Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Yes, in that passage alone Christ suggests that his disciples are His brother, or sister, or mother, depending we assume, on sex and age. But the expansive use of "brother" to refer to spiritual kinship we find in many places.
My point is that the passage does not say anything about Christ's disagreeing with His mother or other kinsfolk. It is not them, but rather some unspecified listeners who think He had gone mad.
Just like with "brothers" being necessarily Mary's biological children, we can interpret this as a sign of a disagreement, but the text does not compel us to do so; it is a matter of interpreting the text.
Agreed. So how can she be the mother of God and not be the mother of the Father?
Isn't it more correct to just call Mary what the Bible calls her - The Mother of Jesus. She is never given such an exalted title in Scripture or any of her other exalted titles other than blessed. She is called the Mother of Jesus.
Let me rephrase my first sentence. Until the Reformation (or just prior to that), the Bible wasn't in English so there wasn't an english rendering of "elder" to deal with.
The rest of my paragraph stands. It's getting late.
No I don't. I have never once denied that the Father is God.
You said that Mary is the Mother of God. Then you deny that Mary is the Mother of the Father. Therefore, you must believe that the Father is not God.
That's a non sequitur.
Is it possible to better communicate who you think she is the mother of?
Mary is the mother of God, because she is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Second Person of the Trinity is God.
-A8
Mary is a creature, not part of the Godhead; therefore she was among the "every thing" made by Christ and for Him.
I believe her title should be simply, the blessed mother of Jesus. IOW, her motherhood is tied to His being enfleshed - nothing more.
So, do you think it's ok to say that the incarnate 2d person of the trinity died on the cross of calvary?
Because "God" and "Father" are not identical.
Isn't it more correct to just call Mary what the Bible calls her - The Mother of Jesus. She is never given such an exalted title in Scripture or any of her other exalted titles other than blessed. She is called the Mother of Jesus.
That's exactly what Nestorius wanted to call her. That title, however, denies Christ's divinity. As I explained above (#1656), denying that Mary is the mother of God logically entails one of three heresies.
-A8
Dear sister in Christ, you are so right.
Good to hear from you again. Where've you been lately?
Unfortunately, "ok" is not a technical term. If you mean, do I think it is correct that the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity died on the cross of Calvary, the answer is yes.
-A8
It doesn't deny Christ's divinity. It denies Mary's motherhood of God. Jesus was divine because He was God. He would have been God without Mary's ever having existed. He would have been God if he were never incarnated.
As to God and Father not being identical - are you now separating the Father from the Godhead??? Or are you backtracking and saying the Father is only a part of the Godhead and can be separated from the Son? (i.e., component parts of the one unit)
Agreed.
That is a change from your response in #1677 when you said it meant that I was denying that Jesus is God.
You appear now to be agreeing that it's best to be specific about which person of the trinity we are referring to.
There's gators in them swamps, sister.
Best keep an eye out for them and take a break on dry land every now and then.
:>)
Would this mean that if you sent out a mass e-mailing asking for prayer that it would "count" as if every reader of your request had actually prayed for you? Or, if the number of readers was 1,000,000, then it would "count" as if you had prayed directly 1,000,000 times? That would be pretty difficult for me to accept.
I know that you have assurance of the Saints because of the Church, but I still don't follow why anyone would take the chance. Doesn't this appear to be contradictory to all the verses telling us we can't know the heart of another, and in fact, we shouldn't make the attempt? For example:
1 Cor. 4:5 : Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
If your not you could get into some real theological messes such as Mary was the mother of God and was impregnated by God. Not a nice picture.
Mary as mother of Jesus, like the BIBLE says (Who cares what Nestorius later said) will suffice and cause a WHOLE LOT LESS CONFUSION!
God had no beginning so had no need for a mother in His divine self. The incarnate Christ did indeed have an earthly mother but only for His humanity, not His divinity which needed no mother nor could it have a mother since it had no beginning.
you're.
It is getting late. My typing skills are sinking fast.
Off to bed folks. Nice chatting tonight.
If Mary is not the mother of God, in other words, if the child whom Mary birthed is not God, then one of three heresies necessarily follows, as I pointed out in #1656.
As to God and Father not being identical - are you now separating the Father from the Godhead???
No. The Father is God, but the 'is' is not an is of [Leibnizian] identity. For the Logos is God too, but the Logos is not [numerically] identical to the Father.
Or are you backtracking and saying the Father is only a part of the Godhead and can be separated from the Son? (i.e., component parts of the one unit)
No. I'm not saying that at all.
-A8
G'nite blogger.
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.