Posted on 08/15/2016 11:30:02 AM PDT by NRx
What ELSE is authoritative??
The CHURCH Christ founded, which is presided over by the Church in Rome. God does not have "parts".
And any non-Christians listening would be wondering WHY the Catholics call her something their Holy Book never does.
These same non-Christians also wonder why Christians call Jesus God. Their Holy Book never does. Or do you believe that Jesus is not God?
So, bottom line is that you have no answers to the two questions I asked.
No, bottom line is that your questions are poorly worded. Catholics use the phrase mother of Jesus and no one is asking ‘Prots’ to stop saying mother of Jesus. After all, Holy Scripture does reveal that Mary is the mother of Jesus. So let’s take the phrase mother of Jesus out of the questions, okay?
1. What would you Catholics LOSE by no longer using the phrase Mother of GOD.
- Catholics would lose the phrase itself, which we are not willing to do. It is in line with Catholic theology, which states that this child of the Holy Spirit that Mary brought forth is no less than God Himself.
2. What would we Prots GAIN by using the phrase Mother of GOD.
- I don’t know. I recognize the reality that some protestants would be uncomfortable using this phrase and would not gain anything from using it. Others might gain a better understanding of the divinity of Jesus. It’s something for each individual to reflect on in their prayers. I would recommend reading John 1, Matthew 1 and 2, and Luke 1 and 2, and asking yourselves if this holy child that shall be called Son of God is truly God. It would also be good to reflect on John 14, where Jesus says that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father, and that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. But as I said, anyone who is uncomfortable with using the phrase mother of God would probably not gain anything from using the phrase.
Peace
If you would study the teachings of the trinity more deeply, you would find that what seems to be the results is “separate and distinct” from what the results actually are.
Oh, I’m well aware of Trinitarian teaching. I was raised in Calvinism, and was taught the trinity concept off and on through my teens during Sunday School. This continued in single adult SS, and married SS class, until I was 28 yrs old.
But, the trinity concept is a combination of scripture and man-made tradition. That seems acceptable for RCs and EO, but not for one raised to use only the scriptures to define the Godhead. AND the scriptures must harmonize to make the teaching sound.
Several times on this forum I’ve been told that the trinity is explained in the Athanasian Creed.
A brief example of the confusion trinitarian ‘creeds’ display is shown in the following numbered lines from a posting of the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’:
**10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.**
Eternal=begotten??
The following statement is contradictory to the verse which follows it.
**25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.**
“..I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
And this:
**12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.**
??
So there are TWO that ARE created, and TWO that ARE measurable??
More confusion:
**13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.**
If one is almighty, there is no need for the others. If one needs the others, that one is not almighty.
And these next ones......????
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
????
Seriously, now who is it that is the author of confusion?
Once you prove, by the scriptures, that God the Father is NOT the source of ALL things divine, then you have a foundation for debate on this matter.
I continue to profess the testimony of Jesus Christ to be true, and that God the Father is in him, and he in the Father (God the Father is a Spirit. Jn 4:23,24)
I continue to profess the testimony of Jesus Christ to be true, and that God the Father is in him, and he in the Father (God the Father is a Spirit. Jn 4:23,24)
Jesus does testify that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. But there is much more to His testimony. Among other things, He said in John 8 that He is not alone, but He and the Father who sent Him. Citing the law that the testimony of two men can be verified, He said that He testifies of Himself and the Father testifies of Him. He further said that they will realize that “I AM” and that He does nothing on His own but says only what the Father taught Him; that He who sent Him is with Him; and that the Father has not left Him alone because He always does what is pleasing to the Father. It is in John 14 that Jesus says the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. But He also says that He is going to the Father. He says that when He does go to the Father, He will send the Advocate from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father.
So Jesus Himself testified that there is one source, the Father, who sent Him, the eternally begotten Son, and that when He returns to the Father, the Father will send the Spirit that proceeds from the Father through Him. Three separate beings from the one source.
The explanation from the Athanasian creed or the Nicene creed or any other creed is man’s best attempt to explain that which cannot be fully comprehended. It has been compared to trying to pour the ocean into a hole in the sand, one toy bucketful at a time.
So if you think your attempt to harmonize Scripture can make it more sound than what the greatest minds in Christianity have been able to come up with, go for it.
Peace,
Rich
**So Jesus Himself testified that there is one source, the Father, who sent Him, the eternally begotten Son, and that when He returns to the Father, the Father will send the Spirit that proceeds from the Father through Him. Three separate beings from the one source.**
Please note my editing, including using caps, of the same comment from you (my words in parentheses):
So Jesus Himself testified that there is ONE SOURCE, THE FATHER, who sent Him, the eternally begotten Son, and that when He returns to the Father (aka, THE ONE SOURCE), the Father (the ONE SOURCE) will send the Spirit that proceeds from the Father (the ONE SOURCE) through Him. Three separate beings from the one source. (The Father is not FROM the one source, HE IS the one source; the one source from which all things divine originate.)
**He said that He testifies of Himself and the Father testifies of Him.**
...through the words that the Father gave to the Son to speak, and through the works that the Father performed through the Son. (John 5:36,37; 12:49,50; 14:10, to name a few)
John said (after walking and talking with Jesus Christ) that no man hath seen God. He didn’t specify a separate and distinct person of God that is invisible, he simply declares God to be invisible. (John 1:18; 1John 4:17)
John knew (I’m using Paul’s inspired words) “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself...”.
God is a Spirit. Jesus Christ is the invisible God’s express image. (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3)
I must now yield the windows 10 infested pc to the wife.
Thanks for the discussion.
Ain’t circular logic just WONDERFUL!!<
HMMMmmm...
I and the Father are One.
If you've seen me; you've seen the Father.
In the beginning was the word... and the word WAS GOD.
I know that and you know that, but there are those who would say that because the writers of our Holy Book were not inspired to write “Jesus is God” we cannot call Jesus God.
Please excuse me while I put comments by both of you in this one post.
rwa265:
**I know that and you know that, but there are those who would say that because the writers of our Holy Book were not inspired to write “Jesus is God” we cannot call Jesus God.**
When you try to show the Son of God to be divine, (separately and distinctly as “God the Son”), from God the Father, you are not defining him as the scriptures teach.
If the definition “God the Son” is acceptable, then so is “God the Word”, or “God the express image”.
Elsie:
**I and the Father are One.
If you’ve seen me; you’ve seen the Father.**
With those quotes you admit that God the Father is present in the Son of God,....so why wouldn’t God the Father be present in the Son of God in your next quote?.....
Elsie:
**In the beginning was the word... and the word WAS GOD.**
And now, shouldn’t we let God be true and every man a liar?....
rwa265:
**..the greatest minds in Christianity have been able to come up with..**
Anyone that thinks that he can improve on the testimony of Jesus Christ and his apostles by using unscriptural definitions, is not as great of a mind as he, or any of his students, think he is (or was).
Thank you both for being devoted to the study of the scriptures.
So you are professing the modalist views of Servetus?
Who?
I’m merely reading things in the book that Rome assembled.
The question was directed toward Zuriel. The beliefs that he is professing seem to be similar to the writings of Michael Servetus, a 16th century theologian who rejected the Trinity.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus
By the way, Elsie, I’m glad that you were not in the path of the tornado. Prayers for those who were.
Thanks!
All I got was about .5” rain and hardly any wind at all!
A lot of my trees (about 12-13) blew down with straight line winds on June 19.
**So you are professing the modalist views of Servetus?**
I’m professing the testimony of Jesus Christ and his apostles. As for Servetus, I hold to what I said before: Let God be true and every man a liar.
Modalism is not an accurate description of God, IMO. I believe that God the Father has not stopped being God the Father for even a second. The Son of God was begotten by God the Father, and is the image of the invisible God. The Spirit proceeds from God the Father.
Sorry for the slow response. As a truck driver, my home time is varied. And I haven’t yet joined the smartphone era.
While reading up on the murder of Servetus (yes, if the account given is true, then he was murdered), I was left thinking of how similar the murderers were to the Jews that crucified the Son of God, and the murderers that stoned Stephen.
They were in positions of religious authority, but couldn’t or wouldn’t debate, and felt that they were “doing God a service” by executing the ‘offender’; even though the ‘offender’ was no physical threat to them.
The RCC had already been guilty of similar behavior for many centuries before Calvin ever came along. I guess he agreed with them on more than the trinity.
Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world, else his servants would have fought for him. He is the perfect example of Christian behavior.
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.