Every time someone uses Martin Luther to justify their argument, score 1,000 point be being the first to call it out!
... I've scored 2,000 points on this thread alone! Thanks NK!
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.
Kolokotronis,
Absolutely a wonderful prayer. I believe in staying close to the cross to confess sin.
There are many others, such as the admonition to pray about everything.
“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” Philippians 4:6
kind regards
As the Word is established the burden is upon the one questioning the authenticity of the Word.
“I post the truth. If you can’t handle the truth that’s your problem, not mine. Try reading the words of the founder of your “faith”. His name was Martin Luther, “
Martin Luther Living in Your Head Rent-Free Placemarker!
That is called begging the question. The word isn’t established until you show how it’s established. The way Peter says you need to be ready to do.
Every time someone uses Martin Luther to justify their argument, score 1,000 point be being the first to call it out!
... I've scored 2,000 points on this thread alone! Thanks NK!
“From one isolated verse in john catholics have built up Mary into a goddess status not even closely resembling her role in the Word.”
There is no isolated verse in the Bible. And nothing we believe about Mary build her up to a “goddess status”.
“Catholics pray to Mary in contradiction of the Word;”
There’s nothing the Bible which says we can not ask for the intercession of saints.
“they have erected idols of her in their churches which they kneel before and pray to in contradiction of the Word.”
We do not pray to statues. Nor are our statues idols.
“They’ve elevated her role, by some writers, to essentially telling Jesus what to do and He does it.”
And out of love Jesus might do much His mother asks of Him, but He is Lord and she is not.
“If all that isn’t worship then Catholics are totally blind in this issue.”
Well, seeing how you literally had to make up false hoods -
as I just pointed out - just to get to this last false point no one should take it seriously. It is not we who are blind. Someone who is blind would resort to lying. Who has done that here? Certainly not I.
“They cannot offer one clear text from the NT that ever accords Mary any of these attributes. Not one.”
Oh, so now it’s a “clear” text? Before it was “not even closely resembling her role in the Word.” Those who choose bigotry always move the goal posts whenever it suits them.
In fact you've already taken off the table the ability to use the Bible for its defense.
You seem to take pride in being the "major domo Romanist" on this board as you have this posted on your home page.
This being the case I don't have the time to prove something to you you've already rejected.
If you don't believe God's Word is the final authority against which all teachings should be measured, then I cannot help you.
You may recall, our pleasant conversation started in #165 when you noted "without the immaculate conception, your redemption is bogus"
To which I replied that the Bible disagrees with you and listed a couple of verses to support this position.
I later asked could you show clearly in the text where it says Mary was immaculately conceived and believing that is a pre-condition for being saved to which your reply was in #180 the eloquent "heck no-and so what?.
As noted earlier, I answered your question back on #192. To which I put a question to you to which you've not answered. But I let that go figuring you couldn't answer the question without kicking the legs out from catholicism.
I also asked you a question in post #182 to which you never replied, but I'll repost for conversation:
So if your priest comes along and says you must stand on your head to be saved.....you gonna believe it?
As you've offered zero substantiation for any of your assertions and will not or cannot answer my questions I bid you a good evening.
Enjoyed chatting with you.
“As you’ve offered zero substantiation for any of your assertions and will not or cannot answer my questions I bid you a good evening.”
This is why I remain suspicious of Romulans... plus the whole cloaking thing.
God-breathed wasn't getting the job done. Imagine that. Thank goodness The Almighty got the help He needed.
Cordially,
There is no isolated verse in the Bible. And nothing we believe about Mary build her up to a “goddess status”.
It's the one verse catholics cite to justify their false teaching on Mary telling Jesus what to do. What makes it isolated is that Catholicism has isolated it out of context in John and the NT to make it say something it doesn't.
You may not recognize your idolatry, but others do.
There’s nothing the Bible which says we can not ask for the intercession of saints.
Oh, but there is. We have no record of Paul, Peter (you remember Peter don't you?), James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc ever praying to departed Christians.
We never see in any of John's writings an admission to pray to Mary. And recall, he was entrusted with her care. In fact, after John 2 I don't think he even mentions her again....and in this passage he only referred to her as the mother of Jesus....not the mother of God.
When Jesus' disciples asked Him to teach them to pray, did He include His mom in the prayer? Nope.
So there is nothing in the NT giving the ok to pray to the departed Christians.
>>“they have erected idols of her in their churches which they kneel before and pray to in contradiction of the Word.”<<
We do not pray to statues. Nor are our statues idols.
Then I guess all of the other statues around the world in pagan religions are not idols?? If I figure out how to post pictures on FR I'll be glad to show you pictures of catholics kneeling before statues of Mary praying the Rosary.
>>“They’ve elevated her role, by some writers, to essentially telling Jesus what to do and He does it.”<<
And out of love Jesus might do much His mother asks of Him, but He is Lord and she is not.
And we have one verse out of the entire New Testament where this happened. He did this in this one situation as He is a Good Son.
However, in some catholic writings we're told if we can't get what we want from Christ we should go to Mary instead!
According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173
But what...there's more!
Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God.Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary's work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God. - THE SECRET OF MARY, St. Louis de Montfort; http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/SECRET.HTM
There is nothing in the NT that supports this false teaching. Nothing.
We may recall that when the magi came the fell down and worshipped Him only. No kneeling before Mary. No praying to her.
>>“If all that isn’t worship then Catholics are totally blind in this issue.”<,
Well, seeing how you literally had to make up false hoods - as I just pointed out - just to get to this last false point no one should take it seriously. It is not we who are blind. Someone who is blind would resort to lying. Who has done that here? Certainly not I.
From your vantage point you cannot see the false hoods. From those looking on and comparing the catholic action towards Mary with practices from pagan religions the similarity is glaring.
But to be clear:
Do catholics pray to Mary? check.
Do catholics have statues of Mary? check.
Do catholics kneel before Mary? check.
Sure has all of the hallmarks of worship. Must be worship everywhere else but catholicism. The mere fact that roman Catholicism has had to redefine the "levels" of worship speaks volumes.
>>“They cannot offer one clear text from the NT that ever accords Mary any of these attributes. Not one.”<<
Oh, so now it’s a “clear” text? Before it was “not even closely resembling her role in the Word.” Those who choose bigotry always move the goal posts whenever it suits them.
And that you've chose to reply in this manner only confirms what I'm saying. For if you could have posted the verse, I'm quite confident you would have.
And we won't even get into the proposed Fifth Marian dogma currently being circulated for approval.
Not according to the Apostle Paul famously included in the 'Catholic' book called the Bible. Gal 1:8. You've chosen to take the word of your hierarchy. That's one option.
God says so. If you don't read the Gospel or hear it, not much hope.
What 'Christians'?
Ok, let’s play your little “bible” semantics game, which is common among the Prots.
Where in the Bible did God, the Father, give Jesus the title of “God”?
“And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Luther was nuts. That’s common knowledge.
Remember, anti-Catholics must always resort to lying. In general, anti-Catholics distort, misrepresent, and pretend that one thing is another.
You wrote:
“If I figure out how to post pictures on FR I’ll be glad to show you pictures of catholics kneeling before statues of Mary praying the Rosary.”
And yet none of them are worshiping the statue - which was your earlier claim. I’ve known Protestants to pray before caskets are funerals. Does that mean they are worshiping the deceased?
“When Jesus’ disciples asked Him to teach them to pray, did He include His mom in the prayer? Nope.”
Was Mary in Heaven at that time? Nope. Thus, you have no point at all.
And then we see that anti-Catholics - hating genuine scholarship and often being poorly read - rely entirely on anti-Catholic websites for their information. In this case, most likely this one: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ptds.html
You wrote:
“According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), ... Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173”
And then we see that there is no such book. The title actually is, Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and Their Readers.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27870498?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents So, first we see that the anti-Catholic is too stupid to get the title right. Then we see that there is an ellipse in the quote in Taylor’s book. Then we see that the anti-Catholic cuts out a key phrase that is the original author’s explanation for his belief. After all truth and accuracy don’t matter to the anti-Catholic. And I know that this is the case because I just looked at the page in question.
And even with all of that, it has to be said, it doesn’t matter what Eadmer wrote. It was just his opinion. And almost no Catholic today has ever heard of him let alone been affected by his beliefs.
But, of course, the fact that the quote means nothing, is deliberately cut, and is mislabeled as to its source, none of that will stop you from posting it over and over again: http://209.157.64.200/focus/religion/3281253/replies?c=144
The anti-Catholic doesn’t care about the truth.
“Ok, let’s play your little “bible” semantics game, which is common among the Prots.”
After reading posts from you and some of the others in your denomination today, I now know what “Catholic bashing” means.
Apparently, it involves including one or more ad hominems against Christian you post to.
Thankfully, lightening is not a worry when you’re well grounded :-)
Best.
What does that have to do with the question I asked you?
Mary conceived Jesus in her womb.
Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, who has existed from eternity.
Jesus is one Person.
Thus, Mary is the mother of a person who is both man and God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Because Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, and Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity.
Since the Second Person of the Trinity is God, it is correct to say that Mary is the Mother of God.
There is no equivocation occurring in the following syllogism:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of God.
The word “God” has exactly the same meaning in the second and third propositions: the Second Person of the Trinity.
The word “mother” has exactly the same meaning in the first and third propositions: ...one who conceived in her womb and gave birth to...
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.