Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

Rose_bud · Jun 10, 2010

lionroar0 said:
False. Jesus can't be separated.

I wasnt separating Christ, Ive pointed out His Humanity and His Deity.

That yes He was born of Mary, we all know that, but why dwell on that.
When we can know Him after the Spirit... Isnt that the way we are to worship God in Spirit and in Truth

2 Corinthians 5:16 (New King James Version)

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

laconicstudent · Jun 10, 2010

Rose_bud said:
That yes He was born of Mary, we all know that, but why dwell on that.

?????

Because it was the most important event in the history of the universe along with the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

katherine2001 · Jun 10, 2010

shinbits said:
That passage isn't about Mary though.

I've never once been to a church that "ignored" Mary. And we are "only vessels" of Christ. Is that "disrespectful" to say so?

Likewise, it's not "disrespectful" to say Mary was only a vessel.

If Mary was only a vessel, then Christ was not truly human. No mother is merely a vessel--she donates genetic materials to her offspring. If Mary didn't do that, then the Incarnation didn't save us. In order to save us, Christ had to be both fully human and fully divine.

I wonder if Christ would think it is not disrespectful to refer to His mother as being just a vessel. She is His mother after all (as Christ is still fully human and divine and Mary is still very much His mother). Is she God, no she is not. However, I doubt that Christ likes someone referring to His mother as being "just a vessel".

Dorothea · Jun 10, 2010

shinbits said:
Mary is no more Christ's mother than Joseph is his father. Jesus existed BEFORE Mary, and being God, created Mary; NOT the other way around.

Disrespect toward Mary once more, and a bit toward Joseph as well. Joseph was His adopted father. He should be shown respect as well. To believe that Mary is not Christ's mother is a misunderstanding of Christology and the orthodox beliefs from the beginning about Mary. Mary did not give birth to Christ. Are you saying this? When it says in Scriptures that she bore the Savior.

Solomon wouldn't have existed without Bathsheba. Not so with Christ and Mary. It's the other way around.

Thus, Mary isn't truly Christ's mom, and Mary isn't "Queen of Heaven".

This isn't about a literal "woman". She's a symbol of something, just like the twelve stars and "moon under her feet" are. In fact, the ENTIRE book of Revelation is full symbolic figures. Claiming this as literal proof of Mary is just not intelligent.

Yes, the book of Revelation is full of symbols. I don't understand your believing Mary is just a symbol. Was she not a human being who walked on the Earth for a time?

I'm wondering, where did you learn the beliefs you have? They seem quite foreign and unorthodox. To not believe that Mary was the mother of Christ sounds unChristian to me as well. St. Elizabeth says to Mary she's the Mother of the Lord.

Dorothea · Jun 10, 2010

shinbits said:
Jesus never refered to Mary as "mother", but refered to her as "woman". That's "great respect" to you?

You think that's the same level of respect Solomon showed his mom?

You're obviously wrong, if u do.

Elizabeth (John the Baptist's mother) called Mary the Mother of the Lord.

John2:4 Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come."

Means:

Woman is a title of respect and distinction. Jesus addresses His mother from the Cross the same way (19:26) as He does the woman at the well (4:21), the aduteress (8:10), and Mary magdalene (20:13, 15), thus giving great dignity to womanhood. What does your concern have to do with Me? is literally, "What to Me and to you?" A better translation is, "What concern is that to Me and to you?" or, "Why do you intervene?" In His answer to His mother, Jesus is neither refusing Mary's request nor embarrassing her, but reminding primarily to the time of His "glorification"--His Passion, death, Resurrection, and Ascension.

John 2:5 His mother said to the servants, "whatever He says to you, do it."

Means:

Despite Jesus' reply, His Mother expects her Son will act.

Dorothea · Jun 10, 2010

Dear shinbits,

I ask you out of concern and love for you, to please stop starting threads such as these and just focus on God and growing in Him. May God bless you with his Mercy and Truth.

Rose_bud · Jun 11, 2010

laconicstudent said:
?????

Because it was the most important event in the history of the universe along with the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Nobody is saying him being born of Mary that was not important... (infact I agree it was a very wonderful historic moment)

But did you not read 2 Cor 5:16...

And if you haven't noticed, He is no longer in the corruptible flesh , but in a glorified body.... No longer little baby Jesus in the manger, but at the right hand of His Father.... God DIVINE!!!!!!

lionroar0 · Jun 11, 2010

Rose_bud said:
I wasnt separating Christ, Ive pointed out His Humanity and His Deity.

That yes He was born of Mary, we all know that, but why dwell on that.
When we can know Him after the Spirit... Isnt that the way we are to worship God in Spirit and in Truth

2 Corinthians 5:16 (New King James Version)

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

laconicstudent · Jun 11, 2010

Rose_bud said:
Nobody is saying him being born of Mary that was not important... (infact I agree it was a very wonderful historic moment)

But did you not read 2 Cor 5:16...

And if you haven't noticed, He is no longer in the corruptible flesh , but in a glorified body.... No longer little baby Jesus in the manger, but at the right hand of His Father.... God DIVINE!!!!!!

Your point? It wasn't as if he wasn't God divine while a little baby, either.

Catherineanne · Jun 11, 2010

shinbits said:
Jesus never refered to Mary as "mother", but refered to her as "woman". That's "great respect" to you?

You think that's the same level of respect Solomon showed his mom?

You're obviously wrong, if u do.

You cannot conclude from what is in Scripture that the Lord never addressed his mother as mother; only that he is not quoted as doing so. Neither can you conclude that 'woman' is a term of disrespect to the Lord; there is no evidence for this whatever.

However, you can conclude from what is in Scripture that the Lord treated his mother and father with respect, because this is stated.

Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them.
Luke 2v51

Our Lady stood at the foot of the cross and wept for her son. Even if she had been the worst mother in the world, for this action alone she would deserve great respect from every Christian on earth. She stands where we all kneel; before the cross. When we see Christ's suffering, we see what she saw first.

Why on earth anyone would want to seek reasons to disrespect one of the very first Christian believers, and one of our most faithful saints, let alone the mother of Christ himself, is totally beyond me.

Catherineanne · Jun 11, 2010

Rose_bud said:
.... Why would anyone want to go through a window if the door is open....

So Our Lady is a window now?

You would seriously knock on your Minister's door, and if his mother answers it, say to her, 'I don't want the window; I want the door.'

This is what you are saying of the Theotokos.

Lord, have mercy on us all!

Catherineanne · Jun 11, 2010

shinbits said:
I've showed why your theology is lacking. You haven't done likewise with me, you've merely asserted it. Repeatedly. Baseless assertions become no less baseless just because you keep using them.

You have said it.

Catherineanne · Jun 11, 2010

lionroar0 said:
That's because it's addressed to Catholics who already know what it means. Not to those that do not know what it means and try to attach their own meaning to it.

Quite right.

Catholicism is like Scripture; it is a complete whole, which can only be understood as a whole. Take any one part from either, and try to reconstruct a theology from it, and you are likely to go astray.

It is as meaningless as trying to build Hampton Court Palace on the evidence of just one tudor brick. A thousand people could construct a thousand different notional palaces from it, but none of them would be Hampton Court Palace itself.

Anyone at all who huffs and puffs and tries to blow down the house of straw that is Catholic idolatry, that they have themselves created, only reveals their own ignorance of Catholicism, idolatry, and our Christian duty to love one another.

Catherineanne · Jun 11, 2010

katherine2001 said:
If Mary was only a vessel, then Christ was not truly human. No mother is merely a vessel--she donates genetic materials to her offspring. If Mary didn't do that, then the Incarnation didn't save us. In order to save us, Christ had to be both fully human and fully divine.

I wonder if Christ would think it is not disrespectful to refer to His mother as being just a vessel. She is His mother after all (as Christ is still fully human and divine and Mary is still very much His mother). Is she God, no she is not. However, I doubt that Christ likes someone referring to His mother as being "just a vessel".

I agree.

I wouldn't accept this language about my mother, so I see no reason why Christ would like it of his.

I think the point some people are missing is that Christ is both fully human, and fully divine. He is not 50:50, giving us the option to ignore the human bit in case that is idolatrous, and worship only the divine bit.

We only need to think of our own parents. Are we 50% the child of our mother, and the other 50% the child of our father? Or are we not rather 100% our mother's child AND 100% our father's child?

It is the same with Christ. He is fully human; 100% Mary's son. At the same time he is fully divine; 100% God. This is the mystery of the Incarnation, and Mary's part in it is NOT as a 'vessel', but as the Mother of God. She is not just any old virgin who happened to be passing. If you read the Old Testament carefully you will see that God spent several thousands of years preparing his people; refining their faith, teaching them, leading them, in order to prepare for the birth of Mary, and ultimately for the birth of Our Lord.

One final point, Christ was not 100% God and then gave up 50% of this to be born on earth. Whatever he is, he is throughout eternity. Therefore, although the Incarnation happens in time, it is an eternal event. Whatever Christ is now, he always has been. This was not some random event, which happened when God woke up one day and decided to visit Earth. It was planned from the very creation of the universe. Compare the Gospel of John and Genesis, the disobedience of Adam and Eve and the obedience of Joseph and Mary, for further details.

Rose_bud · Jun 11, 2010

laconicstudent said:
Your point? It wasn't as if he wasn't God divine while a little baby, either.

If you didnt catch it the second time here it is again...My point is 2 Cor. 5:16

Rose_bud · Jun 11, 2010

Catherineanne said:
So Our Lady is a window now?

You would seriously knock on your Minister's door, and if his mother answers it, say to her, 'I don't want the window; I want the door.'

This is what you are saying of the Theotokos.

Lord, have mercy on us all!

Its called a figure of speech... Even Jesus used it sometimes, when He called himself the door through which the sheep should enter (Ive included the passage of Scripture for your reference (John 10:7)... I dont see any mention of Mary being the window in the Bible, but Ive used it as my own figure of speech, obviously she's not literally a window, because Jesus is not literally a door:

If my ministers door is open I wouldnt have to knock, now would I....
So what I was trying to bring across by using the figures of speech, is that God has given us access to boldly approach the throneroom (Heb4:14-16)... only through Jesus (the High Priest), Not his Mother

Rose_bud · Jun 11, 2010

Catherineanne said:
I agree.

I wouldn't accept this language about my mother, so I see no reason why Christ would like it of his.

I think the point some people are missing is that Christ is both fully human, and fully divine. He is not 50:50, giving us the option to ignore the human bit in case that is idolatrous, and worship only the divine bit.

Nobody is ignoring the human bit, nobody said Jesus was not the Son of Man

We only need to think of our own parents. Are we 50% the child of our mother, and the other 50% the child of our father? Or are we not rather 100% our mother's child AND 100% our father's child

Jesus wasnt the Son of Joseph, so you cant compare...

It is the same with Christ. He is fully human; 100% Mary's son. At the same time he is fully divine; 100% God. This is the mystery of the Incarnation, and Mary's part in it is NOT as a 'vessel', but as the Mother of God. She is not just any old virgin who happened to be passing. If you read the Old Testament carefully you will see that God spent several thousands of years preparing his people; refining their faith, teaching them, leading them, in order to prepare for the birth of Mary, and ultimately for the birth of Our Lord.

No one disagrees with that God had a wonderful responsibilty for Mary, If you look in the New Testament , you will find out whom He calls mother (Matthew 12:46-50)

Compare the Gospel of John and Genesis, the disobedience of Adam and Eve and the obedience of Joseph and Mary, for further details.

You cant compare because I dont see Eve mentioned in the book of John, ... Please give me the scripture reference where you see the word Eve...

boswd · Jun 11, 2010

Catherineanne said:
No, you are distorting what is meant, probably by not quoting sufficient of the original message.

What the statement means is that we come to Christ through his shared humanity with us, and because he derives his humanity through his mother, therefore, we come to him through her.

It does not mean that Mary is the essential mediatrix between man and Christ. It does mean that, at least in part, Mary is the means by which the essential mediator between man and God is/was enabled to be that mediator. This is by God's grace, which prompted Mary's own submission to his will.

Mary is not godlike, nor an idol. She is, however, first among women, and an example of obedience to all the faithful. If Catholics err in giving her too much status, some of today's low churches certainly err far more in not giving her enough.

That is an excellent post.

Context and rightful meanings are sadly few and far in between here on GT and distortion and purposly lying about others thrives. And this is a Christian Forum. makes me head spin

boswd · Jun 11, 2010

shinbits said:
If that's all RC's were doing, this forum wouldn't exist. There's a difference between "respecting" Mary, and elevating her to the status of "Queen of Heaven".

Who's "ignoring" Mary?

Interesting the only time you and other Evangelicals talk about Mary is either at Christmas or when using her as a tool to disparage the Catholic Church.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

shinbits · Jun 11, 2010

boswd said:
Interesting the only time you and other Evangelicals talk about Mary is either at Christmas or when using her as a tool to disparage the Catholic Church.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

ad hominems, eh? still doesn't help your theologically flawed position

Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Well-Known Member

Veteran

One of God's handmaidens

One of God's handmaidens

One of God's handmaidens

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency