Mary (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> General Faith



Message

mvic -> Mary (7/22/2008 3:48:06 AM)

At the time of Jesus it would have been a great scandal for an un-married young girl to become pregnant. She would have been ostracised at the very least.

To claim that the unborn child is the Son of God would have been much worse. At the very least the girl would have been labelled a lunatic and even a heretic.

Yet despite the fear of shame, condemnation and even risk to her safety; Mary said yes to God.

She was there at Jesus' birth, as He grew up, at His first miracle at Cana and at His death.

How significant is her role in His ministry compared to the disciples, or even Paul who never met Jesus?



DaveW -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 6:43:59 AM)

Well, at one point at least she was a hinderance:

Mat 12:46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
Mat 12:47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Mat 12:48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"
Mat 12:49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
Mat 12:50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

It has been theorized that the reason they came was because they heard he was insane and wanted to put him away. It is implied from verse 50 that His physical mother and brothers at that time were NOT doing the will of the Father.



BerianAardvark -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 7:02:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

At the time of Jesus it would have been a great scandal for an un-married young girl to become pregnant. She would have been ostracised at the very least.

To claim that the unborn child is the Son of God would have been much worse. At the very least the girl would have been labelled a lunatic and even a heretic.

Yet despite the fear of shame, condemnation and even risk to her safety; Mary said yes to God.

She was there at Jesus' birth, as He grew up, at His first miracle at Cana and at His death.

How significant is her role in His ministry compared to the disciples, or even Paul who never met Jesus?


Did you ever wonder why Joseph took Mary with him to Bethlehem when she was so close to delivering Jesus? (Besides the fact that by doing so a prophesy was fulfilled.)

She didn't have to go, it was only the men who were required to register for the tax.

It was about a weeks journey even riding a donkey, it wasn't something recommended for the extremely gravid.

Even today in many parts of the world friends and relatives would have wished to "remove the stain" on the family honor by making sure that the baby (and probably Mary as well) didn't survive the birth process.

Yet Jesus Himself (without being disrespectful to His mother) said:

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (Luke 11:27-28)

How many of the martyrs (including Old Testament prophets) down through history faced every bit as much shame ostracism and even death for their obedience to God?

Mary's significance is exactly the same as any parent's. She bore Him, nurtured Him and saw to His early developmental years.

But her real significance is that she heard the word of God and obeyed it...same as we are called to do. (Even imperfectly as we all do.)

Tim



SonInMe1 -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 8:01:12 AM)

It must have been amazing to be the parent of...God.



Lufia -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 9:39:31 AM)

Yes, and pretty fast, the parents are being 'educated' by their child [:)]



ldunning -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 2:31:05 PM)

dear friend,
Isn't that a silly question because the Lord places His children in the family as He chooses? Isn't each one as valuble to Him as the other?
John 17:22 1 Cor. 12:11 Your friend,lindell



Liveloved -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 3:24:57 PM)

When I think of the importance of Mary to Jesus' ministry, I am reminded of Luke 2:51. This is the account of Jesus' family going to the Feast of the Passover and he remained behind in Jerusalem when they returned home. When they found Him, he returned home with them and the text says, "And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart."

Treasuring the words of Jesus in my heart and letting Him accomplish all He has purposed for me through the working of His word and Spirit is the life of faith. Mary exemplified this. She showed us what the life of a disciple looks like.



rcjames -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 3:58:44 PM)

Compared to the Apostles; I think not.

Christ put Mary into perspectime in this passage;

(Luk 11:27) And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

(Luk 11:28) But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

So if you hear the Word of God and keep it then you are as blessed as Mary, and form the syntax of the verse probably more blessed.

Thanks
RC



jn1010lf -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 4:18:36 PM)

Hello mvic

Well, check the record. Do you see anything of Mary after Pentecost? I would assume that her role is not major. So, don't pray to her.



mvic -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 5:35:55 PM)

Thanx for all your replies.

DaveW your interpretation and theory of Matthew 12:46-50 is new to me. I've never heard that anyone thought Jesus was insane and had to be put away.

Why not interpret it simply as "Whoever does my Father's will is my brother, sister and mother"?



rcjames -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 5:56:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

Thanx for all your replies.

DaveW your interpretation and theory of Matthew 12:46-50 is new to me. I've never heard that anyone thought Jesus was insane and had to be put away.

Why not interpret it simply as "Whoever does my Father's will is my brother, sister and mother"?


Try this verse on forclarification;

(Mar 3:20) And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.

(Mar 3:21) And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself[/b].


Thanks
RC



mvic -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 6:06:42 PM)

Thanx RCJames for the explanation.

Were the two events related? - i.e. the crowd saying He was mad and His mother, brothers and sisters arriving.

My Bible shows the two events separately; so it is not clear whether they happened concurrently.

Thanx.



BerianAardvark -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 6:13:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

Thanx for all your replies.

DaveW your interpretation and theory of Matthew 12:46-50 is new to me. I've never heard that anyone thought Jesus was insane and had to be put away.

Why not interpret it simply as "Whoever does my Father's will is my brother, sister and mother"?


Perhaps because of a parallel account:

And He *came home, and the crowd *gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." (Mark 3:20-21)

Then His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." Answering them, He *said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:31-35)

There are, indeed, about ten verses between where it says that "His own people" heard He was working so hard that He didn't even have time to eat, and when Mary and His brothers arrived to take custody of Him thinking He had taken leave of His senses. But that doesn't mean that the two events are not related.

Who else would be referred to as "His own people" in that context? Certainly not His disciples, they would have had no need to hear of it, as they were there working just as hard.

Nor could I imagine Peter, James, John and the others trying to "take custody" of Jesus.

The Scribes and Pharisees would love to have taken custody of Jesus, but could hardly be called "His own people".

The Jews in general might qualify as "His own people", but they would hardly have been likely to want to take custody of Him because He was being over worked. They were the very ones constantly bringing Him people in need of healing.

Tim



mvic -> RE: Mary (7/22/2008 7:38:37 PM)

Thanx Berian Aardvark. Much appreciated.



wshepherd -> RE: Mary (7/23/2008 11:33:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

At the time of Jesus it would have been a great scandal for an un-married young girl to become pregnant. She would have been ostracised at the very least.

To claim that the unborn child is the Son of God would have been much worse. At the very least the girl would have been labelled a lunatic and even a heretic.



mvic,

I have a different take on this than what you portray.

You are right that it would have been a great scandal for an unmarried young girl to become pregnant. But Mary was not "unmarried," so to speak, she was betrothed to Joseph, which betrothal was regarded as every bit as binding as the marriage itself. A betrothed woman was referred to as a "wife."

For her to become pregnant during the betrothal period would not carry the same consequences as her becoming pregnant without being betrothed. The local folk might have been a bit amused at the young couple who could not wait to consummate their union, but it would not bring the shame that becoming pregnant with no betrothal in sight would have carried.



wshepherd -> RE: Mary (7/23/2008 11:48:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BerianAardvark

Did you ever wonder why Joseph took Mary with him to Bethlehem when she was so close to delivering Jesus? (Besides the fact that by doing so a prophesy was fulfilled.)

She didn't have to go, it was only the men who were required to register for the tax.

It was about a weeks journey even riding a donkey, it wasn't something recommended for the extremely gravid.

Even today in many parts of the world friends and relatives would have wished to "remove the stain" on the family honor by making sure that the baby (and probably Mary as well) didn't survive the birth process.


BerianAardvark,

I beg to differ with you on this.

quote:

Mary, also of the house of David, was probably required to enroll. In Syria, the Roman province in which the Holy Land was located, women twelve years of age and older were required to pay a poll tax and therefore to register.

(Footnote in the Archaeological Study Bible, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Copyright 2005; p. 1669.)



mvic -> RE: Mary (7/24/2008 8:42:00 AM)

Thanx Wanda for clarification. Both on my point and Berian Ardvaark's.



wshepherd -> RE: Mary (7/24/2008 10:48:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

To claim that the unborn child is the Son of God would have been much worse. At the very least the girl would have been labelled a lunatic and even a heretic.


I'm of the opinion that Jesus' identity growing up would have been kept hush-hush. After all, when Herod found out about Him, he tried to have Him murdered, and in the process slaughtered all the baby boys in the village.

I'm not sure this would have been something that was broadcasted about.



BerianAardvark -> RE: Mary (7/24/2008 11:12:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wshepherd

quote:

BerianAardvark

Did you ever wonder why Joseph took Mary with him to Bethlehem when she was so close to delivering Jesus? (Besides the fact that by doing so a prophesy was fulfilled.)

She didn't have to go, it was only the men who were required to register for the tax.

It was about a weeks journey even riding a donkey, it wasn't something recommended for the extremely gravid.

Even today in many parts of the world friends and relatives would have wished to "remove the stain" on the family honor by making sure that the baby (and probably Mary as well) didn't survive the birth process.


BerianAardvark,

I beg to differ with you on this.

quote:

Mary, also of the house of David, was probably required to enroll. In Syria, the Roman province in which the Holy Land was located, women twelve years of age and older were required to pay a poll tax and therefore to register.

(Footnote in the Archaeological Study Bible, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Copyright 2005; p. 1669.)




It does appear that I may have gotten some bad information, though the footnote you cited does say probably required to enroll.

I couldn't find any references that stated either way as to the requirements of women and Roman taxation.

The Jewish Temple tax was collected only from men between the ages of twenty and fifty (Clarke; Gill; Lightfoot; Jamieson, Fausset and Brown; and Calvin in their commentaries as well as Robertson's WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT and Vincent's Word Studies all make it plain that at least among the Jews it was only the males that were taxed (and that was for their entire household).

It may well be true that the Romans did things differently, in a quick survey I couldn't find no evidence one way or the other.

It might, however, be helpful to remember that the call was for a census.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (Luke 2:1)

Granted the census was so they could be taxed, but none the less it was a census. Censuses in that day and age counted only males between certain ages, women and children were excluded.

I wouldn't care to make doctrine over it one way or the other.

Tim



DaveW -> RE: Mary (7/25/2008 7:46:53 AM)

quote:

Mary, also of the house of David
That is unbiblical.

She was a close relative of Elizabeth who was from the Aaronic priesthood line.



BerianAardvark -> RE: Mary (7/25/2008 9:09:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

quote:

Mary, also of the house of David
That is unbiblical.

She was a close relative of Elizabeth who was from the Aaronic priesthood line.


So you are saying that it was unheard of for someone to marry outside of their tribe?

Granted to do so would render their children unable to act as priests, but none the less it is quite possible for Mary to be of the line of David and still a relative of one of the Aaronic line.

Luke 1:36 καιG2532 AND ιδουG2400 [G5628] LO, ελισαβετG1665 ηG3588 ELIZABETH συγγενηςG4773 σουG4675 THY KINSWOMAN καιG2532 ALSO αυτηG846 SHE συνειληφυιαG4815 [G5761] HAS CONCEIVED υιονG5207 A SON ενG1722 IN γηραG1094 αυτηςG846 HER OLD AGE, καιG2532 AND ουτοςG3778 THIS "THE" μηνG3376 MONTH εκτοςG1623 SIXTH εστινG2076 [G5748] IS αυτηG846 TO HER τηG3588 WHO "WAS" καλουμενηG2564 [G5746] CALLED στειραG4723 BARREN;


G4773 συγγενής suggenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman
Part of Speech: adjective


The Greek doesn't suggest how closely they are related, though some translate it as cousin, the term is broad enough that it could even refer to their relationship through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see definition 2).

Tim



DaveW -> RE: Mary (7/25/2008 11:37:08 AM)

No - of course not unheard of. Mary herself probably was marrying outside her tribe (her Levi - Joseph Judah)

The only indication we have at all in scripture is that she was a relative (most translators have close relative) of Elizabeth. THere is not even a hint of her being from Judah or the Davidic line. Any attempt to try to say one of the geneologies is hers is stretching scripture to the breaking point.

Besides, her lineage would have been considered irrelevant as at that time everything was patrilineal. Don't fall into the modern trap of trying to figure out genetics. That was not a consideration in that culture. (and no - our modern way of figuring it does not trump their "primitive" ways)



wshepherd -> RE: Mary (7/25/2008 1:41:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

THere is not even a hint of her being from Judah or the Davidic line. Any attempt to try to say one of the geneologies is hers is stretching scripture to the breaking point.


Don't get your knickers in a knot, Dave. No one mentioned genealogies. [sm=aside.gif]

I am curious though how you would reconcile the two different genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

I agree that Scripture is silent on this issue, but I wonder ...

Why would Joseph take a pregnant wife with him on such a journey when she was so close to giving birth, unless she had to go and register for the census too? I mean after the baby was born they went back to Nazareth and continued to live there. Why take her at all? To fulfill a prophecy? If that was it, why not take her there earlier when she wasn't so far along?

To me, this sounds like an unforeseen event, one that necessitated Mary going along, one that could not be argued with or put off.

But these are just speculations on my part.



BerianAardvark -> RE: Mary (7/25/2008 1:49:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

No - of course not unheard of. Mary herself probably was marrying outside her tribe (her Levi - Joseph Judah)

The only indication we have at all in scripture is that she was a relative (most translators have close relative) of Elizabeth. THere is not even a hint of her being from Judah or the Davidic line. Any attempt to try to say one of the geneologies is hers is stretching scripture to the breaking point.

Besides, her lineage would have been considered irrelevant as at that time everything was patrilineal. Don't fall into the modern trap of trying to figure out genetics. That was not a consideration in that culture. (and no - our modern way of figuring it does not trump their "primitive" ways)


Yes, close relative or cousin, depending upon the translation (neither is indicated either way by the Greek).

You are very right (and it is a point I also stress) in stating that what it would have meant to those it was written to (cultural context) is what is important, not our "would a, could a, should a, attempts to make first century Romans and Jews into 21st century images of ourselves and our thoughts,mores and ideas.

The main reason for the idea that one of the genealogies is that of Joseph and the other that of Mary, as far as I know, arises from concerns over a curse placed upon one of the people listed in Matthew's linage.

God pronounced this curse on Jeconiah: "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'" (Jeremiah 22:30)

According to this line of thinking, if Jesus had been the real son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights to the throne of David.

So those who follow the Matthew= Joseph's linage Luke= Mary's try to solve the dilemma through the miracle of the virgin birth: Jesus was the legal heir to the throne through Joseph. He was the real Son of David through Mary. The curse on Jeconiah did not fall on Mary or her children since she did not descend from Jeconiah.

Which is an interesting way of solving an otherwise difficult (if not insoluble) dilemma, but as you pointed out, not directly supported by scripture.

But if we are going to continue this discussion it might be best to take it to a different thread, as we are getting close to being off topic.

Tim



wshepherd -> RE: Mary (7/25/2008 2:24:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BerianAardvark

God pronounced this curse on Jeconiah: "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'" (Jeremiah 22:30)

According to this line of thinking, if Jesus had been the real son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights to the throne of David.


But isn't He Messiah? The reverser of curses? In Him, this curse would have been rendered null and void.

I've read rabbis who say that curse was reversed anyway because Jeconiah had seven sons.

Sorry, this is getting a bit off-topic. Won't post any more about it.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI