I do not use the word trinity. It is not in the Bible. The word trinity does not help one to understand better. How does it help more to say trinity than saying the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is One? How does the word trinity help better than saying Jesus is God in the flesh?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mary Sightings in History
- Thread starter saturneptune
- Start date
I do not use the word trinity. It is not in the Bible. The word trinity does not help one to understand better. How does it help more to say trinity than saying the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is One? How does the word trinity help better than saying Jesus is God in the flesh?
Well, what do you know, I guess we can agree on somethings. Good response!
WestminsterMan
New Member
It's clear to me that your obsession with the RCC has caused a detrimental impact to the very faith that you proclaim here. The early Church called Mary the Mother of God and since they were Catholic, you must by necessity deny that title to her. This has pushed you into a logical corner from which you cannot extricate yourself. Thus, you MUST deny one of the seminal foundations of the faith. How sad...
WM
The Bible does not call Mary the Mother of God. That should be enough never to say it. It is for the simple fact that Mary is not the Mother of God the Father. Why then say it, it is not in the Bible, Mary is not the Mother of God the Father. It is plain and simple.
Mary said she is God’s servant, not His Mother. See Luke 1:38, and 48.
Therefore, now we have humans going against the Word in giving titles never given by the Word.
I cannot believe it. Lol
You don't read very well do you? You can always extricate yourself from anything by simply changing your mind. I agreed that simeltaneous inception of diety with conception of humanity was the better position and that it would harmonize with Isaiah 9:6 distinction that a "child was BORN" but a "son was GIVEN."
I also maintained the reason the phrase "Mother of God" is not only missing from the scriptures but is bad theology is that it naturally attributes to Mary something that is impossible and that is Deity has a Mother.
Furthermore, the logic used to justify the title could equally justify that God can grow in wisdom and knowledge and thus teach the mutability of God because Jesus is God and man and Jesus is said to have grown in wisdom and knowlegdge, thus God can grow in wisdom and knowledge.
It is a failure to properly distinguish attributes that belong exclusively to deity as opposed to humanity. This is the same error that is conveyed by the title "Mother of God" when attributed to the human Mary. It conveys a theological contradiction as much as claiming God can grow in wisdom and knowledge. God cannot be conceived by anything or anyone without ceasing to be God any more than God can be mutable without ceasing to be God. The title "Mary the Mother of God" naturally conveys such a theological contradiction and that is precisely why the Scriptures never use it but simply refer to Mary as the "mother of Jesus."
We say God is eternal, that is, without beginning or ending. In the same discussion, we say He has a mother, immaculate and worthy of veneration--to some point anyway, as promulgated by the current conclave of the appropriate magisterium and most right reverend Doctors of Dogma. Can a little child understand? Why?
In as much as The Virgin Birth is a unique event, why do we try to describe it in a clinical way--kind of in a test tube.
We are still trying to figure out if Adam had a navel, not having had a mother. If Adam had no navel, what about Eve? Does this mean Jesus had a navel. If He did, who was the one who cut the umbilical cord--a immaculate midwife? Would such a saint not be worthy of special adoration for having helped God get into this old(maybe not old) world which He created(Jesus is also creator--before His mother). Aristotle would have had trouble with that one too.
Why do we strive to come up with new ways of worship of God--in our flesh? Such are vain, doctrines of men, an utter waste of effort. It is all going to melt with fervent heat.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Peace,
In as much as The Virgin Birth is a unique event, why do we try to describe it in a clinical way--kind of in a test tube.
We are still trying to figure out if Adam had a navel, not having had a mother. If Adam had no navel, what about Eve? Does this mean Jesus had a navel. If He did, who was the one who cut the umbilical cord--a immaculate midwife? Would such a saint not be worthy of special adoration for having helped God get into this old(maybe not old) world which He created(Jesus is also creator--before His mother). Aristotle would have had trouble with that one too.
Why do we strive to come up with new ways of worship of God--in our flesh? Such are vain, doctrines of men, an utter waste of effort. It is all going to melt with fervent heat.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Peace,
Last edited by a moderator:
WestminsterMan
New Member
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth refers to Mary as "the mother of my Lord":
And it came about that Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed among women are you, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:41-43; NASB]
Then there are the Magi...
And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell down and worshiped Him. [Matt 2:11]
It's very clear to me.
WM
So, am I to understand that you are affirming that Deity can be conceived and thus has an origin, a beginning just like anything else conceived by women?
However, your examples are not convincing. First Elizabeth never said "mother of my GOD." She was speaking as a beleiver in the Messiah and claiming him as her Lord just as David did in Psalm 110.
You could argue that "Lord" is a synonym for "God" but I think it is clear that Elizabeth was speaking about the "Lord" in a redemptive sense as the fulfillment of the coming Messiah and thus an expression of her own personal faith in Christ as her redeemer.
The second example is not worth responding to as it says nothing as to Mary conceiving deity.
WestminsterMan
New Member
WestminsterMan
New Member
In 428 A.D. Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, declared that Mary could not be the Mother of God, since a creature could not bear the Creator. Later he also denied the Christ Child as God, since God could never be a helpless infant. Taking this faulty line of reasoning further, one must ask whether God really could suffer and shed His Blood on the Cross for our sins. The fundamental problem with Nestorius is that he did not completely accept the Incarnation [Galatians 4:4].
Even today some Christians claim that Mary was only the mother of Christ's human nature. This sounds plausible until one realizes the fact that a mother gives birth to a person and not a nature. When a woman gives birth to only nature, it is called a stillbirth.
WM
Jesus does not say to call him ‘Father.’ So why would we call his earthly mother ‘Mother of God’’?
Think of not having young children confused, misunderstanding that Mary is the mother of God the Father, and unbelievers who want to be saved, why confuse them.
This is theologically correct in every sense of the word
It is here where his logic broke down as well as his theology. It is here where RCC logic breaks down as well as their theology.
Failure to distinguish between the two natures within the one Person with their distinctive attributes is error as to deny Jesus was God in the flesh.
You have yet to respond to my example concerning the statement that Jesus "grew in wisdom and in knowlege"! Applying the RCC rationale to justify Mary as the "Mother of God" to this statement we can argue equally that God is mutable because Jesus is God and therefore God grew in wisdom and knowlege. Get my point? The rationale does not theologically justify the conclusion.
Both conclusions based upon that same rationale are theological errors. This is precisely why the Scriptures never call Mary the mother "of God" as that would convey a theological error equal to claiming God is mutable based upon the fact that Jesus grew in wisdom and knowlege.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
That is precisely the point! -- And one that some seem to either be unable to grasp or accept. I don't know if the term "theotokos" is getting in the way and they are letting that keep them from affirming Christ's deity and humanity from the moment of conception or not. Perhaps they shy away from anything they perceive to be RCC teaching. But as I have shown, this issue has nothing to do with that.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Well, I think I've said about all I need to say on the subject. But the rest of you, continue to have at it, if you so desire! 
I think the "some" you are referring to is me. I have conceded that inception of deity at the same point of conception of humanity does harmonize with Isaiah 9:6.
However, the problem with the phrase "Mary Mother of God" is not merely that it is unbiblical but that it conveys bad theology.
Again, I can use the exact same logical steps that you use to defend the use of that phrase to defend that God is mutable. Jesus is God and Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge and thus God is mutable.
The failure to distinguish between attributes that belong exclusively to the human nature versus the divine nature in ONE PERSON leads to theological errors. This distinction must be maintained with regard to Mary and her completely human nature in contrast to absolute Deity.
The phrase "Mother of God" conveys the theological error that God or Absolute deity can be conceived or has a point of beginning just like anything else conceived by women. It makes no difference if you claim "God" has reference to the Son and not the Father because "God" is equally descriptive of all Three Persons of the Godhead and thus to suggest or claim that "God" can be conceived makes no difference to what Person of the Godhead you apply it to as they all share equally the essence of being "God."
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Well, I was referring not only to you but to others, also.
The phrase "may" convey that error -- but not if you realize what the term "theotokos" meant originally, which was "God-bearer". That can be rightly understood without attaching to it the error you mentioned, or without attaching RC theology to it.
You said, "I have conceded that inception of deity at the same point of conception of humanity does harmonize with Isaiah 9:6." That's what I believe, and that's really all I have maintained here.
My position is this: I prefer not to use the term "Mother of God" because of the misunderstanding that it can cause. But I have no trouble affirming the truth of what "theotokos" is actually saying -- that Jesus was both fully deity and fully human from conception, and that Mary bore this divine-human Jesus in her womb.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that the term "Mother" does not merely convey one aspect of child birth but all aspects including conception. You cannot pick and choose with the term "Mother." The biblical writers consistently say she was the "mother of Jesus" but never the "mother of God". There is a reason for that as you cannot divorce "mother" from all aspects of child bearng. No test tube babies in the first century.