In the Mary Collins thread toward the end, loyal Candyite Amanda wrote this as her way of explaining that Christ had no mother:
Well, it's not quite that "strait" forward. Father William G. Most gives this commentary on the book of Hebrews:
Another thought came to me as I was making supper (meatloaf and potatoes in the oven now smelling WONDERFUL!!!) As another commenter asked recently, about this fellow Melchisedec. Melchisedec was used repeatedly as an illustration of Christ.
" ...even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, WITHOUT MOTHER, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
That's pretty strait forward!
Also the way the Epistle comments on Melchizedek as being without father or mother or end of days, is homiletic freedom.
Four kings had attacked five kings, including the king of Sodom. The four took spoils, and took Lot, nephew of Abraham as captive. When Abraham heard of it he gathered 318 of his retainers, and set out against the four kings, and defeated them. On his return the King of Sodom met him and suggested Abraham keep the goods, but give him the people. Abraham refused to keep anything, seemingly because of an oath he had taken when Melchizedek, king of Salem, met him. Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. Was that just a refreshment for Abraham, or was it meant as a sacrifice? Later Christian writers understood it as a sacrifice. His name is taken to mean either King of Peace (Salem) or King of righteousness (sedeq). These are plausible etymologies. Abraham gave him a tenth of all the spoils of the military expedition. Melchizedek is described as without father or mother, without genealogy. Genesis indeed does not give any lineage for him. Thus he foreshadows the Son of God, a priest forever. Then our author exclaims: How great is Melchizedek - Abraham gave him tithes, recognizing his superiority. The descendants of Levi received tithes too in later times, as the offspring of Abraham. Yet Melchizedek, who has not the same genealogy as them, received tithes from the father of the chosen people, Abraham. Further, Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek - but one receives blessings only from a superior, not from an inferior. So again, Melchizedek, type of Christ, is superior to Abraham. In fact since Levi who was to come from Abraham, was still in the body of Abraham, we can say that Levi too paid tithes to Melchizedek - and so the levitical priesthood is less than that of Melchizedek.
Amanda is trying to say that her verse is saying Christ had no mother, but it is really referring to Melchizedek.
I did write a comment pointing that out. However, Candy did NOT allow that comment although it too was respectful. Instead she lets Amanda have the last word on that. She also lets Amanda have the last word on my link to Catholic Answers which explains the Catholic perspective on the title Mother of God.
Elena out of a LARGE amount of quotes and references, only 1 or 2 were from the BIBLE. I really couldn't care less what such and such catechism or so and so person says, I am a follower of CHRIST (and the Bible says He is the Word-God's Word is the Bible- made flesh) not man, so I really don't care one little bit about what man has to say on the matter. And none of that addressed my point of dividing God into separate pieces. So....no, I didn't find that helpful in the least.
Yea...quotes from pesky men like the early church fathers. Whatever.