Do Baptists Believe in the Virgin Mary?

[theseed]

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father . . the Holy Spirit did not beget God .

I'm speaking of the flesh part, it was a special act of creation.

I have to run, now--and there are so many questions--whew!

Bye

 

[bleechers]

Dear bleecher, you said in the OT is shown Mary has another children? OT??

A. God has no beginning. Therefore, God has no mother. The flesh has a beginning. Flesh can have a mother. "A body thou [the Father] hast prepared for Me." She can be the mother of Jesus (yes, our Lord and God), but that does not necessitate that God needs a mother.

B. Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm. It is Christ on the cross as He bore the sin of the world (forever, never to be repeated again).

With all due respect, this analogy doesn't fit or make sense, even your peers have noticed this and commented so.

So I saw... but nobody has pointed out why the analogy fails.

In fact, since the geometric analogy fails, we note that we cannot use geometric analogies to create a doctrine of God having a mother.

Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Gk. heos = till

heos used 16 times in the book of Matthew. Each time it denotes something that has or must have an end.

Can I ask a question. For the RCs, why don't explain for the Baptists in the room the Sabbatine Promise of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. I'm sure they'd be fascinated.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm speaking of the flesh part, it was a special act of creation.

I have to run, now--and there are so many questions--whew!

Bye

OK Thank you for clarifying . .


I have a question then for the rest of the Baptist community here then . .

Is the belief that the flesh/humanity of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation, that did not involve anything being contributed by Mary, what is consistantly taught in the various Baptist Churches? Or is this something that varies from Church to Church?

If it varies, which view is more prevalent?


Peace in Him!

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I really don't think it matters Theselittleflower.
It doesn't matter if Jesus had blue eyes, or brown eyes like mary (if she had brown eyes)or if his skin was dark or light. Baptist believe what the scruptures teach, HE is God in the flesh. Putting ANY human above him is idolatry, even if its just in the name.
GEL

 

[Carrye]

A. God has no beginning. Therefore, God has no mother. The flesh has a beginning. Flesh can have a mother. "A body thou [the Father] hast prepared for Me." She can be the mother of Jesus (yes, our Lord and God), but that does not necessitate that God needs a mother.

You are correct in saying that the flesh needs a mother, but one cannot separate the body from the soul. Now in that, I am not saying that Mary is the originator of Jesus' soul any more than I would say that my mother is the originator of mine. God creates human souls. But we cannot talk about Mary being the mother of Jesus' body, because Jesus' body is not Jesus.

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
______________________
Mary is the mother of God.

No, Mary did not preceed God in time. She is not "above" God, as some have interpreted the Catholic belief, and she is not God nor a goddess. But she gave her consent to being the mother of God, her "fiat" - in Latin, "let it be done."

Can I ask a question. For the RCs, why don't explain for the Baptists in the room the Sabbatine Promise of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. I'm sure they'd be fascinated.

If you would like to explain this, please do. You obviously know the answer and this is not a true question. I will not respond to it, and urge my Catholic brothers and sisters to refrain from responding as well, to this uncharitable attempt at starting an all-out war in this thread. We are all better than this.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

I really don't think it matters Theselittleflower.
It doesn't matter if Jesus had blue eyes, or brown eyes like mary (if she had brown eyes)or if his skin was dark or light. Baptist believe what the scruptures teach, HE is God in the flesh. Putting ANY human above him is idolatry, even if its just in the name.
GEL

I find this troubling that some people think that Jesus did not recieve his humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

That would mean that Jesus was not a legitamate decendent of King David. Which means you can not say He is the rightful aire of the Davidic Kingdom.

Also, this would trivialize His death on the cross. After all if he was not of our flesh, how could he possibly die for our sins?

And how could we really call ourselves true brothers and sisters in Christ if He is not even related to us in our humanity?

Are you sure that this is orthodox Baptist theology? Or is this just the personal beliefs of some people?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I, for one, believe that Jesus did receive His humanity from Mary and see no problem with that. It was teh Holy Spirit who caused the union of deity and flesh to occur (for lack of a better way to say it).

What I DO have a problems is any implication that His diety is due to Mary.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
______________________
Mary is the mother of God.

My problem with this is that God is ONE, in three persons. When a person refers to God, it includes Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to one of the three persons...who existed prior to His birth as Jesus Christ (John 1:1).

I don't think a title is needed for Mary and fail to understand the need others have to assign titles to her.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

I, for one, believe that Jesus did receive His humanity from Mary and see no problem with that. It was teh Holy Spirit who caused the union of deity and flesh to occur (for lack of a better way to say it).

That's good. I believe that understanding differenty causes big time problems with our understanding of Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the Cross.

What I DO have a problems is any implication that His diety is due to Mary.

I agree with that assertion. Jesus' diety was due to him being God already. But his humanity was due to Mary. Are we good there?

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you would like to explain this, please do. You obviously know the answer and this is not a true question. I will not respond to it, and urge my Catholic brothers and sisters to refrain from responding as well, to this uncharitable attempt at starting an all-out war in this thread. We are all better than this.

I agree cl . . if anyone would wants to ask us about this, they should come too OBOB to do so . . I have enjoyed the fellowship in this thread and hope it won't get derailed.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I find this troubling that some people think that Jesus did not recieve his humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

That would mean that Jesus was not a legitamate decendent of King David. Which means you can not say He is the rightful aire of the Davidic Kingdom.

Also, this would trivialize His death on the cross. After all if he was not of our flesh, how could he possibly die for our sins?

And how could we really call ourselves true brothers and sisters in Christ if He is not even related to us in our humanity?

Are you sure that this is orthodox Baptist theology? Or is this just the personal beliefs of some people?

I guess this was really what I was trying to ask . .


If Jesus didn't get his humanity from Mary, but through a special act of creation, then how can he be related to us?

Adam was created . . Eve came from him, and though not conceived and born from him, she was flesh of his flesh, bone of his bones and intimately related to him, and from thence, all human beings are related to each other ..we are all of the same flesh . we all share the same humanity . .

To say that the humantiy of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation and not in any way received from Mary, since he couldn't have receieved from any other human being, it makes his humanity to be other than our humanity . . perhaps just like ours, but parallel to it, not part of it . .

So the whole understanding of Jesus atonement is affected . . how could he die for us if he was not actually one of us . . . if he was simply created along side of us . .


(all of the above was to share where my understanding is so my question can be better understood):

If you believe that the humanity of Jesus was the result of a special act of creation, how does that affect your understanding of how he could be one of us to die in our place? How does that affect your understanding of the atonement?

For us, the two issues are intricately tied together . . Jesus had to receive his flesh and humanity from Mary (there was no one else he could have received his flesh and humanity from) in order to justly be able to die in our place . . he had to be fully one of, and with, us, not someone created along side of us . .


Are the two issues not tied together for you all? Does how and where he got his humanity from not at all affect his ability to atone for our sins?



Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color][/size][/size]

That's good. I believe that understanding differenty causes big time problems with our understanding of Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the Cross.


I agree with that assertion. Jesus' diety was due to him being God already. But his humanity was due to Mary. Are we good there?

Yep.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

IFor us, the two issues are intricately tied together . . Jesus had to receive his flesh and humanity from Mary (there was no one else he could have received his flesh and humanity from) in order to justly be able to die in our place . . he had to be fully one of, and with, us, not someone created along side of us . .


Are the two issues not tied together for you all? Does how and where he got his humanity from not at all affect his ability to atone for our sins?



Peace in Him!

I understand what you are trying to get across, and I love that you are so sweet on here and not quick to jump at anyone. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped at you on my last post, I had just a little time to post so I did it quickly. My apoligies.
The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?
From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?
There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I understand what you are trying to get across, and I love that you are so sweet on here and not quick to jump at anyone. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped at you on my last post, I had just a little time to post so I did it quickly. My apoligies.

Hi GreenEyedLady,

First, I never felt you jumped on me, so no apology is needed. But if you felt you did, your apology is accepted, even though not needed . . (does that makes sense?)

The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?

For me, no more than you could say I had a part in the creation of my children . . Thier life comes from God, but their flesh, their DNA, comes from me and my husband . . the physical part of who they are . .

But we are all creations of God . . that doesn't mean that we were created without a human element being a necessary part of that creation. The only one who was created without a human being from which the physical was obtained was Adam . .

So for me, to say Jesus received his flesh from Mary says nothing more about Mary than it would about me being a mother since all we are speaking about is the physical element. . . it just says that instead of an earthly father, Jesus had a Divine Father . but an earthly mother . .

From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?

I am not sure I would say that, because we don't know the "science" behnd the virginal conception of Jesus . . we believe it by faith . .

If I had to described the "science" of How I understand what happened I would do it this way - there was an ovum that was fertilized without an earthly father . .and that ovum came from Mary, and so carried her DNA which was transmitted on to Jesus to give him his earthly body, his humanity as it naturally comes from earthly parents. That does not take away from the act of the Holy Spirit to join God to man in the person of Jesus. Mary could not do that . .she is not divine, she is not God .

There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.

If this is true, how could he be one of us then?


See, part of why I think this is important is that if there is not a clear and direct relationship of Jesus to Adam and Eve as their descendant, then cults like gnosticism can more easily flourish, for if Jesus didn't receive his humanity from one of Adam and Eve's descendents, then he was never really a part of our human race.

Gnostics teach that Jesus came through Mary, and go so far as to even deny he had a real physical body . . I am not at all suggesting that you are doing that. It was becauase of gnostics and other heretical sects that began to present themselves in the Early Church that they stressed the physical relationship of Jesus to Mary so strongly.

This is why such a question is not foolish or unlearned IMHO .. but necessary to understand better.

My purpose though is not to debate here but to better understand the position of people here . .


This might be a very good subject to discuss more freely in GT, but I simply wanted to better understand the Baptist position, so it didn't make sense to open a thread in GT to do so . .



Peace in Him!

 

[Crazy Liz]

The issues are not together for me at all because if Mary had any kind of speacial "holyiness" i guess I should call it, it would have been given from God anyway which points it all back to God's power, not Mary's flesh.
Think about it, where did Adam get his humanity from? From God! What it ties together is Mary was a creation of God, and Jesus always was and always will be Alpha Omega, the beginning and the end. Jesus was never created He always the beginning.
Don't you think that saying Mary had anything to do with his flesh is giving part of the creation of Christ's flesh to her instead of God?

I know you asked Therese this question, but since she is Roman Catholic and I am one of the denominations assigned to this room, I hope you won't mind if I try to answer as a sort of mediator.

I think the wonder and miracle of the Incarnation is that God entered creation as a truly human being. It's not about giving Mary credit, but about affirming that God actually entered into creation and became one of us - joining God with us.

I think this is the point our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters are trying to make. God, who is totally separate from creation, actually entered into the created world. In this one instance God did not just manipulate the created world or send it a message, but actually became part of it.

This could not have been done without a human mother.

Beyond this, I think it is important to our brothers and sisters that Mary was not just a surrogate mother acting as an incubator, but that for God to actually become human, the human part needed to come from another human being - Mary - rather than some kind of artificial supernatural in vitro-type procedure.

From what I can gather by your posts, you are talking about the science of the birth of Jesus correct?
There is a verse that I have been thinking about, not to knock you or anything, just one that would fit, I think to this post and most likely many many more.
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
God does not give us all the answers, that is where our faith becomes strong.
GEL
PS. It would not seem illogical to me if Christ was manifested just like Adam was without any need for DNA.

I think probably you are both on the same page. We don't know exactly how Mary's DNA (which we all presume included two X chromosomes) developed into an embryo presumably containing an X chromosome and a Y chromosome) that grew into a man. But we do know that that man was fully human, and had a mother just like every other human except Adam and Eve.

Mary doesn't need to receive credit for making God become Incarnate - although the gracious way she submitted to God's calling on her life is indeed exemplary. The main point is that if Jesus is truly human, Jesus must have a real mother, and that is Mary.

Calling Mary "Mother of God" is saying something about Jesus being truly human, not saying anything about how special Mary is.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well, I see Therese was composing her own response at the same time I was composing mine!

 

[GreenEyedLady]

ICalling Mary "Mother of God" is saying something about Jesus being truly human, not saying anything about how special Mary is.

i think that we, threse and me are on the same page here. I understand her points that she has made. I cannot agree with all of them but I do understand her thoughts on this subject.
I cannot agree with this one that you made I quoted above.
Calling mary the mother of JESUS would be saying somthing about being truley human, saying she is the mother of God is stating that she is more special and "higher" than Christ. I am sure the intentions might not be behind the words, but all I can see is words, not the intentions behind them.

thereselittleflower-
He can be one of us that way just like Adam was one of us.

 

[Carrye]

My problem with this is that God is ONE, in three persons. When a person refers to God, it includes Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to one of the three persons...who existed prior to His birth as Jesus Christ (John 1:1).

I don't think a title is needed for Mary and fail to understand the need others have to assign titles to her.

You know, it's so interesting that you wrote this, because as I was writing the syllogism above, I saw the same problem (for lack of a better word) and actually thought of the same verse of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity does not allow us to separate, except in our speech, the Father from the Son from the Holy Spirit.

And I understand your frustration with titles, but I also see their necessity. We name something based on what it is. It's the old Aristotelian being -> concept -> word. What a thing is determines what we call it. And that is why there is such debate about what title to give Mary, because the title we give her reflects WHO she IS ... and that is no small matter, in my opinion.

 

[Carrye]

Calling mary the mother of JESUS would be saying somthing about being truley human, saying she is the mother of God is stating that she is more special and "higher" than Christ. I am sure the intentions might not be behind the words, but all I can see is words, not the intentions behind them.

And we are back to the same problem. We cannot say that Mary is the mother of God the Son for a couple of reasons: 1) God the Son existed before Mary (Jn 1:1). 2) God the Son cannot be separated from the other Persons of the Trinity except in speech. Similarly, we cannot say that Mary is the mother of Jesus' body, because a body is not human without the unity of the soul.

And for the record, the intention behind calling Mary the Mother of God is not at all to say that she existed before God or that she's higher than God. Please, please know that. I think that is a common misconception, and often leads to a lot of other unnecessary grievances with Catholicism.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I know what the intention is, my point is that just because you don't "mean" it to sound that way, its still sounds that way. I also want to point out that if God the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit would have wanted us to call her the Mother of God, HE would have stated that in scritpures.
GEL