Posted on 01/24/2015 3:23:43 PM PST by NYer
Nope because for one thing, the sin nature comes through the father.
The other thing, which Catholics don't even seem to consider, is that if God could do it for Mary being born of sinful parents, then He could do it for Jesus being born of a sinful mother.
Where has that been expressed?
Please provide the post number.
How is sticking to Scripture rejecting it?
This is what Scripture says about Mary.
Where is the term *mother of GOD* ever found in it?
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
It is the Holy Spirit who teaches and reveals to us Jesus Christ, who if we are In Him, along with the written Word of God, guides us into the truths we need to know about Jesus. ..He is faithful to do so and thereby keeping His promise it would be so.
Jesus spoke to His Disciples saying...
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into ‘all’ the truth;.... for He will not speak on His own initiative,... but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. ...”He will glorify Me, for.....””” He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.”””...John 16
And again in John 14......
.." the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you 'all things' and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
And further...
.."the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."....... 1 Corinthians 2
Place maker
I like the english name Joshua..
It allowed me to see how that is the true English transliteration of the hebrew Aramaic name for the Messiah instead of having to jump into Greek/roman Latin/ transliterations like those translators did with such ease in those two places , quickly deleting the name Jesus for the english name..
I speak English,, not Greek or Latin... (unlike Rome) so it is a welcome thing to see the English name that is prevalent in the old testament for the Hebrew Messiah make its way into the english new testament..
There is some harmony with the high priest Joshua or the Hebrew general Joshua leading Israel into the promised land like Joshua the Messiah will do.
It isn’t an issue with anyone without a concordance or without an early print bible that keeps the name ‘Jesus’ in those two places..
In fact, it would seem like a nothing kind of thing except to someone who was testing and proving ALL things Rome says and does..
And it made me wonder how a Torah observant Hebrew mother named ‘Mary’ would come down here and lie and than point to a Greco roman Latin name for her son when she knew what His real name is.. and she used a name that didn’t exist while she walked the earth..
But again, I was testing from a disproving Mary and Rome point and not from a place trying to reinforce my deeply held faith and beliefs that that Mary confirms in the name Jesus..
I am glad the name Joshua made its way into the newer new testaments.. it wasn’t in my 1599 Geneva bible, certainly not a pro catholic bible edition.
The Joshua of the old testament was a shadow for the new testament Joshua.. the Messiah of Israel.
The beauty of a good counterfeit is the words are not going to be different.. they will look exactly like the genuine.. they will not have different sizes like monopoly money..
The deeds and actions are no different with the Jesus in christendom or the Joshua outside of Christendom..
But the worship is...
And imagine Satan counterfeiting and having his own savior that does nothing but hides the True Messiah from the world..causing the world to actually worship the enemy all the while proclaiming to be God himself.. just one big lie..
I don’t have to imagine it.. I see it in Christendom..
You don’t... we will see at some point..
I don’t have any problem seeing the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist nor seeing the Greco roman Latin Jesus they have created thanks to traditions, as the Antichrist.. a substitute, instead of, in place of, just like my concordance says is possible with the Greek word anti...
That is why I went to study how the name Jesus could be expplained away..
and those two scriptures did it... not something someone would search out unless they are trying to see why the name Jesus is so important to Rome and their mary...
It’s NOT the name. It’s what they teach ABOUT Him. If you can’t see the difference I’m really not interested in continuing this. Whether we call Him Jesus, Joshua, or Emmanuel doesn’t matter as it all comes from scripture. It’s what we teach ABOUT Him and WHO He is.
You can't. either Mary is mother of Jesus, God with us, or she is the mother of GOD, making her deity and making God less than God but giving Him a beginning.
Calling Mary *mother of God* dismisses His humanity and diminishes the Incarnation.
Why do you argue and dismiss the honor and love that we all feel for the Mother of God?
I don't care what you FEEL about Mary. That's your business.
However, when it comes to teaching false things about her and thereby Jesus and God, that's another matter.
NO IT ISN"T and I think you have been shown that before. In no way can the word kecharitomene be made to mean "full of grace".
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Wow. I don’t know how to break this to you gently, but...you are not a Christian.
The risen Jesus showed Thomas the holes in his hands and feet, and the wound in his side. The risen Christ was the same man who hung on the cross, lived in Nazareth, and was born in Bethlehem.
I hope and pray that you will eventually become a Christian.
I am not evading the issue. The Holy Spirit does not refer to Mary as “mother of God.” I know that. Scripture refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus. My question is whether you agree that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. A question which neither of you seems willing to answer. I think I know why. To disagree would be saying that Jesus is not our Lord and Savior. To agree would mean that Mary is the mother of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, God the Son, the Word made flesh, the Messiah (God with us). You have both made it clear that you do not believe that. This is a conundrum for me. I do not understand how Jesus, the son of Mary in human form, can be separated from Jesus, the Son of God. Let me ask this. Do you believe that God the Son, at the behest of His Father, allowed Himself to be breathed into a young girl by the Holy Spirit, so that he could lower Himself to become human in form, given the name Jesus, and suffer and die on a cross to redeem us from our sins? How difficult is that to believe? Is it that much more difficult to believe that God the Son, as Jesus, would have that girl as His mother while on earth?
Wow!! Playing your roll as God now?
Discuss the issues, do not make it personal.
Mind reading is a form of making it personal.
None of which makes Mary the "mother of God". I think you have twisted and turned this issue about enough. The term "mother of God" is deceitful and attempts to conjure up a wrong image. It was NOT used by the Holy Spirit and I would suggest you not second guess His word choices.
When Jesus talked to Thomas, Jesus didn't have any blood...And his flesh was not as our human flesh...
You don't believe Jesus died on the Cross???
And you know that how?
You don't believe Jesus died on the Cross???
Relevance?
Son of GOD is found; "GOD's only son" is found; but Mary's child?
Not so much.
It doesn't make it true or right.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
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.