If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your dilema is that you are denying Trinity !

John 10:30

I and my Father are one.

John 17:11
Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

These verses support and prove the deity of Jesus Christ, without need to call May as Mother of God.

Therefore we need to return to these verses again, to verify whether your statements are correct or not.

Now both God the Father and God the Son are one. if you say Mary is Mother of God, but if you deny she is Mother of God the Father, then you are splitting God the Father and God the Son, which is contradicting Tri-unity !

You are splitting Deity of Trinity Godhead into 3 pieces, then you claim Mary is the Mother of 1/3 God, giving the wrong impression that Mary is the Mother of Almighty God ! That is the problem!

 

I am not sure you understand the Trinity then, for the Father is not the Son and vis versa. They are one in that that they are of one substance, but they are two different persons. Only the Son took on human nature, the Father did not, nor did the Holy Spirit as demonstrated by the accounts of the Baptism of Christ and the transfiguration.

Again, I don't see the dilema.

 

Can you find Son of God in the following sentences?

2 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; 3 Without father, without mother , without descent, F19 having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God ; abideth a priest continually


If the writer believed that Son of God has the Mother, would it be possible that he compare Melchizedek is like unto Son of God ?

 

Why yes I can, he is a priest continually. But nothing is mentioned concerning His incarnation, so while it could be said the divine nature has no parentage it says nothing about incarnation nor the personal union of human and divine in Christ. If you want to prove your point, I hope you have a better verse than this one.

 

You may be believing in 3 gods of monster.
Trinity was the very foundation for Theotokos, then Theotokos itself contradicts Trinity of God, because you have to deny Theotokos means another 2/3 of Godhead, or you have to insist that Theotokos is limited to only 1/3 of God. You may be believing in Incomplete Partial god !

 

Now you are becoming Nestorian !

Are you splitting Jesus into 2 persons.

You cannot escape from that verse, and therefore you are asking for another verse !

Explain why Heb 7:3 mentions Son of God comparing Melchizedek?

1) Did Melchizedek have a Mother?

2) Is Melichzedek like unto Son of God ?

3) If so, why Melichizedek is like unto Son of God? In which aspects is Melchizedek like unto Son of God ?

 

How am I becoming Nestorian, I have not seperated the two natures at all.

1) none are recorded but many things were not recorded.

2) only in that he is a priest without years.

3) But again as this verse as absolutely nothing to do with the incarnation you need to pick a better verse.

Why is the Son compared with Melchizedek? Because the author is trying to make the point that the Son of God is the eternal High Priest, something you seemed to have missed.

 

No - calling Mary the 'Mother of God' deifies Mary and diminishes Christ's divinity. Saying God has a mother is ludicrous. God is from everlasting to everlasting. The Word took on flesh - Mary gave birth to His humanity NOT His deity. Just as Christ said in John 3:3 that He, while veiled in flesh and walking on earth as a man, was, AT THE SAME TIME in Heaven as God. It was the same while in Mary's womb.

The herectical doctrine of 'theotokos' was not necessary to combat dissention on the deity of Christ and His nature. The Word clearly says in John 1 that "the Word was with God and was God and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." It was all that was necessary to combat groups such as the Arians.


Ray

 

Why is that a conflict? My mother gave birth to my flesh only (my spiritual nature same exclusively from God). Yet it is by no means wrong to refer to my mother as my mother. I dont' need to qualtify it by saying she is only my earthly or physical mother. Jesus Christ is God the Son. Mary was his mother. Therefore, Mary was the mother of God the Son. So long as one understands that she was the mother of the Son, and not the Mother of the Father or Spirit, then there is no conflict there.

I think the reason so many folks bend over backwards to say "Mother of Jesus" is to, out of a sense of romaphobia, distance themselves from Catholicism. I myself don't run spiritual things through any romaphobic filter prior to my application of them. I rarely say "mother of God", but those times when I do, I'm clearly referring to Jesus.

 

Are you the same as Jesus ?

In your case, you never existed before your mother and therefore such logic is right.

But in case of Jesus it is different from you because:

1) Jesus is the Creator of Mary,
2) Jesus existed before Mary.

Look at this verse:
John 8
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
58
I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


The Word Mother include : Pre-existence and Production.

1) Did Mary pre-exist before Jesus?
2) Did Mary produce Jesus ?
3) Did Jesus become a new Jesus by coming out of Mary ?

 

No - calling Mary the 'Mother of God' deifies Mary and diminishes Christ's divinity. Saying God has a mother is ludicrous. God is from everlasting to everlasting. The Word took on flesh - Mary gave birth to His humanity NOT His deity. Just as Christ said in John 3:3 that He, while veiled in flesh and walking on earth as a man, was, AT THE SAME TIME in Heaven as God. It was the same while in Mary's womb.

The herectical doctrine of 'theotokos' was not necessary to combat dissention on the deity of Christ and His nature. The Word clearly says in John 1 that "the Word was with God and was God and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." It was all that was necessary to combat groups such as the Arians.


Ray </font>[/QUOTE]You undermine the doctrine of the incarnation by this post. Jesus was not in heaven as God at the same time He was on earth as God. That's the whole point of the incarnation. I'm not exactly sure what sort of heresy you and Eliyahu are hinting at here - possibly Docetism in your case and modalism/ Sabellianism in Eliyahu's - but I smell heresy very strongly from your posts

 

Never said I was. I was exemplifying, which you have apparantly ignored completely.

Doesn't matter at what point I began to exist vs at what point the Son existed. I was pointing to the issue of physical vs spiritual. That's all. Don't look for any context that wsn't there.

Then it is wrong for us to call Mary the mother of Jesus, since Jesus existed before her. Yet we all refer to her as the mother of Jesus without any issue. When looking at it from your p.o.v. here, it only furthers my theory that the whole issue is one of romaphobia.

 

1) Yes, obviously the mother has to come before the child. But she did not pre-exist the Logos, who is without time yet at a specific point in time took on a human nature.
2) Yes, in that she is the source of Jesus' human nature.
3) No, Jesus was Jesus from conception.

 

Read the Bible Hebrews 7:2-3 again:

Does it say that Melichzedek is like unto Son of God only in the aspect of continual priest ?

2 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; 3 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 .

1) Does Melchizedek have a father ?
2) Does Son of God have a earthly father ?
3) Does Melchizedek have the beginning of the days?
4) Does Son of God have the beginning of the days?
5) Does Melchizedek have the end of life ?
6) Does Son of God have the end of life?
7) Does Melchizedek abide a priest continually?
8) Does Son of God abide a priest continually ?

Please answer !

 

Yes it does and if you actually took time to read and understand within context you would see that this is the point of the writer. agenealogetos means without record, in otherwords nobody recorded it. It can also mean that he was an orphan.

Again the verse solely deals with the priestly office, not descent or genealogy. Melchizedek is a picture pointing to Christ only in that it was promised he would always be a priest. "Hebrews 7:21-24 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'" 22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. "

[ February 14, 2006, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Your sentence is confusing because my question was this:


The Word Mother include : Pre-existence and Production.

1) Did Mary pre-exist before Jesus?
You said Yes: You are wrong ! because Jesus says Before Abraham was, I AM .

2) Did Mary produce Jesus ?
You said yes, you don't see Jesus as the Creator of Mary. This is why I said to you that Theotokos deface Creatorship of Jesus.
Mary could not be born here on earth without Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Creator of All. Read the Bible Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1

3) Did Jesus become a new Jesus by coming out of Mary ?
You said No. the answer is right but you mentioned wrong timing. You mention that Jesus existed from the time of conception in Mary. WRONG !

Jesus existed before Abaraham, before Mary !

You are like one of those who tried to stone Jesus in John 8:56-59.


John 8
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
58
I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am .

 

Yes, He did say such and so He was, however, Jesus as God and Man did not exist until conception only the Logos existed prior as stated in John 1.

Yes she could as Jesus as Jesus did not exist until He took on flesh. Again John 1 illustrates the Logos aka divine nature did pre-exist Mary but Jesus who is the Logos and Man did not pre-exist Mary hence the birth narratives.

 

You claim that I am doing something, yet you offer no proof. Why don't you try proving instead of asserting without proof.

 

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Jesus always has been, and always will be both God and man. Jesus existed as man in the same glorified body before His earthly birth as He received at Pentecost. Jesus only existed in a temporary human body that was corruptible while on earth.