Does it deny He has a father?
-
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!
Does God have a Mother?
- Thread starter Eliyahu
- Start date
Are you denying the virgin birth? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly not! But your interpretation of it, if extended from 'mother' to 'father', does...
But your interpretation of Heb 7:3 contradicts this.
Eliyahu said:
instead, Word itself became flesh and Mary is just a human incubator or a surrogate mother.
Over in the other thread in the Baptist forums, participants attempting to explain how Mary could not be the "mother of God" (whether properly understood or not) gave explanations that were distinctly Nestorian and Sabellian.
Now we have added a kind of Docetism to the mix: the denial of Jesus' humanity. While the anti-theotokos people haven't gone as far as to say Jesus' flesh was illusory, when they claim that Mary was merely an "incubator" or "surrogate mother," they are denying that Jesus was truly a member of the human race, because his flesh has no genealogical connection to the descendants of Adam.
The early Church realized that the nature of the Incarnation had immense soteriological ramifications, which is why they were so determined to refute heretical Christologies.
Bottom line: If Jesus Christ was not a true man, he was not a suitable substitute to atone for the sins of men, and we are still all doomed in our sins. And if Jesus was not a true descendant of David, then biblical prophecy cannot be regarded as reliable. We Christians are all living a lie.
instead, Word itself became flesh and Mary is just a human incubator or a surrogate mother.
Over in the other thread in the Baptist forums, participants attempting to explain how Mary could not be the "mother of God" (whether properly understood or not) gave explanations that were distinctly Nestorian and Sabellian.
Now we have added a kind of Docetism to the mix: the denial of Jesus' humanity. While the anti-theotokos people haven't gone as far as to say Jesus' flesh was illusory, when they claim that Mary was merely an "incubator" or "surrogate mother," they are denying that Jesus was truly a member of the human race, because his flesh has no genealogical connection to the descendants of Adam.
The early Church realized that the nature of the Incarnation had immense soteriological ramifications, which is why they were so determined to refute heretical Christologies.
Bottom line: If Jesus Christ was not a true man, he was not a suitable substitute to atone for the sins of men, and we are still all doomed in our sins. And if Jesus was not a true descendant of David, then biblical prophecy cannot be regarded as reliable. We Christians are all living a lie.
A glut of articles on the Web does not make nor prove that Luther was an anti-semite.
I have read the articles by the sad little people who wish to discredit one of the boldest proclaimers of the Gospel, instead of blaming the people who are truly responsible.Well Nestorius did take your/his interpretation to its logical conclusion, denying the death of the deity.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Ransom,
Well said.
I particularly liked this sentence:
Well said.
I particularly liked this sentence:
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Ha, Ha! I know what you mean.
Marcia
Active Member
Whenever someone refers to a verse, I look at the surrounding verses and also compare that to other parts of the Bible.
There are problems with your reference to Heb 7.3 to prove your point:
1. Melchizedek could have been a type of Christ or, some say, the preincarnate Christ. But we don't know for sure as the info is very spare on Melchizedek. It is not good to use an unclear or disputed passage to prove a point or doctrine.
2. Heb 7 also states that Melchizedek did not have a father.
3. Heb 7 is about why Jesus did not emerge from the Levitical priestly line.
I think you have an issue with this because you are associating the phrase "mother of God" with the Roman Catholics instead of realizing this phrase came about when believers stood against a heresy about Jesus Christ. Just because the Roman Catholic Church uses this phrase does not mean it's not true.
God could have had Jesus just appear as an adult male, or He could have had Jesus appear as a baby in Mary's arms, but He didn't. He chose to have Jesus conceived supernaturally in Mary's womb and then gestate and be born as other babies. This makes Mary Jesus' human (and only) mother.
""And I'm sure they might return the favor to you as well. ""
They would have burned us at the stake I am sure. As far as calling folks heretic though, you guys win the medal. It is funny because this his been an experiment in how the title was used to distroy your enemies in the early chruch. I see what happened to Nestorius. I doubt if he or cyrill were christians, and I am not sure why we would give such a state chruch as it was so much authority. Examine what happened at ephesus with your own eyes, ears and heart. Do you really see anything honorable about it? Do you really think the spirit of God was present? Whos purpose did it serve. You can say we need it to show that Christ was God all you want, but we can see by the plain history that it was the worshipers of Artemis who had a very strong Mary cult at Ephesus who were most pleased.
They would have burned us at the stake I am sure. As far as calling folks heretic though, you guys win the medal. It is funny because this his been an experiment in how the title was used to distroy your enemies in the early chruch. I see what happened to Nestorius. I doubt if he or cyrill were christians, and I am not sure why we would give such a state chruch as it was so much authority. Examine what happened at ephesus with your own eyes, ears and heart. Do you really see anything honorable about it? Do you really think the spirit of God was present? Whos purpose did it serve. You can say we need it to show that Christ was God all you want, but we can see by the plain history that it was the worshipers of Artemis who had a very strong Mary cult at Ephesus who were most pleased.
Marcia and Ransom -
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Bunion,
Have you actually read the primary source documents surrounding Ephesus or just secondary revisionist accounts? Perhaps if you read the former rather than the latter you'd be less quick to castigate folks like Cyril as "non-Christian". But I'm sure that wouldn't be in keeping with your conspiratorial anti-catholic (little 'c') agenda.
Have you actually read the primary source documents surrounding Ephesus or just secondary revisionist accounts? Perhaps if you read the former rather than the latter you'd be less quick to castigate folks like Cyril as "non-Christian". But I'm sure that wouldn't be in keeping with your conspiratorial anti-catholic (little 'c') agenda.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Is "That" the only alternative to the Trinity denying heresy "Mother of God"????
What special fallacy is THAT???
What about just "admitting" to the SAME THING that Bible writers do - that "Mary is the mother of Jesus"???
Why is that so "hard" for Catholics?
ANSWER: Because IF someone believes that she is also the MOTHER OF GOD - then that MUCH STRONGER statement WOULD be used frequently and often - JUST as our RC brethren do! Just as the Bible writers DO NOT DO!!
How can this "obvious point" be glossed over time after mind numbing time by the pro-RC posters here??
I just don't see why they are so bent on turning away from this obvious point.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Speaking of the OT time prior to the incarnation of God the Son as "Christ" the Messiah - Jesus I said
Natters then tries a "tactic" of obfuscation
But "Back to the point" - God the Son was not IN FLESH nor the INCARNATE God BEFORE the incarnation.
Your point that the incarnation started at some point in pregnancy - "not withstanding".
The point remains.
Incarnation IS NOT the "procreation" that the RC heresy imagines so it can not have the PROCREATION terms inserted into it.
Terms like "MOTHER OF GOD" are NEVER used by inspired Bible writers!. It is also NEVER USED by Christians today that hold to that same view of INCARNATION vs procreation and that do not want to lessen the concept of God in order to "worship at Mary's altars".
In Christ,
Bob
Thus I clearly draw the line between the INCARNATION and the pre-incarnate Son of God.
Natters then tries a "tactic" of obfuscation
Way cool misdirection!
But "Back to the point" - God the Son was not IN FLESH nor the INCARNATE God BEFORE the incarnation.
Your point that the incarnation started at some point in pregnancy - "not withstanding".
The point remains.
Incarnation IS NOT the "procreation" that the RC heresy imagines so it can not have the PROCREATION terms inserted into it.
Terms like "MOTHER OF GOD" are NEVER used by inspired Bible writers!. It is also NEVER USED by Christians today that hold to that same view of INCARNATION vs procreation and that do not want to lessen the concept of God in order to "worship at Mary's altars".
In Christ,
Bob
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Neither are the terms "Trinity" and "consubstantial" for that matter.
That's simply not true. You persist in upholding a strawman.