Posted on 02/02/2015 3:08:42 PM PST by Morgana
And the last Adam addressed the woman at the well so she must be the interim Eve. Oh and He addressed the woman who sinned also!! Sheesh!
Oh that sounds legit
/s
#BereanFail
And He addressed the woman who sinned. “woman where are your accusers”. So she must be an Eve in there somewhere.
The lengths to which the Catholic Church will go to make up their beliefs is ripe for ridicule.
All of this brings to mind that certain woman arrayed in purple and scarlet.
Of course, our mothers and fathers pro-create our bodies and do not pro-create our souls. Mary’s body was involved in the pro-creation of the body of Jesus. His human soul was a special creation, just like ours, and his Divine Person existed eternally.
Mary was/is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Thus, it makes perfect sense to call Mary “the mother of God.” She is the mother of a person who is God the Son. A person who is God the Son is her son. She is the mother of God the Son. She is the mother of God.
If Mary is the mother of Jesus, it is self-evident that Mary is the mother of God.
The only conceivable reason anyone would refuse to call Mary the mother of God is that that person is filled with hate for Mary. Where that hate came from I do not know, although propaganda seems a likely candidate.
While true of course, no Catholics are going to buy into it because their version comes from headquarters and so the bible sense of the situation is irrelevant...
Really??? That's the ONLY conceivable reason? Is it in the realm of possibility that Mary can be loved, honored and respected without her having the title "Mother of God"? Can you understand that all this discussion and argument isn't about hatred for Mary but a love for Christ and the truth? All I see that this disagreement is causing is contention and hatred FOR fellow Christians. Mary is on the sideline...and I don't think she would like seeing herself being used in such a way.
Since all Christians believe that Jesus is God, and
Since all Christians believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus,
There is no rational basis for objecting to calling Mary “the mother of God.”
Thus, there can only be irrational bases for objecting to calling Mary “the mother of God.”
Why the hate? As I pointed out, a Moslem poster who opposes you would be filled with hate for the Mother of God.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is a carpenter.
Mary is the mother of a carpenter.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
The two syllogisms above are identical in form. They are both valid.
This is another way of saying that refusing to call Mary “the mother of God” is totally irrational—unless one is NOT a Christian.
Actually Nestorius determined there were two natures, not persons...
The doctrine was about Him, not her. By clarifying that Mary carried the Second Person of the Trinity in her womb, it said that Christ cannot be divided into 2 persons, but is one person only.
That's not really accurate...The definition was finished up at Chalcedon and it was determined that Jesus had two natures, human and divine which were inseparable...
Nestorius believed that those two natures were separable and therefore Mary was not the mother of the divine nature...
Your religion has made the doctrine ALL about Mary since that dicision allows your religion (in its mind) to call Mary the mother of God...The Catholic glory goes to Mary...No honest person can deny that...It's ALL about Mary...
That entire statement is nonsense and does nothing to furher your cause...Of course Mary was the bearer of the divine nature of Jesus (she carried him abound making her the bearer)...Nestorius never said Jesus was 2 persons...One person with two natures...
What's comical is that you guys throw around the phrase, 'Nestorianism is heretical' so often that people don't really know what Nestorianism is but just fall in line against it because your relgion calls it a heresy...
Anti-Nestorianism has one function and one focus; to elevate Mary to the mother of God...
When Jesus died on the Cross, the bible tells us his spirit went to heaven and Jesus laid in the tomb while Jesus went to the center of the earth...Kind of hard to picture a dead human Jesus travelling to the center of the earth...
Your religion doesn't think things thru too much...
That’s Catholic logic in a nutshell.
Yes it is. I am surprised anyone would bet their eternity on the convoluted logic the catholics come up with. Incredible, like the proverbial pretzel would you say?
Don't forget the Syrophoenician woman. She could be the new Eve too. The possibilities are endless. Any woman that Jesus addressed could be the new Eve. Do you think someone needs to cut me some slack?
Wasn't that sort of syllogism attempted earlier on this thread, and found to be wanting?
Why revive it now?
Was it for reason to get to the ending phrase, wherein one can spout off ---- that unless one agrees with your own choice of wordings, that they are not "Christian"?
It is not "totally irrational" to refrain from referring to Mary as "mother of God".
To use that term "mother of God" one must include further explanation that one is not intending to infer that Mary is mother of God the Father, correct?
Let's try things your way;
The Heavenly Creator is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Heavenly Creator's own mother.
It would do us all well to recall that this terminology came about due to disputes over the nature of Christ --- this Son of God whom we know of as Jesus, who came to us in earthly incarnation, born of the virgin Mary, even as also it is otherwise understood, that this same Christ had himself existed (as one essence) with God the Father, from before the foundations of the world were laid. Or else the Apostle Paul, and John too, have badly misled us..?
Which leaves it to be that at this juncture, to avoid making Mary out to be her own great-great-grandmother so to speak, to limit oneself to referring to Mary as mother of Jesus (which is Scriptural) the further explanation that this Jesus was "God with us" can be added, with still further Christological considerations be open to investigation from there.
Using the term "mother of God" requires further explanation of yet another sort, one which would be more like subtraction than addition, which must be included ---namely --- that Mary is not "mother of" ---->God the Father, for you are not claiming that she is that also, in addition to being mother of the Incarnate Christ, are you?
Please answer that question, or just do as you have with other comments from myself which raise difficult challenges to your assertions, and do not respond to me at all.
Your choice, yet if you do not clarify your own positions, then there would be no one to blame but yourself if somebody later on fails to understand what they truly are, and what they are not...
Why is this so difficult? Must it be so difficult?
Aah, that word "difficult"... as I jokingly included in comment to another here the other day in differing context --- there's a small "cult" hiding out in plain view, coming right after the "diffi".
Could it be ---- the cult of Mary? I do think so, and that was fed from very early on in the history of the Church by spurious writings and pseudograph, such as what is known today as the Protoevangelium of James. It is notable that Origen mentioned that he did not come across any mention in ecclesiastical writings of Mary being perpetually virgin prior to the era which the pseudograph had begun to do it's insidious work (of smuggling discreet form of goddess worship into the Church -- dressed up in the clothing of Mary, the mother of Christ himself).
Since the writing has in a sense all but disappeared from sight (out of sight, out of mind) then unless one is informed of such things, the writer whom presented himself as being James has perpetrated a near-perfect religious crime (the only perfect crimes are the ones which no one detects).
Things become more fantastical from there on out, in regards to extra-biblical writings which enjoyed widespread popularity, and cannot BUT be seen as among primary sources for the more breathless of the Marianist devotions.
That type of "devotion" was simply not taught within the most primitive Church, or is extant within thus traceable to earliest writings which were among more official correspondence -- which leaves those attitudes and teachings to be outside of that which was passed down by Christ and the Apostles.
But for those who insist that "Mary" is capital "M", "Mother of God" here's a little song for your listening pleasure (which hopefully, will induce further investigation & pondering):
It does not demonstrate that your conclusion is correct either.
Then there must have been more than one Eve replacement because Jesus addressed other women as *Woman*.
To a woman He healed.
Luke 13:12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.”
To the Samaritan woman at the well.
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
To the woman caught in adultery.
John 8:10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
To Mary Magdalene at the tomb.
John 20:15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”
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.