Posted on 03/24/2015 8:06:07 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Could it be that people did not know how to read or write?
Hmmmm, not one of them says “mother of God”. Seems your putting words in that aren’t there.
Not good enough!!!!!
(Just kidding....although it would not be good enough for some.)
Hey.. no wait -- that's me? Right?
Hoss
:D
Just like the dates for Easter and Christmas? There is nothing new under the sun.
None of those verses support the concept that Mary is the mother of God.
These verses clearly support the concept that Mary is the mother of God. Why do non-RCC so adamantly deny what is so clearly stated?
The angel of the Lord told Joseph that Mary shall bring forth a son, who shall save his people from their sins; that this was done, to fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. This clearly shows that Mary is the mother of God.
Gabriel told Mary that she shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus; that He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The angel further said The Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow her: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God. This clearly shows that Mary is the mother of God.
Elisabeth’s womb leaped in her womb when Mary greeted her; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? This clearly shows Elizabeth calling Mary the mother of God.
After Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem, the angel of the Lord told shepherds that unto them is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. Mary is the mother of this babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, which is Christ the Lord. This clearly shows the angel telling the shepherds that Mary is the mother of Christ the Lord.
It was revealed to Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, Simeon took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel, and Simeon said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. This clearly shows Simeon saying that he has seen the Lord to Mary his (the Lord’s) mother.
When the wise men come into the house where they found the King of the Jews, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him. This shows that Mary is the mother of the Christ the King.
If you can show me how all these verses do not show that Mary is the mother of God, please do so.
In the context of an Internet thread, why are the words of war being used?
I cannot understand why every day the anti Catholics post a straw man thread and then go to war.
It is simply not Christian.
There are those on this thread whom seem as though they would gleefully light the torches in downtown Salem.
It is not becoming of people for whom on other topis I hold in high regard.
1. Wrong: You're assuming inspiring men to express what God wanted is forcing His creation.
2. You're asserting that God forces His will on people.
2. Wrong. You are asserting that God must force man in order to accomplish His will, and that God's will cannot be accomplished if some men do not choose to obey him. Thus the words of God which He wanted to preserve on earth perished from the earth.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:10)
3. The bottom line is you're statement leads to the conclusion that God doesn't allow men to commit certain sin.
3. Wrong. The bottom line is you're statement leads to the conclusion that God cannot allow men to commit certain sins and still accomplish His will, unless He forces them to obey Him.
My point is that God gave us all scripture.
And just where you get that certainty from? If it is from 2Tim. 3:15, then your must assent to what the writer and His Lord manifestly held Scripture as being, with the Lord referencing the tripartite canon of the Law and the Prophets and the Writings (Wisdom books). There goes all other religions but OT Judaism, while the NT writings were established as conflative (in word, spirit and power) and complimentary to the OT ones, and thus were progressively established as being Scripture.
Now you come 2k years later and want to open the canon to all sorts of things which they rejected. Based upon your judgment and what community?
God never intended for men to have limited access to His words.
God never intended for men to not discern what was of God early on, but have the vast open canon your reasoning leads to. You make a mockery of the judgment of generations of souls which manifested the heavenly qualities and attestation which corresponded to what was written. And instead seem to want us to heed an immoral man who died shooting at others.
Really? Wasn’t James, the brother of Jesus? Now I am really confused. Did Joesph have another wife?
(Yeah, I know it's Lenten season. I know some Catholics & even some mainline Protestants eat fish, but what does this have to do with the price of fish?)
Of course, Jesus talked with His Father! (Are you somehow thinking someone may actually believe He didn't?)
I see your cherry picking and selective editing skills are as good as ever.
SP, at least your comments are good for laughs. :) [Yet another reason I enjoy talking with you]
Did I cite all of 3 Nephi 19 in the BoM? (No).
Did you? (No; you quoted vv. six to eight; 22; & then ignored...or, as you like to put it, "cherry picked" and "selectively edited out" the rest)
(It's always funny to see somebody accuse another of something specific that they turn around & do in the same keyboard breath! :) )
Allow me to remind you of the original context of this discussion: Your comment in #333: The laws of God are not arbitrary. Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus ONLY. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven."
Your point here is that WHO we pray to is a hardfast (nonarbitrary) "law" ... and the "only" target reinforces that ... and then condemnation for anybody departing from that absolute.
Therefore, your citation of selective 3 Nephi 19 portions about praying to the Father are irrelevant.
If I say, Preach to A but not B and we don't disagree about Preaching to A ... but only B ... it's irrelevant to discuss authoritative passages that undergird Preaching to A.
If something is a Law, that law doesn't change.
If something is an absolute, it's not an absolute if exceptions are allowed.
So the issue has never been, "Let's find what the most prominent pattern might be in the Scriptures and agree upon that!" No, the issue is, you claimed something was a spiritual law, an absolute; you claimed "only" status; and you claimed that person would be "condemned" based upon deviating upon that.
Therefore, all anybody has to do is find exceptions...precedents...which disrupt a legalistic notion of a 100 percent "law" reinforced and dismantles your claim to "only" status.
And here it is...
Tell us: Which are we to believe? The Book of Mormon? Or you?
#2 How many times did the "Nephite disciples" either pray DIRECTLY to Jesus or are referenced as praying DIRECTLY to Jesus? (Answer: Five times: V. 18, v. 22, v. 22 again, v. 24, v. 25) And the v. 24 reference was no microwave prayer: his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him
#3 The above shows your absolute claims are broken and cannot be maintained with ANY degree of intellectual honesty.
#4 Finally, even the Mormon jesus directly contradicts your claim in post #333: Your claim? Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus only. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven.
Yet did the Mormon jesus even rebuke or warn these Nephites when they prayed DIRECTLY to him..."No, pray ONLY to the Father!" (NOPE!)
In fact, JUST THE OPPOSITE!
25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.
26 And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.
ALL: This is what happens when grassroots Mormons are spoonfed "absolute laws" from their "living prophets" ... yet when faced with direct contradictions from their very own "sacred" standard works, we see evasive actions.
Uhhhh...I guess we gotta narrowly define "prayer" by ejecting the "word" "calling"...(Oh...ya mean 3 Nephi 19:18 actually connects the two words? Uh, oh!)
Uhhhh...Perhaps we should next parse a distinction 'tween a "formal" prayer and an "informal" prayer (Oh...ya mean our leaders never divide prayers into these two categories when they instruct others on it? Oh...ya mean, our leaders NEVER give the "a ok" to pray directly to Jesus even in "informal" prayers? Uh, oh!)
What now? (We can't just let the text speak to us at such facevalue!)
Why do I do what? Pray the Rosary? See my first post on the subject.
You said Paul gives instructions to read the epistle of Laodicea. PAUL wanted everyone to read it. That doesn't mean that God did.
Men removed what parts of that scripture they didn't like, added what they did and called their work "Holy".
What you're saying is that God is helpless and cannot direct man. Your god may be helpless but The God I worship is in control of everything.
Wouldn’t God know the difference.
I do not want to sound like I am mocking anyone, but if you are praying with a true heart won’t God hear you even if it’s directed “down the hall?”
If we are talking Old Testament God, I would think not. But the New Testament God seems a little more forgiving.
Hey -- wasn't he the dude in Johnny Dangerously?
Hoss
No...start these threads. Nothing good comes from it, except to start fights.
It is not a wise thing to do. We should be working to embrace the 90% of what we agree on, not drive wedges in between the few things we disagree on.
Because the normal and natural connotation of mother denotes ontological oneness, making Mary as a goddess begetting a God after her nature.
While Mary gave birth to and mothered the incarnate Christ, she contributed nothing to His Divine nature, and owes her own existence to Christ. Giving her the formal title Mother of God disrespects how the Holy Spirit describes and gives titles to created beings, which works against exalting them as RCs extremely do with Mary, thinking of her "above that which is written," which the Spirit warns against. (1Co. 4:6)
The terms "God-bearer" which some of the ancients used is less misleading, but Caths largley refused to use that in deference to the term "Mother of God," as they seek to exalt her, ascribing things to her which are nowhere ascribed to any created beings, but many parallel the those of Chris t.
What Ratzinger wrote about the title Co-redemptrix” departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers applies to is akin to "Mother of God " departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
You are a man of honor.
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.