No, the point is that this matter was settled once and for all by the Church nearly 1600 years ago, has been believed by Christians ever since - and before - and it is most unfortunate that you and Eliyahu seek to revive the heretical opinion of Nestorius on a Christian board
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does God have a Mother?
- Thread starter Eliyahu
- Start date
Wrong again.Originally posted by Bunyon:
Eliyahu, you sould not waste your time with Doubting Thomas, he is form Rome, did you notice? LOL.
Which Christians believe it? Roman Catholic full of heresies and Idol worship? and Greek Orthodox whose priests were converted to the chairmen of Commnunist party quickly?Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, the point is that this matter was settled once and for all by the Church nearly 1600 years ago, has been believed by Christians ever since - and before - and it is most unfortunate that you and Eliyahu seek to revive the heretical opinion of Nestorius on a Christian board [/QB]
The true believers during the Catholic dominance or under Russian orthodox, or under Communist regime never called Mary as Mother of God. They never worshipped goddess- Maria!
Originally posted by Marcia:
It is good that you believe Jesus existed before Incarnation. You say that He added a human nature. ( I am not sure you meant really He himself added such human nature, then Mary didn't do anything but carrying Him). That is very fine too. I didn't say, he just appeared.Please read the above posting where I mentioned He noticed a body prepared for Him and thereby He was enfleshed. He existed before the creation. I think you are seprating personality of Jesus into two humanity and divinity in unity as Nestorius did.Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Yes, I realize Jesus existed before he incarnated. But incarnating does not mean that Jesus just put on flesh; it means he became human. Jesus the 2nd Person of the Trinity became man; he added a human nature. That is more than just appearing in flesh - it means he added a human nature .
You'd better notice that I am explaining in both ways,
a traditional way which means humanity was added to the pre-existing divinity thru the incarnation. In this case I would rather think seprately between 2 natures of Jesus, humanity and divinity, for considering the time before the Conception.
another way is to think that Jesus' 100% divininity itself includes all the humanity. If anything is impossible or anything is left out, then it is not 100% divine. Therefore from the eternity, 100% divinity has included the 100% humanity. Only the change was done at the time of Incarnation, so that He can come with flesh so that He may bleed and die.
If you read Heb 5:7-9, JW may argue that He was imperfect before. However, He was perfect before the crucifixiion and perfect again after crucifixion. The difference is that we have been included in His perfection. Likewise, it is a long process of the Jesus nature.
In either method, we can explain the nature of Jesus and there is no reason to call Mary as Mother of God, which is rejected by Heb 7:3.
Please read the verse to your kids and then ask how they interpret it.
Because Mary is the mother just for the human nature in case of method a, and she is just mere a surrogate mother in case of method b
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Yes, I am "form" Rome Georgia. However I assure you I am not a Roman Catholic. (That was a clever little joke though)Originally posted by Bunyon:
Eliyahu, you sould not waste your time with Doubting Thomas, he is form Rome, did you notice? LOL.
I'm not witchhunting. I'm merely pointing out that you trying to cast Nestorius as the innocent orthodox victim is an example of historical revisionism.Eliyahu:
Doubting Thomas, please stop rearing the witchhunters head!
Which Christians believe it? Roman Catholic full of heresies and Idol worship? and Greek Orthodox whose priests were converted to the chairmen of Commnunist party quickly?Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, the point is that this matter was settled once and for all by the Church nearly 1600 years ago, has been believed by Christians ever since - and before - and it is most unfortunate that you and Eliyahu seek to revive the heretical opinion of Nestorius on a Christian board
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, let's see: Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, other Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Restorationists/ house church people, etc
In other words, pretty much all Christians.
Do the Baptists call Mary as Mother of God?
Do the Methodists call Mary Mother of God?
John Calvin was educated in Catholic family and He masterminded the execution of 58 people and imprisonment of 76 people, some of them just because they refused Infant baptism, predestination, trinity etc. What he did was very similar to what Paul did before his conversion. His book Institutes of Christian Religion is full of heresies.
Martin Luther remained as Catholic Priest,Antisemitic.
Anglicans were deviated from Roman Catholic so that King Henry 8 divorce and re-mary.
Is Homosexuality is Orthodox because the most of the group you mentioned approve or accept these days?
I don't say that all they did were wrong, but I mean that those references are not superior to one sentence of Bible.
Do the Methodists call Mary Mother of God?
John Calvin was educated in Catholic family and He masterminded the execution of 58 people and imprisonment of 76 people, some of them just because they refused Infant baptism, predestination, trinity etc. What he did was very similar to what Paul did before his conversion. His book Institutes of Christian Religion is full of heresies.
Martin Luther remained as Catholic Priest,Antisemitic.
Anglicans were deviated from Roman Catholic so that King Henry 8 divorce and re-mary.
Is Homosexuality is Orthodox because the most of the group you mentioned approve or accept these days?
I don't say that all they did were wrong, but I mean that those references are not superior to one sentence of Bible.
Do you have any literature written by Nestorius, explaining what He thought?Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
I'm merely pointing out that you trying to cast Nestorius as the innocent orthodox victim is an example of historical revisionism. [/QB]
Are you judging him with the material which his accusers forged and manipulated? That is exactly the method which Roman Catholic Inquisitors used when they charged the people by witch hunting, by human syllogism
If you have any evidence about what Nestorius said, please present it here!
Otherwise, you are groundless accuser of the innocent victim!
So, Eliyahu, are you saying that all these groups are not Christians?
The Bible as interpreted by whom? You?Those references are not superior to one sentence of Bible
You are trying to accuse a person in the way which was used by Inquisitors. Did I say that none of them are Chrisitan?Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, Eliyahu, are you saying that all these groups are not Christians?
Did you not read this?
I don't say that all they did were wrong, but I mean that those references are not superior to one sentence of Bible.
Do not speak on that which you do not know.Martin Luther remained as Catholic Priest,Antisemitic.
Luther was not antisemitic, nor did he as you say remain a Catholic Priest.
I cannot speak for others but I can speak for Lutherans
Forumula of Concord Art VIII "Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that Mary did not conceive and give birth to a child who was merely, purely, simply human, but that she gave birth to the true Son of God. Therefore, she is rightly called and truly is the Mother of God" - Martin Chemnitz, not Luther.
Nestorius quotes from his first sermon against the Theotokos emphasis mine
p 123-131 The Christological Controversy - Richard NorrisMoreover, the incarnate God did not die.
He seperates the divine and human natures negating the efficacy of the sacrifice
A creature does not produce the Creator, rather she gave birth to the human being, the instrument of the Godhead.
Makes the pronouncement of Gabriel a lie
The third day burial belonged to this man, not to the deity again seperates the divine from the human thus negating the efficacy of the sacrifice
ps do not confuse the ELCA with Lutherans. The ELCA has long abandoned Biblical teachings.
pps It was the Council of Chalcedon not Ephesius that dealt with Nestorianism.
Yep. [ETA - this in response to Eliyahu's question as to whether I have been born again by the HS]
If your view is correct, how come there are so many interpretations of the Bible between Christians? Sounds to me like either the Holy Spirit doesn't do a very good job or that there must be some other way of interpreting the Bible...
If your view is correct, how come there are so many interpretations of the Bible between Christians? Sounds to me like either the Holy Spirit doesn't do a very good job or that there must be some other way of interpreting the Bible...
Chemnitz,
Has Luther ever denounced his position as Catholic Priest? He was a priest, then never gave up the position as the priest until he die.
You can find Luther was Anti-semitic in mnay ways and that's one of the reasons why the Lutheran supported Adolf Hitler, the devout Roman Catholic.
Has Luther ever denounced his position as Catholic Priest? He was a priest, then never gave up the position as the priest until he die.
You can find Luther was Anti-semitic in mnay ways and that's one of the reasons why the Lutheran supported Adolf Hitler, the devout Roman Catholic.
You are trying to accuse a person in the way which was used by Inquisitors. Did I say that none of them are Chrisitan?Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, Eliyahu, are you saying that all these groups are not Christians?
Did you not read this?
I don't say that all they did were wrong, but I mean that those references are not superior to one sentence of Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]My response was to your statement:
I repeat my question: do you regard these people as Chrstians or not?<In other words, pretty much all Christians.>
Please don't use this term until you make a thorough survey and statistics.
If you check Martin Luther Anti-semitism, you can find thousands of articles on the internet:
At the beginning of his career, Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:
The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.
But Luther expected them to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews.
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.
***
Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools...
At the beginning of his career, Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:
The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.
But Luther expected them to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews.
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.
***
Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools...
If you check Martin Luther Anti-semitism, you can find thousands of articles on the internet:
At the beginning of his career, Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:
The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.
But Luther expected them to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews.
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.
***
Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools...
At the beginning of his career, Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:
The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.
But Luther expected them to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews.
He did not call them Abraham's children, but a "brood of vipers" [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, "He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a "brood of vipers"; furthermore in John 8 [:39,44] he states: "If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today.
***
Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools...
Again Eliyahu you betray your ignorance.
Because certain foul elements twisted an isolated document to support their agenda does not mean the author would agree with their agenda. You also betray your ignorance by claiming the Lutherans supported Hitler, a pastor of mine spent his childhood in the concentration camps because the Lutherans acted against Hitler. The State Church supported Hitler, those who were Lutheran in more than name split from the State Church and actively campaigned against Hitler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer being one of them. Adolf Hitler was a RCC in name only, in fact he was more neo-pagan than anything else.
Luther never had to denounce his position as a Catholic Priest, the Pope took care of that. He, however, did remain an Evangelical catholic pastor.
Because certain foul elements twisted an isolated document to support their agenda does not mean the author would agree with their agenda. You also betray your ignorance by claiming the Lutherans supported Hitler, a pastor of mine spent his childhood in the concentration camps because the Lutherans acted against Hitler. The State Church supported Hitler, those who were Lutheran in more than name split from the State Church and actively campaigned against Hitler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer being one of them. Adolf Hitler was a RCC in name only, in fact he was more neo-pagan than anything else.
Luther never had to denounce his position as a Catholic Priest, the Pope took care of that. He, however, did remain an Evangelical catholic pastor.