/02/2016 8:58:00 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: verga
Your post does nothing to change what I posted. The Greek is clear Joseph and Mary had other children. The context of the NT indicates Joseph and Mary had other children.

The passage you cite in Matthew, if read in context with the other passages involving His brothers and sisters, clearly indicates Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.

The verse in Matthew 1:25 for context:

but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. NASB

And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Douay-Rheims

The word to focus on is "knew" or "kept". The Greek is ginosko. It has the meaning of to know, especially through personal experience.

Now we know Joseph and Mary knew each other. They had met so it doesn't have that meaning.

For additional context, as we are discussing Joseph and Mary's intimacy, refer to Luke 1:34 where Mary asked Gabriel, "How will this be since I do not know (ginosko...same word in Matthew) a man?"

Mary asks this question right after Gabriel had told her she was going to have a child.

As Mary was a virgin, which we all agree on, she was asking Gabriel how she would be a mom when she had not had sexual intercourse.

Mary was a good girl and had kept herself pure.

The passage in Matthew, if read in context with Luke, can only indicate one thing....Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.

After His birth, Joseph and Mary "knew" each other as married couples do.

If read in context.... after that they consummated the marriage producing other brothers and sisters.

we see in Colossians Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Just so we have the verse for context.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Col 1:15 NASB

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col 1:15 Douay-Rheims

The Greek word for firstborn in this passage is prototokos. It is an adjective. The definition means first born, eldest; the first among others.

Jesus is referred to as the first Born of God?

Actually in this passage He is the first born of all creation.

How many other children did God have?

Jesus is the only begotten, (GR: monogenes), Son of God as used in John 1:14,18; John 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9.

There is no contradiction of the text to call Jesus the only begotten Son of God, which He is, and to say He was the first born of Mary, which He is.

The Greek, along with context, indicates Joseph and Mary had sexual relations producing other children.

197 posted on 01/02/2016 9:04:31 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: verga
the word prototokon

Means simply firstborn

Ok, using your definition does nothing to change the fact that Joseph and Mary had other children.

The key is context.

In the eight passages where this is used in the NT it does not limit the meaning to just one. It does not limit the passage to mean just one or only as monogenes does.

Again, context is your key on how a word is used.

198 posted on 01/02/2016 9:13:14 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I’m painting my house!


199 posted on 01/02/2016 9:13:44 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Ever notice how some folks flounder around and want to split hairs over whether to use the English, Greek, or Aramaic, definition of a word when they disagree with the Catholic teaching regarding a specific verse but totally ignore the fact that the original language didn't even have a word for some things when doing so suits their agenda?

Ever notice how the catholic ignores the original languages when it doesn't fit their theology or agenda?

200 posted on 01/02/2016 9:14:55 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 2,541-2,555 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