Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Sure Vladimir. Whatever you claim.
What the word conceive means in Greek is different from English. Mary would only would need to provide the womb. John the Baptist said Mat_3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. In a recent news story of a gay couple paying a woman to rent her womb with some one else’s ovum and one of their sperm The woman is still referred to as mother. In Mathew 1:18 and 20 Mary is referred to as being with child of the Holy Ghost. Mary was indeed Blessed to participate in Gods plan to fulfill the scripture concerning Jesus. If Mary said no would another virgin do? Certainly the Bible is silent on any preparation for Mary other than Gods election.
Because they said so.
What other reason do we need?
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*. The phrase *mother of GOD* appears no where in Scripture.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
They always seems like a bunch of lawyers arguing the details of a law, the meaning of the words, the language, the spelling, the dictionaries, the references, the sources...arguing and arguing.
Same stuff, over and over again. Iron rods refusing to bend. Each one right, the other one wrong.
Weird thing is, I'd no sooner open a door to one of those discussions and I’d be sucked in to their whirlpooling circular arguments, each swirling down and around while reaching for the highest authority on the highest authority, and each arguing that they have the Holy Spirit interpreting the Law for them.
I think it’s kinda funny or funny sad and/or sadly ironic to argue the letter of the law like that, since it seems to cancel out the Spirit behind it.
Then, to claim it’s the Spirit making them argue? Lol…it’s just too much.
And damned if I don’t get sucked in too, and then definitely am once I do!
Huh...never knew that about my "self" until I saw it (my self) in action.
Thankfully, I think I finally realized that I’m not a lawyer and don’t like arguing The Law like that, especially not about who best knows Daddy's meaning of “is”.
Then, it hit me. This is exactly the same thing happening on a grand scale in the politics and national dialog of our nation and every other.
We love our own letter of the law and we join and pit one group against the other arguing the meaning of “is” so hard that the spirit that gave “is” meaning is lost.
Then that spirit is replaced by something altogether different, the demon spirit of "The Arguer" bearing some bitter fruit.
Someone with both vision and discernment told me that if you’re quiet, you can hear satan’s laughter in these discussions.
And if you look up, you’ll see Jesus weeping as the arguments cut him again and again, His blood staining His robe all over again, just as when He walked as a man.
That’s an awareness way higher than my energy level and spiritual paygrade, but I’d like to work for my promotion, so it’s back on the trail for this seeking hiker.
Thanks for you concise and accurate syllogism.
I want to especially thank you for introducing the mysterious “hypostatic union” - a concept that we hardly comprehend, I think.
Certainly, I accept “fully God and “fully man” but I don’t even try to make conclusions that are not clearly expressed in God’s Word. To do otherwise is like expecting my dog to explain Higgs Bosen - only much less likely.
Again, thanks!
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
“Whatever you claim.”
I made no claims. Everything I said is simply a fact. When you encounter a woman who gave birth to a child conceived inside her who somehow was not a mother of that child you let me know, okay?
“I made no claims. Everything I said is simply a fact.”
Sure Vlad, whatever you claim. It’s false, but whatever. I wish you the best.
Some of your claims:
I'll throw in with aMorePerfectUnion:
- ”I make no claims.”
- ”Everything I said is simply a fact."
- ”So she is the mother of God.”
- ”...He preserved her from sin.”
Whatever.
You might want to read this....
The Immaculate Conception from catholic encyclopedia online:(http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056)
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
To date no catholic can refute this.
But from Our Lady of Lourdes and the mouth of St. Bernadette we have this knowledge.
For the good of those who would like background on the passage in Luke when blessed Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord.
................. quote ..................
Luke 1:43 By “Lord” Elizabeth meant Jesus, not the entire Godhead. Jesus is God, but not all of God is Jesus. Consequently the Bible never ascribes the title “Mother of God” to Mary. She was the mother of Jesus, who was Elizabeth’s Lord, since He was God.
Luke used the title “Lord” 95 times out of its 166 occurrences in the Synoptics.
“The use of kurios in narrative to refer to Jesus is distinctive of Luke.”
This title has a double meaning. It is the word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew “Yahweh,” and the New Testament writers used it the same way. As such, it implies deity. It also means “master” in the sense of a superior person, specifically the Messiah.
This usage does not necessarily imply that the person using it believed that Jesus was God. Elizabeth apparently meant that Jesus was the Messiah at least.
Luke evidently used the term “Lord” frequently because for Greek readers “Christ” or “Messiah” had little meaning. The pagan Gentiles referred to Caesar as “Lord” Caesar meaning that he was their divine sovereign. “Lord” had the same connotation for Luke’s original readers. Jesus is the divine sovereign for Christians.
Elizabeth considered herself unworthy that the mother of Messiah should visit her (2 Sam. 24:21; cf. 2 Sam. 6:2–11). She had done nothing to deserve this honor. Her inspired words reflect the superiority of Mary’s child over her own son.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Lk 1:43).
LOL
So this trumps the written Word????
That certainly explains a great deal about catholicism.
It is why Christianity rejects catholic tradition.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Because they reject the title “Mother of God” — a title which is Christological. It is about the Blessed Mother only in a secondary way; the importance of “Mother of God” is that it tells us who Jesus is. For those who want to know.
What about what the Angel Gabriel said that the Holy Spirit will come over her and the power from on high?
Luke 1 (RSV)
28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
The truth.
You need catholic.com not .org
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.