Posted on 11/14/2012 9:33:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Isaiah told us who the “mother of god” and “queen of heaven” was.
Pagan titles of Ishtar.
Mary is not the mother of God, she was the vessel that carried YHWH’s Earthly incarnation into the world.
That is obviously why Christ said so many times that all the believers that surrounded him were his mother and brothers. His blood brothers were no more to him than any other.
Is Mary the mother of Jesus?
Is Jesus God?
Pardon me for butting in here, but it has dawned on me that your propositions have huge implications to the Oneness vs Trinitarian debate.
Oneness people argue that the “Father” refers to the pre-incarnate indivisible one God, while the “Son” refers to the incarnation of that one indivisible God, God manifest in the flesh. Like humans who “take after” their Father and Mother, Jesus was God on his Father’s side, while his humanity came from his mother’s side.
They argue Mary was, thus, NOT the mother of God, for God has no mother, he preexisted the universe as the eternal Spirit. Oneness quote John 4:24 in that regard. Mary was an ordinary human just like all those in her messianic genealogy, David, etc.
Mary, of the seed of David, was only mother “according to the flesh, Rom. 1:3. Only the flesh side of Jesus, not the Spirit, his Father’s side. She was not the mother of the God part of him.
Trinitarians deny all this, arguing that Christ was not the one God in the flesh, the Father in the Son, rather only one of three divine persons in the flesh, the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, in the flesh. A preexistent Son in a Son, not the Father in the Son.
Once this was made official in the early Trinitarian councils, it led to the development of Mary being the “Mother of God” (the council of Chalcedon, AD 451).
Only by being the mother of a Trinitarian God the Son, the second person of the Trinity first, could there arise the later development of “the Mother of God.”
Your “Mother of God” argument convinces me that the Oneness people must be the ones with the truth. Else, if the Trinitarian doctrine is the truth, then this opens the door where Mary can indeed be the “Mother of God.” Which means the RCC has the truth on Mary.
On the other hand, if Oneness is the truth, then Mary cannot be the “Mother of God,” and the RCC is guilty of propagating false theology.
Your line of argument has unwittingly provided me the key to a better understanding of the Godhead. Thank you.
Until the canon of Scripture was set there was only Tradition. At the time of the Nicene Council there was no Bible, only the Traditions that were used to form the Creeds that were then used judge which writings were legitimate.
Peace be with you
Here’s a few thoughts to evaluate when trying to reason your way through a situation, such as who to pray to.
A brief example of the confusion trinitarian ‘creeds’ display is shown in the following numbered lines from a posting of the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’:
**10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.**
Eternal=begotten??
The following statement is contradictory to the verse which follows it.
**25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.**
“..I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
And this:
**12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.**
??
So there are TWO that ARE created, and TWO that ARE measurable??
More confusion:
**13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.**
If one is almighty, there is no need for the others. If one needs the others, that one is not almighty.
And these next ones......????
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
????
Now who is it that is the author of confusion?
How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons of God’ don’t know??)?
Did the Son of God inherit his name ‘Jesus’? Yes. Jn 5:43 and Heb. 1:4
Why is the phrase ‘Son of God’ found many times in scripture, but the phrase ‘God the Son’ is found nowhere in scripture?
God is Christ, because of the Father dwelling in him, which is undeniable fact. Most notably in John chapters 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16, Jesus Christ spoke a great deal about ‘the Father’ in him, teaching him all things, telling him what to say, doing the ‘works’, etc. When speaking of God dwelling in himself, the Christ calls him the Father, not the Holy Ghost. (As we know, the Holy Ghost is “..the Comforter..which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father..”. John 15:26)
IN those chapters are some very clear claims by the Christ:
John 5:19 “..the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..” The Man that God SENT (God doesn’t need to be sent anywhere, he’s already omnipresent) received instruction on EVERYTHING. God doesn’t need instruction on anything, for he knows ALL things.
John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he GIVEN to the SON to have life in himself.” God can’t be given anything he doesn’t already have. God is the giver of life, not the receiver.
John 5:27 “And hath GIVEN him (the SON) AUTHORITY to execute judgement also, because he is the Son of man.” God is the GIVER of authority, not the receiver.
John 6:37 “All that the Father hath GIVEN me shall come to me..”.
John 8:28 “..as my Father hath TAUGHT me, I speak these things.”
John 10:27-30 “My sheep hear my voice.... My Father, which GAVE them me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one (by now you should see the flow of power consistantly coming from the Father to the Son)
John 14 is the ‘heavy iron’ of this revelation of the Godhead. “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye KNOW him. and have SEEN him.......he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS (REMEMBER JOHN 1:1??) that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works.” vss 6-10.
Even trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ has two natures: human (mind, soul, and body), and divine. I, and those like minded, believe that the Father IN Christ is the source of all things divine (remember, the Holy Ghost PROCEEDETH from the Father as well).
Since the Christ received his name by inheritance, and said that he came in his Father’s name, and not someone else’s, told his disciples that the Holy Ghost would sent in his name, then it’s obvious that it’s perfectly fine to address God as Jesus.
RE: Eternal=begotten??
God, in Exodus 3:14, referred to His eternal nature when He said, “I AM WHO I AM.” A similar statement is made by Jesus concerning Himself in John 8:57-59: “The Jews therefore said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am!’ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him.” Notice that not only does Jesus say He existed before Abraham was born, more than 1500 years before Jesus’ earthly conception, but He describes Himself in the very same manner (”I am”) as God described Himself in Exodus 3:14 (”I AM”). Christ is claiming that same eternal and self-existent nature as possessed by God.
Notice these words were spoken concerning Jesus in Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever.” God Himself spoke of the Son in Hebrews 1:8 and says, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
Micah 5:2 similarly states of Jesus: “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.”
Now, Consider once again the verses that say that Jesus, the Son of God, is a begotten being or person. Numerous other passages show that not to be the case. Is God’s inspired word thus contradicting itself in these verses? No!
The phrase “only begotten” in the above-mentioned verses, in the original Greek language, is monogenes (pronounced hard g as in go; Strong #3439)…
Combination of two words: “monos” which means “only” or “alone,” and “genos” which means “of the same nature, kind, sort, species” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT)
A better translation might be “only one of its kind” or “only unique” or just “only,” but not “begotten.”
Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a unique and one-of-a-kind being.
Hugo McCord defines it as “a lone being, a unique existence, the only one of its kind, that which has no duplicate”
It’s interesting to note that the 2nd century Old Latin version translated all nine NT occurrences of monogenes as UNICUS, which means “unique.”
The word (actually inspired) has nothing to do with origin, as does typically the word “begotten.” Rather the intent is to affirm that Jesus Christ is the unique, only one of His kind, Son of God.
So, Christ is not a created son of God (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cultists teach), but a begotten Son of God—in fact, the only begotten Son of God. He never had a beginning, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of “the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
He is not just the only begotten Son of the Father, for He is also the eternally begotten Son of the Father. He is eternally “in His bosom,” yet always “going forth” to “declare” the Father—once as the creating Word, occasionally in pre-incarnate theophanies, also through the Holy Spirit conveying God’s written Word (which had been “eternally settled in heaven” [Psalm 119:89]) down to man through divinely chosen prophets, then ultimately appearing as the incarnate Word to live forever as the God/man.
The doctrine of “eternal generation” was what the older theologians called this great truth. He did not become the only Son by His virgin birth. He was the only begotten Son from eternity, “set up from everlasting” (Proverbs 8:23).
That is what the Apostle John was trying to explain when he said — IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
You didn’t answer the question. It is a very simple and sound syllogism. If you do not agree with the conclusion, then which of the two premises do you disagree with?
But he initiated many Traditions. There is a lot of difference between singing "Happy Birthday" or going camping every summer to the oral teachings of Jesus, His Apostles, Disciples and His Church. I pray that you will one day know this.
Peace be to you.
Completely false...The NT books that we know as the bible were in circulation from the time of the Apostles...
we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.When one thinks of God, that is the Father-Son and Holy Spirit. It does not matter which
Where does Isaiah reference these titles?
While you're answering that, I ask again:
Is Mary the mother of Jesus?
Is Jesus God?
As part of the whole of Scripture. Many false theological conclusions can be drawn from isolated phrases and verses.
The Bible or cannon is composed of books which are letters and gospels written shortly after the death of Christ. These letters were written as early as 60 AD, less than 30 years after the Crucifixion. There is some evidence that all of these letters were written by 120 AD. These letters were copied and passed from church to church many years prior to the Nicene Council. Further, the OT scriptures in the Hebrew bible existed even before Jesus. Jesus used the Hebrew bible in his teachings. So the representation that there was ONLY oral tradition until the Nicene counsel is incorrect.
Catholics accuse Protestants of “Sola Scriptura” this leads to an incorrect perception. A better way of saying the Protestant view is “Prima Scriptura” or primarily by scripture. The idea that every thing must be tested against the scripture to prove or validate the message. If anyone be they pastor, priest or pope makes a statement concerning theology, that message must be checked to test if the message is in accordance to God’s word.
2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This leads to three possible outcomes of the test of the message. The message my be in direct alignment with scripture and thus would be doctrine (Jesus died on the cross for our sins). The message may be a good message but not a God message (Cleanliness is next to Godliness). The message may be contrary to the scriptures (Jesus was just a prophet - from the Koran).
Now this does not rule out the possibility of divine inspiration. Many Protestants will tell you that they listen to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But once again, this should be tested against scripture. If the voices in my head start telling me it is God’s will that I run around and rape a bunch of women, or killing a bunch of people, the test of scripture will show that those voices do not come from God.
It is the gift of God’s word that allows us test and to KNOW his will in this world.
You've sidestepped it. But that alone has provided me an answer by inference.
I follow scripture because the Apostles teach us
That's a circular argument. Your belief in the authority of the Apostles derives from Scripture. Yet your belief in the authority of the Scriptures derives from the Apostles.
he scriptures teach against the traditions of men
Unless you claim to have been given a special and unmediated revelation from the Almighty, your belief that the Scriptures are His Word is due to what you has been believed and handed down by Christians over the centuries. In other words, a tradition of men by any external perception.
So choosing to base my framework on scripture and not the traditions of men, I am choosing what to my mind is a safer road.
Scripture did not drop into your lap from Heaven. It was translated for you and preserved for you and passed down to you and its books were selected for you by means of other people.
So Mary is not the “Mother of God” then? I’d like to see your comments on that.
In my post 83 I argued that the once the Trinitarian doctrine was set forth and made official in the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries, with Christ being set forth as “God the Son,” Mary being seen as “the Mother of God” was a natural development of it. The natural next step. Which was set forth in the Council of Chalcedon. Hence the Mariolatry of the RCC.
I agree with you Oneness folks, who say the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough. They rightly examined many of the claims of the RCC against the word of God and found them wanting, but did not examine the foundation of the RCC, the Trinitarian doctrine as set forth in the councils.
Read these threads, the Trinity is always the chief argument of the RCC against the Protestants, “It is we Catholics who gave you Protestants the Trinity, it is our doctrine that you believe.”
Much is said by Ptotestants against the “infallible Pope,” but what about all the bishops who gathered together under the auspices of Emperor Constantine, were they infallible too? I think not.
Their being accomplice in the forming of the very unscriptural political-ecclesiastical tyranny that ruled for over a thousand years proves that they assuredly were not. They were wrong on that, I believe they were also wrong on their take of the Godhead.
I agree, it is high time that the foundation of the RCC, the Trinity, be examined. And thank you for your points.
I think I should clarify what I said about “God the Son.” The term is not in the Bible, it is a Trinitarian term, their invention, an inference. Christ is indeed God, and the Son of God, but he is not “God the Son.” Him being the incarnation of God himself is what made him God. His flesh came from Mary, was not God.
Why do you insist that there are three persons or three gods ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachWhy can you not believe the Holy Word of G-d.
All through the Holy Word there only ONE YHvH (over 7000 times)
In the Tanach YHvH is described as our Father.
When YHvH took on our physical form He is called our Brother.
Matthew 12:50 "For whoever does the will of My FatherWhen ever YHvH came to us as the breath of G-d He is called the Holy Spirit.
who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,Yah'shua tells us that the Father and He are ONE
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.Isaiah 63:10 But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit;
Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
He fought against them.
11 Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses.
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds
of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also;
from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
John 14:9 Jesus said to him, ...., Philip?
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?
I couldn't agree more, however God's word is not limited to the written word contained within the Bible. You are correct that all of the works contained within the Bible were available by the beginning of the 2nd century, but as the recent papyrus fragment referencing Jesus' wife shows, there many, many false, fake, and flawed letters and written accounts in circulation. Just ask why Gospels written by actual Apostles were rejected by Canon and accounts by other than Apostles were included.
One of the criticism of the Church, that lasts to this day, is that the Church never acts until challenged. It was in direct response to these bogus Gospels and Epistles that the Church acted to identify the few that were truly inspired and inerrant. The litmus they used to form the Creeds and the Canon was the Apostolic Tradition. I would recommend a great and denominationally unbiased book on this subject; "Whose Bible is it" by Jarislov Pelikan.
Peace be with you.
So I’ll ask you then, Uri’el, is Mary the “Mother of God?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.