• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Bound,
I am not the one who has a problem referring to Mary as a vessel whom God has used. I have been consistent in that position. Others have had that problem, not me.
The problem with theotokos is making Mary the mother of God, when God has no mother. Look at my previous post where the Orthodox Church deifies Mary.
 

bound

New Member
DHK said:
Bound,
I am not the one who has a problem referring to Mary as a vessel whom God has used. I have been consistent in that position. Others have had that problem, not me.
The problem with theotokos is making Mary the mother of God, when God has no mother. Look at my previous post where the Orthodox Church deifies Mary.

I can appreciate the objection but honestly DHK I've never read anywhere in Early Christendom anyone suggesting that Mary is the 'progenitor' of the Godhead. That might be argued as 'a straw man' objection. The title 'Theotokos' has always been linked to the mystery of the Incarnation and the fact that Jesus Christ 'is' God made Flesh.

The Logos has not always been the God-Man Jesus Christ because the Incarnation was the taking on of Flesh for the Salvation of Man in a particular time and place. This is why there was such emphasis on the 'two nature' in unity but separate because a perfect God, as our God surely is, is immutable (i.e. unchanging) and this meant that the Incarnation in no way altered the Logos in any 'essential' way. It was the taking on of flesh for the benefit of the finite not the infinite. Perhaps this is something that should be stressed out of respect for the merits of you objection.

No one is suggesting nor has suggested that Mary's Motherhood was the origin the Godhead or the Logos in particular but it was her Motherhood that was chosen by God to enter His Creation. If she's good enough for Him, seriously, who are we to object?

We all know that we our Faith saves as our Father in Faith (Abraham). Mary has always been an admirable example of humble faith. Let it be done to me as you have said... If only I could be so accommodating to our Lord...

We all also know that 'in' Christ we are sons and if sons heirs of the Godhead. If anything screams 'deification' it's this... How much more so is Mary who literally had Christ within her is made a daughter and in so being an heir?

This is why the Early Church not only recognized the 'deification' of Mary but 'all' the Saints who share as heirs the Godhead. Perhaps you particular soterology doesn't have a particularly developed teaching on Sanctification but the 'making Sacred' was and is a very big part of our Christian Faith. This 'making Sacred' is known as Theosis in the Eastern Church and helps explain what was meant by 'heirs' in the Scriptures.

I don't believe there is anything 'unbiblical' about this and in fact believe it to be the actual job of the Church (i.e. the healing of Humanity).
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
The problem with theotokos is making Mary the mother of God, when God has no mother.
The problem is you don't understand the definition of Theotokos. The Third Ecumenical Council had nothing to do with Mary being called: the Mother of God the Father.

The Council wasn't concerned with the first Person of the Trinity per se...The issue was Jesus' Divinity and His Humanity. Where His two natures ever seperated as that was the hot bed issue.

ICXC NIKA
-
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Agnus_Dei said:
The problem is you don't understand the definition of Theotokos. The Third Ecumenical Council had nothing to do with Mary being called: the Mother of God the Father.

The Council wasn't concerned with the first Person of the Trinity per se...The issue was Jesus' Divinity and His Humanity. Where His two natures ever seperated as that was the hot bed issue.

ICXC NIKA
-

Then do you mean that God the Father is not the God in the phrase of Mother of God?

You are claiming God the Father is not God, but God the Son is the only God, especially in the phrase of Mother of God.
If you believe the Trinity, then God the Father is God, and therefore Mary should have been Mother of God the Father as well.

Is Mary Mother of God the Father? Say yes or No!

Was God the Father born by Mary? Say Yes or NO !
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
bound said:
No one is suggesting nor has suggested that Mary's Motherhood was the origin the Godhead or the Logos in particular but it was her Motherhood that was chosen by God to enter His Creation. If she's good enough for Him, seriously, who are we to object?
She wasn't "good enough". Therein is one objection. "There is none good, no not one. And that includes Mary. Theotokos is a heretical doctrine that gives undue glory and even deification to Mary, honor that is due only to God. To rob God of his glory is sin. She was a vessel used of God in a point in history. There have been many men and women used of God: Moses, Abraham, Ruth, Joshua, Isaiah, etc. But undue attention is given to Mary only because she was used in a different manner than the rest of these individuals who also lived by faith and obeyed, submitting themselves to the will of God.
We all know that we our Faith saves as our Father in Faith (Abraham). Mary has always been an admirable example of humble faith. Let it be done to me as you have said... If only I could be so accommodating to our Lord...
Read 1Sam.1. Hannah said the same things.
We all also know that 'in' Christ we are sons and if sons heirs of the Godhead. If anything screams 'deification' it's this... How much more so is Mary who literally had Christ within her is made a daughter and in so being an heir?
Mary of her own admission needed a Saviour, and admitted that she was a sinner. She even brought a sin-offering to the priest. Bringing forth the Lord did not make her any more holy. God could have chosen any young Jewish maiden at that time. Mary was not sinless. He chose Mary. Why? We don't know, and the Bible doesn't say. The act of choosing didn't give Mary salvation. She had to believe God for her salvation just like everyone else. You are reading too much into the Scriptures.
This is why the Early Church not only recognized the 'deification' of Mary but 'all' the Saints who share as heirs the Godhead.
And much of what you refer to the "Early Church" was heretical. Origen was declared a heretic even by the Catholic Church. The Jews knew that there is only One God, and so did the Christians. We are not polytheistic in our beliefs. I hope you are not. To deify Mary is sin. It is idolatry. Your above statement is wrong. The early church did not deify Mary; perhaps the early Catholics, the early heretics, but not the early believers.
Perhaps you particular soterology doesn't have a particularly developed teaching on Sanctification but the 'making Sacred' was and is a very big part of our Christian Faith.
Sanctification simply means to "set apart." Every Christian is set apart at the time of salvation, and as they grow in Christ there is a process of sanctification that ought to be going on in that believer's life. It also has the meaning of being holy. "holy, set apart" Mary was set apart to perform a particular service for God. And she accomplished it. She did the will of God. Any obedient Christian would do the same, and still does.
This 'making Sacred' is known as Theosis in the Eastern Church and helps explain what was meant by 'heirs' in the Scriptures.
And that is not a Scriptural view.
I don't believe there is anything 'unbiblical' about this and in fact believe it to be the actual job of the Church (i.e. the healing of Humanity).
You have a misunderstanding of "the Church." What Church?"
God works through local churches which he has ordained in this day and age, just as in the Old Testament, he ordained the Temple to be the symbolic dwelling place of God. I do not say that the church building is the symbolic dwelling place of God. It isn't, and that isn't the definition of a church. The believer is called the temple of God (1Cor.6:19,20), and those believers who voluntarily unite themselves together to carry out the ordinances of Christ and to obey the Great Commission form a church. God works through local churches, not denominations which are not found in the Bible.

Theotokos is not found in the Bible. The concept of Mary being the mother of God is not found in the Bible. Go to the website I posted. The worship and deification of Mary is not found in the Bible. It is all heretical.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
DHK said:
1. Gabriel referred to as "that holy thing."
2. Christ never gave up his deity at any time.
Quit dodging--was the One in Mary's Womb in fact God the Son, yes or no?

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?
How, if the one in her womb was not God the Son?

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.
Well if Christ never gave up His deity, He was in fact deity in Mary's womb, correct?
And if that's the case, the One Mary bore was 'God', correct?

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.
Boy, you're flippin' and floppin' all over the place. If Christ never gave up His deity, how then was He not deity in Mary's womb?

The ONE Person who was born of Mary--was He God or man or both?
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Hebrews 7:
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

The author of Hebrews compares Melchizedek with Son of God and finally concludes that both are very similar each other because :

They are king of Righteousness, King of Peace, without Genealogy, no beginning of days, no end of life, no (earthly) father, no mother, lives forever as a Priest.

Does the Bible imply that Son of God has a Mother?

If Son of God has the Mother, could he compare Melchizedek with Son of God with such a statement ( NO MOTHER) ?
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Eliyahu said:
Hebrews 7:
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

The author of Hebrews compares Melchizedek with Son of God and finally concludes that both are very similar each other because :

They are king of Righteousness, King of Peace, without Genealogy, no beginning of days, no end of life, no (earthly) father, no mother, lives forever as a Priest.

Does the Bible imply that Son of God has a Mother?

If Son of God has the Mother, could he compare Melchizedek with Son of God with such a statement ( NO MOTHER) ?

(1) Was Mary Jesus's mother--yes or no?
(2) Was Jesus God or man or both?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Doubting Thomas said:
Boy, you're flippin' and floppin' all over the place. If Christ never gave up His deity, how then was He not deity in Mary's womb?
Like Agnus you only read what you want to read, or you deliberately misread. I didn't say he gave up his deity. I never have said that. I plainly said that there were many times that he laid aside his divine attributes--not his deity. If he didn't do that, then how did he experience hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc. He laid aside his divine attributes that he would suffer as a man. When Peter drew his sword and cut of Malchus' ear, Jesus restored the ear, rebuked Peter, and told him that he could have called 24,000 angels to protect him. He could have exercised his divine authority, his omnipotence. But he didn't. He went willingly to the cross, laying aside his divine attributes. Coming to earth as an infant, was also one of those occasions where he laid aside his divine attributes, but not his deity. Do me a favor and go back and read these last 21 pages and count how many times I have posted this.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
DHK said:
Like Agnus you only read what you want to read, or you deliberately misread. I didn't say he gave up his deity. I never have said that. I plainly said that there were many times that he laid aside his divine attributes--not his deity. If he didn't do that, then how did he experience hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc. He laid aside his divine attributes that he would suffer as a man. When Peter drew his sword and cut of Malchus' ear, Jesus restored the ear, rebuked Peter, and told him that he could have called 24,000 angels to protect him. He could have exercised his divine authority, his omnipotence. But he didn't. He went willingly to the cross, laying aside his divine attributes. Coming to earth as an infant, was also one of those occasions where he laid aside his divine attributes, but not his deity. Do me a favor and go back and read these last 21 pages and count how many times I have posted this.

So if He did not give up His Deity, then He was Deity even inside Mary's womb, right?
And if He was Deity even inside Mary's womb, He was still Deity when Mary gave birth to Him in time, right?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Doubting Thomas said:
So if He did not give up His Deity, then He was Deity even inside Mary's womb, right?
And if He was Deity even inside Mary's womb, He was still Deity when Mary gave birth to Him in time, right?
I have never said otherwise. Christ has always been God--always. He never gave up his deity, not even for one second. To say otherwise would be heresy. OTOH, to say that Mary is the mother of God is also heresy. She was simply a vessel that God used in one point in history to bring forth Christ. She never was his mother. Christ had no mother. He existed from all eternity.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
Like Agnus you only read what you want to read, or you deliberately misread. I didn't say he gave up his deity. I never have said that. I plainly said that there were many times that he laid aside his divine attributes--not his deity.
Yet Christ remains Divine DHK, “laying aside” His Divinity like you insist on repeating doesn’t mean Christ ceased to be anything less than 100% Divine.
DHK said:
If he didn't do that, then how did he experience hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc.
Christ’s Human will always submitted to His Divine Will.
DHK said:
Coming to earth as an infant, was also one of those occasions where he laid aside his divine attributes, but not his deity.
As a fetus in Mary's womb DHK, was Christ fully Divine, yet fully Human? I'm not asking about an infant in the manger, but an unborn baby.

IF you answer yes...then what was Mary the bearer of...Christ's humanity or both Christ's humanity and His Divinity?

ICXC NIKA
-
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
IF you answer yes...then what was Mary the bearer of...Christ's humanity or both Christ's humanity and His Divinity?
ICXC NIKA
-
If you have read my posts I have answered that question so many times that I tire of it. Perhaps I should ask the question: Do you know how to read?
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
If you have read my posts I have answered that question so many times that I tire of it. Perhaps I should ask the question: Do you know how to read?
Then humor me and either direct me to the post number or answer again...be specific, no wishy washy answer about laying aside divinity.

If you feel "boxed in" with the question, then think outside the box and for yourself.

ICXC NIKA
-
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
Then humor me and either direct me to the post number or answer again...be specific, no wishy washy answer about laying aside divinity.

If you feel "boxed in" with the question, then think outside the box and for yourself.

ICXC NIKA
-
I went back just four pages or so. You could have done the same thing, but apparently are unable to read.

#198 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?

#182 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.

#188 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.

#173 My position is simple, and has been repeatedly posted on this thread. Mary was a vessel used in one point in history to give birth to Jesus Christ. She was but a vessel used of God, nothing more. That is how God chose to enter into this world. She in no way was the mother of God.

On almost every page I have to repeat myself, over and over again. It seems like it would have sunk in by now.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Eliyahu said:
Is Mary Mother of God the Father? Say yes or No!

Was God the Father born by Mary? Say Yes or NO !
Easy questions, NO to both…Mary’s NOT the Mother of God the Father.

I do OTHO, believe that Mary’s son, Jesus Christ, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus’ two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. Thus Mary is rightly called Theotokos or God-bearer or Birth-giver to God.

ICXC NIKA
-
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
I can read just fine, you otho, refuse to address the questions honestly head-on…let’s try again.

DHK said:
#198 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?
The only thing Mary did was fully cooperated and gave flesh to the Word…Still #198 doesn’t answer the question of:

As a fetus in Mary's womb DHK, was Christ fully Divine, yet fully human? I'm not asking about an infant in the manger, but an unborn baby.

IF you answer yes...then what was Mary the bearer of...Christ's humanity or both Christ's humanity and His Divinity?

DHK said:
#182 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.
#182 doesn’t address the question…try again…

DHK said:
#188 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?
Still the question isn’t answered: I’m asking about the unborn fetus in Mary’s womb. Not after Christ entered the world.

As a fetus in Mary's womb DHK, was Christ fully Divine, yet fully human? I'm not asking about an infant in the manger, but an unborn baby.

IF you answer yes...then what was Mary the bearer of...Christ's humanity or both Christ's humanity and His Divinity?

ICXC NIKA
-
 

Linda64

New Member
DHK said:
I have never said otherwise. Christ has always been God--always. He never gave up his deity, not even for one second. To say otherwise would be heresy. OTOH, to say that Mary is the mother of God is also heresy. She was simply a vessel that God used in one point in history to bring forth Christ. She never was his mother. Christ had no mother. He existed from all eternity.
Amen! :thumbs:

This is not rocket science folks...Mary was NOT the mother of God....to say that Mary is the mother of God is heresy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
I can read just fine, you otho, refuse to address the questions honestly head-on…let’s try again.
-
I have answered your question completely and fully. If you can't get the information that you want out of the answers that I gave I feel sorry for you. However, you can find consolation in the fact that there remains 17 more pages where I have repeated myself dozens of more times. Why don't you go through those pages yourself where I keep repeating myself ad infinitum. Truly you fit the description.

Isaiah 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top