Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
If you actually read through that article, which I have no doubt you may have, you can see the error in calling Mary the “mother of God”. The Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers to write “mother of God” for a reason. I hope you noticed the pagan origin of the term “mother of god”. That will give you insight to how many of the things that are done and taught by the Catholic Church entered into that religion.
.
>> “. But Mary did give birth to the second person of the Trinity in Christ Jesus.” <<
.
No!!!
That statement is a sophistry. The second person of the trinity, the Logos, existed eternally, thus long before she gave birth to the human boy that his spirit had entered.
The desire for a sinful human to be the parent of God is as vile as any human thought can possibly be.
.
There was no single person with the title pope until the 11th century. Anybody who desires truth can simply do a little internet search on the history of the title pope and see that for themselves.
I did read through the article, and found reasons put forth that I haven’t seen before. The discussion in David was quite interesting. It has given me a greater understanding of how it can be said that Mary is not the mother of God. As I mentioned, I found apologetics on both sides of the issue and can also see how it can be said that Mary is the mother of God. It is a discussion that has been going on for 17 to 18 centuries and likely will continue until Jesus comes again.
Calling Mary the “mother of God” is a gross error. It does not originate in scripture and is of pagan origin as are many of the beliefs and rituals of Catholicism.
>> “. But Mary did give birth to the second person of the Trinity in Christ Jesus.” <<
No!!!
That statement is a sophistry. The second person of the trinity, the Logos, existed eternally, thus long before she gave birth to the human boy that his spirit had entered.
The desire for a sinful human to be the parent of God is as vile as any human thought can possibly be.
It wasn’t that Mary desired to be the parent of God. She was troubled by the visit from Gabriel and did not understand how it could be. She most likely would have been quite content to become married to Joseph and have his children. But it was the will of the Father that Mary would be the bearer of the “Word made flesh.” That is why He sent Gabriel to tell her that she would bear a child that she is to name Jesus, and the child to be born will be called the Son of God. And Mary’s response was that she is the handmaid of the Lord, may it be done to her according to his word.
You wrote that she gave birth to the human boy (flesh) that his spirit (Word) had entered. Is this the same as saying that she gave birth to the spirit made the human boy, as in the Word made flesh, and as such can rightly be called the mother of God?
There are apologetics that make a good case that it cannot be said that Mary is the mother of God.
There are apologetics that make a good case that it can be said that Mary is the mother of God.
This is a point of contention over which there will continue to disagreement on this forum. After the discussion on this thread, I more clearly understand the reasoning behind both positions.
Peace
Let me ask a different way...
What made the earth to become ‘waste and void’ as Torah say?
Did He create perfect or waste and void?
The Hebrew in Genesis denotes some sort of time consuming event occurred before Light..
Another question.. where does it say in scripture that holy convocations can occur on work days?
The verses I see say no work is to be done..
I know you truly believe that calling Mary the “mother of God” is a gross error, and I won’t further torment you about it.
I will leave you with this statement:
There are apologetics that make a good case that it cannot be said that Mary is the mother of God.
There are apologetics that make a good case that it can be said that Mary is the mother of God.
This is a point of contention over which there will continue to disagreement on this forum. After our discussions on this thread, I more clearly understand the reasoning behind both positions.
Peace
Are you deliberately acting dense?
I didn’t say that Mary desired to be the parent of God.
I said that for any other person to desire her to be “a parent of God” is as vile as any human thought can possibly be.
It is obviously impossible for anyone or thing to be a parent of God.
.
.
The Earth didn’t “become” without form and void.
It was a part of the creation process described in Genesis for a large (two light-year diameter) sphere of water to exist, without form and void, before forms were created.
.
Your foolish question is just another attempt to change the word of God, IMO.
Please do not attempt to engage me in pharisaical manipulations of the word.
.
.
>> “where does it say in scripture that holy convocations can occur on work days?” <<
.
In Leviticus, where the method of determining the times of those convocations is given.
Each of those days, except for Shavuot, is capable of falling either on a Sabbath, or on a regular day.
Shavuot can only fall on the first day of the week, since it is determined by counting the seven Sabbaths, making it the 50th day (thus “Pentecost”)
It is Shavuot that best demonstrates that what you have said is total nonsense.
.
.
There are “apologetics” that make a case that Lucifer (Satan) is an “Angel of Light,” and the “Brother of Yeshua.”
Pick your Poison!!!
.
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn’t deliberately being dense.
Scripture tells us in Luke 1 that it was God himself who desired that Mary be the mother of Jesus. He sent the angel Gabriel to tell Mary that she will bear a son, and that she is to call him Jesus. Gabriel further said that this holy child to be born will be called the Son of God.
Scripture also tells us in John 1 that the Word was God, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and that John the Baptist testified that this Word that became flesh was Jesus, the Son of God.
I agree that it is impossible for anyone to be a parent of God, our Father who art in heaven.
But God lowered himself to become flesh in the person of Jesus, the Son of God. So from Scripture alone, it can be said that the woman who gave birth to God incarnate in the person of Jesus, the Son of God, can be called the mother of God while he was in the flesh.
.
I think you answered your own question, but have not yet accepted that answer.
Since you know that the Logos exists eternally, Mary cannot be called “the mother of God.”
That is an ancient pagan term applied to Easter, and its use is evil at its root.
.
if your kids caall you daddy, and you find that it is the first time kids have called their father daddy..
does that mean that Adam was not the daddy of Cain and Abel???????????????????????????titles can be retroactive...
ROFL!!!! That was lame.
Siricius...Papa Siricius(papa=pope) 384-399AD
Next????
Give it a break dude. Every bishop of the time was called that. Those with good reading comprehension would have seen that I said “no SINGLE head of the church was called pope”.
Close enough for government work...or FR.
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.