Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
You persist in railing against an assertion that NO ONE, EVER, EVER, EVER has made. Namely, that Mary pre-existed God the Son. Only an idiot would think that.
Mary conceived God the Son in her womb, and bore him. This makes her his mother. These events occurred in time, approximately 2,016 years ago.
Because Mary has a son who is God, Mary is the mother of God. God the Father is not Mary’s son, so Mary is NOT the mother of God the Father. God the Holy Spirit is not Mary’s son, so she is NOT the mother of God the Holy Spirit.
God the Son is Mary’s son, so she is the mother of God the Son. This makes the following statement true: Mary is the mother of God.
If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, then you NECESSARILY deny that her Son is God. I.e., you necessarily deny that her son, Jesus Christ, is God.
-— Now wait a minute, youi just said taht giving birth to Jesus wasn’t remarkable. -—
Yes, in the sense that the claim that Mary gave birth to a son would not be rejected by... anyone.
What is remarkable about Jesus’ birth is that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity.
Mary, “Mother of God,” emphasizes Jesus’ divine nature.
Pretty simple.
Did Mary conceive God the Father in her womb, and give birth to him? Did Mary conceive God the Holy Spirit in her womb, and give birth to him?
As those two questions make clear, only a person who knows LITERALLY NOTHING about Christianity could fall into the error you are concerned about. Obviously, the proper response to total ignorance of Christianity is instruction in Christian dogma.
I said spirit not Holy Spirit... try to keep up. The Holy spirit is the Third person of the Trinity.
How could a woman conceive a divine Person in her womb, and give birth to him?
Heck if I know! But it’s a dogma of the Christian Faith that she did so.
The Second Person of the Trinity has existed from eternity. Mary became his mother WHEN SHE CONCEIVED HIM IN HER WOMB as a man. It was at that instant that he BECAME MAN.
The title “mother of God” has NEVER meant that Mary was in some way the the ETERNAL origin of the ETERNAL WORD. God the Father is the eternal begetter of the Eternal Word, God the Son.
So, railing against the notion that Mary existed eternally is to rail against an idiotic idea that no Christian has ever held.
Usually if someone uses the term God it is considered as God the Father unless further qualified.
It’s one of the subtleties of Catholicism to call Mary the mother of God.
It helps deify her as the Queen of Heaven and the Forever Virgin sinless One
They know that. They cannot bring themselves to admit that the Catholic teaching on this is exactly what they believe, so they keep trying to change Catholic doctrine so they can disagree with it. Contrarians all.
Love,
O2
So why not use the Biblical term and call Him Jesus?
Seems a lot simpler and that is the way the Holy Bible likes it.
Jesus came so that you could have life, and life more abundantly.
Take up your cross and follow him.
I don't think "they" want to change Catholic doctrine one bit.
Catholicism does that enough on its own. Changing adding etc.
Rather they would have you learn about the Gospel of Christ as presented in the Bible.
Where does Scripture say that there is to be no reflection, no deepening of understanding of the Faith, no increase of understanding of the IMPLICATIONS of the Faith?
Scripture nowhere COMMANDS that we slavishly use ONLY the phrases that occur in Scripture. Jesus himself tells the apostles that the Spirit will tell them what to say in the future. Note that Jesus doesn’t say, “Just keep repeating EXACTLY the words and phrases that I spoke to you.” No. He says the Spirit would give them NEW THINGS to say.
You have certainly taken quite a liberal position on what I said and expressed it as what you wanted it to mean. Your interpretation is wrong.
So I have no comment.
Hoss
This may answer the question you are asking:
Matthew 2:23 from the OJB (Orthodox Jewish Bible):
And Yosef [ben Dovid] made his home in the shtetl (Jewish village) called Natzeret, so that which was spoken by the Neviim might be fulfilled: He will be called a Natzri [i.e., Moshiach the Netzer,Tzemach, Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; Isa 53:2; Zech 6:11-12].
Netzer is a “branch”. The Messiah is called the branch. From Isaiah 11:1 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:”
I thought I was simply answering your question! I.e., your question was: Why use phrases or titles that aren’t in Scripture?
My answer was: Because there can be progress in our appreciation of what has been revealed.
Pssst:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
It’s one of the subtleties of Catholicism to call Mary the mother of God.
It helps deify her as the Queen of Heaven and the Forever Virgin sinless One
I agree....it's a further elevation of Mary. The title "mother of God" carries way to much implication that God has been created and not eternal.
The last paragraph really goes beyond what anyone would ever contemplate.
The catholic would do well to continue acknowledging Mary as the mother of Jesus, or the Son of God.
Anything more leads to writings such as this that have not been denied by the Vatican.
Let us now spend a few moments in contemplating the glory of the Blessed Virgin. Jesus is the King of heaven; Mary is the Queen. She certainly comes next to Jesus in dignity and merit, and her glory is, therefore, next to His in splendor and magnificence.
She is the woman of whom the beloved disciple speaks when he says: "And a great wonder appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."* This certainly expresses the highest glory and splendor imaginable. Human words can say nothing more; for our highest ideas of glory are borrowed from those beautiful worlds that shine above us in the blue ether.
On her bosom she wears a jewel of unsurpassed splendor, whereon are written her three singular privileges. These are Immaculate, Mother of God, Virgin. These are high privileges which she alone enjoys, and which single her out at once as the Queen of angels and of men. The Eternal, by assuming flesh from her, united her to Himself by a bond of intimacy which is second only to that of the Hypostatic Union. He shed His own bright glory around her, and enthroned her at the right hand of Jesus. The Almighty Father looks upon her with complacency, as his own beloved daughter, faultless in beauty and every other perfection.
The Holy Ghost calls her His own spotless and faithful Spouse, over whom the breath of sin never passed; while Jesus who, in all His glory, is still flesh of her flesh, and bone of her bone, calls her his own sweet and loving Mother. Can we conceive any greater glory unless it be that of the Hypostatic Union?
http://biblehub.com/library/boudreaux/the_happiness_of_heaven/chapter_xvi_the_glory_of.htm
Of course.
SOP.
I’m not arguing against an assertion “nobody has made” but against the illogic of your syllogism.
When a person dies, their FLESH dies.
Their soul is still alive and goes either to heaven or Hades to wait until it is thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Or are you another Catholics who believes that when Jesus died, GOD died? Did the second person of the Trinity die when His body died?
I don't see where we get "new things" in any of these verses.
26“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26 NASB
6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 1 Corinthians 4:6 NASB
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31 NASB
If the Word is insufficient, as you appear to be suggesting, then it opens the door for the Mormon to use the Book of Mormon. Or the Muslim to use the Koran.
There has to be a standard...a canon if you will, for the church to measure all things. Much as the Bereans did.
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.