500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

Catholic Analysis ^ | 7 June 2014 | Philipp Rogall

[af_vet_1981]

I believe the TRUTH that the "gates of hell" have not, nor will they ever, prevail against those who are members of Christ's body. Gates, BTW, don't DO anything but keep out or keep in something. These gates cannot come and drag someone out of Christ's body and they cannot prevent one who they are keeping in from being taken out to believe the Gospel and become part of Christ's body. The Catholic church, on the other hand, is not that body of Christ - it can't be because not everyone within it is saved, whereas, those who are IN Christ ARE saved and will never be cast away back into hell. Catholic theology has misapplied Jesus' words to claim they are THE church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against even though history has shown time and again that they HAVE done wrong, taught error, been led by depraved men and entertained hell within the very walls of the Vatican. Once you understand Jesus' point, you will see this is the right way to apply that passage. There was no need to "re-form" the true church because the true church (God's spiritual building) is going to ALWAYS be the buttress and support of the truth - no matter what organizational names they may use. The truth will NEVER be lost, forgotten or revised.

It seems to me that your entire ecclesiological theology is complete focused on being antiCatholic. It is what defines your brand of Christianity. You have no physical, real, genuine, church to proffer as a replacement for the Catholic Church. At least the Fundamental Baptists (usually) proffer up themselves as a real physical example of the holy catholic apostolic church with that succession from the First Century until now; or at least they used to teach that; of course Westboro Baptist Church is one of those churches and all fundamental New Testament churches are local and independent so all they could choose to do is not fellowship with it, barring some heresy which would make it not really what it said it was.

Is that what you believe or are you really one of those universal invisible body types who teach a church no one can see, with a history no one can read, with all things defined by the antiCatholic bogeyman ?

[Roos_Girl]

“mother of Jesus” is simply a description to let us know which Mary is being discussed. Otherwise it would be “Mary, the Mother of Jesus”, the word “mother” capitalized to show an important title. Smilar to Jesus, Son of Man. It’s like if there were three men named Steve and we wanted to differentiate them; Steve, with the blond hair; Steve, with the big nose; and Steve, with the tattoo.

[ealgeone]

Scripture is clear in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*

Amen to that!

[Tao Yin]

Iscool, you may be unfamiliar with the history of Theotokos (Mother of God) vs. Christokos (Mother of Christ).

The Chalcedonian Creed of 451 uses Theotokos. It clarifies Theotokos nicely.

born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood

[metmom]

Scripture says *mother of Jesus*.

The Holy Spirit clarifies who Mary is quite nicely.

[af_vet_1981]

The Holy Spirit clarifies who Mary is quite nicely.

And yet they deny it.

And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[verga]

ZIn Scripture, the Holy Spirit calls her *mother of Jesus*.

Scripture is clear in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.

Did the Holy Spirit not inspire these verses? L:uke 1:43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Syncro]

What would Jesus say to you about how you treated his mother at the moment of your death?

What would Jesus think if you were looking to Mary at the moment of your death instead of Him?

He will be there, Mary will not be there.

I certainly hope you, as a highly respected Catholic authority here at FR, do not get Catholics convinced that they need to see Mary as they pass from this life.

I also hope you do not believe, as some popes do, that Mary can give salvation.

[Religion Moderator]

Making the thread 'about' another Freeper is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Syncro]

OK

[BlueDragon]

it appears the bttt! exclamation mark and all, was just BTTB (bumped to the bottom)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3165205/posts?page=428#428

[Cronos]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree -- partially. The fact that the Church believed that doctrinal unity works.

Institutional monopoly as in the way the Orthodox did it after the fall of Constantinople or as the various CAtholic rites do it now, works imho. It ensures a trueness to doctrine rather than something like the Anglican communion

[Cronos]

The term "Mother of God" is a doctrine of Christianity -- remember that your mother is not your creator, neither was Jesus' mother His creator. On the contrary, the mother bears the child, a gift from the Creator, God. Mary was privileged to bear her Creator

Jesus was/is God. full-stop. Mary bore Him and was His mother, hence she was the bearer i.e. the mother of God

If you state therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body you are separating out Jesus the 100% man and Jesus the 100% God -- that is wrong. Jesus was fully man and fully God, both natures intertwined. If you say that she bore only His human nature, that means a sense of Adoptionism, as if you would state that Jesus the man was "possessed" by the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism

[Cronos]

To refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is to misunderstand the nature of Deity and misapply Scripture. -- wrong, as I said above, your mother did not create you, rather bore you from your creator. Ditto for my mother, everyone elses. Mary did not "create" Jesus, rather she was created by Him, so had the honor to bear her creator

[Cronos]

if you reject the term “Mother of God” what exactly do you call Mary? The mother of His human nature? Then did she bear only His human nature? What happened to His divine nature?

[Cronos]

eagleone referenced Mary....the mother of Jesus. Not the "mother of God".

So are you saying Jesus <> God?

[WilliamIII]

with institutional monopoly you get corruption like the bishops covering up for child molestors, shipping them from parish to parish without telling the unsuspecting congregations anything about the criminals who are being foisted on them. how much more corrupt would this institution be in a non-pluralistic society where it didn’t have to answer to any authority didn’t have to fear defections of the victimized faithful to other denominations.

[boatbums]

It seems to me that your entire ecclesiological theology is complete focused on being antiCatholic. It is what defines your brand of Christianity. You have no physical, real, genuine, church to proffer as a replacement for the Catholic Church. At least the Fundamental Baptists (usually) proffer up themselves as a real physical example of the holy catholic apostolic church with that succession from the First Century until now; or at least they used to teach that; of course Westboro Baptist Church is one of those churches and all fundamental New Testament churches are local and independent so all they could choose to do is not fellowship with it, barring some heresy which would make it not really what it said it was. Is that what you believe or are you really one of those universal invisible body types who teach a church no one can see, with a history no one can read, with all things defined by the antiCatholic bogeyman ?

It seems you are having a problem separating a discussion disputing claims Catholics are making on this thread with others stating why they are in disagreement with that conclusion. I didn't post this thread. A Roman Catholic did and most likely with the intent to provoke a reaction from those being attacked and which WAS an anti-Protestant article. You can't turn around and blame those who defend against such claims as doing so out of an anti-Catholic bias. Scold the one who keeps putting these discord causing threads - not those who won't sit by and not have a reply.

I've already explained plenty of times that there ARE real, physical, genuine churches (your Catechism calls them "eccesliastical communities") that CONTAIN those that are members of Christ's body. They may go by different names but what unites them is the rule of the Christian faith as it has always, everywhere and by all been believed and as spelled out in sacred Scripture. Everything that Jesus and His Apostles/disciples taught from the start is found within the Bible. God left nothing out pertaining to truth and Godliness. What binds believers together is the unity of the Spirit, the bond of love and saving faith in Jesus Christ. This body HAS been visible throughout ALL time and it is incredibly short-sighted, not to mention elitist, to assert it is ONLY found in one assembly that was started in Rome. There actually were MANY churches in Rome - it's a big city. The churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Colossi, Constantinople and others were no more or less visible congregations of Christians. What bound them together was the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

Maybe if you could think outside that box for once, you could start to grasp what MAKES a church a part of the Body of Christ. There's no need for a "replacement" church since the REAL body of Christ has always existed and spans nations, peoples, languages and time - all become one IN Christ Jesus.

[weston]

Mary was the mother of the physical body of Jesus. His spirit was God and exists eternally. No beginning or end. Mary is not God’s mother. She was created by God for God as a vessel for His purpose.