Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Zenas]

If Mary carried the body of Christ, she also carried His spirit and soul. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. He wasn't part man and part God and you can't divide him like that. When you think about this, it really isn't all that hard.

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Mary is the mother of God.

If you deny No. 3, you must deny either 1 or 2 or both 1 and 2.

 

[DHK]

If Mary carried the body of Christ, she also carried His spirit and soul. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. He wasn't part man and part God and you can't divide him like that. When you think about this, it really isn't all that hard.

1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Mary is the mother of God.

If you deny No. 3, you must deny either 1 or 2 or both 1 and 2.

Mary in no way is the mother of God. She was simply a vessel used of God to provide a body for the Son of Man. More than once did Jesus put her in her place.
"Know ye not that I must be about my Father's business"?
"Woman, what have I to do with thee"?
"Woman, behold thy son..."

Mary had to understand her relationship with Christ. And Christ had to make sure she understood it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

This is hardly an orthodox view that pertains to the trinity. It is heretical. It is the view of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as the article says, not of orthodox Christianity throughout the ages. You certainly can’t claim this as a historical doctrine since it originates with the Eastern Orthodox and not with the Bible. It isn’t in the Bible. It is heresy to say that Mary is the God-bearer. Utter foolishness!!


Look at the heresy printed here, and from one of your own web-sites (Orthodox). Mary is the Mother…of the Word!!! That is blasphemous. That is saying that Mary existed before the universe ever was created. Read John one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
--It doesn’t say that the Word was with Mary, and it doesn’t say that the Word was Mary. You have written some very blasphemous things (you as in the Orthodox; but you, Agnus believe this hogwash)

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
--All things (the universe) were created by him (the Word; not Mary). What is written is blasphemous. Mary came thousands of years later.

Mat.13:55 combined with Mat.1:25 leaves no doubt in the readers mind that Mary had children and was not a perpetual virgin as the article said. This is just a straight denial of the Word of God. It is to remain in a state of unbelief. The Orthodox Church has no idea what the trinity is all about. That seems apparent from the above quotes.

...but the Word became, what DHK? FLESH...and just how did the Word become FLESH? Uhhhh...through a young Virgin named....Mary...Therefore, Mary carried the Word in her womb.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The fact that He did not say 'Mother, what have I to do with thee"

It was man who recognized her as His mother. He never did!

Thanx, DHK... good post.

 

[DHK]

...but the Word became, what DHK? FLESH...and just how did the Word become FLESH? Uhhhh...through a young Virgin named....Mary...Therefore, Mary carried the Word in her womb.

Yes, it was the Word that became flesh. Mary provided the body for Jesus. Mary did not precede Jesus. Mary was a simple virgin, a young maiden among many young maidens at that time in history that God used to bring Jesus into this world. She was but a vessel used to bring the Lord into the world, and that is all. There is nothing special about Mary. She was a sinner that needed to be saved like any other. Her rightousnesses are described in Isa.64:6 as filthy rags, just like everyone elses. Mary herself admitted she was a sinner in need of a Savior.

At the time of the circumcision, and her purification (why did she need to be purified--because she was a sinner),'
Mary brought an offering. The Bible says that one of the two offerings that she brought was a sin offering? Why? She recognized that she was a sinner. She needed salvation. Mary wasn't any different than any other young maiden of that time. She was a vessel used of God to bring forth the body of Jesus.

 

[Matt Black]

She carried the body of the Son. The Son of God could have come a different way. But he chose to come through the body that Mary bore for Him. Even in our own bodies, they are described as temporary tabernacles that will some day go back to dust. When the resurrection occurs we will be given new bodies. This body only houses the real person. The incarnation of Christ, was Christ manifest in the flesh. It was the only way that God could be revealed to mankind. He revealed himself through a body that was provided to him by Mary.

...which was 100% human and 100% divine; hence she was 'bearer of God' which is a 100% orthodox statement; to deny it is heresy, pure and simple.

 

[Matt Black]

Mary in no way is the mother of God. She was simply a vessel used of God to provide a body for the Son of Man. More than once did Jesus put her in her place.
"Know ye not that I must be about my Father's business"?
"Woman, what have I to do with thee"?
"Woman, behold thy son..."

Mary had to understand her relationship with Christ. And Christ had to make sure she understood it.

So, which of #1 and #2 do you therefore deny: the Virgin Birth or the divinity of Jesus?

 

[DHK]

So, which of #1 and #2 do you therefore deny: the Virgin Birth or the divinity of Jesus?

I don't deny either one.

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

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Which of the above statements do you deny?

 

[Matt Black]

None of them; it does however flow from them that Mary is rightly called the God-bearer

 

[DHK]

None of them; it does however flow from them that Mary is rightly called the God-bearer

In the beginning was the Word--not Mary. It is blasphemous then to call Mary the God-bearer. She was not in the beginning as the God-bearer. She simply provided a vessel for Jesus to enter this world. Any person could have done that, and/or Jesus could have arranged to come a different way. God is the God of the impossible. He chose Mary for his own purposes, but he does not tell us why. What he does tell us is that worship belongs only to God. Thus the worship of Mary (which the RCC does) is absolutely wrong and is idolatry. Prayer to another, including Mary, is worship.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

In the beginning was the Word--not Mary. It is blasphemous then to call Mary the God-bearer. She was not in the beginning as the God-bearer. She simply provided a vessel for Jesus to enter this world. Any person could have done that, and/or Jesus could have arranged to come a different way. God is the God of the impossible. He chose Mary for his own purposes, but he does not tell us why. What he does tell us is that worship belongs only to God. Thus the worship of Mary (which the RCC does) is absolutely wrong and is idolatry. Prayer to another, including Mary, is worship.

So let me get this straight. Is it safe to say that you DHK ascribe to the herectical view of Nestorianism, where Nestorius was putting forth the view that Mary should be called Christotokos. That Mary is only the Birth-giver to Christ.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

So let me get this straight. Is it safe to say that you DHK ascribe to the herectical view of Nestorianism, where Nestorius was putting forth the view that Mary should be called Christotokos. That Mary is only the Birth-giver to Christ.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

Are you suggesting that Mary imparted divinity to Christ?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Are you suggesting that Mary imparted divinity to Christ?

I'm asking you the question DHK...

So let me get this straight. Is it safe to say that you DHK ascribe to the herectical view of Nestorianism, where Nestorius was putting forth the view that Mary should be called Christotokos. That Mary is only the Birth-giver to Christ.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Mary did not give birth to Christ's divine nature. He was always divine from the beginning. Mary did not have to give birth to that nature.

Mary gave birth to a child. Is.9:6.

That child was the Son of God. Mary was not the God-bearer. She could not have been. She, like you or I, was in sinful flesh. There was nothing... absolutely nothing about Mary that merited her any deity. Nor is she a deity now.

Prayer to her is blasphemy.

 

[Eliyahu]

I didn't see him to that.
No. Clearly.


No it doesn't. You fail to understand the doctrine.

The one does not follow the other​

Define 'produced'. If you mean 'created' then no, Jesus' divinity was pre-existent (as the prologue to John's Gospel (1:1-14) makes clear); if however you mean 'birthed, then clearly yes, since to assert otherwise is to deny the divinity of Jesus, which is heresy.​

No. No-one is saying that as far as I can see​

Ditto, no.

No, not when He did that but she was the mother of that same God the Son

See above

No, but she bore within her whom He Who did and does that.


[/left]

You've just demonstrated on the contrary that you don't understand the Trinity. And, I suppose, how can you, since you reject the patristic writings and Church Councils which defined the truth of the Trinity

But no-one's doing that


That's heresy I'm afraid since you are denying the divinity of Christ.



2 Tim 3:15-16 does not say that Scripture is 'sufficient'​

There is a delicate difference between yours and Bound's.
If you read carefully what Bounds posted, there is something based on the belief that Mary can be Mother of God the Father or God the Father is not God. I wanted to hear from him, not from him.

The people who cannot believe Jesus Christ is still God while we do not call Mary the Mother of God are either Stupid or goddess worshipper.​

 

[DHK]

I'm asking you the question DHK...

So let me get this straight. Is it safe to say that you DHK ascribe to the herectical view of Nestorianism, where Nestorius was putting forth the view that Mary should be called Christotokos. That Mary is only the Birth-giver to Christ.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

Don't try to put me in a box you will only fail.
I am not a Calvinist. I am not an Arminianist.
I am not an Augustinian. I am not an Origenian.
I am not a Nestorian. I am not a Theotokian.
I am not into Catholicism; Eastern Orthodoxism is even worse.
I am a Biblicist. I believe is sola scriptura, lest I fall into your curse.
So don't try to put me into your box.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I am a Biblicist.

Then you should have no problem in answering the question...

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Mary did not give birth to Christ's divine nature. He was always divine from the beginning. Mary did not have to give birth to that nature.

Mary gave birth to a child. Is.9:6.

That child was the Son of God. Mary was not the God-bearer. She could not have been. She, like you or I, was in sinful flesh. There was nothing... absolutely nothing about Mary that merited her any deity. Nor is she a deity now.

The Word was made flesh (John 1:14):

What Mary bore was not a man loosely united to God, but a single and undivided person, who is God and man at once. The name Theotokos safeguards the unity of Christ’s person. To deny Mary the Theotokos, is to separate the Incarnate Christ into two, breaking down the bridge between God and humanity and erecting within Christ’s person a middle wall of partition.

So a long story short the primacy that the word homousious occupies in the doctrine of the Trinity, the word Theotokos holds in the doctrine of the Incarnation.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

I'm asking you the question DHK...

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

If you mean this question, no I don't have a problem with it. Just don't try to box me in with a bunch of other fellows who may be heretics.

Christ is and always has been God (deity). There never was a point in history where he gave up his deity. That is the first thing to note.
As a man, he was the God-man. He was totally God and totally man at the same time.
However, he was tempted as a man such as we are tempted. He thirsted, hungered, suffered, etc. He chose to lay aside his divine attributes and suffer as a man. He told Peter to put up his sword, rebuking him for he had to suffer the cup of suffering that his Father had given him. As a man he completely submitted himself to the will of His Father.
At the same time there were occasions where he chose to exercise those divine attributes to demonstrate his deity: in miracles, in the forgiveness of sins, in his omniscience, etc.
However, at his birth he did not exercise any of his divine attributes. He was born as a man. Mary was simply a vessel providing a body for the God-man to come forth. At that point in time Christ had laid aside his divine attributes (as he did on many occasions during his life) in order to come into this world as a man. Yet at the same time he was still God. Mary was simply a vessel used by God. She acted in the capacity of a mother, as Joseph did as a human father. They acted in the capacity of human parents in raising Jesus, until "his time had come," at the time of his baptism to begin his ministry.

Thus Mary had nothing to do with the deity of Christ. Christ never gave up his deity. Mary provided a body for the God-man to enter into the world. Is there anything to difficult for you to accept that answer?
Mary was never the mother of God. She provided a body for Christ. She acted in the capacity of a parent while he was a child. God needs no parent. In fact the Bible states that God has need of nothing. If he did, he wouldn't be God.

 

[BobRyan]

So let me get this straight. Is it safe to say that you DHK ascribe to the herectical view of Nestorianism, where Nestorius was putting forth the view that Mary should be called Christotokos. That Mary is only the Birth-giver to Christ.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

ICXC NIKA
-

Good question -- is Mary God's Mother?

Did ANYONE in all of scripture call Mary "God's Mother"?

Does the Bible say "God has a Mother"??

Does scripture call Mary "Mother of God Queen of the Universe"?

Is Mary God? If so - she can procreate God!

Was God the Son PROCREATED? Then Mary is the "Mother of God".

Was Christ INCARNATED? Then Mary is the Mother of the Messiah -

In Christ,

Bob