The Nature of Mary: the Virgin Birth

[mazHur]

Pen

I do agree with you on Jesus being borne out of Virgin Mary but I don't agree with Mary giving births to others later on once monopolized by God.

I believe in Jesus being a great prophet of God, and have all the respect for the sacred Virgin Mary but I don't believe rest of the story...all that is editor's fantasy

[Pendragon]

Pen

I do agree with you on Jesus being borne out of Virgin Mary but I don't agree with Mary giving births to others later on once monopolized by God.

I believe in Jesus being a great prophet of God, and have all the respect for the sacred Virgin Mary but I don't believe rest of the story...all that is editor's fantasy

mazHur, I think then, that we should focus on what we agree upon, that Jesus was Virgin Born, and I believe you said you believe he will return as Messiah. I agree that he is Messiah. If people focused more on what they agreed upon rather than the things they disagreed upon, there would be less fighting in the world and more fellowship. There is only one God, men have called Him many names. They have followed His rules and they have broken them. They are human. To be human is to be imperfect, capable of doing anything in all reality, sinful or not. Were we unable to sin, we would need no God for our salvation.

God Bless and Shalom.

Pen

[mazHur]

Pen, I agree with the way you put things up,......and In Jesus and Virgin Mary and in humans as they are.

If humans were sinless they would be angels- without heart or love - but we do not want to be angels, atleast I don't. Neither we can afford to have more than One God!

[weepingforloman]

"Mary is not so very different from any of the other women granted children by the miraculous power of God. I find it interesting that the Catholics do not declare Sarah or Elizabeth to be sinless, but leap upon the chance to do so with Mary. There is no evidence for the "Immaculate Conception" "

I am not a Roman Catholic, or even a Christian, for that matter, but the difference between Mary and any other woman is obvious enough. It is only Mary who, in Christian terms, can be described as "Mother of God," or even "Mother of the Son of the Most High" to quote from your passage above. That makes her unique among women.

The idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not have to be biblical to be believed. It is a logical extension of the belief that Mary was the chosen vessel of God Incarnate. It is hard to see how any sinful person could be chosen to give birth to God, and for Mary to be sinless it would be necessary for her either to have been purged of sin at the moment Jesus was conceived or for her to have escaped the sinful nature that mankind in general is born to. (I've never quite worked out why that does not imply a series of immaculate conceptions going back from Mary to Eve, but no doubt Richard Hresko has an explanation.)

"She is "troubled" by the message given to her, later on she and Joseph rebuke Jesus for His teaching at the temple"
Two more cynical perversions of the texts.
Any modest maid would be "troubled" on being addressed by an angel, but the passage that you quote [38] shows Mary's instant obedience to God's will, in spite of being fully aware [34] of the difficulties that this will bring her.
Mary's "rebuke" of Jesus for his teaching in the temple (Luke 2 vv42-51) was nothing more (or less) than the worried concern of a mother whose 12 year old son had disappeared for 4 days in a strange city.

But, I am probably foolish in answering. Your post, Weepingforloman, is obviously not prompted by an interest in the nature and character of Mary. It is an undisguised bit of Catholic bashing, for which, and I repeat that I am not a Catholic, I would ask the mods to close this thread.

I am not trying to "Catholic bash." Obviously I disagree with them, they disagree with my theological beliefs as well. However, to address your points: first and most importantly, Mary would not need to be sinless to carry Christ. In fact, if she was sinless, that is, if God was willing to create a sinless human, what is the purpose of the Incarnation and the passion? Why go to such great lengths if you find the creation of a sinless being to be acceptable? Furthermore, no, she would not need to be sinless for Christ to be sinless: He was God. His divinity draws His humanity up into it, perfecting it and, as you put it, "purging" it. Remember that Christ was, as Paul (I believe) puts it "He was tempted in every way." His human nature did not flee, rather it was subdued and sanctified by His divinity. As for the others, well, I have my opinion of what those verses mean, and I will not challenge yours.

mary wanted to protect him,,,,obviously, caves are hiding places

I'm sorry about letting this go without answering, I've been a little busy. If I can find the specific verse, I will post it. However, what happened is this: Mary, and Jesus's other family members, heard about some of the things He was preaching (His own divinity, the "living water", etc.). They assumed He was insane. They decided to take Him into the wilderness and leave Him there, which was commonly done with the insane in Israel.

[mazHur]

but Jesus was NOT insane, only his foolish persecutors thought so.

There is mention of Jesus and Mary in other scriptures and religions and it would be too self-centred and self-possessive and irrational to conclude without giving relevance to other evidence on record

God hates sin (not the sinners, in a way) how on earth and why would he conduct the Immaculate Conception in the wombs of a sinful woman? I dont' believe this nor billions around, including Muslims and Jews.
The Immaculate Birth of Jesus is yet another miracle of God bestowed on Jesus and Mary and we ought to see and respect it in that context.
Also, it is imperative that we all follow the teachings of Jesus and forget about unnecessary discussion about trivial matters which do not harm anyone.

[weepingforloman]

"Jesus was NOT insane"- that is my point. Mary and His family thought He was, though. I'm sorry, but if there are any (or even one) sinless people, what is the point of the crucifixion? And again, I'm sorry, but I do not believe in the validity of other scriptures. You may think me arrogant if you wish, but I do not believe that other scriptures (I believe you are referring specifically to the Qoran?) are divinely inspired. And the Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary's birth, not Christ's. The birth of Jesus is only called the Virgin Birth. As to Mary's being sinful- of course she was, in that ALL of us are. She may have (and I believe she was) a better person than most, but that is due to the grace of God, not inherent worth in Mary herself.

[mazHur]

I don't believe (commonsense) that a mighty Almighty would choose a bad apple for his pie.

There is a pinch of salt in the sayings of other scriptures but it is upto you to believe what you want or dont. I will even take into consideration the Bhagwat Geeta inot consideration while where religious questions are involved. As for Quran I have to consider it because it has not changed at all
either in letter or spirit for more than 14 centuries,,,,whereas other books are.
In any case Mary and Jesus are both sacred to me

and, yes, I don't believe Jesus had died. He is still alive and will return to earth as Messiah any time before doomsday !

[Pendragon]

and, yes, I don't believe Jesus had died. He is still alive and will return to earth as Messiah any time before doomsday !

And here we must agree to disagree. Jesus manifestly was crucified, and rosed from the dead, according to Biblical scripture. He is not returning as Messiah, for He told the Woman at the Well He was the Messiah then. He is returning as the coming King. I will not quarrel, my friend. I simply state the scripture.

God Bless

Pen

[mazHur]

Ok, call him by any name , Messiah or King, Jesus will return to earth with a new mission......

Yes, some people ( Ahmadi's as they are called -- not muslims) think that Jesus died on the cross and is buried in Cashmere (or Kashmir). As Jesus came out of a Virgin Birth and was endowed with astounding miracles, my common sense does not allow me to accept the idea of his dying on the cross. Why, in any case, God would let his beloved Man die such an awful death?

[weepingforloman]

The entire point of Christ is that God let Him die (and He WAS God, anyway). He died to provide mankind with a means of redemption. Through His death, our sins are forgiven. As to your earlier comment about God not using "a bad apple," we are all spoiled apples. Christ makes us UNspoiled. Part of the glory of the Incarnation is that Christ was born in humble circumstances: in what is essentially a stable, to an ordinary, poor woman in a subjugated nation with a history of being conquered and exiled. If Christ was born of a perfect woman, His humiliation (a theological term) would not carry the same weight. He would have been heir to glory, when His whole mission was to take on the weakness of flesh and redeem it, to enter into and purify the depravity of man.

[mazHur]

you sound of mythology.

Why would God need a son--just one son, not to speak of a daughter---to lead the people? If God must have offsprings then he is not god but a figment of imagination, a demi-god, a mythological entity. And, where does common sense tell us that one man has to die for sins of others? Why would any god's son (except in mythology)made to face such a terrible death? Common sense says that one is fully responsible for his own crimes and sins,,,, I hate to shift blame on any one else, be it god or Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad. Astonishingly, people have advanced in science and culture but they still seem to suffer from primitive and irrational thinking,,,,(this is a genereal statement which please note)

[weepingforloman]

Son does not really mean son. "Son" as a member of the Trinity. Son, to use an image from C.S. Lewis, as that which emanates from God (and is God) as heat and light from a fire. The Son may be thought of as God's illustration (in His own being) of the proper response to God: with perfect obedience and adoration. The Son delights in the Father, the Father is well pleased with the Son.
And, yes, we are responsible for our own sins: but Christ's death was His intercession on our behalf. Because we cannot on our own earn our salvation, God interfered with the process. You may know that the Israelites used to offer sacrifices to atone for their sins: Christ is the perfect and everlasting sacrifice.

[mazHur]

So, God had to 'sacrifice' his own son for our salvation. It doesn't appeal to my mind, sorry. And, why would God have a son who would be crucified and die and who couldn't even realize why the 13th guy(the traitor) left the table during last supper?
Why would we like to make an scapegoat of god's son for our own sinful doings? And, he be held answerable to god for that?
Jesus was simply a great prophet of God and never died on the cross. He's alive and will return to earth before doomsday to rid us of unbelievers.

You analogy to fire and light is beyond my understanding . Even the flare of the sun is going down with the passage of time. Light also dies off at a certain limit.fire goes off , If our God and his son were like fire and light they have certainly lost their blitz and glare,,,and I don't think they would ever have the chance to recoup ,,,,,,,,,no, no , you are mistaken,,,I cant believe your weak explanation in present scientific times.

[Pendragon]

So, God had to 'sacrifice' his own son for our salvation. It doesn't appeal to my mind, sorry. And, why would God have a son who would be crucified and die and who couldn't even realize why the 13th guy(the traitor) left the table during last supper?

I am sorry, friend mazHur, but I cannot let this statement stand.

St. John 13:
[23] Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[24] Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
[25] He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
[26] Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
[27] And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
[28] Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
[29] For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
[30] He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

How could Jesus not know? He told the disciple (John) that he would dip bread, and give it to the betrayer. He gave it to Judas, and told him "What you have to do, do quickly." And Judas left at once. The disciples seem a bit dull-witted, for they (including John) don't seem to catch on, but Jesus knew. And Jesus is alive, yes, I will agree, but first He tasted death, but not corruption. In 72 hours an unembalmed body begins to decay. Jesus rose early on the third day.

God Bless

Dale

[stella]

-Why Mary is different:
-Luke1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
-luke1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
-luke1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

-Jesus didn’t have brothers &sisters and Mary did stay a virgin:
I assume the passage you are referring to is Mathew 12:46-50 , well in the time of Christ using the word brother was to show respect it was a term of endearment since they appreciated family bonds more than any other.
Besides supposing what you say is true why were they not mentioned more frequently in the bible especially in the parts where Jesus was persecuted?
Hope to hear from you!