Holy Family?

[JustHisKid]

If you say so, but I was responding to what you wrote in your last post.


Speculation? I explained why that's not so. You do believe that Jesus was born of Mary in Bethlehem, don't you? You do believe that this describes her as his mother, do you not? You do think that this is a permanent relationship (mother and child), don't you? You do believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, don't you? About all that remains to be called "speculation" is whether or not Mary is in heaven. Do you think it's doubtful that she is??????

I have presented to you Jesus' own words, which you reject. Our death in the body ends our earthly relationships. In fact, we are free to marry again after our spouse dies BECAUSE our earthly familial relationships end upon our death. Jesus makes it clear that there are no marriages in heaven, thus, no parents and no children. We will be like the angels. No earthly family structure.

 

[brinny]

I have presented to you Jesus' own words, which you reject. Our death in the body ends our earthly relationships. In fact, we are free to marry again after our spouse dies BECAUSE our earthly familial relationships end upon our death. Jesus makes it clear that there are no marriages in heaven, thus, no parents and no children. We will be like the angels. No earthly family structure.

Interesting point. I had never thought about or considered that.

Thank you kindly for sharing that, sis.

 

[JustHisKid]

Interesting point. I had never thought about or considered that.

Thank you kindly for sharing that, sis.

You're welcome.

 

[Albion]

I have presented to you Jesus' own words, which you reject.

Oh no. I just reject the odd twist you insist upon putting on them.

Our death in the body ends our earthly relationships. In fact, we are free to marry again after our spouse dies BECAUSE our earthly familial relationships end upon our death. Jesus makes it clear that there are no marriages in heaven, thus, no parents and no children. We will be like the angels. No earthly family structure.

We're talking about one's MOTHER, not second wives.

And there is no suggestion--by using the term 'Mother of God'--that there are any siblings of Jesus being born in the spirit world, etc. Sheesh!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Are you talking about me? I'm a woman, which I made clear, which you would also know if you looked to your left.
No argument has yet been made that adequately convinces anyone that Mary is God's mother in heaven.

Why does anyone need to convince someone of simple statement of facts?
Besides, either one believes Jesus is God or not ("is" includes that Man is and will remain God too). The title [for Mary] is then academic because it is a simple statement of the belief just stated - that He is God.
Mary gave birth to a man Who was also the Son of God. So properly speaking, Mary is properly called the Mother of God from that point forward because of Who she gave birth to - not because of something Divine about Her but because He is Divine.

The rebuttal that in Heaven she is somehow is no longer the woman that gave birth to that Man (the point of the title Mother of God) after Mary left this earth fails; just as the idea no one has any of the familial relationships they had on earth in Heaven fails. Jesus is still a human, glorified yes, but still human with a body and soul. Humans have mothers, Mary is His and she is still His Mother now. That Man is also will always be God. So calling Her Mother of God now is simply a title that reflects the same truth it would have reflected had that title been used while Mary walked this earth - it is still not about who Mary is - it is reflection on Who Her Son is, God.

The rebuttal that using that title reflects a belief that Mary in Heaven now is somehow Divine or participated in the "creation" of God is absurd as the Creeds of the same people using that title deny God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is created. Those declarations are made by Catholics daily 24/7/365. So it would be rather silly to suggest people using that title somehow are saying Mary is Divine or Mary help "create" God when the people using that title know and repeatedly proclaim God is uncreated. Similarly calling Her Mother of the Church reflects a deeper reflection of the act/scene described at the Cross and so Mary could properly be called Our Mother too as members of that Church, but using that title does NOT indicate a belief she gave birth to all of us, anymore than calling Her Mother of God would indicate a belief that She created God in Her womb or is somehow Divine herself.

 

[JustHisKid]

Oh no. I just reject the odd twist you insist upon putting on them.

No twisting is required. The man is inquiring about retaining an earthly familial relationship at the resurrection. It's quite clear.

We're talking about one's MOTHER, not second wives.

And there is no suggestion--by using the term 'Mother of God'--that there are any siblings of Jesus being born in the spirit world, etc. Sheesh!

We're talking about retaining earthly relationships at the resurrection.

 

[Albion]

We're talking about retaining earthly relationships at the resurrection.

No, we are not. You are adamantly opposed to the use of the term RIGHT NOW.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Are you talking about me? I'm a woman, which I made clear, which you would also know if you looked to your left..

And I am a man - we need pictures. Symbols and writing often get over looked. Sorry, no insult intended.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Albion,
Apparently any point disagreed with is speculation and opinion unless it convinces otherwise. The stated facts apparently do not matter.

 

[JustHisKid]

Why does anyone need to convince someone of simple statement of facts?
Besides, either one believes Jesus is God or not ("is" includes that Man is and will remain God too). The title [for Mary] is then academic because it is a simple statement of the belief just stated - that He is God.
Mary gave birth to a man Who was also the Son of God. So properly speaking, Mary is properly called the Mother of God from that point forward because of Who she gave birth to - not because of something Divine about Her but because He is Divine.

The rebuttal that in Heaven she is somehow is no longer the woman that gave birth to that Man (the point of the title Mother of God) after Mary left this earth fails; just as the idea no one has any of the familial relationships they had on earth in Heaven fails. Jesus is still a human, glorified yes, but still human with a body and soul. Humans have mothers, Mary is His and she is still His Mother now. That Man is also will always be God. So calling Her Mother of God now is simply a title that reflects the same truth it would have reflected had that title been used while Mary walked this earth - it is still not about who Mary is - it is reflection on Who Her Son is, God.

The rebuttal that using that title reflects a belief that Mary in Heaven now is somehow Divine or participated in the "creation" of God is absurd as the Creeds of the same people using that title deny God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is created. Those declarations are made by Catholics daily 24/7/365. So it would be rather silly to suggest people using that title somehow are saying Mary is Divine or Mary help "create" God when the people using that title know and repeatedly proclaim God is uncreated. Similarly calling Her Mother of the Church reflects a deeper reflection of the act/scene described at the Cross and so Mary could properly be called Our Mother too as members of that Church, but using that title does NOT indicate a belief she gave birth to all of us, anymore than calling Her Mother of God would indicate a belief that She created God in Her womb or is somehow Divine herself.

You conclusions are based on an assumption. No pun intended.

 

[JustHisKid]

And I am a man - we need pictures. Symbols and writing often get over looked. Sorry, no insult intended.

No problem. I get it. I have a husband.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It explains your opinion. The OP is sincere and I am still waiting. Do you have anything to add or are you just going to make noise?

How is it sincere to present one-self as wanting to understand something a group of people believes or wanting to get clarification from them directly, when it is then clearly demonstrated that presentation was false?

How does a Christian maintain that the use of a title, which indicates that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother, is an opinion?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You conclusions are based on an assumption. No pun intended.

So how does a Christian suggest it is an assumption that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother?

 

[JustHisKid]

How is it sincere to present one-self as wanting to understand something a group of people believes or wanting to get clarification from them directly, when it is then clearly demonstrated that presentation was false?

I don't want to understand. I DO understand. I was raised Catholic. I want evidence; proof of the assertion.

How does a Christian maintain that the use of a title, which indicates that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother, is an opinion?

Because it clearly WAS that way on earth and according to Jesus' teaching, it is no longer that way. I believe His words, not yours.

 

[JustHisKid]

So how does a Christian suggest it is an assumption that Jesus is God and Mary is His Mother?

Didn't you even get the pun? C'mon, that was funny.

 

[brinny]

I don't want to understand. I DO understand. I was raised Catholic. I want evidence; proof of the assertion.



Because it clearly WAS that way on earth and according to Jesus' teaching, it is no longer that way. I believe His words, not yours.

as we are admonished to do, sis, amen.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

LOL, that is a tradition by the way and fitting as well as beautiful one at that, not that the distinction will be appreciated however.

Didn't you even get the pun? C'mon, that was funny.

 

[brinny]

Didn't you even get the pun? C'mon, that was funny.

LOL!

 

[JustHisKid]

LOL, that is a tradition by the way and fitting as well as beautiful one at that, not that the distinction will be appreciated however.

It is definitely one heck of a doozie of a teaching and as you have guessed, I believe is a fairy tale. More importantly, a very dangerous one.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't want to understand. I DO understand. I was raised Catholic. I want evidence; proof of the assertion.



Because it clearly WAS that way on earth and according to Jesus' teaching, it is no longer that way. I believe His words, not yours.

Not sure it is clear to look at those verses that way at all.

Jesus making a true point that following (being a member of His Kingdom) Him is more important than our family/relationships (member of a family) on earth is not a negative statement about family. To use that to suggest Jesus was teaching that those relationships are meaningless in Heaven is putting more into what He said than was there and He would also be understood as conflicting with the honor our parents command. Likewise when He responded to the question about the widow marrying multiple brothers. It was not negative statement about marriages (that they are earthly marriage is dissolved in the life is a negative).

Angels do not have bodies because they are spirits. Jesus was demonstrated after resurrection (how we CAN be) having a body (and soul/spirit of course since He is human). So those humans in Glory (and those in Hell) will have bodies, just like He does. However, like the angels (who are created unable), we will no longer reproduce in the next life, which makes marriage and getting engaged meaningless.