Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
“Your position is untenable” LOL, there is a deep irony in a catholic making that accusation! LOL
I reject that interpretation since I know have been indoctrinated thoroughly enough that the passages entail a necessary connotation must be spoken according to the Roman Catholic formula which is never found in Scripture.
There, fixed it!
There’s a real danger in feeling free to change the word of God because you don’t think it expresses concepts well enough.
Honestly, *mother of Jesus* is about identifying Mary, not Jesus, and it does a perfectly adequate job in identifying her.
Since it was never a statement about who JESUS is, then it doesn’t really matter whether Catholics think that it clears up confusion about the deity of Christ or not.
See what happens when you interpret a post to you?
You ask a foolish question, hope it makes you feel better.
Your question shows your understanding of the Holy Spirit is nil.
I won't give up though. God's word does not come back void. That's in the Bible somewhere, so go ahead and discount it as heretical if you wish to be consistent.
Clear up confusion? Hah! The magicsteeringthem wants the ambiguity, so their other ‘remarkable’ assertions on Mary can be swallowed dutifully. Just look at the absurd assertion flying here that if you don’t accept the catholic dogma that Mary is the Mother of God, then you don’t believe in the Trinity! And the one I really get a chuckle out of, ‘if you believe Mary is only the mother of the Body of the Son of God then you are fallen into modalism! LOL, these threads would be quite entertaining if there were not dramatic spiritual implications in the heresies and blasphemies.
LOL they own “untenable”
-— It can’t emphasize anything about Jesus when He isn’t even named. -—
If anyone knows who Mary is they know Who she gave birth to.
Theotokos is simply one of many titles given to Mary. It’s not a complete treatise on mariology or theology.
Ni it disproves your point and you can’t answer it. If the HS does what you says it does why would it give so many different interpretations? Of Course the answer is because what you say is nonsense but I really do want to hear what you have to say on this. This is very much on point and one of the reasons I know Sola Scriptura is Sola BS.
Jesus is the same God that the Father is...He is the same God that the Holy Spirit is...Therefore, if Mary is the mother of God Jesus, she is also the mother of God the Father...
Jesus’ body and soul were hypostatically united to the Word
That's just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo...It's a word your religion uses to make regular Catholics think your religion knows something they don't...
Which is to say that the Word functions as the Act of Existence of the body and soul of Jesus.
The act of existance??? Man there's some Aristotle and Plato right there...
The body and soul of Jesus have been, since his conception, perfectly sinless and immortal—the opposite of “from below.†When Jesus died on the cross, it was by a free act of his will.
Jesus' body was immortal??? Unless he chose for it not to be immortal so he could die on the Cross??? C'mon now...
Jesus' human body did not come from heaven and it couldn't go to heaven...God became human flesh so he could have a terrestrial body...One like we have...One that feels pain...One that gets hungry...
Jesus body couldn't go to heaven until it was changed into a celestial body...A glorified body...
It's all in the scripture...You just have to study it and put it together...God didn't put all that stuff in the bible just to ignore it...
Mary was not the mother of that celestial body...When Jesus' human body died, his spirit returned to heaven and his soul went to Hell; Abraham's Bosom...
You always skirt the issues and don’t really respond intelligently to my posts to you.
All born again saved Christians are on the same page and get the same exact messages/interpretations from the Holy Spirit on the same matter. Period.
If you have an example to back up your specious claim, post it.
Otherwize you are still wrong.
But we have shown that every doctrine that is required for our salvation is contained in scripture...
Right yokay. Just answer the question.
That’s a different matter. The Catholic Church does not dispute that.
The divinity of Jesus is not a technically. Jesus is unambiguously God.
I'm gettin' it...You figure Jesus' human body was divine...And this divine body had a divine nature and a human nature...
God is one substance. I.e., God the Father and God the Son are not two beings. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not three beings.
Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, and not the mother of the other two Persons of the Trinity.
You have simply asserted that God is one, and IGNORED the distinction of the PERSONS in God. I.e., in order to deny Mary the title of Mother of God, you have denied the TRINITY.
This is what always happens on these threads: Those who deny Mary the title of Mother of God always end up denying one or more fundamental dogmas in Christology, or they end up denying fundamental Trinitarian dogmas. They have to split Christ into separate beings, or they have to smudge the Persons of the Trinity into a single blob.
Anyway, your Trinitarian theology and your Christology would get you burned at the stake by Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Cromwell, etc., etc.
Wow read the last few words in your post.
Gosh, I got you so upset that you have to swear here on the Religion Forum?
Reading your posts to other people, it is manifest that you are totally uninstructed in basic Christian dogmas. You appear to have no clue of the teaching of the Catholic Church or the original Protestants on basic Christological and Trinitarian dogmas, about which they were unanimous.
The answer is in the post you replied to.
Amazing the gall.
HaHaHa...Where would I be without the Merriam-Webster dictionary...If you guys would spend half as much time in the scriptures as you do studying these ten dollar words and phrases, you wouldn't be so scripturally confused...
Mar_15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
That is not an expression...It's a reality...When Jesus died, his spirit left his body...
Just like the trinity of man...We are fashioned after the Godhead...We have a body, a soul and a spirit...A trinity...When we die, our soul and spirit leave our body...
What do you continue to misrepresent the argument? Which is not that MoG necessarily denies the deity of Christ, but that it is inconsistent with the precise language Scripture to say God has a mother, or brothers, or that God was killed, and does not make the distinction btwn the Son of God and God the Father. But "Mother of God", "Brother of God," "God-killer" most naturally denotes Divinity as having relations who are of the same nature.
Theotokos as God-bearer better denotes Mary was the vehicle of the incarnation, but RCs mostly shun that in preference to Mother of God in their idolatrous quest to glorify her above that which is written, which they manifest that are far more committed to than protecting Mary from being venerated as basically a goddess.
Yet mother of God as a mere technically-allowed title would not be so objectionable were it not part of the egregious extrapolation of Catholics in making the humble pious holy mother of the Lord Jesus into
an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
But just as Caths care not that they think of mortals above that which is written, nor can the objectively see such as wrong here or admit it, and even contrive Scripture to say what is does not.
This is why generations must should call her blessed (LK 1:48)
Actually the end of the text simply says count/happy/blessed (makarizoÌ„) me" (μεÌ), while Judges 5:24 says of Jael , "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent." Mary was more graced/blessed because of Who she carried, her incarnated Creator, the Son of God, not because she was the more virtuous and greatest saint as RCs make her into being.
Mary is unambiguously "Mother of the Kyrios, the Lord God." (Lk 1:43)
Once again the text does not say what you put in its mouth, but only says, "mother of my Lord," thus keeping the normal means of upholding deity as being that of God (the Father) and the Divine Son the Lord Jesus as well as the Divine Holy Spirit.
If His nature was ambiguous, His sacrifice would therefore be ambiguous.
Which is what is being muddled in the Cath quest to glorify the Mary of Catholicism, even to the point of saying that Christ owed His blood to her, and that she suffered and shed her blood for our sins as a redeemer, etc. (the argument that Christ's flesh came thru Mary who suffered because of our sins does not justify such unScriptural misleading assertions).
But Scripture is only an abused servant for many RCs in wresting it to support of Rome.
Oh that's rich, considering the Church wrote it, and protected it for 1500 years before you johnny come lately's rebelled to wallow now in ignorance of the basic truths of Christianity.
What kind of absurd argument is that? That the church of Rome wrote the entire Bible, or actually any of it (considering Rome is so different than the NT church that she is basically invisible in the NT ), and that in any case we are submit to the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture is ludicrous Roman reasoning. Is this still is your argument?
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.