Brothers and Sisters?

OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Elsie]

Well; Brothers and Sisters; since I am replying to my own #700; no need to take a CLUB and beat you over the head any more.

I'm off to my chosen place of religious gathering this morning and I am going to guess that all of you are as well.

Let's take our passion with dealing with each other here on FR; out to the highways and byways.

Let's compel them to come in, so the House will be full!

Shalom

[Mrs. Don-o]

I meant that question seriously, Elsie.

[metmom]

So if Jesus is God and Mary is to be ( allegedly) rightly called *mother of God* and Mary is the *Spouse of God*, then that means God married His own mother.

And that is where deviating from Scripture in titles can get you.

[metmom]

Obviously, Mary was, like us, a human person.

And like us she was concieved as a sinful human being.

She did bear God in her womb, however. Jesus is God.

She bore Jesus, that is God with us. Scripture only tells us that she bore Jesus, it never says she bore God, and for good reason.

There is no reason why any Christian should hesitate to call Mary the Mother of God.

Becasue God never saw fit to refer to her as that. *Mother of Jesus* are GOD's words and do not lead into error, not man's as *mother of God* are and do lead into error.

[metmom]

It would have been except for the no sex thing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mary, we agree, did not bear the Trinity.

She did bear Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. She did not give Him existence (He existed from all eternity) but she gave Him flesh. Thus we can truly say she is the Mother of God --- the birth-giver, not of the Trinity, but of the Second Person, who at a point in earthly time became incarnated through her.

Some mistaken people of the past thought that "Mother of Jesus" meant that there were two separate persons, Jesus-Man and Christ-God, and Mary was the mother of one of these two separate persons. And some mistakenly said that the person of Jesus is not the same person as the Eternal Word. You can see even the words of Scripture can be taken in an erroneous way.

This is why the Church had to clarify these related truths about the "Trinity" and the "Incarnation" and the singular "Person" of Christ, who is True God and True Man. (The three terms in quotes are not found in the Bible).

Even the word "Bible" isn't found in the Bible.

Thank God that the same Church to whom the Sacred Scriptures were given, has, through Christ's unfailing promise of the Holy Spirit, the guidance to rightly interpret them.

That's why Jesus said, if you and your brother have a dispute, take it to the Church.

[MHGinTN]

Consenting to gestate a being is mothering that new life. There is no more intimate form of surrogacy than gestating a child for nine months. You and I doi not have the particulars of how God accomplished the making of Jesus, other than Mary's consentual surrogacy. God may have made a wholey new zygotic being, may have used gametes from Adam and Eve or any other husband and wife in the lineage of David. We simply do not have the particulars. But to accept the Catholic explanation is to impugn GOD's character, for Mary WAS betrothed to Joseph before she was visited by the Angel, and when Joseph discovered she was pregnant he contemplated secret divorce.

Making up ways to set aside the facts of defrauding does not reveal what actually was done by GOD to implant JESUS in Mary's Womb. And surrogacy DOES NOT VIOLATE THE BETROTHAL VOWS IF none of the pledged genetic future of the woman is not involved ... a less intimate example would be nursing an abandoned or orphaned child.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "She did not give Him [JESUS] existence (He existed from all eternity) but she gave Him flesh." You keep spouting this unproveable assertion as if it is proven truth! Unless God has told you how HE implanted the morulla Jesus into Mary's uterus, you can only speculate, without any proof!

BUT look at what it means to Catholiciism proclamations if indeed HOD implanted Jesus for Mary's surrogacy WITHOUT using her genetic cell source! I suspect THAT is what you fear so much that you continue to err so boldly.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "She did not give Him [JESUS] existence (He existed from all eternity) but she gave Him flesh." You keep spouting this unprovable assertion as if it is proven truth! Unless God has told you how HE implanted the morulla Jesus into Mary's uterus, you can only speculate, without any proof!

BUT look at what it means to Catholiciism proclamations if indeed GOD implanted Jesus for Mary's surrogacy WITHOUT using her genetic cell source! I suspect THAT is what you fear so much that you continue to err so boldly.

[MHGinTN]

Hmmm, a double negative! Need to correct that so Salvation doesn't fall down laughing ...

Making up ways to set aside the facts of defrauding does not reveal what actually was done by GOD to implant JESUS in Mary's Womb. And surrogacy DOES NOT VIOLATE THE BETROTHAL VOWS IF none of the pledged genetic future of the woman is not involved ... a less intimate example would be nursing an abandoned or orphaned child.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mary, a surrogate mother? I’d call this notion an unprecedented novelty, but it’s not unprecedented: it’s in the Koran.

[omegatoo]

Luke 1:31
“Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.”

“Thou shalt conceive”

Mary is not the passive actor here, she actively participated in the action of conception, just as she actively participated in delivering Him into the world.

The scripture above proves the ‘unproveable assertion’.

In the event that you choose to disregard scripture and consider Mary to be a surrogate mother, she is still a mother, without whom Jesus’s body would not have been formed from the nutrients provided by her, her blood mixing with His during the time she carried Him.

So, sorry, she’s still the mother of God by virtue of having given birth to Him, genetically or not is really not important.

Also, if Mary is not related genetically to Jesus, and Joseph is not related genetically to Jesus, then Jesus could not possibly have had any true brothers and sisters, could He?

Love,
O2

.....SAVE THE SERVERS....TAGLINE.....

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mary, sinful? Not according to what the Archangel Gabriel called her.

[ealgeone]

Mary, we agree, did not bear the Trinity.

However, the Roman Catholic usage of "mother of God" gives that meaning.

Further, it gives the meaning that Mary "birthed" God....in other words she existed prior to God.

There's a reason the writers of the NT were moved to call Jesus, the Son of Mary and Mary, the mother of my Lord.

[sargon]

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God."

That includes the human being Mary—mother of our Lord.

Like every human being that has ever lived—with the exception of Jesus Christ, the Son of God—Mary was a sinner.

A lack of sin is one of several characteristics that made Jesus Christ our Savior unique.

Mary sinned—just as every other human being has sinned. There are no exceptions other than Christ. To believe otherwise is heresy...

[ealgeone]

Mary, sinful? Not according to what the Archangel Gabriel called her.

Yes...Mary was sinful.

Yet again, I will post and you will ignore.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia online...The Catholic Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history.

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene , Hail, full of grace ( Luke 1:28 ) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace ) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056

To use your own argument.....

2) Nowhere in Scripture is anyone called a Son of Mary except Jesus Christ.

No where in the Scripture is Mary ever called sinless.

The Catholic position on this issue is false.

[imardmd1]

Thanks!

[MHGinTN]

Conceive in her womb ... the zygote is conceived by the womb when the morulla implants in the uterine lining. You can be excused for ignorance, but purposeful false assertions will be challenged.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, the morulla implants without the mother doing anything except remaining alive, so the false assertion that Mary was an active participant is rejected, too: "Mary is not the passive actor here, she actively participated in the action of conception." O₂

[MHGinTN]

You need more education before making a statement like the following, which is totally in error: “... her blood mixing with His during the time she carried Him.” Again, your ignorance can be excused, but not purposed errors.