Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Irrelevant. Christianity is in question here. The teachings are in question.
Can a woman be the physical mother of someone who pre-existed her?
Yes, the only person I know where this is so is Mary. This is because God does not exist in time. So saying that He existed before Mary conceived Him is inaccurate. Time has no meaning to the God who created all of the beginning and ending of creation in a single act. Once again, the Motherhood of Mary does not make her the sole author of the existence of Jesus. Motherhood does not imply sole authorship to begin with.
Argue the points or leave the discussion.
I'll post when and where I like. Arrogance like your will usually draw criticism.
I did not claim to be without sin.
Grammar errors are a sin?
Those who deny Mary the title "Mother of God" necessarily deny that Jesus Christ is one divine Person, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. They will say, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of God." And if you let them talk a little while, sure enough, they start digging the hole deeper and deeper, talking about Jesus and God the Son as two distinct persons or two distinct beings. They have done so many times in history, and here on FR.
Have you put the Holy Spirit on notice about His short comings in inspiring Scripture?
Are you going to accuse Him of heresy as well?
Come on, who are you kidding when you think that Jesus was not the reference to the person in the womb of Mary?
Of course it was in reference to Jesus!
It does imply diminished deity and a deification of Mary.
No it doesn't, that's not what motherhood means.
I've posted links and text that show that more than one Catholic pope has decreed those things true.
Not to mention that salvation can come from Mary, with nary a word about including Jesus.
Now there is your heretical anti Christian bigotry, from the esteemed fathers of the Catholic Church.
“Esteemed,” similar to Bill Clinton being the esteemed respected loved Elder Statesman of the democrats.
Do you believe in the Trinity?
If Yes, does that mean the Holy Spirit dropped the ball?
No. It does not.
So then, you're saying that God has flesh?
If being the mother of Jesus flesh makes her the mother of God, then you just backed yourself into a corner that you cannot get out of.
You have effectively said that God has a flesh body and came into existence when Mary conceived Jesus and that the body of flesh she gave birth to IS God.
Other Catholics have done that by denying His Word as being the Truth.
Why is *mother of Jesus* not good enough?
Did the Holy spirit inspire Scripture inadequately?
That corner is quite full.
I think you worship the Protestant interpretation of the Bible as translated in the KJV
So the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to Presbyterians, Methodists, and Born Againers etc.?
And you can prove that assertion just how?
Or are we to take your say so?
Because that is completely unremarkable.
The point is to emphasize that Jesus has a divine (as well as human) nature.
It's as simple as that.
With Catholicism, who knows but based on the Catholic reaction when a non-Catholic makes one, it's probably mortal.....
Then use the name of Jesus and call Mary *mother of Jesus*, just like God the Holy Spirit did when HE inspired Scripture.
Did you tell the Holy Spirit what you thought about His work in breathing out Scripture?
The dogmatic teachings of Church Councils? The early Christians? The Church Fathers?
The Greek term Theo-tokos means "God-bearer" or Mother of God. It is still the most popular title given to Our Lady in the Eastern Christian Churches. It was affirmed in early Church Councils precisely because it confirmed the Christian claim about who Jesus Christ is and protected the meaning and implications of His Incarnation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it simply," What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ"
The point is to emphasize that Jesus has a divine (as well as human) nature.
It's as simple as that.
But it doesn't emphasize that Jesus has a divine nature because the name of JESUS is completely removed from the equation.
All that's left is reference to Mary and God.
It can't emphasize anything about Jesus when He isn't even named.
Then don't use the word Trinity, or any English translation of the bible.
Your position is untenable, since the Holy Spirit did not "fail" in not explicitly saying "Mother of God." I reject that interpretation since I know that the passages entail a necessary connotation. Mary is the "Mother of the Lord." (Lk 1:43) Mary is the Mother of God.
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.