Posted on 03/07/2014 10:14:06 AM PST by matthewrobertolson
No, he's not using hyperbole.
In the context in which Jesus is speaking, He is telling others not to call RELIGIOUS leaders *father* or *teacher*, which is clearly what Catholicism violates.
True man and true God = Jesus
Truly human and truly divine = Jesus
Mary was the mother of both natures of Christ! *With the help of the Holy Spirit, of course!*
You need to read about Arianism which you are espousing.
God is fully God while also being fully Man.
As a part of mankind he was developed in His Mothers womb for nine months and she then gave birth and nursed her Son.
Mary was Jesus human Mother therefore she can be properly called “The Mother of God”.
To not be able to call her that would be to deny His humanity thus you would be guilty of the Arian heresy.
AMDG
I believe it would be wise for you to speak with a knowledgable minister or spiritual director.
You are sincerely misunderstanding Jesus Dual God - Man nature, and last I heard Protestants don’t believe in Arianism.
You need some help there.
AMDG
Oh? You're saying that the second person of the Godhead is a created being? Really? Isn't that some kind of heresy or other?
Or are you saying the Holy Spirit got it wrong when He breathed out *mother of Jesus* in Scripture?
Or perhaps, since Catholics like to take credit for the Catholic church writing the Bible, the Catholic church got it wrong initially by calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
What else did they get wrong then?
I don't think you have a clue what I get or don't get.
It appears that you fail to see the error that calling Mary *mother of God* can lead to.
Renaming Mary in an attempt to correct doctrine about the nature of Jesus is two things. One - a pretty poor excuse for the action and two - an epic fail at its best.
It makes God and Jesus created beings and elevates Mary above the Godhead.
People who did not have the knowledge to not make mistakes about who Jesus was, are not going to get it right by renaming Mary.
The focus then is totally on the wrong person and the wrong issue.
If the issue is the nature of Christ, it's not going to be fixed by putting the attention on Mary.
Well, there you have it.
Mary was the mother of the deity of Christ, the mother of the second person of the Godhead, making Jesus a created being.
And that makes her deity as well.
To not be able to call her that would be to deny His humanity thus you would be guilty of the Arian heresy.
Calling her *Mother of GOD* denies the humanity of Jesus.
Arian Heresy.
Actually you are demonstrating your obstinacy by you unwillingness to look into a YOUR OWN ERRORS.
AMDG
MY errors?
Like what?
Agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what we should call Mary?
-— Agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what we should call Mary? -—
Full of grace?
While your looking up Arian Heresy you should try looking up ‘vincible ignorance’ and ‘the unforgivable sin’.
I am afraid you are really lost.
Goodnight .
What an absolutely goofy thing to say! Did you think of that all by yourself?
Once you begin to grasp that the "church" is the body of believers and not some hierarchical organization headquartered in royal palaces in Rome wearing scarlet and white satin robes and fish hats, seated on gilded thrones, you just might get it that you CAN trust in the Bible without the "church" telling you what it all means. You see, that is what the Holy Spirit does with every heart earnestly seeking to know the truth!
No, it doesn't. It says that Christ founded His church, His called-out body of believers, upon the truth of the gospel preached THROUGH the Apostles and disciples, not ON them. That is probably the primary error of Roman Catholicism on which the rest of her errors proceed.
Good point!
OH, KNOCK IT OFF!
This ridiculous heretic hunting that FRomans indulge themselves in is sickening.
Before running around and accusing people of Arianism, let's take a look at what the "Arian" controversy was about. How about HERE for starters----
Arianism a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius’ basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.
No did metmom say anything of the sort? YES or NO?
Answer the question, or shut up!
Excellent points!
And Jesus said, "Upon this rock I build my church", because HE is that rock!
It says that Christ founded His church, His called-out body of believers, upon the truth of the gospel preached THROUGH the Apostles and disciples, not ON them. That is probably the primary error of Roman Catholicism on which the rest of her errors proceed.
Well stated. How can it be refuted?
More than few ECF's (early church fathers, as Schaff termed those notables) agree.
Hope you are well. Have a blessed Sunday.
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.