Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Agnus_Dei]

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

Answer questions with questions...That's ok Bob, you obviously need better instruction on the Trinity and the Incarnation.

But to answer your questions:

If you mean God the Father in your questions, then no one.

If you mean God as in Jesus Christ who is fully GOD, as well as fully HUMAN and that Jesus' natures (divine and human) were UNITED in a single PERSON of the Trinity...Then the answer to your question is...drum roll please....

Mary...the Theotokos

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

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.

Again, the Theotokos, doesn’t proclaim that Mary is the mother of GOD the FATHER from all eternity. Let's review and have a quiz...

The Trinity is three (3) divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia)…Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now, stay with the class, b/c we have to move on…

The Son, the second person of the Trinity became Incarnate (meaning God took on flesh and became man), Jesus Christ who is fully GOD and fully HUMAN was born in time of the Virgin Mary and begotten from before all time of God the Father.

Now, pop quiz class:

Who did Mary give birth to?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Again, so there is no confusion,

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.

Personally I like orthodoxwiki.org

Your link points out that the Mother of God phrase is a less literal interpretation. God-bearer is the more acceptable term. Mother of God, which is acceptable, but only for those who have a firm understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[bound]

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!

There was an interesting and challenging thread not too long ago titled "Was Man Created Mortal?" which delved into this hypothesis. You should read it.

Part of the discussion touched on the views held by many Western Scholars of the Early Church where I quoted:

In the first place, the general Western view was that man's primitive state had been one of supernatural blessedness. According to Hilary, he was created immortal, destined to share the blessedness of God Himself. Ambrosiaster argued that, although Adam's body was not intrinsically immortal, he halted its tendency to decay by eating of the Tree of Life. It was Ambrose, however, perhaps inspired by his acquaintance with the Cappadocians, who painted the picture in the most glowing colors. Adam had been a 'heavenly being', breathing etherial air and immune from life's cares and boredoms. Accustomed to conversing with God face to face, he held his carnal appetites in sovereign control. Along with Eve he radiated perfect innocence and virtue, and was even exempt from the need of food. From this happy state, however, he fell, being condemned to concupiscense and death. The root cause of his lapse, according to Ambrose, was pride: 'he wanted to claim for himself something which had not been assigned to him, equality with his Creator'. In Ambrosiaster's view his sin was more akin to idolatry, since he fondly imagined he could become God. By treating the Devil as God, Adam placed himself in his power. It was his soul, of course, which sinned, but the act corrupted his flesh, and sin established its abode there. Thus the Devil took possession of it, so that henceforth it oculd be designated a "flesh of sin".

Secondly, the solidarity of the race with Adam, with all that notion entails, received much fuller recognition in the West than the East. An unknown author writes, 'Assuredly we all sinned in the first man, and by the inheritance of his nature an inheritance of guilt (culpae) has been transmitted from one man to all... Adam is therefore in each of us, for in him human nature itself sinned.' To return to Ambrose, 'Adam existed, and in him we all existed, Adam perished, and in him all perished'; and again, even more forcibly, 'In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died. How should God restore me, unless He find me in Adam, justified in Christ, exactly as in that first Adam, I was subject to guilt (culpae obnoxium) and destined to death?' Ambrosiaster's teaching is particularly noteworthy because it relies on an exegesis of Romans 5:12 which was to become the pivot of the doctrine of Original Sin.

What are the practical implications of this solidarity? The second of Ambrose's texts cited above suggests that the race is infected with Adam's actual guilt. His more general doctrine, however, is that, while the corrupting force of sin is transmitted, the guilt attaches to Adam himself, not to us. Certainly, no one can be without sin (i.e. persumably, the sinful tendency), not even a day-old child; the corruption actually increases, in the individual as he grows older and in the race as generation succeeds generation. (Ep. 45:13-15) - Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly

Of particular note is that some and many in Eastern Scholarly circles believed human nature, was never inherently immortal, that whatever immortality it held unto itself was transmitted, or shared, through the graces of the Divine Nature in which it freely participated before the fall. This participation ceased the natural (i.e. inherent) tendency of of the Flesh to corruption (i.e. mortality) as well as a proclivity to increasing moral degradation.

To say that Christ could not take on Mary's Humanity without also sharing in it's inherent state of mortality and moral degradation is to assume that humanity held Divine Attributes before the Fall apart from God extending them through Grace. Remember, it is through Him that we have our being.

The placenta acts only as a filter for the mother's own blood which nourishes the child in the mother's womb until birth and the mother's blood breaks down within the childs body and is replaced by his or her own blood. Bodily fluids are exchanged between the mother and the child. Again you are reaching ma'am to force an unmerited conclusion.

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

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

Again you are conflating His Divine Nature with His Human Nature... and forcing a distinction which divides His Person in order to create a rationale to rejecting Mary as Theotokos.

Recognizing Mary as Theotokos cannot be a Heresy because the Consensual Teaching of the Church as Dogmatized at the Council of Ephesus in 430 AD. What is 'officially' deemed a Heresy isn't what 'you' think or believe but what fails to be recognized as a Consensual Teaching of the Church 'from the beginning'. This has 'nothing' to do with Protestant/Roman Catholic polemics but with the Consensual Teaching of Christ's Church. Your polemics against Rome has blinded you to this and in effect have allowed you to throw the baby out with the bath water.

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!

Then Jesus isn't God by any rational deduction. If you just put your polemical grandstanding aside for a moment and simply read the Council of Ephesus, you'd understand why the Church of Christ rejected Christotokos as you and others here appear to be arguing. To say that Mary isn't the Theotokos you create a logical contradiction in claiming Christ as Lord.

A muslim, for example, would say that God is Eternal, as you have done but then follow that assertion with thus God can't be a creature as Jesus clearly was! The Consensual Teaching of the Christian Church would retort that at the Incarnation God and Man was 'joined'... the Infinite with and in the Finite as it was at the dawn of time when Adam and Eve 'walked' with God in 'unity' with Him 'sharing' in His Attributes, namely His Immortality and Grace and that this 'sharing' of the Divine Nature was restored after the Fall by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ so that what He had by Nature we might share through Adoption as Sons and Heirs.

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.

What I am writing is not Roman Catholic doctrine or dogma but the Consensual Teaching of the Christian Church concerning the our Lord and His Natures.

I understand these conversations are powder kegs for polemical emotional reactions but I'm just saying that an objective study of the History of the Church throughout the world, not just in Rome or the West, reveals a great deal concerning these matters which we, as Christians, should consider before running off with reactionary name calling and proof-texting our pet theories of the day.

The Scriptures, themselves, through the Holy Spirit in the mouth of Elisabeth that 'Mary' is the Mother of our Lord. No matter what we want to believe, she is stated to be our Lord's Mother. That is all I am saying.

Be Well.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

What I am writing is not Roman Catholic doctrine or dogma but the Consensual Teaching of the Christian Church concerning the our Lord and His Natures.

Wow!

Now you are accusing me, Linda, and DHK and others who don't believe your heresy of not attending Christian Churches.

Did you ever stop to look at your hand when you are pointing that accusatory finger? Three of your fingers are pointing back at you.

 

[Matt Black]

"Pot? I have the kettle on the line. Something about you being black."

SFIC, you're accusing Bound of meting out the same sort of treatment that you routinely dish out to us. When you've removed the plank from your own eye, I might pay you some attention...

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Ah, but my rebuke and correction is Bible based, while your accusations are man made myths.

 

[Matt Black]

So you say...

 

[standingfirminChrist]

As was pointed out so many times, Theotokos is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. So the fact remains that what I have written concerning it is Bible based... while all your heretical teaching of it is babble.

 

[Matt Black]

Tell me, SFIC, is Matt 1:18-25 in your Bible? What does it say?

 

[Linda64]

The placenta acts only as a filter for the mother's own blood which nourishes the child in the mother's womb until birth and the mother's blood breaks down within the childs body and is replaced by his or her own blood. Bodily fluids are exchanged between the mother and the child. Again you are reaching ma'am to force an unmerited conclusion.

You are the one reaching. It is a medical fact that the mother's blood does not co-mingle with the fetus blood:

The primary function of the placenta in all species is to promote selective transport of nutrients and waste products between mother and fetus. Such transport is facilitated by the close approximation of maternal and fetal vascular systems within the placenta.

It is important to recognize that there normally is no mixing of fetal and maternal blood within the placenta. Entry of small amounts of fetal blood into the maternal circulation does occasionally occur, and can evoke an immune response in the mother that affects that fetus after birth or fetuses in subsequent pregnancies that are sired by the same father.

Transport Across the Placenta

Your copy & paste makes no sense. Mary did not give birth to God...God had no beginning and has no ending.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Of course it is in my Bible. Since you apparently do not know what it says, I will post it for you and others to read. Pay attention now...

Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

[DHK]

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?

Sorry, can't do that. Here is the reason why. You want to ask me a question like: Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian. I answer truthfully and say that I am neither one. But you keep pressing the issue and tell me that I have to be one or the other assuming that there can be no other position. You are of course wrong.

You are doing the same thing here. I will not be put into one of your little boxes here either. I have given you time and again my explanation. You call it dodging a question. I say it is telling the truth without being boxed in. I am not one or the other. Tell me do I have to believe one or the other? The answer is no. I believe the Bible. And the Bible's position is not heresy. What is heresy is Tradition, tradition fromed from various councils usually made up of unsaved men (no evidence that they were saved), who debated on issues with no guidance of the Holy Spirit.

My position is simple, and has been repeatedly posted on this thread. Mary was a vessel used in one point in history to give birth to Jesus Christ. She was but a vessel used of God, nothing more. That is how God chose to enter into this world. She in no way was the mother of God. God does not have a mother. While Christ, the God-man, chose to lay aside some of divine attributes he, as a child, submitted to his adoptive mother that God chose to put into that capacity for a temporary period of time. Someone had to do it. For some inexpicable reason He chose Mary. He could have chosen some other young maiden, or some other way. But he didn't. In fact he could have condemned us all to Hell by not coming into this world at all; but he didn't. He chose to voluntarily come and die for us because of his great love for us. The fact that he chose Mary as a vessel to enter into this world is very inconsequential in light of the work he accomplished on the cross.

 

[bound]

You are the one reaching. It is a medical fact that the mother's blood does not co-mingle with the fetus blood:

Ma'am, Blood is a 'carrier' and as your link points out 'many' bodily fluids pass from the Mother to the Child 'intact'. Fluids are exchanged. Mother's are an inherent participate in the procreation of a child. I see no reason to dispute this because I don't like it's conclusion that Mary is Theotokos.

Your copy & paste makes no sense. Mary did not give birth to God...God had no beginning and has no ending.

Ma'am, everything I posted I wrote myself except the quote from J.N. Kelley book.

Colossians 1:14

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Yes, the Logos is Eternally 'begotten' of the Father but Jesus Christ, the God-Man is the product of the reunion of Man and God. We now have regained access to the Divine Nature through adoption due to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I have not refuted this.

 

[Linda64]

Ma'am, Blood is a 'carrier' and as your link points out 'many' bodily fluids pass from the Mother to the Child 'intact'. Fluids are exchanged. Mother's are an inherent participate in the procreation of a child. I see no reason to dispute this because I don't like it's conclusion that Mary is Theotokos.

It is important to recognize that there normally is no mixing of fetal and maternal blood within the placenta.

Did you read that part? Obviously not! Mary is not Theotokos--that is HERESY.

Ma'am, everything I posted I wrote myself except the quote from J.N. Kelley book.

That's the copy and paste to which I am referring. Doesn't prove a thing.

Yes, the Logos is Eternally 'begotten' of the Father but Jesus Christ, the God-Man is the product of the reunion of Man and God. We now have regained access to the Divine Nature through adoption due to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

That does not make Mary the Theotokos/mother of God. Jesus Christ is the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15). Do you also believe that Mary was sinless?

I have not refuted this.

You refute biblical truth concerning Mary. Nowhere in Scripture does it say Mary is Theotokos/mother of God. Actually, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not even mentioned after Acts 1:14. If she was so important, as the Catholic Church makes her out to be through Mariolatry, why isn't she mentioned after Acts 1:14?

 

[DHK]

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

All one has to do here is look at history. Theotokos originated with the Eastern Orthodox Church and is basically confined to that group of churches. It is has never been accepted by mainline Christianiity. That in itself should tell us something.

Would you accept the J.W.'s doctrine that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel? You realize immediately that it is not Biblical, but you also realize that this is some new doctrine, and it is outside of mainline Christianity. And therefore you are rightly skeptical about it.

For the same reasons we reject the RCC doctrine of purgatory and many other of their man-made doctrines. And for the same reason we reject theotokos. It is not Biblical, and history in itself demostrates it to be wrong.

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

This is a fallacy that you wrongly believe, and only accept because you believe in the heretical teaching of theotokos. Thus your argument is illogical. It is impossible fo any human being to give birth to the Word. It is also an illogical position to take. No one can be the mother of God. An no one can be the mother of the pre-incarnate Word. This is all heresy. He was before all things. Mary wasn't.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

That does not make Mary the Theotokos/mother of God. Jesus Christ is the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15). Do you also believe that Mary was sinless?

I'm confused. Linda, what do you mean by Jesus being the "seed of the woman" if he doesn't have a mother?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Okay simple question:

Was God the Son in Mary's womb for about nine months?

Yes or no answers, please.

 

[DHK]

Personally I like orthodoxwiki.org

Your link points out that the Mother of God phrase is a less literal interpretation. God-bearer is the more acceptable term. Mother of God, which is acceptable, but only for those who have a firm understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

ICXC NIKA
-

Here is a link from one of your own websites which I previously posted:

The Virgin Mary is the Theotokos, the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. She was cared for by her betrothed husband, Joseph, who took the child and his mother into his home as his own. One very strong tradition in the Orthodox Church holds that the birth of Jesus was also miraculous and left Mary's virginity intact as a sign; it is also the tradition of the Church that Joseph and Mary did not have relations after the birth of Jesus. She is also called Panagia, the "All-Holy," indicating her closeness to God in her obedience.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

There is even more heresy in this quote than in the previous..
1. that Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God.
2. That Mary's virginity was left intact.
3. That Mary and Joseph did not have relations after the birth of Christ.
4. The name of Panagia given to Mary, a name that would come close to inferring worship.

This defintion alone, given by your own church, should indicate the heretical view of this doctrine.

 

[DHK]

Okay simple question:

Was God the Son in Mary's womb for about nine months?

Yes or no answers, please.

You have a problem with the truth. Why can't you accept the answers I give you. Contend with God; with the Scriptures that He wrote:

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.