Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm
And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.
For “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God,” and he is the Maker of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and Creator of all; but, as we have already said, since he united to himself hypostatically human nature from her womb, also he subjected himself to birth as man, not as needing necessarily in his own nature birth in time and in these last times of the world, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, and that that which sent the earthly bodies of our whole race to death, might lose its power for the future by his being born of a woman in the flesh. And this: “In sorrow you shall bring forth children,” being removed through him, he showed the truth of that spoken by the prophet, “Strong death swallowed them up, and again God has wiped away every tear from off all faces.” For this cause also we say that he attended, having been called, and also blessed, the marriage in Cana of Galilee, with his holy Apostles in accordance with the economy. We have been taught to hold these things by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and all the God-inspired Scriptures, and in the true confessions of the blessed Fathers.
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”When the wife of a Jewish priest is talking about "her Lord" she's referring to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Lord of Glory, the Master of the Universe and she wasn't making any silly distinctions about "human nature" versus "divine nature" and the former being something to be described by the word "merely." Mary is the only mother God ever had. He was God-incarnate from the moment of conception; he experienced gestation and birth and was nursed and cared for by his mother (leaving aside for the moment the much later claim that he went to ex utero from in utero in an unusual way--to preserve a concept of virginity that is as bizarre as your concept of what motherhood entails).
Well said. I sincerely doubt that “Dr. Eckleburg” will read it.
*sigh*
Just perhaps, it may be the term "Mary" which is deceitful... If it walks as a goddess, talks like a goddess... etc. ...Observing the holy days of the queen of heaven and her son (including weeping for Tammuz), Observing her husband's sabbath... While the Sabbaths and Holy Days of the Father go wanting (every single one of them).
Just sayin...
lol. Is that what they teach you in parochial school? Good grief. It's worse than I thought.
Paul is NOT speaking about marriage in 2 Corinthians 6. He's speaking about idolatry and keeping yourself from it. Read your Bible, Judith, and embarrassing errors like the one you just posted might not happen.
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." -- 2 Corinthians 6:14-18"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Or how about this verse?
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." -- Ephesians 5:11
I sense a theme here.
I don’t know him, but nobody’s perfect.
Not even Mary.
Mary has NOTHING to do with Christ’s divine nature.
That is the error of Rome. Flee from the idolatry engendered by that kind of lie.
Mary had NOTHING to do with Christ’s divinity.
Mary was the human vessel God chose to bring Christ into the world. She was blessed to be Jesus’ mother. She fulfilled her duty.
There is hardly any mention of Mary after Christ begins His ministry. She is unimportant. At least of no more importance than any believer, as Christ told us.
Heed the words of Christ and ignore the idolatry pushed by Rome.
Mary has NOTHING to do with Christ’s divine nature.
Oh, separating Christ's "two natures" -- that heresy again?
Mary bore Christ Jesus, wholly man and wholly God, within her flesh.
God help those who believe such insanity. It is not Christianity. It's idolatry.
Christ received His human nature from Mary and His divine nature from God.
He did not receive anything divine from Mary. Period.
Seems as likely as anything else. Once the floodgates of idolatry are opened, all sorts of creepy critters run out.
Sad that Christ isn’t enough for them.
No, it doesn't. It clearly says something about Mary that isn't true.
Mary is not the parent of Christ's divinity. She is the parent of Christ's humanity.
Is that OPC dogma? How do you separate the two?
You have told it like it is, and haven't minced any words. I'll give you that much credit.
It's Christianity 101 which papists have flunked.
That’s Christianity. Read the Bible.
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.