Posted on 08/15/2016 11:30:02 AM PDT by NRx
Our respective groups also agree that one of the parts of our accepted Triune GOD was clothed in flesh for about 33 years; right?
We also agree that the angel that spoke to Mary/Joseph said to call Him Jesus.
I think that when we also agree that this Jesus was fully human as well as fully GOD is where the confusion arises.
Is there something to be LOST by 'arguing' about it?
God does not have "parts".
Our unity in the Son of Mary, Christ our Lord, God, and Savior.
This should prove interesting...
You'll have to fully explain this.
Why do you say that?
I'm not the one who referred to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity as a part of God...
I meant to write:
Our unity as brothers and sisters in Christ and our focus on the Son of Mary, Jesus Christ our Lord, God, and Savior.
**JESUS is all of God a mortal creature can sense with the five senses. He IS God With Us**
Are you trying to say that Jesus Christ is God,.....separately God, without the Father. Jesus Christ doesn’t teach you that? Rome does though.
The apostle John walked and talked with Jesus Christ, and his testimony never uses the phrase ‘God the Son’. John declared that God is invisible. Paul said that God is invisible. They learned that from above, not from men.
Jesus Christ is in the Father, and the Father is in him.
“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Matt. 11:27
“If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him........Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” John 14:7,10
To the Jews he said:
“Many good works have I shewed you from my Father;...”. John 10:32
Trying to make Jesus Christ God, without the Father, is not possible. The Son’s witness proves that to be the case. Yet, it is not surprising that people don’t see this revelation. For even after walking with Christ for over three years, the Lord had to explain this revelation to his disciples.
God does not have “parts”.
You know that and I know that, but for someone to deny that Mary is the Mother of God, they have to hold some form of a nontrinitarian belief.
The Glorified body Jesus now occupies IN HEAVEN, does it have blood carrying The Life of Him throughout its parts?
My unequivocal answer is no.
Are you trying to say that Jesus Christ is God,.....separately God, without the Father. Jesus Christ doesn’t teach you that? Rome does though.
If by Rome you mean the Catholic Church, this is what the Catholic Church confesses:
The Trinity is One. It does not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the consubstantial Trinity. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God. Each of the persons is the same divine substance, essence or nature.”
You can learn more about what the Catholic Church confesses about the Trinity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2 II, The Revelation of God as Trinity. CCC 232-267
See http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html#80
So?
Again I ask for expansion:
Just HOW and/or WHY would this occur?
What would you Catholics LOSE by using the phrase Mother of Jesus instead of Mother of GOD.
What would we Prots GAIN by using the phrase Mother of GOD instead of Mother of Jesus.
They DO?
For someone to constantly claim that Mary is the Mother of GOD, they have to have been totally convinced of a LOT of OTHER non-biblical stuff as well.
What would you Catholics LOSE by using the phrase Mother of Jesus instead of Mother of GOD.
What would we Prots GAIN by using the phrase Mother of GOD instead of Mother of Jesus.
These are different questions. You originally asked if there is something to be LOST by ‘arguing’ about the different terms.
If I may modify my answer, though, there is nothing to be lost by initially arguing over a question in the sense of presenting one’s reasons for believing as they do. But when it gets to the point of disputing in an angry or excited way, there is nothing to be gained by continuing the argument. It can disrupt our unity as Christians and take our focus away from Jesus.
What would you Catholics LOSE by using the phrase Mother of Jesus instead of Mother of GOD.
What would we Prots GAIN by using the phrase Mother of GOD instead of Mother of Jesus
Several Eastern Churches use a double statement approach.
They state:
Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is our Lord, God, and Savior.
This is the understanding I have when I say mother of God. Do you have this same understanding when you say mother of Jesus.
Is Jesus our Lord, God and Savior?
For someone to constantly claim that Mary is the Mother of GOD, they have to have been totally convinced of a LOT of OTHER non-biblical stuff as well.
John Calvin warned against that, but even he acknowledged that Christ is the eternal God.
**’And Jesus said to Philip, all you can see of the Father is what you see in Me, for I am in the Father and the Father is in me. I and the Father are ONE.’**
I don’t know what version that is from, but it doesn’t seem to address John 14:10 (KJV)
**The Glorified body Jesus now occupies IN HEAVEN, does it have blood carrying The Life of Him throughout its parts?**
The sacrifice of the Son was once. He doesn’t have to keep bleeding, as some seem to think. It is the Spirit that quickeneth....
I have no idea
**The Trinity is One.....”
Yet the teachings of the trinity concept seem to have these results:
God the Father is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, yet only seems active during the incarnation of the Son.
The rest of the time the Father’s role is somewhat vague. God the Father is called the Father, but the separate and distinct ‘God the Holy Spirit’ actually ‘fathered’ ‘God the Son’.
The separate and distinct ‘God the Son’ is the creator of all things, leaving the Father in some sort of board of directors role.
Those ideas seem to leave God the Father almost unworthy of the title of ‘Father’, under Trinitarian teaching.
And ‘Father’ is a TITLE, and not a name. Matthew 28:19 is about the NAME. And that name is Jesus. The name of the Son isn’t ‘Son’, it’s Jesus. The Son inherited it from the Father. The Holy Ghost is sent in the name of Jesus.
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.