-
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
Agnus_Dei said:
Was Jesus in the Heaven as well at the time when He was in her womb?
Read it here.
Jn 3
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Was Mary in the Heaven at the time she bor Jesus ?
God was in her and was in Heaven too, but was Mary in Heaven too ?
Didn't Mary go to the Heaven after her death? Did she die when she bore Jesus ?
Silly Syllogism by the Mary Worshippers !
Last edited:
Agnus,
Jesus Christ was fully God, and yet also fully man. God selected and used a Jewish girl named Mary 2000 years ago as the one through whom Christ would be physically born.
There is the Incarnation in a nutshell. It doesnt have to be made any more complicated than that. And DHK, myself, and and the others understand it just fine.
Mike
Jesus Christ was fully God, and yet also fully man. God selected and used a Jewish girl named Mary 2000 years ago as the one through whom Christ would be physically born.
There is the Incarnation in a nutshell. It doesnt have to be made any more complicated than that. And DHK, myself, and and the others understand it just fine.
Mike
From Easton's Bible Dictionary:Agnus_Dei said:
It is sinful to worship Mary. It is sinful to pay homage to Mary. You ask if the angels and Elizabeth were worshiping Mary. No they were not. Never in the Bible did any one ever worship Mary, never! Worship is due only to God alone. It is idolatry when rendered to any other being. The quoted hymn is idolatrous and any who sing or pray such hymns are committing idolatry in the process. This is grievous in the sight of God. There is no difference between this idolatry and the idolatry of the Hindus who bow down before their idols made of wood and stone.
I don’t believe I used the words to pay homage to Mary. The word I used was to honor her or technically, we venerate Mary, which is distinct from worship. Is it DHK sinful to honor someone? Is it sinful to honor your mother and father DHK?DHK said:
Please DHK, don’t post things that I didn’t say…let’s try and be honest.
…but otoh, they were honoring her for the babe she was carrying in her womb.DHK said:
You’re right, worship in due only to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.DHK said:
In what way do you DHK honor our Mother? So what are you doing this Nativity Season to honor the one who bore God and is truly Theotokos?DHK said:
Within Orthodoxy we see two Greek words to distinguish between true worship and veneration. Latria is the most highest form of worship and is due to the Holy Trinity alone. Dulia is a special act of honoring, by respectfully bowing (as done in other cultures), or by kissing (again done in other cultures).DHK said:
Sure, from an outsider both latria and dulia could resemble worship, but they differ in their object and intent.
Was I worshiping the American flag when I salute the flag, while I was in the Navy? Was I worshiping the fabric and the metal pole? Am I worshiping a man when I shake his hand? While I was a kid I took Karate, was I worshiping my opponent when I bowed to him?
Let’s use some common sense and to cop a phrase from you DHK, let’s not “box ourselves in.”
ICXC NIKA
-
DHK said:
And yet it is "in him we live, and move, and have our being" ~Act 17:28
If we define pantheism we would find that it creates a monogism (i.e singularity) between Creator and Creation. Such is not the case with Christianity but we do know that "in him we live, and move, and have our being". It was important for the Early Fathers to distinguish between God's divine essense and God's divine energies as this distinction bars the monogism of pantheism from embedding itself into our Theology. Remember, participation in the divine energies is 'never' a possession of the creature. Again this would bar most if not 'all' conventional definition of panthesim. It is always by extension God's energies working in us. Separation from God and mortality are one and the same condition.
The humanist says "to err is human" but it is the Christian who says "to be 'Fully Human' is to be Christ". Christianity teaches us to "be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect". This perfection is, as you have said, a completion of our humanity with and in the divine nature. To be completely human, in the sense that the First Adam was completely human, was and is a humanity sharing in the attributes of the divine nature, namely immortality. The humanist revels in his imperfections but it is the Christian who strives to be perfect as his heavenly father is perfect. In this sense, Christianity cannot be compared with humanism.
One of the most ancient names for Christianity is simply "the Way". "About that time", it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, "there rose no little stir concerning the Way" (19:23); Felix, the Roman governor of Caesarea, had "a rather accurate knowledge of the Way" (24:22). It is a name that emphasizes the practical character of the Christian faith. Christianity is more than a theory about the universe, more than stories written down on paper, it is a path along which we journey... in the deepest and richest sense, the way of life.
Our Lord and Saviour came "that we might have life and it more abundantly". Christianity 'is' about life, more specifically 'Life Everlasting' (i.e. immortality) but it cannot be gained as a personal possession. Such was the Devil's temptation to our First Parents, to be gods apart from God. That was the error, that was the Original Sin and humanism is a product of that sin. Early Christianity understood what our Saviour offered was Life, with and in Him. We can share in the divine attributes but they will never be our's as a possession. This is key to understanding the vast difference between pantheism, humanism and our Full and Complete Sanctification in Christ. Cast off the Old Man and enter into that inheritance promised us as heirs.
I just addressed these questions to Agnus Dei, but can anyone else answer these questions?
I would like to see how these are answered by the people who claim that Mary bore God and God was carried by Mary.
Please try to post your opinions on these questions.
I would like to see how these are answered by the people who claim that Mary bore God and God was carried by Mary.
Please try to post your opinions on these questions.
Eliyahu said:
Last edited:
Eliyahu said:
Grace and Peace Eliyahu,
If you will, I would offer a bit more to this conversation.
I am one of these people but let me try to address this another way instead of having your force a distinction between Christ's divinity and Christ's humanity for as you may or may not know He is the Theanthropos or "God-Man", who saves us from our sins precisely because he is God and man at once. Man could not come to God, so God has come to man (i.e. by making himself human). In his outgoing or "ecstatic" love, God unites himself to his creation in the closest of all possible unions, by himself becoming that which he has created. God, as man, fulfills the mediatorial task which man rejected at the fall. Jesus our Saviour bridges the abyss between God and man because he is both at once. As the Church said in one of the Orthodox hymns for Christmas Eve, "Heaven and earth are united today, for Christ is born. Today has God come down to earth, and man gone up to heaven".
The Incarnation is summed up in the refrain to the Christmas hymn by Romanos the Melodist: "A new-born child, God before the ages". Contained in this short phrase are three assertions:
1.) Jesus Christ is fully and completely God.
2.) Jesus Christ is fully and completely man.
3.) Jesus Christ is not two persons but one.
This spelt out in great detail by the Ecumenical Councils. Just as the first two among the seven were concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity, so the last five were concerned with that of the Incarnation.
The third Council (Ephasus, 431) states that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, "Godbearer" or "Mother of God". Implicit in this title is an affirmation, not primarily about the Virgin, but about Christ: God was born. The Virgin is Mother, not of a human person united to the divine person of the Logos, but of a single, undivided person who is God and man at once.
The fourth Council (Chalcedon, 451) proclaimed that there are in Jesus Christ two natures, the one divine and the other human. According to his divine nature Christ is "one in essense" (homoousios) with God the Father; according to his human nature he is honoousios with us men. According to his divine nature, that is to say, he is fully and completely God: he is the second person of the Trinity, the unique "only-begotten" and eternal Son of the eternal Father, born from the Father before all ages. According to his human nature he is fully and completely man: born in Bethlehem as a human child from the Virgin Mary, he has not only a human body like ours, but a human soul and intellect. Yet though the incarnate Christ exists "in two natures", he is one person, single and undivided, and not two persons coexisting in the same body.
The fifth Council (Constantinople, 553), further affirming what was said by the third, taught that "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". Just as it is legitimate to say that God was born, so we are entitled to assert that God died! In each case, of course, we specify that it is God-made-man of whom this is said. God in his transcendence is subject neither to birth nor to death, but these things are indeed undergone by the Logos incarnate.
The sixth Council (Constantinople, 680-1), taking up what was said by the fourth, affirmed that, just as there are in Christ two natures, divine and human, so there is in Christ not only a divine will but also a human will; for if Christ did not have a human will like ours, he would not be truly a man as we are,. Yet these two wills are not contrary and opposed to each other, for the human will is at all times freely obedient to the divine.
The seventh Council (Nicaea, 787) setting the seal on the four that went before, proclaimed that, since Christ became true man, it is legitimate to depict his face upon the holy ikons; and, since Christ is one person and not two, these ikons do not just show us his humanity in separation from his divinity, but they show us the one person of the eternal Logos incarnate.
Ulderlying the conciliar definitions about Christ as God and man, there are two basic principles concerning our salvation. First, only God can save us. A prophet or teacher of righteousness cannot be the redeemer of the world. If, then, Christ is to be our Saviour, he must be fully and Completely God. Secondly, salvation must reach the point of human need. Only if Christ is fully and completely a man as we are, can we men share in what he has done for us.
It would therefore be fatal to the doctrine of our salvation if we were to regard Christ in the way that the Arians did, as a kind of demi-God situated in a shadowy intermediate region between humanity and divinity. The Christian doctrine of our salvation demands that we shall be maximalists. We are not to think of him as "half-in-half". Jesus Christ is not 50% God and 100% man nor should we think of him as 100% God and 50% man. In the epigrammatic phrase of Leo the Great, he is totus, in suis, totus in nostris, "complete in what is his own, complete in what is ours".
Complete in what is his own: Jesus Christ s our window into the divine realm, show us what God is. "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known to us" (John 1:18).
Complete in what is ours: Jesus Christ is the second Adam, showing us the true character of our own human personhood. God alone is the perfect man.
Who is God? Who am I? To both these questions Jesus Christ gives us the answer.
Knowing this to be the eternal teaching of the Church, I acknowledge them as my own.
Be Well.
bound said:
We need not to make the Bible complicated. It isn't. Paul was speaking to pagan idolaters. Contrasting the true God to the various gods that pagans worship he described God as the source of all life, the one and only Creator. There is no need to take it any farther than that. He is the one that gives us life, and sustains us. The verse is very simple in its teaching. It is not complicated and there is no need to go to any council to find that out.
Why? Pantheism isn't taught in the Bible. Why is this so important. What is pantheism?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57339&dict=CALD
Basically pantheism teaches that you can find god in everything--the trees, the rocks, the sun, etc., and there worship him. He exists in ALL (the meaning of pan) things. Since the Jews or the Christians never believed in such doctrine it is not necessary for them to distinguish any branch of this religion from what the Bible teaches. Why aren't you referring to the Bible as I requested, instead of Councils?
This definition of pantheism closely resembles one of the statements that you earlier made.
Why not just refer to the Bible. What does the Bible say? Where does the Bible speak of "divine energies"?
The humanist says "Look to the god that is within you." You can take a look at their manifesto if you wish, but they believe that within every individual is a god, and therefore every individual is divine to some extent. This is the exact phrase that you previously used: "the deification of man." That sounds like heresy to me. But it is what the humanist teaches.
That is not how the Bible uses the word "perfect" in Mat.5., and in most other cases. It does not use the word as in sinless or as in a state of absolute perfection as you imply. You need to study the word further. Let me give you a few examples.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
--The word of God would make Timothy "perfect" that is complete or mature, or furnished, ready to do all good works. There is no sinless concept here. There is no future concept of having a perfect body. It simply means that he would be mature enough, prepared enough to carry on the ministry which the Lord had given him. "Perfect" means mature, complete.
Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
--He is speaking to the church at Ephesus. No believer at Ephesus was perfect or sinless. These men: prophets, evangelists, pastors, etc., God gave to them to mature them for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. There was no way that the word "perfect" meant sinless or referred to immortality in any way. It referred to completing them in their spiritual gifts and to their maturation as Christians. Read the rest of the context as well.
Philippians 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
--mature, complete--not sinless or immortal.
The above verses show that your interpretation is impossibe.
And your point is...
We do not share in divine attributes. We have no sense of deity. Divine attributes belong to divinity, i.e., God. We are not gods. This is humanism, the granting of deity to man. Man is a frail creature of dust deserving only of the wrath of God, but accepting the unmerited favor of God, the grace of God that he provided for us on the cross, we can have forgiveness of sin and eternal life as a free gift, though we don't deserve it. I still am a sinner; but a sinner saved by grace.
The word worship was used at one point, and the hymns are definitely hymns of worship.Agnus_Dei said:
You "venerate" Mary, as you say
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/venerate
That is you have reverential respect; honor as an icon, an act of devotion. In short order--worship.
Were they? I don't find that in Scripture. You misapply the Word of God, and find great pleasure eisigesis.
Then practice what you know to be true.
I don't. I recognize what the Bible says about her to be true and factual. I give all honor and glory to God alone. To take away the honor that is due only to God is blasphemy.
Yes, that is what you do. But that is not what the Bible does. The Bible creates no such false dichotomy in the word "worship." One doesn't find latria and dulia in the Bible. There is no difference in veneration and worship, and in bowing down, as the Ten Commandments command us not to. All of these are part of worship and a direct violation of Scripture if practiced before icons or before Mary.
It is not simply looked upon; it is. According to the Bible it is. We compare things to the Bible not according to your warped theology and you redifining words. Worship is defined by the Bible not according to your theologians, etc.
I don't know, were you? Your opponent, if from Japan or Taiwan, was probably worshiping his god in that bow. Martial Arts is a religion, and stems from religious practices. They bow to the god that is within them. Do you?
You already have boxed yourself in as have the RCC. Just as the RCC have boxed themselves in by the Magesterium, you have boxed yourself in by the various councils and decrees by which the Orthodox Church follows in spite of what the Word of God teaches. Thus the teachings of the Word of God become meaningless to you.
Bound,
Thanks for your explanation.
Yours are quite exegetic with the historical accounts.
I do not deny that Jesus is God-Man, the 2 natures in one person.
Nevertheless, yours didn't answer to my questions directly.
The main aspect of this issue is that nobody in the Bible called Mary the Mother of God, even Apostle John didn't.
1. In the Bible, there appears the word God more than 3,640 times (some versions more than that, excluding God forbid). Among them less than 10 times it meant God the Son. In other words, when the word God was used, usually it meant God the Father more than 99% of times.
Then the question is whether Mary was the Mother of God the Father?
Did she give birth to the God the Father? Did God the Father suck the breast of Mary? NOPE !!!
It certainly gives wrong impression about God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, to the people.
2. The people of the Bible had no problem without calling Mary the Mother of God while they believed that Jesus is God.
3. "Mother of God" is based on the human syllogism, but the human syllogism cannot work with Divine Trinity.
If Mary is Mother of God, is God the Father son of Mary? NOPE!
Then, is God the Father not God in " Mother of God" ? NO!, then it means that Mother of God is limited to Mother of God the Son. However, none of RCC people call Mary the Mother of God the Son, why ? RCC has been playing a trick to cause the delusion among the people, to lift up Mary. They are not exalting Jesus Christ, but only Mary !
Even Mother of God the Son can be a problem, because Mary didn't give birth to the divinity of Jesus in one person. Even the human nature which could speak to Abraham existed before Abraham, before Mary ( Jn 8:56-58).
Divine Trinity is not the area where the human syllogism works.
4. Moreover, I already mentioned Hebrews 7:1-5 was written on the basis of the belief that both Melchizedek and Son of God didn't have a mother, and in that aspect, both are very similar each other as if they were 2 different photos of one person at different times. The Bible denies the Mother of God title, nowhere in the Revelation either, but Paul called her " woman" ( Gal 4:4).
5. I asked the following questions but nobody has answered so far, though you expounded quite well about other matters.
Was Jesus in the Heaven as well at the time when He was in her womb?
Read it here.
Jn 3
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Was Mary in the Heaven at the time she bore Jesus ?
God was in her and was in Heaven too, but was Mary in Heaven too ?
Didn't Mary go to the Heaven after her death? Did she die when she bore Jesus ?
I will answer for myself.
1. While Jesus was in the womb of Mary, there is no reason that we should disbelieve that He was in the Heaven as well. Mary was not in the Heaven.
2. While Jesus was in the womb of Mary, God was in the Heaven, but Mary was not in the Heaven because she didn't die yet.
Where God was, Mary was not ! God was there where Mary was not !
God was not carried by Mary ! but God carried Mary ! Can you believe this?
3. Mary went to the Heaven ( or Paradise) after her death.
Thanks for your explanation.
Yours are quite exegetic with the historical accounts.
I do not deny that Jesus is God-Man, the 2 natures in one person.
Nevertheless, yours didn't answer to my questions directly.
The main aspect of this issue is that nobody in the Bible called Mary the Mother of God, even Apostle John didn't.
1. In the Bible, there appears the word God more than 3,640 times (some versions more than that, excluding God forbid). Among them less than 10 times it meant God the Son. In other words, when the word God was used, usually it meant God the Father more than 99% of times.
Then the question is whether Mary was the Mother of God the Father?
Did she give birth to the God the Father? Did God the Father suck the breast of Mary? NOPE !!!
It certainly gives wrong impression about God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, to the people.
2. The people of the Bible had no problem without calling Mary the Mother of God while they believed that Jesus is God.
3. "Mother of God" is based on the human syllogism, but the human syllogism cannot work with Divine Trinity.
If Mary is Mother of God, is God the Father son of Mary? NOPE!
Then, is God the Father not God in " Mother of God" ? NO!, then it means that Mother of God is limited to Mother of God the Son. However, none of RCC people call Mary the Mother of God the Son, why ? RCC has been playing a trick to cause the delusion among the people, to lift up Mary. They are not exalting Jesus Christ, but only Mary !
Even Mother of God the Son can be a problem, because Mary didn't give birth to the divinity of Jesus in one person. Even the human nature which could speak to Abraham existed before Abraham, before Mary ( Jn 8:56-58).
Divine Trinity is not the area where the human syllogism works.
4. Moreover, I already mentioned Hebrews 7:1-5 was written on the basis of the belief that both Melchizedek and Son of God didn't have a mother, and in that aspect, both are very similar each other as if they were 2 different photos of one person at different times. The Bible denies the Mother of God title, nowhere in the Revelation either, but Paul called her " woman" ( Gal 4:4).
5. I asked the following questions but nobody has answered so far, though you expounded quite well about other matters.
Was Jesus in the Heaven as well at the time when He was in her womb?
Read it here.
Jn 3
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Was Mary in the Heaven at the time she bore Jesus ?
God was in her and was in Heaven too, but was Mary in Heaven too ?
Didn't Mary go to the Heaven after her death? Did she die when she bore Jesus ?
I will answer for myself.
1. While Jesus was in the womb of Mary, there is no reason that we should disbelieve that He was in the Heaven as well. Mary was not in the Heaven.
2. While Jesus was in the womb of Mary, God was in the Heaven, but Mary was not in the Heaven because she didn't die yet.
Where God was, Mary was not ! God was there where Mary was not !
God was not carried by Mary ! but God carried Mary ! Can you believe this?
3. Mary went to the Heaven ( or Paradise) after her death.
DHK said:
I'm not trying to make the Bible complicated but it clear to me that Paul's speech gives us evidence of how the Christian faith was proclaimed to the Greeks in language and categories of thought familiar to them. With the Jews, Paul referred to the Law and the Prophets, explaining messianic prophecies. As we can see with the Greek Athenians he spoke more philosophically of:
1.) God as the Creator of all
2.) God as the giver of life
3.) God's concern that all people seek Him
4.) repentance toward God
5.) God as Judge of All
6.) as well as the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead
Read the rest of the chapter of Act 17:23-34.
Acts 17:28 speaks directly to the Greeks to their own philosophy of Platonism where the One is the Source of 'all things'. Source is important to emphasize here as you appear to believe that Platonism and thus Paul mention of it in Holy Scripture is somehow suggesting that either is pantheistic. Well I can assure you that neither is pantheistic but it suggest an association with emanationism... "for in Him we live and move and have our being".
Note the text states 'in' Him we live and move and have our being... The early Church recognized this Platonist teaching which Paul mentions and those equated it with God's energies not in the sense that God's essence is part of His creation but understanding this allusion by Paul and the Holy Spirit within Holy Writ.
In fact you have said it yourself... He gives us life, and sustains that life. What doesn't He sustain? He is our Creator and our Sustainer.
It is in this sense of 'sustainer' that we find a certain synergy by Platonism, as Paul did, which can appear to introduce a certain kind of pantheism (i.e. Platonic Emanationism) although as I have asserted in previous posts any sense of 'process theology' could confuse God's divine essence with God's energies and His Creation but the Early Fathers were conscious of this and were guided by the Holy Spirit to avoid it in their profession of doctrine.
You missed Paul's allusion to Platonist Philosophy in the aforementioned verse (Acts 17:28). Rest assured, Brother, the Athenians Paul spoke to would not have overlooked it.
Because the Bible was not written in a vacuum. It is pregnant with a myriad of philosophic illustration and allusions which we should not be ignorant about if we are to properly interpret it (i.e. exegesis).
Just as Trinity is not a 'word' found in the Bible the two distinctions of God's essence and energies are not 'explicit' but 'implicit'. As you have already pointed out implicit allusion in the Scriptures of God as our Sustainer. This word is 'present tense' and negates any assertion of Deism as such tense affirms an 'active' and 'constant' willing of our existence by God. This gives way to an implicit notion of God's energies.
Every heresy is the truth twisted. Humanism denies God as it's source for divinity and claims it for itself as an inherent human quality. This is an error of hubris on the part of humanity. It is the replacement of God with the individual ego and the separation of our participation in the divine nature. Christianity teaches the necessity of casting off one's ego (i.e Old Man) in order to put on Christ (i.e. divine nature).
Big difference.
Actually, let me cut you off right there...
Let's go right back to the verse of Matthew 5:48: ...be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect...
The point I would wish to argue with you is the example of this perfection we are commanded to share... "your Father in heaven". Our Lord is not talking about maturing as Christians but the perfection found in our Father in heaven. I dare say that is a very tall order because as both of us will surely agree our Father in heaven is completely without imperfection. Before you go and run off to compare this with another verse concerning maturity or completeness make sure you understand the example our Lord pointed to (our heaven Father).
Only to point out Christianity is about 'Life'.
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God. ~ Ephesians 3:14-19
Yes, you and I are both 'mortal and corrupt' earthly things but through our strengthening in and through the Spirit in the inner man, Christ dwells in our hearts giving us comprehension with all saints knowledge beyond knowledge that we might be filled with all the fullness of God!
Truly, Brother. Take a moment and think about this passage. Pray on it. Spend three days in Silence concerning this and we will speak again.
We should be nothing if not authentic to the faith.Eliyahu said:
If you believe this then you are logically bound to conclude that the 'person' born of Mary was God.
All the other verbal gymnastics should fall away if you honestly believe that in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt: "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". Honestly, Brother you deny this truth for you argue that the fullness of the Godhead did not actually dwell in Mary's womb nor in Christ.
Brother, I know this is challenging. Christianity is beyond words but I would ask for you to seriously ponder this verse. Pray on it and then lets talk some more.
bound said:
Bound, as I said, I don't deny that the person in Mary was Jesus Christ, the God. But nobody in the Bible said God was born by Mary, or called Mary the Mother of God, because of many other factors.
I am crucified with Christ at the Cross and lives no longer but Christ lives in me ( Gal 2:20), and therefore, as Christ is God, God lives in me, and I am God, can I say that ? If you say yes, you must worship me !
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Correct.
No text says "God's mother is Mary"
NO text says "Mary MOTHER of GOD"
NO text says "Mary - instructor of God"
NO text says "Mary - wiser than God"
No Text says "Mary - corrector of God"
No text says that "Mary taught God to speak" or to write or to read.
Not because Jesus is not "The God-man" but because GOD already KNEW it before Mary was born!
Hint: No need of "immaculate conception" if Mary is not the Mother of God.
in Christ,
Bob
No text says "God's mother is Mary"
NO text says "Mary MOTHER of GOD"
NO text says "Mary - instructor of God"
NO text says "Mary - wiser than God"
No Text says "Mary - corrector of God"
No text says that "Mary taught God to speak" or to write or to read.
Not because Jesus is not "The God-man" but because GOD already KNEW it before Mary was born!
Hint: No need of "immaculate conception" if Mary is not the Mother of God.
in Christ,
Bob
With what you have stated above this simple statement of fact should be a "case closed" situation that could be argued with a classic syllogism:Eliyahu said:
Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Mary is the mother of God
Again which one do you deny?
But some people still balk at referring to Mary as God's mother. The only way they can get around that fact, though, is to do one of the following:
- deny that Christ is God (heresy);
- deny that He is both fully human and fully God and that those two natures are in perfect hypostasis and can't be divided (heresy);
- deny that Jesus is the Son of Mary (heresy); or
- claim that Jesus was God before His incarnation, but not while He was in the flesh (heresy).
Does this mean she is the Mother of God, the Father? No.
Is she the Mother of God, the Holy Spirit? No.
But she is the Mother of Jesus, Who is God. She is the Mother of His human nature, not His divine nature -- but these two natures are now, since the Incarnation, in perfect union and cannot be separated. Jesus is not a "collection of parts" and "natures"; He is a Person. To say that Mary can't be the Mother of God because she isn't the Mother of His divinity is to say that your own mother can't be your mother because she didn't create your eternal soul. You are a person -- body and soul -- and your mother is your mother. You wouldn't say, "My mother isn't really 'my mother'; she's only the mother of my body." It is the same with Jesus, Who is fully human and fully divine -- Who is God.
We may be able to participate in God's energies but we will never 'be' God in the sence you appear to be alluding to. Let me actually talk about Deification again and see if we get any further.
Deification is the ancient theological word used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God. Peter speaks of this process when he wrtes, "As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godiless... you may be partakers of the dvine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4).
What does this means to partake of the divine nature, and how do we experience it? To give an answer, we must first address what deification is not, then describe what it is.
What deification is not.
When the Church calls us to pursue godliness, to be more like god, this does not means that human beings then become divine. Do you recall the distinctions I made between God's essence and energies in post #271? If not take a moment to reread it again before continuing...
Note that I stated: When a man knows or participates in the divine energies, he truly knows or participates in God Himself, so far as this is possible for a created being. But God is God, and we are human; and so, while He possesses us, we cannot in the same way possess Him.
We do not become like God in His nature. That would not only be heresy, it would be impossible. For we are human, always have been human, and always will be human. We cannot take on the nature of God.
John of Damascus, writing in the eighth century, makes a remarkable observation. The word "God" in the Scriptures refers not to the divine nature or essence, for that is unknowable. "God" refers rather to the divine energies... the power and grace of God which we can perceive in this world. The Greek word for God, theos, comes from a verb meaning "run," "see," or "burn." These are energy words, so to speak, not essence words.
In John 10:34, Jesus, quoting Psalms 82:6, repeats that passage, "You are gods." The fact that He was speaking to a group of hypocritical religious leaders who were accusing Him of blasphemy makes the meaning doubly clear: Jesus is not unsing "god" to refer to divine nature. We are gods in that we bear His image, not His nature.
What deification is.
Deification means we are to become more like God through His grace or divine energies. In creation, humans were made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26) according to human nature. In other words, humanity by nature is an icon or image of deity: The divine image is in all humanity. Through sin, however, this image and likeness of God was marred, and we fell.
When the Son of God assumed our humanity in the womb of Mary, the process of our being renewed in God's image and likeness was begun. Thus, those who are joined to Christ through faith begin a re-creation process, being renewed in God's image and likeness. We become, as Peter writes, partakers of the divine nature" (2Peter 1:4).
Because of the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the fullness of God has inhabited human flesh, being joined to Christ means that it is again possible to experience deification, the fulfillment of our human destiny. That is, through union with Christ, we become by grace what God is by nature - we "become children of God" (John 1:12). His deity interpenetrates our humanity.
Historically, deification has often been illustrated by the "sword and fire" example. A steel sword is thrust into a hot fire until the sword takes on a red glow. The energy of the fire interpenetrates the sword. The sword never becomes fire, but it picks up the properties of fire.
By application, the divine energies interpenetrate the human nature of Christ. Being joined to to Christ, our humanity is interpenetrated with the energies of God through Christ's glorified flesh. Nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, we partake of the grace of God... His strength, His righteousness, His love... and are enabled to serve Him and glorify Him. Thus we, being human, are being deified.*
*Credit given to St. Athanaius Orthodox Academy.
bound said:
The Lord would never give a command that is impossible for us to keep. The word means "complete." We are to be complete in exercising those moral attributes which characterize the Lord: just, merciful, love, good, kind, holy, peaceful, joy, etc. These are the fruit of the Spirit. They are also the attributes of God which he originally endowed man with before the fall. Now, when man receives Christ as Saviour, these same attributes are to some extent restored. We are to be complete in him--perfect (complete) as he is, in his attributes, in the exercise of them.
And this is the exact reason why you cannot put a modern day definition of "perfect" on an old english word "perfect." Words change meanings. And this word "perfect" has changed its meaning in the past 400 years. It doesn't mean what you think it does.
1. Note that Eph.3:14-19 is a prayer.
2. Note that this prayer is written in very figurative and poetical language.
3. Note that often the language that a prayer is written in is so written that it either cannot be answered because of hyberbole, or it won't be answered until we get to heaven. And that is the case with this prayer.
For example, if I say: "May all the blessings of God be with you throughout this Christmas season, my brother, and may God keep you from all sin."
It is a noble prayer, and not wrong. But will it be answered? Will you go through this entire season without sin? I doubt it? Will you therefore have ALL the blessings of God? No, not if you sin. You will miss out on some of the blessings of God simply because you are human and are prone to sin. We can still pray in that way, but recognize that not everything in that type of prayer will come true. It is a prayer, a wish, a desire, a hope, etc.
The same is true with Paul's prayer for the Ephesians. Let's look and see why:
1. The essence of the prayer is "that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." That is the very essence of the prayer in a nutshell. Everything revolves around that theme.
2. "May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;"
The subject here is the love of God. The question that needs to be asked is: Can anyone fully comprehend what is the breadth, length, and depth and height of the love of God. The answer is absolutely not. It is impossible for a finite man to understand HE who is infinite love. God is love. In his very essence He is love. To understand the Love of God our mind would have to be infinite just like God's. This prayer is written with hyperbole. Even in heaven itself, I doubt if we will fully comprehend the love of God. We still will not be omniscient.
3. "And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God."
Can any one be filled with all the fullness of God. Again, more hyperbole. The closest that we can come to it is to be filled with the Spirit, a command given to each one of us. But to be filled with all the fulness of God is impossible. No human has that capacity.
DHK said:
Brother, this is as good a definition of deification as you can get. Our dispute will be one of degrees of participation. Please read my post #297, in particular, "what deification is not" and reply.
Remember, deification equals sanctification. They are one and the same doctrine.
Brother your own response above is as close to the call to perfection as we're going to get... complete in Him and His attributes. Remember, our Lord said "no one is good except God". When we share in His attributes we 'reflect His goodness' not our own. Please read my above post #297, particularly "What deification is".
So you agree that the word of God contains hyberbole? Interesting.
Personally, I don't believe these passages are examples of hyberbole. Remember, I am one who refuses to believe that grace is to no effect.
"As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness... you may be partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4).
In Christ we are 'partakers of the divine nature' in the sense which I have outlined under "What is deification" in post #297.
Note: such is never our possession and it is always given to us from God (interpenetrated).
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It is more correct to say in your post above --
"Though no Bible text says it -- I believe Mary is the Mother of God, corrector of God, instructor of God, and was wiser than God... as all the roles of Mother vs infant in a procreation model would have it"
And your position has already been addressed.
BobRyan said:
Another approach to this solution of just "sticking with the Bible" when it comes to titles for Mary -- is that we completely avoid "sinnless like Christ, Queen of heaven, Co-redemptrix" and no praying to the dead etc.
in Christ,
Bob
- Status