1 John 3:5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. (1Jo 3:5 NKJ)
-
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
1 John 3:5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. (1Jo 3:5 NKJ)
I am vile and wicked, so was David, so was Moses, so was Joseph and Peter and Paul - that is the whole point of grace. We are not saved because we deserve to be, but because God gives us the opposite of what we deserve.
As to the idea of Mary's imaculate conception as being needed so that the saviour was born without sin, then surely her mother too would ahve needed an imaculate conception so that she could be born without sin - and so it would go back to the dawn of time, a line of women immaculately conceived - a teaching that is clearly nowhere to be found in the word of God.
Interestingly in Mark 3 we have an incident recorded that just might demonstrate that Mary was a sinner. in v21 we read that his own people are thinking that Jesus is mad, and so his mothers and his brothers come to him, v31 and are sternly rebuked for their efforts by him, v33-34. Is being worried that Jesus claims came from madness a lack of faith or not? Is not unbelief a sin?
saturneptune
New Member
We are all in a fallen state. However, we could use better terms than vile and wicked when describing a person you know offends other posters. I think Paul talks at length about setting an example, limiting Christian liberty around those it offends or are weak. That is also sin.
Ah yes, but who are the weak?
Mary was not born by Immaculate Conception, as the Catholics teach, but that does not mean she was vile and wicked.
The Bible does not teach total depravity of every human. That is a teaching not from God.
Mary found FAVOR with God! See Luke 1:30.
Think about that one for a while, and get out of the false doctrine of total depravity.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mary is blessed among women.
Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus. God came in the flesh, and Mary is the mother of that part of Jesus. Mary is NOT the mother of God. God has no mother or father. Those in false religions twist the words of God. We are not to lean to the left or to the right of God’s word! Deuteronomy 5:32 So be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left.
I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure you realize its implications. Jesus does not have two parts, He is one person, fully man and fully God. The two part Jesus, with disunion between the divine and the human, is the Nestorian heresy.
For sure, the title "Mother of God" does not mean that Mary came before God or that she is older than God. Mary is a creature like the rest of us. But she gave birth to Jesus--all of Him. Since Jesus is God in the flesh, then it follows that Mary is the Mother of God.
I know what the Catholics imply, but that does not make it God’s word.
Mary is NOT the mother of God the Father. Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh. Do you think that God the Father had a mother in heaven that gave birth to Him?
It makes no difference to me who the Catholics claim is a heretic. Debate me here and now, not Nestorian.
Then do not call Mary the Mother of God. Do not elevate her to the level of God and Jesus. Do not call Mary Co Redeemer and Mediatrix.
Fred's Wife
Member
Mary is not the "mother of God". It is true that Jesus Christ is God the Son, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, but the New Testament does not even hint that Mary should be thought of as the mother of God. Jesus Christ, as God the Son, had no beginning. (John 1:1). Christ as God had no mother, or beginning. It was only His human, earthly existence which began in the womb of Mary. She is the mother of His humanity, not His divinity. The Godhead has no motherhood.
yes, as mary bore the Son of God, and from her he received his humanity, without her sin nature, but she was not the Mother of All 3 of the truine God!
that is what the "Mother of God' would mean!
"he who knew no sin, the spotless lamb of god, in Him was no sin found, he became our sin bearer etc...
IF jesus had a sin nature, his death atoned for none, and we are all still damned!
I believe these so-called "appearances of Mary" to be either people's imagination, or (the most likely) to be the work of the devil in the hope of drawing people's attention away from the ONLY Mediator we have between the Father and us, Christ Jesus.
Mary cannot mediate for us, and dead saints cannot. Scripture tells us very plainly that the Son of God is our ONLY Mediator.
Mary cannot mediate for us, and dead saints cannot. Scripture tells us very plainly that the Son of God is our ONLY Mediator.
. . . . . and you ignore the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our ONLY mediator. The saints (Mary included) intercede for us. Just like when you are asked to pray for another Christian hear on earth. Saints interceding for us does not take away from Jesus Christ being our ONLY mediator.
We know that Moses, Elijah and many Old Testament saints walked the earth long after their death. Why is it so incredible that Mary could do the same?
Maybe we ought to try and agree on what a mediator is in the context of the New Testament. I would assume you don't call someone who prays for you a mediator/mediatrix. But maybe you don't think saints can pray for us? They're allowed to judge angels but they're not allowed to pray for people? Come on! Surely you don't believe that.
I’m not sure what you are referring to as “God’s word. The Bible? If so, I agree that it is. But so are the teachings of the OHCAC, and they never contradict each other. Don’t forget, the entire New Testament was penned by Catholic scribes and was complied as the canon by Catholic councils.
Why do you suggest that I think something that I just denied in the previous post? Remember, I said, “For sure, the title "Mother of God" does not mean that Mary came before God or that she is older than God. Mary is a creature like the rest of us.” It’s not that hard, so why can’t you wrap your mind around it? Maybe this will simplify it for you:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
As for Nestorianism, his name was Nestorius, and it’s impossible to debate you without debating him because you appear to have identical beliefs. These beliefs were found to be heretical at the first council of Ephesus. I will repeat, Jesus is not a split personality. He is fully God and fully man, not half God and half man. Mary was His mother, not just the mother of His humanity. To say otherwise is about as absurd as saying your mother is the mother of your body but not your soul. Would you ever refer to your mother as “mother of my body?”
In your final volley you once again ignored what I said in my previous post and implied things that you probably wish I had said. Please note that I never called Mary “Co Redeemer” or “Mediatrix.” Nor did I elevate her to the level of God. I plainly stated that she is a creature like the rest of us (Creature: one who is created). So why do you persist in falsely characterizing what I am saying?
I was thinking of Elizabeth's statement: When Elizabeth referred to her as "the mother of my Lord"? (Luke 1:43) Our profession that Mary is the Mother of God confirms our understanding that Jesus is God. Otherwise, if Mary is not the Mother of God, then who do we declare Jesus to be? A mere man? NOT God? It is interesting that this dogma came up in the 5th century, just when a heresy was being promoted that there were 2 separate persons, conjoined in Jesus Christ; a divine person and a human person. Mary as the theotokos (or Mother of God) was declared a dogma of the Church at the Council of Ephesus. This proclamation served to condemn any thought which questioned the divinity of Christ. It wasn't a dogma invented to promote Mary worship-like I was taught in my Baptist church.
I agree. Satan is alive and well. He knows he has but a short time.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2 Thessalonians 2:9 even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
I am well aware of it. The problem arises when we work to defend against false doctrines by trying to explain what cannot be explained. Much like the heretical idea that Mary is the mother of God. This idea goes way to far and should make any sound Christian very uncomfortable. Conservative Christians need to learn to be comfortable with not knowing or having and explanation for everything even in the presence of false doctrines. Otherwise we get ourselves in trouble like the RCC has done with Mary and others have done with Open Theism.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I don't have a problem with the term "mother of God", per se. It doesn't make Jesus any more or less than what He was. However, when those who in using it make more out of Mary than what she was, I do have a problem with that.