Posted on 12/08/2012 7:18:22 AM PST by HarleyD
You continue to miss the point spectacularly. I can only conclude it’s because you want to.
Stop wasting my time.
**Give my church CREDIT, because it gave to the word the Bible as we know it.**
It is said that to be the case. I recall reading a history on the Inquisition, prepared by a Catholic bishop (or professor, can’t remember), in an old edition (approx. 1960)of the Americana Encyclopedia. He quoted the words of a missionary from around 1100A.D. that had ventured into some region of what is now Germany. This missionary was amazed to find the unwarlike and unlearned hereitics to be surprisingly well versed in scripture, “..able to quote the entire gospel of John....”.
By trying to claim and/or maintain all scripture, the RCC could also claim to be the authority on any interpretation, as is represented in your following words:
**All that CHANGED when at the foot of the cross, Jesus gave his mother to the beloved apostle John as his mother and his mother Mary was given John, meaning that she who was Jesus’s FIRST disciple, would become the spiritual mother of ALL Christian believers.**
Keys words signifying your (and your church’s) interpretation: “..meaning that..”
Consider that there are no birthdates for anyone in the Word, and only one deathdate, that being the Christ’s. When Jesus was baptized, Joseph could quite possibly been closing in on 50 yrs of age. Since there is no mention of him, in an active sense, after the ‘temple alone’ incident where Jesus was only 12 yrs of age, we are left in the dark somewhat. In John 6:42, the doubters of Jesus’ claim of coming down from heaven, were quick to say they knew he had earthly parents. Joseph could have been deceased by the time of the crucifiction. The Word is very silent on the life of Joseph, and holds Mary’s biography to a minimum, in order to keep the carnally minded from focusing on matters of little importance, imo.
But, since we are left to interpretting, allow me to give an interpretation to the passage in John 6:26,27:
Jesus is telling his mother (addressing her as “woman”) to regard John as her son in his stead. He then tells John to regard Mary as his mother. So what does John do? He “took her unto his own home”. Do you suppose that Joseph and Mary were to live separate from that point on? (I believe Joseph to be deceased by this time. And he is not mentioned as being among the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost). So from this incident we are to believe that Mary is be regarded as mother of us all? That is just a private interpretation, imo, as I believe the “Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Paul writing to believers in Gal. 4:26)
**That was a pretty complete rehearsal of heresies recognizable to almost every Christian in the Church’s first millennium and a half. Your peculiar beliefs are, to say the least, way way out there.**
You forgot to put “IMO” at the start or finish of that statement,....imo. ;)
If you can prove that Mary created more of the already infinite God, then you have an argument. Keep trying FRiend.
Your interpitations.
This is why I just do not understand why all this “DIY” interpitation of the Bible by later Protestants when their early reformers believed in regards to Mary.
No, it is YOU who continue to miss the point, and as spectacularly as you accuse me
No one’s saying Mary created the infinite God. We’re saying she’s the mother of God. IOW, we’re saying who Jesus is. It isn’t my fault if you’re too dense to get this. Your trouble is that you don’t believe in the incarnation. I guess I should wish you a merry un Christmas.
How exactly is that a waste of your time? Or are you too obsessed with Mary's virginity ?
You’re the one talking about Mary’s virginity. I am talking about the Immaculate Conception.
Yes, I do understand that... but WHY?
Isn't there anything impoortant you could be talking about?
Well, you could answer that for yourself, but only if you bother to read this thread before commenting. Have you considered that?
**No one’s saying Mary created the infinite God.**
But you just did-—> **We’re saying she’s the mother of God.**
I said: If you can prove that Mary created MORE of the already infinite God.....
What was conceived and grew in Mary’s womb was mortal, in that it hungered, thirsted, and died. There was not a part of God that was conceived (had a beginning) and grew in Mary’s womb. God is a Spirit (Christ’s own words). Peter testified that this “Jesus hath God raised up”. The body of Jesus Christ came with the standard equipment, which included a mind (looked for figs to eat, said “I thirst”), was given a soul that could commune with God (thou wilt not leave my soul in hell), but the God that dwells in that body is the one and only infinite all powerful God.
While on earth the man Christ Jesus made every effort to teach man what his source for all things was: The Father. He taught that we could be like him; having the Spirit of the Almighty God dwelling in us as well.
You folks deny that the Father is in Jesus Christ doing the works, wanting to make a ‘second person’, ‘co-equal’ and all that jazz. Yet, the Christ himself, displaying his limitations as a man, said: no man knoweth, but the Father only.
Mary didn’t make the Christ sinless; God Did.
Mary didn’t give that body a soul; God did.
Mary didn’t put the Spirit of the living God in that body; God did.
Mary didn’t give him any miraculous powers whatsoever; God did.
Mary didn’t raise him from the dead; God did.
Mary didn’t glorify his body; God did.
Mary didn’t cause him to ascend up to heaven; Guess who did?
**we’re saying who Jesus is.**
You don’t know who he is, or you would agree with his and his Spirit-inspired apostles own words about who he is.
**It isn’t my fault if you’re too dense to get this.**
Or maybe I escaped the vain traditions of your church’s teachings. Their understanding of the Godhead is carnal; limiting the infinite Spirit of God, dividing him into ‘persons’, but only one ‘person’ knows “the day or the hour”. What a mess.
Throughout the book of John we see that Jesus Christ made it quite clear that the Father was in him. In writing to the saints in Ephesus (they had been sanctified with the Spirit; hence they became ‘saints’), Paul told them that they had “One God and Father of all, who is is above all, through all, and IN you all.” 4:6.
That’s how to become Christ-like: being filled with Spirit of the Father (the Holy Ghost, which proceedeth from the Father).
I am thankful for the birth of the Christ-child, what ever the day might have been. Notice that He didn’t inspire the writers of the Word to record that date. His priorities are higher than ours. Perhaps he knew how it would be commercialized, and mingled with pagan ceremonies that are not scriptural.
**Your trouble is that you don’t believe in the incarnation.**
I believe God was manifest IN the flesh (not manifest as mortal flesh), justified in the Spirit (not justified in the flesh), seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Jesus Christ said “all power is GIVEN me”. Paul said that it “pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell”; and that he is “the fulness of the godhead bodily”, and “the image of the invisible God”. God, who is invisible, has given us a focal point, that meets us on our mortal level, speaks our language, hears our cry, and brings salvation to the eternal soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.