Posted on 03/24/2015 8:06:07 AM PDT by RnMomof7
It seems particularly insidious for Satan to weave a web so closely to the Lord yet not the gospel. The bible talks about people doing miracles in Jesus name yet when they die the Lord says "Get away from me for I never knew you". What a mystery. It also makes me realize how much grace I've been given.
I tried to engage you on this topic ... post #656 ... but was ignored.
But I do see the 3 of you talking circles around each other.
Here's my historical/Biblical take on this matter...I'll even quote a Catholic to kick things off:
"In the fourth century a bishop of Constantinople named Nestorious...wanted to call Mary only 'Mother of Christ'; he feared that the title 'Mother of God' would confuse the divine and human aspects of Jesus. The church in the East rose up to reject Nestorius' view. To deny that Mary was the mother of God was to deny either that Jesus is God or that Mary was truly his mother. A general council of bishops at Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared, '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 (condemned)." (Alan Schreck, Catholic and Christian, pp. 175 - 176)
"Nestorious, patriarch of Constantinople, championed the term 'Mother of Christ,' while Cyril of Alexandria favored 'Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) decided in favor of Cyril." (Geisler & MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 299)
So...resettozero...a key historical part of all this was to fend off the Nestorian heresy...and to rightly NOT divide Jesus as to being only human, or being only divine...but that He is both human and divine...in, fact, eternally so.
I'm a Protestant. I've notice how Protestants, especially NOT having carefully reviewed church history, tend to "knee jerk" response to the phrase "Mother of God" primarily (IMO) because we know God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had no mother, and the Son of God, none from eternity past.
The historical church has pointed to the Greek word Theotokos as the original descriptive phrase -- "Mother of God":
"Harold O.J. Brown comments concerning theotokos: 'The term, which means 'God-bearing one' (not precisely 'Mother of God,' as it is frequently translated), originally was descriptive of the man Jesus, born of Mary' (Heresies: The Image of Christ, p. 172). Theotokos, therefore, was designed to say more about Jesus than to glorify Mary." (Geisler & MacKenzie, ibid)
IoW, Christmas is really more about Christ...than any characters in the Nativity. And Who is glorified by Who we focus upon in things like Christmas is really one of the points I was making (especially toward the end) of my post #656 which...btw... was ignored by all the Catholics on this thread.
So while church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries referenced Mary as the "Mother of God," a more precise meaning of the Greek word has ALWAYS been "God-bearing one" (which may be a difference of no account, but probably at least sounds less provocative to the average Protestant).
And the main point of Post #656 is that guess, what?
And yet it's overwhelmingly humbling.
So, yes, Mary is the "god-bearing one" (Theotokos). Why argue that historical reality? 'Cause really it's frankly a settled point.
Let's instead discuss if Mary is overglorified by that reality by some segments of those who call Jesus their Lord.
And, yes I understand "why" when a Catholic book says "The springtime month of May is popularly devoted to Mary" due to it being the month of "Mothers Day" (Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions, p. 128).
But the rest of the overemphasize upon Mary is frankly bizarre:
* "Just as Sunday had always been devoted to Jesus Christ, Saturday eventually became Mary's Day. This tradition was promoted in Carolingian times by Alcuin (d. 804). A votive Mass in Mary's honor has commonly been offered on Saturday throughout modern times." (ibid)
* "The month of October is dedicated to Mary under the theme of the rosary because of the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7." (Dues, p. 129)
* And even with the history of the rosary, Dues mentions how "by the early 12th century, Hail Marys were substituted for the Our Fathers..." (p. 128)
My take is that whenever one giving birth is emphasized to the total exclusion of a rebirth -- recognizing that Mary herself was "born of the spirit" (lest not being able to enter our Lord's kingdom) -- imbalance sets in.
IF we are speaking ONLY about Mary, and not her son, then her rebirth is of vital emphasis! Seems clear from Scripture to me, that she confessed being a sinner (Luke 1:46), and she offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22). So her rebirth in our Lord is a great celebration!
Otherwise, we, too, as "god-bearers" (of the Holy Spirit) --
--were we to stress His indwelling
to the expense of failing to recognize the necessity of our own rebirth
-- would likewise be as what's deemed imbalanced re: the Roman Catholic approach to Mary.
Anyone who goes beyond what the Holy Spirit had written which is “the mother of Jesus” is purporting to speak in the stead of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did NOT use the words “mother of God” and we can be assured it was for a reason. Change the words of the Holy Spirit at your own peril.
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Like I said, no term “mother of God” ever used by the Holy Spirit.
Mary is the mother of Immanuel. Immanuel means "God with us." Therefore, according to the scriptures, Mary is the mother of "God with us."
Please show the passage from scripture that says that.
Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
I put that in to help with your understanding.
But you pretty much ignored the next phrase I posted, Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit have always "been". Forever. <_______ (see it now?)
This is where you get the concept of "Personal Savior" but still maintain the mythos of "uncreated", "unseeable", "unknowable", "everywhere and no where", "unreachable", etc...
Personal savior, yep it's in the Bible.
The rest of your "words" have nothing to do with me, I never posted anything like that.
And the notion that angels are like winged fairies floating around heaven.
Those must be Mormon fairies/angels (Maroni?) my concept of angels is from the scriptures in the Bible.
Jesus said that His Father is also our Father. That makes us brother and sisters with Christ.
Yes, true for Christians. Not for Mormons. Joseph Smith REJECTED all of Christianity as he was creating the religion of the LDS.
So Mormons can be brothers with Lucifer, but not with Christians. LDS followers have a different father. Called affectionately Heavenly Father, described as a "god" that worked his way to that position. Completely un-Biblical.
The "god" of this world is satan, affectionately called "Heavenly Father" by Mormons.
Jesus taught that our Father in Heaven is both reachable and approachable.
Hay, pretty good that is true! Through Jesus who created all things. (Gospel of John---the translated correctly version)
And is literally His and our "Father".
Not "our" Father, the Father of Christians. Mormons have a "father" that is a "god" that was once a man. The God of the Bible doesn't fit that description.
The Angels are people that have either passed through this life or are waiting to come into mortality.
Not Biblical, must be in the BOM.
People NEVER become angels.
The belief that we have nothing in common with those that dwell with God is a tool of the devil.
Very true. And the tool that the devil used was Joseph Smith.
Remember he separated Mormonism from Christianity (my, the things he said about Christians was horrible, he HATED them) when he started the cult and it remains that way to this day.
If you want to dwell with God and be a brother of Christians instead of Lucifer, let me know. It's real easy. A free gift that costs you everything. But promises you eternal life with God.
PS The irony is that Mormons started calling themselves Christians for the first time a few decades ago. (Before that your leaders would NOT allow it. Wanted to fit in...didn't work!)
Anyone who goes beyond what the Holy Spirit had written which is “the mother of Jesus” is purporting to speak in the stead of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did NOT use the words “mother of God” and we can be assured it was for a reason. Change the words of the Holy Spirit at your own peril.
I’ve already responded to you about this in post 487, so I will not repeat it here, but have you ever considered how many Biblical truths would not hold by following this requirement that we cannot go beyond the specific wording for a Biblical teaching to be true?
Por favor...
Ask if he knows the name Mary AND Joseph gave her first child. Ask if he knows the name Jesus was called and known by during his time on Earth. Ask him if he was called Immanuel of Nazareth. Ask him what name Jesus is called TODAY.
(The Lord Jesus Christ is also called by many other names including Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, The Prince of Peace, plus many others Names.)
I’m lacking the necessary communicative skills to elicit an answer from that one. Would you please try asking once again please for a pertinent reply please? Thanks. R2z
God has no mother or father he is forever! Scripture tells us that his name is Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Anointed One, and the second part of the Godhead. Just because you can’t or won’t understand the reasoning God had to make it that way doesn’t make it not so.
Romans 9:20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
“Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible®,
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
Used by permission.” (www.Lockman.org)
Still no “mother of God”.
"Anyone who goes beyond what the Holy Spirit had written which is “the mother of Jesus” is purporting to speak in the stead of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did NOT use the words “mother of God” and we can be assured it was for a reason. Change the words of the Holy Spirit at your own peril."
Making up doctrines not specifically taught by the apostles that are then required for belief to gain salvation by some organization such as the Catholic Church is tantamount to changing the words of the Holy Spirit. Paul clearly stated that anyone who taught something they didn't was to be considered accursed.
I suspect they cannot answer in any way that contradicts what the organization wherein they place their hope for salvation says.
I did say something along these lines in terms of my "scriptural" reference in my earlier post--not in specific terms about the Lord's Prayer, but in terms of the overall scriptural "witness." In other words, I consider this line of argument stronger than other lines.
No, "mother of God with us" includes "mother of God."
Do you deny Mary is the "mother of God with us ?"
What did the angel tell Mary to name her baby?
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.