Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I used the link your provided!
“Because they reject the title “Mother of God” — a title which is Christological. It is about the Blessed Mother only in a secondary way; the importance of “Mother of God” is that it tells us who Jesus is. For those who want to know.”
I will disagree with your expressed opinion for Biblical reasons:
1. God never, ever uses the title Mother of God.
2. No Apostle ever uses the title Mother of God.
3. No Christian writings, artwork or historical works ever us the title Mother of God before 100 AD. As such, it is certainly not the Apostle’s teaching.
4. The identity of Christ as God doesn’t rely on this title in any way.
5. Since the title is never used in Scripture, it is unnecessary to “tell us who Jesus Christ is.”
6. It is one further step in making Blessed Mary into an idol and demigoddess, instead of the humble servant of God that she is - flaws and all. God honored her in exactly the way He chose to do so. We should not do less. We should not do more.
Best.
Ever hear the expression “the eyes are the window to the soul” or that “God is the Light”? Well, apparently my glasses needed cleaning.
What I first "saw" as people arguing over “The Law” was true from that point of view, but the view was still a bit fuzzy.
Once I cleaned my glasses and let in more of the Light, and then used the “Seeker” filter set to “Hiker” mode, I could then see that what I saw before as “The Law” is actually “The Map” that leads HOME!
Using that same filter, the glasses showed that everyone was arguing over "The Map" and the details, while marking over huge chunks of spiritual territory with “Here there be dragons!”.
And then they started arguing about that, too! Lol...
About what colors of crayons to use to mark them with, where the borders are, how big the dragons are, etc., etc.
Personally, what good is a map if you don't use it, right?
I think maps are meant to be followed and I know that the best maps lead to some seriously awesome, but usually buried, treasure, so I’m off to see for myself.
You know what? I bet I find some better glasses along the way, too. That’s the part I like best, finding cool stuff along the trail.
Most times it’s like hunting for morel mushrooms the first time you go. At first, you don’t see them no matter where you look until you find that first one.
After that, it’s like your inner "target seeker" is now calibrated correctly and you see ‘em all over the place!
I bet I also find a pair of glasses that helps me see exactly where to step, too. The original foot prints are still there, but they're hard to see.
I know this much, no matter where and what this map takes me to and through, I know where it leads.
I'll try to send some postcards back to those still back at the start arguing about the map.
I bet they tear them up without even looking at the picture on the front, let alone read the note, but, who knows, I might be wrong about that same way I was about how I saw "The Law".
Note to self: "Keep those glasses clean!"
1. So what. God never uses the word “Trinity” either.
2. We don’t know that.
3. The first half millennium of the Church’s history was a serious of vigorous — very vigorous — arguments about who Jesus is. Because the Apostolic age lasted till about 100, heretical christologies had trouble taking root, but they were all over the place by the end of the next century.
4. There is no better descriptor of who Jesus is. What do you have to say about the Redeemer’s dual natures? Do you believe he has a divine will as well as a human will? Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully man? If so, what does that mean, and how else would you express it?
5. The original deposit of the faith is not entirely scriptural — as scripture itself testifies, over and over again. Furthermore the emergence of heretical christologies proves that Scripture alone wasn’t getting the job done.
6. This ridiculous and hysterical claim is utterly without foundation. More to the point, the Blessed Virgin had no flaws. If she had, your redemption would be fraudulent and void.
If Scripture alone contains the only acceptable descriptors about Jesus, why do you respond in words of your own devising?
Answer my earlier questions please: How many natures does Jesus have? How many wills? If more than one, how are they related? When were they acquired? Does one predominate over the other?
Without the Immaculate Conception, your redemption is bogus.
John 6:40 disagrees with you as does John 3:16....and the rest of the New Testament.
No mention of Mary needing to be sinless for salvation....only belief in Christ.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
When a word or words change meaning in the usage of an argument the result is the fallacy of equivocation. The problem with the syllogism above is the ambiguity in the meaning of the words, "God" and "mother".
It's like saying:
Jesus is God.
God is a Trinity.
Jesus is the Trinity.
Cordially,
John 6:38 is the verse you should be looking at.
Why is it Jesus’s will to do the will of the Father?
What will are we talking about?
Where does it come from?
If Jesus has a fully human nature, where did he get it?
If Mary had a fallen human nature, how could she give complete assent to the Incarnation?
If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is God a rapist?
If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is Jesus really one of us?
If Jesus received a tainted human nature from his mother, how could he be wholly conformed to the will of his Father?
There is no atonement without the Immaculate Conception.
Non-biblical assertion on your part.
I’ve always had skepticism about Romulans and especially Romulans who demand others work for them for free. I did think your warbirds were pretty cool with the cloaking ability.
Best
What is "complete assent"? What does that even mean...
Luke 1:38a And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”
If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is God a rapist?
This is the wackiest thing I've ever heard. I know that Catholics assert that scripture should not be interpreted by laymen, but come on! How is Mary's statement to be understood except as complete assent?
If Jesus received a tainted human nature from his mother, how could he be wholly conformed to the will of his Father?
What? Why would Jesus receive a tainted human nature from Mary? By the same reasoning, Mary would have received a tainted human nature from her mother. Either Jesus is a special case, or it's turtles all the way down.
Besides, if Mary didn't have a tainted human nature, is she really one of us?
There is no atonement without the Immaculate Conception.
Worst reasoning ever!
You say that as if it proves something. It doesn’t.
About as credible as “Oz, The Great And Powerful”.
You may want to reference the catholic encyclopedia online before you attempt to answer.
Do you affirm or deny that Mary is the mother of "God with us" according to the scriptures ? And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 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 the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 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 verses thirteen to fourteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
I said nothing that was false, and you can’t be seriously wishing me the best if you’re going to keep posting things about what I said that are not true.
Mary being one of us therefore could not have given complete assent to God's invitation if she had suffered as we do from the consequences of Adam's sin.
How is Mary's statement to be understood except as complete assent?
How indeed? For the angel had just greeted her as "kecharitomene".
Why would Jesus receive a tainted human nature from Mary?
She is the sole source of his human nature. Everything human about Jesus comes from Mary. I hope you are not suggesting Jesus is less than fully human. If he is fully human, it can only be from his mother, and only because she gave herself to the divine plan wholly and without reservation -- something you or I could never do. Jesus could not be the only "special case", because the Father didn't snatch her off the street; he asked her permission.
Mary's as much one of us as Jesus, who as the new Adam could not have achieved the atonement unless he'd been one of us as much as his mother:
"above all women glorified,
Our tainted nature's solitary boast"
“I make no claims.” —— Not a claim. It’s a fact.
“Everything I said is simply a fact.” - Again, not a claim. Everything I said was true.
“So she is the mother of God.” - Again, not a claim. Jesus is God and Mary is His mother. Case closed.
“...He preserved her from sin.” - Again, not a claim. Whether or not you believe it changes nothing.
You clearly can’t make an actual argument about the issue. And that’s not a claim either.
Why didn't she say the "mother of her God" then vs "mother of her Lord"?
As there is one Lord, there is one God.
Elizabeth knew exactly what she meant by her statement.
You're attempting to read something into the text that's not there.
Heck no — and so what?
The Scriptures are not the last word on the authentic faith. As a bible-believer, you ought to believe that, unless you believe only the parts of the bible you like.
It’s not necessary to “know” anything to be saved. People incapable of reason or self-knowledge are saved all the time.
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.