Speak lovingly of Mary

[narnia59]

EH?

I completely understood it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Since we don't have the DNA of Mary. We don't know that she is the mother of Jesus.

Since we don't have access to the originals text of the NT nor their writtes. It could all just be a one vicious rumor that has existed for 2000yrs.

Peace

What then compels you to participate?

 

[Thekla]

What then compels you to participate?

Pistis (= faith = trust)

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; Very well said, but....

...but not accurate.

How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Bingo! You've learned how to stay on topic.

lol, sorry I just wanted to be the first to say this. Forgive me.

Forgive you? I applaud you!

I hope you do not expect your post to be answered with any particular intelligent discourse or integrity.

Because she didn't address it to you? (or me, LOL)

You will be met with self-assurance that self will substantiate what self believes from self documentation of self made parameters of self concocting standards developed by self being absorbed in self narcissism because self says so and all of this will be said to be unselfish because self is only accountable to self in its own little self world. So says the self same self.

Sounds like an echo from 1054.

 

[Rick Otto]

Sine we don't have access to the DNA of Jesus we don't know that He is God.
Peace

How would that help?
Do you have a sample of God's DNA?:o

 

[Thekla]

The recent innovation of "epistemological praxis" and the enthronement of the intellect is reminiscent of the idea that space aliens must have built the pyramids; it is a manner of elevating ourselves through denigration of an earlier accomplishment.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The recent innovation of "epistemological praxis" and the enthronement of the intellect is reminiscent of the idea that space aliens must have built the pyramids; it is a manner of elevating ourselves through denigration of an earlier accomplishment.

Greetings Thekla! Do ya think a 10yr old would understand that?

 

[Rick Otto]

This IS the issue at hand - Mary's flesh, through her assent - became Christ's. Mary's flesh belonged to Christ. To give Christ's flesh to another ?
Why would you even begin to think about such a thing !!!!!!!!!

Mary's flesh is as inconsequential as Jesus himself indicated in scripture, and in the same verse he redirected our attention soley to her hearing & obeying God.

Perhaps you confuse the humanity of Mary with the divinity of Christ because you confuse the humanity of Christ with the divinity of Christ.
Not that they were separate in some heretical way, but that they are distinct in a realistic way, just as has been taught & believed by all Christians since the beginning.

 

[Rick Otto]

space aliens must have built the pyramids

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Everybody knows they only provided technology & advice to Egyptian subcontractors.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Everybody knows they only provided technology & advice to Egyptian subcontractors.

Egypt......Pharaoh hardened......Passover....Lights Out for firstborn................

Exodus 11:5 And every of firstborn dies in land of Egypt, from firstborn of Pharaoh, the one sitting upon his Throne, unto firstborn of the maid-servant who behind the millstone; and every of firstborn of beast.

Revelation 11:8 and the dead-bodies/corpses of them upon the broadplace of the City, the Great, which is being called spiritually Sodom/n and Egypt/f where even/also the Lord of them was crucified.

Revelation 16:10 And the fifth one pours out the bowl of him on the Throne of the beast and became the Kingdom of it having been darkened and they gnawed the tongues of them out of the misery.

 

[Thekla]

Mary's flesh is as inconsequential as Jesus himself indicated in scripture, and in the same verse he redirected our attention soley to her hearing & obeying God.

Perhaps you confuse the humanity of Mary with the divinity of Christ because you confuse the humanity of Christ with the divinity of Christ.
Not that they were separate in some heretical way, but that they are distinct in a realistic way, just as has been taught & believed by all Christians since the beginning.

That may be the implication if you use one of those "gnostic translations"

but we don't. If matter was so completely insignificant, wouldn't creation have stopped at the angels ? Why would God call creation good if it weren't ? Why would the last (and crown) of creation be both matter and spirit, summarizing in this manner all of creation. The "crown" that was to have dominion over the earth, and through whom the angels learn the things of God (according to St. Paul) ? And why would Christ heal ? No, the body is part of the creation called "good" !

Would Christ deny the witness of the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth, prophecying:
"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" ?
If the blessed fruit of Mary's womb was divinity only, there would be no need for a womb. The blessed applies to the whole. Should the body be elevated over the spiritual ? No. The proper balance is needful. Is Mary's flesh given to the enfleshment of Christ inconsequential ? Then so is the Incarnation, so also the cross and the Resurrection. For if Christ had not taken on flesh, salvation would not have been wrought for those of us who in our person "summarize" creation, and are modeled on He who ascended as fully God, fully man.

 

[Qoheleth]

Mary's flesh is as inconsequential as Jesus himself indicated in scripture, and in the same verse he redirected our attention soley to her hearing & obeying God.


Perhaps you confuse the humanity of Mary with the divinity of Christ because you confuse the humanity of Christ with the divinity of Christ.
Not that they were separate in some heretical way, but that they are distinct in a realistic way, just as has been taught & believed by all Christians since the beginning.

Yet He chose flesh to come through and into the world. And if flesh is really so inconsequential, why are we going to be given our bodies back someday?? I mean even Christ rose in the flesh, glorified of course.


And that is one thing Orthodoxy 100% does not do and thats confuse Christs humanity and divinity. Im positive Thekla knows this. There is no confusion here, the Blessed Mother gave Christ His humanity.



Q

 

[narnia59]

Mary's flesh is as inconsequential as Jesus himself indicated in scripture, and in the same verse he redirected our attention soley to her hearing & obeying God.

I agree with Thekla that it by no means indicates her flesh was inconsequential and disagree with your use of the word 'soley', but I give you props for recognizing the redirect was to accentuate her hearing and obeying God. Many try to twist it to be completely directing away from her to minimize Mary, and therefore place Jesus in the position of having publicly dishonored his mother, which would be in violation of one of the Father's commandments.

MW first definition of 'rather' -- with better reason or more propriety.

Not that there was no reason for the first, simply better reason for the second. Especially since we can all imitate her in that regard.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree with Thekla that it by no means indicates her flesh was inconsequential and disagree with your use of the word 'soley', but I give you props for recognizing the redirect was to accentuate her hearing and obeying God. Many try to twist it to be completely directing away from her to minimize Mary, and therefore place Jesus in the position of having publicly dishonored his mother, which would be in violation of one of the Father's commandments.

MW first definition of 'rather' -- with better reason or more propriety.

Not that there was no reason for the first, simply better reason for the second. Especially since we can all imitate her in that regard.

But, but I am a Male!!!

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brothers, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written, that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the different one.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; That may be the implication if you use one of those "gnostic translations"

It's only gnostic if you view it thru a nicolaitane lens.

but we don't. If matter was so completely insignificant,

WHOA!We are not talking about "matter". We are talking about a specific portion of matter assigned to a specific person.
You're that cute, but not that fast. I can't let you blow this out of scale in order to minimize that Jesus corrected the woman who said 'blessed be the paps that nurtured thee & the womb that bore thee" by saying to her rather blessed be he who hears & obeys the word of God'.

Why would God call creation good if it weren't ?

I'm not implying it isn't good.
Why would God call creation cursed if it wasn't?

• Romans 8:21 NIV that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

No, the body is part of the creation called "good" !

It was called "good" before The Fall.

Would Christ deny the witness of the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth, prophecying:
"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" ?

No, but He did correct the woman who said 'blessed is the womb'.

If the blessed fruit of Mary's womb was divinity only,

It wasn't. I never said or implied it was.
The only fruit that Mary's womb produced was Christ's humanity. His divinity wasn't her doing at all.

there would be no need for a womb. The blessed applies to the whole.

Read it again. It applies to her person among women, and the FRUIT of her womb, NOT her womb. Pardon me for raising my voice. It must be this bottle of Hebrew -The Chosen Beer I found at Casa de la Beverige.

Should the body be elevated over the spiritual ? No.

hen why does the Immaculate Conception & the PV of Mary do exactly that?

The proper balance is needful.

The proper attention to relevant verses provides that.

Is Mary's flesh given to the enfleshment of Christ inconsequential ?

No, but it doesn't make her flesh divine. It isn't hyper-consequential either.

 

[Philothei]

Sounds like an echo from 1054.

And you sound like an echo from the 1500s.. your point be?

 

[Philothei]

http://javascript<b></b>:verseResultsPage('bible', 1, 'ro', 'Romans', '8', '21', 'NIV')

Romans 8:21 NIV that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

http://javascript<b></b>:verseResultsPage('bible', 1, 'ro', 'Romans', '8', '21', 'NIV')http://javascript<b></b>:verseResultsPage('bible', 1, 'ro', 'Romans', '8', '21', 'NIV')


creation be liberated does not mean was created evil... Fallen maybe but always good in its essence... thus good before and after the fall. Fallen does not change the body's essence as good .... The nature is never 'evil' ONLY in a fallen state... bound to corruption...yet never instrinstically evil...as you claim.

No, but it doesn't make her flesh divine.

no it defenately does not... But it does "sets it" apart for that purpose. Defenately not an "ordinary" task that any woman has done ....to bring forth the one "who is God-man".... ya think? An event such the Incarnation is not just an ordinary event now.....

 

[Rick Otto]

And you sound like an echo from the 1500s.. your point be?

The echo was the same argument that split the visible organization,
& that after that split it took one more to fully isolate what is reliable from what isn't because the first split didn't disagree on the premises, it disagreed on the content supported by the flawed premise.

 

[Philothei]

so... there is no point then just theory....

while you all accept the decisions of the councils about the two natures of Christ, the Holy Trinity and the cannon of the bible........

 

[Thekla]

It's only gnostic if you view it thru a nicolaitane lens.

The Nicolatians were given to profligacy; I'm not sure I catch the connection

WHOA!We are not talking about "matter". We are talking about a specific portion of matter assigned to a specific person.

the portion of matter of a specific person. The person is not parts, but a whole; names are assigned to "parts" for the purpose of discussion. God creates persons.

You're that cute, but not that fast. I can't let you blow this out of scale in order to minimize that Jesus corrected the woman who said 'blessed be the paps that nurtured thee & the womb that bore thee" by saying to her rather blessed be he who hears & obeys the word of God'.

Sloppy translation issues aside, Mary's obedience included her body.
She evidenced her hearing and obeying in her body.

I'm not implying it isn't good.
Why would God call creation cursed if it wasn't?

• Romans 8:21 NIV that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

God cursed the ground, creation was cursed because we screwed up (the fall). We were to have dominion over nature; nature ended up with a distorted 'ruler'. That doesn't mean creation is "bad", and further it will be restored (new heaven and new earth). All of creation awaits the second coming.

It was called "good" before The Fall.

And now its distorted, as are we. But when Christ healed, He restored to wholeness. He saved.

No, but He did correct the woman who said 'blessed is the womb'.
It wasn't. I never said or implied it was.

He agreed and turned/amplified. Was the flesh of the lepers who were healed blessed by Christ ?

The only fruit that Mary's womb produced was Christ's humanity. His divinity wasn't her doing at all.

I agree. But the fruit in her womb was fully God, fully man. Elizabeth didn't clarify to say one or the other, but the whole.
Elizabeth prophecised: blessed are you (the whole person) among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb (the God-man).

Read it again. It applies to her person among women, and the FRUIT of her womb, NOT her womb.

Didn't say her womb; but a person is not "parts", but the whole which includes ... and it wasn't the parts which heard and obeyed, but the whole.

Pardon me for raising my voice. It must be this bottle of Hebrew -The Chosen Beer I found at Casa de la Beverige.

Maybe I'll join in with some Metaksa

hen why does the Immaculate Conception & the PV of Mary do exactly that?

I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but I don't. It just reflects what God did; we respect His "method" for our salvation, which included an earthly mother. His flesh was wholly hers, given by her voluntary assent. It doesn't mention in the Bible that He took dust and formed Himself within her womb. The body of Christ had just one source, Mary. (Did they have different blood types ? ) What is wholly given to God belongs only to Him. If we honor Christ as God-man, that includes His body which was given by her.

The proper attention to relevant verses provides that.

I think all of them would be best

No, but it doesn't make her flesh divine.

I don't recall saying that ...

It isn't hyper-consequential either.

Well, if you hope for the Resurrection of the dead, and life eternal, it kinda is. All these were promised by Christ, and relate to His Incarnation and the entire "span and history" of salvation.