-
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.
Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II
- Thread starter D28guy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I don't know how much was dealt with about Mariolatry in the previous thread but let me clarify some points.D28guy said:The 1st was closed due to length.
Can she accept the prayers from 1.3 billion people all over the world?
Is she Omnipresent now?
How come she had to spend 3 days ( Luke 2:46), then could not understand what Jesus said to her ( Luke 2:50) ?
Did the capacity of Mary explode after the death?
Isn't that the common Ancestor Worship by the pagan religion believing that the souls of the dead people can fly around all over the world?
Was Mary Mother of God the Father?
Was Mary Mother of God the Holy Spirit?
Was Mary Mother of God the Son when He created the world?
Did Mary give birth to the deity of Jesus Christ?
Did anyone in the Bible call Mary the Mother of God?
Why do many foolish people call Mary Mother of God?
It occurred to me yesterday that -- wouldn't a young mother today be just as blessed as Mary if she had birthed a "child of God?" one who became a believer?D28guy said:The 1st was closed due to length.
You know, all this "build up" of Mary -- including the "holy Mary mother of God..."adoration --was only borne of a revelation that, had it not been revealed, would have put Mary to shame rather than glory.
My neighbor is pregnant and a Christian. Is she not just as blessed as Mary in consideration of the potential of the child she will birth?
Can we even point to a biography of Mary and say, "Oh, she was definitely holier than Elizabeth" say? Or that there was some "merit" in Mary that eclipsed all other women of her time? Or was it merely that she was of the line of Judah from which a "king," the Messiah, could still be born?
skypair
If King David is truly a 'type' for our Lord and Saviour, perhaps we might learn something about Mary through his Queen Mother?Eliyahu said:Can she accept the prayers from 1.3 billion people all over the world?
Our Lord and Saviour prayed to the Father...Is she Omnipresent now?
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. ~ John 17:11-23
What is the perfect oneness which our Lord speaks? Is it merely 'one in purpose'? If such is so, only in will, then we would have to say that Jesus is not 'one in being with the Father' and thus not part of the Holy Trinity... I believe this oneness is something else, or at the very least, it was considered something else by the Early Church.
This 'perfect oneness' which will be shared with our Lord and the Father is the union between 'those who believe that the Father sent our Lord' with our Lord and the Father in heaven. This union is a union beyond what we can comprehend in our current fallen state. The union is described as the 'same' as that which is shared with our Lord and the Father. If any one creature can be said to now share in the perfect union with the Father and the Son... the Early Church affirmed that one creature to be the quiet obedient Mary, Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
So, what do you think this oneness which is shared between the Father and the Son is? I welcome your thoughts.
Does these passages suggest a deficiency in either Mary's or Joseph's Character? Or does these three days fore-shadow the three days absence from His flesh after His Passion?How come she had to spend 3 days ( Luke 2:46), then could not understand what Jesus said to her ( Luke 2:50)?
The Three Days Refer to the Resurrection.
St. Ambrose: The beginning of the Lord’s disputation is taken from his twelfth year. This number of the evangelists was intended for the preaching of the faith. (See Mt 10:1–2, 7) Nor is it idly that, forgetful of his parents according to the flesh, he who according to the flesh assuredly was filled with the wisdom and grace of God is found after three days in the temple. It is a sign that he who was believed dead for our faith would rise again after three days from his triumphal passion (See Mt 26:61; 27:63) and appear on his heavenly throne with divine honor. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 2.63.
St. Ambrose: The beginning of the Lord’s disputation is taken from his twelfth year. This number of the evangelists was intended for the preaching of the faith. (See Mt 10:1–2, 7) Nor is it idly that, forgetful of his parents according to the flesh, he who according to the flesh assuredly was filled with the wisdom and grace of God is found after three days in the temple. It is a sign that he who was believed dead for our faith would rise again after three days from his triumphal passion (See Mt 26:61; 27:63) and appear on his heavenly throne with divine honor. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 2.63.
Did the capacity of Mary explode after the death?
To answer this question, we would have to understand Perfection all will share in the Oneness with the Father and the Son...
Isn't that the common Ancestor Worship by the pagan religion believing that the souls of the dead people can fly around all over the world?
Or was it recognition of the oneness which all in heaven now share with the Father and the Son... ?
Because the early Church wisely understood that 'each' being of the Holy Trinity constitutes 'equally' the 'whole' of the Godhead. God is not divined between three beings (Father, Son and Holy Ghost)....Why do many foolish people call Mary Mother of God?
Understanding this the Church recognized Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God) not due to the fact that Mary is their 'source' but because the Son choose to dwelt in her and take from her His Humanity (perfect, pure and without sin)...
What does darkness have to do with the Light? I would say nothing.... By the dwelling of the Son Eternal within Mary, Mary participated uniquely and intimately with the Divine Nature in a manner unlike anyone except the Incarnation of God, her Son Jesus Christ.
Did this participation make her, in her fleshly life, all-wise, all-knowing, lacking nothing? No more so than her Son's fleshly life expressed fleshly limits...
Our Lord, in the flesh, grew in wisdom...
Our Lord, affirmed himself less than the Father...
Our Lord, ate and slept...
All of these limits suggest that our Lord isn't God due to some inherent defect or lacking if you are going to apply the same standard of criticism to Him that you are willing to apply toward His mother.
I would suggest that you actually read what the early Church said of Mary and why and then draw your conclusions in stead of approach the subject with preconceived notions you then twist the datum to support.
It would be more honest.
Historic Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all believe that Jesus was God Incarnate: God in the flesh; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. This title for Mary was specifically intended by the early Church to protect the deity or divinity of Jesus, since some were arguing that she was the mother of His human nature only. It would be odd to argue that human mothers give birth only to the bodies of their sons and daughters, rather than to a person who consists of body and soul. Human beings "co-create" in a sense the bodies of their children (implied by the word "procreate"), while they have nothing to do with their souls, which are directly created by God.
Likewise, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a human person, even though she had nothing to do with His divine nature (now merged with a human nature), which existed eternally. She gave birth to "the man Who was God," so she is the mother of God (the Son). At no time have Catholics or Orthodox thought that Mary was "mother" of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. It is only from sheer misunderstanding that anything other than this was thought to be implied by "Mother of God." Many notable Protestants have also used the title:
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God. (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther's Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother's womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. (Formula of Concord, from 1577: one of the Lutheran confessions, translated by Arthur C. Piepkorn: Solid Declaration, Article VIII: "The Person of Christ," section 9)
The description of Mary as the "Mother of God" was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition. (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I, 2, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 138)
Likewise, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a human person, even though she had nothing to do with His divine nature (now merged with a human nature), which existed eternally. She gave birth to "the man Who was God," so she is the mother of God (the Son). At no time have Catholics or Orthodox thought that Mary was "mother" of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. It is only from sheer misunderstanding that anything other than this was thought to be implied by "Mother of God." Many notable Protestants have also used the title:
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God. (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther's Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother's womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. (Formula of Concord, from 1577: one of the Lutheran confessions, translated by Arthur C. Piepkorn: Solid Declaration, Article VIII: "The Person of Christ," section 9)
The description of Mary as the "Mother of God" was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition. (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I, 2, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 138)
standingfirminChrist
New Member
In answer to someone's question about whether it is idolatry for a living person on this earth to pray for another person, or that it is acting the part of mediator, I present this verse.
1 Samuel 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
It is quite obvious that if we do not pray for others, we are sinning against the LORD God.
Now notice in my first paragraph I said 'a living person on this earth,' and not those who are alive. While Mary may be alive in Christ, she is no longer living on this earth. Her body sleeps beneath the clay... one day to be awakened to join all those who will be part of that glorious throng that is taken to live with Christ for all eternity.
1 Samuel 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
It is quite obvious that if we do not pray for others, we are sinning against the LORD God.
Now notice in my first paragraph I said 'a living person on this earth,' and not those who are alive. While Mary may be alive in Christ, she is no longer living on this earth. Her body sleeps beneath the clay... one day to be awakened to join all those who will be part of that glorious throng that is taken to live with Christ for all eternity.
Last edited:
bound said:If King David is truly a 'type' for our Lord and Saviour, perhaps we might learn something about Mary through his Queen Mother?
Even Bathshebah was fallible and erraneous. What do you want to learn from her? Is the Bible insufficient to you? Maybe you are carrying wrong Bible.
Our Lord and Saviour prayed to the Father...
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. ~ John 17:11-23
What is the perfect oneness which our Lord speaks? Is it merely 'one in purpose'? If such is so, only in will, then we would have to say that Jesus is not 'one in being with the Father' and thus not part of the Holy Trinity... I believe this oneness is something else, or at the very least, it was considered something else by the Early Church.
What did the Lord Jesus call Mary? Have you ever read the Bible once?
If not read it correctly here:
Jn 2
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
How does Paul call her?
Gal 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
This 'perfect oneness' which will be shared with our Lord and the Father is the union between 'those who believe that the Father sent our Lord' with our Lord and the Father in heaven. This union is a union beyond what we can comprehend in our current fallen state. The union is described as the 'same' as that which is shared with our Lord and the Father. If any one creature can be said to now share in the perfect union with the Father and the Son... the Early Church affirmed that one creature to be the quiet obedient Mary, Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
So, what do you think this oneness which is shared between the Father and the Son is? I welcome your thoughts.
So, are you claiming that Mary is the Mother of God the Father?
Does these passages suggest a deficiency in either Mary's or Joseph's Character? Or does these three days fore-shadow the three days absence from His flesh after His Passion?
Why did they waste 3 days? Were they not fragile human beings, just creatures before the Creator?
The Three Days Refer to the Resurrection.
According to your pagan theology.
St. Ambrose: The beginning of the Lord’s disputation is taken from his twelfth year. This number of the evangelists was intended for the preaching of the faith. (See Mt 10:1–2, 7) Nor is it idly that, forgetful of his parents according to the flesh, he who according to the flesh assuredly was filled with the wisdom and grace of God is found after three days in the temple. It is a sign that he who was believed dead for our faith would rise again after three days from his triumphal passion (See Mt 26:61; 27:63) and appear on his heavenly throne with divine honor. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 2.63.
Who wasted 3 days? Jesus or human creatures?
Jesus didn't waste 3 days!
To answer this question, we would have to understand Perfection all will share in the Oneness with the Father and the Son...
According to your theology, God the Father must call His creature Mary as Mother! God the Holy Spirit too!
Or was it recognition of the oneness which all in heaven now share with the Father and the Son... ?
Because the early Church wisely understood that 'each' being of the Holy Trinity constitutes 'equally' the 'whole' of the Godhead. God is not divined between three beings (Father, Son and Holy Ghost)....
None of the Early Church called Mary the Mother of God. Read the Bible and find where it calls her Mother of God. Then I will send you 1000 Dollars. If not, stop it!
Understanding this the Church recognized Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God) not due to the fact that Mary is their 'source' but because the Son choose to dwelt in her and take from her His Humanity (perfect, pure and without sin)...
Theotokos only by goddess worshippers like RCC and maybe you!
What does darkness have to do with the Light? I would say nothing.... By the dwelling of the Son Eternal within Mary, Mary participated uniquely and intimately with the Divine Nature in a manner unlike anyone except the Incarnation of God, her Son Jesus Christ.
Who operated the universe while Jesus was in her womb? did Mary do it?
You must know Jesus lived before Mary was born, before Abraham was ( Jn 8:56-58) Where was the person Jesus who saw Abraham gone when He was in the womb of Mary?
Did this participation make her, in her fleshly life, all-wise, all-knowing, lacking nothing? No more so than her Son's fleshly life expressed fleshly limits...
Our Lord, in the flesh, grew in wisdom...
Our Lord, affirmed himself less than the Father...
Our Lord, ate and slept...
All of these limits suggest that our Lord isn't God due to some inherent defect or lacking if you are going to apply the same standard of criticism to Him that you are willing to apply toward His mother.
I would suggest that you actually read what the early Church said of Mary and why and then draw your conclusions in stead of approach the subject with preconceived notions you then twist the datum to support.
It would be more honest.
Augustine claimed the Jews must be killed with double edged sword, do you follow him?
Your religion is inducing the people to deviate from the Bible, to follow the goddess worship, which I would never accept. You may be a devout goddess worshipper leading to the Idolatry.
You may continue your way and go wherever you deserve to, but I would follow the Lord Jesus Christ without leaning to the goddess worship.
I think my choice is better.
I think my choice is better.
Last edited:
(The following is what I wrote in part 1 of Jesus repudiates mariolarty.)
The saints are not an alternate route to God, as opposed to Christ. The fact is there is one sole mediator between God and man and that's the man, Jesus Christ. Paul couldn't make that any clearer than he does to Timothy. He says, "There is one mediator - one and only one mediator - between God and man."
1st Timothy, chapter 2 verse 5 says, "There is one God and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all." Now what conclusions can we draw from that? Can we draw from that the false conclusion that because we've got one mediator, therefore it's undermining the work of Christ to go through the saints and ask them to intercede on our behalf? No, of course not. Forget the fact that saints are the Christians in heaven, we're also aware of the fact that Christians on earth are continually addressed in the New Testament as saints. That's who we are. That's who we must become, and if we continue on and hold fast to the faith, that's what we will be for eternity. But we are saints if we are in Christ right now.
Now saints, if somebody asks you to pray for them, to intercede for them to God on their behalf, do you go around and say, How dare you undermine the sole mediation of Jesus Christ, the only High Priest? Of course not. Why? Because what does Paul say in the first four verses before 1st Timothy, 2:1, "First of all then, I urge the supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men." By Jesus alone? Of course not. By us, "for kings and all who are in high positions in order that we might lead a quiet and peaceful life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good and is acceptable by God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and man."
How often did I used to pull that text out of context and use that to undermine the proper veneration of the saints which is rooted in two things, asking them for intercession and supplication and being inspired to follow their example. I could add a third and I am going to; that is, we honor them. We glorify them when we venerate them. But why? Because we're just a little bit bored after ten or fifteen hours of honoring Christ? No. It's precisely because we honor Christ. It's precisely because we imitate Christ. We imitate Christ, and so if we see Him honoring those who have died for the truth, those who have confessed to the faith with much pain, we do what Christ does and we honor those whom He honors. Those whom He blesses, we bless.
It's rather simple. It's only when we unconsciously reduce the Christian faith to an individualistic, me and Jesus relationship that it becomes a typically American self-centered thing. I mean, let's face it, the American family is not a great example of strong communion bonds these days. And it hasn't been for centuries. Do you know that Daniel Boone was one of the worst fathers? Do you know that I believe it was his brother or one of his neighbors who fathered a child through his wife? Davey Crockett, the same way. Great American heroes, rugged individualists, not great family men. You should hear what John Adams' wife had to say - a radical feminist who was just a died-in-the-wood individualist. She wasn't more concerned about the marriage and about the family and the home and America. She was concerned about individual rights that she could exert and that others could exert and if they couldn't, they could get it by force. That's the American way.
As they used to say in the 18th Century, "We serve no sovereign." No kings, and kings were always father figures. I'm not arguing for political monarchy and natural politics because human sin is what it is. But we've got a supernatural monarchy, a heavenly kingdom, a father figure apart from sin who bestows his pure life and grace upon our older brothers and sisters, his children. And that kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven. And that inspires us in a much greater way to serve our Sovereign and to serve his cabinet ministers and the princes and the princesses that he appoints over us.
Do you realize how difficult it is for Americans to think and to behave in that way? When everything in our culture goes in the opposite direction? To whom do we bow in our society? Nobody. And when we even say, Your Honor to a judge, it feels kind of unnatural, and we bristle, don't we? It's un-American. Who do you think you are? But the fact is in a family, it isn't the person as much as it's the office that we venerate and honor. And that's what we're doing when we venerate the saints. We're imitating Christ who honors them. We, in turn, want to imitate the saints as they serve Christ.
We are the family of God. So no father is going to feel gypped or ignored or neglected as the brothers and sisters fall in love with each other and inspire each other to the courageous sacrifice and service for the family's name. It's even silly once you put it into those terms, but what other terms suffice for what the Blessed Trinity, the Divine Family, has been doing in all of history? It's the only one that makes sense. It's the only one that pulls the entire Bible together. It's the only reason why Paul in 1st Timothy 2:5 considers one mediator and still says, what he says in 1st Timothy 2:1-4, "Therefore, because there's one mediator, with greater confidence we can pray and make supplication and intercession for everybody," even for the kings and the wealthy and the rich and the corrupt. Why? Because there's one mediator, the God-man, Jesus Christ.
We could go nuts praying like we never could before. Why? Because there's one mediator. Does that mean no other intercessors, no others to make supplication? No That's just not right. There's one mediator and because our mediator is the most awesome mediator we could possibly imagine, we have now the capacity to intercede as priests in the Priest, as sons in the Son, as pastors and shepherds in the one Pastor and Shepherd. We draw our life from him. "No longer I, but Christ who lives in me. Apart from Christ, I can do nothing. But with me, Jesus says, you can do anything. With God, all things are possible."
The saints are not an alternate route to God, as opposed to Christ. The fact is there is one sole mediator between God and man and that's the man, Jesus Christ. Paul couldn't make that any clearer than he does to Timothy. He says, "There is one mediator - one and only one mediator - between God and man."
1st Timothy, chapter 2 verse 5 says, "There is one God and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all." Now what conclusions can we draw from that? Can we draw from that the false conclusion that because we've got one mediator, therefore it's undermining the work of Christ to go through the saints and ask them to intercede on our behalf? No, of course not. Forget the fact that saints are the Christians in heaven, we're also aware of the fact that Christians on earth are continually addressed in the New Testament as saints. That's who we are. That's who we must become, and if we continue on and hold fast to the faith, that's what we will be for eternity. But we are saints if we are in Christ right now.
Now saints, if somebody asks you to pray for them, to intercede for them to God on their behalf, do you go around and say, How dare you undermine the sole mediation of Jesus Christ, the only High Priest? Of course not. Why? Because what does Paul say in the first four verses before 1st Timothy, 2:1, "First of all then, I urge the supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men." By Jesus alone? Of course not. By us, "for kings and all who are in high positions in order that we might lead a quiet and peaceful life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good and is acceptable by God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and man."
How often did I used to pull that text out of context and use that to undermine the proper veneration of the saints which is rooted in two things, asking them for intercession and supplication and being inspired to follow their example. I could add a third and I am going to; that is, we honor them. We glorify them when we venerate them. But why? Because we're just a little bit bored after ten or fifteen hours of honoring Christ? No. It's precisely because we honor Christ. It's precisely because we imitate Christ. We imitate Christ, and so if we see Him honoring those who have died for the truth, those who have confessed to the faith with much pain, we do what Christ does and we honor those whom He honors. Those whom He blesses, we bless.
It's rather simple. It's only when we unconsciously reduce the Christian faith to an individualistic, me and Jesus relationship that it becomes a typically American self-centered thing. I mean, let's face it, the American family is not a great example of strong communion bonds these days. And it hasn't been for centuries. Do you know that Daniel Boone was one of the worst fathers? Do you know that I believe it was his brother or one of his neighbors who fathered a child through his wife? Davey Crockett, the same way. Great American heroes, rugged individualists, not great family men. You should hear what John Adams' wife had to say - a radical feminist who was just a died-in-the-wood individualist. She wasn't more concerned about the marriage and about the family and the home and America. She was concerned about individual rights that she could exert and that others could exert and if they couldn't, they could get it by force. That's the American way.
As they used to say in the 18th Century, "We serve no sovereign." No kings, and kings were always father figures. I'm not arguing for political monarchy and natural politics because human sin is what it is. But we've got a supernatural monarchy, a heavenly kingdom, a father figure apart from sin who bestows his pure life and grace upon our older brothers and sisters, his children. And that kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven. And that inspires us in a much greater way to serve our Sovereign and to serve his cabinet ministers and the princes and the princesses that he appoints over us.
Do you realize how difficult it is for Americans to think and to behave in that way? When everything in our culture goes in the opposite direction? To whom do we bow in our society? Nobody. And when we even say, Your Honor to a judge, it feels kind of unnatural, and we bristle, don't we? It's un-American. Who do you think you are? But the fact is in a family, it isn't the person as much as it's the office that we venerate and honor. And that's what we're doing when we venerate the saints. We're imitating Christ who honors them. We, in turn, want to imitate the saints as they serve Christ.
We are the family of God. So no father is going to feel gypped or ignored or neglected as the brothers and sisters fall in love with each other and inspire each other to the courageous sacrifice and service for the family's name. It's even silly once you put it into those terms, but what other terms suffice for what the Blessed Trinity, the Divine Family, has been doing in all of history? It's the only one that makes sense. It's the only one that pulls the entire Bible together. It's the only reason why Paul in 1st Timothy 2:5 considers one mediator and still says, what he says in 1st Timothy 2:1-4, "Therefore, because there's one mediator, with greater confidence we can pray and make supplication and intercession for everybody," even for the kings and the wealthy and the rich and the corrupt. Why? Because there's one mediator, the God-man, Jesus Christ.
We could go nuts praying like we never could before. Why? Because there's one mediator. Does that mean no other intercessors, no others to make supplication? No That's just not right. There's one mediator and because our mediator is the most awesome mediator we could possibly imagine, we have now the capacity to intercede as priests in the Priest, as sons in the Son, as pastors and shepherds in the one Pastor and Shepherd. We draw our life from him. "No longer I, but Christ who lives in me. Apart from Christ, I can do nothing. But with me, Jesus says, you can do anything. With God, all things are possible."
Aash said:Historic Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all believe that Jesus was God Incarnate: God in the flesh; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. This title for Mary was specifically intended by the early Church to protect the deity or divinity of Jesus, since some were arguing that she was the mother of His human nature only. It would be odd to argue that human mothers give birth only to the bodies of their sons and daughters, rather than to a person who consists of body and soul. Human beings "co-create" in a sense the bodies of their children (implied by the word "procreate"), while they have nothing to do with their souls, which are directly created by God.
Likewise, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a human person, even though she had nothing to do with His divine nature (now merged with a human nature), which existed eternally. She gave birth to "the man Who was God," so she is the mother of God (the Son). At no time have Catholics or Orthodox thought that Mary was "mother" of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. It is only from sheer misunderstanding that anything other than this was thought to be implied by "Mother of God." Many notable Protestants have also used the title:
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God. (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther's Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother's womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. (Formula of Concord, from 1577: one of the Lutheran confessions, translated by Arthur C. Piepkorn: Solid Declaration, Article VIII: "The Person of Christ," section 9)
The description of Mary as the "Mother of God" was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition. (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I, 2, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 138)
But Catholics take it too far and regard Mary as more than the creature she is by calling her this title. What Catholics mean by it is different from what others mean, because it is in the context of all the excessive Marian doctrines, which exalt Mary far higher than the way she is presented in Scripture: as a humble handmaiden of the Lord.
Davyboy said:But Catholics take it too far and regard Mary as more than the creature she is by calling her this title. What Catholics mean by it is different from what others mean, because it is in the context of all the excessive Marian doctrines, which exalt Mary far higher than the way she is presented in Scripture: as a humble handmaiden of the Lord.
This is an unfair accusation and absolutely untrue. It is impossible to find any official Catholic dogmatic document stating that Mary is the "mother of God the Father" or "mother of the Holy Spirit." But to deny that Mary was the mother of God (the Son) would be to deny that Jesus was God. Catholics use the term in the first place to glorify Jesus! God the Father (not Catholics) chose to use Mary in the incarnation. Nor is it true that anything else Catholics believe about Mary changes their understanding of this description: agreed-upon by the vast majority of all Christians throughout history.
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575; prominent early Protestant leader and author of the Second Helvetic Confession):
What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them, appears very clearly in the first chapters of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and particularly in her Magnificat . . . If Mary really is the Mother of the Lord, . . . then it is altogether just that she should be named by the Fathers of the Church theotokos, that is to say Mother of God. Nestorius denied that in the most infamous manner . . . (in Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of all Christians, translated by Neville B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, 197-198; 89; from Uber die Selige Jungfrau, May 18, 1558)
I think its important to remember that many Protestants have never heard of the word “Theotokos” and many Protestants, if you were to ask them to explain the Trinity, many would be riding the fence on being heretical.
Since my wife and I have been Catechumens in the Orthodox Church we have spent more time on the doctrine of the Trinity than I ever did as a Baptist for some30 years. It’s that important to the Church.
The Third Ecumenical Council recognized the Theotokos and the theological significance of the title to emphasize that Mary’s son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus’ two natures, divine and human were united in a Person of the Trinity.
The competing view at the Council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning to restrict Mary’s role to the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature, which was advocated by Nestorius. Nestorious’ view was ananthematized as a heresy.
He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos.
ICXC NIKA
-
Since my wife and I have been Catechumens in the Orthodox Church we have spent more time on the doctrine of the Trinity than I ever did as a Baptist for some30 years. It’s that important to the Church.
The Third Ecumenical Council recognized the Theotokos and the theological significance of the title to emphasize that Mary’s son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus’ two natures, divine and human were united in a Person of the Trinity.
The competing view at the Council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning to restrict Mary’s role to the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature, which was advocated by Nestorius. Nestorious’ view was ananthematized as a heresy.
He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos.
ICXC NIKA
-
Eliyahu said:Even Bathshebah was fallible and erraneous. What do you want to learn from her? Is the Bible insufficient to you? Maybe you are carrying wrong Bible.
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the King rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and head a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right. ~ I Kings 2:19
King Solomon pays filial honor to his mother, honoring God's commandments. God commands that we must honor our mother. If we are truly brothers of Christ, then perhaps such honor of Mary is also proper...
What did the Lord Jesus call Mary? Have you ever read the Bible once?
If not read it correctly here:
Jn 2
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
How does Paul call her?
Gal 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
So you would argue that Jesus in these passages was dishonoring His mother...?
So, are you claiming that Mary is the Mother of God the Father?
The wholeness of Godhead dwelt among us in the flesh. Are you so ready to divide the indivisible unity of the Godhead?
Why did they waste 3 days? Were they not fragile human beings, just creatures before the Creator?
Nothing in creation, shared in the image of God except man. Into our nostrils came the very 'breath of God'. After the fall, Adam created in 'his' own image but through salvific faith we can, through the grace of Christ, once again participate in that heavenly union which is unspeakable...
We know that a woman once spoke to our Lord saying...
Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" ~ Luke 11:28
With regard to His mother, both are true...
And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord. ~ Luke 1:45
Her faith was salvific and she was righteous. Whether she was sinful or not is pointless if God, the Heavenly Judge will not hold her accountable. Are you questioning His sentence?
According to your pagan theology.
You mean like Virgin Birth's and God-Man? That kind of pagan theology?
Who wasted 3 days? Jesus or human creatures?
Who wasted three days? Was it a waste for our Lord to descend into hades for three days? If truly this passage was a 'type' for our Lord's Death and Resurrection it 'had' to be three days...
Jesus didn't waste 3 days!
It is you who has attributed 'waste' to these three days, not I. I see then as a fore-shadow nothing more.
According to your theology, God the Father must call His creature Mary as Mother! God the Holy Spirit too!
Now, you have confused the persons of the Holy Trinity will the unity of the Godhead. Jesus is not 'part' God 'part' Man but wholly God and wholly Man. There is not any division in the unity of the Godhead and so we can say with assurance that 'God dwelt among us'.
If you disagree with this then I feel sorry for you.
None of the Early Church called Mary the Mother of God. Read the Bible and find where it calls her Mother of God. Then I will send you 1000 Dollars. If not, stop it!
If the Church stopped with John then I dare say we are all in a lot of trouble and that Jesus is affirmed a liar...
That not being the case I look to the commentaries of the Early Church for the Exegesis taught by our Lord to the Disciples on the Way to Emmaus to affirm my own interpretations of the Scriptures.
BTW, I will NEVER stop referring to Mary as the Mother of God (i.e. Theotokos God-Bearer) as long as Jesus Christ is God.
Who operated the universe while Jesus was in her womb? did Mary do it?
You have a very twisted, almost Islamic Anthropology concerning the Incarnation.
You must know Jesus lived before Mary was born, before Abraham was ( Jn 8:56-58) Where was the person Jesus who saw Abraham gone when He was in the womb of Mary?
An yet God entered His own creation through His own Incarnation...
Augustine claimed the Jews must be killed with double edged sword, do you follow him?
Quote please...
Your religion is inducing the people to deviate from the Bible, to follow the goddess worship, which I would never accept. You may be a devout goddess worshipper leading to the Idolatry.
Please establish this exegesis with an Early Church Father or admit that it is a modern novelty...
You may continue your way and go wherever you deserve to, but I would follow the Lord Jesus Christ without leaning to the goddess worship.
I think my choice is better.
We will see.
bound said:So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the King rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and head a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right. ~ I Kings 2:19
King Solomon pays filial honor to his mother, honoring God's commandments. God commands that we must honor our mother. If we are truly brothers of Christ, then perhaps such honor of Mary is also proper...
So you would argue that Jesus in these passages was dishonoring His mother...?
Who is Jesus telling us to be our Mother?
Mt 12
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
The wholeness of Godhead dwelt among us in the flesh. Are you so ready to divide the indivisible unity of the Godhead?
So, you are calling Mary, Mother of God the Father, right?
My point is that NObody in the Bible called her as Mother of God because of such contradiction ! Even Roman Catholic do not call Mary as Mother of God the Father! but are you suggesting she was Mother of God the Father? Say yes or NO!
Nothing in creation, shared in the image of God except man. Into our nostrils came the very 'breath of God'. After the fall, Adam created in 'his' own image but through salvific faith we can, through the grace of Christ, once again participate in that heavenly union which is unspeakable...
We know that a woman once spoke to our Lord saying...
Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" ~ Luke 11:28
With regard to His mother, both are true...
Your own reference teaches you that the Believers are more blessed than the woman who bore Him, though it doesn't say that Mary didn't believe Him.
And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord. ~ Luke 1:45
Her faith was salvific and she was righteous. Whether she was sinful or not is pointless if God, the Heavenly Judge will not hold her accountable. Are you questioning His sentence?
Anyone's faith is Salvific and any believers are righteous. You are exalting a specific woman above God by calling her as Mother of God which insinuates her pre-existence and the productivity of God !
You mean like Virgin Birth's and God-Man? That kind of pagan theology?
You don't know how to go deeper from that truth without getting into the goddess worship.
Is Mary the Mother of God the Holy Spirit?
Was Mary the Mother of God the Son when he created the whole world and all the people on this Earth?
Was the divinity of Jesus produced by Mary?
Was Mary operating the universe while she was pregnant?
As I asked, was the Divinity of Jesus produced by Mary?
YOu should have answered my questions first. You could not answer my questions clearly.
Answer now! by Yes or No !
YOu should have answered my questions first. You could not answer my questions clearly.
Answer now! by Yes or No !
Is Mary the Mother of God the Father?
Is Mary the Mother of God the Holy Spirit?
Was Mary the Mother of God the Son when he created the whole world and all the people on this Earth?
Was the divinity of Jesus produced by Mary?
Was Mary operating the universe while she was pregnant?
Who wasted three days? Was it a waste for our Lord to descend into hades for three days? If truly this passage was a 'type' for our Lord's Death and Resurrection it 'had' to be three days...
She couldn't find Jesus for 3 days while Jesus knew Nathanael even before he met Him ( Jn 1:48). She didn't know where Jesus was, for 3 days and couldn't understand what Jesus was saying ( Luke 2:50). She was that much spiritually stupid! and that's why she wasted 3 days without knowing where He was, though she could have sought Him earlier. It was Mary who wandered. My point is that Mary is neither Omnipresent to accept all the prayers from all over the world, nor Omniscient to understand all the prayers from 1.3 Billion Roman Catholics, throughout 2000 years.
It is you who has attributed 'waste' to these three days, not I. I see then as a fore-shadow nothing more.
Read the Bible Sir. Luke 2:44- says, she thought He was among the company ( MIsunderstanding !) Sought Him among the relatives and acquaintances ( Wrong thoughts), Having not found Him, she spent 3 days finding her own Son !
I am not confused about Trinity. As far as the logic is concerned, you can call Mary as Mother of God the Father or not to call her Mother of God at all, because God the Father is God as well. However, RCC do not call her as Mother of God the Father;
You can call Mary as Mother of God the Father according to your logic, then I would consider your god is a pagan god produced by a woman goddess!
Theotokos is Wrong!
From the view of goddess worshipers!
2 Cor 4:
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Gal 2
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Born again believers are all God-carriers because Christ lives in them, right?
She didn't know that He had to be fully occupied in His Father's business ! ( Ignorance !)
Wasn't she a typical type of a human believer? She was nothing more than a Believer in Jesus and her function and duty was to bear Him so that He may come out to the world as a descendant of David, and her function was a Surrogate Mother because He existed even before Abraham and Abraham saw His days ! The Bible doesn't require us to think Mary more than this.
Now, you have confused the persons of the Holy Trinity will the unity of the Godhead. Jesus is not 'part' God 'part' Man but wholly God and wholly Man. There is not any division in the unity of the Godhead and so we can say with assurance that 'God dwelt among us'.
I am not confused about Trinity. As far as the logic is concerned, you can call Mary as Mother of God the Father or not to call her Mother of God at all, because God the Father is God as well. However, RCC do not call her as Mother of God the Father;
You can call Mary as Mother of God the Father according to your logic, then I would consider your god is a pagan god produced by a woman goddess!
If you disagree with this then I feel sorry for you.
If the Church stopped with John then I dare say we are all in a lot of trouble and that Jesus is affirmed a liar...
That not being the case I look to the commentaries of the Early Church for the Exegesis taught by our Lord to the Disciples on the Way to Emmaus to affirm my own interpretations of the Scriptures.
BTW, I will NEVER stop referring to Mary as the Mother of God (i.e. Theotokos God-Bearer) as long as Jesus Christ is God.
Theotokos is Wrong!
You have a very twisted, almost Islamic Anthropology concerning the Incarnation.
From the view of goddess worshipers!
If God entered Earthen Pot, then does the Earthen Pot become Mother or Father of God?An yet God entered His own creation through His own Incarnation...
2 Cor 4:
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Gal 2
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Born again believers are all God-carriers because Christ lives in them, right?
Quote please...
St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!
http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm
Read this as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anti-semitism
Please establish this exegesis with an Early Church Father or admit that it is a modern novelty...We will see.
ECF's are erraneous and fallible. Bible Scriptures are Infallible and sufficient for the man of God to be perfect. (2 Tim 3:15-).
You are holding on the human traditions. Deceivers cheated you by ECF's who were fallible!
Last edited:
And for good reason!! The concept or theology of the so-called "theotokos is not found in the Bible. It is heresy. Protestants, as a whole avoid heresy and do not find reason to study it and/or believe it. Why should they even bother with it? Most of them know more about nirvana than they know about theotokos.Agnus_Dei said:I think its important to remember that many Protestants have never heard of the word “Theotokos”
Not so. I think you are referring back to a bad experience that you had in a Baptist Church before you made a decistion to leave it. BTW, when you were in that Baptist Church do you believe that you were saved? If so why? How did you become saved? If you were truly saved, why didn't you simply allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to another Bible-believing church that was much stronger in teaching doctrinal truths. All Baptist churches are not the same. Why do you paint them all with one large brush? A church rises or falls on leadership. If the leadership is weak in doctrine then it stands to reason that its sheep will also be weak in doctrine. You could have quietly left and found another Bible-believing church (such as another Baptist church) that would have been teaching stronger doctrine, rather than choosing a totally apostate church, that doesn't preach the gospel at all.and many Protestants, if you were to ask them to explain the Trinity, many would be riding the fence on being heretical.
The trinity is very important to most Baptist churches. You could have found one that put importance on teaching doctrine, but you didn't. Don't blame the Baptist churches for your mistakes. If you chose a Baptist church that had a weak or shallow pastor then whose fault is that?Since my wife and I have been Catechumens in the Orthodox Church we have spent more time on the doctrine of the Trinity than I ever did as a Baptist for some30 years. It’s that important to the Church.
So what? Who are they? They are nothing but a group of men that are sinners like the rest of us, condemned to Hell unless they repent and are born again of the Spirit of God. They are no one special. The question is: What saith the Lord? What does the Bible say? The Bible is our authority; not "the third Ecumenical Council." Jesus's two natures: human and divine were not united in the trinity until after he was born, not before. Today he sits at the right hand of God ever making intercession for us. The second person of the Trinity was God the Word from all eternity, until he took on human flesh, and became God the Son.The Third Ecumenical Council recognized the Theotokos and the theological significance of the title to emphasize that Mary’s son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus’ two natures, divine and human were united in a Person of the Trinity.
The competing view at the Council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning to restrict Mary’s role to the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature, which was advocated by Nestorius. Nestorious’ view was ananthematized as a heresy.
He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos.
Heresy!
Thanks for answering my question that praying to the living is not just not idolatry but is even commanded, but on what basis do you assert that there is this dichotomy between the physically alive saints and those who are physically dead?standingfirminChrist said:In answer to someone's question about whether it is idolatry for a living person on this earth to pray for another person, or that it is acting the part of mediator, I present this verse.
1 Samuel 12:23 Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
It is quite obvious that if we do not pray for others, we are sinning against the LORD God.
Now notice in my first paragraph I said 'a living person on this earth,' and not those who are alive. While Mary may be alive in Christ, she is no longer living on this earth. Her body sleeps beneath the clay... one day to be awakened to join all those who will be part of that glorious throng that is taken to live with Christ for all eternity.
I didn't see him to that.Eliyahu said:So, you are calling Mary, Mother of God the Father, right?
No. Clearly.My point is that NObody in the Bible called her as Mother of God because of such contradiction ! Even Roman Catholic do not call Mary as Mother of God the Father! but are you suggesting she was Mother of God the Father? Say yes or NO!
No it doesn't. You fail to understand the doctrine.Anyone's faith is Salvific and any believers are righteous. You are exalting a specific woman above God by calling her as Mother of God which insinuates her pre-existence and the productivity of God !
The one does not follow the otherYou don't know how to go deeper from that truth without getting into the goddess worship.
As I asked, was the Divinity of Jesus produced by Mary?
YOu should have answered my questions first. You could not answer my questions clearly.
Answer now! by Yes or No !
Define 'produced'. If you mean 'created' then no, Jesus' divinity was pre-existent (as the prologue to John's Gospel (1:1-14) makes clear); if however you mean 'birthed, then clearly yes, since to assert otherwise is to deny the divinity of Jesus, which is heresy.
No. No-one is saying that as far as I can seeIs Mary the Mother of God the Father?
Ditto, no.s Mary the Mother of God the Holy Spirit?
No, not when He did that but she was the mother of that same God the SonWas Mary the Mother of God the Son when he created the whole world and all the people on this Earth?
See aboveWas the divinity of Jesus produced by Mary?
No, but she bore within her whom He Who did and does that.Was Mary operating the universe while she was pregnant?
You've just demonstrated on the contrary that you don't understand the Trinity. And, I suppose, how can you, since you reject the patristic writings and Church Councils which defined the truth of the TrinityI am not confused about Trinity. As far as the logic is concerned, you can call Mary as Mother of God the Father or not to call her Mother of God at all, because God the Father is God as well. However, RCC do not call her as Mother of God the Father;
But no-one's doing thatYou can call Mary as Mother of God the Father according to your logic, then I would consider your god is a pagan god produced by a woman goddess!
That's heresy I'm afraid since you are denying the divinity of Christ.Theotokos is Wrong!
ECF's are erraneous and fallible. Bible Scriptures are Infallible and sufficient for the man of God to be perfect. (2 Tim 3:15-).
You are holding on the human traditions. Deceivers cheated you by ECF's who were fallible!
ON the contrary, it is heresy to deny it, as has been made clear aboveDHK said:And for good reason!! The concept or theology of the so-called "theotokos is not found in the Bible. It is heresy.
Oh, but I think he has...If you were truly saved, why didn't you simply allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to another Bible-believing church that was much stronger in teaching doctrinal truths.
So, what are you saying: that Mary didn't carry God the Son within her? Or that God the Son is not architect of the universe and that the universe can contain Him? Either way, it seems to me that you are the one propounding heresy here...Heresy!
Oh my DHK, did you not get the memo? Even the angel Gabriel proclaimed knowing that this young virgin from Nazareth would carry in her womb the Son of the Highest and …therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.DHK said:And for good reason!! The concept or theology of the so-called "theotokos is not found in the Bible. It is heresy.
According to the rest of your reply, they couldn’t differentiate what is and isn’t heresy, which is why most are heretical and don’t even know it.DHK said:Protestants, as a whole avoid heresy and do not find reason to study it and/or believe it. Why should they even bother with it?
Since each are their own infallible pope, why should they bother with it?
Obviously from your reply, and from my experience, I’d say that’s a true statement.DHK said:Most of them know more about nirvana than they know about theotokos.
ICXC NIKA
-
Agnus_Dei said:According to the rest of your reply, they couldn’t differentiate what is and isn’t heresy, which is why most are heretical and don’t even know it.
This is hardly an orthodox view that pertains to the trinity. It is heretical. It is the view of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as the article says, not of orthodox Christianity throughout the ages. You certainly can’t claim this as a historical doctrine since it originates with the Eastern Orthodox and not with the Bible. It isn’t in the Bible. It is heresy to say that Mary is the God-bearer. Utter foolishness!!Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, translit. Theotókos) is a title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Its literal English translations include God-bearer and the one who gives birth to God; less literal translations include Mother of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
Look at the heresy printed here, and from one of your own web-sites (Orthodox). Mary is the Mother…of the Word!!! That is blasphemous. That is saying that Mary existed before the universe ever was created. Read John one.The Virgin Mary is the Theotokos, the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. She was cared for by her betrothed husband, Joseph, who took the child and his mother into his home as his own. One very strong tradition in the Orthodox Church holds that the birth of Jesus was also miraculous and left Mary's virginity intact as a sign; it is also the tradition of the Church that Joseph and Mary did not have relations after the birth of Jesus. She is also called Panagia, the "All-Holy," indicating her closeness to God in her obedience.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
--It doesn’t say that the Word was with Mary, and it doesn’t say that the Word was Mary. You have written some very blasphemous things (you as in the Orthodox; but you, Agnus believe this hogwash)
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
--All things (the universe) were created by him (the Word; not Mary). What is written is blasphemous. Mary came thousands of years later.
Mat.13:55 combined with Mat.1:25 leaves no doubt in the readers mind that Mary had children and was not a perpetual virgin as the article said. This is just a straight denial of the Word of God. It is to remain in a state of unbelief. The Orthodox Church has no idea what the trinity is all about. That seems apparent from the above quotes.
She carried the body of the Son. The Son of God could have come a different way. But he chose to come through the body that Mary bore for Him. Even in our own bodies, they are described as temporary tabernacles that will some day go back to dust. When the resurrection occurs we will be given new bodies. This body only houses the real person. The incarnation of Christ, was Christ manifest in the flesh. It was the only way that God could be revealed to mankind. He revealed himself through a body that was provided to him by Mary.Matt Black said:So, what are you saying: that Mary didn't carry God the Son within her? Or that God the Son is not architect of the universe and that the universe can contain Him? Either way, it seems to me that you are the one propounding heresy here...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.