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!
It's funny that people will call her the Queen of Heaven and make graven images of her that exalt her, but then say they haven't made an idol of her and don't worship her. It's called double talk. Mary isn't the queen of heaven, she wasn't sinless, she isn't the mother of God. Mary was a very godly woman who was chosen by God to bear the human body of the Lord Jesus Christ. She was a sinner just like us, and just like us she was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ at Calvary. She is right now part of the innumerable multitude in heaven praising Christ for salvation.
Depends what you mean by 'Mother'. Theotokos literally translates as, not 'Mother of God' but, 'God-Bearer'; in old English it would be 'God's Damm' but, for obvious reasons, the Church doesn't use that.
Looks like Nestorianism to me but a lot of Baptists and other evangelicals embrace Nestorianism. Do you believe the body of Jesus contained Mary's DNA?
I was pretty sure that's what you meant but it is not what you said.
Depends what you mean by 'Mother'. Theotokos literally translates as, not 'Mother of God' but, 'God-Bearer'; in old English it would be 'God's Damm' but, for obvious reasons, the Church doesn't use that.
Depends what you mean by 'Mother'. Theotokos literally translates as, not 'Mother of God' but, 'God-Bearer'; in old English it would be 'God's Damm' but, for obvious reasons, the Church doesn't use that.
So you reject the idea of the Theotokos. Are you Nestorian in your beliefs?
And how is that different from what you say about people who disagree with you?You are a living illustration why ancient Baptists were slandered by such epitaphs. When they simply denied that Mary was the Mother of God they were accused of being Arians or Nestorianism. When they denied the Roman Catholic view of communion they were charged with not believing and practicing communion, and charged as Arians because they did not believe the actual blood and body of Christ was in it, etc.
Of course not. "Before Abraham was born, I am." But we still must recognize that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. For the first time, man could look God in the eye and touch Him.Do you beleive that in the incarnation a new kind of God originated? A God unlike the God which previously existed before the incarnation??
Of course not. I believe in two natures of Christ but without separation or division.So are you Eutychianistic in your beliefs???
Wow! that’s all I can think of here. Do you actually believe the capitalization of “Mother” means Rome is placing her on the same level as God? You remind me of an uncle who used to come up with theories like that all the time. He was one of those people who believed man never really went to the moon. He was brilliant for his limited education but he had a really sick and twisted system of reasoning and drawing conclusions from said reasoning.I don't deny the hypostatic union between the divine and human nature but neither do I confound them in regard to ORIGIN and the epitaph "Mother of God" attributed to Mary confounds them in the point of origin. Rome capitalizes "Mother" just as they do God The "Father" and therefore place her on the same level in regard to ORIGIN.
You and I have two components—physical (body) and spiritual (soul). Do you refer to your mother as the mother of your body? Of course not. She is the mother of your whole being, body and soul. So it is with Mary.The only thing that originated with Mary is the human nature. She mothered the HUMANITY of Jesus but not his Deity.
Mary was the mother of a child, born in the usual manner. The child was conceived, not of a man, but of the power of the Holy Spirit. That is all the Catholic Church teaches about the birth of Christ (not all they teach about Mary of course).The normal use of "mother" and "father" in regard to birth is procreation of the nature. Rome is perverting the normal use of "mother" in regard to child birth to support this blasphemous heresy.
Of course not. I believe in two natures of Christ but without separation or division.
Wrong Jesus said I came down from Heaven. Mary did not impart Jesus with a soul. He was on the throne and came down from Heaven.I believe in two natures of Christ You and I have two components—physical (body) and spiritual (soul). Do you refer to your mother as the mother of your body? Of course not. She is the mother of your whole being, body and soul. So it is with Mary.
Did your mother impart you with a soul? Probably not, but you were born with a soul. Yet you don't refer to your mother as "mother of my body." She is the mother of your whole being. So why would we refer to Mary as only the mother of Christ's humanity? No one, not even Catholics, suggest that Mary gave Jesus his devine nature. You're making allegations that just aren't true and if you really thought about it you would realize that.Wrong Jesus said I came down from Heaven. Mary did not impart Jesus with a soul. He was on the throne and came down from Heaven.
Do you subscribe to the Chalcedonian Creed?Two natures and Mary was the mother of.....one of them. She was not the mother of God. Bottom line: if she was the mother of the divine, then she preceeded the divine, was the source or beginning of the divine. That is untrue.
I'm sure you will hang up on the mother of God thing, but other than that what do you think of it?We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us
The way you compare Jesus birth to a natural birth is where you blow it in your analogy.You're making allegations that just aren't true and if you really thought about it you would realize that.
I don't think so but if you care to elaborate I will consider it.The way you compare Jesus birth to a natural birth is where you blow it in your analogy.
Of course not. I believe in two natures of Christ but without separation or division.
Wow! that’s all I can think of here. Do you actually believe the capitalization of “Mother” means Rome is placing her on the same level as God?
You and I have two components—physical (body) and spiritual (soul). Do you refer to your mother as the mother of your body? Of course not. She is the mother of your whole being, body and soul. So it is with Mary.