Jesus Repudiates the Mariolatry Volume III

[BobRyan]

We really do need a thread to discuss your assumed infallibility in interpreting the Scriptures. Catholics claim to have one Pope Infallible but Protestants each claim to be the Pope infallible. I say you are both in grave error. :laugh:

This is not accurate.

Protestants "by contrast to the RCC" do NOT claim that a HUMAN is infallible -- only that the "Spirit of TRUTH" John 16 is and that Christ was correct in teaching the doctrine that the Spirit of truth would LEAD us into all truth -- rather than "just leading the Popes who raise up armies to kill rival papal followers"

In 1John 2 we are told "you have no need for anyone to teach you -- HIS ANNOINTING teaches you".

In Heb 8 the HEART of the New Covenant promise is "ALL shall know Me".

The papal argument is in direct contradiction to the New Covenant itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A good example of a list of positions derived from tradition rather than scripture

3) Infant Baptism

4) Baptismal Regeneration

5) Mary was sinless, Augustine promoted Mary Worship

6) Grace can be obtained thru Sacraments

7) Lord Supper as the spiritual presence of Body and Blood

8) Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ, Outside this body the Holy Spirit gives the life to No One.

9) Purgatory

10) Acceptance of Apocrypha ( while admitting that the Jews rejected this)

11) Jews must be killed by double edged swords.

12) Rejected the literal interpretation of Creation like 6 days and other details of Genesis

13) Rejected the literal reign of Christ Jesus for thousand years.

14) Satan was already bound and the abyss was in the heart of the unbelievers - Christ Rejecters.

15) placed the Tradition to the first place over the Bible, incorporating the Greek philosophy, Platonism.

(Augustine) hated Donatists and praised Constantine for killing Donatists and confiscating their properties.

 

[Eliyahu]

No, you are not still waiting for my answer. I answered you on 12-18-2007 at 02:47 PM on Volume II of this debate post #304. I encourage you to read it.

It deals with the error of thinking of God as three separate gods... Tri-Theism. You're assumption appears to be that if one of the three personas of the Godhead is not procreated by Mary, then being the mother of the person Jesus Christ does not make her the mother of God by default. You would further conclude a radical distinction between the person Jesus Christ and the Godhead as well as establish a radical distinction between the divinity and humanity of our Lord. What you and Bobryan continue to fail to realize is that the unity of the hypostasis is more radical than your desire to challenge it and it's unity in the personhood of Jesus Christ is what is unique and special about our Lord. He choose to die on a cross. That wasn't the bravery of God acting, that was the bravery of a prefect man in perfect union with God's will. Yes fully God, but also fully Man. You and Bobryan have all but dismissed what is fully apparent in the Biblical testimony concerning the presence of a 'complete' humanity in union with the Logos in our Lord. This radically distorts your view of our Lord and any understanding of the real challenges He faced as a man. Was Jesus 'truly' tempted? How could Satan have won in the desert? Was there a possibility? The answer to all these questions is 'YES' but our Lord triumphed over him. It was a 'true' victory and not one simply won because He was God and immutable, Omnipotent and Omniscient. It was won because the humanity of Jesus Christ yielded to His inherent Godly Nature and overcame the passions of His Human Nature. These are the dynamics that God alone could not do. Only in the hypostatic union could the Godhead actually face temptation as we do everyday. Only in the hypostatic union could the Godhead demonstrate for us perfection in the person of Jesus Christ. This was not a perfection born our of privilege but a perfection born out of true and unabiding faith and yielding the human nature to that of the divine. Everything we see in our Lord we should aspire. We shouldn't look at Him as completely alien to our own nature but as an example of how we in our own nature in unity with God should be and can be. This is what the ancient doctrine of deification and Sanctification is all about but you and Bobryan's radical separation of the personhood of Jesus Christ as the Theanthropos (God-Man) merely a shell for God to display His might over Satan and Death... You've missed the whole point of His coming in the Flesh. He didn't come here because He couldn't have done 'that' any other way... He came here to show 'us' how to escape the bondage of sin and death. We are participants. Our example is Christ. What He had by nature, we have through adoption. Jesus is not only our Lord and our God, He is also our example of perfect humanity. Your radical separation of His humanity is a radical twisting of the doctrine of the Incarnation. I'm afraid it shares more with Nestorianism than it does with the Ancient Faith.

Be Well.

Bound,

I knew you couldn't answer my question by Yes or No. I just enjoyed your various excuses, then you are blaming me on the contrary. Your logic got into the impasse started from Human Syllogism which is just a quagmire when it encounters divine Trinity.

You started to speak confidently Mother of God, but such confidence disappear when I asked the question " Is Mary the Mother of God the Father?" If it is really truth, why not answer ?

When you said, Mother of God, shouldn't it be applicable to Mother of God the Father as well? Did she become the real Mother to the God the Father? YOu are evading the question by the nature of Trinity. Did Mary give birth to God the Father as well? I ask that question because you may say, the Godheads is not divisible in Oneness. Why don't you boldly say that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit were born by Mary? and Trinity God sucked the breast of Mary? The Goddess is like that !!!!

 

[Eliyahu]

[/i]And you don't see the symbolism of his words? You actually think he wanted them murdered? If so then how could they die to theselves and live to you?

But in response to the larger thrust of your post. You're assumption is that if you can find even one error in Augustine's body of work then we must dismiss all of his works as in error. This is a falacious a priori assumption to start of with but more to the point we can know what is 'shared' with the works of Augustine and the larger consensual teachings of the Church through comparison. The whole point of a 'consensual' body of teachings is that they are not drawn from any 'one' person but the teachings in common to the whole Early Church. Patristics is nothing but the study of the consensual teachings of the 'whole' body of the early Church. Not simply Augustine alone. I am not bound to agree with Augustine if such is not in consensual agreement with the larger body of Early Church Teaching.

I have used several Early Church Fathers to affirm what has been historically accepted as normative within the consensual teachings of the church. You have largely fallen outside of that evidence with mere novel argumentation. If we cannot establish these positions as normative within the body of teachings by the Church in the beginning then they cannot be the teachings of the Church. Force of conviction, detraction of historic figures and novel argumentation doesn't orthodoxy make.

YOu are on the slick and tricky path of excuses again.
A soldier could kill a few hundred people, but the wicked writing can kill thousands and tens of thousands.
Augustine apparently hated the Jews, and he didn't teach the faith of Love but of hatred and Killing. Think about his claim for the Coercion and praise of Constantine for killing Donatists.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am still waiting for your answer to my question:

1. Is Mary the Mother of God the Father ?

2. Is Mary the Mother of God the Holy Spirit?

3. Did God the Father such the breast of Mary?


Please answer simply by Yes or No.
I'm not Bound but I'll bite:

1. No

2. No

3. No

...er...none of which is relevant to the issue of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Your point?

Matt,

You are honest in your answering.
Now let me ask you about the Second person of Trinity.

1. Was Mary the Mother of God the Son before the Creation of the World?

2. Was Mary the Mother of God the Son when Moses work for Christ ( Heb 11:26)

3. Was Mary the Mother of God the Son anytime before the birth of Mary?

4. Did Mary give birth to the Deity of Jesus Christ? Was the Divine nature of Jesus born by Mary?

You said, Mary is neither Mother of God the Father nor of God the Holy Spirit.

I am waiting for your answer about the second person of Trinity.

 

[GodlyWoman]

Why is this Mary thing so hard to understand anyhow?

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she isn't his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Luke 11:27-28

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

The question for the group --

"In those churches that DO the blessed-Mary-Mother-of-God routines in their worship" is anyone responding to that "Blessed be" statement with "ON THE CONTRARY" as Christ did? Would Christ's "ON the CONTRARY" form of response even be "tolerated" in those churches?


Originally Posted by BobRyan
1. Certainly Jesus COULD have said "on the Contrary Mary IS BLESSED because like these others who have believed on Me as the Messiah she ALSO believed even from the time of my infancy". We COULD have read those words in scripture IF they had actually been there - we just can't "read them INTO scripture".

But exegesis reveals that the force of Jesus' response is to take the focus AWAY from the BIOLOGICAL "parent" role of Mary and INSTEAD to focus it on the BELIEVER's role -- pointing NOT to MARY as the example of the "believer" but to those standing around Him at the time AS THE EXAMPLE!

A more devastating case against the Mariolotry position could hardly be imagined!

2. It still does not answer the question as to whether the "ON THE CONTRARY" response IS EVER ALLOWED in the Mariolotry centered denominations -- no matter HOW one wants to state that "ON the CONTRARY" response of Christ in "a nice way".

 

[BobRyan]

Why is this Mary thing so hard to understand anyhow?

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she isn't his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither.

However if we limit the context to the biology of "Mary is Jesus mother" and combine that with "Jesus is the GOD-man" then she is "Mother of God", "Wiser than God", "Instuctor of God", "corrector of God"...

So it is best NOT to conflate the biology of Mary in the human nature of Christ with the EXISTENCE of God and the attributes of God. Hence no Bible writer or saint actually falls into the error of claiming that Mary is "the Mother of God".

Bob said -

Mother of God"
"Corrector of God"
"Instructor of God"
"Teacher of God"
"Stronger than God"
"Wiser thand God"

None of those parental roles in procreation for children are described for Mary in scripture. To get them - you need the RCC!

Hence in scripture we find no

"immaculate conception"
"Queen of Heaven"
"Prayers to the dead"
"Prayers to Mary"
"Mary Co-redemptrix"
"Mary sinless like Christ"
"Mary assumed into heaven like Christ"

All the "additional errors" following naturally from the first set of errors -- just not there in scripture - because there is no foundation for them as has been laid in the RCC.

My point is that the errors you read in the second group of statements are only made possible in those groups that adopt one or more of the errors listed in the first group of statements.

 

[GodlyWoman]

However if we limit the context to the biology of "Mary is Jesus mother" and combine that with "Jesus is the GOD-man" then she is "Mother of God", "Wiser than God", "Instuctor of God", "corrector of God"...

So it is best NOT to conflate the biology of Mary in the human nature of Christ with the EXISTENCE of God and the attributes of God. Hence no Bible writer or saint actually falls into the error of claiming that Mary is "the Mother of God".

For God to connect to us, he became flesh, word Incarnate, so that people could really relate to him and say yes, God really does feel our pains and joys. So the human part of him had to be carried by a woman, born of a woman, raised by a woman. No one is saying Mary is more or equal to God, but in Christ's part she is his mother and he would've obeyed the commandment to have honored his mother here on Earth. She always didn't understand his divine, God part, but she had faith in God as any Christian does and followed God's calling.

 

[Linda64]

Why is this Mary thing so hard to understand anyhow?

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she isn't his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

Not hard to understand at all----Mary is NOT the mother of God. The logical syllogism is NOT Bible--it is man-made. God is eternal and has NO mother.

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.

God prepared that BODY in the womb of Mary:

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

The Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary...Jesus Christ is the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15).

 

[BobRyan]

For God to connect to us, he became flesh, word Incarnate, so that people could really relate to him and say yes, God really does feel our pains and joys.

Agreed - that is the "incarnation" of pre-existing God who has no mother at all. No one stronger than God, wiser than God, instructor of God...etc.

But as part of the incarnation there must also be the human nature of the Messiah and that is where "biology" comes into play and so we do find procreation terms used in context with the HUMAN nature of the Messiah.

So the human part of him had to be carried by a woman, born of a woman, raised by a woman.

And so there both sides agree and even Bible writers agree. However it is instructive that NO bible writer calls Mary "the MOTHER of God" or James "the BROTHER of God" or Joseph the "protector and provider for God", John the baptizer never called "the cousin of God".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[GodlyWoman]

...it is instructive that NO bible writer calls Mary "the MOTHER of God" or James "the BROTHER of God" or Joseph the "protector and provider for God", John the baptizer never called "the cousin of God".

In the Bible, (do you want the specific verse?) it says "Blessed are you and the fruit of thy womb". Who on Earth do you think that was in reference to? Some donkey in labor? No! It was in reference to Mary, Jesus' mother!

If we take that Bible small piece of the Bible as truth (which we ALL should) then it's right tpo refer to her as the Blessed Mother of Christ.

Yes, no Bible writer called her Mother of God, but why did anyone have to call her that? They knew that. It was a given!

To call Mary the "Mother of Jesus" and yet refuse to call her "Mother of God" is to diminish Jesus as well as Mary, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly or fully God.

 

[BobRyan]

In the Bible, (do you want the specific verse?) it says "Blessed are you and the fruit of thy womb". Who on Earth do you think that was in reference to? Some donkey in labor? No! It was in reference to Mary, Jesus' mother!

Ahh yes "Mary is Jesus' Mother" we find that in scripture -- we see that affirmed here on the board on both sides of the discussion.

But NOT EVEN ONCE does the Bible call Mary "the mother of God" or James "the brother of God" or Joseph "The instructor of God" or ... "Wiser than God" or "Stronger than God" or "corrector of God"... no not even ONCE!

Some would make arguments to the effect that in that the Bible writers never did this - that they were denying the deity of Christ -- that is a failed argument.

 

[GodlyWoman]

If we take that Bible small piece of the Bible as truth (which we ALL should) then it's right tpo refer to her as the Blessed Mother of Christ.

Yes, no Bible writer called her Mother of God, but why did anyone have to call her that? They knew that. It was a given!

To call Mary the "Mother of Jesus" and yet refuse to call her "Mother of God" is to diminish Jesus as well as Mary, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly or fully God.

And what about this? You completely ignored commenting on this stuff. Please comment.

 

[GodlyWoman]

Mother of The Church (an explanation)

When Jesus was dying on the cross, Mary and John were at the foot of the cross. Jesustold John, "Behold your mother." Jesus told Mary, "Behold your son." That mean His mother is to be our mother, too.

When Jesus ascended into Heaven, He left His mother here. Why did He do that? He knew that His mother's faith in Him was complete.

Jesus knew that Mary would help the disciples stay focused on their calling. And He knew that Mary would help us stay focused on Him. Mary helpsus build Jesus' Church on Earth.

This is why some call Mary the Mother of the Church. All hr life, Mary showed us how to focus on Jesus. If we live our lives like Mary did, we will come to know and love Jesus. Just like Mary.

 

[Linda64]

Mother of The Church (an explanation)

When Jesus was dying on the cross, Mary and John were at the foot of the cross. Jesustold John, "Behold your mother." Jesus told Mary, "Behold your son." That mean His mother is to be our mother, too.

This doesn't mean that Mary is to be our mother. What this does mean is that Jesus told John to care for Mary:

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

The Church has NO mother...and God has NO mother.

When Jesus ascended into Heaven, He left His mother here. Why did He do that? He knew that His mother's faith in Him was complete.

Jesus said:

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The purpose of the Ascension had NOTHING to do with Mary but had EVERYTHING to do with receiving the power of the Holy Spirit...to be witnesses of the Gospel throughout the world:

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Jesus was received back into glory and He is coming back again:

Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Jesus knew that Mary would help the disciples stay focused on their calling. And He knew that Mary would help us stay focused on Him. Mary helpsus build Jesus' Church on Earth.

The Apostles did NOT need Mary to keep themselves focused on Christ. The power of the Holy Spirit which indwelt them at Pentecost (and indwells every born again Christian today) kept them (and keeps us) focused on Christ. Christ is building His church, not Mary. Christ is the foundation and chief cornerstone of the Church, not Mary. We are to build on the foundation of Christ. Christ needs no help from Mary!
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

The Church is ALL about Christ--He is the foundation, chief corner stone, and the chief Shepherd of the sheep--this has nothing to do with Mary.

This is why some call Mary the Mother of the Church. All hr life, Mary showed us how to focus on Jesus. If we live our lives like Mary did, we will come to know and love Jesus. Just like Mary.

Mary showed us how to focus on Jesus? I think not. The Word of God helps me focus on Jesus Christ. Where in God's Word does it say that we are to live our lives like Mary? However, I read in God's Word that we are being conformed to the image of Christ:

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

On Whom are your eyes and heart focused? On Mary? Or on Christ? Sounds like your focus is all on Mary--Mary is a mere mortal and you are making her an idol. This is idolatry---the worship of Mary or Mariolatry.

 

[BobRyan]

GodlyWoman
It was in reference to Mary, Jesus' mother!

Bob
Ahh yes "Mary is Jesus' Mother" we find that in scripture -- we see that affirmed here on the board on both sides of the discussion.

But NOT EVEN ONCE does the Bible call Mary "the mother of God" or James "the brother of God" or Joseph "The instructor of God" or ... "Wiser than God" or "Stronger than God" or "corrector of God"... no not even ONCE!

Some would make arguments to the effect that in that the Bible writers never did this - that they were denying the deity of Christ -- that is a failed argument.

And what about this? You completely ignored commenting on this stuff. Please comment.

That was the comment for "James the brother of God" and for "John the Cousin of God" and for "Mary the Mother of God".

ALL of which are terms we do NOT find in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Mother of The Church (an explanation)

When Jesus was dying on the cross, Mary and John were at the foot of the cross. Jesustold John, "Behold your mother." Jesus told Mary, "Behold your son." That mean His mother is to be our mother, too.

Is that because "we Christians are all John but we are not Peter"?

OR Was Christ speaking to John in the place of Peter and James -- giving Mary to all the disciples AND to all the women following Jesus - but innexplicably making it "look like" he was speaking to John to trick Protestants???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Mother of The Church (an explanation)

When Jesus was dying on the cross, Mary and John were at the foot of the cross. Jesustold John, "Behold your mother." Jesus told Mary, "Behold your son." That mean His mother is to be our mother, too.

You overlook the fact that when Jesus was dying on the cross he looked down and saw Mary. He said to her: "Woman behold thy son." He addressed her as "woman," not as mother. He did so to put a differentiation between her and him. She was not his mother, and she was to understand that her. She may have played that role--an adoptive mother, but she was not his mother. She was a woman. Now Jesus was providing for the woman that providing for him in the earlier years of his humanity. He was instructing one of his closer disciples to take care of her in a time of great grief. Why John? Because her other sons (Mat.13:55) were not yet saved. They were saved after the resurrection.
"Woman behold thy son." A statement of great significance.

When Jesus ascended into Heaven, He left His mother here. Why did He do that? He knew that His mother's faith in Him was complete.

Jesus knew that Mary would help the disciples stay focused on their calling. And He knew that Mary would help us stay focused on Him. Mary helpsus build Jesus' Church on Earth.

Don't spin the Scriptures. It was actually the other way around if anything. Mary never became a teacher, an apostle, a leader, etc. It was the apostles that were instructing Mary, comforting Mary, etc. The only statement we have about Mary is that she was with the others (120 of them) when they were praying. She was there. She was there praying. And that is all.

This is why some call Mary the Mother of the Church. All hr life, Mary showed us how to focus on Jesus. If we live our lives like Mary did, we will come to know and love Jesus. Just like Mary.

Can you show Scripture where Mary is called the mother of the Church. That is heresy. When Mary asked Jesus to turn water into wine, Jesus rebuked her, saying:
Woman, what have I to do with you.
Again, he was putting his distance between her and Him. He was God. She was a mere woman who had been given the duty of raising him, an honorable duty, yes, but that is all. Now she must realize that He, Christ, must be about HIS FATHER'S business. He has no mother. Who is our example. It is not Mary:

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[GodlyWoman]

That was the comment for "James the brother of God" and for "John the Cousin of God" and for "Mary the Mother of God".

ALL of which are terms we do NOT find in scripture.

Can you show Scripture where Mary is called the mother of the Church.

Once again, it DOESN'T have to be in the Scripture to make it untrue, invalid, or wrong.

You can't rely on the Bible alone for your only source of information. It's like someone trying to rely solely on ONE book to make an argument for a Master's or Doctoral thesis or dissertation.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say WORD FOR WORD that the Bible or Scripture is the only source of information for Christians.

While I don't dispute the fact it says "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God and profitable for doctrine" in the Bible, that one little verse doesn't give one the right to abuse Scripture by saying "Sola scriptura".

Saying "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God and profitable for doctrine" is MUCH DIFFERENT than saying the Bible is the sole authority.