Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Arthur McGowan; Elsie

You must mean that I "haven't attempted" to explained things to you, on this thread, and in context of the attempt on your part to force the contrived syllogism and have whatever explanation I offered yield to the misfitted syllogism because otherwise I've been doing plenty of explaining in my comments to yourself, and yet others here also.

Go back, review, check the math for that.

Otherwise, getting back to the larger issues of truth and reality; as much as possible, it's best to just stick with what the scriptures reveal, and how the first decades of the church beyond when the NT texts began to be widely circulated, initially, more originally understood things to be.

But I see here also, in context of this conversation (speaking of what 2+2 should equal to) that it very well may just be your turn again, for this;

You hand-waved that question away, declaring it to be "irrelevant". I guess it didn't fit the the forced syllogism, and rather impeded the progress of it.

Check the math for that one maybe? Start there, from direction things began, rather than beginning the equation from where a certain someone briefly visited, traveled through, prior to returning back to where that certain someone was before.

Then if one so desires, mathematical re-calculations may be indulged in starting from perspective of that middling, just-passing-through place, to then work both directions outwardly-- AS LONG AS the calculus does not work both ends against the middle while doing so, and the calculations along the way do not alter the unalterable constants.

1,053 posted on 01/06/2016 1:18:56 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies ]


To: BlueDragon

You persist in railing against an assertion that NO ONE, EVER, EVER, EVER has made. Namely, that Mary pre-existed God the Son. Only an idiot would think that.

Mary conceived God the Son in her womb, and bore him. This makes her his mother. These events occurred in time, approximately 2,016 years ago.

Because Mary has a son who is God, Mary is the mother of God. God the Father is not Mary’s son, so Mary is NOT the mother of God the Father. God the Holy Spirit is not Mary’s son, so she is NOT the mother of God the Holy Spirit.

God the Son is Mary’s son, so she is the mother of God the Son. This makes the following statement true: Mary is the mother of God.

If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, then you NECESSARILY deny that her Son is God. I.e., you necessarily deny that her son, Jesus Christ, is God.


1,061 posted on 01/06/2016 2:22:13 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies ]

To: BlueDragon

How could a woman conceive a divine Person in her womb, and give birth to him?

Heck if I know! But it’s a dogma of the Christian Faith that she did so.

The Second Person of the Trinity has existed from eternity. Mary became his mother WHEN SHE CONCEIVED HIM IN HER WOMB as a man. It was at that instant that he BECAME MAN.

The title “mother of God” has NEVER meant that Mary was in some way the the ETERNAL origin of the ETERNAL WORD. God the Father is the eternal begetter of the Eternal Word, God the Son.

So, railing against the notion that Mary existed eternally is to rail against an idiotic idea that no Christian has ever held.


1,065 posted on 01/06/2016 2:34:51 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson