You know how that book always makes people think. Every time you pick it up and try to further digest its contents, something affects you. Why is that? Well, the answer is simple: Jesus. No, it's not a cop-out answer. Everything in the Bible points forward, directly concerns, or points back to Him.
Starting in Genesis, 3:15 to be exact, you have:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
The seed? Yeah, the seed is Jesus while the woman likely points to Mary in one sense and to Eve in another sense.
To some point Midway in Isaiah, 52:13, you have:
"Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. "
You don't get much higher than a cross I suppose now do you? Yeah, the ever-sacrificing servant Jesus humbled to point of death on a cross rose to heights beyond imagination. Only Mary and John had faith enough to witness Jesus as the ultimate judo master when he performed his greatest feat. Jesus simply turned the devil's triumph on its head. Effectively making the whole crucifixion out to be the devil's biggest defeat.
To the more obvious locations in Luke (7:34)
"The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' "
Who else, but the "Bar Adam", a phrase which having next to nothing to do with drinking has everything to do with Him being the Son of Man, was Jesus. Ironic that the "Bar Adam" if only half translated says Son of Adam which while pointing to Jesus' divinity also points to his fulfillment of the proclamation in Genesis above.
To nearly everything in Paul's letter's like Romans 6:6
"We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin."
A verse where Jesus again stands as a sort of centralized focus that the Bible clearly possesses.
The step that is harder to take for some but only complements the bible in a fashion similar to adding the right sauce to your favorite food, is based in the many Biblical T(or t)raditions of the Catholic Church. Take, for example, what Edward Sri refers to as a representation of how the spiritual gravity of Christ exists in one of the church's basic prayers.
The Hail Mary
Hail Mary, full of grace the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou amongst women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, JESUS. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Just looking at the prayer one can see the centralizing nature of Jesus.
As a side analysis, the first part of the prayer is taken from Luke and the second half is a basic prayer for the intercession of the Queen-mother. Jesus as the Eternal King stands in fulfillment of the prefigurement provided by King David, and just as any Jewish King ought to, He has still to listen to his mother. This is easy to see if you take a look at how David acted around Bathsheba in her role as his wife and then compare that with how Solomon behaves around Bathsheba where there relationship is mother to son. Suffice to say, the Queen mother exists as one of the strongest intercessors in existence when seeking the King's help. After all, God (which includes Jesus) made the fourth commandment right? "Honor thy father and Mother."
Now, Go and Set the World Ablaze. No piddling fires please, go full pyro.
6 comments:
Thanks, this clears up some of the questions I had about Mary.
There is a guy named Harold Campy who had some really Campy ideas, but one thing i thought he was really close on was this idea: that every verse in the old testament, in some way predicted the coming of the Messaiah. I don't know if I would take it that far, but certainly the purposes of the Word of God are to connect us to Christ and reveal His personality. The relationship between Christ and the Holy Scriptures is so strong that John 1 says, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
Recently I haven't spent much time in the presence of God... maybe it would help me to think of His Word this way.
Glad I could help.
Actually, I do tend to believe that everything in the Old and New Testament is intimately tied to Jesus. Every verse might be a stretch, but every story or anecdote: most certainly. I mean, we invented verses after all, the Jews and early Christians just had books. It wasn't until about the 1200s, I think, that we added the concept of verses to the Bible. Not that they aren't horribly useful or anything... ^_^
Ah, yes, John 1 which intimately ties the creation story to Christ himself. Also, you should do a lookup on the Greek word logos (word). It has such a broader scope than just "word" that it is simply amazing.
Hello, Xavier.
Certainly, all Scripture does point to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is, as I like to say, the Thesis Statement of the Bible.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39
See also 1 Pet 1:10-12.
I must dissent however on the point of Christ's centrality to the "Hail Mary." It might seem to any casual observer (me:) that Mary is the central figure.
As to the "Mother of God" bit, one might object that this phrase is not found in Scripture. Indeed, Mary was the mother of Jesus. But in what capacity? She was the mother of his flesh. His Godhead was in effect in eternity before, and Mary made no contribution to it-- and certainly, she did not beget it!
In this sense, the phrase "Mother of God," might be considered a lie, because she did not beget his Godhead, only his manhood. He got the "God" part entirely from His Dad. :-)
Peace! --Jacob
Jacob... I would love to agree with you, but the belief that Mary is not the mother of God, with respect to both of his natures, is a 5th century heresy called Nestorianism.
You're assumption rests on when something becomes a person. That is to say, your assessment is based on the assumption that personhood begins at birth (a rather pro-choice belief ironically) not at conception. I believe, of course, that human life begins at conception to the inclusion of personhood.
Regardless of how much genetic matter was contributed or not by one's mother, that doesn't change her motherly status. She is still His mother.
Also, do you see the theological problem with splitting Jesus' personhood into Divine and Human? Some could then say he just turned on and off his divinity thereby cheapening his death. Nay, he was both God and Man at one and the same time. Truly though, it's a mystery of Faith how exactly that works.
Just in case you're worried, Catholics by no way believe or implicate that Mary is somehow above God or even equal to God. She is eternally a member of His creation as the new eve. Any position of power or glory bestowed by God serves only to extend his power and glory.
Hello Xavier.
Did you talk to your father about this one? :-)
I did not get this teaching from any theological school, teacher or books. I arrived at this conclusion independently through the study of Scripture. It is in Scripture that my assumptions are based.
If you reread my post, you will find NONE of the following assumptions: personhood begins at birth; Jesus' divinity and humanity are incompatible; Jesus could not be both God and man simultaneously, but would have to switch between the two. Indeed, I refute all three of these premises, and still arrive at the same conclusion.
How is this possible? I refer you to the following assumptions, which I apparently failed to set forth clearly before:
1) Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was simultaneously both fully God and fully man.
2) The phrase "Mother of God" is not found in Scripture, and can therefore be considered apocryphal-- i.e. that it is an invention (at least as a phrase).
3) Personhood begins at conception.
4) Before his physical conception as a human, the Lord Jesus Christ was in existence in the world as the sole, eternal, omnipotent Creator God.
5) Mary could not have contributed to God's existence as set forth in Claim 4, because God existed in the world before she did-- as HER OWN Creator.
I doubt that you would deny claims 1, 3, or 4. But what do you think of claims 2 and 5?
If you are honest with yourself and take claim 2 at face value, I think you will agree with it in principle-- despite its strong wording. All this point asks you to concede is that the *phrase* is an invention of man, which cannot be found in Scripture. Therefore it lacks ultimate theological weight.
Also, in response to your comment, I'll raise a new claim. :)
Claim A: Though not incompatible, the two concepts of Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct.
Rationale: Suppose that you reject Claim A. Then Godhood and manhood are not individually distinct. Then, because all men certainly possess manhood, all men also possess Godhood*. Thus, to reject Claim A is clearly blasphemous and against the teaching of Scripture.
*[Go ahead and try to refute this conclusion under the assumption that Claim A is false. You'll see what I mean.]
This is called proof by contradiction, and is a familiar logical progression to math-heads like myself. Let me know what you think!
Peace. --Jacob
P.s. While reviewing the virgin birth, I ran across another passage you might enjoy: Luke 1:68-75.
Cute: Did I talk to my father about this one? Which one? ^_^
May I be so bold as to ask: Why do you take pride in that you are flying solo? I try, yet often fail to admit my weakness and seek to learn through the help of others. Remember, I too believe it necessary that faith be in accord with the scriptures.
That said, you have failed to understand what it was that I was stating as I too failed to understand you as well. Let me try and clear the air a little:
I think that the assumptions that are causing conflict for us are in the implications that motherhood holds for our faith. I assume motherhood to be a status or position especially with regard to a maternal connection. Correct me if I am wrong, but you assume motherhood implicates the total "begetting" of that to which she gives birth.
I do believe I can actually agree with four of your points. With Point 2, however, I must clarify that the I do not understand what you mean by apocryphal because none of the definitions of apocryphal that I am aware of are relevant in this situation. The title Mother of God is most certainly not erroneous or without authorship. I offer one place where the concept is at the very least expressed: Luke 1:42 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
As to what you're really getting at, which is the "solo scriptura" belief. I'll say it now and clearly, I find that unscriptural. So, no doubt you know the implications of what I am saying. Scripture and Tradition (not to be confused with traditions of men) are two sides of the same coin and as such any attempts to separate the two lead to dire consequences.
In summary, I'll try and state the Catholic Church's views on this:
Mary because she is the Mother of Jesus Christ she is the Mother of God but, most agreeably for you, she is not the one to beget His existence. The Catholic Church condemns the notion of Mary pre-existing God. However, (English strikes again) the Catholic Church maintains Mary's title of mother of God as the most near translation for the word “Theotokos” (God-bearer/Mother of God) because it best maintains the expression of Mary's maternal connection to the person Jesus Christ. Not because it says Mary created God or some other preposterous notion.
Also, try and look into the church fathers sometime, they are hardly silent on the matter of Mary as mother of God. I recommend St. Cyril of Jerusalem especially.
Finally, Claim A? Actually, I see you're syllogism lacking but I don't know the most tactful way to express that. Your Claim A is lacking clarity concerning in what way and in what respect Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct. It is on that tiny piece of information that the rest of your argument hinges.
That said, I don't think I have anything to disagree with you on Claim A regardless, but I will clarify by saying that the two natures of Christ, Godhood and Manhood, are separable and distinct but that the person of Christ is not separable. As an extension of this thought, the person's of the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are separable and distinct but All three are the same God, the Trinity.
Continue Ablaze bro
P.S. So confused @_@ How are Zecharias's words related...?
Post a Comment