Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

boswd · Jun 12, 2010

Unashamed Jesus Freak said:
Thank you. I don't know why there is so much emphasis put on Mary, who was just a woman, born in sin like everyone else. Jesus was the only Person on this planet who had never sinned.

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they told Him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are My mother and My brothers?' He asked. Then He looked at those seated in a circle around Him and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! Whoever does God's will is My brother and sister and mother'" (Mark 3:31-35).

and we wonder why you Evangelcals can not talk about Mary unless it is used as a weapon.

Can you name the last time your Chruch talked about Mary in a postive light?

She gave Christ his humanity, she carried him in her womb, raised him, clothed him, fed him, and I'm sure she breast fed him, protected him.
And you wonder why Christians honor her?
Are you kidding me?

and by the way the passage you posted was not meant to be taken in the context that Christ can give two craps about him Mother, it's too stress how much he loves each and everyone us.

to take that passage and put it in the context you put it in is disgusting.

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

boswd said:
but you insisted that she did not 'conceive' and challenged Thekla to prove it via scripture and now it becomes "SO" ?

You're making stuff up. At no time did I "insist" that she didn't conceive. If I did, PROVE IT NOW, and shut me up.

But you wont be able to. All I said was to show it in Scripture.

More fallacious arguments from you. You should be embarrassed.

Do surrogates raise their Children? Did God snatch Christ up at his time of birth? And Mary never saw him again?

Surrogates can help raise kids, and often have. And God did "snatch Christ up" after Christ's work was done, and he ascended into the clouds.

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

Thekla said:
I answered that above; a surrogate carries what has been conceived by others.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conceive

con·ceive (k n-s v )
v. con·ceived, con·ceiv·ing, con·ceives
v.tr. 1. To become pregnant with (offspring).
2. To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
3. To apprehend mentally; understand: couldn't conceive the meaning of that sentence.
4. To be of the opinion that; think: didn't conceive such a tragedy could occur.
5. To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.

v.intr. 1. To form or hold an idea: Ancient peoples conceived of the earth as flat.
2. To become pregnant.

"Conceive" can merely mean to get pregnant. Not one defintion of "conceive" says that it has to mean the child came from you. In fact, none of these definitions even mention the need for two parents. It just says that "conceive" (concerning children) means to get pregnant.

Thekla · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
con·ceive (k n-s v )
v. con·ceived, con·ceiv·ing, con·ceives
v.tr. 1. To become pregnant with (offspring).
2. To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
3. To apprehend mentally; understand: couldn't conceive the meaning of that sentence.
4. To be of the opinion that; think: didn't conceive such a tragedy could occur.
5. To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.

v.intr. 1. To form or hold an idea: Ancient peoples conceived of the earth as flat.
2. To become pregnant.

"Conceive" can merely mean to get pregnant. Not one defintion of "conceive" says that it has to mean the child came from you. In fact, none of these definitions even mention the need for two parents. It just says that "conceive" means to get pregnant.

To conceive (which is typically said of the woman in the Bible) and get pregnant requires an egg.

If there is no egg, the pregnancy will not occur.

katherine2001 · Jun 12, 2010

boswd said:
If your "church" teaches Mary was only a vessal and had nothing to do with his humanity it not only misses God's entire point of why he chose this method to bring Christ into the world then it also teaches very unorthodox theology.

Exactly. God could have just zapped Christ to earth fully grown if it hadn't been important for Mary to have conceived Him as a human mother does, donating her own egg and genetic material to Christ and for Him to be truly human like us. The reason that we are insistent about the role of Mary is to protect the fact that Christ is fully human and fully divine. It is very easy to over emphasize Christ's divinity while neglecting His humanity, and both natures are equally important. Saying that Mary was just a vessel basically says that He wasn't truly human--He would be divine with just human flesh but not really human.

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

Thekla said:
When a surrogate conceives, it is because the mother cannot, and the sperm of the father is implanted in her. In this case she conceives.

That's a useless point. If Mary was barren, couldn't God still cause her to get pregnant? Remember Sarah?

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

Thekla said:
To conceive (which is typically said of the woman in the Bible) and get pregnant requires an egg.

If there is no egg, the pregnancy will not occur.

If God caused Mary to get pregnant with no sperm from a human, surely he can doesn't need a human egg to do it either, right? Unless you think God is unable to do so.

Thekla · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
Show where the Bible says Christ shared blood with Mary.

You have argued that Mary was a surrogate or vessel, and that Mary did not conceive (which is disproved by the Holy Scriptures)

The flaw in your line of reasoning, is that Mary was a virgin when she concieved. You're trying to say that God wanted to use the human way of bringing Christ into the world, because that indeed made him human: but the fact that Jesus wasn't concieved disproves the notion that God needed to bring Christ into the world through some tangible human way.

Understand? That's why your point doesn't work.

#126

There are two forms of surrogacy:
*when a fertilized ovum is implanted in the surrogate (surrogate does not provide egg, the egg comes from another)
*when the fathers sperm is implanted in the surrogate (the egg comes from the surrogate)

In both cases a placenta is formed; nutrients pass from the mother to the fetus, as well as blood. Likewise, some of the blood and genetic material passes to the mother (this material from the fetus is found in the mother well past the time of birth - years after the birth has occurred).

boswd · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
You're making stuff up. At no time did I "insist" that she didn't conceive. If I did, PROVE IT NOW, and shut me up.

But you wont be able to. All I said was to show it in Scripture.

More fallacious arguments from you. You should be embarrassed.

Surrogates can help raise kids, and often have. And God did "snatch Christ up" after Christ's work was done, and he ascended into the clouds.

am I? you did state this

but the fact that Jesus wasn't concieved disproves the notion that God needed to bring Christ into the world through some tangible human way.

sound a little familliar? Post 126

and Your direct challenge to Thekla to Prove it via Scripture . that alone speaks volumes

katherine2001 · Jun 12, 2010

boswd said:
and we wonder why you Evangelcals can not talk about Mary unless it is used as a weapon.

Can you name the last time your Chruch talked about Mary in a postive light?

She gave Christ his humanity, she carried him in her womb, raised him, clothed him, fed him, and I'm sure she breast fed him, protected him.
And you wonder why Christians honor her?
Are you kidding me?

and by the way the passage you posted was not meant to be taken in the context that Christ can give two craps about him Mother, it's too stress how much he loves each and everyone us.

to take that passage and put it in the context you put it in is disgusting.

Don't you know, Boswd? The passage quoted just shows how God uses people and then throws them away? (I don't believe that, but I'm not sure that others don't). I've seen people on this forum argue that God could have forced Mary to conceive and give birth to His Son if she had said no (though why anyone would want to follow a God that would do that, I haven't figured out yet). God is certainly all powerful, but the point it, He doesn't use His power to do the types of things that people say He could do, because He is a God of love, mercy, and compassion. Christ shows us who God is, and He said the powerful are to serve everyone else, not lord it over people. Unlike some people believe, God is not angry and vengeful, and just waiting to nail us if we do something wrong. Christ is like God the Father, and Christ was (and is) totally opposite of what some people see God the Father as.

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

katherine2001 said:
Exactly. God could have just zapped Christ to earth fully grown if it hadn't been important for Mary to have conceived Him as a human mother does, donating her own egg and genetic material to Christ and for Him to be truly human like us. The reason that we are insistent about the role of Mary is to protect the fact that Christ is fully human and fully divine. It is very easy to over emphasize Christ's divinity while neglecting His humanity, and both natures are equally important. Saying that Mary was just a vessel basically says that He wasn't truly human--He would be divine with just human flesh but not really human.

The mistake you're making, is in thinking that God HAD to do it this way. God simply CHOSE to bring Christ into the world this way. Thus, Mary wasn't a necessity, simply a vessel.

boswd · Jun 12, 2010

katherine2001 said:
Exactly. God could have just zapped Christ to earth fully grown if it hadn't been important for Mary to have conceived Him as a human mother does, donating her own egg and genetic material to Christ and for Him to be truly human like us. The reason that we are insistent about the role of Mary is to protect the fact that Christ is fully human and fully divine. It is very easy to over emphasize Christ's divinity while neglecting His humanity, and both natures are equally important. Saying that Mary was just a vessel basically says that He wasn't truly human--He would be divine with just human flesh but not really human.

I just simply don't understand why evangelicals just don't get it.
This is the method God chose. To create the Perfect bridge between God and Man to use man with his divinity to bring Christ into the world.
100% human 100% Divine.

It makes Christ the perfect bridge.

Thekla · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
If God caused Mary to get pregnant with no sperm from a human, surely he can doesn't need a human egg to do it either, right? Unless you think God is unable to do so.

Please provide support from the Holy Scriptures that this happened.
I have provided passages from the Scriptures that:
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ
Mary conceived Jesus Christ

You have failed to demonstrate that conceive means that an egg is not involved.

boswd · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
The mistake you're making, is in thinking that God HAD to do it this way. God simply CHOSE to bring Christ into the world this way. Thus, Mary wasn't a necessity, simply a vessel.

No nobody said he had to, he could have brought Christ to us through a tree if he wanted. But it was his ultimate extension of his love to create Christ with Man.

Thekla · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
That's a useless point. If Mary was barren, couldn't God still cause her to get pregnant? Remember Sarah?

Do you claim that Sarah did not actually conceive with an egg ?

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

Why don't any of the RC's here acknowledge the ad-hominems, and downright incorrect statements made here by them? You know, like the one's boswd made? He has yet to acknowledge the many times he's done it, like when he wrongly accused me of "insisting" that Mary didn't conceive?

No RC's (or other supporters of their Mary doctrines) are going to mention it? Just silence?

Tsk, tsk. This is how false doctrine persists, when no one speaks out against falsehoods made by their own kind.

Thekla · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
The flaw in your line of reasoning, is that Mary was a virgin when she concieved. You're trying to say that God wanted to use the human way of bringing Christ into the world, because that indeed made him human: but the fact that Jesus wasn't concieved disproves the notion that God needed to bring Christ into the world through some tangible human way.

You kinda did say that in post #126

boswd · Jun 12, 2010

shinbits said:
Why don't any of the RC's here acknowledge the ad-hominems, and downright incorrect statements made here by them? You know, like the one's boswd made? He has yet to acknowledge the many times he's done it, like when he wrongly accused me of "insisting" that Mary didn't conceive?

No RC's (or other supporters of their Mary doctrines) are going to mention it? Just silence?

Tsk, tsk. This is how false doctrine persists, when no one speaks out against falsehoods made by their own kind.

do you know the irony here is NOT ONE OF US are RCC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is like that all you want to pick a fight with is them.
We are argueing on the side of what has been taught in Christianity for the past 2000 years.

and actually look up a few post and you see where you posted that Christ did not concieve.
So will you hold up your end of the bargain and "shut up'

boswd · Jun 12, 2010

here you go again buddy apparently you missed it

Originally Posted by shinbits

You're making stuff up. At no time did I "insist" that she didn't conceive. If I did, PROVE IT NOW, and shut me up.

But you wont be able to. All I said was to show it in Scripture.

More fallacious arguments from you. You should be embarrassed.

Surrogates can help raise kids, and often have. And God did "snatch Christ up" after Christ's work was done, and he ascended into the clouds.

am I? you did state this

but the fact that Jesus wasn't concieved disproves the notion that God needed to bring Christ into the world through some tangible human way.

sound a little familliar?

and Your direct challenge to Thekla to Prove it via Scripture .

shinbits · Jun 12, 2010

Thekla said:
Do you claim that Sarah did not actually conceive with an egg ?

If she did, that would mean Christ got traits from a sinner. The reason why God didn't want human sperm involved, is because Joseph was a sinner, like the rest of humanity. It's for this same reason that God wouldn't want to use Mary's egg.

But again, there's another fallacious doctrine about Mary being "sinless" to conveniently adress that, even though the Bible clearly says that all people descended from Adam are sinners.

Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency