briar patch

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Bootstrap »

temporal1 wrote:Mary as vessel or instrument for God is: the honor she humbly understood it to be!
who are we to suggest that's just not good enough?
This is really good, Temp.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
temporal1
Posts: 16275
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: briar patch

Post by temporal1 »

Neto wrote:The Scripture is not clear on questions like "Did Jesus get his DNA from Mary?", nor does it say he got his "flesh" from his mother. (And it also does not say that he did NOT get his flesh from his mother.) So I think it serves us well to remain silent on such questions.
i enjoy discussion, but hard conclusions regarding miracles won't hold up. they're miracles! :D
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: briar patch

Post by PeterG »

If Jesus is the Son of Man, the descendant of Eve (Gen. 3:15), and "made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4), not to mention a son of Abraham and of David, we can confidently say—indeed, I think we must say—that there is a direct line from Eve through Mary to the humanity of Christ, based on scripture. I agree that would be unhelpful at best, and probably dangerous, to speculate further, but on that much the Bible is clear.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: briar patch

Post by silentreader »

PeterG wrote:If Jesus is the Son of Man, the descendant of Eve (Gen. 3:15), and "made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4), not to mention a son of Abraham and of David, we can confidently say—indeed, I think we must say—that there is a direct line from Eve through Mary to the humanity of Christ, based on scripture. I agree that would be unhelpful at best, and probably dangerous, to speculate further, but on that much the Bible is clear.
Without looking it up, isn't Jesus referred to as 'the second Adam', or something like that?
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: briar patch

Post by lesterb »

silentreader wrote:
PeterG wrote:If Jesus is the Son of Man, the descendant of Eve (Gen. 3:15), and "made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4), not to mention a son of Abraham and of David, we can confidently say—indeed, I think we must say—that there is a direct line from Eve through Mary to the humanity of Christ, based on scripture. I agree that would be unhelpful at best, and probably dangerous, to speculate further, but on that much the Bible is clear.
Without looking it up, isn't Jesus referred to as 'the second Adam', or something like that?
Yes, and the first Adam is called the son of God as well.
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by silentreader »

Sudsy wrote:
silentreader wrote: Do we agree that Jesus was pre-existent before He was born of Mary? Perhaps as (God) the Word as in John 1?
I agree.
Did Mary have anything to do with the existence of that pre-existent Christ?
Not that I can see.
Yes Jesus did take on human flesh to become man. But did He not also 'empty' Himself, (to what degree I don't know), as in Philippians 2:7, and in that process, did not Mary become the mother of Jesus in His human incarnation?
I like the way the Amplified puts it - Philippians 2:7

but emptied Himself [without renouncing or diminishing His deity, but only temporarily giving up the outward expression of divine equality and His rightful dignity] by assuming the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men [He became completely human but was without sin, being fully God and fully man].

That's good. And then slightly different than "I and the Father are one", are Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse,
Matthew 24:36English Standard Version (ESV)
No One Knows That Day and Hour
36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
temporal1
Posts: 16275
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: briar patch

Post by temporal1 »

lesterb wrote:
silentreader wrote:
PeterG wrote:If Jesus is the Son of Man, the descendant of Eve (Gen. 3:15), and "made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4), not to mention a son of Abraham and of David, we can confidently say—indeed, I think we must say—that there is a direct line from Eve through Mary to the humanity of Christ, based on scripture. I agree that would be unhelpful at best, and probably dangerous, to speculate further, but on that much the Bible is clear.
Without looking it up, isn't Jesus referred to as 'the second Adam', or something like that?
Yes, and the first Adam is called the son of God as well.
ah-ha. so, when i thought of God's creation of Adam alongside God's creation of Jesus, this was not outright skewed thinking. i did not know others' understanding.
reference this thread, page 7, i wrote:
"God created Adam, not with a woman, not even as a vessel. God created Eve from Adam, but Adam is not Eve's biological parent (is he?) God has ways that we do not have, nor are we able to understand His ways in full."
as to PeterG's post, the words, Son of Man, have stumped me.
i've not used them, because i know i do not "get" them. why is "Man" capitalized? but, it consistently is capitalized (in my limited reading.) similar with the rest of Peter's comment above.

ohio jones commented on Mary not being a random choice. i agree. scriptures tell us, God designs us before (conception) .. God knew His plan for Jesus and Mary before Mary was conceived. Mary was surprised!

today, there is so much public debate about "when does human life begin?" many say, at conception. my guess is, we are human before conception, planned by God before we are conceived. there is no suggestion He was undecided about what form we would take. our form is human.

i hope to read more thoughts on this.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

silentreader wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote: I tend to disagree with some of this temp- she was not called "adoptive" mother anywhere in Scripture- she was always called His mother- she was not just a 'vessel' Christ's 'human' flesh was taken from Mary's flesh- that is why He is referred to as fully God and fully Man- or the Son of Man- and the Son of God- there is a 'biological' relationship between Mary & Jesus and that is one reason the geneology is mentioned in Scripture- there's a 'bloodline'. This type of teaching is one that the early Church had to contend for as opinions could lead the Church astray-as we say- human reasonings-
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)- how this happened, is one of the 'mysteries' the Church has never felt the need to explain in human understandings, some things we just accept as mystery- how the Holy Spirit 'came upon her' is just something we believe, but He became flesh because He took on Mary's flesh & blood in the womb where He developed.
Likewise. I believe for Jesus to take on the human side, Mary was more than just a vessel. I believe us Protestants and Anabaptists and others do not give Mary much honour in our orthopraxy. On the spirit side, I believe Jesus was also fully God, who is Spirit. Jesus had to take on the human side to be tempted in all ways as we are otherwise no man can tempt God. However, Jesus has shed the human side and His link to Mary, I believe, is the same as to us, one of spirit. In heaven

Perhaps this should be a different thread but I'm wondering what Anabaptists think about Mary being recognized as the Ark of the New Covenant as presented here - https://stpeterslist.com/4-biblical-rea ... e-covenant

Is this more details on why Catholics (plain or not) are not Anabaptists in belief, I wonder.
Do we agree that Jesus was pre-existent before He was born of Mary? Perhaps as (God) the Word as in John 1?
Did Mary have anything to do with the existence of that pre-existent Christ?
Yes Jesus did take on human flesh to become man. But did He not also 'empty' Himself, (to what degree I don't know), as in Philippians 2:7, and in that process, did not Mary become the mother of Jesus in His human incarnation?
I for one agree that "The Word" was pre-existant before He was born of Mary, and then was Jesus at His birth- as the Son of God and the Son of Man- as you remind us, and is true- the Word became flesh-
I do not believe Mary had anything to do with the existance of that pre-existent Word- Christ is/was the Messiah- born, Jesus the Christ- Mary's role did not start until the Angel Gabriel announced it to her-and then conceived by the Holy Spirit- this part of course is a mystery we need not understand but accept as mystery.
That is the doctrine I believe at least- you're last sentence I think is a little confusing? Not sure-
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:I for one agree that "The Word" was pre-existant before He was born of Mary, and then was Jesus at His birth- as the Son of God and the Son of Man- as you remind us, and is true- the Word became flesh-
I do not believe Mary had anything to do with the existance of that pre-existent Word- Christ is/was the Messiah- born, Jesus the Christ- Mary's role did not start until the Angel Gabriel announced it to her-and then conceived by the Holy Spirit- this part of course is a mystery we need not understand but accept as mystery.
That matches my understanding. I wonder if anyone here would disagree. I suspect not, but I'm easily surprised.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Likewise. I believe for Jesus to take on the human side, Mary was more than just a vessel. I believe us Protestants and Anabaptists and others do not give Mary much honour in our orthopraxy. On the spirit side, I believe Jesus was also fully God, who is Spirit. Jesus had to take on the human side to be tempted in all ways as we are otherwise no man can tempt God. However, Jesus has shed the human side and His link to Mary, I believe, is the same as to us, one of spirit. In heaven

Perhaps this should be a different thread but I'm wondering what Anabaptists think about Mary being recognized as the Ark of the New Covenant as presented here - https://stpeterslist.com/4-biblical-rea ... e-covenant

Is this more details on why Catholics (plain or not) are not Anabaptists in belief, I wonder.
Do we agree that Jesus was pre-existent before He was born of Mary? Perhaps as (God) the Word as in John 1?
Did Mary have anything to do with the existence of that pre-existent Christ?
Yes Jesus did take on human flesh to become man. But did He not also 'empty' Himself, (to what degree I don't know), as in Philippians 2:7, and in that process, did not Mary become the mother of Jesus in His human incarnation?
I for one agree that "The Word" was pre-existant before He was born of Mary, and then was Jesus at His birth- as the Son of God and the Son of Man- as you remind us, and is true- the Word became flesh-
I do not believe Mary had anything to do with the existance of that pre-existent Word- Christ is/was the Messiah- born, Jesus the Christ- Mary's role did not start until the Angel Gabriel announced it to her-and then conceived by the Holy Spirit- this part of course is a mystery we need not understand but accept as mystery.
That is the doctrine I believe at least- you're last sentence I think is a little confusing? Not sure-
OK, good, we have common ground. What I meant by the last sentence was basically what you said, "Mary's role did not start...."
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Post Reply