Jesus repudiates Mariolatry, Part the Fourth

[annsni]

So you believe that he chose to publicly dishonor her?

Was it dishonoring her to not acknowledge her as something wonderful? No - He was rightly showing them that the focus is not on one person but on the relationship with the Father.

 

[BobRyan]

from page 1

Quote:
Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself. For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Also from page 1 -- my response

---------
In that statement the authors appear to focus on Mary as "mother" of the human nature of Christ and indeed authoring/forming the BEGINING of that nature.

Too bad they choose terminology that denies the very point they are trying to make in that last statement.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote: OP
For we hold that God was born of her, not implying that the divinity of the Word received from her the beginning of its being

Bob said
And here the authors of the statement admit to their own blunder. They admit that the "PROCREATION term" -- MOTHER OF GOD - DOES imply beginning of being -- for it is a procreation term - not an incarnation term.

Now take these two posts together (42 and this one 43). In the one just prior to this we see the OP document DOES claim that Mary is the MOTHER of Jesus' human nature and thus of it's BEGINNING.

But in this statement the authors are stuck because they want the Catholic term "Mother of GOD" NOT to convey the SAME BEGINNING of NATURE information that it DOES in the case of Jesus' Human nature using the Bible term Mother of Jesus.

Yet they deliberately choose language that will cloud the TWO contexts for MOTHER risking the EXAULTATION of the HUMAN to "Queen of Universe" -- "Sinless like Christ" - "All powerful like Christ" - CoRedeemer etc which in fact HAS HAPPENED as direct fallout from this error -

Error that is not NECESSARY in the least as John shows in John 1 where he brings the subject of Christ's God nature into the discussion without ONCE falling into the ditch of "Mary Mother of God".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[annsni]

Quote from page 1

Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself. For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Am I reading this wrong? Is this saying that Jesus took on sinful nature so that sinful nature could triumph over corruption?? So then this is saying that Jesus became a man with a sinful nature. Am I right or am I reading this totally wrong?

 

[mrtumnus]

Quote:
Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself. For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Quote from page 1

Am I reading this wrong? Is this saying that Jesus took on sinful nature so that sinful nature could triumph over corruption?? So then this is saying that Jesus became a man with a sinful nature. Am I right or am I reading this totally wrong?

I think you're reading it wrong. It seems to me to say that Jesus took on 'human nature' in the same way Adam was originally created. The very same nature Adam took on and then sinned and fell, Jesus took on and did not sin or fall. Hence Jesus is the 'new Adam'.

 

[D28guy]

MrTumnus,

I said...

"Thats MUCH less problematic than the idolatrous "Mother of God".

As a matter of fact, its not problematic at all. None of us on our side of this have any problem saying that the teen age girl whom God chose for this use was blessed. Of course she was.

But...Jesus did not say "Yes! Blessed is she!"

Why didnt He?

Rather, He said....


"On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it""


He was a chance to publically honor His earthly mother, and yet...interestingly...He would not do it.

And you said...

"So you believe that he chose to publicly dishonor her?

You mean like this, from a different passage of scripture?....

"And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him: "they have no wine" And He said to her: Woman, what does your concern have to do with me? My hour has not yet come"

In neither of those cases was Christ publically dishonoring His earthly mother. But He WAS making it very clear that she is not to be in any way "high and lifted up", either literally...parading her statues through the streets while the goddess worshippers are in extacy over her....or even just being given titles like ((("Mother of God"))), and ((("Queen of the Universe"))), who's powers are called upon in order for her to take and protect the whole world.


Christ knew the end from the beginning, and He wanted to make sure that we had clear scriptural evidence to prove Mary's proper role, and His displeasure with Maryolatry.


Mike

 

[annsni]

I think you're reading it wrong. It seems to me to say that Jesus took on 'human nature' in the same way Adam was originally created. The very same nature Adam took on and then sinned and fell, Jesus took on and did not sin or fall. Hence Jesus is the 'new Adam'.

Did Jesus take on human nature - the sin nature - or did He take on human form? Scripture does not say that Jesus took on human nature but that God sent Him " in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin" (Romans 8:3). So that statement that Jesus took on human nature with it's sin would be wrong and an unBiblical statement.

 

[mrtumnus]

Did Jesus take on human nature - the sin nature - or did He take on human form? Scripture does not say that Jesus took on human nature but that God sent Him " in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin" (Romans 8:3). So that statement that Jesus took on human nature with it's sin would be wrong and an unBiblical statement.

My impression would be that he took on human nature as originally given to Adam -- uncorrupted, but suceptible to corruption (he could be genuinely tempted, just as Adam). Human nature as originally designed by God does not equate to sin nature.

 

[annsni]

My impression would be that he took on human nature as originally given to Adam -- uncorrupted, but suceptible to corruption (he could be genuinely tempted, just as Adam). Human nature as originally designed by God does not equate to sin nature.

Do you have Scripture to support this? Because, as I posted, there's Scripture to show that Jesus took on the human form but not human nature. The Romans verse said that He came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, not that He HAD sinful flesh. Was Adam in the likeness of sinful flesh?

 

[Matt Black]

Moreover, here are some more questions.

Was Mary the Mother of God the Son before the Creation of the world?

No

Was Mary the Mother of God the Son before she was born ?

No, no more than my mother was my mother before she was born

Did Mary give the Divine Nature of Jesus, the Divine Nature of God the Son to Jesus Christ?

No, but see below.

What did Mary do for the Divine Nature of God the Son?

She bore His pre-existent divine nature in her womb alongside His human nature and gave birth to both.

Did the Mother Mary exist before her Son?

The Second Person of the Trinity existed before Mary, but she existed before He became incarnate through His conception and birth

 

[Matt Black]

Your opinion is that Jesus is not really Mary's biological son?

Or he denies the virgin birth; as with so much he posts I'm really not sure.

 

[Matt Black]

Quote from page 1

Am I reading this wrong? Is this saying that Jesus took on sinful nature so that sinful nature could triumph over corruption?? So then this is saying that Jesus became a man with a sinful nature. Am I right or am I reading this totally wrong?

I think you are reading it wrong; what +John is saying is that it was necessary for Jesus to take on human nature - the very same nature which had thanks to Adam's sin become corrupted. +John doesn't say that Jesus' human nature was corrupted by sin, just that it was the same human nature which Adam and Eve had originally possessed prior to the Fall. To say that Jesus only appeared to take on human nature or form is an ancient heresy known as docetism, which is condemned by John 1:1-14 and I John 1:1-5. Paul also writes of Jesus as being the 'second Adam'

 

[mrtumnus]

Originally Posted by mrtumnus
My impression would be that he took on human nature as originally given to Adam -- uncorrupted, but suceptible to corruption (he could be genuinely tempted, just as Adam). Human nature as originally designed by God does not equate to sin nature.

Do you have Scripture to support this? Because, as I posted, there's Scripture to show that Jesus took on the human form but not human nature. The Romans verse said that He came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, not that He HAD sinful flesh. Was Adam in the likeness of sinful flesh?

So are you saying that you don't believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God? Rather He was fully God, but just in the form of a person -- he really wasn't human?

I don't have much time to research today, but here's the excerpt from the SBC statement of faith, and it has quite a few references I'm sure would apply. I am curious if you disagree with their Statement of Faith (I realize that many if not most posters on here aren't necessarily Southern Baptist).

B. God the Son

Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.

Genesis 18:1ff.; Psalms 2:7ff.; 110:1ff.; Isaiah 7:14; 53; Matthew 1:18-23; 3:17; 8:29; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16,27; 17:5; 27; 28:1-6,19; Mark 1:1; 3:11; Luke 1:35; 4:41; 22:70; 24:46; John 1:1-18,29; 10:30,38; 11:25-27; 12:44-50; 14:7-11; 16:15-16,28; 17:1-5, 21-22; 20:1-20,28; Acts 1:9; 2:22-24; 7:55-56; 9:4-5,20; Romans 1:3-4; 3:23-26; 5:6-21; 8:1-3,34; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2:2; 8:6; 15:1-8,24-28; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; 8:9; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:20; 3:11; 4:7-10; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-22; 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 3:16; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-15; 7:14-28; 9:12-15,24-28; 12:2; 13:8; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 3:22; 1 John 1:7-9; 3:2; 4:14-15; 5:9; 2 John 7-9; Revelation 1:13-16; 5:9-14; 12:10-11; 13:8; 19:16.

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt,

YOur answer is quite reasonable and rational, but we need to clarify a little further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliyahu
Moreover, here are some more questions.

Was Mary the Mother of God the Son before the Creation of the world?

No

Quote:
Was Mary the Mother of God the Son before she was born ?
No, no more than my mother was my mother before she was born

Quote:
Did Mary give the Divine Nature of Jesus, the Divine Nature of God the Son to Jesus Christ?
No, but see below.

Quote:
What did Mary do for the Divine Nature of God the Son?
She bore His pre-existent divine nature in her womb alongside His human nature and gave birth to both.

Quote:
Did the Mother Mary exist before her Son?
The Second Person of the Trinity existed before Mary, but she existed before He became incarnate through His conception and birth

In the last 2 sentences, the wordings are quite correct if the case were for the average human beings.

1) What does it mean by " she bore" ?
We normally use it for giving birth to someone, and it connects with " Pre-existence and the Reproduction " However, in case of Mary-Jesus relationship, Mary just carried Him, she never created Jesus, never existed before Jesus existed. So, those wordings cannot apply to the relationship between her and Jesus.

2) Not only Mary, there were many women who existed before Jesus came into the world. Jesus may have said to one of them, " Look at my Mother who keeps the word of God!" Jesus was God even before He was conceived and before He was born, Mary added nothing unto His Deity!

Did Jesus ever admonished the people to respect Mary as Mother of God or as any other respective title?

Why did Jesus call Mary all the time, " Woman !" ? Why doesn't Bible show Jesus call her " Mother" ?

​

 

[Eliyahu]

Your opinion is that Jesus is not really Mary's biological son?

No, Sir. You didn't know that Mary was mere a Surrogate mother.

Son of God has only Father, no Mother. Read Heb 7:1-5

If Mary was the Bio- Mother, do you mean the Ovum of Mary was fertilized with Word of God?

What kind of Biology are you talking about?

 

[annsni]

Originally Posted by mrtumnus
My impression would be that he took on human nature as originally given to Adam -- uncorrupted, but suceptible to corruption (he could be genuinely tempted, just as Adam). Human nature as originally designed by God does not equate to sin nature.

So are you saying that you don't believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God? Rather He was fully God, but just in the form of a person -- he really wasn't human?

No - Jesus was fully human - but without the sin nature that ALL men possess. That quote from above says that Jesus took on the FULL nature of man - including the sin nature, which is not Biblical.

 

[mrtumnus]

No, Sir. You didn't know that Mary was mere a Surrogate mother.

Son of God has only Father, no Mother. Read Heb 7:1-5

If Mary was the Bio- Mother, do you mean the Ovum of Mary was fertilized with Word of God?

What kind of Biology are you talking about?

First I'm not a sir (confusing I know ).

No, I do not believe that Mary was merely a surrogate mother. I do believe Jesus is her biological son.

Reading Heb 7:1-5 is interesting, I will admit. Especially verse 3?

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

This is speaking about Melchizedek. It says that like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

It also says he (Melchizedek) is without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.

So, do you therefore believe Melchizedek had no biological human parents, never had a beginning (birth) and never died?

Or do you recognize that there is nothing recorded in Scripture regarding these things, and that's what the verse is speaking to. We know none of these things about him.

However, the only thing I see compared here to the Son of God is that he remains a priest forever. Not that the Son of God is like him in these other areas.

If you do believe that though (that Jesus had neither mother, nor father, nor geneology), then Scripture would contradict itself. It tells us Jesus had a father (God). It tells us Jesus had a mother (Mary). It specifically tells us that Jesus has a geneology (Matthew 1:1, "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham".

 

[D28guy]

Mrtumnus,

"First I'm not a sir"

What?

Are you saying you are a...Ma'am? A She? A WOMAN?

Why do you have a Mr. in your username?

OK.

DHK, Bob Ryan, Joe, Eliyahu and all the other guys...let all get together.... :1_grouphug: ....have a meeting and brainstorm, and decide what we are going to do about this development!

Mike :thumbs:

 

[mrtumnus]

No - Jesus was fully human - but without the sin nature that ALL men possess. That quote from above says that Jesus took on the FULL nature of man - including the sin nature, which is not Biblical.

I had to go back and read the original quote again. It seems to me you're adding to the quote with your own impression. Nowhere does it say 'full nature, including the sin nature'. It says that he took on our nature. I interpret that to mean 'human nature'. He was fully human, not God pretending to be a human.

"For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. If the first is true the second must also be true."

This is not saying that jesus took on the sin nature of man. It is saying that the the purpose of Jesus becoming man is so that the corrupted nature of man should triumph over the devil and be freed from corruption (sin).

 

[mrtumnus]

Mrtumnus,



What?

Are you saying you are a...Ma'am? A She? A WOMAN?

Why do you have a Mr. in your username?

OK.

DHK, Bob Ryan, Joe, Eliyahu and all the other guys...let all get together.... :1_grouphug: ....have a meeting and brainstorm, and decide what we are going to do about this development!

Mike :thumbs:

Because Mr. Tumnus is a fictional character I'm quite fond of. I never gave it a second thought in terms of gender and relating to me when I created it.

I'm not quite sure what you think you could possibly do about it though.:smilewinkgrin: