Posted on 04/05/2015 4:56:11 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
I tend to shy away from those "religions" who make this kind of exclusive claim. That cultic church of Quiboloy, located up near Bangoy airport, is another one of those claiming to be the only true church. It seems like the list is never ending.
Jesus is God. Mary is not his mother?
Note that that title of "Mother of God" (Theotokos, literally "God bearer") does not mean that Mary is the mother of his divinity. Indeed, the title was more about the nature of Jesus rather than that of Mary. It was a retort to Nestorius who denied the hypostatic union in Jesus of two natures in one divine person. Nestorius posited that there were two person, one divine and one human, in Jesus thus denying the Incarnation. The use of the title "Mother of God" was to emphasis that in Jesus there were two natures, one divine and one human, united in one divine person. Mary is thus truly the mother of the one divine person, Jesus. In your attempts at polemics do not make more out of the title than was intended.
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Then call her "God-bearer. "Mother" in the English language encompasses vastly more than "bearer." Maybe the Catholic Church should hire a PR firm or some communications specialists to try for a little precision.
Clarity is your friend. Try it.
The vocative is simply the case of direct address. It is not used as a title as catholics would like to claim.
But surely it is. κεχαριτωμένη is being used in place of her actual name "Mary." Who is being addressed other than the "grace filled one"?
Only two of the major translations render it as "full of grace". Douay-Rheims and Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
This is because the traditional English translation comes from the Latin gratia plena. This translation was required in the Latin since the Greek verb χαριτόω does not have a Latin equivalent. Thus the verb had to be changed into a Latin phrase. But it still has the same meaning as "graced filled one."
But Mary is still the mother of the one divine person Jesus.
But surely it is. κεχαριτωμένη is being used in place of her actual name "Mary." Who is being addressed other than the "grace filled one"?
Surely it is not. Re-read the passage. Gabriel comes into Mary's house. To be sure all understand who he is talking to he addresses her directly. This was a message only for her. This is how Luke recorded it.
>Only two of the major translations render it as "full of grace". Douay-Rheims and Aramaic Bible in Plain English.<
This is because the traditional English translation comes from the Latin gratia plena. This translation was required in the Latin since the Greek verb χαριτόω does not have a Latin equivalent. Thus the verb had to be changed into a Latin phrase. But it still has the same meaning as "graced filled one."
Then I suggest we get back to the Greek meaning of the word and not the Latin meaning.
The Greek means one favored with grace. There is a difference.
Somehow my English translation got it right.
I don't have time to attempt to correlate your fine print at the bottom with the, I guess passages from the Bible, you purport to quote.
This is a repeated pattern with you. I don't know if it is just arrogance or just stubbornness....maybe both.
You wouldn't know that from reading some catholic writings.
If your point is the case, why even invoke the false title "Mother of God"? It is not used anywhere in Scripture and really causes more discord than anything.
Well let me confess that I am a bit of a Nestorian, as are most Protestants. "Mother," in English, requires pre-existence. While I am not entirely comfortable with the term "God-Bearer" it is much less tortuous than "Mother of God."
Not at all. What it does require is a personal filial/maternal relationship between Jesus and Mary. Mary was more than just a physical surrogate. She is the true mother of the divine person Jesus. There is no need to posit that this motherhood pre-existed the conception of Jesus in time.
Your comments indicate to me that you do not know the scriptures as intimately as you might. You could study them more to show yourself approved. Perhaps you could enroll in a Bible College and immerse yourself in the scriptures every day until they are second nature to you. Do you imagine that the Messiah was unlearned because He did not teach according to your custom of men ?
False; it is scriptural as in mother of "God with us" and people bring their own bias, murmuring, and discord with them, as they have throughout the scriptures when presented with the truth they refuse to hear. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 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.
Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verse fourteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses twenty two to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
As I said previously....it's either arrogance or stubbornness with you.
You may want to consider the person who is just reading the thread and not participating may not be as "smart" as you think you are.
Part of the discussion is to teach and learn. Something I guess you're not either willing or equipped to do.
Been good chatting with you. I will no longer respond to your posts on this thread.
It makes precious little difference what Catholics say it means or claim they mean. It SAYS, "Mother of GOD" which says that God has a mother.
False; mind reading
You may want to consider the person who is just reading the thread and not participating may not be as "smart" as you think you are.
God is no respecter of persons. Learning the customs of men is not the same as have His law written in your heart.
Part of the discussion is to teach and learn. Something I guess you're not either willing or equipped to do.
Is guessing like mind reading ? It seems to me that your concern is feigned as well as false.
Been good chatting with you.
Has it, in truth, or is this another false statement ?
I will no longer respond to your posts on this thread.
I expect you to do as you have written.
It isn't possible...Apparently another Catholic forgery...
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
That's the scripture right there on Ireneus' door step...Without any oral tradition...
Unless you are suggesting this guy talks out both sides of his mouth...
PolyCarp born in 80, died in 167...
3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia
PolyCarp would have been 10 years old in 90 with only John of the apostles being alive...So we know that statement can not be accurate...There were no apostles other than John at that time, in Asia or anywhere...
2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..
It appears Ireneus is referring here to the forerunners to your religion...He is speaking of those who do not believe scriptures as being read and who will not adhere to scripture alone, as Ireneus insists is the only way to the truth...
And then the narrative moves off into outer space and contradiction like there is more than one author...
But alas, the link I gave showed many other early church fathers who also believed in scripture alone...
by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul
a couple of things here: in 185 Christianity certainly was not yet ancient...Secondly, no one used a capital 'C' on the word church...And most telling, the church of Jesus was NOT founded nor organized in Rome...
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?
For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Now this is funny...This author who supposedly is Ireneus at first (along with many other church fathers) affirms scripture alone but now he puts a big 'plug' in for TRADITION...
I don't buy it...
No one ever said the Holy Spirit stopped working thru people...However inspired revelation from the Holy Spirit ended when John wrote, EVEN SO, COME LORD JESUS...
Not just through people in general but specifically through the assembled apostles and presbyters, i.e. through the hierarchical leadership of the church. This is what Acts 15:28 shows.
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.