Mary Sightings in History

[Michael Wrenn]

They have done just that! Some of them are already far down that road and are on record as stating that Jesus was not fully God and fully human in Mary's womb. I have saved those posts so that the next time I'm accused of blasphemy or heresy by these people it will be a good time to bring up their own denial of the Deity of Christ while He was in the Blessed Mother's womb. They have dug themselves in good! One says Jesus only aquired Deity AT His birth (a form of Adoptionism) others say Mary DID NOT bear Jesus Deity while He was in the womb, claiming that if you say that you are claiming Mary created God and even when that is clearly explained as NOT what 'God Bearer' (Theotokos) means, they keep insisting Mary only bore Christ's humanity, separating out His two natures.

Yes, indeed. The accusers have been impaled on the very words of their own accusations and false charges against some of us here. It's wondrous to see how God works.

 

[Moriah]

I will just not call Mary the Mother of God because it could cause some people to think that Mary was the Mother of God the Father.
The Bible does not call Mary the Mother of God, so maybe we should not either.

 

[Bro. James]

Have we considered the Higgs Boson in this finite search for things infinite?

Jesus is God in the flesh. That makes Him eternal--plus all the omni's which we have no way of describing with our unclean lips.

There is no way to describe a virgin being conceived of The Holy Spirit--the best we can do is a lot of theological conjecture filtered through our depraved natures--hence the phrase "Mother of God". Someone is given to strong delusion--believing a lie.

"Behold the Lamb of God-- and His Mother" is not found in Scripture. Apparently this fact does not matter. The magisterium is always right.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Have we considered the Higgs Boson in this finite search things for things infinite?

Jesus is God in the flesh. That makes Him eternal--plus all the omni's which we have no way of describing with our unclean lips.

There is no way to describe a virgin being conceived of The Holy Spirit--the best we can do is a lot of theological conjecture filtered through our depraved natures--hence the phrase "Mother of God". Someone is given to strong delusion--believing a lie.

"Behold the Lamb of God-- and His Mother" is not found in Scripture. Apparently this fact does not matter. The magisterium is always right.

Peace,

Bro. James

It has nothing to do with any magisterium. It has to do with who you believe Jesus was. If you don't believe that Jesus was God from conception and that Mary bore the full deity and humanity of Jesus in her womb, that has very serious implications. It means you deny the two natures, the full deity of Jesus, His full Incarnation. Denying this involves many ancient heresies.

 

[Matt Black]

Thank God for Church Tradition, is all I can say; if these are the sorts of heretical roads that sola Scriptura leads people down, then I really do despair.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I will just not call Mary the Mother of God because it could cause some people to think that Mary was the Mother of God the Father.
The Bible does not call Mary the Mother of God, so maybe we should not either.

I understand your reluctance. I was reluctant, too, because of RCC errors about Mary. But one can understand this term apart from any of that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thank God for Church Tradition, is all I can say; if these are the sorts of heretical roads that sola Scriptura leads people down, then I really do despair.

I don't think it is the fault of sola scriptura. These are very ancient heresies, held while the canon was being formed, and afterward. It is a failure to understand the significance of the Incarnation and who Jesus was.

But the shocking thing to me is to see 21st century fundamentalist Baptists espousing these heresies.

 

[Matt Black]

I will just not call Mary the Mother of God because it could cause some people to think that Mary was the Mother of God the Father.
The Bible does not call Mary the Mother of God, so maybe we should not either.

The Bible doesn't use the word 'Trinity' either, so maybe we shouldn't.

 

[Bro. James]

Why do we seem so shocked? "The end shall not come until there be a falling away first..."

The Word of God is the Truth, the falling away occurs when we try to harmonize the teachings of men with The Word. They always clash. Man is depraved. He has failed in every endeavor, including his many religions.

Jesus paid it all.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[The Biblicist]

Agreed, apart from the rather tiresome continued misspelling of 'deity'. But no-one here is saying that Mary conceived Christ's deity, just that all of Christ - His humanity and His deity - was present in Mary's womb from the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit. You can see the difference, can't you??

Well, at least we agree that Deity was not conceived and we agree that what was born of Mary was fully God and fully man.

Nor do I accept Nestorianism which denied that Christ was fully human and fully God but rather God the Son merely indwelt Christ. Nor do I accept Adoptionism which denies Christ was fully God from birth.

Gentleman, I know you would like to place me in some "heretical" box of your own making but at least be honest with historical theological terms and their definitions instead of stretching things. I could as easily stretch things and charge you with heresy that your doctrine demands that Christ's deity was conceived in Mary's womb and thus charge you with denying The Son's Eternal deity.

I will stick with the Bibical distinction - "a child was BORN" but "a Son was GIVEN".

 

[Walter]

Biblicists, unfortunately you have placed yourself in 'some heretical box of your own making' by denying that Jesus was fully God in Mary's womb. That IS a form of Adoptionism whether you realize it or not. Jesus was fully God before the Incarnation, during the entire duration of the Blessed Mother's pregnancy, during His birth and after His birth. Bishop Wrenn is correct, yours is a very old heresy that has raised it's ugly head on The Baptist Board (certainly not the first time I've heard it expressed here) again. There really are no new heresies these days. When you read the beliefs of the 'New Age' people you see a new form of Pantheism but it is still Pantheism. Your belief that Jesus only 'became fully God' at His birth' would take care of that pesky 'Mother of God' title which the Council of Ephesus clearly defines if your belief was true. But your belief is heresy for the same reasons that The Council of Ephesus declared it to be heresy. Bishop Wrenn is also correct when he said that even if you believe Rome is wrong on their Marian theology, 'one can understand this term apart from any of that.'

Still, I always read your posts and give them all the consideration deserved and appreciate the effort you make to clearly state your position.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicists, unfortunately you have placed yourself in 'some heretical box of your own making' by denying that Jesus was fully God in Mary's womb. That IS a form of Adoptionism whether you realize it or not. Jesus was fully God before the Incarnation, during the entire duration of the Blessed Mother's pregnancy, during His birth and after His birth. Bishop Wrenn is correct, yours is a very old heresy that has raised it's ugly head on The Baptist Board (certainly not the first time I've heard it expressed here) again. There really are no new heresies these days. When you read the beliefs of the 'New Age' people you see a new form of Pantheism but it is still Pantheism. Your belief that Jesus only 'became fully God' at His birth' would take care of that pesky 'Mother of God' title which the Council of Ephesus clearly defines if your belief was true. But your belief is heresy for the same reasons that The Council of Ephesus declared it to be heresy. Bishop Wrenn is also correct when he said that even if you believe Rome is wrong on their Marian theology, 'one can understand this term apart from any of that.'

Still, I always read your posts and give them all the consideration deserved and appreciate the effort you make to clearly state your position.

As I said, you agree that deity was not conceived in the Womb of Mary and so does Michael. Neither of you have defined what was conceived if it was not deity? If you take the position deity was conceived then you fall into a heresy yourself which would be a form of Arianism or denial of his eternal deity. If you deny deity was conceived then you are forced to conclude that only his humanity was conceived by the female human egg and thus make the very same distinction I do even though the time gap may be infitesimal and not as great as the gap I put between it and therefore by your own reasoning you too adopt a form of adoptionism and Nestorianism.

The child born of Mary was fully God and fully man at birth. To claim that Mary is the Mother of God conveys a false teaching that God can originate from a human being when both you and I deny that God was conceived by Mary. Furthermore, the scriptures NEVER make that claim as that would be entirely misleading and deceptive. Instead, you have to go through a process of reasoning to make the claim that Mary is the Mother of God that does not properly convey the distinction between what are the true attributes of his deity versus the true attributes of his humanity.

For example, the scriptures say that he grew in wisdom and knowledge. However, these growth characteristics cannot be properly attributed to his Deity any more than His deity can be attributed to conception. However, it would be the very same thing and by the very same reasoning processes that I could say that God can mature in wisdom and knowlege BECAUSE Jesus is fully God and therefore Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge and thus God can grow in wisdom and knowlege and if you deny that you are denying that Jesus was fully human and fully God. This is the very same process you go through to justify calling Mary the Mother of God which is equally unbiblical as claiming God grows in wisdom and knowledge.

There must be a clear distinction made between attributes that belong to the humanity of Christ versus the deity of Christ as well as attributes that belong to the humanity of Mary. To call her "mother of God" which the Bible nowhere states is to cross that line and convey something entirely unbiblical to both Mary and to Christ simply because the proper distinction between the humanity of both Mary and Jesus is not properly distinguished with the deity of Christ.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

If St. Nicholas were here…he’d literally punch a few people…

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said, you agree that deity was not conceived in the Womb of Mary and so does Michael. Neither of you have defined what was conceived if it was not deity? If you take the position deity was conceived then you fall into a heresy yourself which would be a form of Arianism or denial of his eternal deity. If you deny deity was conceived then you are forced to conclude that only his humanity was conceived by the female human egg and thus make the very same distinction I do even though the time gap may be infitesimal and not as great as the gap I put between it and therefore by your own reasoning you too adopt a form of adoptionism and Nestorianism.

The child born of Mary was fully God and fully man at birth. To claim that Mary is the Mother of God conveys a false teaching that God can originate from a human being when both you and I deny that God was conceived by Mary. Furthermore, the scriptures NEVER make that claim as that would be entirely misleading and deceptive. Instead, you have to go through a process of reasoning to make the claim that Mary is the Mother of God that does not properly convey the distinction between what are the true attributes of his deity versus the true attributes of his humanity.

For example, the scriptures say that he grew in wisdom and knowledge. However, these growth characteristics cannot be properly attributed to his Deity any more than His deity can be attributed to conception. However, it would be the very same thing and by the very same reasoning processes that I could say that God can mature in wisdom and knowlege BECAUSE Jesus is fully God and therefore Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge and thus God can grow in wisdom and knowlege and if you deny that you are denying that Jesus was fully human and fully God. This is the very same process you go through to justify calling Mary the Mother of God which is equally unbiblical as claiming God grows in wisdom and knowledge.

There must be a clear distinction made between attributes that belong to the humanity of Christ versus the deity of Christ as well as attributes that belong to the humanity of Mary. To call her "mother of God" which the Bible nowhere states is to cross that line and convey something entirely unbiblical to both Mary and to Christ simply because the proper distinction between the humanity of both Mary and Jesus is not properly distinguished with the deity of Christ.

If the inception of deity occurred at the same moment in time the conception of the human egg occurred then your problem is solved. However, if I conceded to that position, I would still argue that the term "mother of God" is no more appropriate than to claim God can grow in wisdom and knowledge! Both cross the theological line when discussing attributes that belong to humanity versus deity and neither is claimed in scripture but both require the EXACT SAME KIND of logical processes to conclude those statements. Neither has any Biblical warrant as nether is expressed in scripture. To attribute the title "Mother of God" to Mary crosses the theological line for distinguishing humanity from deity just as much as attributing growth in wisdom and knowledge to God crosses the theological line for distinguishing humanity from deity.

The real truth is that the RCC attributes to Mary more than mere humanity and this can be easily seen in her many titles attributed to her by the RCC which are not found in scriptures any more than the title "Mother of God" and the attitudes and actions that convey worship of her, which would be self-evident IF her name was changed and she was found in any other religion in the world with people attributing such titles and actions toward her.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Biblicists, unfortunately you have placed yourself in 'some heretical box of your own making' by denying that Jesus was fully God in Mary's womb. That IS a form of Adoptionism whether you realize it or not. Jesus was fully God before the Incarnation, during the entire duration of the Blessed Mother's pregnancy, during His birth and after His birth. Bishop Wrenn is correct, yours is a very old heresy that has raised it's ugly head on The Baptist Board (certainly not the first time I've heard it expressed here) again. There really are no new heresies these days. When you read the beliefs of the 'New Age' people you see a new form of Pantheism but it is still Pantheism. Your belief that Jesus only 'became fully God' at His birth' would take care of that pesky 'Mother of God' title which the Council of Ephesus clearly defines if your belief was true. But your belief is heresy for the same reasons that The Council of Ephesus declared it to be heresy. Bishop Wrenn is also correct when he said that even if you believe Rome is wrong on their Marian theology, 'one can understand this term apart from any of that.'

Still, I always read your posts and give them all the consideration deserved and appreciate the effort you make to clearly state your position.

well reasoned response :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said, you agree that deity was not conceived in the Womb of Mary and so does Michael. Neither of you have defined what was conceived if it was not deity? If you take the position deity was conceived then you fall into a heresy yourself which would be a form of Arianism or denial of his eternal deity. If you deny deity was conceived then you are forced to conclude that only his humanity was conceived by the female human egg and thus make the very same distinction I do even though the time gap may be infitesimal and not as great as the gap I put between it and therefore by your own reasoning you too adopt a form of adoptionism and Nestorianism.

The child born of Mary was fully God and fully man at birth. To claim that Mary is the Mother of God conveys a false teaching that God can originate from a human being when both you and I deny that God was conceived by Mary. Furthermore, the scriptures NEVER make that claim as that would be entirely misleading and deceptive. Instead, you have to go through a process of reasoning to make the claim that Mary is the Mother of God that does not properly convey the distinction between what are the true attributes of his deity versus the true attributes of his humanity.

For example, the scriptures say that he grew in wisdom and knowledge. However, these growth characteristics cannot be properly attributed to his Deity any more than His deity can be attributed to conception. However, it would be the very same thing and by the very same reasoning processes that I could say that God can mature in wisdom and knowlege BECAUSE Jesus is fully God and therefore Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge and thus God can grow in wisdom and knowlege and if you deny that you are denying that Jesus was fully human and fully God. This is the very same process you go through to justify calling Mary the Mother of God which is equally unbiblical as claiming God grows in wisdom and knowledge.

There must be a clear distinction made between attributes that belong to the humanity of Christ versus the deity of Christ as well as attributes that belong to the humanity of Mary. To call her "mother of God" which the Bible nowhere states is to cross that line and convey something entirely unbiblical to both Mary and to Christ simply because the proper distinction between the humanity of both Mary and Jesus is not properly distinguished with the deity of Christ.

Do you admit that the scriptures nowhere calls Mary "the Mother of God"? Do you admit that the very same reasoning process you use to justify calling her that would be the very same reasoning process I could equally use to claim that God can grow in wisdom and knowledge? If not, why not?

 

[The Biblicist]

If the inception of deity occurred at the same moment in time the conception of the human egg occurred then your problem is solved. However, if I conceded to that position, I would still argue that the term "mother of God" is no more appropriate than to claim God can grow in wisdom and knowledge! Both cross the theological line when discussing attributes that belong to humanity versus deity and neither is claimed in scripture but both require the EXACT SAME KIND of logical processes to conclude those statements. Neither has any Biblical warrant as nether is expressed in scripture. To attribute the title "Mother of God" to Mary crosses the theological line for distinguishing humanity from deity just as much as attributing growth in wisdom and knowledge to God crosses the theological line for distinguishing humanity from deity.

The real truth is that the RCC attributes to Mary more than mere humanity and this can be easily seen in her many titles attributed to her by the RCC which are not found in scriptures any more than the title "Mother of God" and the attitudes and actions that convey worship of her, which would be self-evident IF her name was changed and she was found in any other religion in the world with people attributing such titles and actions toward her.

I think your position would be better expressed if you claimed identical action for inception of deity and conception of humanity. That position can also harmonize with Isaiah 9:6 a child was "born" but a son was "given." I like that position and feel more comfortable with it. However, to call Mary the "Mother of God" is no more scriptural or logical than to claim that God can grow in knowledge and wisdom simply because the God man grew in knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Matt Black]

I haven't seen anyone arguing that Mary conceived Christ's deity. What is being said is that Christ's deity along with His humanity was present in Mary's womb from the moment of His conception. Can you not agree that?

 

[The Biblicist]

I haven't seen anyone arguing that Mary conceived Christ's deity. What is being said is that Christ's deity along with His humanity was present in Mary's womb from the moment of His conception. Can you not agree that?

I think I can agree with that after some more mature reflection on this whole argument.

Can you agree that it would be improper to attribute growth in wisdom and knowledge to God simply because Jesus who is God in the flesh is said to "grow in wisdom and knowledge"? If you can, then you should just as easily agree that it would be just as wrong to call Mary the "mother of God" simply because the baby in her womb was both man and God. The error is same in kind as attributing growth to God simply because Jesus was both God and man. Both errors fail to distinguish what attributes belong to humanity versus what attributes belong to deity. Mary is not deity and therefore to attribute to her to be the "mother" of deity crosses that line as technically what she conceived or contributed to the birth of Christ was not deity at all but only humanity. That terminoloy is not only lacking scripture but conveys a falsehood.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think I can agree with that after some more mature reflection on this whole argument.

Can you agree that it would be improper to attribute growth in wisdom and knowledge to God simply because Jesus who is God in the flesh is said to "grow in wisdom and knowledge"? If you can, then you should just as easily agree that it would be just as wrong to call Mary the "mother of God" simply because the baby in her womb was both man and God. The error is same in kind as attributing growth to God simply because Jesus was both God and man. Both errors fail to distinguish what attributes belong to humanity versus what attributes belong to deity. Mary is not deity and therefore to attribute to her to be the "mother" of deity crosses that line as technically what she conceived or contributed to the birth of Christ was not deity at all but only humanity. That terminoloy is not only lacking scripture but conveys a falsehood.

Technically speaking God has no mother because no mother conceived deity. Technically speaking Mary is the Mother of Jesus and that is precisely how the Scritpures state it. She does not contribute to the conception of deity in any way shape or form. Thus to call her "The Mother of God" conveys the idea that Deity originates with a mother and worse yet a human.

By the very same process of reasoning you justify Mary to be the mother of God I can justify God growing in wisdom and knowledge or having limited knowledge. Both naturally convey contradictions and therefore falsehoods about Christ.