Posted on 03/19/2014 8:19:20 PM PDT by ealgeone
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION
PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503
Then you’re saying Jesus isn’t God.
No, I'm not.
Mary was the mother of Jesus. She is not the mother of God.
God is eternal and was not born, no beginning and no end.
Apples and oranges.
Actually, you can because Mary is not divinity. She's a mortal human being, just like the rest of us and as such, is subject to all the failings of mortal human beings, including a sin nature.
I was pointing out that the approved USCCB NABRE does not use “full of grace.” Perhaps you could find out why they chose to change the English use of words from the DRA.
If that is how you deciphered the lexicon of two different languages adding in LORD in the OT was a form of the tetragrammaton as the LXX interpreters used instead of Yahweh or YHWH. Then your conclusion is Elizabeth knowingly knew that she was proclaiming Mary “the mother of YHWH.”
Is every other use of Lord in the NT the same?
You may try answering a question to a discussion we were engaged in. H151 is not YHWH in the Hebrew lexicon in Strongs.
An interesting question; some examples that could point to an affirmative answer:
walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him.
the fiery furnaceand Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (though this is an admittedly literal sense of 'saved', it is noteworthy because of the appearance of a fourth person with them).
This sort of idea is, I think, a good side-effect of sci-fi's exploration of time-travel ideas; not to say that we should base our theology on sci-fi, but that sci-fi [or any fiction, really] allows the exploration of ideas that might have theological significance.
Amazed by how few reviewers noticed the Christian implications of Out of the Silent Planet, Lewis quipped to a friend that "any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people's minds under the cover of romance without their knowing it." (link)
Indeed. But that was not the conversation. We were discussing your use of incorrect lexicon. I linked the proper terms. Will ask again. Is it Roman Catholic doctrine that Elizabeth was proclaiming Mary was the "mother of YHWH" in Luke 1? It is a simple question.
Sounds like Oneness theology to me.
The discussion is really about who MARY is, not about who Jesus is.
Although every time the topic of Mary being the mother of God vs mother of Jesus comes up, Catholics like to derail it and make it about the nature of Jesus.
But Mary is the mother of Jesus, as named in the infallible, God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, not the mother of God as decided by a fallible council of men sometime, somewhere.
“Mary was the mother of Jesus. She is not the mother of God.”
So you’re saying Jesus isn’t God.
Are you denying Jesus is the Lord? Are you denying Jesus is God?
Thanks, I read that blogspot you sent me to. It is not DA Carson's site, but it IS a quote from his work on Matthew 16. Problem is context is everything and I noted your link did not give the context. So here it is:
FEW PASSAGES IN THE Synoptic Gospels have been more disputed in the history of the church than Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and its aftermath (Matt. 16:13-28). Here we may venture only three reflections:
(1) Judging by his response, Jesus sees this confession as a significant advance, achieved by revelation from the Father (16:17). But that does not mean that before this point Peter had no inkling that Jesus is the Messiah. Nor does it mean that he understood “Messiah” in the full-fledged, Christian sense associated with the word after Jesus’ death and resurrection. At this point, quite clearly, Peter was prepared to accept Jesus as Israel’s King, the Anointed One from the Davidic line, but he had no idea that he must be simultaneously Davidic king and suffering Servant, as the ensuing verses show. Both Peter’s understanding and his faith were maturing, but still painfully lacking. Part of Peter’s coming to full Christian faith on these matters depended absolutely on waiting for the next major redemptive-historical appointment: the cross and the resurrection.
(2) Jesus’ words, “[Y]ou are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (16:18), have been taken to be the foundation of the Roman Catholic papacy. Even on the most sympathetic reading, however, it is difficult to see how this passage says anything about passing on a Petrine precedence, still less about gradually developing and enhancing the papacy until in 1870 the doctrine of papal infallibility was promulgated. Offended by such extravagant claims, many Protestants have offered exegeses equally unbelievable. Perhaps Jesus said, “You are Peter” (pointing to Peter) “and on this rock I will build my church” (pointing to himself). Or perhaps the “rock” on which the church is built is not Peter, but Peter’s confession—which scarcely accounts for the pun in Greek: “you are petros and on this petra.”
(3) It is better to see that Peter really does have a certain primacy—what has been called “a salvation-historical primacy.” He was the first to see certain things, the leader gifted by God in the first steps of organization and evangelism after the resurrection (as Acts makes clear). But not only was this leadership bound up with Peter’s unique role in redemptive history (so unique that it could not, in the nature of the case, be passed on), but the gospel authority extended to him (16:18-19) is extended to all the apostles (18:18). This is what we should expect: elsewhere we are told that the church is built on the foundation of prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, italics added). As the ancient formula puts it, Peter was primus inter pares—first among equals.
This is what is called "honest exegesis." Then we only need to take what DA Carson wrote above and look at the NT scriptural evidence for such.
“We were discussing your use of incorrect lexicon.”
No, we were not. You said it was incorrect. It is not.
“Sounds like Oneness theology to me.”
How long have you been hearing impaired?
“The discussion is really about who MARY is, not about who Jesus is.”
Jesus is God. Mary is His mother. Mary is the mother of God.
“Offended by such extravagant claims, many Protestants have offered exegeses equally unbelievable. Perhaps Jesus said, “You are Peter” (pointing to Peter) “and on this rock I will build my church” (pointing to himself). Or perhaps the “rock” on which the church is built is not Peter, but Peter’s confession—which scarcely accounts for the pun in Greek: “you are petros and on this petra.””
That was the point. DA Carson - a Protestants - says all Protestants who believe Peter IS NOT THE ROCK are wrong. Whether or not Carson believes orthodox beliefs about the papacy is immaterial. Which Protestant sola scripturist is right on Peter and the Rock - you or Carson?
Thomas Jefferson stripped out the miraculous from the Bible, which means he subtracted and in danger of the plagues mentioned in Revelation. I have neither subtracted a jot or tittle. However, the same warning is for those ADD to scriptures. So what you call an "incomplete picture of Mary" I point you to show the scriptural evidence where I do so. I am neither adding nor subtracting.
Jesus was fully God and fully man. If He wasn’t fully man He wouldn’t have been able to be the representative man. God was not born nor did God die. Catholics among others don’t seem to understand that.
Your feeble attempts to deflect from answering scripture is sad. I can understand the Catholic’s fear of Sola Scriptura. Their beliefs are not based on scripture but on the construct of a man made religion. It’s no different than Mormons, Muslims, and others who claim that scripture needed additions.
But what did Jesus say about his mother?
Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?Pointing to his disciples, he said,Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.
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.