The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[newgeezer]

"In other words He is not of Mary. She is not His mother genetically. He did not come from one of her eggs. Sure he came through her but he is not of her."

This was posted by biblewonk. I'm curious. Do all you other Protestants agree with this?

I agree that it's a valid question. There's no Scriptural evidence or requirement that He be of her egg. There is Scriptural support for her not being so. In short, if I had to choose, I'd say the egg wasn't hers.

Is this a standard Protestant belief?

"Belief"? I'd be shocked if it's the subject of any doctrinal statements either way. We all know she's His mother. Thus, the overwhelming majority likely assumes she's His biological mother without giving it any thought. But, search the Scriptures, and the question is (surprisingly, for some) totally validated.

It's completely understandable how some refuse to acknowledge that validity. It would ruin their whole day.

[malakhi]

Any comments on allowing believers to say and do things with an unspoken, understood overiding theme?

I didn't follow this conversation earlier, so I'm not sure what you mean.

[malakhi]

Fallen into the "either/or" camp, my man?

Judaism teaches that we are to pray to God alone. We can pray for the dead, but we are prohibited to pray to the dead.

What about the idea of God providing for our needs in superabundance?

What about it?

[malakhi]

You're sounding downright Christian lately. :)

Just quoting this Jewish guy I read about. ;o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Any comments on allowing believers to say and do things with an unspoken, understood overiding theme?

I've already given him that my choice of words wasn't the best. Scratch the word "unspoken".

I didn't follow this conversation earlier, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Wish I would have missed it. :-)

[drstevej]

***He did not come from one of her eggs.***

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb [Lk. 1:31]

This does not sound like the language of surrogate motherhood. Mary conceived (sullambano) according to Luke. A surrogate mother does not conceive, she receives a already fertilized ovum.

The New Testament does not attempt to give a precise medical description, but clearly the conception is miraculous (no human father). I don't see any textual warrant to view Mary as a surrogate mother only.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

There is Scriptural support for her not being so.

Lets see it.

BigMack

[ventana]

My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

v.

(see how easy that is Havoc?)

[AlguyA]

biblewonk, I have some really good news for you. News which apparently the church you are currently attending has not seen fit to share with you. God became Man. A man just like us in all things except sin. And in so doing, He conquered sin. Jesus was not some new genetic line. Jesus was born of a woman. I would strongly urge you to check out Galatians 4:4. Also, note the wording in Luke 1:31:

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Note the "thou." It is Mary who shall "conceive." Now check out Hebrews 11:11. This verse indicates just what is meant by the word "conceive."

"Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Conceive means to participate in God's process of the Creation of Life. The exact same word, "conceive," is used in both Luke and Hebrews. Both Mary and Sara, "conceived."

Your Lord is far closer to you than you have been led to believe.

[biblewonk]

Are there any essays on this subject I could take a peek at?

I suspect that someone else must have noticed it but I haven't seen any essays on the topic.

[SoothingDave]

Steven, you were exposed a few eeeks ago on this pagan nonsense. Don't you remember?

You lack a consistency. All pagan-type coincidences pertaining to what you believe mean nothing. All pagan-type coincidences relating to Mary or the Catholics are proof of pagan influence.

This is a fair belief for someone to have, but it falls far short of being a coherent idea.

It's rather like believing the absolute worst about the things you hate, and nothing bad at all about the things you love.

SD

[biblewonk]

Please re-review the verses with the caption *** Mother of God*** that I posted. How much does it detract from Mary if it wasn't her egg? It detracts nothing from the Mary of the bible, it detracts a ton from the RC Mary.

[newgeezer]

> There is Scriptural support for her not being so.

Lets see it.

Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?
(#1,332 answers the challenge in 1,288)

[SoothingDave]

What about the idea of God providing for our needs in superabundance?

What about it?

Joining the saints in prayer is God's way of making sure we never have to pray alone. And if 2 or 3 and together, Christ is present. So no one person ever has to pray alone.

No, we don't "need" it. It's not a "necessity."

SD

[SoothingDave]

This does not sound like the language of surrogate motherhood. Mary conceived (sullambano) according to Luke. A surrogate mother does not conceive, she receives a already fertilized ovum.

Thanks Dr. Steve. Along with this, is there not some implication for the redmption of mankind, if Jesus is not Incarnate from this very same line of men, from Adam?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

(AlguyA) This was posted by biblewonk. I'm curious. Do all you other Protestants agree with this? Is this a standard Protestant belief?

This question has been open at least a week.

The reigning answer seems to be "it doesn't matter."

A few postings by tHe AnTiLiB in the last few days:

" It is pretty sad that fear of God and prayers to Him and the saints (INCLUDING MARY) have sustained the Catholic Church for 2,000 years and has not been surpassed in population since."

"The first Bibles were written in Aramaic, then translated to Greek, then Latin; or possibly Latin then Greek, but the first were written in Aramaic, you know the language Christ spoke."

"Not every person saved is a saint, I won't explain it, but it takes the process of canonization. There was no heaven until Christ died. No salvation, but a hell; so therefore a "limbo" (just a name)."

Are these standard Catholic beliefs?

No Catholic has responded.

The reigning answer seems to be "yes".

(Not a lie, but an extremely ignorant statement!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Steven, you were exposed a few eeeks ago on this pagan nonsense. Don't you remember?

No sure don't. Probably only in your mind.

You lack a consistency. All pagan-type coincidences pertaining to what you believe mean nothing. All pagan-type coincidences relating to Mary or the Catholics are proof of pagan influence.

This is a fair belief for someone to have, but it falls far short of being a coherent idea.

I'll be the judge of what I believe is coherent. You may think you've been born and anointed for this task. I just think you're delusional.

It's rather like believing the absolute worst about the things you hate, and nothing bad at all about the things you love.

It's rather like believing the truth and exposing it. Get used to it. And deal with it.

[Havoc]

Simple Al_c. You can feel it's presence but you cannot physically see it. You might see it's effect; but, when it's gone you can't see where it went nor can you see where it's been. You can only witness it's presence and appreciate it's effect (or loath it as the case may be).
It's stronger than all of us and has no physical form. Wind builds pressure in the ears but the spirit builds pressure within the heart. The spirit isn't heard speaking to the man; but if the spirit effects the man, then the effect of it will be seen in the fruit produced by the ministry. The spirit is unseen but the effect of the coming and going is unmistakeable.
</p>

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Thanks, this will take some time to study out.

BigMack

[drstevej]

***Along with this, is there not some implication for the redmption of mankind, if Jesus is not Incarnate from this very same line of men, from Adam?
***

Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam. Matthew's goes only back to Abraham. In the later Matthew is showing a Jewish audience that Jesus is identified with Abraham and the promises of God to their father Abraham. Luke is writing to a universal audience and underscores Jesus' connection with the human race (the descendants of Adam).

Jesus is fully man and fully God. The Bible makes this plain. How he is so genetically involves speculation that I will leave to others. Its far easier to ask such questions than to answer them with any biblical authority.