Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Linda64]

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

I can understand why you don't see the fact that Mary is not Theotokos...

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[bound]

I can understand why you don't see the fact that Mary is not Theotokos...

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I guess when reason fails, the next best thing is to case doubt on a persons character through insults.

I understand that these are challenging discussions but we should be capable, as adults, to restrain ourselves from simple name calling.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In Genesis 3, we read how the seed of the woman will bruise the serpent's head. Since it is a proven fact that women do not have a seed, but the man, the seed spoken of is all God. Mary was not 'God bearer." It was all God. Mary only gave birth to a child as Scripture proclaims. She was given the Son... actually, the world was given the Son.

Many who cannot grasp the fact that Mary had no divinity, was not given divinity, was just a willing vessel to be used of God; will continue to idolize her as God bearer in ignorance of God's remarkable process in sending His Son into the world.

Mary is not, was not, will never be... God bearer.

 

[DHK]

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.

These are not word games; they are theological facts which you seem unable to grasp.

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.

If all of that is true, then why does this lead to the Mary worship of the RCC, and possibly the Orthodox as well. Mary is not the mother of God. That is heresy.

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.

This is hokey-pokey. This puts Mary before the Word. The Word became flesh, but not because of Mary, but rather in spite of her. God used her as a vessel that He could enter into this world, and that is all. Mary is not the mother of God. Study the Word, not your councils.

Yes, we honor Mary,

Do you honor her or blasphemously worship her which is idolatry?

because she found favor with God and willfully submitted to God and gave flesh to His Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Read church history. Many saints of God (not "saints" in the RCC sense), have found favor with God and have submitted themselves to God. This is nothing unusual for a believer. It should be the common and right thing to do.

Hence it is theologically proper to refer to Mary as Theotokos, the two cannot be separated.

Theotokos is a heresy. Your conclusion is faulty.

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

You infer that you believe heresy.
Since Christ is God and always has been, by the etymology of these two words it seems that you deny the deity of Christ. The two are the same unless you deny the deity of Christ. Is that what you believe? Christ is not God! It sounds like it. I told you earlier don't try and put me in a box. You won't succeed. I don't believe in your heresies.

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!

Mary's chid was not the Word of God that was in the beginning. That is blasphemy. If you want to note Mary's children read Mat.13:55,56. Mary was simply a vessel used of God to bring Christ into this world, and that is all. Hard for you to accept, isn't it?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Mary is not, was not, will never be... God bearer.

So are you saying that the Person to whom Mary gave birth--and who was in her womb for 9 months--was not God and man from the moment of His conception?
If He was not God while He was in Mary's womb, when did He become God? (After He was born? At His Baptism? When?)

 

[Linda64]

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:

I get my evidence from God's Word! If Jesus shared Mary's biological make up, then He would not be "without sin". Mary was NOT sinless. The Incarnation was TOTALLY of God--why is that so hard for you to understand? Plus, in the event you were not aware of this fact...during a pregnancy, the blood of the mother does not co-mingle with the blood of the fetus. The fetus is nurished through the placenta, not through the blood of the mother. It certainly is odd that you find this fact so funny!

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.

Mary did NOT bear God! God has NO mother! God is eternal...meaning that God has NO beginning! Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh":

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

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?

Mary is NOT the mother of God! Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the ETERNAL SON according to Micah 5:2?

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).

The teaching that Mary is the Theotokos, God-bearer, Mother of God is 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.

Your logic here is ridiculous. Divinity has no mother, period. There was no human intervention in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Once again, I will repeat:
MARY IS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD!

Your profile says you are Baptist, but what you are writing down is Roman Catholic doctrine. Which are you? Baptist or Roman Catholic? You can't be both.

 

[Linda64]

So are you saying that the Person to whom Mary gave birth--and who was in her womb for 9 months--was not God and man from the moment of His conception?
If He was not God while He was in Mary's womb, when did He become God? (After He was born? At His Baptism? When?)

Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God--He was always God; He had NO beginning:

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The person of Jesus Christ was ALWAYS God. He did not become God.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Mary was NOT the God-bearer/mother of God. God has no mother.

 

[DHK]

Again, so there is no confusion,

Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, translit. Theotókos) is a title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Its literal English translations include God-bearer and the one who gives birth to God; less literal translations include Mother of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos

Any intelligent reader who has any knowledge of the Bible can see that this is heresy. No one gave birth to God. That is one of the most ridiculous and heretical concepts ever heard of. God has no mother.
Again, from the above quote one can see that this heresy is confined just to one small part of so-called Christianity (I don't even label the RCC as Christian). Thus the doctrine is very suspect. Mainline Christianity has always rejected it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Mary is not, was not, will never be... God bearer.

Then who did Mary give birth to?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
#1."MOTHER of GOD" means more than "carrying Christ".
#2. Using terms like
"Bearer of God"
"Instructor of God"
"Wiser than God"
"Stronger than God"
"Protector of God"
"Corrector of God"

ALL of the terms "YES ALL" of the terms exault the human parent NOT Christ.

That is why they are NEVER used in scripture!!

Which is why this dicussion comes up only in the context of a DEPARTURE from scripture!

Such terms innevitably lead to ...

1. PRAYERS to GOD to intercede with MARY on our behalf
2. Mary "allpowerful like God"
3. Images with Mary as the main focus holding a TINY Jesus
4. Prayers to the DEAD
5. "MARY QUEEN of HEAVEN" and God "KING of Heaven"

etc.

Hard to miss the point.

in Christ,

Bob

I disagree; 'bearer of God' does not inevitably lead to the above. It doesn't for me as an Anglican and doesn't for most Anglicans or Lutherans come to that. It is a 100% factually accurate description and therefore is quite properly used.

Pardon me - but aren't you a brand-spanking-new Anglican??

My argument is not that the minute you start using terms like "Mother of God" you will also use terms like "Queen of Universe" nor that you will instantly come up with "Co-mediatrix".

My argument is that IF you take those groups that HAVE used the term "Mother of God" then over the centuries THEY will have evolved to the point of doing "exactly what they are doing" using the terms I have listed above -- exaulting the human parent -- even to the point of WORSHIPING at "Mary's altars".

 

[BobRyan]

Then who did Mary give birth to?

ICXC NIKA
-

1. Who taught God to read?
2. Who taught God to add?
3. Who was so wise as to be "The instructor of God"?

Scripture please.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Linda64]

Then who did Mary give birth to?

ICXC NIKA
-

The evidence has been shown that Mary did not bear God...God is eternal. God has no mother. Calling Mary the mother of God is heresy. Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man; the eternal Son of God had no beginning. Mary gave birth to the child Jesus (Isaiah 9:6--unto us a child is born). God gave us a Son (Isaiah 9:6--unto us a son is given; John 3:16). Jesus, as God had no beginning nor ending; Jesus as man had a beginning (the Incarnation) and an ending, on the cross. This is not rocket science.

 

[Matt Black]

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.

Just answer the question, DHK, instead of dodgong it repeatedly: did Mary bear God the Son in her womb? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then you believe the orthodoxy of the theotokos dogma as much as the next orthodox Christian; if your answer is no then I'm afraid you're some kind of heretic, probably Nestorian.

So, which is it, yes or no?

 

[Matt Black]

Here is your answer:
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.

Thank you. I'll take a look at your link.

 

[Matt Black]

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

So you'd be ok with Mary as the Surrogate Mother of God?

 

[Matt Black]

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.

But the Child is 100% God, therefore God (the Son) was born.

 

[Matt Black]

If all of that is true, then why does this lead to the Mary worship of the RCC, and possibly the Orthodox as well.

I don't know; sice I'm not a Catholic and neither is Agnus, perhaps you'd better ask a Catholic that.

Mary is not the mother of God. That is heresy.

Mary is theotokos; to say ohterwise is heresy

Do you honor her or blasphemously worship her which is idolatry?

The former; only God is due worship.

Theotokos is a heresy. Your conclusion is faulty.

To deny the dogma of the theotokos is heresy. Your conclusion is faulty. It seems we've reached an impasse.

Mary's chid (sic) was not the Word of God that was in the beginning. That is blasphemy.

I'm afraid that's out-and-out heresy since it denies that Jesus is the Word of God. It flatly contradicts John 1:1-14

 

[Matt Black]

Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God--He was always God; He had NO beginning:

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The person of Jesus Christ was ALWAYS God. He did not become God.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Mary was NOT the God-bearer/mother of God. God has no mother.

Straight question to which there is a straight yes-no answer: was the baby, Jesus, whom Mary bore within her womb and to Whom she gave birth God or not? Please answer this.

 

[Matt Black]

Pardon me - but aren't you a brand-spanking-new Anglican??

Yes and no. I've recently returned to Anglicanism after a long absence dating from the late 1980s

My argument is not that the minute you start using terms like "Mother of God" you will also use terms like "Queen of Universe" nor that you will instantly come up with "Co-mediatrix".

My argument is that IF you take those groups that HAVE used the term "Mother of God" then over the centuries THEY will have evolved to the point of doing "exactly what they are doing" using the terms I have listed above -- exaulting the human parent -- even to the point of WORSHIPING at "Mary's altars".

Except that arguably the Anglican Communion has come from those self-same groups and yet it doesn't (with the exception of a few nosebleed-high congregations) exalt Mary in the way the Catholics and Orthodox do.

 

[Matt Black]

The evidence has been shown that Mary did not bear God

That sentence alone is heresy.