S
Studious One
Guest
Since none of the Apostles called Mary "Mother" in the Word of God, I guess they were not Christlike?
Upvote
0
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.
Since the word of God is not limited to that which is written (according to Scripture anyway), I'd say it's just speculation on your part they never called her mother.Since none of the Apostles called Mary "Mother" in the Word of God, I guess they were not Christlike?
That's rather Irrelevant, because we don't have gods before Him.Well, well, aren't you special!!! How do you balance all this out with Scriptures?:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Out of deference to the request, I will only focus on this one. Frankly, you're wrong here. The author of Hebrews is not speaking of what lies ahead, he is speaking of what has already occurred. "You have come", not "You will come"
Hebrews 12:
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
We have already come to the spirits of just men made perfect. Every time we approach in prayer the throne of grace, the heavenly Jerusalem, we come every bit as much into their presence as we do the angels, God, and Christ.
And while I don't disagree that Paul is the probable author of Hebrews based upon tradition, I am curious why you would accept this extra-Biblical tradition.
I'm not sure how one believes they can become a brother to Christ and be adopted into his family, consider God as Fathe, yet exclude Mary as mother.
After all, Christ takes his human nature from Mary. In the sense of his 'parenthood', we are by nature his mother's "people". Yet some so can so easily refuse her motherhood while claiming Christ as brother.
How can we pretend to be Christ-like and not honor Mary as our mother?
That is just not true...at least not in the way you try to claim Thekla...Scripture would be rife with references and practical examples if it was practiced for millenia, and we wouldn't be discussing it....one doesn't build doctrine on a single oblique reference, or expect a common and accepted practice to have been omitted.
There were many Jewish practices that were unbiblical...some seem to have been acceptable, and others that actually went against good teaching and instruction were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles, but retained in Judaism...especially things relating to fables and esoteric teachings as found in the Zohar or Kabbalah
What relevance does it have?Where, Sheina, where?
God is our Father because (1) He made us and (2) we are made in His image. We become sons of God because we are reborn in God in His image.I'm not sure how one believes they can become a brother to Christ and be adopted into his family, consider God as Fathe, yet exclude Mary as mother.
After all, Christ takes his human nature from Mary. In the sense of his 'parenthood', we are by nature his mother's "people". Yet some so can so easily refuse her motherhood while claiming Christ as brother.
How can we pretend to be Christ-like and not honor Mary as our mother?
What relevance does it have?
God is our Father because (1) He made us and (2) we are made in His image. We become sons of God because we are reborn in God in His image.
We are His body because we function like one: different parts, different functions but one Head that controls it all, one blood that cleanses all and feeds all, etc. but I don't think Paul wanted to take this analogy so far as you take it. Analogies have limits. Jesus is the send Adam but he didn't fall, He wasn't created. Now that I think of, since Christ is the second Adam it is better to say that Christ's spiritual body is like Adam's body, made by God, with no mother or father except God. This fits much better since believers are "begotten" by God. We are sons of God because He made us and we are in His image. We are brothers of Christ in that we too have the image of God, even though not as perfect.
So be careful with analogies. Wisdom says which limits one must not cross with these.
I don't want to offend, but I do not consider you to be an authority on the historical practices in Judaism. To call something "true vs. false" requires more than an opinion.
How early was the assumption of Mary believed?If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?
The second Eve is the Church. Do you have any other argument besides Mary's obedience?Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".
If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?
God is our Father because (1) He made us and (2) we are made in His image. We become sons of God because we are reborn in God in His image.
We are His body because we function like one: different parts, different functions but one Head that controls it all, one blood that cleanses all and feeds all, etc. but I don't think Paul wanted to take this analogy so far as you take it. Analogies have limits. Jesus is the send Adam but he didn't fall, He wasn't created. Now that I think of, since Christ is the second Adam it is better to say that Christ's spiritual body is like Adam's body, made by God, with no mother or father except God. This fits much better since believers are "begotten" by God. We are sons of God because He made us and we are in His image. We are brothers of Christ in that we too have the image of God, even though not as perfect.
So be careful with analogies. Wisdom says which limits one must not cross with these.
How early was the assumption of Mary believed?
The second Eve is the Church. Do you have any other argument besides Mary's obedience?
If the Theotokos wasn't bodily assumed, her relics would be just about the most important in Christendom, a source of pilgrimage and veneration and countless miracles. Where are they?
When did New Testament relics start to become an important part of cultural Church belief, and who initiated the practice?
Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".
Messiah as the second Adam, is clearly taught in Scripture....and the teaching is clear, making a distinction between the natural and the spiritual...and how Messiah fulfills this.
1Cor 15:44....If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
Trying to bring Mary into the frame...mainly in a redemptive role, and to call her the second Eve, has somehow been missed by those inspired to write Scripture....but their oversight has gladly been remedied by some later revelations.
I don't think so....
There is no teaching implicit in naming her the Second Eve....only the tenuous link...this isn't teaching anything...it is simply reaching, grasping at straws.
Indeed, Christ is the second Adam, and Mary the second Eve. The First Eve denied God's will and ate of the tree. The Second Eve said, "Let it be unto me as you have said".
My own opinion is that if you can believe this to be true you can believe any and everything put forward concerning Mary, except, of course, that she was the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.
When did New Testament relics start to become an important part of cultural Church belief, and who initiated the practice?
Messiah as the second Adam, is clearly taught in Scripture....and the teaching is clear, making a distinction between the natural and the spiritual...and how Messiah fulfills this.
1Cor 15:44....If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
Trying to bring Mary into the frame...mainly in a redemptive role, and to call her the second Eve, has somehow been missed by those inspired to write Scripture....but their oversight has gladly been remedied by some later revelations.
I don't think so....
There is no teaching implicit in naming her the Second Eve....only the tenuous link...this isn't teaching anything...it is simply reaching, grasping at straws.
Originally Posted by Zazal
1Cor 15:44....If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
Trying to bring Mary into the frame...mainly in a redemptive role, and to call her the second Eve, has somehow been missed by those inspired to write Scripture....but their oversight has gladly been remedied by some later revelations.
Originally Posted by Zazal
I don't think soI'm sorry you dislike what the Church has always found to be obvious. The parallels between Eve and the Theotokos aren't exactly subtle.....
There is no teaching implicit in naming her the Second Eve....only the tenuous link...this isn't teaching anything...it is simply reaching, grasping at straws.
__________________
Originally Posted by Zazal
There were many Jewish practices that were unbiblical...some seem to have been acceptable, and others that actually went against good teaching and instruction were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles, but retained in Judaism...especially things relating to fables and esoteric teachings as found in the Zohar or Kabbalah
I wasn't asking you to take my word on historical Jewish practices...you can do the homework yourself and decide from a wide variety of sources.
First and foremost Scripture makes mention of some of the rather foolish Jewish teachings that abounded at the time, along with an assortment of old wives tales and unprofitable practices. Paul was at pains to warn disciples not to take these things on board or allow them to get mixed in with true doctrine.
I have done research as well - and from a variety of sources, thanks
And which Jewish practices were they ?
And what were the fables and myths ?
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?