YEAH. I do love our dialogues.
And I think they warrant that word.
I need to start compiling links to your posts that I can’t get to at the time. Too many fall through the cracks and I hate that. I need to go back through your IN FORUM until I find the ones I wanted to comment on.
In terms of Col 2:9—of course I believe and agree with the Scripture
. . . even though . . .
in my finiteness, I don’t grasp more than infitesimally what it could mean, imho.
What it means to me with my finiteness is that—as you seemed to indicate—the fullness of the Godhead is represented, . . . accessed, manifested, operant
. . .
IN CHRIST . . . etc.
I can’t imagine that it means 100% of all of God the Father, Son and Spirit were housed in that human frame before, during or after The Cross and Resurrection. That would just make no sense, to me. Evidently it would make no sense to you either.
Nice when we can agree.
In terms of calling Mary the mother of God . . . I, of course, still believe, feel, think
that RC’s somewhat deliberately and exaltantly LEAN ON, love to use the currency of the flavor of
MOTHER OF *GAWD!*
AS THOUGH that includes the Father.
OF COURSE, when challenged, they quickly retreat to the only sensible thing they can remotely support.
However, the flavor of USING the other implication in a myriad of ways is a fierce persistent stench to Proddys . . . and, I have to think, to God, himself and likely to Mary, herself.
It’s rather like Shrillery saying IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN when she’d just as soon Bar-B-Q a child alive if it served her greed-for-power purposes.
What’s overtly said when challenged, is very different from what’s persistently capitalized on regarding that phrase “Mother of God.”
And thats an extremely disingenuous stench to Proddys.
Can you at least UNDERSTAND THAT? I’m not asking you to agree with it. I’d just like to know if ONE RC CAN understand our perspective on it.