beamishboy
Well-Known Member
Hi Anglian, I never once said that our Lord disowned his own family. That would be out of character with our Lord. He is all love and forgiveness. What I said was that our Lord's words and actions show quite clearly where He stood with members of His own family before they accepted Him. He chided them gently and lovingly but he chided them nonetheless.
My dear Anglian, I think I totally missed your point. I get it now and will address it. Adults should be more understanding because I read in a science journal that my brain is actually still growing. It seems my skull will fuse when I'm in my mid to late teens and then that's when my brain stops growing and I'll have to make do with what I have; hehe. So, when I miss a point, it's not deliberate. Sometimes, I don't even get what you are saying.
There is no contradiction between what our Lord says and what Elizabeth says after being filled with the Holy Spirit. Let's examine the words carefully. My vicar tells me that when I'm arguing with RCs or anybody for that matter on the Bible, I should always go to the precise words of the Bible. What Elizabeth says precisely is: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (Luke 1:42b). Why was Mary blessed by the Holy Spirit? Simple because (as the second part of the sentence tells us) she had Jesus in her womb. Look - there is nothing special about a blessing. I have already said that the RC church gave a whole new meaning to that word and nowadays some of us have our judgement coloured every time that word is used. But a blessing is not such a shocking thing. In the OT, parents always bless their children. If I were to carry the baby Jesus to Egypt to escape persecution, I too would be blessed because the Holy Spirit will protect me in order to protect the infant Jesus. Do you get it? So, Mary was blessed because she was carrying Jesus; not because she had some inherent quality that makes her special. That is why when Mary herself said that "all generations will call me blessed", she used a different word (as I have explained in a few posts above) which simply means "happy". Again the emphasis is on the Lord Jesus. Why happy? Because she bore Jesus! Not because of any inherent quality she had.
It all boils down to this: there is nothing special in a blessing. I know RC theology says that because Mary was "blessed" she had no sin. That is incorrect. Lots of people are blessed too. The beatitudes would make even a lot of us blessed. But we still have sins!!! And we still need forgiveness from Jesus.
So, when the woman in the crowd said "blessed is the womb that bare thee and the paps which thou has sucked", Jesus who was already a full-grown adult decided to put a stop to this unnecessary and potentially dangerous sentimentality and he gently turned the attention to people who hear the word of God and keep it - these are the ones who are blessed.
Here is a clash of church culture. You place a lot of importance on a grouping of people. But from the NT, it is clear that salvation is not about groups, it's individual. I don't stand or fall according to the views held by the prelates of my church. God judges individuals as individuals. That is the mistake you have made. You seem to think all depends on church membership. No!!! It's an individual thing.
I have already shown in another thread why the early Christians and the Apostles DID NOT venerate Mary. If they had, there would at least have been a passing mention of Mary in the epistles. But there is not a whisper of Mary's name in the epistles. In the gospels, Mary only makes an appearance because she BORE JESUS. Elsewhere, when she appears more to misunderstand Jesus, her appearance in the gospels is not exactly a stellar appearance. We see her more as one of those who fail to understand Jesus and that includes people like Nicodemus, etc. It began with the Temple scene when Jesus discoursed with the chief priest and again, when she and Jesus' brothers wanted to take Jesus home and again, at the wedding in Cana. There is a consistent misunderstanding by Mary of Jesus' role and mission. The final scene at the cross is the most touching. The fullness of Jesus' Godhead and purpose and mission became clear to her.
After that, we don't hear the slightest squeak from the apostles in any of the canonical writing of Mary. Not one word. One would have thought John would have written something about her because she went to live with John after our Lord's crucifixion. But no!!! Not one mention of Mary in John's epistle, whether first, second or third!!!
It's perfectly ridiculous under these circumstances to conclude that Mary played an important role in the life of the apostles. Not one mention of her!!! It's even more ridiculous to say she was venerated by the Apostles. The Jews were very careful about any form of "veneration". Praying to her, making idols of Mary, bowing and kneeling to her image, carrying her statue in processions, etc would have been construed by any God-fearing Jew as worship. A Jew would see through this fiction called "veneration" and would have condemned it as worship. Hence, if at all there was such a thing, it would have been so serious that it must be addressed in the epistles. But not one word of Mary was mentioned.
Upvote
0
