Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Quick Reply to "Mary is Jesus' Mother, So He'll Listen to her"

There's a rather popular Roman Catholic argument that goes something like this: "Mary is Jesus' mother. Jesus never sinned. The Fifth (fourth for RCs) Commandment is 'Honor thy father and thy mother.' Therefore, if Mary asks Jesus to do something for her, He'll do it out of obedience to his mother."

But consider this: the Church is the bride of Christ. Those of us who are believers, we're part of that church. Now, if we're going to apply metaphorical language, who is in a better position to get a "yes" from a man: his mother or his wife? Maybe I'm overly romantic, but I think that generally the flesh of one's flesh gets top priority.

But let's not rely on that metaphor. Jesus so loved us that he laid down his life for us. Is he really going to deny us any good thing?

And God as for God the Father:

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

So, no one should think that it is either good or necessary to appeal to someone other than God in prayer. Pray to God, not to Mary, saints, or angels. If you are His child, he'll hear you.

Luke 11:11-13
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

- TurretinFan

123 comments:

steve said...

1. One could take your bride illustration in another direction which makes the same point. In Scripture, are husbands expected to "obey" their wives?

Is Christ expected to "obey" his bride?

And there are other problems with the Catholic argument:

2. Honor and obedience are not interchangeable concepts.

3. Apropos (2), grown children are hardly obligated to obey their parents, even though they retain a standing obligation to honor their parents.

4. Even underage children don't have an unconditional obligation to obey their parents, in case their parents command them to do something immoral (although underage kids may have no power to refuse).

Lucian said...

Children listen to their parents, and *wives* to their *husbands* (at least according to the Bible): your idea inverts that order, by making husbands listen to their brides. -- so your approach is wrong from this perspective.

steve said...

Whose approach inverts the order? The Marian argument of the Catholic?

Four* Pointer said...

Matthew 19:4-5--And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

1st Peter 3:7--Husbands, likewise, dwell with them [their wives] with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel.

Turretinfan said...

I'm not asserting the absurd principle that Christ is under the actual authority of any created being, Lucian.

I'm comparing the strength of love between the love of a son for his mother, and the love of a man for his wife. They are two different kinds of love, but the husband wife love is the stronger of the two, when push comes to shove, since the man has left and cleaved.

I hope that helps you understand.

-TurretinFan

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

If the church is the bride of Christ and Mary is the mother of Christ, then Mary is the quintessential bride of Christ. According to the biblical principle of first occurrence, Mary as the first disciple in Luke means all other disciples must imitate her. Therefore when Christians pray to her, for her to intercede, they pray to her as mother, sister, mediatrix and fellow bride to her Son.

As her son was obedient to her, she was obedient to the Son, through the unique gift of grace given her as the mother of God, spouse of the Holy Spirit, new ark of the covenant and neck of the church through whom Christ acts to work within the church.

As Mary is in heaven, (body and soul), she has her will in conformity with that of God, so whatever she asks of her Son, the Son will do, because he is doing the will of God (his own will).

For Mary to intercede to the Son, she is fulfilling the role of queen mother, within the restored Davidic kingdom. To ignore this role means Christ has not fulfilled the OT concerning the role of the queen mother, which means Christ was not a perfect savior.

JM

steve said...

john said...

"If the church is the bride of Christ and Mary is the mother of Christ, then Mary is the quintessential bride of Christ."

I see. So your telling us that Catholic theology imputes incest to Jesus and Mary. Somehow I don't think that's a great selling point for Roman Catholicism.

john said...

Only if you ignore the biblical realities already stated and make the false assertion by comparing a spiritual reality to a physical sin.

Mary is the disciple of Christ, so she is the spiritual spouse of Christ as well as being the mother of Christ.

TF's argument is very weak.
JM

steve said...

In that case your inference is invalidated by a patent equivocation of terms, since you use "mother" literally, but "bride" figuratively.

Fredericka said...

john wrote, "If the church is the bride of Christ and Mary is the mother of Christ, then Mary is the quintessential bride of Christ."

You mean she's stepping out on the Holy Spirit? I thought Mary was supposed to be 'the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.'

natamllc said...

Leave it to TurrentinFan to be a romance novel buff!

Now John, don't conflate that as saying he is a romanist novel buff!

You wrote: Only if you ignore the biblical realities already stated and make the false assertion by comparing a spiritual reality to a physical sin., and then promptly charged TF's argument weak!

Hmmmmmm?

You just agreed with Steve's pejorative. Where in the Bible is there any charge of moral or spiritual incest between Jesus, Son of Adam's race and Jesus, Son of God?

That argument seems a bit weak to me, though? Or not?

john said...

In that case your inference is invalidated by a patent equivocation of terms, since you use "mother" literally, but "bride" figuratively."

Actually I've used mother relationally and physically and bride relationally and spiritually.

JM

john said...

"You mean she's stepping out on the Holy Spirit? I thought Mary was supposed to be 'the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.'"

She is that as well. No problem here with multiple fulfillment.

john said...

"You just agreed with Steve's pejorative. Where in the Bible is there any charge of moral or spiritual incest between Jesus, Son of Adam's race and Jesus, Son of God?"

There is none and it isn't relevant to my statement about Mary.

"That argument seems a bit weak to me, though? Or not?"

What argument?

JM

steve said...

john said...

"Actually I've used mother relationally and physically and bride relationally and spiritually."

That's just your euphemism for a literal/figurative equivocation.

natamllc said...

John,

in light of most everyone else's difference of view to your held position hereon, you hold that Mary retains herself as the Mother of Jesus now, in Heaven, actually and literally a female member of It?

Would that be a fair assumption?

john said...

"That's just your euphemism for a literal/figurative equivocation."

Spiritual only means metaphor in the nominalist world of Protestantism.

Spiritual biblically means an ontological reality.

When a man is spiritually betrothed to God, that man has a real ontological relation to God as a spouse. The reality is not a metaphor, even if the analogy of physical marriage, compared to spiritual marriage may be misunderstood by you as a metaphor.

JM

Turretinfan said...

Is incest really possible?

steve said...

So, John, you're admitting that on your construction, Jesus and Mary commit "real, ontological" incest.

Turretinfan said...

Or perhaps as an alternatively, he's going to deny that Mary is really, ontologically Christ's mother. In which case, the original argument is defeated, we have won, and John can stop making RC arguments while posing as EO.

ChaferDTS said...

"As Mary is in heaven, (body and soul), she has her will in conformity with that of God, so whatever she asks of her Son, the Son will do, because he is doing the will of God (his own will). "

That contradicts Scripture since all believers are to be resurrected on the last day John 6:40. Likewise the apostle Paul in 1 Thes 4:13-18 places the physical resurrection of Christians and living believers in Christ as together. No exception there made for Mary at all there. Mary is only in heaven in her spirit and not in her physical body.

ChaferDTS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ChaferDTS said...

"For Mary to intercede to the Son, she is fulfilling the role of queen mother, within the restored Davidic kingdom. "

Mary is not the " queen mother or queen of heaven " Mary like all believers will reign with the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary's position is that of all other Christians. Basically you have Mary functionally basically as deity.

natamllc said...

John

why don't you answer my question?

Why don't you admit you believe Mary in her female nature is of body and soul in Heaven?

john said...

Incest : sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship

The simple answer is spiritual marriage does not involve the above.

JM

john said...

"Or perhaps as an alternatively, he's going to deny that Mary is really, ontologically Christ's mother. In which case, the original argument is defeated, we have won, and John can stop making RC arguments while posing as EO."

Then again you could all just admit the truth about Mary and your poor showing concerning the nature of the ontological as different to the physical.

JM

john said...

"As Mary is in heaven, (body and soul), she has her will in conformity with that of God, so whatever she asks of her Son, the Son will do, because he is doing the will of God (his own will). "

”That contradicts Scripture since all believers are to be resurrected on the last day John 6:40.”

Evidently there are exceptions to the rule regarding resurrection of the dead in both the OT and NT.

“Likewise the apostle Paul in 1 Thes 4:13-18 places the physical resurrection of Christians and living believers in Christ as together. No exception there made for Mary at all there. Mary is only in heaven in her spirit and not in her physical body.”

Evidently only Christians who have not yet received the resurrection and assumption will receive it on the last day. There have been resurrections and assumptions (Elijah) in history already and therefore there is nothing to exclude assumptions in the NT before the end of time.

JM

john said...

"Mary is not the " queen mother or queen of heaven " Mary like all believers will reign with the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary's position is that of all other Christians. Basically you have Mary functionally basically as deity."

If Mary is not the queen mother, then Christ is not the fulfillment of the Davidic king and therefore he is not the Messiah.

JM

natamllc said...

John

Is Mary, the physical mother of Mary in Heaven? Is this what you believe?

natamllc said...

John

Is Mary, the physical mother of Jesus in Heaven? Is this what you believe?

john said...

Is Mary, the physical mother of Mary in Heaven? Is this what you believe?

Yes, the mother of Jesus is in heaven because Jesus perfectly keeps the commandments and thereby honours his mother perfectly with her having both body and soul in heaven.

JM

natamllc said...

Thank you John.

Please now reconcile your position with these Scriptures:

Luk 20:32 Afterward the woman also died.
Luk 20:33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife."
Luk 20:34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,
Luk 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

ChaferDTS said...

"Evidently there are exceptions to the rule regarding resurrection of the dead in both the OT and NT."

There are no exceptions there made for dead believers in Christ being resurrected in the last day. You just corrected Scripture which contradicts the assumption of Mary false doctrine. We lack of any Biblical proof of what you claimed.

"Evidently only Christians who have not yet received the resurrection and assumption will receive it on the last day. There have been resurrections and assumptions (Elijah) in history already and therefore there is nothing to exclude assumptions in the NT before the end of time."

Sorry but Paul had all dead Christians and those alive at the time of Christ coming there in view. He provided no exceptions there. We lack of evidence of your claimed exception with regard to Mary. The apostle Paul overthrows it.

ChaferDTS said...

"If Mary is not the queen mother, then Christ is not the fulfillment of the Davidic king and therefore he is not the Messiah."

We have no proof of Mary being queen. She was from the line of David. But she herself was never queen. Where is your proof of Mary being queen ?

steve said...

john said...

"The simple answer is spiritual marriage does not involve the above."

So you think Jesus and Mary commit spiritual incest.

Fredericka said...

john wrote, "She is that as well. No problem here with multiple fulfillment."

No problem with multiple husbands? If these multiple husbands are not metaphorical, but ontological realities, then when did she dump the Holy Spirit, whose "spouse" you say she is?

john said...

"So you think Jesus and Mary commit spiritual incest."

Simple logic does not conclude to your statement. I made a negative statement and you have asserted a positive, which does not logically follow.

JM

john said...

"No problem with multiple husbands? If these multiple husbands are not metaphorical, but ontological realities, then when did she dump the Holy Spirit, whose "spouse" you say she is?"

Mary had a physically husband and spiritual husbands. Spiritual espousal to God is biblical for all the elect.

JM

john said...

There are no exceptions there made for dead believers in Christ being resurrected in the last day. You just corrected Scripture which contradicts the assumption of Mary false doctrine. We lack of any Biblical proof of what you claimed."

Some saints were resurrected at the time of Christs resurrection and we have Elijah assumed before Christ. Here we have examples of resurrection and assumption before the last day. May is only another one because she has the unique grace of the divine maternity.

"Sorry but Paul had all dead Christians and those alive at the time of Christ coming there in view."

Show me he had all Christians in view.

"He provided no exceptions there. "

Are you sure?

"We lack of evidence of your claimed exception with regard to Mary. The apostle Paul overthrows it."

Or is it you want Paul to overthrow it because you dont want the RCC to be true?

JM

john said...

"Please now reconcile your position with these Scriptures:"

If you have an argument I suggest you make it and I'll answer it. I will not answer block quotes from scripture without an argument.

JM

steve said...

john said...

"Simple logic does not conclude to your statement. I made a negative statement and you have asserted a positive, which does not logically follow."

To the contrary, you're the one who defined the "marriage" between Jesus and Mary in "real, spiritual, ontological" terms.

Hence, by parity of argument, their ontologically real spiritual marriage was an ontologically real spiritually incestuous marriage. Or do you deny that a marriage between a mother and her son is incestuous?

Fredericka said...

john wrote, "Mary had a physically husband and spiritual husbands. Spiritual espousal to God is biblical for all the elect."

I agree with you that Mary had a physical husband, that would be Joseph. Some people think that their marriage was just a show of a marriage, not a real marriage. I am glad to see you realize it was a physical marriage; certainly there is nothing in scripture that suggests otherwise. Are "all the elect" also the "spouse of the Holy Spirit", as you say Mary is or was? What do you mean when you call her that?

natamllc said...

John,

I argue you are deceived flatly and wrong conflating what we all agree that you are putting forth a terrible thing by implying a spiritually incestuous relationship between Christ and His natural mother, the chosen virgin Mary!

Whether you know it or not you agreed with Steve.

Whether you realize it or not you adhere to a terrible thing by saying this about Mary, the mother of Jesus:

If the church is the bride of Christ and Mary is the mother of Christ, then Mary is the quintessential bride of Christ.

You imply a spiritually incestuous relationship now exists between Christ and his natural mother.

I provided you with a Scriptural understanding from Luke's Gospel that refutes your claim. While we are under the laws of nature here on earth, we are either male or female; yet, we are not under that natural law when we pass to Heaven through our own personal death, nor does Enoch and Elijah, by their bodily assumption, but all of us are changed and are of the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus once born again. There has been a change for Mary. She has been born again and bears a spiritual body now, a part of the Bride of Christ. It is the same spiritual change we all will experience the moment we leave our natural, flesh body, once we too are born again and put on our Spiritual body.

Mary is now fully a spirit being now that she has passed to her Eternal Reward.

Here is a more specific and pointed assertion against your claim that Mary retains both her place as the "natural" queen mother of Jesus come from earth and is His "female" quintessential spiritual Bride in Heaven concurrently holding her nature as a "female" in body and soul:

Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

john said...

Are "all the elect" also the "spouse of the Holy Spirit", as you say Mary is or was? What do you mean when you call her that?”

I’m not sure what you mean by your question. Mary is the mother of God and as God requires the best for his mother. His mother was the first and greatest disciple and as such, she is the example for all Christians to follow. As Christians will be married to Christ in heaven, then so too, Mary was married to Christ spiritually. She was married to the entire Trinity and in particular the Holy spirit, because Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

JM

john said...

"So you think Jesus and Mary commit spiritual incest."

To the contrary, you're the one who defined the "marriage" between Jesus and Mary in "real, spiritual, ontological" terms.

Hence, by parity of argument, their ontologically real spiritual marriage was an ontologically real spiritually incestuous marriage. Or do you deny that a marriage between a mother and her son is incestuous?”

I deny marriage between Mary and a divine person involves any incest at all simply because marriage between and divine and human person is very different to marriage between a human mother and a human son. We can extend the analogy to another example whereby the trinity comes to make their home in Christians. From this we cannot conclude the Trinity enters into Christians in a physical way to commit a sexual act.


Spiritual marriage to the Trinity is for all Christians including Mary.

JM

john said...

“I argue you are deceived flatly and wrong conflating what we all agree that you are putting forth a terrible thing by implying a spiritually incestuous relationship between Christ and His natural mother, the chosen virgin Mary!”

JM comment - Well I deny it and I’ve provided arguments against it.

“Whether you know it or not you agreed with Steve.

Whether you realize it or not you adhere to a terrible thing by saying this about Mary, the mother of Jesus:

If the church is the bride of Christ and Mary is the mother of Christ, then Mary is the quintessential bride of Christ.”

JM comment – If Mary is not a bride of Christ, then she was not a Christian.


”You imply a spiritually incestuous relationship now exists between Christ and his natural mother.”

JM comment – Demonstrate “spiritually incestuous” is possible. From the websters definition of incest, incest requires physical sex. Spiritual marriage does not permit physical sex. See the difference?

“I provided you with a Scriptural understanding from Luke's Gospel that refutes your claim. While we are under the laws of nature here on earth, we are either male or female; yet, we are not under that natural law when we pass to Heaven through our own personal death, nor does Enoch and Elijah, by their bodily assumption, but all of us are changed and are of the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus once born again. There has been a change for Mary. She has been born again and bears a spiritual body now, a part of the Bride of Christ. It is the same spiritual change we all will experience the moment we leave our natural, flesh body, once we too are born again and put on our Spiritual body. Mary is now fully a spirit being now that she has passed to her Eternal Reward.


JM comment – this has nothing to do with Mary’s spiritual marriage to Christ. The truths are all compatible.


”Here is a more specific and pointed assertion against your claim that Mary retains both her place as the "natural" queen mother of Jesus come from earth and is His "female" quintessential spiritual Bride in Heaven concurrently holding her nature as a "female" in body and soul:”

Your Galatians passage has nothing to do with Mary’s spiritual marriage to Christ. You are simply quoting a text without an argument. Your methodology is very poor.

JM

Victoria Lynch said...

The Catholic arguments here are just sick. It is grievous to read such foolishness. And I am being much gentler than skyman` would with this comment Turretinfan.

Fredericka said...

john said, "She was married to the entire Trinity and in particular the Holy spirit, because Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit."

So you are saying that Mary is the spouse of 1.) her son Jesus, 2.) God the Father, and 3.) God the Holy Spirit. What do you mean when you say she is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit"? When I ask others, their reply seems to suggest that they perceive 'overshadowing' as a sex act. This I find very perplexing, and I am wondering if that is what you say. Is Mary, in your view, married to "the entire Trinity" in the same sense as other believers, or in a different sense?

Turretinfan said...

"marriage between and divine and human person is very different to marriage between a human mother and a human son"

a) That's great, because she was (in fact) married to a human man, Joseph.

b) Christ is married to the church - though not in a physical way.

c) Mary could not possibly be married to either the Father or the Spirit in a physical way, and to assert that she was married to Jesus in a physical way is just sick.

d) Most importantly, of course, the Bible nowhere says that Mary was married to any other person of the Holy Trinity in any other sense than all believers are.

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Mary is the mother of God and as God requires the best for his mother."

Mary was the mother of Jesus. This was set aside, right before the crucifixion. You have no Biblical warrant for saying that God requires anything better for Mary than for any other believer.

"His mother was the first and greatest disciple and as such, she is the example for all Christians to follow. "

We can't follow her example of giving birth to Jesus, and we shouldn't follow her example of chiding Jesus. We certainly shouldn't follow her example of thinking that Jesus had lost his marbles.

And, of course, Jesus' first disciple was Andrew.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"May [sic] is only another one because she has the unique grace of the divine maternity."

Elijah and Enoch were translated without any unique graces of divine maternity.

Mary was only related as mother to the human nature of Christ - she is not the maternal source of his divinity.

Thus "divine maternity" is misleading at best, and heretical according to its plain wording.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Mary had a physically husband and spiritual husbands. "

Having more than one spiritual husband is committing spiritual adultery.

-TurretinFan

steve said...

john said...

"I deny marriage between Mary and a divine person involves any incest at all simply because marriage between and divine and human person is very different to marriage between a human mother and a human son."

Like Zeus and his human consorts.

"We can extend the analogy to another example whereby the trinity comes to make their home in Christians. From this we cannot conclude the Trinity enters into Christians in a physical way to commit a sexual act."

Not all domestic relationships are sexual relationships to begin with, viz. siblings.

"Spiritual marriage to the Trinity is for all Christians including Mary."

i) The Bible doesn't say Christians are married to the Trinity.

ii) Christ is the *metaphorical* husband of the church.

iii) The ecclesiastical bride-of-Christ metaphor is a *corporate* metaphor. It applies at the level of the *church*, not individual Christians. Or do you think Jesus is a spiritual polygamist?

iv) If you deny (iii), then you also believe in "real, ontological" sodomite marriage as well as "real, ontological" incestuous marriage inasmuch as you say Christian men are also married to Christ.

v) You don't think Mary is the wife of Jesus in the same way others Christians are. To the contrary, you think Mary is his favorite wife: the queen.

So you conceive of heaven as a "real, ontological" harem in which Jesus has many "spiritual" wives, of which Mary is the royal favorite.

Fredericka said...

john said, "As Christians will be married to Christ in heaven, then so too, Mary was married to Christ spiritually."

The church is the bride of Christ: "And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife." (Revelation 21:9). Notice please it does not say, 'the brides.' You are portioning something out which in scripture is unapportioned. You want to make a case for Mary's pre-eminence. But how can something Mary has in common with all believers establish her pre-eminence? Besides when you portion it out and make individual Christians the 'brides' of Christ, don't you see that you are creeping people out in this instance as she is His mother?

Fredericka said...

john said, "According to the biblical principle of first occurrence, Mary as the first disciple in Luke means all other disciples must imitate her."

If it even were true that Mary was "the first disciple" as you claim, why would it follow that she is pre-eminent? Remember, "Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day." (Matthew 20:12).

Turretinfan said...

The first shall be last!

Turretinfan said...

"Yes, the mother of Jesus is in heaven because Jesus perfectly keeps the commandments and thereby honours his mother perfectly with her having both body and soul in heaven."

Mary is sinlessly perfect in heaven. What sinlessly perfect woman would dare tell God what to do?

Turretinfan said...

"If Mary is not the queen mother, then Christ is not the fulfillment of the Davidic king and therefore he is not the Messiah."

David didn't have a queen mother.

-TurretinFan

Fredericka said...

john said, "To ignore this role means Christ has not fulfilled the OT concerning the role of the queen mother, which means Christ was not a perfect savior."

Do you think it is just barely possible that Jesus practices what He preaches?: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26). What "queen mother" are we talking about, who defined this "role"? Maachah? Athaliah?

john said...

JM comment – Marital imagery is found in the OT concerning the relationship of Israel to God.

“Is. 54:5 For your Maker is your husband—the Lord Almighty is His name—the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth.
Then in Is. 61:10a,c:
I delight greatly in the Lord . . . . For He has clothed me . . . as a bridegroom decks himself (lit.) as a priest . . .
And in Is. 62:5:
As a young man marries a maiden (virgin),
so will your sons marry you;
as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
so will your God rejoice over you.
In Ez. 23, the divided nations of Israel and Judah, the daughters of God, are likened unto sister harlots, engaging in harlotry first with Egypt, then with Assyria and one even with Babylon. God gives them over to their lovers and their lovers inflict the punishment due their sins.
In Ez. 24, God causes Ezekiel’s wife, (whom God describes as “the delight of your eyes”), to die, and He tells Ezekiel not to mourn her death as a sign to the Israelites, who are about to be conquered by Babylon and lose both the temple and Jerusalem (which should have been “the delight of their eyes”), and who will likewise fail to mourn their loss, but will instead waste away because of their sins (Ez 24:23).
In Hosea 2, Hosea is told to marry a harlot, so that he will know how it feels for God to have to watch His bride, His people, go whoring. God then promises to bring His bride back into grace. In Hosea 2:16, it says:
“In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.”
Then in v. 19-20:
I will betroth you to Me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord. (see also 2 Kings 17)
http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000407.cfm”

JM comment – We also see marital terms used in the NT concerning the relationship of the church to God

john said...

Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
JM comment – As Mary is the first disciple, she is like the new Jacob who brings about the new Israel through her Son as head of the New Israel of God founded on the 12 apostles. Just as the New Jerusalem is married to God and hence married to the Trinity, then so too, Mary is married to the Trinity.

JM

john said...

“So you are saying that Mary is the spouse of 1.) her son Jesus, 2.) God the Father, and 3.) God the Holy Spirit. What do you mean when you say she is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit"? When I ask others, their reply seems to suggest that they perceive 'overshadowing' as a sex act. This I find very perplexing, and I am wondering if that is what you say. Is Mary, in your view, married to "the entire Trinity" in the same sense as other believers, or in a different sense?”


JM comment – Mary is married to the Trinity the same way other believers are married to the Trinity. She is also married to the Holy Spirit in a unique way to bring about the Son of God as man. The overshadowing of the HS is a liturgical and covenant act to allow Mary to conceive of Jesus in a unique way in salvation history. As such, this relationship must be the focus of specialist study. If someone is aware of such a study they can bring it to this blog for discussion.

JM

john said...

"marriage between and divine and human person is very different to marriage between a human mother and a human son"

a) That's great, because she was (in fact) married to a human man, Joseph.

b) Christ is married to the church - though not in a physical way.

c) Mary could not possibly be married to either the Father or the Spirit in a physical way, and to assert that she was married to Jesus in a physical way is just sick.

d) Most importantly, of course, the Bible nowhere says that Mary was married to any other person of the Holy Trinity in any other sense than all believers are.

- TurretinFan”

JM comment – I’m not sure what you are trying to respond to. I never said Mary was physically married to Jesus.

JM

john said...

"Mary is the mother of God and as God requires the best for his mother."

Mary was the mother of Jesus. This was set aside, right before the crucifixion. You have no Biblical warrant for saying that God requires anything better for Mary than for any other believer.”

JM comment – You have no biblical warrant to say Mary’s motherhood was set aside at the cross. The giving of Mary into the care of John is only a Jewish tradition. Once Mary is the mother of a divine person, then she is always the mother of a divine person.

"His mother was the first and greatest disciple and as such, she is the example for all Christians to follow. "

We can't follow her example of giving birth to Jesus, and we shouldn't follow her example of chiding Jesus.”

JM comment – Jesus was perfect so she would not have chided Jesus. When we are born again, we receive Jesus into our souls as an analogy to Mary having Jesus inside her. The life of the Christian is a Marian copy of Christian spirituality.

“ We certainly shouldn't follow her example of thinking that Jesus had lost his marbles.”

JM comment – Off course the Protestant Jesus and Mary are nothing special. The Catholic Jesus and Mary are very special. Your comments are typically baseless.

”And, of course, Jesus' first disciple was Andrew.

-TurretinFan”

JM comment – Mary said yes to Jesus before Andrew did. Andrew only became a disciple during the public ministry. The private ministry is just as important as the public, because it is in the private ministry where Jesus silent years are a preparation for his missionary task.

JM

john said...

“"May [sic] is only another one because she has the unique grace of the divine maternity."

Elijah and Enoch were translated without any unique graces of divine maternity.”

JM comment - So all the more reason to believe Mary was assumed into heaven.

”Mary was only related as mother to the human nature of Christ - she is not the maternal source of his divinity.

Thus "divine maternity" is misleading at best, and heretical according to its plain wording.

-TurretinFan”

JM comment - Motherhood is a relation of female person to a child who is also a person. In the case of Mary, her motherhood is a relation of a human person to a divine person. A person is the owner of the nature and in the case of Christ; he is a divine person, who owns both the human and divine natures. As Mary is a mother of a divine person, then she is the mother of a divine person who owns both natures.

Your Christology is false and therefore your Mariology is also false.

By the way, you don’t have the authority to state anything is or is not heresy because you have rejected the Catholic Councils as being authoritative, so you can only say, in my opinion you are not following the bible or my line of argument. This is the weakness in your position. Everything is reduced to a-historical semantics about the meaning of words within your faulty and quite limited understanding of theology.

JM

john said...

"Mary had a physically husband and spiritual husbands. "

Having more than one spiritual husband is committing spiritual adultery.

-TurretinFan”

JM comment – As per usual “spiritual adultery” is not a term or idea found in the bible in association with Israel and its valid relationship with God as husband. In a similar way this term “spiritual adultery” cannot be applied to Mary without being inconsistent with the bible.

JM

john said...

john said...

"I deny marriage between Mary and a divine person involves any incest at all simply because marriage between and divine and human person is very different to marriage between a human mother and a human son."

Like Zeus and his human consorts. “

JM comment – No answer proposed.

"We can extend the analogy to another example whereby the trinity comes to make their home in Christians. From this we cannot conclude the Trinity enters into Christians in a physical way to commit a sexual act."

Not all domestic relationships are sexual relationships to begin with, viz. siblings.”

JM comment – The Mary/Jesus relationship is not merely a domestic relationship. It’s a relationship of a human to divine person that is the foundation for all other Christian relationships between the Christian and God.

"Spiritual marriage to the Trinity is for all Christians including Mary."

i) The Bible doesn't say Christians are married to the Trinity.”

JM comment – The church is the bride of Christ, which infers it is also the bride of God, which is the Trinity. Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


”ii) Christ is the *metaphorical* husband of the church.”

JM comment – *metaphorical* husband is not biblical.

iii) The ecclesiastical bride-of-Christ metaphor is a *corporate* metaphor. It applies at the level of the *church*, not individual Christians. Or do you think Jesus is a spiritual polygamist?

JM comment – Tradition teaches spiritual marriage to God – “- The sixth mansions, which is the Spiritual Betrothal, is the transition to the unitive way.
- The soul experiences the plenitude of unitive love in the Spiritual Marriage of the seventh mansions.
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/saint-teresa-of-avila.php”

iv) If you deny (iii), then you also believe in "real, ontological" sodomite marriage as well as "real, ontological" incestuous marriage inasmuch as you say Christian men are also married to Christ.

JM comment – Only physical sodomite marriage is a sin. Spiritual sodomy is not a defined term and therefore is not a reality.

v) You don't think Mary is the wife of Jesus in the same way others Christians are. To the contrary, you think Mary is his favorite wife: the queen.

JM comment – Yep. She is to only mother of Jesus, so she is the only queen mother of Jesus.

So you conceive of heaven as a "real, ontological" harem in which Jesus has many "spiritual" wives, of which Mary is the royal favorite.

JM comment – "real, ontological" is not the same as physical, so your reference to harem is false.

JM

john said...

john said, "As Christians will be married to Christ in heaven, then so too, Mary was married to Christ spiritually."

The church is the bride of Christ: "And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife." (Revelation 21:9). Notice please it does not say, 'the brides.' You are portioning something out which in scripture is unapportioned. You want to make a case for Mary's pre-eminence. But how can something Mary has in common with all believers establish her pre-eminence? Besides when you portion it out and make individual Christians the 'brides' of Christ, don't you see that you are creeping people out in this instance as she is His mother?

JM comment – the bride is applied to the church and the church is composed of individual persons, each of which have a spiritual relationship to Christ. Otherwise if the individuals do not have the relationship, then the collective doesn’t have it either. Spiritual marriage is well known in tradition.

Mary is pre-eminent because she is the Ark of the Covenant, mediatrix of the redeemer, new Eve, New Hanna, New Queen mother of the New Israel of God and pre-eminent copy of what Christians are to follow as the God bearer.

JM

john said...

john said, "According to the biblical principle of first occurrence, Mary as the first disciple in Luke means all other disciples must imitate her."

If it even were true that Mary was "the first disciple" as you claim, why would it follow that she is pre-eminent? Remember, "Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day." (Matthew 20:12).

JM comment – The first instance in the bible is the foundational event for all to follow. The first covenant is a marriage and then all other covenants are family bonds. So too the first righteous Son to receive the inheritance (Shem) is a foundation for Israel as the semites and later the church as the new Israel. The first event is always the guiding foundational event, which also applied to Mary.

Matthew 20:12 is only a parable to show God gives life to men at different stages, which is then equally given in a certain respect in the next life as a life with God. There are other texts which indicate the life shared in the next life will have different grades of glory according to the way Christians live in this life.

JM

john said...

"Yes, the mother of Jesus is in heaven because Jesus perfectly keeps the commandments and thereby honours his mother perfectly with her having both body and soul in heaven."

Mary is sinlessly perfect in heaven. What sinlessly perfect woman would dare tell God what to do?


JM comment – She would tell God what to do because she has the same will as God and she has been given the authority to do so from God himself by making Mary his mother.

JM

john said...

"If Mary is not the queen mother, then Christ is not the fulfillment of the Davidic king and therefore he is not the Messiah."

David didn't have a queen mother.

-TurretinFan”

JM comment – “The Gebirah, the Queen Mother of the Kingdom of Judah, was the most important and influential woman in the royal court and the king's chief counselor. The Hebrew word, gebirah, is found fifteen times in the Old Testament [Genesis 16:4, 8, 9 (used for Sarah, wife of Abraham); 1 Kings 11:19 (used for the Egyptian Queen Mother); 15:13; 2 Kings 5:3; 10:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16; Psalm 123:2; Proverbs 30:23; Isaiah 24:2; 47:5, 7; Jeremiah 13:18; 29:2]. In Sacred Scripture the mother of the Davidic king is listed along with her son in the books of 1 &2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles when he assumes the throne. The only queen mothers not listed are those of King Jehoram, who married wicked Athaliah, daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel [2 Kings 8:17-18], King Ahaz [2 Kings 16:2-3], and King Asa [1 Kings 15:10]. In the case of Jehoram and Ahaz, their mothers may have died prior to their sons assuming the throne of David, and in the case of Asa, his grandmother is named as the Gebirah, his mother having died or perhaps his grandmother, the former Gebirah, did not relinquish her power and authority upon the succession of her grandson.
Some Biblical passages which refer to the office of the Gebirah [all passages are quoted from the New Jerusalem Bible translation]:
• 1 Kings 11:19: [In this passage the Hebrew title is used for an Egyptian queen mother: Hadad became a great favorite of Pharaoh who gave him his own wife's sister in marriage, the sister of the Great Lady (Gebirah) Taphenes. [Note: Taphenes is not a proper name but is an Egyptian title meaning "king's wife" which was used to designate the Queen mother. Since Israelites reading the text might not understand the meaning of the Egyptian title, the inspired writer used the title for the Davidic Queen mother, Gebirah.
• 1 Kings 15:13: He even deprived his grandmother Maacah of the dignity of Great Lady [Gebirah] for having made an obscenity for Asherah...
• 2 Kings 10:13: he met the brothers of Ahaziah king of Judah. 'Who are you?' he asked. 'We are Ahaziah's brothers,' they replied, 'and we are on our way to pay our respects to the king's sons and the queen mother's (Gebirah) sons.'
• 2 Chronicles 15:16: King Asa even deprived his (grand) mother Maacah of the dignity of Great Lady (Gebirah) for having made an obscenity for Asherah..
• Jeremiah 13:18: Tell the king and the Queen mother (Gebirah), 'Sit in a lower place, since your glorious crown has fallen from your head.
• Jeremiah 29:2: This was after King Jechoniah had left Jerusalem with the Queen mother (Gebirah), the eunuchs, the chief men of Judah and Jerusalem, and the blacksmiths and metalworkers.”
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Mary%20The%20Queen%20Mother%20of%20the%20New%20Davidic%20Kingdom.htm

JM

john said...

john said, "To ignore this role means Christ has not fulfilled the OT concerning the role of the queen mother, which means Christ was not a perfect savior."

Do you think it is just barely possible that Jesus practices what He preaches?: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26). What "queen mother" are we talking about, who defined this "role"? Maachah? Athaliah?”
JM comment – Luke when we are told Mary is the mother of my Lord. John also when he records the action of Mary at the wedding of Cana to begin Jesus ministry early. Paul also when he says the church is the new Israel of God.
JM

natamllc said...

John,

for you to ignore the passages of Scripture I put forth just shows me how spiritually blind you are.

Christ is the sole authority that can give anyone sight!

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.


Since "Godly Faith" comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, whether it comes orally or you read it, it is not our responsibility to save anyone.

Our responsibility is this, period:

Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


John,

I can attest that by the many responses you have read hereon from everyone responding to your comments, you have heard the Truth.

And as Mark records, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". And that not of yourself, it is the Gift of God so you do not have to worry about taking any credit for the salvation of the spiritually blind, deaf or dumb!

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

Fredericka said...

john said, "'What "queen mother" are we talking about, who defined this "role"? Maachah? Athaliah?'”
"JM comment – Luke when we are told Mary is the mother of my Lord."

Funny, I missed the part where Luke said anything about the "queen mother's" role. You want the King of Israel to show favor to His mother's friends. This is not the Christian plan of salvation. But never mind that, it's not even lawful under the law of Moses. The King must do justice: "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." (2 Samuel 23:3). "Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the LORD loved Israel for ever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice." (1 Kings 10:9).

What is justice? What the law of Moses says is justice. Moses allows no favoritism for family members: "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:..." (Deuteronomy 13:8). There is to be no respect of persons. Moses praised the Levites because they never noticed their own mothers: "And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one. . .Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant." (Deuteronomy 33:8-9). What does this mean, that they haven't seen Mom and Dad? Mom is standing there, accused of shop-lifting. 'Mom? Mom Who? Guilty!' That's what the judge must do, under the law of Moses. What you want to see: the people win Mary's favor by acts of devotion, and she in turn influences her Son to 'go easy' on them, counts as corruption under Israel's monarchy. Actually it counts as corruption under any enlightened 'good government' system; there are unpretentious, worldly governments that can do better than this. Probably it would have helped in Mayor Richard J. Daly's Chicago to know his mother, though. You'd be better off making the transition to the Christian system, rather than trying to 'rig' the Israelite system in a way which is forbidden.

Fredericka said...

john said, "As such, this relationship must be the focus of specialist study."

Come on, don't be shy, say what you think.

Fredericka said...

john said, "Otherwise if the individuals do not have the relationship, then the collective doesn’t have it either."

Hmmm...I think they call that the 'fallacy of composition.' If you have a verse which says believers are the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," I would be genuinely interested in reading it.

john said...

john said, "As such, this relationship must be the focus of specialist study."

Come on, don't be shy, say what you think.”

JM comment – It seems Mary has a unique relationship with the Holy Spirit because of what is recorded in Luke. Because of this relationship she is involved with key incidents in the life of Christ and the church at Pentecost. Mary is therefore a fulfillment of the OT types that had a special presence of the Holy spirit, such as the ark and the temple. As Mary is given a title in the greeting by the angel Gabriel as full of grace, it is then probable that her title is derived from her being made full of grace and her function within the church as a mediator of that grace. As she is full of the life of God, had the HS created the God child, was the mother of God and perhaps a daughter of the father, then she may well be the quasi incarnation of the holy spirit. This has not yet been fully defined in the RCC yet, however I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with her role as an imitation of the HS because she was completely owned by the HS.

JM

john said...

john said, "Otherwise if the individuals do not have the relationship, then the collective doesn’t have it either."

Hmmm...I think they call that the 'fallacy of composition.' If you have a verse which says believers are the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," I would be genuinely interested in reading it.”

JM comment – I don’t think so, especially when the collective requires the same quality as the individual. Both are the bride of Christ. This is found in tradition.

JM

Fredericka said...

john said, "...then she may well be the quasi incarnation of the holy spirit."

Then if she's the "spouse of the Holy Spirit" as you say, this is getting beyond incest, because she's married to herself!

Fredericka said...

john said, "Mary is pre-eminent because she is the Ark of the Covenant, mediatrix of the redeemer, new Eve, New Hanna, New Queen mother of the New Israel of God..."

She is pre-eminent because you've made up titles for her? Where are any of these titles applied to her in scripture? I say 'Andrew' is pre-eminent, because he is the Signet Ring, the Plate of Pure Gold, the Day-Star and the Elect of God. He is not called any of these things in the Bible, I made them up.

Have you ever wondered why so little 'real estate' in the New Testament is devoted to Mary, if she is what you say? Paul travelled around the Mediterranean preaching the gospel, but never once mentions the name of 'Mary.' He refers to her once as a woman (Galatians 4:4). He found it possible to preach the gospel for years without saying anything about Mary. Did he not know the things you know?

john said...

Then if she's the "spouse of the Holy Spirit" as you say, this is getting beyond incest, because she's married to herself!"

JM comment - spiritual marriage is a mystery involving the spiritual union of the human and the divine whereby the human experiences a permanent presence of the divine through the gift of wisdom fully functioning.

Mary was not married to herself.

JM

john said...

She is pre-eminent because you've made up titles for her? Where are any of these titles applied to her in scripture? I say 'Andrew' is pre-eminent, because he is the Signet Ring, the Plate of Pure Gold, the Day-Star and the Elect of God. He is not called any of these things in the Bible, I made them up.”

JM comment- The titles are derivable from scripture and tradition.

Have you ever wondered why so little 'real estate' in the New Testament is devoted to Mary, if she is what you say? Paul travelled around the Mediterranean preaching the gospel, but never once mentions the name of 'Mary.' He refers to her once as a woman (Galatians 4:4). He found it possible to preach the gospel for years without saying anything about Mary. Did he not know the things you know?

He knew them but we are not privy to everything he said as part of tradition. He simply didn’t write down the entire Gospel deposit. We have hints of Marian doctrine in his letters, but Mariology is not derived from Paul's letters alone – so no big deal.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"Mariology is not derived from Paul's letters alone – so no big deal."

It's not derived from Paul's letters, and it is contrary to them (particularly the Immaculate conception and sinlessness of Mary).

Your faith and Paul's are not the same.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Mary was not married to herself."

That's right - she was married to Joseph.

Turretinfan said...

"The Queen mother acts at the wedding of Cana,"

You mean the part where Jesus tells her, "Woman, what have I to do with you?" That act?

"protects her Son during his childhood,"

The part where she forgets to take Jesus home from Jerusalem and then chides him about it?

"she is with the apostles at Pentecost and is a copy of what Christians are to become."

Please tell us anything else you know about Mary's life from Pentacost until her journey on this planet was complete. Oh, that's right. Scripture tells us nothing, and "tradition" can't give us any reliable information either.

"She is the mother of God and therefore fulfills her roll in the kingdom to fulfill the Davidic kingdom in the OT."

David didn't have a queen mother.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"I don’t think so, especially when the collective requires the same quality as the individual. Both are the bride of Christ. This is found in tradition."

The composition is the body of Christ. There is one preeminent member of that body - one member that is above all the others: the head, even Christ.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"It seems Mary has a unique relationship with the Holy Spirit because of what is recorded in Luke. Because of this relationship she is involved with key incidents in the life of Christ and the church at Pentecost. Mary is therefore a fulfillment of the OT types that had a special presence of the Holy spirit, such as the ark and the temple. "

This is a rather obvious non-sequitur. Being involved in key parts of Jesus' life does not lead to Mary being a fulfillment of OT types, such as the ark or the temple. Both the ark and the temple are types of Christ, not Mary.

Recall Jesus' own words: "Destroy this temple"

-TurretinFan

john said...

It's not derived from Paul's letters, and it is contrary to them (particularly the Immaculate conception and sinlessness of Mary).

Your faith and Paul's are not the same.

-TurretinFan

JM - of course you don't know this because you are not privy to everything Paul said in his missionary journeys. Simple logic dictates your comments are not valid.

JM

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

This is a rather obvious non-sequitur. Being involved in key parts of Jesus' life does not lead to Mary being a fulfillment of OT types, such as the ark or the temple. Both the ark and the temple are types of Christ, not Mary.

"Recall Jesus' own words: "Destroy this temple"

-TurretinFan"

But that doesnt mean Christ is the only temple as you well know.

JM

john said...

David didn't have a queen mother.

JM - Ive provided good content on this theme recently, which you have evidently ignored. So much for mature dialogue. Your statement is based upon prejudice and not argument from scripture.

JM

john said...

The composition is the body of Christ. There is one preeminent member of that body - one member that is above all the others: the head, even Christ."

JM - which is irrelevant to what is being said.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"But that doesnt mean Christ is the only temple as you well know."

Ok. And?

Turretinfan said...

"which is irrelevant to what is being said"

No, it's not.

Turretinfan said...

"Ive provided good content on this theme recently, which you have evidently ignored. So much for mature dialogue. Your statement is based upon prejudice and not argument from scripture."

Scripture doesn't say that David had a queen mother.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"of course you don't know this because you are not privy to everything Paul said in his missionary journeys. Simple logic dictates your comments are not valid."

We're both privy to the same information about Paul and his missionary journeys. The information supports my position, not yours.

Turretinfan said...

"Well I've made several posts on Mary showing she is the mother of God, ark of the covenant and so on, so stating she was involved in key events in the life of Christ is another key to the Marian puzzle."

You haven't shown it ... you've just asserted it. Frequently, but not with a valid argument.

"The ark and the temple are types of both Mary and Christ because the body of Christ was derived directly from Mary. There is nothing wrong with multiple fulfillment in the NT."

That's another argument that doesn't follow. Christ's body being derived from Mary's does not lead to a conclusion of shared typology.

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

I read the article you cut and paste on the queen mother, just to be clear. And my comment stands. David did not have a queen mother.

There's not a great deal of point in arguing the queen mother point with you beyond that - although at some future point I think it will come up in one of my responses to Steve Ray.

Fredericka said...

john said, "I don’t think so, especially when the collective requires the same quality as the individual. Both are the bride of Christ. This is found in tradition."

If I say, 'I am the bride of Christ. You must pattern yourself on me,' people would ask, 'Why?' If I reply, Ephesians 5:27: "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."-- people would say, 'but that's generic, what does that have to do with you more than other believers?' You yourself have said, "Mary is married to the Trinity the same way other believers are married to the Trinity." Things which are equally true of all cannot give one person the claim to pre-eminence.

Then you say she is pre-eminent because she has titles. Some people have impressive titles. 'Haile Selassie' means, I'm told, 'The Power of the Trinity.' Moreover he was called,-- it says so on official documents -- 'The Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah.' Since Mr. Selassie has been mouldering in the grave for some time I don't know if there are still people who worship him, but if there are and if they base their case on these titles, I would say, 'Sure he is called that. But WHO, calls him that?' If the Bible called him that I would snap to attention. If the Bible called Mary any of the things you call her I would pay attention. Since it doesn't, how can these titles make your case? Aren't you only saying, 'She is pre-eminent because we say she is pre-eminent.'

Fredericka said...

john said, "For Mary to intercede to the Son, she is fulfilling the role of queen mother, within the restored Davidic kingdom. To ignore this role means Christ has not fulfilled the OT concerning the role of the queen mother, which means Christ was not a perfect savior."

To set forth such a "role" as a desideratum for the Davidic Kingdom, the least that is required would be that the 'queen-mothers' advanced as models are praised in scripture: no Jezebels, no Maacah's, no Athaliah's, no Egyptians. In your first instance the word doesn't even mean "queen-mother:" "And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress [gebereth, queen, mistress] was despised in her eyes." (Genesis 16:4). At the time this was written Sarah had no children: "Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." (Genesis 16:1). The then-childless Sarah was not a "queen-mother." Merely to point out that queens and mistresses exist establishes no requirement for any such 'role.' How do you get over the hurdle of establishing this 'role' as a desideratum, indeed a requirement for a restored Davidic Kingdom?

Fredericka said...

john said, "Mary was not married to herself."

That is certainly true. This certainty may serve as the reductio ad absurdum of your claim that a.) Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," and b.) Mary may well be the "quasi incarnation of the holy spirit." Which of these two claims will you therefore withdraw? I'd withdraw them both, personally. I especially hope b.) doesn't catch on as it "quasi" deifies Mary.

Turretinfan said...

"She would tell God what to do because she has the same will as God and she has been given the authority to do so from God himself by making Mary his mother."

Here's another of your non sequiturs. God gave Mary a particular gift of carrying and delivering Jesus. He did not give her authority over Jesus to tell Jesus what to do - or at least you have no way of demonstrating this - either from Scripture or from ancient tradition.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"The first instance in the bible is the foundational event for all to follow."

Actually, the focal point of the Bible is Jesus and his incarnation, which comes quite late in the Bible.

"The first covenant is a marriage and then all other covenants are family bonds."

The first covenant would be Creation. After that comes marriage (which is a covenant between a man and a woman, not between God and man).

"So too the first righteous Son to receive the inheritance (Shem) is a foundation for Israel as the semites and later the church as the new Israel."

This is just odd reasoning. The selection of Shem is essentially completely arbitrary.

"The first event is always the guiding foundational event, which also applied to Mary."

And again ... there's no reason to make Mary first, as has already been demonstrated.

"Matthew 20:12 is only a parable to show God gives life to men at different stages, which is then equally given in a certain respect in the next life as a life with God. There are other texts which indicate the life shared in the next life will have different grades of glory according to the way Christians live in this life."

I see.

Is Jesus' statement that whoever believes on him, that is his mother, and sister, and brother also a parable to be waved away?

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"As per usual “spiritual adultery” is not a term or idea found in the bible in association with Israel and its valid relationship with God as husband."

I'm not sure if you are trying to say the exact phrase "spiritual adultery" isn't used, but yes - Israel is called adulterous spiritually for not having a single spiritual husband, God.

"In a similar way this term “spiritual adultery” cannot be applied to Mary without being inconsistent with the bible."

Your own assertions are not framed in Biblical terms, so you can't really object on that basis. But, moreover, the point is simply that having more than one husband at a time (whether physically or spiritually) is violative of the covenant of marriage.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"So all the more reason to believe Mary was assumed into heaven."

This is just another of the non sequitur assertions we've come to see from you.

"Motherhood is a relation of female person to a child who is also a person."

Motherhood is biological. All animals have it. It's a matter of nature.

"In the case of Mary, her motherhood is a relation of a human person to a divine person."

No, in the case of Mary her motherhood is a relationship of a human nature to a human nature.

"By the way, you don’t have the authority to state anything is or is not heresy because you have rejected the Catholic Councils as being authoritative, so you can only say, in my opinion you are not following the bible or my line of argument."

It's my blog, that's all the authority I need.

"This is the weakness in your position."

Your series of assertions don't create any real problems for me.

"Everything is reduced to a-historical semantics about the meaning of words within your faulty and quite limited understanding of theology."

And tacking on accusations doesn't bolster those original assertions.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"You have no biblical warrant to say Mary’s motherhood was set aside at the cross. The giving of Mary into the care of John is only a Jewish tradition. Once Mary is the mother of a divine person, then she is always the mother of a divine person."

See, the funny thing is that you know my Biblical warrant. Jesus told Mary that John was henceforth to be her son, and she was to be his mother.

You're very rigid about Mary, but without warrant. Family bonds can be severed, and they are frequently severed.

Turretinfan said...

"Mary said yes to Jesus before Andrew did. Andrew only became a disciple during the public ministry. The private ministry is just as important as the public, because it is in the private ministry where Jesus silent years are a preparation for his missionary task."

a) She didn't say "yes."

b) There was no discussion of her being his disciple.

c) When is Mary ever referred to as his disciple?

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"She is also married to the Holy Spirit in a unique way to bring about the Son of God as man. "

No.

That's just another one of your many assertions.

Mary was not involved in bring about the Son of God as man. That was something done to Mary, not something done by Mary.

She was informed about it, but her permission was not sought or needed. She was given an explanation for what was happening to her, but she was not given a marriage contract (which would have been absurd).

- TurretinFan

john said...

No.

That's just another one of your many assertions.

Mary was not involved in bring about the Son of God as man. That was something done to Mary, not something done by Mary.

She was informed about it, but her permission was not sought or needed. She was given an explanation for what was happening to her, but she was not given a marriage contract (which would have been absurd).

- TurretinFan

JM – TF you merely assert your own views without any reference to scripture or tradition. God never does violence to his servants. He respects their free will and asks for their consent so they can freely participate in Gods plan of salvation. The annunciation assumes Mary’s consent when she replies to Gabriel. The action of the HS is not an action of a master over a slave, but that of a spouse acting with his bride. This is an act of spiritual marriage.

"Mary said yes to Jesus before Andrew did. Andrew only became a disciple during the public ministry. The private ministry is just as important as the public, because it is in the private ministry where Jesus silent years are a preparation for his missionary task."

a) She didn't say "yes."

JM – Be it done to me according to your will is the yes.

b) There was no discussion of her being his disciple.

JM – it is derived from her response and her actions.

c) When is Mary ever referred to as his disciple?

JM – discipleship is assumed wherever she does an act of faith in God or his messenger.

"You have no biblical warrant to say Mary’s motherhood was set aside at the cross. The giving of Mary into the care of John is only a Jewish tradition. Once Mary is the mother of a divine person, then she is always the mother of a divine person."

See, the funny thing is that you know my Biblical warrant. Jesus told Mary that John was henceforth to be her son, and she was to be his mother.

JM – Funny thing is you have been arguing against spiritual marriage for so long and now you think Mary is the Mother of John when naturally Mary is the mother of Jesus. I guess you only believe what you want to believe. Didn’t it occur to you that Mary is the natural mother of Jesus and the supernatural mother of John through the action of Jesus. Very simple to understand really.

You're very rigid about Mary, but without warrant. Family bonds can be severed, and they are frequently severed.

JM – FT reduces the holy family down to the average Jo Blow type family. Is there any need to comment on the absurdity of this approach?

JM

john said...

"So all the more reason to believe Mary was assumed into heaven."

This is just another of the non sequitur assertions we've come to see from you.

JM – if assumptions have already occurred in the OT then Marys assumption has biblical precedent.

"Motherhood is a relation of female person to a child who is also a person."

Motherhood is biological. All animals have it. It's a matter of nature.

JM - Human Motherhood is a relation of female person to a child who is also a person. Animal motherhood is an equivocation, because animals are supposits and not persons.

"In the case of Mary, her motherhood is a relation of a human person to a divine person."

No, in the case of Mary her motherhood is a relationship of a human nature to a human nature.

JM- Human motherhood is not a motherhood of nature. We see this in ordinary speech. “Look, there is Sue, the mother of James.” Sue is the name of the person and James is the name of the person. Mothers and fathers have relations for personhood to personhood of their siblings. If this is denied, what then is the relation of personhood to personhood in the case of woman and daughter and man and daughter, if not mother and father?

"By the way, you don’t have the authority to state anything is or is not heresy because you have rejected the Catholic Councils as being authoritative, so you can only say, in my opinion you are not following the bible or my line of argument."

It's my blog, that's all the authority I need.

JM – a blog is not an authority.

"This is the weakness in your position."

Your series of assertions don't create any real problems for me.

JM – neither do yours for me.

"Everything is reduced to a-historical semantics about the meaning of words within your faulty and quite limited understanding of theology."

And tacking on accusations doesn't bolster those original assertions.

JM – ditto for you. The standard of argument in your blog is generally quite low. You continually refuse to accept rebuttals on SS and other issues such as penal substitution even when you have no answers of any substance to those rebuttals.

JM

john said...

"As per usual “spiritual adultery” is not a term or idea found in the bible in association with Israel and its valid relationship with God as husband."

I'm not sure if you are trying to say the exact phrase "spiritual adultery" isn't used, but yes - Israel is called adulterous spiritually for not having a single spiritual husband, God.

JM – And of course I have to say the obvious yet again – “spiritual adultery” is not a term or idea found in the bible in association with Israel and its VALID relationship with God as husband."

"In a similar way this term “spiritual adultery” cannot be applied to Mary without being inconsistent with the bible."

Your own assertions are not framed in Biblical terms, so you can't really object on that basis. But, moreover, the point is simply that having more than one husband at a time (whether physically or spiritually) is violative of the covenant of marriage.

JM – my own assertions are based upon tradition which is an authority discussed in scripture.


"The first instance in the bible is the foundational event for all to follow."

Actually, the focal point of the Bible is Jesus and his incarnation, which comes quite late in the Bible.

JM – another misdirected statement. It has truth in it no doubt, but is a miss direction. My statement about first occurrence in the bible is well known and FT probably knows this so he places another misdirection into the dialogue to gain cheap points.

"The first covenant is a marriage and then all other covenants are family bonds."

The first covenant would be Creation. After that comes marriage (which is a covenant between a man and a woman, not between God and man).

JM – covenants are always between man and God. As man is the high point of creation, then the first covenant is with man in the context of creation.

"So too the first righteous Son to receive the inheritance (Shem) is a foundation for Israel as the semites and later the church as the new Israel."

This is just odd reasoning. The selection of Shem is essentially completely arbitrary.

JM – Shem is the righteous first born in the line of the seed that will crush the head of Satan. Shem is not arbitrary.

"The first event is always the guiding foundational event, which also applied to Mary."

And again ... there's no reason to make Mary first, as has already been demonstrated.

JM – Mary is the first to say yes to Gods plan of salvation in the NT. This is obvious from the account of the annunciation.

JM

john said...

"Matthew 20:12 is only a parable to show God gives life to men at different stages, which is then equally given in a certain respect in the next life as a life with God. There are other texts which indicate the life shared in the next life will have different grades of glory according to the way Christians live in this life."

I see.

Is Jesus' statement that whoever believes on him, that is his mother, and sister, and brother also a parable to be waved away?

JM – I’m not waving anything away. I’m simply making statements that are true. Matthew 20:12 is a parable – true? Yep. The parable records what I have stated, true? True.

"She would tell God what to do because she has the same will as God and she has been given the authority to do so from God himself by making Mary his mother."

Here's another of your non sequiturs. God gave Mary a particular gift of carrying and delivering Jesus. He did not give her authority over Jesus to tell Jesus what to do - or at least you have no way of demonstrating this - either from Scripture or from ancient tradition.

JM – Honor your mother . . .therefore Jesus always honors Mary’s will. This means Mary’s will is identical to that of Jesus; otherwise Jesus cannot perfectly honor Mary. Your understanding of the roll of Mary must ignore almost all of tradition concerning Mary. You also must therefore rely upon your own human tradition derived from the reformers to conclude the holy family was just another family like the rest of us with the exception that Jesus was some sort of God-man figure. After all you can and probably do reject many of the church Councils that have spoken on Christology and Mariology, so you are left to your own devices – which is full of holes.

Your approach to theology is not faith based and it certainly isn’t supernatural. Your approach is fundamentally humanistic with a touch of faith lingo to make readers semi interested in anything concerning the RCC.

JM

john said...

That is certainly true. This certainty may serve as the reductio ad absurdum of your claim that a.) Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," and b.) Mary may well be the "quasi incarnation of the holy spirit." Which of these two claims will you therefore withdraw? I'd withdraw them both, personally. I especially hope b.) doesn't catch on as it "quasi" deifies Mary.

JM – Its only a reductio ad absurdum if your argument was valid, which it wasn’t.

"quasi" deifies Mary – only another error.

Modern Protestantism – has abandoned the magesterium given to humanity for its own salvation.

Has abandoned its own humanist reformation founders.

Has invented its own new humanist theologies.

Continues to protest against the church founded by Christ.

Continues to spread its errors and confusions throughout the world.

Continues to lead countries into secular humanism based upon its agnostic theological position.

JM

Fredericka said...

john said, "'That is certainly true. This certainty may serve as the reductio ad absurdum of your claim that a.) Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," and b.) Mary may well be the "quasi incarnation of the holy spirit." Which of these two claims will you therefore withdraw?...'

"JM – Its only a reductio ad absurdum if your argument was valid, which it wasn’t."

Can both these statements simultaneously be true: a.) Mary is the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit," and b.) Mary is the "quasi incarnation of the Holy Spirit"? To offer an parallel: could it simultaneously be true that, a.) Jesus is the incarnation of the Word of God, and b.) Jesus is the spouse of the Word of God?

natamllc said...

John: I’m simply making statements that are true.

Hmmmmmm?

What is not a true statement here, then:

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free
, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


John, either your statement is false or the Apostle Paul's is?

Whose statement is false then?

Yours?

Paul's?

john said...

Can both these statements simultaneously be true: a.) Mary is the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit," and b.) Mary is the "quasi incarnation of the Holy Spirit"?

JM – Yes because God is a transcendent reality.

To offer an parallel: could it simultaneously be true that, a.) Jesus is the incarnation of the Word of God, and b.) Jesus is the spouse of the Word of God?

JM – It’s a false parallel, because a quasi incarnation involves the action of a divine person within the human person of Mary. Your so called parallel involves only one divine person and no human person. Also to merely assert “Jesus is the spouse of the Word of God” means the second person of the Trinity marries himself, which is absurd and doesn’t follow from Mary as the "quasi incarnation of the Holy Spirit" because marriage between God and man involves a union of wills, whereby the human will is conformed and elevated to the supernatural love of the divine person to whom he is married as a united, yet distinct person.

JM

john said...

What is not a true statement here, then:

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female,"

JM - easy - you are wrong because you have the wrong context.

JM

Turretinfan said...

JM:

Where has your church ever said that Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit?

If you cannot point to a place, would you please stop providing arguments that are not even supported by your own human traditions?

-TurretinFan

john said...

Where has your church ever said that Mary is the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit?

If you cannot point to a place, would you please stop providing arguments that are not even supported by your own human traditions?

-TurretinFan"

JM - theologians and martyrs such as Maximilian Kolbe has written about Mary as a quasi incarnation of the Holy Spirit.It has not been condemned and has a growing support like other doctrines that eventually were given the official definition by the church.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"theologians and martyrs such as Maximilian Kolbe has written about Mary as a quasi incarnation of the Holy Spirit.It has not been condemned and has a growing support like other doctrines that eventually were given the official definition by the church."

Who taught it before Kolbe?

Fredericka said...

john said, "'Can both these statements simultaneously be true: a.) Mary is the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit," and b.) Mary is the "quasi incarnation of the Holy Spirit"?'

"JM – Yes because God is a transcendent reality."

Oh, I see. It's not a problem you've got Mary married to herself because "God is a transcendent reality." Thank you for explaining that.

john said...

Oh, I see. It's not a problem you've got Mary married to herself because "God is a transcendent reality." Thank you for explaining that.

JM - I've already explained why Mary is NOT married to herself.

JM