Mary Saves

[Jude3b]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?

[Wesley's son]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?

Hey Jude

No, none.

[bar Jonah]

Hey Jude

No, none.
As a fallen sinner, herself (who even had to do sacrifices as a result of being unclean and fallen), she cannot have any role whatsoever as a mediatrix (female mediator) between us and God.

There is only one mediator between us and God -- our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

[tizzidale]

We are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the "new Eve" who said, "Yes."

[bar Jonah]

Indeed, the whole "Queen of Heaven and Earth" has no biblical basis, at all. She's never referred to as such, and indeed she's only mentioned once outside the gospels in a single, casual reference in Acts 1 and then never spoken of again throughout the rest of the Bible. Not one mention in all of the rest of Acts, not one more time in that whole history of the Church. Not once in all of the doctrinal epistles, not even in the salvational messages of Paul. Not even a mention much less an important role with Jesus in the Revelation of John.

Nada, nothing. She was a good woman, a believer, once a sinner who needed a Savior like everyone else. No significant role in the church worth mentioning at all. And certainly no role in our salvation.

[goldenchild]

Mary, the New Eve: "the Woman"

Mary's role in salvation history was first revealed after the Fall when God confronted the perpetrators in the garden of Eden. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen 3:15).

The Old Testament presents David as a type7 of Jesus. David engaged in head crushing in his confrontation with Goliath.8 Jesus, the fulfillment, crushed Satan's head on Golgotha, the hill called Skull.9 The Bible also presents women engaged in head crushing who foreshadowed Mary, the New Eve.

In Judges 4:17-22 we learn that Jael drove a tent peg through the temple of Sisera. The language used to honor her because of this deed is significant. "Most bless among women is Jael" (Judg 4:21). This is the same language that St. Luke employs in his Gospel (Lk 1:28, 42). In Judges 9:53 "a certain woman" dropped an upper millstone on the head of Abimelech. Lastly, Judith cut off the head of Holofernes (Judith 13:6-8). The praise directed toward Judith is important. "And Uzziah said to her, 'O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth. . . . May God grant this to be a perpetual honor to you" (Judith 13:18, 20). This praise is reflected in Luke 1: 28, 42, 48. By employing the language of Septuagint Greek in these citations St. Luke is connecting Mary as the fulfillment of these Old Testament types.

St. John makes a similar connection between Mary and "the woman" of Genesis 3:15. At the beginning of his public ministry Jesus, himself, addresses his mother as "woman" (Jn 2:4) prior to working the miracle of Cana, the first of his signs. Jesus also addresses his mother as "woman" when he was on the cross (Jn 19:26). At the cross Mary participated with her son in his definitive act of crushing Satan's head. Jesus, the God made man and new Adam, conquered the devil, sin and death by the total sacrificial gift of himself to the Father as his body and soul are torn apart by his terrible suffering. Because of Jesus' infinite merits Mary was empowered to unite her agony with his as the sword of suffering pierced her soul (Lk 2:35). Lastly, in Revelation 12 John depicts Jesus and Mary in a death struggle with Satan. In verse 4 one discovers the only verse in the Bible other than Genesis 3:15 in which all the antagonists are depicted: the woman, the seed and the serpent.

http://www.stmonica.cc/papers/mother.htm

[Jude3b]

The Scriptures teach that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins - see Hebrews 9:22. Mary did not shed any blood to redeem us. Only the holy, sinless Son of God could pay the price for us by His she blood.

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[tizzidale]

duh

[bar Jonah]

She was a fallen sinner in need of a Savior just like everyone else. She plays no significant role in the early church that is worth mentioning in the Bible. She is not "Queen of Heaven and Earth." She is not some "second Eve" or mediatrix. None of these things are biblical in any way, whatsoever.

There is not a shred of reference in the OT about a female mediatrix who would play a role in salvation, other than giving birth to the messiah. That's it.


Mary, the New Eve: "the Woman"
Lastly, in Revelation 12 John depicts Jesus and Mary in a death struggle with Satan. In verse 4 one discovers the only verse in the Bible other than Genesis 3:15 in which all the antagonists are depicted: the woman, the seed and the serpent.
What on earth are you talking about? The woman gives birth, and is persecuted by Satan, but she doesn't battle him or something! :doh: That is a total misrepresentation of that passage!

:no:

[Jude3b]

".... we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." (John 4:42)

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

[Jude3b]

Why does the Roman Catholic religion tell us that Mary, the mother of Jesus is the cause our salvation? "Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." (Page 125, #494 of the Roman Catholic Catechism)

[bar Jonah]

Just a guess, but maybe because the RCC is antichrist? :shrug:

[Ric]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?
No. :nono:

[spl_cadet]

And why is this in eschatology?

[Amazing Rando]

She is not some "second Eve" or mediatrix.

Mediatrix, eh? Sounds kinky!

[Jude3b]

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) - Obviously Mary cannot save.

[Jude3b]

The Bible is unmistakably clear in telling us who is the only Savior - Jesus is His name!: "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

[BibleMan]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?



No, except in the sense that she was a willing servant to allow the man child Jesus to be born from her body.

[Joe Gofish]

As a fallen sinner, herself (who even had to do sacrifices as a result of being unclean and fallen), she cannot have any role whatsoever as a mediatrix (female mediator) between us and God.

There is only one mediator between us and God -- our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul. Non-Catholics like to point out this verse to Catholics (out of context of course), as they mistakenly perceive that we 'mediate' through His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth.



'Mediator', as defined by the dictionary, the first meaning, is: 'One who works to resolve or settle differences by working with all the conflicting parties'.

The 'conflicting parties' in this case, are of course, GOD, and mankind. Jesus Christ did indeed act as mediator by suffering and dying for us.




The mistaken belief of jude, is of his choice of words, when they refer to the Mother of GOD. Catholics use the word, 'Intercessor', and not 'Mediator' when we speak of Blessed Mary.


'Intercessor', as defined by the dictionary, the first meaning, is: 'One who entreaties in favor of another, especially one who prays or petitions to GOD in behalf of another'.





As you can plainly see, a 'Mediator' is the subject of action, whereas an 'Intercessor' is a petitioner for action. They do have quite different meanings.

Another point of confusion would be the secondary meaning of 'Intercessor', 'One who 'Mediates' in a dispute, ...to intervene'.
The Catholic use of the word 'Intercessor', is the first meaning, whereas the Protestants choose the second, and this is where they err.
There are many cases where the secondary definition of words is quite different from the first, and for some reason, detractors will invariably use the secondary in order to try to make a point.
Another example which comes to mind is the Jehovah's Witness translation of Luke 1:48, "...all generations shall call me 'blessed'." They use a second or third meaning of the word 'blessed', and substitute the word 'happy', which to me changes the meaning of the verse and detracts from the beauty of it. 'All generations shall call me happy' does not make any sense. No doubt they did this on purpose.

[Ric]

No. :nono:
No. :no:

[Shazard]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?

Are you refearring to -


Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.


Does any man plays a role in his and others salvation?

[Joe Gofish]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?

Jude what did you learn as a Catholic for 27 years,very little as we can see.

[Joe Gofish]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?

Jude You have said many times you where a Catholic for 27 years,Did you learn anything ? or do you know the answer to your own questions or are you just trying to knock the Church. Or maybe you got a new Jack Chick tape.
27 YEARS is that what is called a slow learner ? LOL

[Joe Gofish]

The Bible is unmistakably clear in telling us who is the only Savior - Jesus is His name!: "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

And the question is ??????? or is this just another verse out of the Bible ?

[RCNicholas]

Why does the Roman Catholic religion tell us that Mary, the mother of Jesus is the cause our salvation? "Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." (Page 125, #494 of the Roman Catholic Catechism)
Because she gave birth to the Savior, bringing Him into the world so that He could save us?? I didn't know that it was a particuarly mind-boggling concept. The Catechism is quoting St. Irenaeus there, teaching in the 2nd century...so much for Catholics randomly making this stuff up centuries after Christ...

[RCNicholas]

Are you refearring to -


Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.


Does any man plays a role in his and others salvation?
According to this verse they do, quite clearly; although Catholics add the caveat that it is entirely through God's grace to work in and through us. (Philippians 2:12-13)

[Good News Man]

Because she gave birth to the Savior, bringing Him into the world so that He could save us?? I didn't know that it was a particuarly mind-boggling concept. The Catechism is quoting St. Irenaeus there, teaching in the 2nd century...so much for Catholics randomly making this stuff up centuries after Christ...



God and God alone is solely to be praised for the possibility of any of us being saved. Mary was simply willing to obey God, just like all of us should be, but God is the first cause of "every good and perfect gift." Amen.

[Alden]

It is true that God is to be praised for the possibility of salvation, but I think that, largely due to the Romophobia that is built into Protestantism, the role of Mary is wrongly ignored. As Mary was human, free will was not absent in her role as the mother of Christ. It must be noted as well that God literally dwelt inside her, making her womb analagous to the temple of the OT. Lastly, it should not be discounted that the scriptures make mention that she will be called blessed by all generations.

[Keumkang]

Jude: I'd really like to see you, who are clearly more zealous towards fending off excessive devotion to Mary than any other I've seen here, actually answer the arguments presented here. Like the one Alden just presented. You could take the first point, I think that, largely due to the Romophobia that is built into Protestantism, the role of Mary is wrongly ignored. and say that there have always been voices against devotion to Mary throughout the history of the Church, and then site examples.

Or, you could take his It must be noted as well that God literally dwelt inside her, making her womb analagous to the temple of the OT.and use logic(gasp!) to show that it is not a fitting analogy.

Or, you could provide some solid exegesis of the "all generations shall call me blessed" and show a more reasonable interpretation than the Cathloic/Orthodox one(s).

But please, please do not throw a random verse from scripture, ignoring entirely the other person's argument. You see, Catholics have already heard that Jesus saves, and that there is one mediator between God and man, and in fact they believe that those verses are true. If you want to change their interpretation of scripture, you'll need to do more than unload the Random Verse Paintball GunTM on them. You do realize that that tactic gets absolutely nowhere? That it convinces no one on this board? And if you actually consider the other's perspective, you may end up actually understanding the issue better. Learning from a Catholic? Crazy sounding, I know, but it does happen. :wink:

[Alden]

Jude: I'd really like to see you, who are clearly more zealous towards fending off excessive devotion to Mary than any other I've seen here, actually answer the arguments presented here.

Jude is gone. Just an FYI.



Like the one Alden just presented. You could take the first point, and say that there have always been voices against devotion to Mary throughout the history of the Church, and then site examples.

And? There have also been voices against the divinity of Christ. My point is that their mere existence does not lend them creedence.


Or, you could take his and use logic(gasp!) to show that it is not a fitting analogy.

Why is that? The presence of God dwelt in the temple in Israel. Jesus was carried in Mary's womb. There is no similarity there?

The early church seemed to think so
From the Council of Ephesus:

"We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (431 A.D.)



Or, you could provide some solid exegesis of the "all generations shall call me blessed" and show a more reasonable interpretation than the Cathloic/Orthodox one(s).


What's wrong with it?

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

Even if we do disregard Catholic/Orthodox theology regarding Mary, the Protestant realm (up until about the last 150 or so years) has also had a deep reverence for Mary. I can dig up more if you like, although it may take some time, as I tend not to read much Protestant theology anymore.

Is Mary's statement in Luke 1:48 that "henceforth all generations will call be blessed" one that requires "a more reasonable interpretation"? It seems pretty reasonable and straightforward to me.

How about Gabriel's greeting to her?
Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you (Luke 1:28) That seems to be a bit more than "hey nice laaady". Isn't respect due the Mother of God?


"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:42-43)

The term Theotokos or "God bearer" is a necessary one. There is a reason the third ecumenical council in 431, against the teachings of Nestorius formally recognized the term. The Church has used this term for nearly 2 thousand years to identify the fact that her child is, in fact God in the flesh. They did not call her Christotokos (birth-giver of Christ), Nestorius' preferred term, because although Christ has both human and divine nature, they are united in one personhood, rather than separate and distinct.




But please, please do not throw a random verse from scripture, ignoring entirely the other person's argument. You see, Catholics have already heard that Jesus saves, and that there is one mediator between God and man, and in fact they believe that those verses are true. If you want to change their interpretation of scripture, you'll need to do more than unload the Random Verse Paintball GunTM on them. You do realize that that tactic gets absolutely nowhere? That it convinces no one on this board? And if you actually consider the other's perspective, you may end up actually understanding the issue better. Learning from a Catholic? Crazy sounding, I know, but it does happen. :wink:

I'm Orthodox, but I don't know that it matters a whole lot for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, we've heard that Jesus saves, but that's not really the point of my post that you are addressing. I am talking about veneration, reverence, respect, etc. We do not worship Mary in the manner that God is meant to be worshiped. With all the theological hairs that are split in Protestantism (and elsewhere, for that matter), I would hope that the distinction could be cleary made.

The veneration that we give God (latreia) is reserved for him alone and is different from the veneration (douleia) that we give figures like Mary.

[Keumkang]

He's gone? My, don't I feel like an...ignorant person. :doh:

Actualyyyy, I pretty much agree with everything you've said...

I'm sorry Alden, I know those brief points I mentioned were short and unsupported to the point of glibness, I was just trying to encourage Jude to address the issues more directly by giving him a jump-start(apparently irrelevant now that he is gone).

You're point of Romophobia(nice term) in protestantism is particularly spot-on. The Virgin Mary is one of several things I wish wish wish my brothers and sisters in Christ did not throw entirely by the wayside.

As for a more reasonable interpretation of "all generations shall call me blessed," I have none :teeth: and agree with you. I was hoping Jude would provide one.

Please don't think your words above are wasted--I'm devouring as much info about Mary (among other things) as I can right now, and I expect it will soon provide some ammo in a discussion with my non-CathOrthodox (which I still am, to be clear) friends. Thanks a bunch.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul. Non-Catholics like to point out this verse to Catholics (out of context of course), as they mistakenly perceive that we 'mediate' through His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth.

'Mediator', as defined by the dictionary, the first meaning, is: 'One who works to resolve or settle differences by working with all the conflicting parties'.

The 'conflicting parties' in this case, are of course, GOD, and mankind. Jesus Christ did indeed act as mediator by suffering and dying for us.

The mistaken belief of jude, is of his choice of words, when they refer to the Mother of GOD. Catholics use the word, 'Intercessor', and not 'Mediator' when we speak of Blessed Mary.

(Rom 8:34) Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

'Intercessor', as defined by the dictionary, the first meaning, is: 'One who entreaties in favor of another, especially one who prays or petitions to GOD in behalf of another'.
(Rom 8:26) Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

.... :shrug:

[SpiritWoman]

As a fallen sinner, herself (who even had to do sacrifices as a result of being unclean and fallen), she cannot have any role whatsoever as a mediatrix (female mediator) between us and God.

There is only one mediator between us and God -- our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

What?!!!!!!

Where in the bible does it say that Mary was a sinner?

[JSDileo]

Indeed, the whole "Queen of Heaven and Earth" has no biblical basis, at all. She's never referred to as such, and indeed she's only mentioned once outside the gospels in a single, casual reference in Acts 1 and then never spoken of again throughout the rest of the Bible. Not one mention in all of the rest of Acts, not one more time in that whole history of the Church. Not once in all of the doctrinal epistles, not even in the salvational messages of Paul. Not even a mention much less an important role with Jesus in the Revelation of John.

Nada, nothing. She was a good woman, a believer, once a sinner who needed a Savior like everyone else. No significant role in the church worth mentioning at all. And certainly no role in our salvation.

Ah, quite the contrary, there is a reference to Mary in the Book of Revelation. She's just not named specifically. :smile:

Revelation 12:1-6

1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

[Lost]

Mary was NOT the mother of God - that is just silly.
There is no suggestion that Mary's egg cells were used.
She was just a birthing vehicle - and Jesus was not born at that time - he was already in existence from the beginning of time.
Mary did NOT give birth to God :)
Its kind of funny listening to the catholics trying to defend their veneration of Mary.
I am sure God loves her as much as he loves his other children.
Mary is a child of God - not the mother of God :)

[Alden]

I'll repost, since I think that you might have missed something here.

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:42-43)

What is Elizabeth talking about here when she's speaking to Mary? What Lord is she talking about?

[Lost]

I'll repost, since I think that you might have missed something here.

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:42-43)

What is Elizabeth talking about here when she's speaking to Mary? What Lord is she talking about?

It is also written that Joseph was Jesus's father but not many consider that to mean that he donated his sperm cells to this embryo.
The best that it can mean is that he raised Jesus as a son.
If you want to you can make almost anything fit the written word if you really want to - and so it is with the "Blessed Virgin Mary".
Peace and don't worry - all will be revealed shortly when we stand before God.

[Alden]

That's nice, but you didn't really answer the question. Thank you though.

[Pilgrim]

Mary was NOT the mother of God - that is just silly.
There is no suggestion that Mary's egg cells were used.
She was just a birthing vehicle - and Jesus was not born at that time - he was already in existence from the beginning of time.
Mary did NOT give birth to God :)
Its kind of funny listening to the catholics trying to defend their veneration of Mary.
I am sure God loves her as much as he loves his other children.
Mary is a child of God - not the mother of God :)
Don't be intentionally thick. To quote Jesus (speaking to Mary): Mother, behold your son.

[Pilgrim]

That's nice, but you didn't really answer the question. Thank you though.
Don't expect to much Alden. It's clear that opinion and dogma is more important than the biblcal evidence on this one.

[tizzidale]

If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner godless. If any assert that the Manhood was formed and afterward was clothed with the Godhead, he too is to be condemned. For this were not a Generation of God, but a shirking of generation. If any introduce the notion of Two Sons, one of God the Father, the other of the Mother, and discredits the Unity and Identity, may he lose his part in the adoption promised to those who believe aright. For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods. For neither in this life are there two manhoods; though Paul speaks in some such language of the inner and outer man. And (if I am to speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct from one another (for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two Persons. God forbid!

[Lost]

If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner godless. If any assert that the Manhood was formed and afterward was clothed with the Godhead, he too is to be condemned. For this were not a Generation of God, but a shirking of generation. If any introduce the notion of Two Sons, one of God the Father, the other of the Mother, and discredits the Unity and Identity, may he lose his part in the adoption promised to those who believe aright. For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods. For neither in this life are there two manhoods; though Paul speaks in some such language of the inner and outer man. And (if I am to speak concisely) the Saviour is made of elements which are distinct from one another (for the invisible is not the same with the visible, nor the timeless with that which is subject to time), yet He is not two Persons. God forbid!

And in so saying they exalt Mary above God - as his mother - total nonsense.
Under their own rules the entire rcc would be ousted for heresy :)

[tizzidale]

And in so saying they exalt Mary above God - as his mother - total nonsense.
Under their own rules the entire rcc would be ousted for heresy :)

You need to read the acts of the Council of Ephesus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm):

therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heaven and the things in the earth, coming down for our salvation, making himself of no reputation, was incarnate and made man; that is, taking flesh of the holy Virgin, and having made it his own from the womb, he subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that which he was; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a fellow-ruler with him who begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.

And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.

rusty

[Lost]

You need to read the acts of the Council of Ephesus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm):

therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heaven and the things in the earth, coming down for our salvation, making himself of no reputation, was incarnate and made man; that is, taking flesh of the holy Virgin, and having made it his own from the womb, he subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that which he was; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a fellow-ruler with him who begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.

And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.

rusty

So the rcc says that God used Mary's egg cell? but not Joseph's sperm cell?

[tizzidale]

Why would the Catholic Church say that Joseph's sperm cell was used, when Mary was a Virgin? 'Orthodox' Christianity of all stripes does not deny that Christ's humanity came from Mary. It is my opinion that anyone who denies this is outside the bounds of orthodox belief.

rusty

[Lost]

Why would the Catholic Church say that Joseph's sperm cell was used, when Mary was a Virgin? 'Orthodox' Christianity of all stripes does not deny that Christ's humanity came from Mary. It is my opinion that anyone who denies this is outside the bounds of orthodox belief.

rusty

hmm I'm researching the topic atm - I think that I might be wrong :(
Might take me a while to digest all this stuff on the subject.

[Alden]

Don't expect to much Alden. It's clear that opinion and dogma is more important than the biblcal evidence on this one.

Oh, I don't. I'm sure that it is a help that I am getting past the need to do battle over theology, and on to talking to people who care to listen and consider.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?"play a role" is very open ended. The answer to such a broad question is yes. her role is that of the one who is the human mother of Jesus. Hey, it's a role!

[Pilgrim]

WHy can't we just let Jude's old threads die a peaceful death?

[Alden]

Because my friend, we are all masochistic. :teeth: