Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
While Mary is most likely not in the mind of the author of Hebrews as he writes this passage, it is certainly not a verse which Catholics would like to place anywhere near Marian doctrine. Jesus is not great because of His earthly lineage or anything they did. He is great because He is God. Period.
As for Dave's question in regards to how Christ could save fallen humanity without becoming fallen humanity, the Catholics have their own quandary here. If Jesus was born to an immaculate Mary, and was thus without the stain of original sin, was He really part of fallen humanity?
To clarify Stevens response somewhat...the first day and the last day of the feast of Unleavened bread are sabbaths in and of themselves, but are not the same as the weekly sabbaths unless they happen to fall on the weekly sabbath.
Another word is High Holy day. It was a high sabbath because it wasn't the regular weekly sabbath.
It is cited when asked for text showing Mary is the mother of anyone else.
SD, it’s obvious that every story told, and every point made in scripture, have meanings that were meant for them at the time it was written, and for every age up to the present day. Do you agree?
You seem to believe that the accounts in Matthew and Mark, are only there to show us that the chief priest and religious leaders questioned Jesus authority, because He was considered just another local boy, with no credentials.
If this is all that we are to learn from these two accounts, why did they bother with all the names and relationships to each other? What did this add to the fact Jesus had no credentials?
Is it that important for the Christian of all eras, to know that Jesus was just a local boy everyone knew, who had worked with his father and learned a trade, and now was suddenly speaking as one with authority?
Why was this dealt with so clearly and vividly, going so far as to even mention He had sisters? This wouldn’t have been necessary just to make the point He had no credentials.
Mt 13:55-56, Please explain why all these facts are given concerning Jesus and His family. That He had four brothers, and gave all their names, that his father was a carpenter, and so was Jesus, that His mothers name was Mary, and that He had at least two sisters, if the only point of this scripture is show that the Jewish leaders, didn’t believe He had credentials or the background to speak with such authority.
The scripture was written for us, and for all those who didn’t know Jesus at that time, or what became of His mother during His lifetime.
Concerning the word “till”, remember this wasn’t recorded for over 30 years after the death of Christ. When Matthew and Mark, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, they knew at that time whether or not Jesus was the only child Mary had.
Now, by their saying Joseph knew her not until after Jesus was born, if they knew Mary and Joseph had no other children afterwards, would Mt 1:25 have been the proper way to word it?
Isn’t it more likely they would have said, And he knew her not, and their only son was born, and he named Him Jesus?
And if the writers knew Mary had other children later on to Joseph, isn’t it more likely they would have written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS?
The fact remains that nowhere in the Bible is Mary, the mother of Jesus called anyone else's mother. Nor is any other person identified as a child (son or daughter) of Mary. That is the point. That Mary having only one child, Jesus, is not contradicted by Scripture.
Your wrong, Matthew 27: 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mary, the mother of Jesus was the mother of James and Joses at the cross, or are you going to claim that His own mother left him at the cross and went home, leaving it to his followers to take care of things, and none of his family stayed there?
Are you going to show me in the scripture where there are four names in the same family, other then that of Jesus family, [1] Jesus, [2] Mary, [3] James, [4] Joses? Show me another family with these four names in it.
What would you say the odds are, of two family’s having these four names in it, and to make it even more interesting, the father has to be a carpenter.
Unless you believe that Jesus mother was no where to be found between Matthew 27:61 until Acts 1:14, then you must show me another Mary with two sons named James and Joses.
The truth is, Mary was there every time. The first time identified as the mother of Jesus, then as the mother of James and Joses, then as the other Mary, and finally in Acts again as the mother of Jesus, who was then risen.
Why is it that after Jesus died, Mary was no longer referred to as the mother of Jesus?
Why did Mary Magdalene take precedence over her for a while in scripture?
Why was she referred to as the other Mary, I don’t know, and probably won’t until God answers all these mysteries, but it could have been a custom, that when someone died as a common criminal hung on a tree, the mother no longer was mentioned as having a son, or whether it had to do with writing protocol, as to who and how people were mentioned, but I’m sure when we find out, the answer will be found in the scriptures, and not in the traditions of man.
Won’t that be an exciting time, when all these questions will be answered by God, and there won’t be any “yes butts”. Lol
JH :-)
Well, I'll give you an "A" for creative exegesis, but an "F" for cruel and unusual punishment of a scripture verse. ;o)
There are other passages to consider as well.
But now, if thou wilt forgive their sin -- and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written."
But the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. (Exodus 32:32-33)
Consider a few other verses from Ezekiel:
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die. (Ezekiel 18:24)
Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die. (Ezekiel 33:13)
I think Isaiah 64 should be read in this context -- a man/men who have performed righteous deeds, but who have trusted in their righteousness and committed iniquity.
In Ezekiel, then, the righteous man is the man who does righteous deeds and who does not sin -- or who sins, but repents.
I highlighted the distinction I see between atonement for sin, and the forgiveness of sin. Let me see if I can expand upon this. The Hebrew scriptures clearly state that the sinner is held accountable for his own sin. So how can one understand the sacrifice Jesus made of himself, without viewing it as a vicarious atonement? I think that passage from Paul points to another way of looking at it.
God desires to reconcile the world to Himself. Jesus, in freely laying down his life, "incarnates" or makes present God's love for us. He saves the lost by revealing the light of the Father's love. When we then repent and turn to God for forgiveness, God does not count our trespass against us, but like the father of the prodigal son, welcomes us back with open arms.
In a sense, you could say that Jesus's purpose what to reveal that God's love and forgiveness are so superabundant that we don't need to atone for our sins! We simply need to repent and ask forgiveness -- then go and sin no more. A light yoke indeed.
This makes sense to me. Jesus said that he came not for the well, but for the sick. Not to call the righteous, but for the sinners. Those who were lost -- so lost that they didn't think they could be forgiven.
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)
He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)
I will heal their faithlessness;
I will love them freely,
for my anger has turned from them. (Hosea 14:4)
This was Jesus's message.
June 19th, 325 C.E.
Actually, Judaism doesn't teach that the sacrifices, of themselves, were efficacious. Rather, they were symbolic, an external sign of repentance. We see what the later prophets had to say about those who "went through the motions" but whose hearts had not repented of their sin.
So, we needed a sacrifice ... but, of one like us, ... except perfect in every way (as was required of a sacrifice).
Now here I disagree. The solution was not more sacrifice. Imagine, if you will, the father of the prodigal son sending someone out to seek the son. When he finds him, he tells him that his Father loves him and wants him to come home. This is how I see Jesus. If the "son" heeds the call, he will be reconciled with the Father.
What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?
And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray.
So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. (Matthew 18:12-14)
Hi Chuck. I hardly think this was the motive, and I'm not sure why you would say so. If the "corporate Church" wanted to eternally seperate Easter and Passover, #1, why would they still fall so close together? Why not make Easter several months apart?
#2, as you note, the calendars do more perfectly align from time to time. As the author of the calendar, the Church was surely not ignorant of these things.
I think you'll find, and don't tell Steven, that the feast was set based upon a solar rather than a lunar event due to the relative imprecision in observing the lunar events.
SD
I thought it would be malakhi who would ask this. Glad to see you around again.
As you may be aware, I was somewhat imprecise in my wording. Jesus does indeed need to be of the same lineage, to be related to the existing line of humanity in order to redeem it. As I have said, if He is cut anew from some fresh strain, then He is not of the line of David and fails to fulfill prophecy as well.
Catholic concept of Original Sin is of a lack, a depravity. What is lacking in the one with this "sin" is a relationship with God.
Jesus, being God, could in no way be said to have "Original Sin." How could God lack a relationship with God.
(And BTW, Mary's Immaculate status is not relevant. Jesus does not inherit his lack of Original Sin from Mary, but because of who He is.)
SD
That's what I was going for. :-)
SD
Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.
Jer 44:19 The women also said, "And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands' permission?"
Jer 44:25 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: "You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, "We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!'
Mat 22: 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:22
Luke 20:29
The fact that we are not given in marriage in heaven is repeated 3 times and usually with an exhortation about knowing the scriptures. The only reference to a queen of heaven is of a pagan idol. The rational for Mary being the Bride of the Holy Spirit is removed because we are not given in marriage in Heaven. The Idea of Mary being the Mother of God and the wife of God and the recipient of prayers makes her the 4th part of a man made quadiny.
This is the problem. You think that everything has to come from Scripture. It is not clear at all that there was never another family with these names. You must look to history, not Scripture.
What would you say the odds are, of two family’s having these four names in it, and to make it even more interesting, the father has to be a carpenter.
Who said the father was a carpenter?
The truth is, Mary was there every time. The first time identified as the mother of Jesus, then as the mother of James and Joses, then as the other Mary, and finally in Acts again as the mother of Jesus, who was then risen.
This is simply insane to believe that a character is referred to in this way. Sorry.
Why is it that after Jesus died, Mary was no longer referred to as the mother of Jesus?
Because it's a different Mary.
Why did Mary Magdalene take precedence over her for a while in scripture?
She didn't.
You are so intent to downgrade Mary, the Mother of God, that you assign her this schizophrenic name-shifting role. What other character in Scripture is referred to in this haphazard and contradictory manner? Where else in Scripture or in Jewish tradition is a person's mother no longer his mother after he dies?
Why do you strive so hard to believe that the mother of Jesus (her firstborn, by all accounts) is referred to as the mother of her (presumably) 2nd and 3rd children only?
SD
Mary being the Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with marriage. Thanks for playing, though.
SD
None
******* Verses about Immaculate Conception of Mary *****
None
Does the Father still have a Son?
SD
Too late. I'm already quite aware of your observance of Ishtar. :-)
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.