Mother of Jesus?

[101G]

Lets get edified. our Lord, JESUS, Diversified in flesh. if a corrupt man and a corrupt woman would have concieved the body he came in, he would be stained with sin. that's why no human woman or man could concieved the body he came in. listen to the scripture, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

see, he's NOT a "Partaker" in flesh and blood, but "took part" in it, so I suggest you find out what "took part", and "Partake" means.

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"

Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

this information is right in the bible,

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Huh? Your not going to condescend again? When did you the first time?

I meant condescend in the sense of digressing, which you provoke me to do; as in, you provoke "meaniness," which I'm discovering is your "gain," not mine. I'm not going to digress, again.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I suspected, you don’t get it.

I assert, against the teaching of trinitarianism - and have from the beginning (see post #6) - that Jesus is a human person.

Jesus is God (in the same sense that Moses was) and Jesus is a human person. (My belief as a Jewish monotheist. That’s not what trinitarianism teaches.)

All I was seeking in our conversation is confirmation that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person.

No – you’re all over the place on this.

As I stated earlier –
- FIRST, you said that Jesus wasn’t a human person.
- THEN, you recanted and stated that He IS a human person.
- NOW – you’re claiming that Moses was God.

Moving the goal posts with every response only diminishes your argument. Besides - you STILL haven't explained your original objection as to why Mary cannot be the Mother of God if she is the Mother of the God Man.

You can reject the Trinity if you like – but TRY to present a solid, stationary argument . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

sure,
Place #1. Hebrews 10:5 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" AND THAT BODY DIDN'T COME BY ANY MALE OR FEMALE INTERVENTION, OR UNION,

Place #2. Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God".
(thing, here means flesh), and that flesh was concieved by the term "overshadow", which means,
the Greek word G1982 ἐπισκιάζω episkiazo (ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo) v.
1. to cast a shade upon
2. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy
3. (figuratively) to invest with preternatural influence

see that term "preternatural influence", it means, out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal. the meaning here, not in the natural way of conception between a man and a women. BINGO.

and as for your birth and all of us was the meat of FLESH, (which was an IGNORANT ANSWER FROM YOU), which you're still in.... (smile).

Now mind answering post #72? ... now.

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

see BOL, if you knew the difference between "TOOK PART" vs "PARTAKER", then you would not have answered foolishly. .... YIKES!

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

And once again – you have illustrated how cherry-picking phrases out of Scriptural verses gets you into trouble – AND heresy.

Heb. 10:5 merely states that God prepared a body for the Son. God prepares ALL of our bodies. Does that make YOUR m other a “surrogate”?
No, Einstein – it doesn’t make HER any more a “surrogate” than Mary.

As to Luke 1:35, my ignorant friend – the GREEK word used here for “holy thing” is “hagios”.
This is the SAME word used for “Saint” in other places in the NT.

Finally – the fact that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not a man doesn’t make her a ”surrogate”. It simply means that she was impregnated by SUERNATURL means.

As I showed you before - in Luke 1:31, the Angel tells her that SHE will conceive – NOT that she will have an embryo “implanted” in her – so your silly argument goes right down the drain.

Perhaps, “Scriptural Saboteur” is a more fitting moniker . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The article fails because the author only mentions Marks account, where two Mary's are named at the crucifixion. The discrepancy is settled by Johns account which names the three, that one absent from Marks being, guess? Mary Magdelene, the sister of Lazarus, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

WRONG.
There are THREE Marys at the Crucifixion:
1. Mary, mother of Jesus
2. Mary Magdalene
3. Mary, "Sister" (Adelphe") of Mary, Mother of Jesus and wife of Clopas/Alphaeus. It is THIS Mary who is called the mother of James and Joses (Joseph) and NOT Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Allow me to educate you:
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and Salome."

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (also called "Alphaeus" Luke 6:16), and Mary Magdalene."

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they CLEARLY show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Gee Bart - why the silence??
STILL waiting for an educated response . . .

 

[101G]

And once again – you have illustrated how cherry-picking phrases out of Scriptural verses gets you into trouble – AND heresy.

Heb. 10:5 merely states that God prepared a body for the Son. God prepares ALL of our bodies. Does that make YOUR m other a “surrogate”?
No, Einstein – it doesn’t make HER any more a “surrogate” than Mary.

As to Luke 1:35, my ignorant friend – the GREEK word used here for “holy thing” is “hagios”.
This is the SAME word used for “Saint” in other places in the NT.

Finally – the fact that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not a man doesn’t make her a ”surrogate”. It simply means that she was impregnated by SUERNATURL means.

As I showed you before - in Luke 1:31, the Angel tells her that SHE will conceive – NOT that she will have an embryo “implanted” in her – so your silly argument goes right down the drain.

Perhaps, “Scriptural Saboteur” is a more fitting moniker . . .

you been reproved, so all of your VAIN BABBLING IS FOR NOTHING.

see, your Ignorance shows, read it again below.... (smile),
Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.
now read that again, above...

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Gee Bart - why the silence??
STILL waiting for an educated response . . .

Well, I do TRY to have a life?

 

[BreadOfLife]

you been reproved, so all of your VAIN BABBLING IS FOR NOTHING.

see, your Ignorance shows, read it again below.... (smile),
Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.
now read that again, above...

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

In other words - you can't refute the Scriptural and linguistic evidence I presented.
That's what I thought.

As for your tagline, as I told you before - Christians don't "argue" with the Word of God.
We argue with ignorant people like YOU who misrepresent it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's what I said. Read one whole paragraph please.

The article in question doesn't negate the other accounts of the Crucifixion. It merely focuses on Mark's account - but it DOES mention the other two accounts by Matthew and John.
YOUR statement that the article "fails" because of this is what I'm getting at.

Soooo, what, exactly does it "fail" to do?

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

I'm going to surrender and let you guys take the lead.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

The article in question doesn't negate the other accounts of the Crucifixion. It merely focuses on Mark's account - but it DOES mention the other two accounts by Matthew and John.
YOUR statement that the article "fails" because of this is what I'm getting at.

Soooo, what, exactly does it "fail" to do?

One answer in two parts. Easy, right? First what it does do. Second what it fails to do. 1) it tells you what the Bible already tells you, including two Mary's out of three, all of whom were at the crucifixion; and that one Mary, which was NOT Mary Magdelene, the sister of Lazarus who WAS THE THIRD MARY present at the crucifixion; and that the second instance of Mary was the wife of Clopas, sister (supposedly sister in law, it doesn't tell you), of Mary mother of Jesus. 2) it fails to prove that Joses and James and any others supposed as Jesus siblings were not indeed siblings in terms of having proceeded from the same womb, that of Mary, Jesus' mother

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Oops. I forgot this was the post I surrendered.

 

[101G]

In other words - you can't refute the Scriptural and linguistic evidence I presented.
That's what I thought.

As for your tagline, as I told you before - Christians don't "argue" with the Word of God.
We argue with ignorant people like YOU who misrepresent it . . .

didn't have to... it's already been reproved. Post #72, and oh by the way, you still didn't answer the question, can a woman birth a spirit... Y/N? .... well (smile).

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[BreadOfLife]

didn't have to... it's already been reproved. Post #72, and oh by the way, you still didn't answer the question, can a woman birth a spirit... Y/N? .... well (smile).

REMEMBER, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

WRONG.
I already answered your question.

Did YOUR mother give birth to a meat puppet - or to a Person with a body, soul and spirit?

PS - Do you have ANY idea what "reproved" means?
I didn't think so . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

One answer in two parts. Easy, right? First what it does do. Second what it fails to do. 1) it tells you what the Bible already tells you, including two Mary's out of three, all of whom were at the crucifixion; and that one Mary, which was NOT Mary Magdelene, the sister of Lazarus who WAS THE THIRD MARY present at the crucifixion; and that the second instance of Mary was the wife of Clopas, sister (supposedly sister in law, it doesn't tell you), of Mary mother of Jesus.
2) it fails to prove that Joses and James and any others supposed as Jesus siblings were not indeed siblings in terms of having proceeded from the same womb, that of Mary, Jesus' mother

Well, I guess you're free to believe that Mary Magdalene is the sister of Lazarus - even though Scripture doesn't make this claim.

The "other Mary" in question is indeed a relation to Mary, mother of Jesus - but it is highly unlikely that they are siblings because they have the same name. The word "Adelphe" can be used for sister, half-sister, cousin, aunt, etc. The SAME is true for "Adelphos" - as in James and Joses. They are the children of this "other Mary" and although being related to Jesus, were NOT uterine siblings.

Now - the reason I originally brought up Luke 6:16 was to show that the other Mary's husband "Clopas" - is also called Alphaeus, father of James the Younger (Less). "Clopas" is a Greek rendering of the Aramaic, "Alphaeus". James the Younger (Less) is listed as the child of the other Mary and Clopas/Alphaeus.

Finally - there is NO Biblical account of Mary (Mother of Jesus) having ANY other children. In the verses that talk about His "Adelphoi" - they are never named as HER children. In fact - there isn't even an extrabiblical account of her having other children.
So you need to ask yourself - WHERE did this unbiblical and unhistorical rumor begin?

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

I'll give you the win. I'm here for a better fight.

 

[101G]

WRONG.
I already answered your question.

Did YOUR mother give birth to a meat puppet - or to a Person with a body, soul and spirit?

PS - Do you have ANY idea what "reproved" means?
I didn't think so . . .

you answered nothing, you're dismissed.

Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[BreadOfLife]

you answered nothing, you're dismissed.

Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Yup - that's what I figured you'd say . . .

 

[theefaith]

The Church taught it to my wife in the Catholic High School she attended.

You didn’t answer my question: Who exactly do you think Catholic Answers (whom you believe is misrepresenting what the Church teaches) seeking conciliation with on this point?

Also, are you aware of the Church taking any action against Catholic Answers for (allegedly) misreporting to their audience what the Catholic Church teaches?

I’m not in the know, but lots of errors were taught, just cos it’s name is catholic does not make it catholic, notra dame is a good example

 

[theefaith]

I believe it is correct Mary would be mother of Emmanuel as he was born from her body. Being Jesus was God I don't think those who refer to Mary as the mother of our savior is wrong for the same reason.
I would disagree she is mother of our salvation. She is not. Our salvation is born through the grace of our father, God. Who would rightly be identified as the father of Mary when speaking in terms of source, creator. And in parlance with the scriptures that refer to we in the faith as sons and daughters of God, the father.

the person of Jesus is our salvation! Lk 2:30
Mary the ever Virgin mother of God Lk 1:43 is his mother, so she is the mother of our salvation

Two reasons why Mary is the mother of our salvation!

1: Because Jesus Christ is our salvation Lk 2:30 and Mary is His mother!

2: Because she consented to our salvation! Lk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.