Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You and I are genetically a blend of our mother and fathers physical makeup.
Christ too did not get his physical body only from Mary, but from both Mary and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I believe His physical incarnation retains the divine attributes of God as well as human flesh and blood (Mary's contribution). As I posted before, Scripture reveals this to us in the account of the Transfiguration.
I see no heresy or heterodoxy in these beliefs at all.
I can understand this much better.
I do not believe, as per the Chalcedonian Definition, that the natures or wills can be mixed (they are inconfused and unchanged) but they do exist fully in His entire Person (they are indivisible and inseparable).
That is why I do believe His Body to be Divine.
I agree. However, The fact that God has been depicted in the Bible with the ability to do things that require a "Form" of some kind makes me believe that even beings of pure spirit have some sort of "shape." The angels, for example. Obviously this isn't an earthly form but I believe the Transfiguration points at giving us an idea of sorts (note: Isaiah and Elijah are there too, physically, and possibly transfigured as well). This isn't to suggest that we lose our earthly forms upon our transfiguration as we continue our theosis (we cannot cease being human), but we take on becoming increasingly like being in the image of God (the Energies only of course, and never the Substance).
That Divine Form doesn't cease upon the Incarnation and continues as God the Son takes up human nature and therefore, an earthly body.
In addition, we must consider the Holy Communion. As Lutherans and Anglicans, we believe that Christ is not just spiritually but physically Present in the Elements. If Jesus is both Divine and Man, then when we receive Him by Host or Chalice, His full Person is there, for as Chalcedon suggests, we cannot separate the two natures or wills as much as we cannot absorb them into one or confuse them.
If Jesus is Truly Present, and found in each minute particle of each Species of the Blessed Sacrament, to suggest that we are only receiving His humanity seems suspicious to me, as it would be impossible. Since Jesus is, however, also Divine, it makes it possible, because He is as Chalcedon rightly declares Him to be. That would mean that when we receive His Flesh and His Blood, we are partaking of Him entirely: humanity and Deity.
That is at least my understanding. Truly, I leave it at Chalcedon and let the matter be at that.
In the Bible it is not clear if Mary did contribute with half the genetic, or if she did only host a baby fully genetic from the Holy Soirit.
You see? It is you who spend all time accusing others of contradicting this and that creed. You dont care at all to do a direct investigation on the Bible but take for granted what the creed sauy.
Not only that...if one brother concider the creed to be wrong, you immediately warn him that he will be expulsed from the forum. You dont defend chrustian truth but your denomination truth.
In the Bible it is not clear if Mary did contribute with half the genetic, or if she did only host a baby fully genetic from the Holy Soirit.
Mine too, that was the point is citing the example of the Transfiguration; one person, two natures, inseparable.
No, it's not, neither is it clear to the contrary. Consider this though, what would the point have been? The Holy Spirit could just as easily dropped off the infant Jesus on Mary's doorstep.
The Holy Spirit isn't biological like we are. God has no DNA. Jesus inherited only the genetics of the only human parent: St. Mary the Virgin.
But at the end of the day, you have nothing proving or sugesting that Mary did contributed with more than carrying the baby.
Are you saying that Jesus - genetically - is son of Mary 100%? That is not possible for two reasons. Mary was XX, and males are XY. If depent on a woman, all childrens will be XX. It is the participation of an XY male that make possible to have male babies. And the second reason is that a baby with full genetict from a person, will be a clone of that person.
It is a miracle precisely because St. Mary the Theotokos was the only DNA contributor. In other words, Jesus didn't have a human father. Jesus, being God the Son Incarnate, had God the Father as His Father, begotten from before all worlds; a eternal begetting.he conception is a miracle. I have study all miracles; and the conception still is the only one that keep me confuse in understanding it. I am far from understanding what and how it hapens; but yours is not a good explanation.
Well, you contradicted yourself with the following:
It is a miracle precisely because St. Mary the Theotokos was the only DNA contributor. In other words, Jesus didn't have a human father. Jesus, being God the Son Incarnate, had God the Father as His Father, begotten from before all worlds; a eternal begetting.
Listen, do us a favor: take the time to digest what we've said, sit down and READ the Holy Scriptures, READ the Fathers and the Apostolic Witnesses, READ the Creeds and the Definition, and then come back.
We was talking of genetic contribution.
The Fathers, the Apostolic Witnesses, the Creeds and the Definition have nothig to add.
They are totally useless. The scripture is the only fountain of knowledge and truth.
The scripture say that Joseph did not have sex life with Mary until after Jesus birth.
The sex life of Mary and Joseph is not an explanation for the miracle, because it was - acording to the scripture - after the birth, not before; not before getting pregnant, not even before the delivery of the baby.
But yet, Jesus is Joseph first born. The Gospels keep on refering to Jesus as Joseph son. That probably - only probably - means that by some miracle, Joseph genetics were in Jesus. How it happens that Joseph sperm got in Mary? That is the miracle about.
Which was a simple affirmation that St. Mary the Theotokos was a true Virgin. There is no other point to the passage. The Early Church is clear that St. Mary the Theotokos lived a completely celibate life, and while such a belief may not be salvific, the fact that is was a part of the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council and that it was believed in by even Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley means that the idea that Protestantism or Lutheranism as a whole denying the perpetual virginity of St. Mary the Theotokos is false.
...
Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.
Already answered that.
Furthermore, the Greek used doesn't just mean biological brothers, but brothers by Law (as I explained) and is inclusive of cousins as well.
That is not a rebuttal. That is a repeat.
Furthermore, saying "well that's wrong" isn't an argument. Debate the points given.
You base your position in what the oficial church have said. It is the same oficial church that was saying Earth to be flat. What all those persons and creeds have to say is irrelevant.
Do you actually read what I say? I'm going to quote myself and this time, since you want to continue this, I'm going to play hardball:The greek word for brother also means brothers.
That is not true since it was used before St. Mary the Theotokos was even born. It is NOT an exclusive term for the Holy FamilyIt laso means sons of Mary.
Actually it not "also eman" but it is the primary and direct mening.
Already answered and explained.What about Joseph not having sex until the birth of Jesus?
I've just proven above that the Greek is ambiguous at best. I've also pointed out the importance of the Torah in the matter, which is why the lexicon admits that it doesn't have to be a fully biological sibling. That shows that the Holy Bible isn't absolutely clear beyond any reasonable doubt.The Bible sugest that Mary had a natural marital ñlife with Joseph; and that she had more childrens, brothers of Jesus.
No such thing as the Church teaching the Earth is flat: Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhat the Bible silence at all is about the perpetual virginity of Mary. That is an invention of those persons, believing in a flat Earth.
But at the end of the day, you have nothing proving or sugesting that Mary did contributed with more than carrying the baby.
The Fathers, the Apostolic Witnesses, the Creeds and the Definition have nothig to add. They are totally useless. The scripture is the only fountain of knowledge and truth. But you did hepl me to understand the miracle.
The scripture say that Joseph did not have sex life with Mary until after Jesus birth. The sex life of Mary and Joseph is not an explanation for the miracle, because it was - acording to the scripture - after the birth, not before; not before getting pregnant, not even before the delivery of the baby.
But yet, Jesus is Joseph first born. The Gospels keep on refering to Jesus as Joseph son. That probably - only probably - means that by some miracle, Joseph genetics were in Jesus. How it happens that Joseph sperm got in Mary? That is the miracle about.
Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.
1. Mark not only quoted the Creed but gave Scriptural basis.
2. The Church never suggested the Earth was flat. Psuedohistory, and as someone with a degree in history, I know that for a fact.
Do you actually read what I say? I'm going to quote myself and this time, since you want to continue this, I'm going to play hardball:
"Furthermore, the Greek used doesn't just mean biological brothers, but brothers by Law (as I explained) and is inclusive of cousins as well."
1. I acknowledged that it can mean purely biological brothers.
2. I pointed out that it has a broader definition as well.
You need to prove that it can only mean biological brothers. Since the Greek is AMBIGUOUS, you have a serious issue. Based on your premise of solo scriptura (note: I said "solo" not "sola"; sola scriptura is a position of Lutheranism which is not negative towards the Creeds, the Definition, or the Church Fathers. In fact, sola scriptura demands adherence to the Creeds, the Definition, and is usually very positive about the Early Church and especially the Apostolic Witnesses), you need to prove it via Holy Scripture alone. If I continue to show its ambiguity, then you'd have no choice but to look elsewhere. The moment you do, you will have contradicted yourself.
As I said: if you really want to continue this debacle, especially when you are going to directly ignore what I am saying, then I am not going to pull any more punches.
That is not true since it was used before St. Mary the Theotokos was even born. It is NOT an exclusive term for the Holy Family
False. Get a lexicon and look it up: Adelphos - Greek Lexicon
You don't understand languages if you think words necessarily have to have a "primary use." Words' definitions change, evolve, and, often, have more than one primary use, especially when it comes to idiom, but sometimes when it comes to their very use.
Already answered and explained.
I've just proven above that the Greek is ambiguous at best. I've also pointed out the importance of the Torah in the matter, which is why the lexicon admits that it doesn't have to be a fully biological sibling. That shows that the Holy Bible isn't absolutely clear beyond any reasonable doubt.
No such thing as the Church teaching the Earth is flat: Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Undeniable proof. Writings from the Early Church, including those of the greatest Biblical authority in the West, St. Augustine of Hippo, whose writings were so important to Vatican Catholicism, Anglicanism, Luther, and Calvin, that each of them point to him as the basis of their theology, show that the idea that the Church taught the Earth was flat is pure psuedohistorical nonsense.
As for the perpetual virginity, I never claimed the Holy Bible outright stated it. I do claim, however, that the Holy Bible suggests it, and since the belief can be derived from the Holy Writ and can be found in the writings of the Church whereas the opposite cannot be found outside orthodoxy, then it must be the position of the Church, which is why its doctrine was proclaimed at Ephesus.
I can see that you workship Mary;
and it is not my porpose to ofend you. I can keep discussing this topic, demostrating that the perpetual virginity is a doctrine based on later believes not included in the Bible.
But it will be an end less discussion since you will never give up in your workshiping to Mary; the Virgin; the Mother of God; Teokokos.
The main topic is about the divinity of Jesus body. I presume that it is conected to the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
Aparently it is necessary for her to be mother of a divine crerature, even in the fleah. How is that a body can be divine?
I agree. However, The fact that God has been depicted in the Bible with the ability to do things that require a "Form" of some kind makes me believe that even beings of pure spirit have some sort of "shape." The angels, for example. Obviously this isn't an earthly form but I believe the Transfiguration points at giving us an idea of sorts (note: Isaiah and Elijah are there too, physically, and possibly transfigured as well). This isn't to suggest that we lose our earthly forms upon our transfiguration as we continue our theosis (we cannot cease being human), but we take on becoming increasingly like being in the image of God (the Energies only of course, and never the Substance).
That Divine Form doesn't cease upon the Incarnation and continues as God the Son takes up human nature and therefore, an earthly body.
In addition, we must consider the Holy Communion. As Lutherans and Anglicans, we believe that Christ is not just spiritually but physically Present in the Elements. If Jesus is both Divine and Man, then when we receive Him by Host or Chalice, His full Person is there, for as Chalcedon suggests, we cannot separate the two natures or wills as much as we cannot absorb them into one or confuse them.
If Jesus is Truly Present, and found in each minute particle of each Species of the Blessed Sacrament, to suggest that we are only receiving His humanity seems suspicious to me, as it would be impossible. Since Jesus is, however, also Divine, it makes it possible, because He is as Chalcedon rightly declares Him to be. That would mean that when we receive His Flesh and His Blood, we are partaking of Him entirely: humanity and Deity.
That is at least my understanding. Truly, I leave it at Chalcedon and let the matter be at that.
Between us, I think this is more a matter of wording than of doctrine.
Now you know why the Early Chruch, the Ecumenical Councils, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are useless and clearly wrong. The Gospels clearly say that she did not have sex until Jesus birth. Also they mention the brothers of Jesus.
This is a dangerous walk to walk. As Christians, we have a "cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1); our brothers and sisters in Christ. We should learn from their lives and teaching. Do I believe every single doctrine every Church Father ever taught? No. But do I believe that we can learn something from their interpretation of the Scriptures? Yes.
This changed my view on Mary's perpetual virginity. I opposed this view, but then I discovered that almost every single Christian, from the second-generation disciples up to the children of the Reformation (and indeed, most Christians today still do), taught that Mary was the "ever-virgin".
Were all of them wrong? And do I have greater knowledge of this than the greatest theologians in the history of Christianity? I would be arrogant to claim so.
Also, a quick note on the Greek: the Greek word used for "until" ("heos"), doesn't always imply a change. It's even like this in English; "Until the day I die, I will not eat turkey." Does this mean that I will eat turkey after my death? So "until" can simply mean "up to that point".
Then we are just as far, since both interpretations (the perpetual-virgin one and the non-perpetual-virgin one) seems to be just as valid.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?