What's for dinner?
Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.
Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.
Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?
Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?
Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.
We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.
However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.
First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.
Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.
Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?
If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).
So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.
One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.
If you think that the fact that one of the terms in a syllogism is “God” makes an iota of difference to the validity of the syllogism, then you haven’t a scintilla of shadow of a clue what the science of Logic is about.
God wears a pink raincoat.
Everyone who wears a pink raincoat was born in Poughkeepsie.
God was born in Poughkeepsie.
Please answer this yes-or-no question:
Is the above syllogism valid or invalid?
LOL, whatever you say dude. The only thing I agree with you on, is that one of us is right. I am supremely confident, that I would rather take my chances with Jesus. You take your chances on "religion" if you like. That's on you. Remember, eternity will last much longer than anyone can EVER imagine, so you don't want to mess it up. Remember also, Jesus said unless one is born anew from above, he will NOT see Heaven. (John 3:3) I believe that means the vast majority of people will end up in a far warmer place than they wanted to. Such is life, as they say.
BTW, my catholic friends just left. They are definitely wiser now. 😀😃😆 I would say they are like the Bereans.
insomnia
(figured I'd answer it before you asked)
AHHHhhh...
Oh?
If this were REALLY so; she'd be mentioned all over the NT.
She is not.
Explain why they failed to record any of her earthly accomplishments.
Attack me; instead of explaining yourself.
Good tactic!
What's for dinner?
And this is ALL the bible has to say about her!
You'd think they'd see how well it has worked for Catholics; and FLOCK back to Rome's loving arms.
Strange birds; these Prots...
You keep saying we are clueless...
All are; for facts are irrelevant.
“somehow 2,000 years of following Christ with 1.4 BILLION members impresses me a little. “
If that is your standard of truth, perhaps you should switch to Hinduism. It been around almost 5,000 years. Just think how impressed you’d be as a Hindu!!!
In the religion of catholiciism, that religion asserts that the priest of the religion brings Jesus The Christ down from Heaven --at every Mass, everywhere on Earth, simultaneously-- to continuously sacrifice Him for the adherents to that religion, so they may EAT Jesus The Christ present in a wafer, 'really present' in that wafer in BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND divinity.
That A CATHOLIC refuses to SEE THE BLASPHEMY IN THIS CATHOLICIISM ASSERTION IS EVIDENCE OF A DEAD SOUL WITH NO HOLY SPIRIT IN THEM. And the Bible makes it quite clear why this is blasphemy when The Word states that Jesus died ONCE for ALL, forever and sat down at the Right Hand of God The Father in Heaven, and is not being continuously sacrificed on catholic altars world-wide continuously by a priesthood of earthy men. Jesus remains in Heaven and has told us He will return again, but is not returning to catholic pagan altars to be continuously sacrificed by earthy men performing a pagan ritual.
To hold this pagan ritual to be the means to get God in you, a catholic must ignore the clear Laws from Leviticus and ignore the TRUTH, that Jesus would not have His disciples eating His blood on the very night before He was going to give Himself the Ransom for the World, ONCE for ALL, forever. Jesus did not violate His own Laws for God is not double-minded, and Jesus even told the disciples to do this breaking of bread and drinking of the Passover Wine IN REMEMBRANCE of what He was about to accomplish ONCE for ALL, Forever. He even referred tot he cup contents at the Passover Seder as WINE and would not drink this fruit of the vine again until He drank it again with His disciples in the Kingdom. Jesus will not be drinking His blood in The Kingdom, but that reality must also be ignored in order to follow the blasphemous catholic trail of striving in that pagan religion. (See Luke's account of the Passover Seder, if you dare seek the Truth)
By continuing this blasphemous ritual of catholic Mass, believing the catholic priest sacrifices Jesus The Christ over and over and over again, catholics are lending their soul to the lie that God could not do ONCE for ALL and it be sufficient for the salvation of any who believe on Jesus The Christ. And yet Jesus even gave these poor catholics a huge clue in teaching Nicodemus that the brass snake, one snake image on a pole, was sufficient for ANY WHO even looked at the brass snake, to heal their poisonous snake bites.
Elsie, this current brood of vipers refuse to learn from Jesus Himself as recorded in John's Gospel for their edification regarding salvation by faith, and only by faithing in Jesus. So they continue to pridefully follow the sacrament trail laid out by the earthy men of the magicsteeringthem, asserting with every attendance at the catholic Mass that they can eat Jesus The Christ to get God's Life in them. And they wonder why we oppose their pretend Christianity, their 'other gospel' religion known as catholiciism!
Why does God need a raincoat and why does it need to be pink?
As revealed in Holy Scriptures your proposition is once again incomplete. For we know:
Deuteronomy 11:14
...that He will give the rain for your land in its season, the early and late rain, that you may gather in your grain and your new wine and your oil.
Job 5:10
"He gives rain on the earth And sends water on the fields,
I believe it was Socrates who said we must have all the particulars before engaging in discussion. The 'particular' missing from each of your propositions is the fact that God is the uncreated Creator. And in this most recent case, God causes it to rain and there is no evidence Jesus ever wore a pink raincoat.
Perhaps Arthur, perhaps. However, what I present is what is revealed of the Great Logos. Without getting Logos right, logic is silly business.
1 Cor 2:14 animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei stultitia est enim illi et non potest intellegere quia spiritaliter examinatur
It was a yes-or-no question.
Baloney.
Jesus Himself settled that issue. Is Jesus' word on it not enough for you?
And yes, we have a claim to say that Mary mother of God* is not correct because the Holy Spirit referred to her as *Mary, the mother of JESUS*. It takes a lot of chutzpah on the part of arrogant man to presume to change the word of God because they thought the Holy Spirit didn't do a good enough job in inspiring Scripture to be clear enough.
Nonsense, again. The Trinity is woven throughout Scripture, in the OT and the New.
Mary is referred to as mother of JESUS in THREE places in Scripture and as *mother of GOD* in exactly none.
Show us where the Holy Spirit referred to Mary as *mother of GOD* and the argument is settled.
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.