Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Matt Black]

Books don't 'speak' for themselves. They convey concepts which need interpretation 'especially' if those concepts are conveyed in cryptic tongues and ancient idioms.

The Jews read the Scriptures and yet they didn't understand it pointed to Jesus as the Christ or Isaiah as John the Baptist. They took these types and figures too literally and thus 'missed the mark'.

There is a consensual teaching of this 'exegesis' within the Church if we but look for it. We can see this consensual teaching throughout the History of Christianity. It's real and discernible in the New Testament, the works of the Early Church Fathers, the Councils. This Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) is a necessary ingredient for interpreting God's word correctly and it was not kept with the Jews nor with Heretics who twisted the Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) into their own traditions of men.

I'm not here to convince you but I am here to say that you are using a tradition or exegesis to establish a emphasis of one biblical teaching with another. This exegesis is a product of the Reformation and that of the Enlightenment and although I, personally, find much of it admirable and salvific must call into question the notion that you or another 'speak for God' when you or another 'quote Scripture' to proof-text some of these teachings which you hold dear which find little or no basis in the Apostolic Tradition of the Early Church.

:applause: :thumbs:

 

[Matt Black]

This isn't a thread on the trinity.

Not sure where you get this from his post?!

The doctrine of the trinity is clearly taught in the NT. The apostles believed it. They believed the Father. They believed that Christ was deity, and many times affirmed it to be so. They believed that the Holy Spirit was deity, as Peter says in Acts 5 when he accuses Annias of lying against the Holy Spirit and against God in almost the same breath. At the same time they believed that there was only one God. One can only come to the conclusion and no other conclusion, that they believed in the trinity. You don't have to believe that; but I do.

Why, then, were Nicaea I and Constantinople I necessary?

Some did, and some didn't. They were not all as "dumb" as you portray them to be.

But apparently both based on sola Scriptura

It was Jews who came up with a canon of Scripture. They had a complete canon by 400 B.C.

Really? And which book of the OT claims that?

One of the stipulations of the OT canon was that no book of the OT could be written after that date. That, of course, excludes the entire apocrypha. The Jews never did accept them.

Not quite. The Jews of the Jamnia school rejected the Apocrypha after 80AD because it was written in Greek, not because it wasn't canonical.

It was Jewish Christians that wrote and completed the NT canon. I don't believe the councils of the RCC had any part of its "canonization," but that rather the apostles and the early churches knew what books were inspired and which books were not inspired as they were being written. Jesus promised them that they would be led "into all truth." That is what that verse means. The Holy Spirit would direct them into all the truth that God would have them to write in the Scriptures.

Proof, please.

Google "theotokos." Find out the truth about this heretical doctrine. If it is the truth then why is it only accepted by the Eastern Orthodox church and not mainline Christianity?

The doctrine is not just held by the EOC but also by the RCC; Anglicans and Lutherans in reality hold to it as well although not as an official dogma. How much more mainline do you want to go?

Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time.

Good.

At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever lose his deity.

Fine.

There were times in his earthly ministry where Christ laid aside his divine attributes, thus he thirsted, hungered, etc.

Yep.

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.

Bzzt! Wrong! How on earth can you make the above statements and not believe the theotokos doctrine?!!

Now is that so hard to accept?

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

 

[Matt Black]

LUKE

(luminous). Writer of the Gospel of Luke and of the book of Acts; companion of Paul. "Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been `the beloved physician' mentioned by Paul (Colossians 4:14) and as he was the companion of that Apostle, in all his labors and sufferings, for many years (Acts 16:12; Acts 20:1-6; Acts 27:1-2; Acts 28:13-16; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:25), and wrote `the Acts of the Apostles,' which concludes with a brief account of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle's sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about A.D. 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Colossians 4:10-11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name (Lucas), to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. From the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and customs, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

So, not ethnically Jewish but a Gentile proselyte.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

It was posted...



And you said...



This is amazing. And so very sad. You dont consider the scriptures of God to be reputable and trustworthy. You must have a "Council of Men" to tell you what you must believe. In addition to "StandingFirm inChrist"s post from the Wycliff translation, I'll add this.

Regarding your stipulation, all of the scriptures of God...every book...where all written thousands of years prior to your "16th century" cut off. The new testament scriptures were written 1600 years prior to then, and the old testament much more prior.

And, those scriptures declare that God the Father is God...

Genesis, 17:8, Exodus 12:2, Psalms 86:10, Matthew, 6:9 and many more.

That Jesus Christ is God...

John 1:1, Collosians 2:9, 1 Tim, 3:16, Heb 1:3, and many more.

That the Holy Spirit is God...

Acts 5: 3-4, Matthew 3:16 and many others

And that there is one God, not 3 Gods...

Mark 12:29, and many others.

There you go. I count 9 manuscripts, Matthew, Mark, Psalms, Collosians, Acts, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, Exodus, Genesis...and they proclaim the triune nature of God.

May God help and enlighten you regarding your confusion,

Mike

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

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

DHK said...

"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 you said...

"Bzzt! Wrong!"

So, we can only conclude that you believe that Mary CREATED Christs Godness? Mary CREATED God? Even though Christ was God when He created the world at the beginning? Are you sure you want to go there?

"How on earth can you make the above statements and not believe the theotokos doctrine?!!"

Because DHK understands the context of Mary being Christs mother, and the limitations of her "motherness* regarding Christ. She gave birth to Him, she took care of Him as He grew. That is where her mother role ends.

She was the vessel God used to bring Christ into this world physically, but she had no part in creating His "Godness".

Christ created Mary, not the other way around.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

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

Its been clearly answered, by myself and others.

Do you have "eyes to see", and "ears to hear"?

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

So, we can only conclude that you believe that Mary CREATED Christs Godness? Mary CREATED God? Even though Christ was God when He created the world at the beginning? Are you sure you want to go there?

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?

but she had no part in creating His "Godness".

Christ created Mary, not the other way around.

And the title of theotokos does not contradict this

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



Its been clearly answered, by myself and others.

No it hasn't. I asked a simple question: is there a Greek manuscript dating from before the 16th century to back up the claim that this particular version of I John is authentic? Yes or no?

Now will someone please give me an answer to that question, not an answer to a question they'd rather I'd asked....

 

[BobRyan]

No, because that's not that the theotokos doctrine means; it literally means 'God-bearer'

#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

 

[BobRyan]

You either do not understand the point or you are using misdirection here.

The point was stated repeatedly that there is no "BIOLOGICAL pathway to God".

In other words - no amount of biochemistry results in "God".

The issue is not whether an intimate act took place - the issue is that BIOLOGY alone could never account for the result being INFINITE GOD - so from a purely biological "LIFE" context -- this PERSON was not procreated.

This is a UNIQUE case where a LIVING PERSON -- in this case God the SON was ALREADY in existence and was INCARNATED -- RATHER than PROCREATED so that what WAS God the SON-- became Christ the GOD-MAN.

With the human nature being NEW - but the GOD nature PRE-EXISTING

Certainly we can agree that the human nature was derived purely from a biological pathway. No question there -- but BIOLOGY did not account for GOD Himself!

Your attempt to equivocate between EVE "the MOTHER of mankind" and Mary "MOTHER of GOD" using PROCREATION terms for each -- stands out to the objective unbiased reader as logically unsound.

Probably worked well in the dark ages -- but I don't know how anyone goes for it today.

in Christ,

Bob

As pointed out above -- I don't think this "mother of God" business could ever have been succesfully launched outside of the Dark Ages.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

#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.

 

[bound]

As pointed out above -- I don't think this "mother of God" business could ever have been succesfully launched outside of the Dark Ages.

in Christ,

Bob

Grace and peace BobRyan,

This was dogmatically established by the Council of Ephesus in 430 A.D.

Unfortunately, most Protestants have adopted "mother of our Lord" but I question what we mean when we say Lord?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So, we can only conclude that you believe that Mary CREATED Christs Godness? Mary CREATED God? Even though Christ was God when He created the world at the beginning? Are you sure you want to go there?

To add to Matt's response...

In the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh.

From whom did the Word, the same Word that was from the beginning, obtain flesh?

The Word from the beginning is fully Divine, the Word obtaining flesh is fully human. The term Theotokos safeguards against heretics that want to minimize Christ’s humanity or His Divinity.

Therefore, the term Theotokos is more about Jesus Christ than it is about Mary. The term Theotokos in no way suggests that Mary existed before all eternity or that Mary gave birth to God the Father.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[bound]

She carried the body of the Son.

Do you see how saying this could lead someone to believe that you are saying 'the body of the Son' didn't contain the actual Godhead? If 'the body of the Son' dwelt within Mary then our 'God' dwelt within Mary (for nine months I might add).

The Son of God could have come a different way. But he chose to come through the body that Mary bore for Him.

How do you know this? How else could God reconcile Man but to take upon Himself the very Nature He sought to redeem?

You also are trying very hard to distance or discredit someone whom God, Himself, found favor... Blessed (favored of God) are you before all other women!

You argue in a previous post... so what she's blessed. Are we blessed also? But I would reply that although we might be justified we don't always find favor (blessings) with God due to our unruliness. Often are we chastised for our offenses and often do we pour His wrath upon ourselves for our neglect. Mary was and is a humble obedient servent of the Lord. Does this mean that she was somehow 'perfect'? No, we see many examples of our imperfection in the Scriptures but we still most recognize her as a very special creature of God. You argue that if she was not available then our Lord would have manifest in another... but He didn't. He came and dwelt in her (for nine months the Godhead dwelt intimately within Her).

What does Light have to do with Darkness? Can the Godhead dwell in Sin? What did the dwelling of God in the Ark of the Covenant do to the container? Was it made holy (set apart for the purpose of the Lord)? If someone even 'touched' the Ark what happened to them? What about the Holy of Holies in the Temple? What reverence was given to these two examples of 'a holy dwelling place of the Lord'?

What then of Mary?

Even Samuel's bones restored life due to the favor Samuel had with the Lord. How much more favor did Mary have being the instrument of God's entering His Creation?

God's Grace and Glory dwell in and participate in our lives but it isn't 'a have or have not' situation but one 'of degrees'....

We know this through the Scriptures because Mary herself was 'most favored among women' the 'Mother of our Lord'...

What does Lord mean to you? Clearly Mary is not the progenitor of the Godhead but she was the Gate of Flesh which the Godhead entered to achieved our Salvation.

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.

I really honestly believe you are hedging.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Theotokos is not more about Jesus than it is of Mary. Theotokos means 'God-bearer,' 'the one who gives birth to God,' and 'mother of God.' The emphasis is put on Mary, not Jesus. The focus is on her, lifting her up as the 'God-bearer'.

Theotokos is not found in the Word of God. It is a term subtly planted in the minds of those who want to worship Mary. Satan has deceived them into this idolatry. It is not of God.

 

[Matt Black]

Not quite - theotokos means 'God-bearer' not 'Mother of God'; look up the Greek.

 

[bound]

Theotokos is not more about Jesus than it is of Mary. Theotokos means 'God-bearer,' 'the one who gives birth to God,' and 'mother of God.' The emphasis is put on Mary, not Jesus. The focus is on her, lifting her up as the 'God-bearer'.

Theotokos is not found in the Word of God. It is a term subtly planted in the minds of those who want to worship Mary. Satan has deceived them into this idolatry. It is not of God.

Grace and Peace,

Although you are my elder and I respect your conviction I know that the Scriptures acknowledge Mary as 'Mother of our Lord'. If our Lord isn't God then we have truly Blasphemed as the Jews and Muslims accuse us of doing when we 'worship' Jesus Christ as God.

I honestly believe this notion is a product of a slow decoupling of our Lord from His unity in the Trinity as one God. Once we start down the road of distinctions between our Lord and God we begin to separate or divide the unity of the Godhead.

We've seen this with Arius and Nestorius and Muslims. I honestly don't believe we should budge from this Dogma of the Council of Ephesus. It was determined by consensus of the Christian Church in 430 AD to combat errors I see no reason to deny it today.

I do say with with all due respect to you and DHK. I have a great deal of respect for both of you and I don't question your sincerity. I believe you hold these views because you've been taught them in your Baptist Tradition and believe them to be truly the proper interpretation of God's word but I disagree.

I understand that such disagreement can't be tolerated on a Baptist Board as it contradicts what is seen as the Baptist Distinctives (what makes up the Baptist Identity) so I honestly believe you have to refute this but I simply can't deny the unity of our Lord with God nor His Divine Nature with His Human Nature nor His Will in union with the Will of God. Just as 'a virgin birth' is a mystery of our Faith, the Incarnation will remain a mystery but the fact remains... Mary bore Jesus Christ, God made Flesh! Holy Theotokos is an apt title for Her.

 

[Matt Black]

:applause: :thumbs: again!

 

[bound]

:applause: :thumbs: again!

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.

 

[Matt Black]

To my mind, the two should go together: Doubting Thomas' signature, where he quotes +John Cosins, for me says it all: "Protestant and reformed, according to the principles of the ancient catholic church":thumbs: