Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
On this we agree. The rest of it.....not so much.
“Asked and answered,” as the lawyers say . . . over and over and over.
Quix, if you want to throw in your lot with the Nestorians, feel free!
I think your phrasing is more than debatable, but I'm way too tired to go into it.
“On this we agree. The rest of it.....not so much.”
Wonderful that we agree on that. Now, show me in Scripture where Mary participated WITH Jesus in our redemption. Or that she intercedes FOR us in ANY way...
I already showed you several that contradict any indication of her participation. Augustine no doubt got quite a few things right; on this, he’s all wet. And all wrong.
Hoss
Nope. She is he mother of Jesus. You start adding “God” the way Roman Catholics do, and it makes the inference that she is in some way elevated to any other status but fallen sinner saved by her Savior.
Hoss
Not so fast. Show me first where Scripture claims 100% of the revealed Word is contained in Scripture and where Scripture defines which books and works comprise the entorety of Scripture and only then will I agree to restrict the discussion to a "show me in Scripture" precondition.
Isn’t Jesus God?
Isn’t Mary His mother?
Omit adding "God" and it makes the inference that Jesus Christ was NOT God. Was He? or wasn't He? That's why I said, the phrase "Mother of God" says more about Jesus Christ than it does about Mary.
Of COURSE Mary needed a Savior. Jesus Christ, her son, was her Savior. Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." He saved her before she bore Him. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are from all eternity, God is the Author of time, not the slave of time. Time obeys God, not vice versa.
Omitting God makes Jesus less God? Everyone’s been arguing that it’s a known fact! That is just silly!!!!
“That’s why I said, the phrase “Mother of God” says more about Jesus Christ than it does about Mary.”
Let’s look at it. “Mother of God.” Where is Christ in there? Who is the subject? Mother OF God. Mary. Sheesh.
Sorry, but that fails also.
Hoss
Jesus is God Incarnate. God has no mother. He is eternal. By saying “Mother of God” the implication is that Mary is something she’s not.
Hoss
Oh yes so fast. Do you not believe the Bible to be God’s inspired word? Are you that disingenuous? Or is it that there IS no reference, no scriptural authority that justifies these ludicrous claims?
We get what we know from Scripture. Only the Roman Catholic Church dreams up making things up from whole cloth and calling it Tradition. Sorry — but scripture is the common denominator between us: if you’re telling me that scripture isn’t authoritative, then there are more problems than this debate that need to be cleared up.
Hoss
2. My convictions have always been that Christ, in His earthly trek, was fully God and fully man. Your accusation--however par-for-the-course off the wall--is brazenly wrong, false, erroneous, untrue.
3. Regardless of Christ merging His humanness and God-ness into one form on earth . . . it remains true that Mary could only offer her humanness. She did NOT carry and did NOT birth from her essence His God-ness.
4. Mary was a blessed Courier.
5. Mary was not, per se, legally, existentially, factually, actively sinless. She was obviously typically too much of a "Jewish Mother," to be sinless.
6. Mary had other blood children as Scripture makes plainly clear. Weasel worded rationalizations otherwise are:
--not honest to the Biblical facts,
--not scholarly,
--not historical,
--not accurate,
--not Biblical,
--not honorable,
--not logical,
--not culturally congruent with the historical record,
--not Christian--
REGARDLESS of the mental gymnastics and contortions designed to pretend and fantasize otherwise.
5. It is not plausible that one can build even a healthy, much less factual, Biblical dogma on such brazen, idolatrous, blasphemous falsehoods, deceptions, fantasies from hell. Leading folks down the yellow brick road of deception with such horrors cannot produce Biblically honorable prized fruit.
6. Poisonous foundations, poisonous trees yield poisonous fruit. What an insult to the authentic Mary for the Vatican AIWSOTARM to abuse her name that way!
RC's will not be answering, per se, to Proddys regarding such poisonous fantasies and fruit. They will be answering to God. Mary herself may provide testimony for the Prosecution.
Choosing to not understand or to disbelieve the validity and factual veracity of the following words does NOT make them false:
Y’all are bright enough to know that
MOTHER OF GOD
carrys a long list of implications with it.
THAT’S THE ONLY LOGICAL REASON I CAN SEE THAT JUSTIFIES WHY Y’ALL DO IT! Y’ALL SEEM TO RELISH THOSE IMPLICATIONS AND THE CONTRARINESS THEY STAND FOR VIS A VIS THE REST OF CHRISTENDOM.
Y’ALL SEEM TO RELISH THE FACT THAT ALL AND SUNDRY GET INJECTED WITH SUCH IMPLICATIONS EVERY TIME THEY HEAR OR READ THAT MARY IS THE PURPORTED MOTHER OF GOD.
Y’ALL SEEM TO RELISH THE FACT THAT EVERY MENTION OF THAT ELEVATES MARY TO HER PURPORTED “HYPOSTATIC UNION WITH THE TRINITY.”
Y’ALL SCARF UP ON THAT BIG TIME AND !!!!DEMAND!!!! THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD JOIN IN SUCH BLASPHEMOUS IDOLTRY.
Oh, SURE, when pinned down, y’all quickly retreat into the farcical noise about how it’s techincally true because Jesus is God etc. etc. yada yada yada.
When actually, that has nothing to do with it. Y’all know full well what MOTHER OF GOD IMPLIES and you seem to love forcing it down the world’s throat in contrary rebellion against Scripture vis a vis not elevating mortals to God-like status.
How is Jesus separate from God? How was God split into man/God so that Mary could bear the “man” part, and the “God” part would just “happen”?
Here's a hint. What is a "failed Catholic"? You, know, the label that gets slapped on every former Catholic who leaves. Someone who was a Protestant who leaves to become Catholic, can be just as easily called a "failed Protestant".
If you are correct you should have no problem whatsoever showing me where Scripture claims 100% of the revealed Word is contained in Scripture and where Scripture defines which books and works comprise the entirety of Scripture.
Where else would we get the revealed Word of God? Why not just show me in Scripture the passage(s) that support your position? Why try to shift the argument? Can you not find one passage from the Bible that shows where Mary would have been granted these lofty offices that the Roman Catholic Church claims she has? Since the Roman Catholic Church (and several folks here) claim that without the RCC we would have no Bible, I would think you would consider it at least authoritative in matters like this!!!
One passage? One?
Hoss
I also believe what the Bible (God’s Word) says about Jesus (The Word) being present with God in the beginning — John 1:1. Jesus, The Word made flesh, was born of Mary — she is his mother as she bore him in the flesh. But God the Son was, is, and will ever be, eternal; without beginning or end.
AMEN!
THAT is Christianity. Anything else is something less. Something ersatz. Something to be avoided.
I am loving your spunk, Hoss!!! :o)
The end result - the salvation of God's people - would still be the same.
Roman Catholics' view of life is clouded by their untoward veneration of Jesus' mother. Christ goes so far as to tell us not to look to His mother as our family, but to His followers - those who believe in His name.
Mary is simply one of those most fortunate of human beings, a sinner saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ ALONE.
If venerating and praying to Mary were important or necessary, Christ would have told us so in the Bible. The apostles would have written about it.
None did.
Instead, fallen men add insult to injury as centuries pass and Christ fades as the goddess grows to celestial heights - "Queen of the Universe."
God forbid.
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.