Did the Virgin Mary...

[Serapha]

Hello et. al.



The entire context of Mary being the "mother of God" originates from the passate in Luke 1:43

And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

In reading the Greek meaning of the word "kurios" which is "Lord" in this passage, from the blueletterbible.com, the meaning of the word kurios is given.

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord

a) the possessor and disposer of a thing

1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

I highlighted God, the Messiah, because the work "kurios" doesn't refer to the total essense of God, but to the personage know as the Messiah.

Elizabeth is acknowledging that Mary is the mother of the Messiah... nothing else... Mary was honored by God, but not deified or glorified by God.

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

That's where it ends... blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

~serapha~

 

[SemStudent08]

These arguments about the nature of Christ, the virgin birth and immaculate conception have been going on for nearly 2000 years. I know I'm not really contributing anything to the discussion (just too busy with a couple of other good discussions on CF to go adding another one), but I just wanted to share with you all that I am with you in spirit and arguing my darnedest one way or another!!!

 

[WarriorAngel]

First we need only look at the language of the times.

When someone was 'married' in all senses of the word, the woman took the 'of' then the man's first name.

WE also know, that when a woman remained single, she maintained the name of the city...as in Mary of Magdela.
Or Mary of Alpheous whom was a 'wife' of Alpheous. (Sp)

Now no where will we see Mary of Joseph, because they did not consumate the marriage, and the 'Apostles' were careful to make sure they wrote her as Mother of Jesus. Her role as Mother of Jesus certainly did not go unnoticed. IN fact, that was her WHOLE ROLE on earth.

Now, we also need to look through scripture and see if the term cousin is ever used. It is not, nor shall it be. Back in those days, cousins were called brothers and sisters.
The term cousin was used much later in history.

The confusion comes when we hear at today's terms and use it for those days.
This is why Tradition makes the most sense.

Judas and James were Mary of Alpheous' sons. She also went along with Mary Mother of Jesus, and was a diciple of Christ.

Let's not discount the first Christian was Mary. She believed before anyone else. Her role has been to 'have charge of God's only Son. Thus also to adopt us through Jesus as we are adopted by the Father in heaven through Jesus.

Three person's in one God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Mary was the Daughter of Our Father, she was the choosen Daughter to carry His only Son.
She was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. {Therefore she was truly married to God.}
And the Mother of her Son Jesus Christ.

Peace!

 

[SemStudent08]

First we need only look at the language of the times.

Now, we also need to look through scripture and see if the term cousin is ever used. It is not, nor shall it be. Back in those days, cousins were called brothers and sisters.
The term cousin was used much later in history.

The confusion comes when we hear at today's terms and use it for those days.
This is why Tradition makes the most sense.

Point of order!!! The term cousin is, in fact, used. Here is an instance of Greek being funny. Yes, it is true that the word for brother and male cousin would be in the same in the Greek (adelphoi to transliterate it) that is NOT true in Hebrew (for instance bendodi meaning "son of my uncle" vs merely ben meaning "son").

However, we find adelphoi to be used in the Septuagint in place of either cousin or brother. So we have to acknowledge the fact that when used by the Gospel authors it could be either male cousin or brother. You can't just arbitrarily decide that it must mean male cousin.

In fact, the case of the Greek word adelphoi, and its context within the sentence structure is the same as where it is used in the Septuagint (mainly in Gen 13.8, 29.12, John 1.41) to refer to brothers (as well as writings of Josephus, the Jewish Historian who used the same Greek as the authros of the Gospels). In fact, given the evidence from the septuagint, the term adelphoi in Matthew 13.55 is more likely to be translated 'sons' than cousins. But I don't think anyone wants to suggest Jesus had sons, I know I don't.

Hope this was understanable. It can be tricky figuring out how to use Greek and Hebrew as a guide to translating Greek.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, but again... It doesnt show us anywhere the terms Mary Of Joseph, which means to have consumated the marriage.

And the 'word' cousin did not exist...but son of uncle as you said. And therefore since we look at an English written bible, translated accordingly, the term is NOT related as sons, because it would mean that Mary 'of' Joseph existed. But it did not.

This is why the Bible is tricky. It never contradicts itself, BUT it has to be related to each term of scripture to be fully understood.

 

[Serapha]

Yes, but again... It doesnt show us anywhere the terms Mary Of Joseph, which means to have consumated the marriage.

And the 'word' cousin did not exist...but son of uncle as you said. And therefore since we look at an English written bible, translated accordingly, the term is NOT related as sons, because it would mean that Mary 'of' Joseph existed. But it did not.

This is why the Bible is tricky. It never contradicts itself, BUT it has to be related to each term of scripture to be fully understood.

Hi there!




did you read what you posted in your previous response?

Now no where will we see Mary of Joseph,

Well, given that philosophy, no where do we see Mary of God either.


~serapha~

 

[WarriorAngel]

Inference.

IF she is Mary Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then indeed we can safely suggest she is the Mother of God. Correct?

 

[12volt_man]

Inference.

IF she is Mary Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then indeed we can safely suggest she is the Mother of God. Correct?

No. Jesus had two natures: one human, one divine.

Mary is the mother of Jesus' human incarnation. She is not, she cannot be, the mother of His divine nature.

 

[SemStudent08]

Inference.

IF she is Mary Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then indeed we can safely suggest she is the Mother of God. Correct?

Then can we not also infer that since in Matthew 1:16 it states that Joseph is husband of Mary it is reciprocal and she is wife of Joseph?

Be careful with inference, you might have to deal with it on everything if you start down that path...

 

[SemStudent08]

No. Jesus had two natures: one human, one divine.

Mary is the mother of Jesus' human incarnation. She is not, she cannot be, the mother of His divine nature.

Now you're getting dangerously close to being monophysitic...

 

[Serapha]

Then can we not also infer that since in Matthew 1:16 it states that Jacob is husband of Mary it is reciprocal and she is wife of Joseph?

Be careful with inference, you might have to deal with it on everything if you start down that path...

~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

Inference.

IF she is Mary Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then indeed we can safely suggest she is the Mother of God. Correct?

Hi there!




Inference is dangerous ground to trod.

I can infer that Jesus must have been married because He was called "Rabbi"

Or, in the opposite...

I can infer that Jesus never lived because there is no birth certificate, and historically, births were recorded in the Roman Empire

I can infer that Jesus Christ never died since there is no body to prove His death.

You see... inference can go both ways...

It's better for Christians to use the Word of God rather than "infer" that is needs to say something to fit a theology.


As you have already been told, It can be inferred that Mary was the wife of Joseph since the Bible states that Joseph was the husband of Mary.

IF she is Mary Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then indeed we can safely suggest she is the Mother of God. Correct?

Now ... addressing your statement.

If A = B, and B=C, then A must equal C

If Jesus died on the cross, and Jesus is God, then God must be dead.


You can't have it both ways.


~serapha~

 

[12volt_man]

Now you're getting dangerously close to being monophysitic...

No.

Notice that I said that Jesus had two natures.

 

[Bradford]

Thread moved from Questions by Non-Christians to Liberal Theology.

 

[SemStudent08]

No.

Notice that I said that Jesus had two natures.

I did notice that. That is why I said you were getting close, not there already. Your second sentence in that post is the beginning of the path of logic used by the monophysites....thats all...

 

[WarriorAngel]

Then can we not also infer that since in Matthew 1:16 it states that Jacob is husband of Mary it is reciprocal and she is wife of Joseph?

Be careful with inference, you might have to deal with it on everything if you start down that path...

Are we to assume then that Mary although Christ's Mother was not Christ's Mother?
Because He has two natures cannot reflect on His parentage.
For the Holy Spirit is Her Spouse.

We also know Jesus always was God, so therefore unless you are suggesting He lost His Divinity when He entered earth, then are you also suggesting perhaps that God did not die for our sins.

It becomes like the two essences of Christ. NOT understood, but still true.

Someone also quoted previously from scripture...'Mother of our Lord'
Either she is or she is not. Either Christ is God or He is not.

We know Mary was destined to be the Mother of Christ. It was fore written that He would become man, and do so, meant that God had already choose the Woman who would bear Him to the earth. SINCE God had already decided to send His Son.

Hence making Her role more than just another human. Because He was to develop in her womb, it had to be left intact. Meaning she had to be sinless herself so he would become an integral part of her.

We also know 'of' WOULD be written when the terms 'sons' would be also written.

But, since Judas and James were born of Mary of Alpheous (SP?) and we know that she was the sister in law to Mary, that Alpheous was Joseph's brother.
Because it never says that Mary was Mary's sister.

Mary the Virgin was an only child.

Not all of Tradition is written in scripture, but the life of St Anne is written about. Her life was noted. NOT all things were put into scripture, lest it was for salvation. BUT we know it existed.

We know Mary had a mother, her name was Anne, and she was of old age when the Lord blessed her with a single child. That single child was Mary.
The Lord promised her a child because she was a good woman, and she in turn promised God to offer her child up to live in the Temple.

Hence it was done.

IF Mary ever 'consummated' the relationship, it would have been written. Joseph was choosen by God and because he was already old, and wise, he did not consummate with Mary, and had a high regard to Mary as not to touch the Handmaid of the Lord.

He was her protector. To protect her Son's birth outside of marriage.
This was not a marriage of passion. Mary was a virgin and she lived a Holy Life, and was filled with Grace, aka the Holy Spirit.

Hence, for her to be filled with the Holy Spirit means she was already bestowed by God's gifts. And we know Only Christ and the Father can give the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There are lots of books written about lives of Saints that never made it to scripture, and we also know not all things were written.
Lives were led between before and after the Gospels and the Churches.

If we think Christ did nothing outside of the Gospels then we may ignore St John 21, 25..
"There are, However; many other things that Jesus did; but if everyone of these should be written. not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have been written. Amen"

So, if the Apostles carefully EXCLUDED 'of' between Mary and Joseph then we must discern that they were told by Mary herself that the marriage was left unconsummated.

 

[JustTrustJesus]

...
Now no where will we see Mary of Joseph, because they did not consumate the marriage, and the 'Apostles' were careful to make sure they wrote her as Mother of Jesus. Her role as Mother of Jesus certainly did not go unnoticed. IN fact, that was her WHOLE ROLE on earth...

Mat 1:20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

 

[WarriorAngel]

Mat 1:20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

Not arguing the ceremony....
nor the condition of why he accepted the role...

But it was not a consummated relationship.

The use of...'of' makes the meaning more clear of thier relationship after Jesus was born.

IT says wife... yes, but we know she had a 'virgin' birth. Jesus opened her.

Afterwards it never states she as Mary 'of' Joseph. Commonly used to mean married in all the sense.
A consummated relationship in fact.

Mary Mother of our Lord was written, but not 'of' Joseph.

 

[TScott]

We know Mary was destined to be the Mother of Christ. It was fore written that He would become man, and do so, meant that God had already choose the Woman who would bear Him to the earth. SINCE God had already decided to send His Son.

Hence making Her role more than just another human. Because He was to develop in her womb, it had to be left intact. Meaning she had to be sinless herself so he would become an integral part of her...
Mary the Virgin was an only child...
We know Mary had a mother, her name was Anne, and she was of old age when the Lord blessed her with a single child. That single child was Mary.
The Lord promised her a child because she was a good woman, and she in turn promised God to offer her child up to live in the Temple...

So the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus' birth, but to Mary herself. That she was conceived without sin, full of grace, among all women to become the mother of Jesus.

 

[12volt_man]

I did notice that. That is why I said you were getting close, not there already. Your second sentence in that post is the beginning of the path of logic used by the monophysites....thats all...

Could you please explain how? I've never heard this argument and I don't see how it can be based on what I've said.

Monophysitism denies one or the other (or even both) of Jesus' dual natures.

I don't see how my statement can be used to justify this.