Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Agnus_Dei]

I believe it is fair to say that one can be Protestant and still be an orthodox adherent of the consensual teachings of the Historic Christian Church.

For a few years I really struggled in regard to how I, a Protestant by birth (Fundamental Baptist), could possible practice Orthodoxy per the teachings of the Historic Christian Church and remain a Protestant. I knew that remaining a Baptist wouldn’t cut it, for they had drifted too far from the Orthodoxy I had discovered.

I first took a keen interest in John Wesley’s writings and through his theology in regard to Baptism; The Lord’s Supper, Sanctification and Justification truly prepared my mind for deeper theology. In addition the Methodist Church had an outstanding Disciple program, which my wife and I took advantage of for 3 years.

As I was attending the UMC, the open hearts, open minds… credo wasn’t cutting it for me. For one instance, I was convinced that the elements of bread and wine (not kool-aid), were actually the body and blood of Christ. The EC was firm in this fact and the UMC wanted to leave it to the individual. And that the Lord’s Supper should be the center piece of worship.

As much as I had grown to love the UMC, I saw the writing on the wall…lesbian and gay ministers, liturgy being thrown out and replaced with a Third day worship type band…I could no longer believe that I could force upon Protestantism, true Orthodoxy; to do so would warp Orthodoxy into something its not. I wouldn’t be true to myself and my convictions to practice a watered down version, all on my own.

Of course, this is my own experience and we’re each on our own spiritual journeys and being myself married, I’ve been truly blessed with a wife that at times had to bring me back to a more level-headed way of thinking, especially as I was journeying towards Roman Catholicism.

As of today, a Catechumen in the Antiochian jurisdiction of the Eastern Orthodox Church, my wife and I both are taking this journey slowly, we’re developing our spiritual life daily, by improving our prayer life as a family centered around our “prayer corner” or “icon corner” in Orthodox terms, which is very meager and fasting (something that I’ve really have to work on). At the end of our Catechumen stage, when our spiritual father believes we are ready and we ourselves believe we are ready to fully embrace the Orthodox Church without hesitation, we will commit ourselves, and if not, then we’ll continue seeking.

Please, Bound, Matt or Doubting Thomas, don’t take this as I think you guys aren’t practicing true Historical Orthodoxy or that the Orthodox Church has God in their pocket. My personal experience showed me that I couldn’t force Protestantism into something its not.

Blessings to you all

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

No, because that's not that the theotokos doctrine means; it literally means 'God-bearer' and means that Mary bore Christ, God the Son, within her womb and gave birth to Him, as any other mother does - unless you're saying that she didn't give birth to Jesus Christ - are you sure you want to go there?

Of course Matt. You are not getting the idea. Both D28guy and I explained the Scriptural position very carefully to you. And then you quite illogically replied: "No, because that is not what theotokos doctrine means." Of course it is not what that heretical doctrine means. We believe the Scripture, not heresy.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Just wondering what is the sense in keeping the thread open? It is obvious Matt, et.al., are not going to accept the truth in this matter. It is also just as obvious that neither DHK, nor myself, nor any Christian who believes the Word of God is going to be swayed by lies that exalt Mary.

 

[DHK]

It's impossible to accept! You're position is wholly illogical. "It's theology, Jim, but not as we know it."

This is the statement impossible for you to accept:

"As pertaining to Mary, she was used of God to provide a vessel for the God-man to enter into this world, and that is all. She is not the mother of God."

And this is what the Scripture says about your unbelief:

Isaiah 6:9 And he said, Go; and thou shalt say unto this people, Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Do you misquote me for a reason? Did I ever once say that he laid aside his divinity? No, I did not say that at all...What I said is that Christ sometimes laid aside his divine attributes

Are you saying then that Christ “laid aside” His Divine “attributes” when He was given flesh from Mary and because of this “laying aside”, Mary’s therefore not “God bearer” (Theotokos)?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

Please answer:
Why did Mary admit to being a sinner, and admit to Christ being her Savior?

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.
--Only a sinner needs a Saviour.

Why did Mary bring a sin offering to the priest if she wasn't a sinner?

Luke 2:22-24 And when the days were fulfilled for their purifying according to the law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord: A pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons.

Check Leviticus chapter 12
Leviticus 12:2-3 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a male, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her infirmity shall she be unclean. And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised.

Leviticus 12:6 And when the days of her cleansing are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, unto the priest.
--This is what Mary did.

However she was poor:
Leviticus 12:8 And if her hand cannot find what is sufficient for a sheep, she shall bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons; one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her; and she shall be clean.

Nevertheless, she brought her sin-offering to the priest at the time of the circumcision of Jesus. Why would that be except that Mary was demonstrating her own sinfulness?

Can the perfect sinless Son of God come from a sinful woman such as Mary? Yes. God used Mary to bring forth the body of Jesus--the God-man, and she remaned His adoptive mother so to speak while he laid aside his divine attributes for a temporary period of time. She was never the mother of God.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Just wondering what is the sense in keeping the thread open? It is obvious Matt, et.al., are not going to accept the truth in this matter. It is also just as obvious that neither DHK, nor myself, nor any Christian who believes the Word of God is going to be swayed by lies that exalt Mary.

It's called a Christian debate forum SFIC, unless you've forgotten...

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

Are you saying then that Christ “laid aside” His Divine “attributes” when He was given flesh from Mary and because of this “laying aside”, Mary’s therefore not “God bearer” (Theotokos)?

That is exactly what I am saying.
Sorry to deflate you ego, but to elevate Mary to the place of worship is blasphemy and idolatry. God used her to provide a body for God the Son. She was used of God for a specific purpose in time. God could have used another person, or even another means. But he didn't. For some inexplicable reason he chose Mary. We need not to go any further than that. Mary was chosen by God to be the vessel to provide a way that the Son of God could enter into the world, and that is all.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Each little Hour is followed by a supplementary hour, called a Mesorion. Prime begins with the recitation of three psalms followed by a doxology, two stichoi, a doxology, a troparion in honour of the Theotokos (the Birthgiver of God, i.e. the Blessed Virgin), the trisagion, several variable troparia, the doxology and dismissal, while its supplementary Hour is composed of a troparion, doxology, troparion of the Theotokos, Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, a prayer, and a doxology. Terce, Sext, and None each contain the invitatory versicles, three psalms, a doxology, two stichoi, a doxology, the troparion of the Theotokos, the trisagion, doxology, another troparion of the Blessed Virgin, and the Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, and their Mesoria have the invitatory versicles, three psalms, a doxology, troparion, doxology, troparion of the Theotokos, Kyrie Eleison repeated forty times, and a proper prayer.

Theotokos means the birthgiver of God, i.e., Mother of God.

Your theotokos is nothing but Catholic heresy to turn one to idol worship.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Please answer:
Why did Mary admit to being a sinner, and admit to Christ being her Savior?

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.
--Only a sinner needs a Saviour.

Why did Mary bring a sin offering to the priest if she wasn't a sinner?

Luke 2:22-24 And when the days were fulfilled for their purifying according to the law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord: A pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons.

Check Leviticus chapter 12
Leviticus 12:2-3 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a male, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her infirmity shall she be unclean. And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised.

Leviticus 12:6 And when the days of her cleansing are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, unto the priest.
--This is what Mary did.

However she was poor:
Leviticus 12:8 And if her hand cannot find what is sufficient for a sheep, she shall bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons; one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her; and she shall be clean.

Nevertheless, she brought her sin-offering to the priest at the time of the circumcision of Jesus. Why would that be except that Mary was demonstrating her own sinfulness?

This has nothing to do with the Theotokos safeguarding Christ’s two natures…His Divine and human.

Can the perfect sinless Son of God come from a sinful woman such as Mary? Yes. God used Mary to bring forth the body of Jesus--the God-man, and she remaned His adoptive mother so to speak while he laid aside his divine attributes for a temporary period of time. She was never the mother of God.

Wow…

So is Mary the “adoptive” mother of God…or the “adoptive” mother of Christ?

How can Mary or any woman for that matter “adopt” a child that they gave birth to? I though no matter the culture, that when a women gave birth to a child, she’s the baby’s mother.

In amazement
ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Theotokos means the birthgiver of God, i.e., Mother of God.

Your theotokos is nothing but Catholic heresy to turn one to idol worship.

You mis quote SFIC...the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't say Mother of God, it said ...Blessed Virgin

Furthermore, the Theotokos was defined during the Thrid Ecumenical Council long before there was a "Roman" Catholic Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[standingfirminChrist]

birthgiver... mother

 

[DHK]

So. No-one is actually going to answer my question about I John 5:5-8? Interesting...

Here is your answer:

The third consideration is THE MANUSCRIPT ARGUMENT. Carson states that there are only four MSS that contain this reading. He is wrong about the facts. The current UBSNT lists six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) containing the "Comma." Moreover, D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome). ["I John 5.7," The Dean Burgon News 5 (1979); 1.]

This evidence is ample to argue for the retention of the Johannine Comma. Incidentally, some verses in the UBSNT have been retained on far less evidence than this. The whole issue at hand concerning the "Comma" is this: did the orthodox interpolate the verse in the text, or did the heretics expunge the verse from the text? Acknowledging the evidence, the most Christ-honoring approach is the latter (Thomas Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate, 1980).

A better argument could be made for the heretics expunging the verse (in the Modern Versions) than for some unknown person having inserting the verse.
See the entire article here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm

Please note: Do not derail this thread into a versions debate. I have answered your question. Leave it at that.

 

[DHK]

So is Mary the “adoptive” mother of God…or the “adoptive” mother of Christ?

How can Mary or any woman for that matter “adopt” a child that they gave birth to? I though no matter the culture, that when a women gave birth to a child, she’s the baby’s mother.

How can any woman "adopt" a child they gave birth to?
Have you never heard of a "surrogate" mother?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

How can any woman "adopt" a child they gave birth to?
Have you never heard of a "surrogate" mother?

Sure have, yet the “surrogate” mother is still…get ready…a child-bearer.

So…if the Word is fully divine and through Mary’s biological make up, gives flesh (human nature) to the Divine Word, through the Incarnation and thus the two natures…one Divine and one Human are united in the womb of Mary, does this make Mary in your opinion…

Christ-bearer (Christokos) or God-bearer (Theotokos)?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

Sure have, yet the “surrogate” mother is still…get ready…a child-bearer.

So…if the Word is fully divine and through Mary’s biological make up, gives flesh (human nature) to the Divine Word, through the Incarnation and thus the two natures…one Divine and one Human are united in the womb of Mary, does this make Mary in your opinion…

Christ-bearer (Christokos) or God-bearer (Theotokos)?
-

It makes Mary no better or no less than any other person.

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.

At this point "that holy thing" wasn't even referred to as Mary's child. She is not the mother of God. It is plain and simple. That holy "thing" shall be called the Son of God. He wasn't called the Son of God at that point. He had laid aside his divine attributes. And yet he was still deity--hard for you to grasp, I know. But this is what Scripture teaches.

 

[Linda64]

Sure have, yet the “surrogate” mother is still…get ready…a child-bearer.

So…if the Word is fully divine and through Mary’s biological make up, gives flesh (human nature) to the Divine Word, through the Incarnation and thus the two natures…one Divine and one Human are united in the womb of Mary, does this make Mary in your opinion…

Christ-bearer (Christokos) or God-bearer (Theotokos)?

ICXC NIKA
-

It wasn't through Mary's biological make up which gave flesh to Jesus Christ. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost...therefore Mary's biological make up had nothing to do the Incarnation. It was ALL God's work. DHK is correct in the use of the word "surrogate" in that Mary did carry the child Jesus.

God is eternal. God has no mother. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God. While Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man; the eternal Son of God had no beginning (Micah 5:2; John 1:1). Mary cannot therefore be called the mother of God, and is never so called by Bible writers. Yes, Mary was blessed above other women to have had the privilege of bringing the Savior into the world, but this allows no foundation for calling Mary the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix, etc. The only mention of Queen of Heaven in the Bible refers, not to Mary, but to a heathen idol (Jeremiah 44:18-19).

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Note: It is the child who is born, not God---and it is the son who is given. The "son" is "given" by God (John 3:16). All the attributes which are given to the "son" are attributes of God, Who is eternal.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It makes Mary no better or no less than any other person.

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.

At this point "that holy thing" wasn't even referred to as Mary's child. She is not the mother of God. It is plain and simple. That holy "thing" shall be called the Son of God. He wasn't called the Son of God at that point. He had laid aside his divine attributes. And yet he was still deity--hard for you to grasp, I know. But this is what Scripture teaches.

If Christ laid aside His Divine attributes or His human will submitted to His Divine will, makes Christ no less Divine…He’s still fully Divine and fully human…so stop playing word games.

The Theotokos says nothing of Mary being the Mother of God or that she is coeternal with God. The term Theotokos was born out of a response to Nestorius advocating that Mary was only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature.

Mary is included, b/c Mary supplied the flesh to the Word needed for the Incarnation…The Theotokos is not just to honor Mary, but to safeguard a right doctrine of Christ’s person, the Incarnation.

Yes, we honor Mary, because she found favor with God and willfully submitted to God and gave flesh to His Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Hence it is theologically proper to refer to Mary as Theotokos, the two cannot be separated.

Is Mary Theotokos (God-bearer)?
or
Is Mary Christokos (Christ-bearer)?

I don’t care what you personally think of Mary as a person…fact is, Mary had a child…she gave birth to a child, she gave flesh to a child and that child was the Word of God that was in the beginning. Mary is truly Theotokos!

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It wasn't through Mary's biological make up which gave flesh to Jesus Christ. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost...therefore Mary's biological make up had nothing to do the Incarnation.

Linda, that’s the most ridicules statement I have ever heard.

A “surrogate” mother STILL gives flesh to the child…the surrogate child still needs its mother’s chromosomes to complete the make-up of the child.

IF Mary was a useless vessel…why didn’t God the Father just create a 33 year-old man out in the desert or just speak His Son into human form and have Him just ride an ass into Jerusalem proclaiming the Gospel…Why Mary, why a virgin, if Mary didn’t give flesh to the Word?

Your skating on thin heretical ice…be careful

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[bound]

It wasn't through Mary's biological make up which gave flesh to Jesus Christ. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost...therefore Mary's biological make up had nothing to do the Incarnation. It was ALL God's work. DHK is correct in the use of the word "surrogate" in that Mary did carry the child Jesus.

Where are you getting your evidence for this claim? Where you there? Do you have blood work to suggest that Jesus shared no biology with his mother? :laugh:

God is eternal. God has no mother. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God. While Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man; the eternal Son of God had no beginning (Micah 5:2; John 1:1). Mary cannot therefore be called the mother of God, and is never so called by Bible writers. Yes, Mary was blessed above other women to have had the privilege of bringing the Savior into the world, but this allows no foundation for calling Mary the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix, etc. The only mention of Queen of Heaven in the Bible refers, not to Mary, but to a heathen idol (Jeremiah 44:18-19).

Again, I'd ask you if there is any unity between Jesus Divine Nature and His Human Nature? You're suggesting a division between them as if His Humanity is of little value to the overall act of our redemption. I can appreciate that it's important for you, as a Baptist, to stress this distinction so that you don't have to admit that Mary bore God made Flesh but I honestly believe you're reaching.

This simple statement of fact should be a "case closed" situation that could be argued with a classic syllogism:

Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Mary is the mother of God

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).

Luke 1:43 tells us of Elisabeth greeting Mary with, "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" It's all very simple.

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.