Doubting Thomas
Active Member
DHK said:
So you are admitting that God the Son was in Mary's womb for about nine months then, yes?
-
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!
Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II
- Thread starter D28guy
- Start date
- Status
So you are admitting that God the Son was in Mary's womb for about nine months then, yes?
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.Doubting Thomas said:
That is not what that Scripture says is it?
First, it calls what is in the womb of Mary "that holy thing."
Secondly, it states that that "holy thing" shall be called the Son of God, not is the Son of God. Mary simply provided a vessel for the Son of God to be born. Do you believe the Scripture or not? Take your argument up with God.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(1) Ah, so you don't believe that the Person that Mary carried in her womb for nine months was God the Son (or the Son of God, if you prefer)?DHK said:
(2) In what way was Mary a "vessel" for the Son of God to "born" then, if the "holy thing" she carried in her womb was not the Son of God?
(3) Or, at what point do you suppose "that holy thing" she bore became the Son of God?
(Things get getting curioser and curioser.... :smilewinkgrin
I did read that part. Did you read 'all' the Fluids that 'do' pass through the placenta? Nutrients, Antibodies, etc? The placenta acts as a Filter. Are you seriously arguing that the placenta is an impenetrable barrier and the child matures in the womb complete on it's own without the aid and participation of the mother's body?Linda64 said:
It offers what scholars know to be the ideas of some of the earliest Christian scholars at the time of many of the most important Church Councils. It allows us to glimpse the earliest thoughts of Christians to aid us to understanding how 'they' interpreted the Scriptures. It allows us to interpret the Scripture in a contestant manner with the Conciliar Church. It is of great value. Scripture isn't interpreted in a vacuum and it's shouldn't be interpreted via isegesis (i.e. imposing one's own views 'into' Scripture).
First I doubt we'd agree on exactly what sin is so answering this might be misleading but for the 'record' no she was not 'sinless' in any sense of being in a state of perfection at birth but I do believe that the Early Church had a lot of things to say about Adam, sin and our state of sinfulness. Western Christian Traditions (Protestant and Roman Catholic) have inherented a great deal of their Theology from Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine and has mixed 'guilt' with 'Original Sin' which I believe might be unmerited. With that said, we might be able to look at our inherent mortality as something that has always been part of our physicality (i.e. Flesh) but through the Grace of the our participation 'in the Godhead' our First Parents (Adam and Eve) existed in a state of stasis (i.e. incorruptibility). I say this because I don't believe our physicality (i.e. our Human Nature) was ever inherently incorruptible (i.e. an attribute of our Nature) but a Grace extended to our First Parents in the Garden by God's Will. God made man from Clay (i.e. matter)... from dust you were made and to dust you return. This corruptibility was always a possibility and if it was 'in the beginning' then incorruptibility was and is also a possibility. Now maybe we have fallen so far that any real effectual participation in the Divine Godhead is largely beyond us but it does explain why many of the early generations lived beyond the physical limits of our inherent nature (120 years). It was not a 'physical' difference between us and early man but a spiritual difference which extended their lives beyond what is physically capable. When we begin to view the Scriptures armed with this understanding we begin to see 'the how' and 'the why' of our Fall and our Redemption.
Acts largely focuses on the early miniseries of three Disciples (Peter, Stephen and Paul). We don't hear much about John but do you then leap to the conclusion that he was and is of no importance? Again one might argue that you or leaping to conclusions which aren't merited. There is simply no evidence to ground these conclusions in fact. They thus are merely presumptions and I would argue biased presumptions. Now I don't say that to be rude and in fact I say with a great deal of respect for your convictions but the evidence forces my hand.
I'm not here to champion a particular 'tradition' but I am here to offer the alternative to what might be a completely one sided argument. These matters are greater than keeping the lines between Protestant and Roman Catholic clearly defined. In fact, they are so great that they complete eclipse much of Western Church Theology. Not that the Western Church is wrong but pregnant with a particular bias which in some cased blind adherents to a more historical teaching held by the Early Church.
Be Well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. So the Bible very clearly states that she bore Jesus and gave birth to Him. Jesus. Who is God. So she bore and gave birth to God. So theotokos (Greek for 'God-bearer') is a totally Biblical term, contrary to what you claim. Unless you're denying the truth of the Bible...standingfirminChrist said:
There is no other position. There can be no room for compromise on such a basic Christological dogma; to claim otherwise is to risk at best heterodoxy or at worst heresy. If that means 'boxing you in' then so be it.DHK said:
Yes!!! Very, very obviously!
Evidently you don't, since you are unprepared to unequivocally state that you believe in the deity of Christ. It's no use in one breath saying that you believe that Jesus in God and then in the next denying that Mary gave birth to God. It's either one or the other. Utterly, breathtakingly simple. There's not a cat's chance that you can fudge the issue!
Just answer the question!DHK said:
It seems you can't read very well, or you have avoid reading my posts. Which is it?Matt Black said:
Christ is God, has been God for all eternity, will be God for all eternity, never gave up his deity for a single second. Is that clear enough?
When Christ entered this world he became the God-man, that is he was fully God and full man at the same time. There was nothing that was taken away from his deity at any time, not for even one second. Is that clear enough?
Concerning Mary, she was but a vessel used of God to bring this God-man into this world, and that is all. That in no way makes her the mother of God. To say that it does is heresy.
No. It originated in the Bible - see the Matthean Scripture I referenced earlier.DHK said:
It certainly has been accepted by the mainline denominations, just not certain weird and wonderful offshoots of the Radical Reformation. That in itself should tell us something
No, I reject it. But we're talking apples and oranges here, of course - see above.
OK, now you really have nailed your heretical colours to the mast. So Jesus wasn't born of Mary then. The Matthean passage is a lie; a later construct, perhaps, inserted by those nasty Catholics or Orthodox to support their vile heresy?
On this, at least, you are correct. But it doesn't change the historical and theological fact of the Incarnation, in which Mary gave birth to (theotokos) the very Word of God, Who is God. Praise be His Name
Adoptionism? I realy thought all these ancient heresies were dealt with over 1500 years ago; it seems that the JWs aren't the only ones with heretical Christology; it's such a shame to see it infecting some BaptistsDoubting Thomas said:(1) Ah, so you don't believe that the Person that Mary carried in her womb for nine months was God the Son (or the Son of God, if you prefer)?
(2) In what way was Mary a "vessel" for the Son of God to "born" then, if the "holy thing" she carried in her womb was not the Son of God?
(3) Or, at what point do you suppose "that holy thing" she bore became the Son of God?
(Things get getting curioser and curioser.... :smilewinkgrin
What I said is this:Matt Black said:
Originally Posted by DHK
Sorry, can't do that. Here is the reason why. You want to ask me a question like: Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian. I answer truthfully and say that I am neither one. But you keep pressing the issue and tell me that I have to be one or the other assuming that there can be no other position. You are of course wrong.
You would rather believe in a man than the Bible. That is truly unfortunate. You say that there is only man's position to believe in, and not the Biblical position to believe in, that is also very unfortunate. I am sorry to hear that you have rejected the Word of God in favor of the doctrines and traditions of man which Christ so harshly condemned.
OK, let's compare these two statements
andDHK said:
Total contradiction, folks. Your position is utterly untenable, I'm afraid.
Au contraire I'm sticking with the Bible - see the Matthean passage again. I really haven't a clue where you're coming from - some 4th or 5th century heresy, I fear.DHK said:
You are not sticking with the Bible. You are sticking with a man-made doctrine which I have shown to originate with the Eastern Orthodox church through more than one quote. It is outsided of mainline Christianity. It is a man-made doctrine outside of Biblical teaching. The heresy is all yours to believe. Because you can't understand an infinite God with a finite man does not make doctrine heretical. You speak like a J.W., and give the same reason--I can't understand you. "I haven't really a clue where you are coming from." Yes, I get that line from the J.W.'s frequently when discussing the trinity. That is why they reject it. It is natural for the unsaved person to reject that which they don't understand (that is not an accusation).Matt Black said:
Thus you say "I can't understand," how Mary could simply be a vessel used of God for a specific purpose, at a specific time in history, to bear the Son of God, a vessel to bring him into this world, and that is all. She is not the mother of God, and never was. To say that she is, is heresy.
The truth is, you refuse to accept the truth of the Bible that is inexplicable to the finite mind trying to understand an infinte God.
With the help of this thread I understand now why as an Orthodox Catechumen, we have devoted more time discussing the Trinity and Incarnation in our Catechesis class. It’s that important to have a solid understanding.Matt Black said:
And I also understand why as a Catechumen being Chrismated in the Orthodox Church, he rejects all heretical beliefs of his past. I thought to myself, what heretical beliefs were there?
Sadly…now I know…
ICXC NIKA
-
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Then why don't you answer those three questions?DHK said:
And, no, you didn't "just quote Scripture". You also made some comments about those Scriptures that seemed ambiguous, if not contradictory or even downright heretical. Again, why don't you just unambiguously answer those three questions?
1. Gabriel referred to as "that holy thing."Doubting Thomas said:
2. Christ never gave up his deity at any time.
She was just that--a vessel, used of God to bring Christ into this world, and that is all. Why is it so difficult to believe in something so simple?
Look at the quote I gave you from an Orthodox site and all that it believes. She remained a virgin (heresy). She never consummated her marriage with Joseph and had other children (heresy). But mainly to claim that "she is the mother of God the Son and Word is indeed heresy. She is not pre-incarnate as the Word is. This is a very heretical doctrine. The very fact that it lies outside mainstream Christianity should tell the average reader something.
I don't pretend (as some other arrogant people do) to have all the answers. I do know that Christ never gave up his deity. He always was and always will be deity.
I also know that there were times in his earthly stay on earth where he deliberately chose to lay aside his divine attributes. This is obviously one of those times. He was born as a man, and not as God (though he was God). Mary was not the mother of God.
Matt, I asked you this question:Matt Black said:
Do you honor Mary, or blasphemously worship her, which is idolatry (as the RCC does)? Your reply to that question is above.
Now note the quote from an Orthodox site:
As you can see it comes from the Orthodox Study Bible. Perhaps I should have rephrased my question, "Do the Orthodox worship..." And the obvious answer is yes. That is a prayer of idolatrous worship. This is the heresy of theotokos. There is a tremendous amount of heresy that goes along with this doctrine. All of it can be found at this site:
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Mary.html
DHK said:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Holy Spirit through the mouth of Luke also said 'That holy thing... shall be born of thee' (i.e. Motherhood of 'that holy thing').
Honestly DHK I don't believe you'll get too much objection from the Consensual Teaching of the Church with calling Mary 'a vessel'. The Liturgies often refer to her as 'the Ark of the New Convenant' again 'a vessel'. She is also refered to as 'The Ark' as in Noah's Ark... again 'a vessel' but I don't believe that either analogy seeks degrade the human dignity of Mary by seeking to 'objectify' her into an automous non-person. Just as those who touched 'the Ark of the Old Convenant' died because it was made holy (i.e. set aside for the purpose of God) so too did the Early Church believe that Mary was 'holy' (i.e. set aside for the purpose of God). Just as the Ark of Noah brought those who trusted in her to dry land, so too did the Early Church believe that Mary was a necessary 'vessel' in God's Plan of Salvation. So, you see calling Mary 'a vessel' isn't a real problem unless you're doing to objectify her as a 'real' participate in God Plan of Salvation. Such does great harm to the dignity of those holy vessel that played very real and necessary roles in God Plan for us.
- Status